The Predestined Blog

10,000 Hits!

2011-01-08T19:58:00.005-06:00

Wow, I am truly amazed, humbled, and thank God that this little website I originally created to be notes to myself has already received 10,000 hits! In commemoration, I have listed 10 online articles, online audio, and offline books, in no particular order, that have helped shaped the way I have thought and if you read them will make you smart (I promise!).

By the way, you really should be reading and listening to these resources instead of mine.

Online Articles

1. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards

2. Salvation in the Old Testament by John Feinberg
3. Is God for Us or for Himself? by John Piper
4. Are there Two Wills in God? by John Piper
5. Is Sola Scriptura a Protestant Concoction ? by Greg Bahnsen
6. Justification: The Contrast Between the Biblical Teaching and Roman Catholicism By William Webster
7. The Nature of God - The Tri-Unity of God by James White

8. Making Disciples of All Nations - Part 1 by John MacArthur
9. Spiritual Gifts: Definitions and Kinds by James F. Stitzinger
10. A Brief Introduction to the Canon and Ancient Versions of Scripture by Michael Marlowe

Online Audio

1. The Use of Your Time by Steve Lawson (go to 2005)
2. Interrogating the Legalist Within by C.J. Mahaney (go to 2005)
3. Why Gethsemane? by C.J. Mahaney (go to 2005)
4. History of Philosophy and Christian Thought by John Frame (access through itunes)

5. Systematic Theology by S. Lewis Johnson
6. Crucifixion of Jesus by Steve Lawson
7. A Sermon on Matthew 7:13-27 by Paul Washer
8. James White’s Debates and Lectures on Textual Criticism
9. The Sermons of John Piper
10. The Sermons of John MacArthur

Books

1. Van Til’s Apologetic by Greg Bahnsen
2. No One Like Him by John Feinberg
3. The Many Faces of Evil by John Feinberg
4. Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem
5. The John MacArthur Study Bible by God and John MacArthur (of course!)
6. The Cross Centered Life by C.J. Mahaney
7. The History of the Work of Redemption by Jonathan Edwards
8. The Pursuit of Holiness by Jerry Bridges
9. Justification of God by John Piper
10. When I Don’t Desire God by John Piper

Quick Update

2010-12-01T15:40:00.000-06:00

Life has been crazy busy! So the blog has been on hold for quite some time.

I have been able to squeeze out one more general article on the International House of Prayer (IHOP) that can be found on the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website here:

www.carm.org/ihop

Otherwise, I have been gathering some materials I wrote for church and this blog and found I have basically completed my own (short) systematic theology, which I hope to post up here one day.

If you are new to this blog the most read articles have been the ones on:

1) IHOP

2) Eschatology (Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism)

3) Church History and the Trinity

4) Answering Gospel "Contradictions"

The Atheist Advantage

2009-11-21T09:38:00.000-06:00

Let's say you have a population of Jewish, Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Evangelicals in a school and they wanted to be fair and not show favortism to one particular group. You could negotiate having Winter break to cover Christmas and Hanukkah. You could include Muslim holidays as vacations. Perhaps have clergy from each at the school for support. For the sake of argument, what if our nations population consisted of only these four groups? As far as the laws of the land go, we wouldn't give preference to any particular religion's ideas, in order to be fair. Take for instance marriage. For Evangelicals, divorce is allowed only on 2 grounds - one of which is adultery. We would not enforce that particular rule on everyone else b/c it is Evangelical specific. In order to be fair, the four groups would have to come up with various compromises.

Now, let us consider the example of atheism/secular humanism/(radical) liberalism. This/These group(s) have their own specific philosophical ideologies, which I disagree with (obviously), however they have a benefit that the other aforementioned groups do not have and what I like to call "The Atheist Advantage." Though atheists have their own unique ideas, they can promote them in schools and government under the guise of "fairness" and "tolerance" b/c they are not a formal religion! Atheist's have their own creation story (evolution), own ethics (marriage), definition of life (abortion), and obviously their own metaphysic (materialism).

So using our previous example, let's add on Atheists to the Jewish, Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical bunch. In schools and government, the push for evolution, marriage ethics, contraception (to a lesser degree), and prayer all just happen to benefit atheists. There is no compromise that I see and they are certainly not compromising their own beliefs, yet they want the rest of us to submit under their personal beliefs when they detest the idea of having our ideas become law. I think they would be angry if one groups agenda was being pushed all the way in the name of "tolerance", but they have no problem pushing their ideas on the rest.

To make this clearer, let's take Christians vs Atheists beliefs:

Christian: Traditional Marriage vs Atheists: Homosexual Marriage

Christian: Intelligent Design vs Atheists: Evolution

Christian: Pro-Life vs Atheists: Pro-Choice

The big difference between these two groups is that Christians believe in absolute truth and that marriage is between man and woman (no exceptions) and that life begins at conception. That is why it is so hard for us to budge on these topics and we are not ashamed to do so. Atheists however do not tout absolute truth, but (from what I hear anyway) is to make laws based on "tolerance, equality, and fairness" for all groups. However, as someone who holds very different views from them, it looks like they are not wanting "equality and fairness:"rather total domination. I do believe there should be compromise, for instance, I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to have civil unions and that one's partner (homosexual or straight) should be able to make health care decisions. I also believe that evolution should be taught in schools, but not as dogmatic truth (I wouldn't necessarily push teaching intelligent design even!). As for the topic of abortion there should be contraception education in schools and not just abstinence education, but furthermore there is also room for more discussions (banning 3rd trimester abortions, abortions in the case of endangerment of the mother's life, etc.). The thing that bothers me the most and the main thrust of this entry, is to point out that although atheists are promoting their own personal ideology onto the public, they are not perceived as pushing their personal beliefs b/c they are not part of an organized religion. This is what I call "The Atheist Advantage,"a benefit that neither Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics, or Evangelicals enjoy.

[Note: Not all atheists of course, as there are many civil and open minded ones and I personally have had many fruitful discussions. Besides, I'm sure there are a number of atheists who have been bothered by a couple of evangelicals (yes, I'm including myself - sorry!)]

Predestination

2009-04-29T09:39:00.001-05:00

This post has been long in coming. How can a theological blog named "The Predestined Blog" not have an entry on predestination you ask? Well the wait is finally over! Okay, I am fully aware that I am might be the only one that is excited. Anyways, on with the important information!

There are just so so many blogs, articles, and books on this topic that I wanted to avoid simply repeating many of the arguments you can find easily via a google search. What I think would be helpful and the the goal of this entry would be to talk about the ways to approach the topic of predestination. In this post we will be discussing theological determinism and not physical/scientific determination. The question of free will in the physical sciences would be if the unchangeable laws of physics determine what molecules will do, how can humans genuinely have free will? This is also known as LaPlaceian or Russellian determinism, but we won't cover that here.

1) What does the Bible say?

For Christians, the Bible is the ultimate authority and whatever it says is truth. So it is of paramount importance to find out what the Bible says. We know very well that Calvinists and Arminians have been discussing this for centuries and both sides use different verses to support their views. In short, after reading numerous books, articles, and debates what both sides boil down to is this:

Calvinists want to glorify God by proclaiming He is the ruler and sovereign of all things

Arminians want to glorify God by proclaiming that He has nothing to do with free agents going to Hell

So what verses should we look at? This is where having a good approach is critical.

a) We need to examine verses that directly address the issue of predestination and not verses we can only make inferences from.

This does not mean we do not take into consideration the other verses, only that the verses that directly tackle the topic should take priority over the others in this discussion.

b) It is not our responsibility to reconcile predestination and free will.

This is a very difficult topic. If they Bible teaches predestination and free will so be it! If you are not smart enough to reconcile the two it is not God's fault, especially when there are millions of books that beautifully do reconcile the two. All sarcasm aside, if we can determine that the Bible does support predestination then it is true, regardless of our intellectually ability to do so. Astrophysics or organic chemistry are still true whether we can do them or not.

Pertinent Bible Verses:

Proverbs 20:24
Man's steps are ordained by the LORD, How then can man understand his way?

Psalm 139: 16Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them

Acts 4:27"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Revelation 17:8"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come

Ephesians 1: 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

Romans 8:29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

It is pretty evident that the Bible supports predestination especially when the word "predestined" is in there. Okay, yes I know English is not the original language, however both the OT and NT supports the idea that God made concrete plans before the world began and that those plans come to fruition in the world.

Now a favorite trick critics tend to play is at this point to quote a millions verses describing man having free will and that they are culpable for their own sins. DO NOT FALL INTO THIS TRICK. Remember, the questions is about predestination, not man's free will. If the Bible supports both so be it. It is not our responsibility right now to reconcile the two (but we'll do that later).

2) Theory of Relativity

As a scientist (okay yes in biology, but I digress) this has influenced my thinking on the subject of predestination. How so? Well thanks to Einstein we know that time and space are relative. Simply put, depending on your frame of reference, what you perceive as 1 sec or 1 centimeter is not the same to someone in a different frame of reference (ie the same event can be 1 hour and 1 meter to you!) And you guys thought God's decree and man's choice was weird! To further complicate the issue the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are not reconcilable though both have been rigorously tested and are accurate in their respective spheres. Relativity works incredibly well at a grand scale (think outer space) and quantum mechanics works well at a small scale (think subatomic), however scientists are unable to unify/reconcile them.

What's the point of all this? It is that we simply do not have the metaphysical laws and principles to determine the impossibility of foreordination, man's choice, and culpability (FMCC) (more on this later). Who would've imagined 150 years ago that time and space were relative and not absolute? God is telling us that it is in fact possible for Him to decree things, yet man be free and culpable. Just as the theory of relativity has its scientific laws to explain it, FMCC has its metaphysical laws via the Bible, that explains it.

Just ponder this:

a) God is a being that no laws of science can bind b/c He is a spiritual being ie scientific laws govern only the physical universe.

b) We have no idea if God exists in time (let alone what his frame of reference is) and how it affects Him.

Arminians love to say "If God predestined things, man cannot have genuine free will," however from what we have seen, they do not have enough metaphysical data to support that view. Besides, I believe that view does not encompass the current understanding of the relativity of time and is rooted in a poor and outdated point of view of the universe and philosophy.

Conclusion: The Bible clearly supports predestination and free will and with all this taken together, we can conclude that we cannot strictly say that FMC is impossible from our frame of reference/point of view.

3) Types of Will: People do not have the same definitions of free will

I think it is important for us to ask ourselves what is free will? In this topic, one mistake I often find is that people assume they know what free will is, but when you ask them to articulate what it is, they are at a loss. That is because freedom is a very ambiguous term and as you might have guessed it is a very intellectually rigorous idea to study. We must ask and clarify how does one define free will and provide a defense. Let us examine some of the different views on what the will is.

a) Libertarian Free Will

This idea of the will states that all the events in the world that lead up to a point, combined with all the laws of science and metaphysics do not guarantee one possible choice.[1] No matter how strong the influences, you could always change your mind. Nothing can decisively incline the will.

Nozick and Kane believe two key requirements of this idea are agent control and alternative possibilities [1]

This is the enemy of predestination! However, we shall see that it is neither the only viable option, but is chocked full of incoherencies.

b) Compatibilistic Free Will

This idea of the will states that all the events in the world that lead up to a point and all the laws of science and metaphysics can guarantee one possible choice. [1] Sometimes circumstance and influences are so strong, you cannot just change your mind, yet that choice was something unconstrained, voluntary, and done according to ones desire. The question that is asked is

If free will is something other than unconstrained and voluntary actions done according to one's desire - what is it?

We will delve more into this idea in the next section on foreordination and man's choice after we touch on a couple people who wrote great approaches to compatiblistic free will.

A type of compatiblistic free will is championed by John Calvin.[1] Calvin identified 3 types of will:

i) God's Will: Can only do good.

ii) Pre-fall Adam & Eve's Will: Can do both good and evil.

iii) Satan's Will: Can only do evil

By definition, God has ultimate freedom and thus His will is the standard of true free will. Therefore of these 3 types of will, the ability to do only good, is true free will. The ability to do evil is a corruption of true will and is not a power in of itself. Hence, the ability to do only good is far greater freedom than the other two options. Philosophically we think that being able to do evil gives more freedom to the will, but Calvin (and I believe Augustine) were against this idea that being able to choose evil gave the will more freedom. Again, being able to do evil is a corruption of true free will.

Someone might say that it sounds like God is not omnipotent b/c He cannot do evil. A helpful analogy by John Feinberg that helps us understand to understand what it means to do evil is to consider a cop shooting someone in cold blood and a cop shooting someone to save another life. [1] Although it was the exact same action, one was good and evil. So what does it mean for God to be unable to do evil? God certainly has the power to do everything, but He cannot do those actions with an evil intent. Remember in Calvin and Augustine's scheme, evil is a corrpution/lower level of goodness or power and God's actions are always perfect (ie not corrupt) and operate at the highest level of goodness and power. Obviously, Satan's will being able to do only evil is the worst.

Another theologian and philosopher Jonathan Edwards (my favorite), wrote a great book called "Freedom of the Will" that I highly recommend. If you don't want to read the book, at least read this short article on it:

Jonathan Edward's on The Freedom of the Will

It attacks libertarian free will in regards to how the will makes completely unhindered choices, how libertarian free will destroys virtue and vice, the misuses of philosophical vocabulary (like "impossible") in regards to the will, and the necessity of God being able to do only good and Satan being able to do only evil like Calvin.[2] He does a great job showing the incoherencies of libertarian free will.

4) Foreordination, Man's Choice, and Culpability (FMCC)

When it comes to the issue of predestination there is one issue that must be addressed.

It is the issue of the genuineness of our choices. If things are predetermined, do humans make choices that are their own? If not can they be held morally responsible? I call this the problem of God's foreordination, man's choice, and culpability (FMCC).

One thing opponents of predestination always harp on is the idea of that free will must include alternative possibilities for true moral responsibility ie if there is only one choice to be had than the agent is not morally responsible b/c he was forced into an action involuntarily.

Frankfurt Situations

Frankfurt situations argue against the thought that "we must be able to do otherwise." [1] In his influential paper appropriately titled "Alternative Possibilities and True Moral Responsibility" he discusses this topic at length.

1) While sleeping Peter is taken into Paul's room. The person that took Peter there then locks the door so no one can get out, but nobody knows its locked. Peter knows that if he stays in the room when Paul wakes up, Paul will be mad. Peter decides to stay in the room. [1]

2) Jones wants to kill Smith. Black wants to ensure that Jones kills Smith. Reynolds implants a device in Jones' head just in case Jones decides not to kill Smith that will make him kill Smith anyway. Jones desires to kill Smith and he does, thus Reynolds device was not used. [1]

These examples are not intended to be strong or weak, but simply two examples that show just b/c the outcome would've been the same and the agent could not have done otherwise, he is still morally responsible, not to mention the fact that they were simply following their own desires.

In Frankfurt's own words:

"The following may all be true: there were circumstances that made it impossible for a person to avoid doing something; these circumstances actually played a role in bringing it about that he did it, so that it is correct to say that he did it because he could not have done otherwise; the person really wanted to do what he did; he did it because it was what he really wanted to do, so that it is not correct to say that he did what he did only because he could not have done otherwise. Under these conditions, the person may well be morally resonsible for what he has done." [3]

Another thing we have to look into are constraints on the will that we normally do not take into account. No one would say antecedent events, natural laws, genetic makeup, and disposition are contrary to free will, yet they help determine and constrain our choices.[1] To the degree that these things limit us we should say that we are free. But therein lies the problem, these things that inherently limit our freedom, we don't count as limiting our freedom! The example I most often use is to ask yourself if you have the freedom to think like a 15th century French woman? Our will is so affected by our time, place, culture, and gender that our thoughts are constrained. This again shows that alternative choices can be limited, yet we can make genuine choices, yet be culpable.

Philosophical Vocabulary

If you read the article I linked on Jonathan Edwards, he mentions that people misunderstand and misuse terms such as "impossible," "can," or "cause. Also, when one word has multiple meanings, we often make the mistake of using the wrong meaning of the word.

I think it is appropriate to discuss God's decree here. People often think that God's decree is a force that moves people along to do God's bidding. This is decisively wrong. God's decree is merely a blueprint, not a force pushing us to do things. This decree is manifested via circumstances. Can God be blamed for us being in circumstances? It is hardly right to say that God should not place us in circumstances.

Here are list of terms we misuse with their nuances. We will start off with "constraint" and "necessity."

Constraint 1: Involves a force that doesn't entirely remove willing as in a bank robbery, substance induced altered mental states, etc. [1]

Constraint 2: A force that removes willing altogether like being blindsided by a truck. You did not will to move from point A to be in this example. [1]

Necessity 1: Things that are necessary in every possible world ie the existence of God (cannot be changed); perhaps things like the past which cannot be changed. [1]

Necessity 2: Acting according to your internal nature.

Let's look at several examples of this. A teacher can physically remove you (1), threaten you and then you move (2), or give you an incentive such as an automatic "A" or a scholarship to leave a classroom (3). The first two (1 & 2) examples are Constraints 2 and 1 respectively, but the third one (3) is an example of Necessity 2, b/c the student was told he'd get an automatic "A" or that there was a scholarship lunch and b/c of his internal nature he was compelled to leave.

Other examples of Necessity 2 is the story of the fox and the scorpion. A scorpion was swept away by the wind and had to cross a river to go back home. He saw a fox who was going to cross the river and asked for a ride. The fox was hesitant, but the scorpion told him why would he sting him if the fox is the only way across the river? The river was a little shaky, the scorpion got scared and stung the fox. The fox asked, "Why did you sting me?" And the scorpion said "I'm sorry. I got scared and I instinctively stung you. Its just my nature." Also, think about Batman and the Joker. No matter what, Batman will not kill anyone and no matter what the Joker will never be reformed no matter how many times he goes to jail or Arkham Asylum. Its necessary b/c of their internal nature.

Now, how can we say that w/ Necessity 2 the student, the scorpion, the Joker not held culpable? If we do things according to Necessity 2 how is God culpable? God who gives us physical, intellectual, and material blessings all over, with common grace, and yet we still sin in a Necessity 2 kind of manner. I think He is safe from blame. [1]

Various factors, including one's character, disposition, experience, genes, surrounding, natural laws, etc. are antecedent to any choice, but as long as that choice is not constrained in sense 1 or 2 and is done according to the agents wishes, it is of one's own free will.

Therefore an act can be (causally) determined, yet not constraining, and they are free b/c they are done voluntarily/according to the agents wishes

What if God's ordination are like causal conditions and are not constraining in sense 1 or 2? Then we can see that man is culpable for his sins.

Now let us look at the words "cause" and "can"

The 6 Senses of Cause by Lionel Kenner [1]

1) Someone's comment caused me to doubt his sanity

2) A police officer sent his subordinates to cause an arrest

3) The causes of the fall of the Roman Empire or rise of communism.
(These are instances of where giving the cause, gives the course of what is to be explained.)

4) The cause of teenage pregnancy or drug addiction.
(Social science sense of cause, not merely states of affairs, but motives and reasonings)

5) The chance to see the Mona Lisa or the Sistine Chapel caused me to go to Europe.

6) Natural causes: lightning causing a forest fire or kick to the face causing pain.

Natural causes are the ones people attribute to FMCC, but we can see now that God's ordination is not analogous to a natural cause.

Causes do not compel and the first five definitions of "causes" fit with FMCC model.

Different senses of can from John Canfield, Winston Nesbitt, and Stewart Candlish [1]

1) I can dunk - ability
2) I can go outside if I'm not in jail - opportunity
3) I can drive 55 mph in a 70 mph zone - rule consistent
4) I can jump off that bridge without getting hurt - ill-consequence free
5) I can tell my subordinates to storm the pacific - authority
6) I can spend this money b/c I have enough savings; you can't gamble with this money b/c it's all we have - reasonability
7) I can go to the movies tonight - conditional
8) I could've made a different choice no matter the antecedent conditions - libertarian/contra-causal "can"

FMCC is compatible with 1-7, and 8 is incoherent (see the article on Jonathan Edwards').

Conclusion

I hope this helps brings some light onto this very difficult topic. Please read John Feinberg's brilliant "No One Like Him" to have a more complete understanding of the issue. Yes, I know I started out by saying that the goal of this entry was to give you a way of approaching this issue, but I felt we needed to have the necessary background and then go from there. So, now that you know all this, here is the outline of how to present it.

1) Our priority is to determine what the Bible says not what we think.

2) Explain that we need to examine verses that directly address the issue of predestination and not verses we can only make inferences from. Then pick the verses you want to present.

3) Make sure to that they understand it is not our responsibility to reconcile predestination and free will, but merely find out if both are supported by Scripture.

4) Talk about the theory of relativity and though intuitively time and length may seem absolute they are not and we have Einstein's theory's to show us. Likewise, predestination and freewill on the surface may seem to be incompatible, but we have the Bible that tells us otherwise.

5) Mention that there are different types of wills and go over them.

6) Talk about the main problem (FMCC) and then break it down. Explain that alternative choices are not necessary for free will (a la Frankfurt situations) and show how philosophical vocabulary (necessity, can, or cause) is often misused.

This is not trying to be the end all for the discussion of predestination, but I hope it provided a unique approach and somethings that you were not thinking about. Hopefully, this entry will play a part in synthesizing your argument for predestination.

______________

Sources:

[1] Feinberg, John. No One Like Him. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 2001

[2] Edwards, Jonathan. The Freedom of the Will. 1754

[3] Frakfurt, Harry. Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 66, No. 23. (Dec. 4, 1969), pp. 829-839

Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism: Israel and the Church

2009-02-24T09:13:00.003-06:00

Review: The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supersessionism: The Dissertation of Michael J. Vlach

Seem my post on Eschatology: Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism to become oriented to the issues described in this article.

Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Theology at the Master's Seminary and has a website I frequent that can be found at www.theologicalstudies.org.

I was debating whether to purchase, “Continuity and Discontinuity” a festschrift for S. Lewis Johnson or Prof. Vlach’s Ph.D. dissertation. After much debate, I decided, “hey, why not get both?” I did and can say I do not regret the decision. However, if you do not have the time for both, I say get Vlach’s dissertation. It is shorter, but you get an excellent feel for the topic. One of the great things about this book is how eloquently and forcefully he argues for the other side. He almost made me covenant theologian! Okay, but seriously, he does not pull any punches and gives a very compelling and thorough presentation of the covenantal side. Point being, BUY HIS DISSERTATION by clicking here .

I will try to briefly summarize my favorite points in his dissertation on this blog.

Dr. Vlach defines supersessionism (S) as "the view that the church is the new or true Israel that has permanently replaced or superseded national Israel as the people of God." (p. xv) This has been the normative perspective since very early on in the church and has recently been challenged and perhaps overtaken by nonsupersessionism. Nonsupersession (NS) is "the view that national Israel still has vital role and purpose in God's program." (p. 130) Whether one is S or NS has tremendous implications on how you read the Bible and one's own theology. The answer to this question will determine whether one is a follower of covenantal or dispensational theology.

Historical Perspective

Dr. Vlach sites three main factors for the acceptance of the supersessionism in Christianity: (pp. 31-32)

1) The increasing Gentile composition of the church.

2) The church's perception of destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the failed Jewish revolt of Bar-Kokhba in A.D. 132 - 135 as God's judgment of the Jews.

3) A hermeneutical approach that allowed the church to appropriate Israel's promises to itself.

So, what factors have brought NS back into the spotlight?

1) The church's reevaluation of supersessionsim after the Holocaust and the establishment of the modern state of Israel. (pp. 70-71)

2) The rise of dispensational theology

The author makes an excellent point when he says that if S try to say "the weight of history" is on their side, than NS can say that recent history has shown that the great shift away from S should point into the favor of NS. (pp. 231-232)

Biblical Perspective

In presenting the case for either side, Dr. Vlach breaks his case into two categories: hermeneutical and theological (pp. vii - xi)

I. Hermeneutical Case for S

1) NT priority over the OT

S believes that the NT writers "sometimes introduced change, alteration, or expansion to the original meaning of OT texts, including those that speak of national Israel's restoration... As a result of this priority of the New Testament, Old Testament texts that speak of Israel's restoration should not be understood literally. They should be read in the light of the New Testament." (pp. 87-88)

2) Typological Interpretation

S supports the use of typological interpretation which Vlach defines as "a hermeneutical approach that attempts to understand the connection between the Old and New Testaments based on the type/antitype relationships found in the two testaments." (p. 89) Critical to this idea is that the historical grammatical approach is not enough to understand what God is saying. (p. 91)

3) Nonliteral Fulfillments of OT Passages

S generally believes that the application of certain "Old Testament prophetic texts regarding Israel's restoration" or fulfilled in "nonliteral ways in the New Testament church." (p. 96) Verses commonly used to support this are.

a) Acts 2:16-21

16but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:
17'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says,
'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND;
AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY,
AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS,
AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
18EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN,
I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT
And they shall prophesy.
19'AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE
AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW,
BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE.
20'THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS
AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD,
BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
21'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.'

Here Dr. Vlach quotes Joseph A. Fitzmeyer who says of Peter's use of Joel, "Thus God's people will take a new shape under the guidance of the Spirit,; Israel itself will be reconstituted." (p.97)

b) Acts 15:15-18

15"With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
16'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return,
AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN,
AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS,
AND I WILL RESTORE IT,
17SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD,
AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,'
18SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.

Scholar's, like Anthony Hoekema and F.F. Bruce, support the idea that James, by quoting Amos 9:11-12 at the Jerusalem council, identifies the church as Israel. (p. 98)

c) Romans 9:24-26

24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
25As He says also in Hosea,
"I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, 'MY PEOPLE,'
AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, 'BELOVED.'"
26"AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, 'YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,'
THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD."

Quoting G.E. Ladd "Paul deliberately takes these two prophecies about the future salvation of Israel and applies them to the church. The church consisting of Jews and Gentiles has become the people of God. The prophecies of Hosea are fulfilled in the Christian church." (p. 99)

II. Theological Case for S

1. Permanent Rejection of Israel

S sees the NT, describing a permanent rejection of the Jewish people and uses several verses to support this notion.

a) Matthew 21:43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it."

b) Romans 11:26 "and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB"

S generally believe that the "all Israel" here are the people of faith, "the true Israel" that is now the church.

2. New Testament Silence

The NT's "lack of an explicit reference to a restoration of national Israel in the New Testament is additional proof that Israel has been superseded by the church." (p. 108)

3. Application of Israelite Imagery to the Church

S note the use of common OT descriptions of Israel are no being applied to the church in these verses:

a) Galatians 6:16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

b) Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

c) Romans 2:28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

d) 1 Peter 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

e)Galatians 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham... 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

4. Equality Between Jews and Gentiles

a) Ephesians 2:11-22

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands--12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Many S see this as the "incorporation of believing Gentiles into Israel" (pp. 122-123) and that it "argues against any future role for national Israel in the plan of God."

b) Romans 11:17-24

17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear; 21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branch

These verses are used to show that "Jews and Gentiles are said to belong to the same place of blessing which includes the promises and covenants associated with Abraham and the Jewish patriarchs." (p. 124)

5. Church's Relationship to the New Covenant

a) Heb 8:8-13

8For finding fault with them, He says,
"BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD,
WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT
WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
9NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS
ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10"FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12"FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."

13When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Since the original application of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 was to Israel, yet in Hebrews 8 it find its fulfillment with the church, many S believe see this as further evidence that the church is the new Israel. (pp. 125-126)

III. Hermeneutical Case for NS

1. Belief that OT texts need to be interpreted in their own right and not reinterpreted by the NT

NS "assert that Old Testament texts, as understood within their historical grammatical contexts, must be the starting point for understanding God's plans for national Israel." (p. 134)

2. Progressive revelation does not cancel unconditional promises to Israel

Dr. Vlach says that according to John Feinberg as saying "if an Old Testament promise is made unconditionally with a specific group such as Israel, then that promise must be fulfilled with that group." (p. 137) Then quoting Paul Feinberg "How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained?" and "How can God be truthful and change the meaning of His promises?"

3. National Israel does not function as a type that is transcended by the Church

Though their may be some typological connection "unconditional promises, and the people with whom the promises were made are not types." (p. 140).

4. OT promises can have a double fulfillment or application with both Israel and the Church

The original promises made to Israel can find extensions into the church and are not abrogated as a result. Rather, the original promises to Israel still stand.

IV. Theological Case for NS

1. New Testament Keeps Israel and the Church Distinct

Dr. Vlach points out that the NT writers, even after the establishment of the church, uses the term "Israel" as a separate entity and a name that "is related to the 'national covenant people of the OT." (p. 145)

2. New Testament Affirms a Future for National Israel

a) Matthew 19:28 (Luke 22:30)

28And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Jesus here explains that the 12 apostles will one day rule over a national Israel.

b) Matthew 23:37-39 (Luke 13:34-35)

37"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38"Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
39"For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'"

The proclamation "Blessed .. name of the LORD" is from Psalm 118:26. This indicates the "joyful welcome of Jesus by the Jews with the parousia [second coming] and the restoration of Israel."

c) Luke 21:24

24and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

It seems here that Jesus is affirming that God has a set time period for the gentiles that is limited in duration. After this God will start His restoration program for Israel. Paul echoes this idea in Romans 11:25 "For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;"

d) Acts 1:6-7

6So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
7He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;

Many people have pointed out that after 40 days of instruction from our Lord Jesus Christ, the disciples were still wondering about the restoration of Israel! Dr. Vlach notes that NS "also believe that the lack of correction from Jesus in Acts 1:7 is validation that the disciples were correct in their beliefs about Israel's restoration." (p. 161)

e) Romans 11

This chapter is broken down into 3 main points.

i) Explicit affirmation "that national Israel has not been cast aside from the plan of God" (p. 162)

Romans 11:1-2a

1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be!... 2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew

ii) "Explicit declaration that Israel will experience a national restoration at some point in the future" (p. 163)

Romans 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

iii) NS believes that "Rom 11:27-28 ties Israel's salvation and restoration to the promises of the new covenant in the Old Testament" (p. 163)

Romans 11:27-28

27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

3. Fulfillment of New Covenant With Church and Israel

a. B/c the Church participates in the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, this does not "abrogate the remaining covenant promises of a national nature, which will find their fulfillment for [in] Israel." (p. 169)

b. An "already/not yet" aspect of the New Covenant. (p. 169) Remember, the messianic age ushers in the New Covenant, and the church is privy to the spiritual aspects of it (ie creation of a new heart, indwelling of the Spirit, forgiveness, etc.).

c. The Church has not received all the physical promises given to Israel only the spiritual. This is further evidence that the Church is not the complete fulfillment of the New Covenant.

Final Analysis

V. Critique of S

Hermeneutics

1. Precedence of the NT over the OT

a. Casts doubt on the integrity of the OT texts and "one may rightly wonder in what sense the Old Testament revelations were actually revelations to the original readers of the promise.(p. 178)

b. "Does not adequately account for Old Testament texts that explicitly promise the perpetuity of Israel as a nation." (p. 179)

2. National Israel as a type for the Church

b. Though there is significant connection between the two, there is insufficient evidence to show that the Church has transcended Israel. Especially, with all the verses that affirm a national restoration.

3. Nonliteral fulfillment of OT texts

a. As we have seen, certain NT texts affirm the OT expectations for Israel.

Theological

1. National Israel's Permanent Rejection

a. Matthew 21:43 speaks taking away the Kingdom from the ruling class and giving to the people. In v. 46 the religious leaders believe Jesus in talking about them and "Saldarini points out that theologians who interpret 'nation' as teh church 'are reading in second-century Christian theology' " b/c exegetical it is unfeasible that the "nation" whom Jesus talks about is the Church. (p. 184)

b. For arguments against Romans 11:26, see Romans 11 section above.

2. NT Silence

a. First, it is important to note that there are statements that imply a future restoration for Israel.

b. Secondly, as S. Lewis Johnson says, "There is no need to repeat what is copiously spread over the pages of the Scriptures" (p. 189) therefore matters "discussed in the Old Testament should not be taken to mean ... [they have] been dropped or transformed. (p. 189)

3. Application of "Israel" language.

This in no way proofs S or excludes NS. The best argument put forth comes from Galatians 6:16 with Pual's statemet "Israel of God." This does not have to mean the church and there are better explanations such as "To show that his [Paul's] harsh attitude to the Judaizers did not extend to the true Jewish believers, he reaches out to these Jewish believers and calls them the 'Israel of God.' " (p. 193)

VI. Critique of NS

Hermeneutics

1. Belief that OT texts need to be interpreted in their own right and not reinterpreted by the NT

a. Though there may be additional applications or fulfillments and even recognizing that the NT does not use the OT in ways that are entirely consistent with the OT author's intent, "Yet to maintain the integrity of the Old Testament texts and their revelatory value, the historical-grammatical contexts of these passages must be given serious consideration..." (p. 211)

2. Progressive revelation does not cancel unconditional promises to Israel

a. As Paul states in Romans 11:29 "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Dr. Vlach quotes House who says "Those who believe that the church has somehow taken over the blessings of Israel must explain the revoking of these apparently irrevocable callings of God on His people." (p. 213)

b. We must keep in mind that these OT promises can have a double fulfillment: presently in the church and in the future with Israel.

Theological

1. Distinction between Israel and the Church

a. Galatians 6:16 poses the most serious challenge, but that has been addressed above.

2. NT Affirms a Future for Israel

a. Matthew nor Luke never sees the Church as the "new Israel." This is almost always read back into the verses we mentioned above.

3. New Covenant for both Israel and the Church

a. When looking at Romans 11:27, it quotes Jeremiah 31:34. As Murray puts it, "There should be no question but [sic] Paul regards these Old Testament passages as applicable to the restoration of Israel." (p. 227).

VII. Conclusion

From this study, I believe that NS is much closer to the Biblical witness. I'm not saying there are no problems or that S is a weak argument, but I can confidently say NS is far closer to what the Scriptures say. S seem to depend a lot on having to interpret certain verses (ie Galatians 6:16) in certain ways, when there are often other alternative (and in my estimation) better interpretations.

Also, the OT verses that state that Israel and the gentiles will all worship God, take a very strange meaning if all believers are considered Israel - for who would the gentiles then be?

Zephaniah 3:20"At that time I will bring you in,
Even at the time when I gather you together;
Indeed, I will give you renown and praise
Among all the peoples of the earth,
When I restore your fortunes before your eyes,"
Says the LORD.

Isaiah 2:3 Many peoples will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Micah 4:2 Many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3 He will judge between many peoples
and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.

There are many other verses like these, that support NS.

I would like to end with a final quote from Dr. Vlach's paper:

"Because of the many complex issues involved with this issue and the significant number of theologians on both sides of the debate, we suggest that caution and humility permeate all discussions about superssesionism." (p. 175)

_________________

Vlach, Michael. “The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supersessionism.” Ph.D. dissertation, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004.

All Bible quotes from the NASB via www.biblegateway.com

A Primer on Eschatology: Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism

2009-02-04T19:56:00.018-06:00

Eschatology, which means “study of the last things” and oddly enough it is usually the topic Christians avoid and study last b/c it is so difficult. Though I am a dispensationalist, this post is not intended to be an argument for either side, rather a simple orientation so we can have a better idea of what each side believes. Hopefully, this post will help out some other confused individuals out there.

I. Covenant Theology (CT)

The basis of CT is the idea that, as William VanGemeren puts it, “Single plan of God, confirmed in the one mediator Jesus Christ”. [1]

This via 3 Covenants:

1) The Covenant of Grace

God has one plan of salvation , one mediator, and one eschatological plan all men share. [1]

2) The Covenant of Redemption

A specific agreement between the Father and the Son that they would exalt each other in the following way: the Father would honor the Son by sending him to save lost sinners through a penal self-sacrifice leading to a cosmic reign in which the central activity would be the imparting to sinners through the Holy Spirit of the redemption he won for them; and the Son would honor the Father by becoming the Father's love-gift to sinners and by leading them through the Spirit to trust, love and glorify the Father on the model of his own obedience to the Father's will. [2]

3) The Covenant of Works

Whereby God undertook to prolong and augment for all subsequent humanity the happy state in which he had made the first human pair -- provided that the man observed, as part of the humble obedience that was then natural to him, one prohibition, specified in the narrative as not eating a forbidden fruit. The penal sanctions of which was the loss of good and corruption of nature. [2]

II. Continuity Between the Two Testaments

CT sees a more continuous relationship between the two testaments. This stems from the idea of God having a singular plan (ie the 3 Covenants) for His elect.

1: The Tale of Two kingdoms: The Kingdom of God vs the Kingdom of Satan

Dr. John Currid of RTS would like for us to view the Bible with “Seed theology,” that is through an unfolding of the story between the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of the Serpent. [3] This starts from Genesis 3:15 and thus the world history as well as the Bible’s story is one that should be seen in a redemptive-historical perspective.

2. Supersessionism: Israel and the Church are one

The Church has superseded Israel and some view Israel as a type of the Church. One of the major motivating factors of this is that God has one Kingdom who He has given the Covenants to and thus He only has one people the Church.

3. Continuity between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ

God gives His law to his covenanted people to establish a personal bond. The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ are not different. However, under Christ. the law is newly administered and more deeply expounded. There is discontinuity in its form or shape, but not in its essence. [4]

4. The Content of Faith

Though both camps believe that the saving work of Jesus Christ is the basis of all salvation, CT believes that ever since Adam and Eve, the content (not basis) of saving faith was the gospel - the message that Jesus Christ would be the redeemer. Though, it was not as fully known to all, it has been the basic message of Jesus Christ as the Savior that saves throughout all generations. [5]

5. The Conditionality of the Biblical Covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, etc.)

As a gross generalization, CT sees the Biblical covenants as conditional and dispensationalists see them as unconditional.

III. Hermeneutics of CT

Three hermeneutical beliefs [6]

a. Precedence of the NT over the OT

b. National Israel as a type for the Church

c. Nonliteral fulfillment of OT texts

IV. Views on The Millenium

Note: When Christians talk about amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism, the point of reference is the second coming of Jesus Christ, not the Rapture. So a “premillennialist” would believe that the second coming is before the millennial kingdom, “post” would be believe that Jesus is coming after the millennial kingdom (though they do not believe in a literal 1,000 year kingdom), and “amillennialist” would not believe in an earthly millennial kingdom. I mention this b/c this is often confused with the terms “pretribulation”, “midtribulation”, and “postribulation” which refer to the timing of the Rapture, not the second coming.

i. Amillennialism [7]

1. Promises to Israel are spiritual and typical

2. Promises are fulfilled in Christ's reign of the Church now and in the eternal state.

3. Israel has lost their privilege

4. Some believe there will be a large in pouring of Jewish believers one day.

ii. Postmillennialism [7]

1. Gospel will be spread through out the earth and spiritual and material blessings will come to all people. Then Christ will come.

2. Promises to Israel are spiritual and typical

iii. Non-dispensational Premillennialism [7]

1. Literal 1,000 year reign of Christ, but without a specific Jewish Emphasis.

2. +/- a great ingathering of Jewish believers, but not a restoration of the nation-state of Israel.

V. Timeline of History

Both CT and dispensationalism separate the world’s history into different eras. Klooster a CT, has divided history into the following categories: [5]

Ethnic Universalism

1. Pre-Fall

a. Covenant of Works
b. Covenant of Grace (protoevangelion)
c. Start the Seed of the serpent vs Seed of the woman

2. The Fall and Two Kingdoms

a. Cain vs Abel

3. The Flood and Babel

i. Flood

a. The sons of God and the sons of men intermingling, endangering the promise in Gen 3:15 and the Kingdom of God (remember by then only Noah was righteous), therefore God sends a flood to wipe out the kingdom of the serpent.
b. The Noahic covenant was not a new dispensation, but an elaboration of the ruling task of Adam, now in a postdiluvian (postflood) era.

Ethnic Particularism

ii. Babel

a. The kingdom of the serpent in a new apostasy, however God promised never to flood the earth again. So He confuses their language.
b. End of ethnic universalism
c. Pentecost is the redemptive counterpart, where all the nations are now united via Christ.

4. Abraham and the Patriarchs

a. God's Kingdom is now moved onto Abraham and Israel
b. Abraham and Israel are chosen by God to birth the Redeemer-King.
c. The diversity of God's actions promotes one redemptive program.
d. Institution of the First Sacrament - Circumcision (looks forward to Christ)

5. Theocratic Kingdom of Israel: Exodus to the end of the OT

a. Institution of the Second Sacrament - Passover (looks forward to Christ)
b. Moses as covenant mediator with Israel parallels Christ as covenant mediator with the Church.

Intertestamental Period

6. Inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom

a. All the covenant promises fulfilled in Christ.
b. With the veil torn the Levitical (Phineas) covenant was fulfilled.
c. New covenant starts
d. The new sacraments of baptism and communion instituted (looks back at Christ).

7. Pentecost to the end of the NT

a. The Church is not a parenthesis, but an administrator of the covenant sacraments and keeper of the keys of the Kingdom.
b. Already and not yet aspects of the Kingdom.
c. Christ is ruling right now.

8. The second coming and the consummation of the Kingdom

a. The Kingdom of Christ will win over the World and than Christ will come.

I. Dispensationalism (D)

One of the most often quoted and influential members of Dispensationalism (D) is Dr. Charles Ryrie who says there are three necessary conditions for D: [8]

1) The distinction between Israel and the church

2) The usage of a system of literal hermeneutics

3) The belief that the underlying purpose of God in the world is to produce his glory.

Dr. John Feinberg gives us a more in depth analysis of the essentials of D. [7]

A. Recognizing multiple senses of words like "Jew," "Israel," and "Abraham's seed."

i. These are used in a genetic, political, spiritual, and typological sense and no sense is more important (especially spiritual) or cancels another.

B. Hermeneutics

i. The progress of revelation and the OT vs NT priority:

CT as we have seen, read the OT reinterpreted in light of the NT, but this is vice versa for Dispensationalism. NT has priority for CT b/c the OT was the shadow and NT the fulfillment, so the claim that you should take the clear revelation (NT) to understand the hidden (OT). D believes that the promises of the OT (ie to Israel) are clear and not all typological and remain unfulfilled in the NT. Therefore they are not canceled b/c unconditional promises of God can never be canceled.

ii. NT use of the OT, and typology.

Types are not allegories or symbolize that lose their meaning later. Types are rooted in historical facts. The NT writers never explicitly say that they cancel out the original meaning and different NT writers use the same OT verses differently. Double or multiple fulfillment of certain prophecies are the issue here, not their cancellation.

C. Unconditionality of the Biblical covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, etc.).

Covenants are not only spiritual, but social, economic, and political as well. They can extend to others (ie New Covenant onto Gentiles), but its primary fulfillment is to Israel. One should not emphasize only one aspect of the covenant (ie spiritual) at the expense of the other aspects.

Again, as a gross generalization, C sees the covenants as conditional and D as unconditional.

D. Distinctive future for ethnic Israel

1. A belief in premillenialism with a distinctive Jewish emphasis is prominent

2. OT and tribulation saints are part of the Kingdom

3. Some believe the fulfillment is all in the future (classical D) and others believe some spiritual aspects are happening now (progressive D) ie the Kingdom here/now hypothesis.

E. The Church is a distinctive organism (from Israel) that began at Pentecost and is united with Christ.

F. Philosophy of History

The more one stresses redemptive history to the exclusion of God's other work, the more one is C. The more one stresses God's multi-faceted work in history, the more one is D.

G. Things Not Essential to Dispensationalism

a. Dispensations are not essential to dispensationalism

b. The idea that each dispensation is a test and failure nor the number of dispensations one holds is not essential

c. Calvinism or Arminianism

d. One's understanding of the law

e. A belief in multiple ways of salvation (This is in fact a misunderstanding of D thought and emphatically denied by many). [8]

II. Discontinuity Between the Two Testaments

As we can see from the essentials, D sees a more discontinuous relationship between the two testaments.

1: The Tale of Two People: Israel and the Church

D believes that God has two separate programs: one for Israel and one for the Church. The predominant view is that God used Israel from Abraham until Pentecost. From Pentecost to the Rapture, God will use the Church. After the Rapture, God will restart His program with Israel and His promises for Israel will come to fruition in the Millennial Kingdom.

2. Nonsupersessionism: Israel and the Church are separate

From what we have said so far, it should come to no surprise that D does not believe that the Church has replaced Israel or that Israel was a type for the Church.

3. Discontinuity between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ

D believes that the Law of Moses was temporal in its nature and fulfilled (thus abrogated) with the coming of Christ. Thus, NT believers are no longer under the Law.

4. The Content of Faith

To quote John Feinberg:

The ultimate object of faith in any and every age is God Himself. The ultimate issue at any time in history is whether a man will take God at His word and exercise faith in the provision for salvation which God reveals… it is important to remember that since in each economy the content is what God has revealed, belief in the content for that age is belief in the ultimate object of faith. [8]

So those who adhere to D, say that though Jesus was the basis/grounds for all salvation, people in the OT could not have known about Jesus b/c God did not reveal Him until the NT times. Therefore, people in the OT were still saved by faith in whatever God had revealed to them up to that time, for how could they believe in someone they never heard about?

5. The Unconditionality of the Biblical Covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, etc.)

As a gross generalization, CT sees the Biblical covenants as conditional and dispensationalists see them as unconditional and yet to be fulfilled.

III. Hermeneutics of D

Four hermeneutical beliefs [6]

a. Belief that OT texts need to be interpreted in their own right and not reinterpreted by the NT

b. Progressive revelation does not cancel unconditional promises to Israel

c. National Israel does not function as a type that is transcended by the Church

d. OT promises can have a double fulfillment or application with both Israel and the Church

IV. Views on The Millenium

Premillennialism

D believes in that the second coming of Christ is before the start of the millennial kingdom and that it is a literal 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ on the earth before the eternal state. Important to this idea, as previously mentioned, is that it is the fulfillment of many promises made to the nation of Israel (ie the restoration of their land, preeminence among the nations, kingship of the Messiah, etc.)

To quote Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum:

While it is true that the millennium (that is, one thousand years) is found only in Revelation 20, the belief in the Messianic Kingdom does not rest on this passage alone. In fact, it hardly rests on it at all. The basis for the belief in the Messianic Kingdom is twofold. First: there are the unfulfilled promises of the Jewish covenants, promises that can only be fulfilled in a Messianic Kingdom. Second: there are the unfulfilled prophecies of the Jewish prophets. There are numerous prophecies of the Old Testament that speak of the coming of the Messiah Who will reign on David’s Throne, and rule over a peaceful Kingdom. There is a great amount of material in the Old Testament on the Messianic Kingdom, and the belief in a Messianic Kingdom rests on the basis of a literal interpretation of this massive material.[9]

Also, the idea of the rapture and a seven year tribulation is prominent within premillennial eschatology and though there is some disagreement as to the timing of the rapture.

i. Pretribulational rapture

Rapture occurs before the tribulation b/c the Church is supposed to be saved from the wrath of God that He pours out during those seven years.

ii. Midtribulational rapture

Rapture occurs at the halfway point of the tribulation. The severity of the later half of the tribulation is much greater and is even called the “great tribulation” and this is what the Church is saved from.

iii. Postribulational Rapture

Rapture occurs after the tribulation, as the saints are supposed to be tested through the seven years of tribulation.

V. Timeline of History

D generally divides biblical history into different dispensations. Dispensations are defined by the Scofield Reference Bible as "a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture."[12] Dr. Charles Ryrie has noted that this has caused some confusion and defines it as:

“A distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose.” [12]

There have been seven classical dispensations, which I believe were first described by CI Scofield. Here they are:

The Seven Classic Dispensations (Red are my inserts) [10]

1. Innocence (freedom) - Edenic covenant

This is the time before the Fall in the Garden of Eden, where Man’s responsibility to God was not to eat from the tree of Good and Evil.

2. Consciense (moral responsibility) - Adamic covenant (protoevangelion)

By the fall, Adam and Eve acquired and transmitted to the [human] race the knowledge of good and evil. This gave conscience a basis for right moral judgment, and hence the race came under this measure of responsibility-to do good and eschew evil. [13]

3. Human government - Noahic covenant

Out of the fearful judgment of the flood God saved eight persons, to whom, after the waters were assuaged, He gave the purified earth with ample power to govern it. This, Noah and his descendants were responsible to do. The dispensation of human government resulted, upon the plain of Shinar, in the impious attempt to become independent of God and closed in judgment: the confusion of tongues. [13]

4. Promise (patriarchal rule) - Abrahamic covenant

Out of the dispersed descendants of the builders of Babel, God called one man, Abram, with whom He enters into covenant. [13] God moves specifically to work through one man’s descendants.

5. Law - Mosaic/Sinatic, Palestinian, (Levitical/Phineas), Davidic, New covenants

With the introduction of the Law, there is major shift in how God is dealing with man. Now, mankind is obligated to follow the specific regulations contained within the Mosaic Law.

*Christ's Earthly Ministry

Jesus describes this time as unique and one where there should be “no fasting while the bridegroom is there.” Besides, it should go without say that due to Jesus’ physical presence on earth there is a different economy between God and man (eg. whatever He said was authoritative and must be followed). In addition, specific economic shifting events such as the rejection of the Messiah by Israel and His death and resurrection occurred during this time.

*Apostolic Age

The authority of Christ was laid upon the Apostles and they spoke infallibly in regards to the faith. This period is also marked by the miraculous sign gifts working prolificially within the layity of the Church and the writing of the NT.

6. The Church, Grace (Mystery Parenthesis)

Our current age that is between God’s program for Israel. God is now using the Church to spread salvation and the Kingdom into the world.

7. The Kingdom (Millenial Kingdom)

The return of Christ on Earth with the whole world under his reign. Israel has prominence among the nations, though the whole world is now at peace and full of blessing. Although sin, unbelief, and death are weakened, they are still in existence.

*The Eternal state

God now dwells among His saints (cf. Rev 21:3). The the New Heavens, the New Earth, and the New Jerusalem are ushered in. Finally, sin and death are no more and all His saints will now be forever glorified and directly be with Him for all eternity.

VI. Progressive Dispensationalism vs Classcial Dispensationalism

Currently, there is much discussion within dispensationalism. Much of this centers around the idea of progressive dispensationalism that was made popular by Drs. Darrell Block, Craig Blaising, and Robert Saucy. Though this may be a little off topic, I believe it is important to understand the difference between the two. Rev. Jack Brook has an excellent summary of the major differences between the two views: [11]

1. One plan of salvation: There is only one plan of redemption, not one for Israel and a different one for Christians. There is only one New Covenant, not two. The redemptive plan is revealed through God’s covenants. It begins with Abraham’s covenant, which combines physical and spiritual promises. David’s covenant, as developed by the later prophets also has redemptive application, since the Savior would be the Son of David. The New Covenant obtains redemption in fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic. The redemptive plan is holistic, not manifold.

2. Four dispensations: There are four dispensations:

Patriarchal
Mosaic
Ecclesial (Church)
Zionic (subdivided into millennial and eternal-kingdom phases.)

3. One people of God: The Christian Church is quite distinct from Israel, but not radically distinct. The Church is not a mere “parenthesis” in an otherwise-Jewish divine plan. The Church is not “Plan B”. It is not a separate category of humanity, in the way the Bible speaks of Jews or Greeks. There is continuity between the Church and Israel, not discontinuity alone. All believers from all dispensations are united in one general assembly in heaven (Hebrews 12.)

4. Complimentary hermeneutics: The old claim that a consistent grammatical-historical method of interpretation will always produce traditional dispensationalists is demonstrably untrue. The NT doesn’t follow Charles Ryrie’s definition of “consistent literalism” in the way that it handles OT prophecy. The NT often expands upon the OT prophecies, without contradicting their original contexts. Implications are developed from words which were not developed in the OT. PD calls this a “complementary” hermeneutic: The NT adds onto the OT prophecies in a way complementary to their original context.

5. Already/Not Yet: The Kingdom of God’s blessings are mostly reserved for Christ’s second advent, but parts of it are manifested today through the Holy Spirit. The geo-political aspects will occur in the future. The Church is grafted into some key aspects of the New Covenant (justification, the gift of the Spirit, resurrection hope), but the geo-political features for Israel have not yet happened.

6. Davidic Reign Now: Christ’s Davidic reign began in part when He ascended to the right hand of the Father. Some of the Davidic promises have been fulfilled, many others must wait until Christ returns. Salvation blessings are mediated to us through Jesus, who fulfilled Psalm 110:1-2. “Christ” and “Son of God” were both Davidic titles. Jesus’ priesthood is that of Melchizedek, an office originally given to David. Jesus’ Davidic kingship was the method by which God would fulfill all of His promises to Abraham (Luke 1:55)

________________________

[1] Vangemeren, Willem. “Systems of Continuity.” In Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 37-62.

[2] Packer, JI. Gospel Pedlar. INTRODUCTION: ON COVENANT THEOLOGY. Cited 04 Feb. 2009. <http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/cov_theo.html>

[3] Currid, John. Judges through Poets [Online Lectures]. Retrieved from http://itunes.rts.edu audio lectures.

[4] Chamblin, Knox. “The Law of Moses and The Law of Christ.” In Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 181-202.

[5] Klooster, Fred. “The Biblical Method for Salvation: The Case for Continuity.” In Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 131-160.

[6] Vlach, Michael. “The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supersessionism.” Ph.D. dissertation, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004.

[7] Feinberg, John. “Systems of Discontinuity.” In Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 63-88.

[8] John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in the Old Testament” Tradition and Testament. Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. Hbk. ISBN: 0802425445. pp.39-77.

[9] Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Pre-Trib Research Center. Premillennialism in the Old Testament. Cited 04 Feb. 2009. <>

[10] Ross, Allen. “The Biblical Method for Salvation: The Case for Discontinuity.”In Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 161-180

[11] Brooks, Jack. EndTime.org. Progressive Dispensationalism: What is it? Cited 04 Feb. 2009.

[12] Ryrie, Charles. Biblecentre.org. What Is a Dispensation? Chapter 2 of "Dispensationalism" Cited 04 Feb. 2009. <http://www.biblecentre.org/topics/ccr_2_dispensationalism.htm>

[13] Socfield, CI. Biblecentre.org. THE SEVEN DISPENSATIONS. Cited 04 Feb. 2009. http://www.biblecentre.org/topics/cis_rd_2_seven_disp.htm

The Gospel of Mark: The Authority of Jesus Christ

2008-12-05T11:40:00.008-06:00

The Gospel of Mark and the Authority of Jesus Christ

As I read through the Gospel of Mark, I was struck by the beginning verses and how they seemed to form a "thesis" for the deity and authority of Jesus.

To quote a previous entry of mine:

Mark 1:2
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY"

Malachi 3:1

"Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts.

Notice that in original quotation Malachi, God/YHWH uses the pronoun "Me," while in Mark when referring to Jesus it is "You." Why is that? Because Jesus is the second person of the Godhead and so when something is attributed to God/YHWH, it is appropriate to attribute it to Jesus.

[BTW, if you're wondering why it Mark says from the prophet Isaiah, its b/c Mark puts two verses together Malachi 3:1(v2) and than Isaiah 40:3(v3), and as the literary custom of the day, he attributes the entire quote to the higher ranking prophet.]
*****************

Now that we see that Jesus from the outset is equated with YHWH God, let's see how Mark develops His Authority in his Gospel:

Mark 1:1, 1:11, 9:6 - Authority as the Son of God (Not only does Mark, but God the Father explicitly calls Him "the Son" ~ Talk about a letter of recommendation!)

Mark 1:2-3 - Proclaimed as the predicted Lord and YHWH Himself

Mark 1:27 - Authority in Himself

Mark 1:29-34 - Authority over disease

Mark 1:34, 6:7 - Authority over demons (He even could give others the authority over demons)

Mark 2:5-7 - Authority to forgive sins

Mark 2:10, 14:62 - Authority as the Son of Man

Mark 2:28, 3:11-12 - Authority over the Sabbath

Mark 4:41 - Authority over the creation/natural world

Mark 5:41 - Authority over death

Mark 6:48 - Authority over the laws of nature

Mark 6:41 - Authority over matter and the power of creation ex nihilo (ie to create something out of nothing)

Mark 7:19 - Authority over the OT law (He declared all foods clean)

Mark 8:29 - Authority as the Messiah/Christ

Mark 9:2-3 - Authority of the Kingdom of God and power/The Transfiguration

Mark 13:26 - Authority to close the End of the Age

Mark 13:31 - Authority and eternity of His Words

Mark 14:22-24 - Authority of the New Covenant (to initiate it and that His blood is the New Covenant)

Mark 14:22-24 - Authority to institute new sacraments for God's people

Mark 15:39 - Authority of His Death

Mark 16:6 - Authority of His Resurrection
*****************

This is by means no means an exhaustive list of verses, but definitely gives a good bird's eye view of Christ's authority and really His equality with God/YHWH. As best put by the Pharisees in Mark 2:7 "Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" They were right about, but failed to realize Jesus was God.

Praise be to our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ!

The Dangers of IHOP and the "IHOP Dilemma"

2008-10-23T16:53:00.028-05:00

My Declaration Against the International House of Prayer (IHOP)

There is a big divide today in evangelical Christianity on the issue of spiritual gifts (see my post here). I feel the need to mention this first, because people often times mistake this question when talking about IHOP. Let me state it clearly, the issue is not whether or not there has been a continuation of the sign gifts since the early apostolic church.

The question is whether or not the leadership and teachers of IHOP are false prophets.

Yes, I've chosen my words carefully. I do not want to get into an argument about spiritual gifts. What I want to get into is rather - Are the prophecies from IHOP false or true? And what are the consequences of that. Repeat this is not an argument over the existence of prophecy b/c if the sign gift of prophecy is in existence today than we need to be ever more diligent against false prophecy not less so. Am I making a big fuss over nothing? No, I am not. I am seeing this place taking over people's lives. People have quit jobs, moved from around the country, and moved from around the world to get trained there. I know people who want to move to IHOP now, who want to move based on certain "prophecies" from them, heard testimony of churches being split b/c of them, parents who have basically lost their children (there is blog out there about a mom's woes... can't find it tell me if you do), and I was even asked to translate a "prophecy" tape! Not to mention, the hordes of young people that do not have the Biblical knowledge to make a discerning judgment about them go there and even come across the country to go their youth retreats.

*************

I have seen several kinds of people associated with IHOP.

1) There are charismatic people who simply go to IHOP to pray and have no idea what IHOP really believes.

2) There are people not involved with IHOP and support them because they see passionate people who are dedicated to prayer and worship, but have absolutely no idea why they have a 24/7 prayer and music ministry (it's in connection with the bogus teachings of the "Tabernacle of David," "Harp and Bowel movement," and having to do with ushering Jesus' return - yeah i'm not joking you thought they were praying and worshiping b/c it was just a good idea, huh? - Read more go here)

3) There are also young Christians and/or Christians who do not have a strong knowledge of the Bible who have unfortunately fallen victim to them.

4) People who have left IHOP and no longer associate with them. Including Pastor Ernie Gruen, someone who is fully convinced that prophecy exists for today, has complied a 123 page manuscript of testimonies and personal experiences of the horrors of IHOP, including a death of a baby b/c of a prophesy during a home group meeting. This document can be found here. (I told you this is not about spiritual gifts, even charismatics are vehemently against IHOP)

5) Leaders: The leadership and teachers are to be held accountable as such as it says in James 3:1 "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."

As such, they are like the church of Thyatira in Revelation 2 with good deeds and service, but tolerating false prophets:

Revelation 2:18"And to the angel of the church in Thyatira [IHOP] write: The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this: 19'I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first. 20'But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel [the men Mike Bickle,Paul Cain, Allen Hood, Bob Jones, Rick Joyner, John Paul Jackson, Francis Frangipane] who calls herself [themselves] a prophetess [prophets], and she teaches and leads [they teach and lead] My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21'I gave her [them] time to repent, and she [they] does [do] not want to repent of her [their] immorality. 22'Behold, I will throw her [them] on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her [them] into great tribulation, unless they repent of her [their] deeds.

God has put on my heart to be compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness and truth, to forgive these people, but by no means let their sins go unnoticed (yes that's basically God's description of Himself in Exodus 34:6-7).

Rember the point of bring this up is to bring these people back to or perhaps for the first time to God. Not to merely tear them down, but to the Godly rebuke that will show them the error of their ways, repent of their sins, and become closer to God (cf. Galatians 6:1 Matt 18:15, 2
Cor 7:8-10)

A couple of other verses I'd like to keep in mind are :

2 Timothy 2:24The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

As Paul told Timothy, we should be kind, gentle, patient, and rely on God to grant them repentance for it is not merely a problem of the intellect, but the devil is holding them captive!

So how bad is false prophecy?

Would we as a church let anyone be a leader, let alone start a church or seminary that committed adultery or murder on a weekly basis? Then why should we let anyone be a leader at a church who falsely prophesies on a weekly basis? False prophecy is one of the most heinous sins in the Bible and I'm sure the case can be made that it is worse than adultery and could give murder a run for its money. In fact it is one of the 16 things that deserved the death penalty in the OT (Dave Miller, Ph.D).

Here are some verses highlighting the heinousness of false prophecy:

Deut 13:1"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2and the sign or the wonder comes true... 3you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD... 4"You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His
commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5"But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death,

Deut 18:20 'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.'

Jeremiah 27:15 for I have not sent them," declares the LORD, "but they prophesy falsely in My name, in order that I may drive you out and that you may perish, you and the prophets who prophesy to you."

Zechariah 13:2"It will come about in that day," declares the LORD of hosts, "that I will cut
off the names of the idols from the land, and they will no longer be remembered; and I will also remove the prophets and the unclean spirit from the land. 3"And if anyone still prophesies, then his father and mother who gave birth to him will say to him, 'You shall not live, for you have spoken falsely in the name of the LORD'; and his father and mother who gave birth to
him will pierce him through when he prophesies.

And sure enough there was a reason why God gave these warnings to his OT people:

1 Kings 18:22Then Elijah said to the people, "I alone am left a prophet of the LORD, but Baal's prophets are 450 men.

2 Chronicles 18:5Then the king of Israel assembled the [false] prophets, four hundred men, and said to them, "Shall we go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I refrain?" And they said,
"Go up, for God will give it into the hand of the king." 6But Jehoshaphat said, "Is there not yet a prophet of the LORD here that we may inquire of him?"

Ezekiel 13:9 "So My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations They will have no place in the council of My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel, that you may know that I am the Lord GOD.

Isaiah 9:15 The head is the elder and honorable man,And the prophet who teaches falsehood is the tail

What kind of prophesies were these false prophets making?

Jeremiah 14:14 Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds.

Jeremiah 23:25" I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy falsely in My name, saying, 'I had a dream, I had a dream!' 26"How long? Is there anything in the hearts of the prophets who prophesy falsehood, even these prophets of the deception of their own heart,

Zechariah 10:2For the teraphim [idols] speak iniquity,
And the diviners see lying visions
And tell false dreams;
They comfort in vain
Therefore the people wander like sheep,
They are afflicted, because there is no shepherd.
3"My anger is kindled against the shepherds,

Here is another very important point - What is the penalty for not listening to God's prophets?

Daniel 9: 6"Moreover, we have not listened to Your servants the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings, our princes, our fathers and all the people of the land... 10nor have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in His teachings which He set before us through His servants the prophets. 11"Indeed all Israel has transgressed Your law and turned aside, not obeying Your voice; so the curse has been poured out on us, along with the oath which is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, for we have sinned against Him."

2 Chronicles 36:12;15-20 He did evil in the sight of the LORD his God; he did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet who spoke for the LORD.15The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them again and again by His messengers, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place; 16but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, until there was no remedy. 17Therefore He brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on young man or virgin, old man or infirm; He gave them all into his hand. 18All the articles of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king and of his officers, he brought them all to Babylon. 19Then they burned the house of God and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burned all its fortified buildings with fire and destroyed all its valuable articles. 20Those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia

Zechariah 1:4"Do not be like your fathers, to whom the former prophets proclaimed, saying, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Return now from your evil ways and from your evil deeds "' But they did not listen or give heed to Me," declares the LORD. 5"Your fathers, where are they? And the prophets, do they live forever? 6"But did not My words and My statutes, which I commanded My servants the prophets, overtake your fathers?

Zechariah 7:12"They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.

Nehemiah 9:30 "However, You bore with them for many years,
And admonished them by Your Spirit through Your prophets,
Yet they would not give ear. Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.

***************

The New Testament has the same attitude about false prophecy as well:

Heinousness of false prophesy (and teaching)

Rev 2:2 [To the church of Ephesus] 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false...6Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Rev 2:14 [To the church of Pergamum] 'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam [who was a false prophet], who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality. 15'So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16'Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.

Rev 2:20'But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess...'Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. 23'And I will kill her children with pestilence

Galatians 1:8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed [go to hell]! 9As we have
said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed [go to hell]!

Warnings about false prophets

Matthew 7:15 Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Matthew 24:11"Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many...

Mark 13:21"And then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ'; or, 'Behold, He is
there'; do not believe him; 22for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

1 Thess 5:20 do not despise prophetic utterances. 21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

2 Thess 2:2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by
a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

What kind of false prophesies are they making

Colossians 2:18Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,

2 Peter 2:1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the
Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

2 Peter 3:15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother
Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that
you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastnes

The penalties for not listening to prophecies

Matthew 11:1 When Jesus had finished giving instructions to His twelve disciples, He departed from there to teach and preach in their cities...20Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. 21"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22"Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23"And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24"Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you."

Matthew 16: 18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Luke 10:16"The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." [In regards to the seventy He sent out that did not include the 12 apostles]

Rev 22:18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone [including IHOP] adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone [including IHOP] takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
********
But they're good people...

Before we move on people love to point out their experiences and others point out that people at IHOP are "good people." I'm not going to disagree, but honestly if you compared them to many Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses I know, they are not as good as them. Seriously, I will give credit to the Mormons and JWs, b/c they are very good people. The point being "good people" does not mean you are not into "false prophecy." Remember, the church of Thyatira with good deeds but still tolerating false prophecy? All people sin and unfortunately IHOPers' sin is false prophecy. Besides, Paul makes it absolutely clear just b/c someone seems good it means nothing:

2 Corinthians 11:13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Now these guys constantly go on about the miraculous things they see, but the Bible is full of warnings like these. Many, many of their testimoneies go like this "I believe in Jesus and I heard prophesies come true, demons being cast out, and so many other miraculous things!" However Jesus gives us this amazing warning that is so dead on:

Matthew 7:15 Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves... 22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

It seriously strikes me as so amazing, how closely what IHOPers say and this match up. Consider this, Jesus is talking about somebody here right? I cannot think of anyone else that fits this description more perfectly than the leadership of IHOP. Often times we hear these verses in a sermon and they are (rightly so) apply to people who work for the Lord, but are not truly saved. However, the direct warning and application are about people who say they prophesy, cast out demons, and perform miracles - a direct correlation to IHOP. I pray that God would reveal to them the error of their ways and save the people hearing their destructive heresy.

Furthermore the Bible is super clear that miracles will and do happen at the hands of false prophets.

Here is a short list:

1) Exodus 7:11"Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same with their secret arts. 12For each one threw down his staff and they turned into serpents. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs." This also happens in Exodus 7:22, 8:7, and 8:18.

2) Prophecies from God, but through bad people: Balaam (?and his donkey?) (Numbers 22-25); Saul (1 Samuel 10:10-12), and Caiaphas (John 11:49-52).

3) The Fortune teller in Acts 16

4) Remember the Judas was an apostle and performed many miracles (cf. Matthew 10:1)

5) The Anti-Christ and his false prophet will be people with amazing powers!

2 Thess 2:8Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,

Rev 13:3 I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; 4they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?" ... 12He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. 13He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men. 14And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life.

No matter your interpretation of these verses, it is clear that just because people do miraculous things - IT DOESN'T MEAN ITS FROM GOD!

6. Misc.

Matthew 24:24"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25"Behold, I have told you in advance.

Acts 13:6 When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a magician, a Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus

2 Chron 18:18 Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right and on His left. 19The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab king of Israel to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that. 20"Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' And the LORD said to him, 'How?'

21"He said, 'I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and prevail also. Go and do so.' 22"Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of these your prophets, for the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you." [We see her God sending a deceiving spirit why - B/C its a judgment of disaster!]

Here is a great quote from Dr. John MacArthur from his sermon "Are Experiences a Valid Source of Truth?"

There is the ploy they use, "Well, we would expect you to be against it since you haven't had the experience." That is Gnosticism. That is believing that you have been elevated to a higher level of comprehension which the uninitiated have no understanding. Rodman Williams, who has written a number of books and who was once the president of a local Charismatic school, and I quote said, "Any vital information concerning the Gifts of the Spirit, the Pneumatic Charismata, predisposes a participation in them. Without such a participation, whatever is said about the Gifts may only result in confusion and error." If you haven't had it, you have no right to talk about it. One pastor said to me, "You talk exactly like one who never had the experience. You are speaking out of ignorance." I wonder if they feel that way talking about Heaven, Hell, murder, adultery, homosexuality, and numerous other subjects. Do we have to have that experience too?

My experience and your experience is not the test or proof of Biblical truth, it is the reverse--Biblical truth must validate or invalidate any experience. Doctrinally, it is almost impossible to define the Charismatic movement. It almost resists theology. It resists categorization because it has such a wide and growing spectrum of viewpoints. If they don't rightly divide the Word of God they are not going to come to a proper Systematic Theology. If they determine what is true because of their own experiences then there is no limit to the theology; it will take whatever form experience takes. And so what you have is a very amorphous kind of volatile changing systems of beliefs that ebbs and flows and rises and falls and refuses to find any structure.

I just want to restate Deuteronomy 13 here b/c we can now really see what God was saying:

Deut 13:1"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2and the sign or the wonder comes true...3the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD... 4"You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.

The IHOP Dilemma

All that background information was necessary in order to see the incredibly HUGE dilemma on our hands. When someone comes to you and they say that God gave them a clear audible and/or visual revelation (dream, vision, prophecy, etc.) you are now in what I will call the IHOP Dilemma.

We have seen the seriousness of false prophecy and of disobeying genuine ones. You are in an IHOP Dilemma b/c you are now forced to choose:

1) Whether or not this person is proclaiming falsehood in God's name and thus incurring the steep penalty of false prophesying and being a false prophet

or

2) If this person is actually speaking truth from God, we are bound to listen or face incurring the steep penalty of disobeying God's very own commands and His prophet.

Unfortunately, this puts the rest of Christianity in a hard situation, b/c we now have to make the determination whether IHOPers are false prophets or true prophets and treat them as such. We cannot merely remain neutral either. How can we be neutral on God's revelation or on egregious sin within the church? Its like someone saying the pastor cheated on his wife or that he murdered someone and saying, "Hmm... let me think about that and get back to you later." No, you're now in a tough situation and you have to make a hard decision!

Unfortunately, many IHOPers have no idea what they are doing when they supposedly are "prophesying." As I said, they do not have a strong Biblical foundation, it is truly experience driven, and their experience drives their interpretation of the Bible.

*******

The False Prophecy of IHOP

Now, that we have all this down, we must see the IHOP Dilemma that the leadership of IHOP has put us in by examining their "prophecies" and claims:

1. "Mike Bickle is really no different in this respect. On disc 7 of The Prophetic History, Bickle describes a visitation to the throne-room of God as he is told that God will be restoring the apostles to the church. Let me preface this by saying that before getting to this point in his message, Bickle described the experience as being on par with the Apostle Paul’s experience in the Third Heaven in 2 Cor. 12 as well as John’s visions.

They’ve been told by church leadership that it is up to them to “usher in” the Second Coming of Jesus. They’ve been encouraged to do away with discernment concerning mystical experiences. They’ve been told that they are “forerunners” of Christ in the same way that John the Baptist was. They’ve been told that the orthodox views of Christianity are weak and it’s up to them to restore the “true” message of the Gospel, using their new “powers from God” to start a revival that will win souls for the Kingdom."

(source:http://signofjonah.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/ihop-and-cultural-influences)

2. They could hear from God, and speak forth God's words, prophesying of great events soon to transpire on planet earth. And they could have flipped a coin as to whether what God allegedly told them would actually come true. Often they didn't come true. Some of the main prophets and/or leaders in the movement included Paul Cain, Mike Bickle, Bob Jones, Rick Joyner, John Paul Jackson, Francis Frangipane, and others...However, he was quoted as saying that the general level of prophetic revelation in the movement's "prophets" had an accuracy level of about 65 percent. Some prophets were as low as 10 percent accurate, he said, with some of the "most mature" prophets having a rating "approaching 85 percent to 95 percent. " (Steven F Cannon, "Old Wine in Old Wineskins: A Look at Kansas City Fellowship," The Quarterly Journal 10, no. 4 (October-December 1990): 8.)

Bob Jones claims that when he was nine years old living in Arkansas, an angel carrying a "great trumpet" came riding down from the sky on a white horse and stopped before him in the middle of a dirt road. He didn't know what to make of it until he was thirteen, when he was escorted to the very throne room of God in heaven.

You say that you saw the throne room?" Bickle asked him in the dialogue. ". . . what did it look like?"

"It looked like gold and it looked like light and it was a light not like the light you see here which is artificial," he responded, adding that the light, the glory of the Lord, frightened him. Well, a "guide," which he identified as "the angel of the Lord ' " protected him from danger by standing between him and the throne by filtering the rays from God as if the angel was "like red sunglasses."" He said he later understood that this was God's way of calling and commissioning him for their new important earth-changing work that could go out from America's Midwest. Many years later, in August 1975, Bob Jones claims he had a near-death experience that was caused by a severe, painful nosebleed. He was whisked into heaven. Jones said: "... all of a sudden, the pain was gone. And I was in a dark place and I looked around and I could see that I was in a cave and I looked down there and then my thoughts were, "Oh, Lord, did I get my robe clean? Did I have enough time?" And there was a man that walked beside me and he said, "You can look now, Bob, and see"and I looked down and my robe was like crystal light." 28
He then saw Jesus in the form of a light who would grab and kiss" men and women of different ages and then make them disappear by absorbing them into his body! "It was like two big ole doors right here in his heart and it'd be just that, and they was gone," Jones said. "They was in his heart He then saw people that Jesus didn't want who were on "an elevator and an escalator" to hell which was like "a cold storage place." Jesus then commissioned him to touch the leaders in a new last days church so that he could absorb "a billion souls unto myself in the last day," Jones said. 29 A short time later God "came and took me out of the body," and he descended into hell. It was "one of the most dreary, dreadful places I've ever been," Jones said. "It was like a place like a void, it had no top, bottom or nothing you could see-it was like black auto smoke and we went deeper and deeper into the depths." 30 (source Mike Bickle with Bob Jones, Visions and Revelations, transcript, series of five tapes from the fall of 1988: 28. Ibid., 14, 15. 29. Ibid., 15. 30. Ibid., 16)

Mike Bickle's Visions:

Later Bickle relates that during his trip to heaven Jesus commissioned him to be one of God's new generals to lead his end time army. Although Bickle claims he met with "the Lord" face-to-face, it was an out-of-body experience. It was 2:16 A.M. he said, and in a flash he was there, but it wasn't the cave where Jones earlier related he had been. Instead he was standing in a 20-by 30-foot room that "had clouds on the bottom, on the top and the walls". It was the courtroom of God. God was in the room, Bickle said, but rather than appearing as a being of light, he was a presence that Bickle wouldn't look at.

God rebuked him for not being patient enough in choosing leaders for his movement. Later the being ordered Bickle to ride in a golden chariot-one of about thirty-five-in a procession of leaders, apostles and prophets, who would be joining the movement that would someday be worldwide. Bickle said that during the trip God did not commission himas an apostle. But he said he understood the experience to mean that if he was faithful he would "have an opportunity in the grace of God to fill an apostolic calling."

But it was behind those doors where Jones's ministry ended. Two women came forward in 1991 and told Vineyard leaders that Jones had used his prophetic authority to touch and fondle them sexually. (Roy Rivenburg, "A Question of Faith," Los Angeles Times, 28 January 1992, sec. El, P. 8.) Jones admitted it and was removed from ministry. "In recent months, I have manipulated certain people for selfish reasons on the basis of my prophetic gifting," Jones said in a statement that he dictated and signed before the Metro Vineyard Fellowship senior leadership on November 4, 1991. "I have been guilty of sexual misconduct, and I deeply regret this. (I have not committed adultery.) "

(original source: http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/kcp.html

3. More of Mike Bickle's "Prophecies"

Bickle claims that a "voice" spoke to him in September 1982, directing him to a ministry to touch the ends of the earth. ( Albert James Dager, Vengeance is Ours. Redmond, Wash.: Sword Publishers, 1990, pg. 127.) Bickle's account is as follows:

"The Lord simply said, 'I will change the understanding and expression of Christianity in the earth in one generation.'" (Mike Bickle, Growing in the Prophetic. Lake Mary, Fla.: Creation House, 1996, pg. 30)

Bickle carries on the tradition of his former colleague, the late faith healer John Wimber. Wimber died of cancer in spite of all his "power evangelism" and purported powers.

Bickle, as noted above, endorses the false prophet Bob Jones. (Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival. Dallas: Word Publishers, 1997, pp. 145 150) He also claims to have "about 250 people" at his church in a prophetic network "who regularly receive dreams, visions and prophetic words from the Lord." (Growing in the Prophetic, op. cit., pg. 182)

Bickle boasts connections with other prophets as well:

"At Metro Christian in Kansas City we are associated with several prophetic people of international stature. Some have lived in Kansas City, and others have been related by friendship. We also relate to about a dozen people who have full time traveling prophetic ministries and many people who regularly have prophetic dreams and visions." (Growing in the Prophetic, op. cit., pg. 139)

Even more frightening is Bickle's Appendix on "God's Manifest Presence."(Growing in the Prophetic, op. cit., pg. 196. 227) In this section, Bickle presents a list of phenomena from contemporary experience such as:

"Shaking, jerking, loss of bodily strength, heavy breathing, eyes fluttering, lips trembling, oil on the body, changes in skin color, weeping, laughing, 'drunkenness,' staggering, travailing, dancing, falling, visions, hearing audibly into the spirit realm, inspired utterances (that is, prophecy), tongues, interpretation; angelic visitations and manifestations; jumping, violent rolling, screaming, wind, heat, electricity, coldness, nausea as discernment of evil, smelling or tasting good or evil presences, tingling, pain in the body as discernment of illnesses, feeling heavy weight or lightness, trances (altered physical state while seeing and hearing into the spirit world), inability to speak normally and disruption of the natural realm (for example, electrical circuits blown)."(Growing in the Prophetic, op. cit., pg. 209)

Much of the above can be found in a cultic Ashram or a mental institution, or could be caused by sickness, drugs, sleep loss, brain damage, altered states of consciousness or, worst of all, demons. Who ever imagined there would be a day when we would be discussing the horrible mess above as viable for church worship?

Bickle would have us believe that he has heard choirs of angels performing Handel's Messiah and claims:

"Many people who have had heavenly encounters and returned to tell about them have spoken of the marvelous music they heard in heaven. People who have had experiences of having their ears open to the spirit realm have testified of hearing the angelic choirs and music. In fact, I had an experience like this myself."(Growing in the Prophetic, op. cit., pg. 162)

(original source: http://www.pfo.org/growingpains.htm )

There is so much much more - Just google it!
*******

The Grossly Wrong Theology of IHOP

Now, I don't have a professional degree in theology, but I have studied it a lot and have seen and heard many ideas. For sure there are many controversies in the church, dispensationalism vs covenant theology, Calvinism vs Arminianism, and of course cessationists vs charimastics, and though I have my own opinions and disagree with the otherside on the issues, I have found my competitors arguments to be well founded.

Why do I bring this up? Because IHOP has some terribly horrendous theology. The only way I can surmise how they came up with these ideas is through false prophesy. In all earnestness, these specifics of IHOP, theologically speaking are terrible! The vast majority of Christian theologians look at this and say, "How did they ever come up with this stuff?"

I put the bad theology part after prophecy - why you ask? If there is a disagreement on predestination, the Calvinist and Arminian go to the Bible and show their views and at the end of the day, we both have our convictions on who is right, b/c of what we see in the Bible. However, on these controversial (to say the least) IHOP issues, if you have regular revelations from God Himself on an issue, you must be right! For how can you argue with God?

Here are the aberrant theologies that these "so-called" prophets hold on to (I got this from their website):

1. The Manifest Sons of God theology

2. The Latter Rain

3. Dominion Theology

4. Joel’s Army

5. The use of Prophecy

6. The Tabernacle of David

7. The Bridal Paradigm

8. The belief that the office of Apostle is still open (an almost unheard of teaching in evangelical Chrstianity)

9. View of the Song of Solomon*

10. Apostolic Pre-Millennialism/Post-tribulationalism*

11. Contemplative Prayer

[I recommend searching links at the bottom of this entry especially Sign of Jonah, Cross+Word: In Truth Ministries , and Discernment Ministries. Remember to use the search engines on the page]

Numbers "9" and "10" are have a little * next to them b/c there are legitimate controversies in regarding the interpretation of the Song of Solomon in regards to its spiritualization (though they have their own unique and odd view) and post-tribulationalism. However, I must reemphasize that if you have the gift of prophecy and God talks to you and tells you a prophecy in regard to one of these controversial issues, you have the right answer and NOT B/C OF THE BIBLE, rather b/c God actually spoke to you. Now this doesn't always happen directly (though I think it has), but take for example the "prophecy tape" was asked to transcribe. One of the "prophets" quoted Song of Solomon and used a spiritualized meaning of one of the verses. Obviously, this "prophet" had no idea what he or she was doing, unknowingly gave God's stamp of approval that indeed Song of Solomon is definitely a metaphor for the Church and Christ. Dangerous stuff! (By the way this same prophet initially did not know whether a verse came from 1 or 2 Corinthians...) As for the first 7 teachings, haven't heard of them? Well you and really everone else, they are very strange, unique, and very specific to the radical charismatic movement in general and are so odd that most systematic theology texts do not even talk about them.
****

The Denigration of the Bible and Sola Scriptura

One of the biggest issues of this movement is not only their inappropriate use and interpretations of the Bible, but their denial of one of the bedrock doctrines of the Reformation and evangelical Christianity: Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone. Sola scriptura is the notion that the Bible is whole revealed will of God and all that is necessary for faith (all teachings are contained within the Bible) and practice (the things we need to govern our church and everyday life). For an excellent explanation of this by Dr. Greg Bahnsen go here. Basically, God does not need to give us anymore revelation and this was first used in the Reformation against the Roman Catholic church that said we needed their traditions and clergy, but now it is directly under attack by IHOP. They might say they believe in it, but their actions outright deny it.

Let me explain, when Christians need to know anything about God's will pertaining anywhere from the atonement of Christ to buying a used car, b/c God has given his complete revelation in the Bible, we do not need to look at another place to know what God would say. So let's say I'm buying a used car, I see the Bible says to seek counsel, be wise, be humble, be good steward of my money, and that if my conscience is good that it would be a good idea to buy the car. The Holy Spirit can definitely illuminate and convict my conscious - BUT THAT IS A FAR CRY FROM HEARING GOD'S AUDIBLE VOICE AND SEEING JESUS.

When people from IHOP make decisions they do not use the Bible as the only revealed revelation from God b/c they supposedly still get direct revelations from Him, thereby denying a 100% reliance on the Bible. Now they might say all prophecy needs to be checked against the Bible, but the point is they cannot say the Bible is the whole revealed will of God. To make it more clear, just imagine yourself making a big decision, say on where to serve in the church:

1st Scenario: You pray, read the Bible, find out what spiritual gift you have, what kind of strengths you have, talk to your pastor, then with a clean conscience and conviction you go ahead and serve in whatever position.

2nd Scenario: You pray, read the Bible, find out what spiritual gift you have, what
kind of strengths you have, talk to your pastor, then God tells you in a dream, you hear His voice, or someone prophesies that you should do this or that position. Then you go ahead and serve based on whatever God's direct revelation said.

See how they are not directly and 100% dependent on the Bible?!?! They deny this very doctrine that defines the protestant and evangelical faith. Sadly this kind of story happens all the time...
*******

Conclusion

We have seen that the issue with IHOP is not about whether tongues and prophecy exists for today, rather it is simply are the leaders of IHOP false prophets? If so, their whole ministry which was started by these prophecies is not of God than by necessity of the devil.

We have also seen that both the OT and the NT give multiple warnings about false prophets (which means they are out there) and the seriousness of the sin that false prophecy is. We should not tolerate this heinous sin. On the flip side, we have seen the multiple warnings that we must obey God's true prophets and prophecies or face severe consequences of disobeying God Himself.

Unfortunately that puts the rest of Christianity in the IHOP Dilemma and by seeing the types of dreams and teachings they propound, it is obvious that they are not receiving messages from our all powerful and thrice Holy God. Many, many Christians have responded and now IHOP and Mike Bickle are questioned as a cult group (see "Apologetics Index a Christian Anti-Cult Group" click here)

If you know anybody who is interested in IHOP or doesn't know what they are about please send them to this article, in order to warn them of the danger there! These guys are trying to take their false prophetic message and spread their sin and poison, not only in the US, but in Europe and Asia too. A tactic they try to ploy is, "You've never been there you gotta come and see for yourself." Do we need to go to a Mormon or JW church to know that they are wrong? NO! IHOPs beliefs have nothing to do with going there or not, they need to be defended intellectually and biblically.

Remember too that Satan cannot take away your salvation, but can render you totally ineffective for God's Kingdom. Remember Ted Haggard (who was friendly with IHOP nonetheless...) was president of a national evangelical association and head pastor of a church, but b/c of sin he is totally ineffective now, though saved. I have seen people with great productive lives and immense potential to be used by God, only to be snuffed out by IHOP by giving up their careers and receiving training there.

So remember that although the people there are good people, this does not mean they are not engaged in gross sin. In our hearts we care for them, but we must stay true to the Word of God and if you really do love them, bring them back to God with the Truth.

I leave you with this final verses:

James 5:19My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, 20let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Jeremiah 5:31 "The prophets prophesy falsely,And the priests rule on their own authority;And My people love it so! But what will you do at the end of it?"
_________________

For more information on the dangers of IHOP: (Be sure to go to search and put in "IHOP" and/or "Mike Bickle" on these pages search engine)

Apologetics Index an Anti-Cult Christian Group
The Gospel Masquerade *Former Staff Member! Highly Recommended*
Sign of Jonah - *Lots of Good Info*
Cross+Word: In Truth Ministries - *Lots of Good Info*
Pastor Ernie Gruen's 123 Page Documentation - Lots of Personal Testimonies
The Grey Coats
Discernment Research Group
Discernment Ministries
Ministry of John MacArthur - Scroll down to "Charismatic Chaos"
Critical Issues Commentary
Light House Trails Research Project
Pyromaniacs
Apologetics Research Center

Justification by Faith Alone

2008-10-08T13:09:00.004-05:00

Fundamental Doctrine of the Faith: Justification by Faith Alone (Sola Fide)

Introduction

What is a fundamental doctrine of the faith? It is a teaching or belief that is absolutely essentially to the identity of a religion or philosophy i.e. without adherence to that teaching or belief would automatically cause one not to be of that faith or religion.

Justification by faith alone is that doctrine which makes us uniquely protestants and evangelicals.

The doctrine by which the Church stands or falls – Martin Luther

For the doctrine of justification by faith [alone] is like Atlas. It bears a whole world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of God the Savior – Dr. J.I. Packer

Galatians 2:16 “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

Romans 3:28 “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”

1. What is justification?

Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which He (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in His Sight. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology p. 723)

2. Faith is a gift from God, not something we gained through works

Romans 3:25 “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus”

Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Romans 4:4-5 “4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.”

3. Imputation of Righteousness

*Christ death takes away our sins (takes away our debt), but His righteousness merits favor before God (gives us credit)*

He imputes righteousness, not imparts!

“‘Imputation’ is different from ‘impartation.’ God does ‘impart’ to us gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit, so that we have them and they are in us growing and they are ours. But all of that gracious impartation through the Spirit is built on an even more firm foundation, namely, imputation - the work of God outside of us: God's own righteousness, not imparted to us, but imputed to us.” – Dr. John Piper

2 Corinthians 5:21 “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”

Romans 3:22 “even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction”

Romans 4:3 “For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."”

Isaiah 61:10 “I will rejoice greatly in the LORD,
My soul will exult in my God;
For He has clothed me with garments of salvation,
He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland,
And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”

The righteousness we have before God is not our own, but Christ’s !

Can we really amass enough good works to get into heaven? Can we even amass enough good works to get into Harvard?

“We are not justified because of the inherent goodness of our faith, as if our faith has merit before God. It never allows us to think that our faith in itself earns favor with God. Rather, Scripture says that we are justified ‘by means of’ our faith, understanding faith to be the instrument through which justification is given to us, but not at all an activity that earns us merit or favor with God. Rather we are justified solely because of the merits of Christ’s work” (Grudem, Systematic Theology p. 730).

“First, notice that at the end of verse 6 and at the end of verse 11 in Romans 4 you have a very different way of expressing ‘imputation’ or crediting. At the end of verse 6 it says, ‘God credits righteousness apart from works.’ And at the end of verse 11 it says, ‘. . . that righteousness might be credited to them.’ Notice: in both of these, faith is not the thing credited as righteousness, but righteousness is the thing credited to us. ‘God credits righteousness,’ not ‘God credits faith as righteousness.’ What this does is alert us to the good possibility that when Paul says, ‘Faith is credited as righteousness,’ he may well mean, ‘God credits righteousness to us through faith.’” - Dr. John Piper

4. Why Faith?

“When we come to Christ in faith we essentially say, ‘I give up! I will not depend on myself or my own good works any longer. I know that I can never make myself righteous before God. Therefore, Jesus, I trust you and depend on you completely to give me a righteous standing before God” (Grudem, Systematic Theology p. 730)

To say you “don’t believe in justification by faith alone” is not just to say “I must add my own works to go to heaven,” but “I don’t believe that Jesus Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient for my salvation.”

5. Justification in Roman Catholicism

This section is meant to further highlight why justification by faith alone is a unique and fundamental doctrine to the protestant and evangelical church.

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (1974):

“According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, justification is ‘sanctifying and renewing of the inner man’… The instrumental cause… of the first justification is the Sacrament of Baptism… As far as the content of justifying faith is concerned the so-called fiducial faith [by faith alone] does not suffice.”

“Official Roman Catholic theology includes sanctification in the definition of justification, which it sees as a process rather than a single decisive event, and affirms that while faith contributes to our acceptance with God, our works of satisfaction and merit contribute too. Rome sees baptism, viewed as a channel of sanctifying grace, as the primary instrumental cause of justification, and the sacrament of penance, whereby congruous merit is achieved through works of satisfaction, as the supplementary restorative cause whenever the grace of God’s initial acceptance is lost through mortal sin. Congruous, as distinct from condign, merit means merit that it is fitting, though not absolutely necessary, for God to reward by a fresh flow of sanctifying grace. On the Roman Catholic view, therefore, believers save themselves with the help of the grace that flows from Christ through the church’s sacramental system, and in this life no sense of confidence in God’s grace can ordinarily be had. Such teaching is a far cry from that of Paul." – Dr. J.I. Packer

Council of Trent (1545-1563): "If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

Evangelical Gospel (Justification by Faith Alone/Imputed Righteousness) vs the Roman Catholic Gospel (Justification by Faith and Works/Infused Righteousness)

This is the primary reason we are 2 different religions, it is because we have 2 different gospels! And as Paul says, whoever has the wrong one will be declared anathema.

*We do not believe it is something inherently good in us that saves, rather it is Christ alone.*

6. Conclusion

“One day as I was passing into the field . . . this sentence fell upon my soul. Thy righteousness is in heaven. And methought, withal, I saw with the eyes of my soul Jesus Christ at God's right hand; there, I say, was my righteousness; so that wherever I was, or whatever I was doing, God could not say of me, he wants [lacks] my righteousness, for that was just before [in front of] him. I also saw, moreover, that it was not my good frame of heart that made my righteousness better, nor yet my bad frame that made my righteousness worse, for my righteousness was Jesus Christ himself, "The same yesterday, today and, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).

Now did my chains fall off my legs indeed. I was loosed from my afflictions and irons; my temptations also fled away; so that from that time those dreadful scriptures of God left off to trouble me; now went I also home rejoicing for the grace and love of God.” From DesiringGod.org quoting John Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, [Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press, 1978, orig. 1666], pp. 90-91.

What’s the big deal?

Galatians 1:8 “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed [go to hell]!”

God receives all the glory and credit for our salvation! He elected us, sent His Son to die for us, and raised Him from the grave. What are we really going to add to His work?

To God be all the glory! (Soli Deo Gloria)

The Gospel of Luke and Prayer

2008-08-08T00:27:00.002-05:00

As I was reading through Luke, I couldn't help, but notice Jesus' prayer life and the amazing things that happened after Luke mentions praying. A good verse to headline this entry would be:

Luke 5:16 But Jesus Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray.

Admittedly, my prayer life is not the best and I'm hoping this study will help you and me become more diligent in our prayer life. I believe this is a good compliment to my recent entry on Jesus and His high view of the Scripture.

1. Luke 1:8Now it happened that while he was performing his priestly service before God in the appointed order of his division, 9according to the custom of the priestly office, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10And the whole multitude of the people were in prayer outside at the hour of the incense offering. 11And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense.

After Zacharias went into to do his priestly service (and no doubt praying) and the multitude outside pleading with God, Gabriel appears and announces the birth of John the Baptist.

2. Luke 2;36And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers. 38At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.

This woman who had an incredible prayer life was given the privilege to see Christ.

3. Luke 3:21Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, 22and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

This is something I did not notice before. After His baptism, while He was praying that the Spirit descended and the Father's voice came out.

4. Luke 6:12It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God. 13And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles:

After spending a whole night in prayer, Jesus chose the 12 Apostles on which the foundation of the church is built (cf. Eph 2:20). I can't help, but assume that He did pray for them and I noticed that before making this big decision, the Bible notes that he prayed all night long. If Jesus does this for big decisions, how much more should we?

5. Luke 9:18And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, "Who do the people say that I am?" 19They answered and said, "John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; but others, that one of the prophets of old has risen again." 20And He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."

The great confession that Jesus is the Christ came after prayer.

6. Luke 9:28 Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming. 30And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, 31who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

Wow, I never noticed this, but just like in His baptism, while Jesus was praying was he Transfigured! I also noticed that Jesus took the "Big 3" with Him to pray. Can you imagine being asked by Jesus to come pray with Him? That would be so awesome, yet I must admit I keep thinking "Could I keep up with Him? What if He goes on too long? What if I fall asleep?"

7. Luke 11:1 It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, "Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples

After observing Jesus pray (which must have been quite a sight) they wanted to know how to pray. Jesus instructs them:

a) The Lord's Prayer
b) To be persistent
c) To ask, seek, and knock
d) God will definitely answer our prayers and give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him

8. Luke 18:1 Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart,

This instruction to pray at all times (cf. 1 Thess 5:17) is followed immediately by the parable of the unrighteous judge which ended by Jesus saying in Luke 18 "6Hear what the unrighteous judge said; 7now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? 8"I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"

9. Jesus quoting Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11 says in Luke 19:46 "It is written, ' AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN." He calls the temple a house of prayer - do you think prayer might be important?

10. Do not offer fake prayers for appearance sake b/c God knows as the Lord put in Luke 20:47 as He was warning the Pharisees, "for appearance's sake offer long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation"

11. Luke 21:36"But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man."

The last verse of the Olivet discourse ends by Jesus telling the people to pray to escape the foreordained events that are about to follow. The way to be delivered from the terrible events that will happen is through prayer.

12. Luke 21:37Now during the day He was teaching in the temple, but at evening He would go out and spend the night on the mount that is called Olivet.

Another glimpse into the prayer life of Jesus. During His last week, He went to pray on the Mount of Olives.

13. Luke 22:31"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; 32but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."

Jesus protected Peter from Satan through prayer. Not quite sure what to make of all this, but we can see Jesus believed in the power of prayer.

14. Luke 22:40 "When He arrived at the place, He said to them, " Pray that you may not enter into temptation."
Luke 22:46 "Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not enter into temptation."

Echoes of the Lord's prayer ("and lead us not into temptation")? Jesus emphasizing that through prayer the apostles could be rescued from temptation or should I say delivered from evil.

15. Luke 22:44 "And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground."

This is Jesus at the garden of Gethsemane. You must find a copy of C.J. Mahaney's sermon from the first Resolved conference and listen to it. It is absolutely the best explanation of what was going on in this garden. Jesus knew better than anyone the Holiness and Justice of God and b/c of this He knew exactly the pain He was to endure on the Cross. In Matthew and Mark Jesus says His soul was "grieved to death" and C.J. Mahaney makes the point that given the situation, perhaps Jesus was grieved almost to the point of death. We can see that Jesus was praying so hard that His sweat was like blood! After this prayer we can see that the greatest event of all history happened, the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Conclusion: It is evident from Luke's Gospel the high priority Jesus placed on prayer. We can see that many important things happened during or right after Luke mentions Christ praying. We should always be praying at all times as Luke 18:1 states and to give heed to all the instruction and examples Jesus gave us regarding prayer.

The Gospel of Matthew : Jesus and the Scripture

2008-07-14T09:36:00.009-05:00

There has been a lot of debate on how to study the Bible, especially in regards to its inerrancy, reliability, and how applicable it is for today. One of the best places to look would be to see how Jesus view, used, and taught the Scripture. Here is a listing of almost every Old Testament (OT) verse used in Matthew.

1. Matthew 1:22Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

This quotation is from Isaiah 9:6. As with the other prophecies, Matthew assumes the reader can fully understand and comprehend these prophetic texts (ie it has a specific meaning not "what does it means to you"). Furthermore, he ascribes, the authority of God on this text. You'd be hard pressed to say that "spoken by the Lord" does not mean inerrant.

2. Matthew 2:5They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet: 6'AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH, ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH; FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.'"

Quote from Micah 5:2. Hard to see anything, but that Matthew expects his reader to clearly see a literal fulfillment of this prophecy through Jesus.

3. More prophecies 2:15 (quoting Hosea 11:1), 2:17 (Jeremiah 31:15), 2:23 (see here, here, or here ), 4:15 (Isaiah 9:1). Already we see Matthew making a case for Jesus from the Scriptures. He is methodically using OT passages, using them as syllogisms, and appealing to the authority and perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture.

More fulfillments: 8:17 (Isaiah 53:4), 11:10 (Malachi 3:1), 12:18 (Isaiah 42:1-4), 13:14 (Isaiah 6:9-10), 13:35 (Psalm 78:2), Matthew 15:8-9 (Isaiah 29:13). Matthew 21:5 (Zechariah 9:9), 26:31 (Zechariah 13:7), 27:9-10 (Zechariah 11:13)

4. Even the Messiah's forerunner in the OT in Isaiah 40:3 and used for a witness for John the Baptist.

5. Very famous usage of Scripture via Jesus comes in Matthew 4 when He is tempted by Satan. Here he uses 3 verses from Deuteronomy: 8:3, 6:16, and 6:13. So much has been said about this, but in reference to our postmodern age (who doesn't even believe in Hell or Satan), Jesus didn't appeal to his inner strength only to fight off evil, but the authority and clarity of the Scripture. Even Satan tries to use Scripture against Jesus because the devil knows (albeit twisting them) the authority and the reverence Jesus has to it!

6. Matthew 5:17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments,and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Is it important that Jesus did not want to go against what the Law and the Prophets/Bible revealed. The people in the crowd, perhaps they were awaiting the new covenant or wanting Jesus to overturn the Romans and establish a new theocracy with new laws. Now a days we sometimes think that the NT has replaced the OT, but no! Jesus came to fulfill it not to take it away and neither should we attempt to brush the OT aside. In fact Jesus' praise was so high he said no part of the Law would disappear. Even more, Christ said that one's greatness in the kingdom of heaven could depend how seriously you took it ie whether we annual some rules b/c our modern day culture will not accept it (ie homosexuality, divorce, sanctity of life, etc.) We need to ask do we have the same attitude that is in Jesus?

7. On the sermon on the mount Jesus goes over these verses: Exodus 20:13, 14, Deut 24:1, Numbers 30:2, Exodus 21:24, and Leviticus 19:18. We get to here Jesus explain these verses and correct the false teachings surrounding them.

Matthew 5:21 "You shall not commit murder"; 22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

Matthew 5:27 "You shall not commit adultery" 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 5:31 "Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce" 32but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 5:33 "You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord" 37"But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

Matthew 5:38 "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" 39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Matthew 5:43 "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy" ("hate your enemy" is not in the Bible and is a scribal and/or Pharisaic insertion); 44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Okay, so there really is no disagreement on v. 38 and 43 and rightfully so. Jesus surely focused on the preeminence of love. However, when was the last time you heard anybody, but true Bible believing folks, talk about hell and marriage like Jesus does in verses 21, 27, and 31? With Jesus "1 out of 2" ain't good enough.

8. Matthew 8:2-4

2And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said, "Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean." 3Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, "I am willing; be cleansed." And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

What was the first thing Jesus wanted him to do? To fulfill what was written in Leviticus 14:2-4: 2"This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing. Now he shall be brought to the priest, 3and the priest shall go out to the outside of the camp. Thus the priest shall look, and if the infection of leprosy has been healed in the leper,4then the priest shall give orders to take two live clean birds and cedar wood and a scarlet string and hyssop for the one who is to be cleansed.

9. Matthew 12:3-7; 40-42 - Rebuking the Pharisees with the Bible itself. He is taking their interpretation and putting it on their heads. It is evident that correct exegesis (interpreting the text), as opposed to eisegesis (your own interpretation of the text) was critical to Christ and that He believed in the historicity of the events of the OT.

10. Matthew 13 and the parable of the seeds and the sower. Remember here the seed =The Word! It can bear a hundredfold in fruit.

11. Matthew 15:4"For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.' 5"But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," 6he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

The authority of Scripture (and its clarity) is set against the Pharisaic tradition. Once again, good doctrine overtakes bad doctrine.

12. Matthew 16:11 "How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Jesus hates false teaching!

13. Matthew 18:16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED."

Jesus uses Deuteronomy 19:15 for church discipline.

14. Matthew 19:3 "Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He [God] who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and [God] said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? 6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

This is awesome. Jesus is quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 here. If you look at the bolded words, you can see Jesus, giving credit to God, not only for the creation of man, but saying Genesis 2:24! Now that's a high view of Scripture!

15. Matthew 21:15 "But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant 16and said to Him, "Do You hear what these children are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, 'OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU [God] HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF[God/Jesus]'?"

Its kind of slick of Jesus, but you see that Jesus is getting praise from the children and then He quotes a verse (Psalm 8:2) from the Bible saying that the God prepared children to give Himself/God praise and uses it of Himself!

16. Matthew 21:42 (from Psalm 118:22):

"Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures,

'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES'?"

Love it. Jesus straight out asked, "Didn't you read this in the Bible?"

17. Matthew 22:15-46

This is an awesome section. It shows Jesus' masterful command of the Scripture. We are taught, and rightfully so, to love as Jesus did, but we should also strive to have his reverence of Scripture as well. It consists of 5 Bible questions (3 to Jesus; 2 from Jesus):

i) v.17 "Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?"

Jesus replies using logic. Reasoning and apologetics does have its place. I really hate it when Christians say faith and reason are separate things. No way! Jesus was a master logician and something that is worthy to be emulated.

ii) If a woman marries 7 brothers according to the Law (Deut 25:5), whose wife will she be in heaven? v. 29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God"

Look here, part of the problem here was their misunderstanding of Scripture! And this is particularly telling, b/c it applies to our day and age. Why do Christians have the same divorce rate as non-Christians? B/c they do not understand the Scriptures when it comes to marriage.

iii) v. 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"

37And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'

38"This is the great and foremost commandment.

39"The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'

40"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets

Just look at the mastery of Scripture here by quoting Deut 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. It's important to note that in the OT, it never explicitly says what the greatest command is. Just put yourselves in Jesus shoes, someone asks you an incredibly loaded question on which your reputation stakes, and you have to figure out from all the rules in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which is ithe greatest command?! Can we even name 10 laws from any of those books (besides the 10 commandments), let alone the greatest? But Jesus, not only knows, but He also knows the second greatest and than on top of that adds a little commentary "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

If you have ever tried to witness to someone about Christianity, you know how difficult it is to answer people's objections, but Jesus because of His mastery of Scripture just bulldozes the competition. iv) 41.. Jesus asked them a question:

42"What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David."

Pretty straightforward, but the next question is a little harder...

v) 43He [Jesus] said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,'saying,

44'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'?

45"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?"

First thing, to notice is, just the incredible recall Jesus has and how He picks the perfect verses to stump his opponents. Usually, Christians only know a couple of key verses and if someone can get passed those, we go "ugh...ummm...hmm..."

Second thing is that Christ attributes Psalm 110:1 here to David and the Holy Spirit! It is the Bible is the work of God through His designated people.

The third point, is something Dr. S. Lewis Johnson pointed out in one of his lectures on systematic theology. See how I bolded the word "Lord" in v.43? Jesus is creating a point from simply a word in the Bible. It isn't just theological minutia to exam the Bible carefully even down to its words! Jesus is wanting an explanation for a single word and our love and knowledge of Scripture should try to go just as far. We will never have Jesus' mastery of Scripture, but neither will we ever have the depth of His love. We constantly strive to be like Him and have no problem saying we should love, forgive, and be humble like Jesus, yet do we want to try and have His understanding and mastery of the Word? I like the way Matthew puts it in the last verse of this chapter, "46No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question."

18. Jesus quite frequently alluded to the OT to finish His sentences, much like the way we would use famous book or movie quotes (cf. Matthew 5:35, 7:23, 11:29, 13:43, 23:39, 24:31).

19. Matthew 24-25, the great Olivet discourse where our Lord talks about the future. Here he quotes several OT verses and that their fulfillment will be at the end of the age: 24:15 (Daniel 9:27), 24:29 (Isaiah 13:10), and 24:30 (Daniel 7:13). He says something amazing in 24:35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." This is very similar to ch 5:18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Jesus is stating is making His words equal to Scripture and God's words.

Other future verses Jesus looked to be fulfilled in the future: 26:64 (Psalm 110:1, Daniel 7:13)

20. Matthew 26:53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54"How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?"... 56"But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets." Then all the disciples left Him and fled.

In regards to His death, Jesus says He could stop it, but one of the reasons that it must take place is to fulfill the Scripture. If the Truth in Scripture can be limited to one's interpretation or that we cannot understand it due to a culture or language gap, I do not think Christ would have made such bold statements.

As we see from Matthew 5:18 and 24:35, Jesus knew the Scripture and His words would be timeless! Another thing to notice is that the current Jewish audience that Matthew is writing to is 400 - 2,000 years removed from the writings Jesus is quoting from, not to mention the fact that the OT was written in a different language (Hebrew) than the NT (Greek).

From the way Christ is using Scripture one cannot conclude that a) Time b) Culture or c) Language hindered anyone's understanding or was an acceptable excuse not to understand the Bible.

21. Matthew 27:46 "About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"

Such a misunderstood verse. In His darkest hour Jesus quotes the Bible (Psalm 22:1) to give Himself comfort. As a side note, I highly recommend to anyone, to read Psalm 22 when you get to this section of the Gospel and you will see Christ's utter dependence on God in times of trouble, His faith that God will deliver Him, and that He praises God even in this suffering.

In conclusion from Dr. Daniel Akin's "What Did Jesus Believe About the Bible"

When we survey our Lord’s teaching in the Gospels we discover that the judgments of these scholars is confirmed. Jesus consistently treated the historical narratives of the Old Testament as straightforward records of fact. He referred to Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah (Matt 24:37-39), Abraham (John 8:56), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt 10:15, 11:23-24), Lot (Luke 17:28-32), Isaac and Jacob (Matt 8:11), the manna (John 6:31), the wilderness serpent (John 3:14), David (Matt 22:43), Solomon (Matt 6:29, 12:42), Elijah (Luke 4:25-26), Elisha (Luke 4:27), Jonah (Matt 12:39-41), and Moses (Matt 8:4), among others. Nowhere is there the slightest hint that he questioned the historicity or accuracy of the accounts...

As I grew in the faith, I came to understand that to be a Christian meant to live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and that His Lordship should permeate every area of our lives. His Lordship included what I should think about all matters of theology, including the Bible. I told him that as I had studied Jesus’ view of the Bible, I came to the conclusion that I could do nothing other than hold to its complete truthfulness and reliability. To be anything other than that would be to set aside the Lordship of Jesus Christ. That professor simply responded by saying, “I have never thought of it like that before, but it does make a lot of sense.”

John 5:39—“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me.”

Luke 24:25-27—“Then He said to them, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?’ And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.”

Luke 24:44-45—“Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

Cessationism - My Take

2008-06-30T12:59:00.006-05:00

I think that this issue will become more and more important in today's church. With that said, I must say, many of the most Godliest Christians I know are in fact Charismatic and that this is most definitely not a litmus test for orthodoxy, however, b/c of its growing influence and recent happenings in my life I feel that I must address this issue again.

What is really at stake here is glory and honor of God's name and for His people to give Him the worship He deserves. Jesus said we are to worship God in spirit and in truth, what better way to do that than to find out about the spirit and the truth about it.

I wrote this post to establish what I believe and the biblical and theological basis of it. In my discussions with my charismatic brethren, I noticed that I was merely reacting to their arguments and not giving the positive case for cessationism. Here we go...

I. What is a spiritual gift? (From Now that's the Spirit)

Samuel Dawson (of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary), a cessationist, provides helpful

definitions in this regard:

Miracle—For our purposes, a miracle is a supernatural act, directly or indirectly, affected by God with or without the use of human agency, that results in supernatural phenomena.

Miraculous gift—For our purposes, a miraculous gift is a gift given by God to an

intermediary human agent who uses the gift through God’s power so that miraculous phenomena are effected, which are not capable of being duplicated by human agency alone. Miraculous gifts may include among others: healings, prophecy, tongues, interpretation of tongues. Thus, miraculous gifts must have a human agent whom God gifts to carry out an act that results in supernatural phenomena.

“I am not denying by all this that there are miracles in the world today in the broader sense of supernatural occurrences and extraordinary providences. I am only saying that there are no miracles in the stricter sense. There are no miracle-workers performing miraculous signs to attest the redemptive revelation they bring from God. Though God has never locked Himself out of His world and is still at liberty to do as He pleases, when He pleases, how He pleases, and where He pleases, He has made it clear that the progress of redemptive revelation attested by miraculous signs done by miracle-workers has been brought to conclusion in the revelation embodied in our New Testaments” (Waldron, To Be Continued?, 102).

The distinction here between God performing miracles and the continued existence of sign gifts has to do with the empowerment of the individual. Those who argue that the sign gifts have ceased do not argue that miracles have ceased. But they do argue that God is no longer granting individuals special powers to perform such miracles at will. (From Two Views on the "Sign Gifts": Continuity Vs. Discontinuity)

So, if we pray for someone and they were to be cured of cancer, AIDS, limbs healed, even raised from the dead through our prayers - that is the power of prayer NOT someone with the gift of miracles or healing and is perfectly compatible with cessationist theology. Remember, cessationist believe in the power of prayer, just not that people have the spiritual gift of healing or miracles! I hope you can see the difference b/c it is SO OFTEN misunderstood.

II. What are the spiritual gifts?

The listings come from Romans 12:6-8, I Corinthians 12:8-10, I Corinthians 12:28-30, and Ephesians 4:11.

I have put the gifts in 2 columns, one column that is not in question b/c for the most part whether you are charismatic or a cessationist, we don't doubt the existence of the permanent gifts, only the miraculous or "sign gifts" (from now on when I say "the gifts have ceased" I am referring only to the "sign gifts").

Courtesy of Thisblogchoseyou

Permanent Gifts

Ministry

Pastor-Teacher
Evangelism
Helps/Ministering
Administration
Exhortation
Giving
Mercy
Faith

Gifts in Question/"Sign Gifts"

Apostles

Prophets
Miracles
Healing
Tongues
Interpretation
Discerning of Spirits
Wisdom
Knowledge

(Okay, so there is some talk of whether or not Apostleship is a gift or an office and if wisdom and knowledge properly belongs in the sign gifts box, but that is beyond the scope of the current discussion.)

Furthermore, Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 clearly gives us the purpose of these gifts as he states in v1 "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware." He goes on to say that there are variety of things, but that its purpose is for the common good, not of the individual:

"4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good."

Paul goes onto say not everyone has the same spiritual gift:

"29All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? "

I mention this under my "definition" section, b/c the use of such gifts should reflect their purpose, if not only to see if they are genuine. And what do we see? More often than not tongues are used to edify oneself and everyone has the gift of tongues or everyone has the gift of prophesy.

There are also certain properties and purposes given to some of the gifts:

1 Corinthians 14:22 "So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe...27If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted"

Acts 2:6 "And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language."

So we know that there should at least SOMETIMES we see tongues and prophesy done one by one, tongues followed by interpretation, and tongues in another language, yet we seldom IF EVER see this.

III. More Definitions

These are courtesy of Pyromaniacs:

Both sides generally agree to these definitions:

If you believe any of the miraculous spiritual gifts were operative in the apostolic era only, and that some or all of those gifts gradually ceased before the end of the first century, you are a cessationist.

If you believe all the spiritual gifts described in the New Testament have continued unabated, unchanged, and unaltered since the initial outpouring of tongues at Pentecost, you are a continuationist.

IV. Last of the definitions!

Types of Cessationists: Courtesy of Theological Dictionary

1. Concentric Cessationists believe that the miraculous gifts have indeed ceased in the mainstream church and evangelized areas, but appear in unreached areas as an aid to spreading the Gospel (Luther and Calvin, though they were somewhat inconsistent in this position. Daniel B. Wallace is now the most prominent scholar to hold this view).

2. Classical (or "Weak") cessationists assert that the miraculous gifts such as prophecy, healing and speaking in tongues ceased with the apostles and only served as launching pads for the spreading of the Gospel. However, these cessationists do believe that God still occasionally does miracle-like activities today, such as healings or divine guidance, so long as these "miracles" do not accredit new doctrine or add to the New Testament canon (Warfield, Gaffin). John MacArthur is perhaps the best-known classical cessationist.

3. Full Cessationists argue that along with no miraculous gifts, there are also no miracles performed by God today. This argument, of course, turns on one's understanding of the term, "miracle."

4. Consistent Cessationists believe that not only were the miraculous gifts only for the establishment of the first-century church, but the so-called five-fold ministry found in Eph 4 was also a transitional institution (i.e., There are no more apostles, prophets, but also no more pastors, teachers, or evangelists).

Types of Charismatics: From Spiritual Gifts: Definitions and Kinds

1. Classic Pentecostalism – The historic beginning of the modern tongues movement is traced to Bethel Bible School of Topeka, Kansas, founded in 1900 by Charles Parham (1873-1929). Parham encouraged his students to examine the apostolic age for a witness of the baptism of the Holy Spirit available today as an event subsequent to salvation. One of his students, Miss Agnes Ozman, requested that hands be laid on her to receive the Holy Spirit, and according to Parham, she responded by speaking only in the Chinese language, unable tospeak her native English for the next three days. Parham considered this the restoration of the Pentecostal power of the Book of Acts. Nichol points out that the significance of the Topeka event was that “for the first time the concept of being baptized (or filled) with the Holy Spirit was linked to an outward sign—speaking in tongues.” Parham began an evangelistic effort in various cities which he identified as “Pentecostal” or the “Full Gospel,” reaching as high as 25,000 Pentecostal converts in Texas alone by 1905.14 William Seymour (1870-1922) came in contact with Parham’s preaching in Houston and then was called to Los Angeles, where he lead the renowned Azusa Street Revival (1906-1909). Based at the Azusa Street M ission (312 Azusa Street), Seymour spoke intongues for the first time on April 9, 1906. Seymour’s activities associated with the Azusa Street Revival launched American Pentecostalism, and Azusa Street became a “veritable Pentecostal Mecca to which pilgrims from all over the world came and from which the news of supernatural signs and wonders was broad.

2. The Charismatic Movement/Neo-Pentecostalism - Began in the mid-1950s largely through the efforts of the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International of Los Angeles, and the efforts of Assemblies of God minister David J. du Plessis (1905-1987), who promoted the Pentecostal experience to the non-Pentecostal denominations. On August 3, 1960, Episcopal priest Dennis Bennett (1917- ) of St Marks Church in Van Nuys, California, announced in his pulpit that he had been baptized of the Holy Spirit and then went on to speak in tongues. Bennett came under immediate criticism and resigned after the third of three services the same day. The matter, however, was so widely publicized that this event is often viewed as the founding the Charismatic Movement, as it spread to every major denomination and cut across all theological boundaries. Dunn observed that this new Pentecostalism “has now become a movement of world-wide importance, reckoned as a third force in Christendom (alongside Catholicism and Protestantism) by not a few leading churchmen.” In the movement, there was less concern for the nature of the new birth and great stress was placed on Spirit baptism and tongues. In the quest for expanded research and doctrinal respectability, the Society for Pentecostal Studies was formed in 1970. Important aspects include, Trinity Broadcasting Network, begun by Paul Crouch in 1973, The International Catholic Charismatic Conference in Rome, 1975, and the rise after 1980 of prominent televangelists, including Oral Roberts and son Richard, Kenneth Hagin, Pat Robertson, Rex Humbard, Jimmy Swaggart, Kenneth Copeland, Jim Bakker, and Benny Hinn.

3. Third Wave Theology - This is also known as the “Signs and Wonders” or the “Third Wave” Movement, the first wave being Pentecostalism and the second the Charismatic Renewal. This group consists of largely mainline evangelicals who did not want to be identified with the first two groups and yet believed in miraculous gifts, tongues, and healings for today. They teach that the new birth and Spirit baptism occur at the same time and give great place to the miraculous gifts, viewing them as the long-buried truth that has once again come to light, generating widespread excitement. The movement was started by C. Peter Wagner of the Fuller Theological Seminary missions department. Also part of the Third Wave are John Wimber of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship in Anaheim, California and founder of the Association of Vineyard Churches, and former Dallas Seminary professor, Jack Deere. Leaders of the movement are concerned with healing and the Christian response to demonic activity.

4. "Open but Cautious” Position — An expression coined by Wayne Grudem,—of noted evangelical teachers, including Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Robert Saucy, John Piper, and Wayne Grudem himself, along with Chuck Smith and his Calvary Chapel movement. Charismatics are often openly critical of “third wavers.” They are unconvinced by the cessationist arguments, but are also cautious about the emphasis given to spiritual gifts by noncessationists.

(Last sentence from "The Hermeneutics of Noncessationism")

V. The Cessationist Position

I believe Dr. Daniel Wallace puts it best here:

There are others who argue that, with reference to these gifts, there is greater discontinuity than continuity. (They are called cessationists or non-charismatics.) Part and parcel of this argument is the nature and purpose of these gifts. This view claims that these gifts were essentially poured out on select individuals for the purpose of authenticating that God was doing something new. Surely the coming of Christ and the doing away with the Law and the inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles into the spiritual community was radical stuff. When Jesus cleansed the temple and when he taught, his religious opponents wanted a sign. They knew that he was challenging the status quo. He had better back up his message with some miracles. So he gave them one big miracle: his own resurrection. End of discussion. Something new was afoot in Israel. God authenticated his message by raising him from the dead. Jesus invested supernatural authority in his own apostles (Matt 28:16-20) to bring this good news to the world. These apostles and certain others in the early church had a measure of some of these gifts. Whether they represent all Christians of all time or whether theirs was a special time and a special gift is the question.

I belong to the latter group. That is, I believe in a sufficient amount of discontinuity to warrant speaking of the sign gifts as having ceased. I will argue, in fact, that every true Christian has to belong to this latter category to some degree. I will offer two theses below, followed by several specific arguments backing them up.

Thesis One: To the extent that we see discontinuity between the first century and the twentieth in terms of the sign gifts, to that extent we are cessationists.

Thesis Two: The more we see discontinuity, the more we affirm that the purpose of the sign gifts was authentication rather than a display of normative Christianity.

All Christians hold to some measure of discontinuity, just as all Christians hold to some measure of continuity. But that there is any discontinuity at all is most significant: it indicates the Spirit of God is not working in exactly the same way today as he was in the first century. If so, then we must immediately ask: How normative is the book of Acts? Indeed, how normative are the sign gifts?

Furthermore from Phil Johnson:

Dan's right; every major point brought up in the flood of charismatic comments lately added to this thread has been answered before.

I've repeatedly explained why it's facile, self-contradictory, and inadequate for charismatics on the one hand to acknowledge that the gifts supposedly operating today are not apostolic-quality manifestations (a point conceded by everyone but the rank charlatans in the charismatic movement), while on the other hand rejecting every argument for cessationism other than air-tight proof-texts. Because there is no airtight proof-text saying that the apostolic-quality gifts would cease and be replaced by lesser gifts, either.As I've suggested many times before, that belief makes charismatics de facto cessationists (albeit cessationists of a different kind) anyway. So they have already conceded the cessationist argument in principle, and when it comes to exegetical support for their position, they face the very same hurdle they claim is insurmountable for full-fledged cessationists. In other words, the position refutes itself.It's also irrational and inconsistent for charismatics to insist on exclusively exegetical proofs for cessationism, while they are insisting that cessationists must exegete the charismatics' anecdotal accounts of private, subjective experiences.

Note: the miracles, dreams, and visions recorded in Scripture are comparatively rare and never trivial. They always signalled something important that God was doing. If charismatics were producing miracles of that sort, we wouldn't be having this debate.As it is, the anecdotal, trifling, hit-and-miss (mostly miss) phenomena charismatics are pointing to and demanding explanations for strike me as the exact parallel of a file drawer full of material I used to keep when I was acquisitions editor at Moody Press. The drawer held a sheaf of manuscripts sent to me by people who insisted these were verbally-inspired messages they got directly from God—i.e., new Scripture.But I'm a cessationist for exactly the same reason I believe the canon is closed. It's not because I can cite chapter and verse saying how and when the NT would be complete, but because for roughly two thousand years there simply have not been any credible claimants who could do the things Jesus and the apostles did.

_________

Main points:

The sign gifts were for given by God for the founding of the church (cf. Ephesians 2:20) and was used to confirm the Apostolic movement (cf. Hebrews 2:3-4). With the full revelation of God in the Bible (cf. Jude 3) and the closing of the canon (cf. Revelation 22:18-19), the gifts in their confirmatory and foundational capacity ceased (c.f 1 Corinthians 13;8). [For fuller treatment of these verses see below]

This way in cessationism, no one can add to the Bible, b/c the God no longer gives verbal, auditory, or visual revelations b/c those things ended with the Apostles and prophets in the first century and we no longer need those revelations b/c we have God's full revelation to us in the completed canon of the Bible that promises us "that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:17). We have everything we need to have a relationship with God and do His work simply with the Bible, prayer, and the church and do not need miraculous gifts.

Cessationism is also consistent b/c we are able to account for the lack of gifts (remember we believe in miracles) throughout church history at least from the 200 - 1900 A.D. Charismatics must account for the nonexistence of gifts for 1700 years and than their sudden appearance BIBILICALLY, not experientially. They also must biblically account for the fact the quality, character, and power of the gifts are so much different than before. Finally, they must show biblically that God will only stop the apostleship and adding on to the Bible (almost every one in Evangelical Christianity agrees that the apostleship and the adding on to the Bible has stopped and only fringe groups believe otherwise). As mentioned above, if you did have such miraculous gifts, would their really be any doubt amongst fellow Christians...? Also, let's not forget that the gifts were given for the purpose of building each other up, but we usually see people edifying themselvs. There are supposed to be a variety of gifts allocated to everyone, but we usually see everyone speaking tongues and/or prophesying and NEVER see the other gifts of interpretations, people with the gift of miracles, knowledge, wisdom, or apostles. There are specific things that gifts are for that we never see (i.e. tongues being interpreted or in another language). Finally, please realize we never see these things being done at the same level as we see in the Bible or in the public places.

I encourage charismatics to look deeply into the Bible and to see if your view is really just from your experience and not the Bible. Our experiences should be subjected under the authority of the Bible, and not vice versa, besides the church's overwhelming experience as well as a cessationist's experience would point to cessationism. In my personal experience, I have met many people who have had incredible events happen to them or seen incredible things only on the mission field, this is compatible with cessationism! Remember the crux of the question is if certain people are gifted within the church in general and in settings for everyday worship and life. So technically, if you believe you have spoken in tongues just once or had just one prophecy (though I would contest that) and believe these things are rare instances, you are really closer to cessationist than charismatic theology b/c you do not think certain people are given those gifts on a more permanent basis! Cessationist say that people do not have those gifts in an on going fashion, but that miraculous experiences do happen.

VI. Verses that support cessationism:

1. Ephesians 2:20 - having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone

a. Eph. 2:20—Paul makes it clear that the apostles and the prophets (contextually and grammatically he can only be speaking of New Testament prophets here, contra Grudem, cf. O’Brien and others) were for the foundation of the church. Now that the foundation stage has been laid, neither of the two groups is needed. Ephesians 2:20 could not be more clear. The verse contains no difficult words, nor any difficult or unusual grammatical constructions. The grammatical construction of one article preceding two nouns joined by “and” is a familiar and well-known construction. Any alleged complexities in interpreting this verse arise not from the verse itself but from the presuppositions of the interpreter (Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, 78–79). (From Now that's the Spirit)

b. Ephesians 2:20 clearly refers to the universal church, not to some local church or mission field. Paul's predominant usage of ejkklhsiva elsewhere in Ephesians demonstrates this. In 3:5 he wrote that the apostles and prophets were closely related to the foundational revelation that Gentiles as well as Jews would be united in the one universal body of Christ (cf. v. 10). He also used this universal sense in 3:21. In 5:23-27 the illustration of the husband and wife shows Christ's relationship to the universal church. This universal church is described as "His body" (v. 30) and also as a mystery (v. 32), referring back to 3:5. Paul's words therefore cannot be properly applied to local or national churches throughout this age, inasmuch as Paul's representation of the church throughout this passage and elsewhere describes the church in the most universal and pervasive of terms (e.g., "God's people" and "God's household" in 2:19). Therefore Paul was referring to the foundation of the universal church in Ephesians 2:20. This foundation, by implication and by its very nature, can be laid only once since foundations are necessarily laid only once at the beginning of any structure. (From When Will the Gift of Prophesy Cease?)

c. Ephesians 2:20 has been the “thorn in the flesh” for all noncessationists. No one has successfully countered the verse’s supp ort for cessationism. Since the gift of prophecy is paired with the gift of apostleship as the foundation for the “holy temple”—the church—and since apostleship is a temporary gift, prophecy is obviously a temporary revelatory gift just like apostleship. Noncessationist Jon Ruthven acknowledges that “Pentecostal or charismatic scholars generally have failed to treat this cessationist argum ent [i.e., the support for cessationism from Eph 2:20] to any significant or adequate degree.” He agrees with cessationists that Grudem’s explanation is unconvincing, and offers his own rebuttal to the verse’s proof of cessationism. He rejects the idea that apostles and prophets were repositories for Scriptural revelation and contends that apostleship along with prophecy continues functioning until the second coming of Christ. Ruthven’s case falters, however, in light of the clearly delineated NT teaching about apostolic authority in the NT and early church and how that authority played a part in delivering and preserving the body of truth that is contained in the NT books.

(From The Hermeneutics of Noncessationism)

2. Hebrews 2:3-4 - how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.

a. The argument that this text refers to the cessation of certain gifts is based on an inference in the text, viz., that since the first generation of Christians were explicitly eyewitnesses to certain sign gifts, the second generation of Christians was not...All in all, Hebrews 2:3-4 seems to involve some solid inferences that the sign gifts had for the most part ceased. Further, it offers equally inferential evidence of the purpose of the sign gifts: to confirm that God was doing something new. The whole argument of Hebrews rests on this assumption: there is a new and final revelation in Jesus Christ (cf. 1:1-2). He is the one to whom the whole OT points; he is the one who is superior to the Aaronic priesthood, to prophets, and to angels. He is indeed God in the flesh. Is it not remarkable that in this exquisitely argued epistle, the argument turns on Scripture over against experience? The strongest appeal the author makes to the audience’s experience is to what they were witnesses to in the past. If the sign gifts continued, shouldn’t we expect this author (like Paul in Gal 3:5) to have employed such an argument? (From Hebrews 2:3-4 and the Sign Gifts)

3. Jude 3 - Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

a. Jude 3 is a crucial passage on the completeness of our Bibles. This statement, penned by Jude before the NT was complete, nevertheless looked forward to the completion of the entire canon... In the Greek text the definite article preceding “faith” points to the one and only faith. There is no other. Such passages as Gal 1:23 (“He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith”) and 1 Tim 4:1 (“In latter times some will fall away from the faith”) indicate this objective use of the expression “the faith” was common in apostolic times. Greek scholar Henry Alford wrote that the faith is “objective here: the sum of that which Christians believe.” Note also the crucial phrase “once for all” in Jude 3 (KJV). The Greek word here is hapax, which refers to something done for all time, with lasting results, never needing repetition. Nothing needs to be added to the faith that has been delivered “once for all.” George Lawlor, who has written an excellent work on Jude, made the following comment:

The Christian faith is unchangeable, which is not to say that men and women of every generation do not need to find it, experience it, and live it; but it does mean that every new doctrine that arises, even though its legitimacy may be plausibly asserted, is a false doctrine. All claims to convey some additional revelation to that which has been given by God in this body of truth are false claims and must be rejected.

Also important in Jude 3 is the word “delivered.” In the Greek it is an aorist passive participle, which in this context indicates an act completed in the past with no continuing element. In this instance the passive voice means the faith was not discovered by men, but given to men by God. And so through the Scriptures God has given us a body of teaching that is final and complete. Our Christian faith rests on historical, objective revelation. That rules out all prophecies, seers, and other forms of new revelation until God speaks again at the return of Christ (cf. Acts 2:16-21; Rev 1:1-13). In the meantime, Scripture warns us to be wary of false prophets. Jesus said that in our age “false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect” (Matt 24:24). Signs and wonders are no proof that a person speaks for God. John wrote, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

Ultimately, Scripture is the test of everything; it is the Christian’s standard. In fact, the word canon means “a rule, standard, or measuring rod.” The canon of Scripture is the measuring rod of the Christian faith, and it is complete.

(From Does God Still Give Revelation?)

4. Revelation 22:18-19 - I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

From James Lee - Candidate for MDiv at the Master's Seminary:

An understanding of the historical background of John’s apocalyptic writing will disclose the motivation for the warning of verse 22:18. In the late A.D. 90’s, false teaching and prophecies ran amuck within the church (cf. Rev. 2:2.) The church of Thyatira had tolerated the teachings of the false prophetess Jezebel (Rev. 2:20,) and some in the church of Pergamum adopted the teaching of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:15) and of Balaam (Rev. 2:14). Also, “John’s commendation of others in Thyatira who had not known “the deep things” (τὰ βαθέα) of Satan (2:24) may indicate prophetic activity whose source was satanic.”[1] The epistles of John, which were written not too long before the book of Revelation, also reveal the threat of false teaching and prophecy. In 1 John 4:1-6, the Apostle commands the readers to test the spirits. John is most likely referring to the secessionist deceivers who were deceiving the church.[2] Because of all the threats of false prophecy, John knew it was necessary to pen the warnings of Revelation 22:18-19. He was not just concerned with the addition and subtraction to the specific book of Revelation, but false teaching in general. Since false prophets claimed divine authority, they challenged God’s true messenger, Apostle John, in disclosing divine truths. Therefore, the warning in Revelation may be seen as a way of ending any confusion over prophetic authority – it anticipated the completion of revelation after the closure of the book. [3]

The expectancy of prophetic cessation is not only demonstrated in John’s motivation for writing Revelation 22:18-19, but the warning itself gives reason to believe that divine revelation has ceased. In John’s Apocalypse, revelatory elements extend from the lifetime of John until eternity future. Therefore “[a]ny type of prophetic utterance would intrude into the domain of this coverage and constitute either an addition to or subtraction from Revelation’s content. So the final book of the Bible is also the concluding product of the NT prophecy.” [4]

[1] David Farnell, “Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today? Part 1: The Current Debate about New Testament Prophecy,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 149:595 (Jul 92): 283.

[2] Ibid, 282-283.

[3] Ibid, 284.

[4] Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 517.

____________

5. 1 Corinthians 13:8 - Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

Many scholars believe that the section here talks about gift ceasing with either the closing of the canon or the maturation of the church.

For treatments on this text go to Cessationism in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12

VII. The Testimony of History

The greatest persons in church history after the early overwhelming agree on cessationism. In fact, all the greatest events in church history happened without spiritual gifts and miracles ie the Reformation, the Great Awakening, etc.

From SF Pulpit

John Chrysostom (c. 344–407):

This whole place [speaking about 1 Corinthians 12] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. [1]

*****

Augustine (354–430):

In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. [2]

*****

Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466):

In former times those who accepted the divine preaching and who were baptized for their salvation were given visible signs of the grace of the Holy Spirit at work in them. Some spoke in tongues which they did not know and which nobody had taught them, while others performed miracles or prophesied. The Corinthians also did these things, but they did not use the gifts as they should have done. They were more interested in showing off than in using them for the edification of the church. . . . Even in our time grace is given to those who are deemed worthy of holy baptism, but it may not take the same form as it did in those days. [3]

*****

Martin Luther (1483–1546):

[Rather than acknowledging the availability of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, as the spiritual enthusiasts of his time did, Luther (in his Large Catechism) defined the Holy Spirit’s gifts as:]

· the holy Christian Church,· the communion of saints,· the forgiveness of sins,· the resurrection of the body, and· the life everlasting[Thus in the Large Catechism, he writes:]

Learn this article, then, as clearly as possible. If you are asked, What do you mean by the words, “I believe in the Holy Spirit”? you can answer, “I believe that the Holy Spirit makes me holy, as his name implies.” How does he do this? By what means? Answer: “Through the Christian church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” In the first place, he has a unique community in the world. It is the mother that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God. The Holy Spirit reveals and preaches that Word, and by it he illumines and kindles hearts so that they grasp and accept it, cling to it, and persevere in it” [4]

[As The Encyclopedia of Religion concludes: “Both Luther and Calvin wrote that the age of miracles was over and that their occurrence should not be expected.”]

*****

John Calvin (1509–1564):

Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift [of miracles] to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in the Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give lustre to the gospel while it was new or in a state of obscurity. [5]

“…the gift of healing, like the rest of the miracles, which the Lord willed to be brought forth for a time, has vanished away in order to make the preaching of the Gospel marvellous for ever.” [6]

*****

John Owen (1616–1683):

“Gifts which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties, that dispensation of the Spirit is long since ceased and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastic delusion.” [7]

*****

Thomas Watson (c 1620–1686):

“Sure, there is as much need of ordination now as in Christ’s time and in the time of the apostles, there being then extraordinary gifts in the church which are now ceased.” [8]

*****

Matthew Henry (1662–1714):

What these gifts were is at large told us in the body of the chapter [1 Corinthians 12]; namely, extraordinary offices and powers, bestowed on ministers and Christians in the first ages, for conviction of unbelievers, and propagation of the gospel. [9]

The gift of tongues was one new product of the spirit of prophecy and given for a particular reason, that, the Jewish pale being taken down, all nations might be brought into the church. These and other gifts of prophecy, being a sign, have long since ceased and been laid aside, and we have no encouragement to expect the revival of them; but, on the contrary, are directed to call the scriptures the more sure word of prophecy, more sure than voices from heaven; and to them we are directed to take heed, to search them, and to hold them fast, 2 Peter 1:29. [10]

*****

Conyers Middleton (1683–1750):

We have no sufficient reason to believe, upon the authority of the primitive fathers, that any such powers were continued to the church, after the days of the Apostles.[11]

*****

John Gill (1697–1771):

[Commenting on 1 Corinthians 12:9 and 30:]

Now these gifts were bestowed in common, by the Spirit, on apostles, prophets, and pastors, or elders of the church, in those early times: the Alexandrian copy, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, “by one Spirit”. [12]

No; when these gifts were in being, all had them not. When anointing with oil, in order to heal the sick, was in use, it was only performed by the elders of the church, not by the common members of it, who were to be sent for by the sick on this occasion. [13]

*****

Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758):

In the days of his [Jesus’] flesh, his disciples had a measure of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, being enabled thus to teach and to work miracles. But after the resurrection and ascension, was the most full and remarkable effusion of the Spirit in his miraculous gifts that ever took place, beginning with the day of Pentecost, after Christ had risen and ascended to heaven. And in consequence of this, not only here and there an extraordinary person was endowed with these extraordinary gifts, but they were common in the church, and so continued during the lifetime of the apostles, or till the death of the last of them, even the apostle John, which took place about a hundred years from the birth of Christ; so that the first hundred years of the Christian era, or the first century, was the era of miracles. But soon after that, the canon of Scripture being completed when the apostle John had written the book of Revelation, which he wrote not long before his death, these miraculous gifts were no longer continued in the church. For there was now completed an established written revelation of the mind and will of God, wherein God had fully recorded a standing and all-sufficient rule for his church in all ages. And the Jewish church and nation being overthrown, and the Christian church and the last dispensation of the church of God being established, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were no longer needed, and therefore they ceased; for though they had been continued in the church for so many ages, yet then they failed, and God caused them to fail because there was no further occasion for them. And so was fulfilled the saying of the text, “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.” And now there seems to be an end to all such fruits of the Spirit as these, and we have no reason to expect them any more. [14]

Of the extraordinary gifts, they were given in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of Scriptures has been completed, and the Christian church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased. [15]

*****

George Whitefield (1714-1770):

[After being accused of practicing the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, said:]

I never did pretend to these extraordinary operations of working miracles, or speaking with tongues [since] the karismata, the miraculous gifts conferred on the primitive church . . . have long since ceased. [16]

*****

James Buchanan (1804-1870):

The miraculous gifts of the Spirit have long since been withdrawn. They were used for a temporary purpose. They were the scaffolding with God employed for the erection of a spiritual temple. When it was no longer needed the scaffolding was taken down, but the temple still stands, and is occupied by his indwelling Spirit; for, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you” (I Cor. 3:16). [17]

*****

Robert L. Dabney (1820–1898):

After the early church had been established, the same necessity for supernatural signs now no longer existed, and God, Who is never wasteful in His expedients, withdrew them. . . . Miracles, if they became ordinary, would cease to be miracles, and would be referred by men to customary law. [18]

*****

Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892):

[The believers mentioned in the book of Hebrews] had attained the summit of piety. They had received “the powers of the world to come.” Not miraculous gifts, which are denied us in these days, but all those powers with which the Holy Ghost endows a Christian. And what are they? Why, there is the power of faith, which commands even the heavens themselves to rain, and they rain, or stops the bottles of heaven, that they rain not. There is the power of prayer, which puts a ladder between earth and heaven, and bids angels walk up and down, to convey our wants to God, and bring down blessings from above. There is the power with which God girds his servant when he speaks by inspiration, which enables him to instruct others, and lead them to Jesus; and whatever other power there may be—the power of holding communion with God, or the power of patient waiting for the Son of Man—they were possessed by these individuals. [19]

The works of the Holy Spirit which are at this time vouchsafed to the Church of God are every way as valuable as those earlier miraculous gifts which have departed from us. The work of the Holy Spirit, by which men are quickened from their death in sin, is not inferior to the power which made men speak with tongues. [20]

[Speaking of the office of the apostles,] an office which necessarily dies out, and properly so, because the miraculous power also is withdrawn. [21]

*****

George Smeaton (1814–1889):

The supernatural or extraordinary gifts were temporary, and intended to disappear when the Church should be founded and the inspired canon of Scripture closed; for they were an external proof of an internal inspiration. [22]

*****

Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920):

Many of the charismata, given to the apostolic church, are not of service to the church of the present day. [23]

*****

William G. T. Shedd (1820–1894):

The supernatural gifts of inspiration and miracles which the apostles possessed were not continued to their ministerial successors, because they were no longer necessary. All the doctrines of Christianity had been revealed to the apostles, and had been delivered to the church in a written form. There was no further need of an infallible inspiration. And the credentials and authority give to the first preachers of Christianity in miraculous acts, did not need continual repetition from age to age. One age of miracles well authenticated is sufficient to establish the divine origin of the gospel. In a human court, an indefinite series of witnesses is not required. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses,” the facts are established. The case once decided is not reopened. [24]

*****

Benjamin B. Warfield (1887–1921):

These gifts were not the possession of the primitive Christian as such; nor for that matter of the Apostolic Church or the Apostolic age for themselves; they were distinctively the authentication of the Apostles. They were part of the credentials of the Apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. Their function thus confined them to distinctively the Apostolic Church and they necessarily passed away with it. [25]

*****

Arthur W. Pink (1886–1952):

As there were offices extraordinary (apostles and prophets) at the beginning of our dispensation, so there were gifts extraordinary; and as successors were not appointed for the former, so a continuance was never intended for the latter. The gifts were dependent upon the officers. We no longer have the apostles with us and therefore the supernatural gifts (the communication of which was an essential part of “the signs of an apostle,” II Cor. 12:12) are absent. [26]

Theodicy: The Problem of Evil and God - ||Work in Progress||-

2008-03-08T00:16:00.021-06:00

Theodicy

I was hesitant to put this article online in an unpolished form, but it is in response to a recent lecture we had in medical school about spirituality and medicine. The speaker posed this question to our class and I had to go back and think about it. This is something I came up with some time ago, but never got around to putting the finishing touches on it (so please forgive the mess!).

I am indebted to Dr. John S. Feinberg for his book where I was blessed with most of these ideas:

The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil

I HIGHLY recommend this book to anyone who seriously wants to tackle this problem. All page references are to this book.

First things first, we must ask ourselves Does God owe us anything? In fact, Christians claim that we only deserve His righteous judgment. So any suffering that does come our way is far less than what we deserve and any blessing far more than we ever merited. One of the major problems we have is that are natural disposition is to feel that God is entitled to give us a basic minimum, when this is simply not the case (and even harder to show logically that He is entitled).

In a nutshell:

If we deserve something from God --> If He doesn't satisfy that minimum, He is evil or probably does not exist (at least not as the Christian God)

If we deserve nothing from God --> We cannot blame Him for not giving us something nor when bad things befall us

With that said...

*************************
What is theodicy?

In short how can an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God allow evil?

The problem of evil must first be separated out into two different aspects:

1. The real purpose of all evil - maybe possible to answer (Would have to get the answer straight from God)

2. Possible explanation of why it exists - definitely possible to answer (We could come up with logical scenarios as to why God would allow evil, though they might not be the absolute real reason or simply part of the reason)
Another important aspect to remember is that there are many problems of evil not just one. The problem most people refer to is the logical problem of evil, however there is:

a) The religious/personal problem of evil (Why is this happening to me?)

b) The evidential problem (Evil used as evidence against God)

c) The problem of natural evil (Evil in nature)

d) The problem of hell

Remember the logical problem of evil is asking if it is coherent that God can be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and let evil exist (David Hume's critique). This is the problem most people bring against Christianity and thus will be the main topic of this blog (with some additional comments on the other problems.) If we show that the above mentioned statements are logically non-contradictory, we have settled the argument, regardless if the opponent is displeased or disagrees with the answer, for all we need to show is that God and evil can be logical coherent.

It is super important to keep in mind that the logical answer to the problem of evil will not necessarily help out someone who is struggling with the religious/personal problem of evil. So don't try to comfort someone who is in pain by saying "Hey, I know how to logically reconcile your situation and an omnibenevolent God" b/c it probably won't help.

It is also crucial that the problem of evil be addressed within the various theological systems (i.e Calvinism and Arminism each answering for itself). The great thing is, even if you don't agree with the system (in fact I really don't agree with Hicks and Adams) it can still answer the problem of evil and accomplish our goal.

The Free Will Defense

Major Proponents: Augustine & Plantinga

Is it required of God to remove moral evil?

1. Free will is a good thing and God bestowed it upon humans (and fallen angels). It is impossible to have free will without the chance to do evil. God gave man (Adam) all the blessings and easiest opportunities to prove himself, but he made a wrong choice. In this way, when Adam and Satan fell, evil entered the world through their agency, thus evil in no way had its origin in God.

2. Moral evil is the product of human willing, which is permitted by God (pg 61). All evil comes from sinners and not God. Should God take away our choices and make us robots? Is it fair for God to let us reap the rewards or punishments of our choices. Why should He come in and stop us and would we want to live in a world where He restricted our freedoms like that?

3. Free will is a gift to us to use for good and for God to reward us. Should God be at fault for our misuse of it? - Augustine

Extra Notes:

a. Augustine also said that God's foreknowledge does not necessitate man's sin.

b. Plantinga notes that "God creates a world containing evil and has good reason for it." We don't have to know the exact reason, but simply understand there is one.

c. Freedom + evil is better than being a robot

d. Take away moral evil, you have to take away some good. [Things like courage and hope could not exist w/o evil.]

Theonomy

Major Proponent: William Ockham

1. God is not bound by moral laws, therefore by def. he cannot do evil

2. God voluntarily submits himself to the moral laws his creatures have to follow and if He has never violated one of those laws, He is cleared, as long as He is not obligated to remove all evil (and He does not). Thus God is neither impotent nor evil.

On free will (off-topic):

a. He would answer Newcomb's paradox by saying you would choose whatever God predicted, however were you not free in that choice at the same time?

b. God's foreknowledge has no causal power to perform an act.

Leibnizian Rationalism/Most Metaphysical Rich World

1. In making a world God could've made one all good, all evil, or a mix of both. In a sense the all good and evil world's are "incomplete" and thus making a world that contains both good and evil is more "complete" and better (metaphysically) - it has the most "reality." This holds especially true if the evil can be used for didactic purposes, to prevent other evils, or to highlight the good (as in consequential ethics).

2. God is omniscient therefore He knows every possible idea even though they may not be realized (ie God can't know what a round square is, but He does know about evil b/c it is possible). In this way God did not create evil, it is just a possibility.

3. This world wasn't made for man's maximal happiness and in fact. A world in which man is maximally happy is not necessarily the best, therefore God should rather make the world that is better than the "happy world." Leibniz believed God didn't make the world for man's happiness, b/c God was interested in making the best possible world, which was not a world of maximally happy men. God knows all possible worlds and when He chose to form ours He knew it was the best one - better than one without evil.

4. The world is best in toto, but not in its parts. Looking at an isolated piece of evil may leave you asking questions, but if you could step back and see the whole picture it makes sense.

Hick's Soul Binding Theodicy

Is the world the type of environment that fits its primary purpose "soul binding" (building up one's soul). People with (libertarian) freedom is part of this world and it is not God's fault if they don't exercise that gift within this environment.

Marilyn Adams

God's beatific vision for us to suffer and grow closer to Him and to understand Him (to suffer righteously as He did) more.

Feinberg

1. The way men are created they are built in with desire. Desire gone astray (James 1:15-17) produces sin. Some of the surrounding conditions may be brought about by God, but "the temptation to evil and the actual willing of evil stem not from God, but from man."

2. Humans are not sub or superhumans ie we are what we are. "Why not make a another creature who is unable to do evil?" - God intended to make non-glorified human beings. In Christian theology, glorified human beings cannot sin (think in heaven). However, it was not God's intention for us, while on Earth to be like that. It is important to remember we are, in God's eyes, the pinnacle of creation. The point here is we are created with a high intrinsic value already and cannot fault God for making us less than perfect. (Think complaining of about a $50,000 engagement ring b/c you want a million dollar one)

3. Though Satan may tempt us, the problem originates in us and saying "Satan made me do it" will not hold up on judgment day.

4. If God were to remove all evil right now, we would still sin - Adam did why not us? Remember, we would all be frozen if God removed all evil and even our well intentioned deeds that would lead to evil (like accidents) would have to be frozen.

5. Everyone says that God can make some better world or could have made the eternal state now. But this is better in what way? God could've had a reason to make this world. God can't make the non-glorified human he made and also accomplish the goals he has achieved by creating our world.

6. One of the general points of this view (modified rationalism) is that our universe is one of the good universes. It may not necessarily be the best, in fact, Feinberg might ask "Does it make sense to even ask 'What the Best Universe' is? And according to who?' " Therefore evil has an important purpose in the universe and without it our particular universe could not exist (ie to show the love of Christ on the Cross among other things). We don't have to like the reason God uses evil, but remember this is about logically coherency, NOT IF WE AGREE WITH GOD.

(Unattached) Natural Evil (ie acts of nature)

1. Some natural evil could be caused by humans (and as a logical possibility demons)

2. God made the world perfect and it is by virtue of the fall that nature is afflicted.

3. Everyone will die and death is meted out by different causes (genetic, natural, moral/human acts)

4. No one deserves grace and God is (by def. of grace) not required to give it and in fact probably does hold back a lot.

5. Nature's processes are good and regular (cf. miracle intervened world). Remember, what's the difference btwn a good rain and a drought or a flood - too little or too much.

6. God does not and should not remove natural processes

Evidential Case of Evil

In a nutshell, it says that the very existence of evil negates God or that it is rational (i.e. probability wise) to be an atheist

1. Many atheist philosophers agree that it is God and evil are logically consistent and that theist can argue against Hume's points.

2. Go the Van Tillian (presuppositional) route and say one cannot define evil without God - For than what defines good and evil?

3. The probabilities will always be in dispute depending on your presuppositions. Think about the intelligent design vs evolution debate.
4. Must consider all the background evidence, not just evil's existence to when considering the nonexistence of God. Evil counts against God and is given some -% value, but design in nature, the cosmological argument, the moral argument are all +%. See Plantinga's example of Frisian swimmers on page 209. Depending on your presuppositions, you will give different %.
5. We do not have to be cognizant of God's purposes for evil and we may not rationally have epistemic access to it.

6. Our reactions to evil and our feelings of disgust don't (logically) negate God's existence b/c we would feel the same way if He did not exist (ie our personal dislike/feelings for evil do not logically negate His existence).

7.Wykstra's Parent Argument (suffer now for some later good see #8 below) + Core Naturalism (the believe where evil has no purpose b/c the whole world is purely physical) and then someone shifts to Core Theism (That evil has purpose) = Good argument pg 233 [This is really complex, so I'm not even going to try to explain it here...]

8. Atheists want to know the why there is seemingly pointless evil, but they must show an actual instance of pointless suffering b/c we all have experiences where are hardships made us stronger. Consider someone who missed a plane for the birth of their child and was super angry yelling at God "What was the point of me missing this?!" only to find out that plane crashed. Point is there may be no pointless suffering.
9. Can flip the argument on them and say b/c there are so many numinous/divine experiences it is doubtful God does not exist. (Presuppositions are key*)
10. Our noetic structure will make us assign different probabilities to variable regarding the evidence for or against God's existence. Why can't God be properly basic identity that defies evidence. B/c of our biased presuppositions all probability arguments are purely autobiographical.
11. If God were to come down and intervene every time an evil act or thought would occur - what kind of world would this be? And would it even be a better world?

Gems/Personal Insights (may be unrelated):

0. Relational view of God and His desire to show His whole character to us.
1. Flew's Freewill = unconstrained, able to make other choices, can be casually determined. Think of Dennet's example. If you had to kill someone to protect the whole world, you are compelled to do it, but you could freely choose to do otherwise - you freely will to kill the person based on the consequences. As opposed to, someone who hates the world and thus doesn't care if it goes away, but scientists knowing this decide to control him with some sort of brain manipulating device. In this instance you to kill the person even though you don't will it, thus it is not freewill.]
Remember randomness in making decisions (incompatibalism) is not good*
2. The Two Utopias Hypothesis: Eden and Heaven. Heaven; Eden, Heaven is not possible w/o Sin and Christ.
3. If a person can freely choose God, theoretically he can do so for every choice.
4. Humans in heaven never sin and b/c Jesus was fully human and never sinned (assuming impeccability) always choosing good in not incompatible w/ humanity nor free will.
5. Frankfurt style + compatibilism defense of free will = Don't need alternate possibilities + Able to be causally determined and still have alternate choices
6. The problem of incompatibilism and omniscience = If incompatiblism is correct and there aren't antecedent conditions.
7. Boethian Free Will: God sees all of time (all is "present"), but we don't know and we are bound by the 4 dimensions.
8. Glorified beings in the eternal state do not possess the same kind of human nature as ours.
9. Augustinian vs Irenian Tradition:
a) Augustinian tradition tries to put the responsibility of evil away from God unto man.
b) Irenian tradition tries to justify God's ultimate reason for evil.
10. God voluntarily steps into time, so does it even make sense to question what predestining in atemporality is?
11. Evil is allowed for the "common good" (like necessary for the eternal state) see #2.
12. We are not responsible for creating our nature it is by def. forces external to us that do (whether evolution or God). We are built in with a natural inclination toward God, the eternal state can be a place where all barriers (sin) are removed from that natural inclination.
13. There are only oh so many ways for God to remove evil from this world, why not through Christ and the eternal state? Comparatively speaking our world is way less than 1% of known history. Remember it is not a question of if God will get rid of evil, only when.
14. We don't necessarily have to show the morally sufficient reason why God created this world, just that this is a good world. To say that their is a better world God could've made is beyond what is necessary for the logical problem of evil.
15. God's chief end is to bring Himself glory and to show His goodness to creation. All creation is made to Glorify God.
16. Satan & Co. may take some responsibility for natural and other evils.
17. If God created a world where miraculously intervened: a) would destroy predicted regularity.
18. If God created a world with less evil (no evil) how do you show that the world would be significantly better? Must show
19. Who has the burden of proof with the evidential problem of evil. The atheist is the one who is saying that evil is evidence against God, than all theists need to do is defend instead of making a positive case for theism.
20. If God had permitted less evil than He has actually permitted whatever free creatures He had would have acted less well (or less free?) than His actual free creatures actually do.

********************
Personal Notes

1. I am a compatibalistic in term of free will and a consequentialist in terms of my ethics (though I have nonconsequentialist inklings)
2. My theodicy is that God wanted to make Himself known to us and enter into a full relationship with us and that entailed revealing His love for us on the Cross.
3. My defense is [for now] the value of free will (I think incomp. free will is logically incoherent) and that God has a sufficient moral reason for allowing evil and we don't need to know it b/c this is a good world (but perhaps the best - if there is such a notion).
4. Remember Romans 9 God can do what he wants.
5. See John Piper's Justification of God for more on Romans 9
6. Remember Adam brought this upon himself - the test was so easy!
7. Realize there are severe consequences and the eality of sin.
8. Angels are superhuman beings and it is difficult to ascertain the capacities of their free will.
9. Human beings sin caused their lifespan to be 120 (evidence of God withholding evil, along w/ government and the role of the Holy Spirit)
10. God did make everything perfect! The Fall has definite effects ie death. Everyone must die whether its from disease (slow or fast), genetic, or from nature. This was God's warning to Adam. Does it make God worse to mete out one death versus another.
11. No one deserves grace! All have sinned and fall short!
12. Against the evidential argument for evil: Is there a ontological necessity between the existence of (grautitous) evil and the non-existence of God? No, rather evil can only be explained by God.
13. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Resolution: The theories are not reconcilable, however are perfect in regards to describing their associated phenomenom. God's sovereignty and our free will are an instance of this "paradox," rather resolution.

A Response to Pharyngula: Human Chromosome 2 and Balanced Translocations

2007-12-05T14:17:00.006-06:00

Pharyngula's Blog in response to Casey Luskin

Balanced translocations in humans result in 45 chromosomes, horrendedous mutations, or nothing at all.

See here for a helpful diagram (source - Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals):

In other words you can have these scenarios:

1. The exact same genome from before (ie that it has 46 chromosomes)
2. 45 Chromosome (the balanced translocation is passed on)
3. Monosomy- 45 chromosomes and almost invariably harmful
4. Trisomy - 46 alleles, but with an extra chromosome - almost invariably harmful

Evolutionists are purposing that our "common" ancestor had 48 chromosomes evidenced by our chromosome 2 that looks like 2 primate chromosomes fused.

So here's the scenario.

1. Balanced translocation (BT1) - 47 chromosome
2. Mated and passed on (BT1).
3. BT1 confers some selective advantage, though it is the same genetic material, and 3/4 of its offspring would not transfer BT1 and 1/2 have severe anamolies.
4. Another balanced translocation happens (BT2)
5. Progeny of BT1 and BT 2 transfer their respected balanced translocations (25% chance that the progeny receive BT1 and BT2).
6. The coveted 46 chromosome progeny!
7. Unfortunately there are no other 46 progeny to copulate with unless it is his sister.
8. What about their progeny?!?! It is well known that consanguineous (genetically related) offspring have severe problems as well.

Of course there are lots of other things to this such as certain chromosomes are more likely to translocate than others (in humans 13, 14, 15, 21, and 22) - what chromosomes are more likely to translocate in modern primates, the ones that are similar to our chromosome 2?

Or the fact that this would have needed to happen in a significantly short time (see my post on Haldane's dilemma) with the BT1 progeny population growing sufficient enough to create enough random events for the BT2 translocation. In fact, they would need a lot more progeny b/c 3/4 of their offspring would not help make the BT2 translocation and again 1/2 would have severe anamolies. Remember there is only approximatley 6.5 million years from the point we "separated" from primates.

In addition, if BT1 and BT2 were to have happened incredibly fast, so that no (or limited ie they can still mate) speciation were to have occured, the new BT1/BT2 46 chromosome primate would definitely have a child with trisomy (again invariably harmful).

More on this later... but I think this is enough.

Brief Chronology of the The Kings of Israel and Judah

2007-11-12T14:41:00.012-06:00

1 and 2 Kings and Chronicles Chronology

*Indicates a Righteous King

Judah

1. Rehoboam

a. Took the counsel of his friend's and split the Kingdom

b. Leads Judah to Idolatry

c. Constant war w/ Jeroboam

d. Prophet: Shemaiah stops Jeroboam's plan by telling Judah not to attack Israel.

e. Shishak of Egypt Invades

2. Abijam

a. Sinned like his father

b. Defeats Jeroboam/Israel b/c he trusted in God.

3. Asa*

a. Removed his grandmother Maacah from being queen mother b/c of the Asherah.

b. Persuaded Ben-hadad King of ARam to betray Baasha King of Israel and open up routes into and out of Judah, instead of trusting in God.

c. Removed the high places and commanded to observe the law.

d. Defeated an army of one million Ethiopians. 2 Chronicles 14:11b "LORD, there is no one besides You to help in the battle between the powerful and those who have no strength; so help us, O LORD our God, for we trust in You, and in Your name have come against this multitude. O LORD, You are our God; let not man prevail against You."

e. Prophet: Azariah, Hanani (who he threw in prison for telling him he should not have trusted in Ben-hadad)

f. Died bitter against God.

4. Jehoshaphat*

a. Fought together with Ahab bringing about God's wrath.

b. Married to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel and formed an alliance of Israel.

c. Prophet: Micaiah - When the 400 "prophets" of Israel said that they would be victorious in the battle of Ramoth-gilead (Aram), he told them God would not. Jehu - After talking to the king, he institutes reforms in all Judah.

5. Joram/Jehoram

a. 2 Kings 8:22 "So Edom revolted against Judah to this day Then Libnah revolted at the same time."

b. Killed all his brothers and some of the rulers of Israel.

c. Married Ahab's daughter.

d. Prophet: Elijah said God will strike him with a bowel disease for his treachery.

6. Ahaziah

a. 2 Kings 8:26b "And his mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri king of Israel."

b. 2 Kings 11: 1 When Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she rose and destroyed all the royal offspring. 2But Jehosheba, the daughter of King Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of Ahaziah and stole him from among the king's sons who were being put to death, and placed him and his nurse in the bedroom. So they hid him from Athaliah, and he was not put to death. 3So he was hidden with her in the house of the LORD six years, while Athaliah was reigning over the land...20So all the people of the land rejoiced and the city was quiet. For they had put Athaliah to death with the sword at the king's house.

c. Slain by Jehu.

7. Jehoash/Joash* The Hidden King

a. 2 Kings 12:2 Jehoash did right in the sight of the LORD all his days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him. - Started reign at age 7.

b. Reparied the temple.

c. 2 Kings 12:17 Then Hazael king of Aram went up and fought against Gath and captured it, and Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem. 18Jehoash king of Judah took all the sacred things that Jehoshaphat and Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own sacred things and all the gold that was found among the treasuries of the house of the LORD and of the king's house, and sent them to Hazael king of Aram. Then he went away from Jerusalem.

d. Assassinated at the house of Millo b/c he killed the High-Priest Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:20-22) the son of Jehoiada and was not buried in the tomb of the kings.

e. Before his inauguration, the priest Jehoiado led a coup against Athaliah and had the Levites protect him 24/7.

f. Jehoiada the priest reinstituted the priestly service, the Law, and killed the worshipers of Baal.

8. Amaziah*

a. 2 Kings 14: 5 Now it came about, as soon as the kingdom was firmly in his hand, that he killed his servants who had slain the king his father. 6But the sons of the slayers he did not put to death, according to what is written in the book of the Law of Moses, as the LORD commanded, saying, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the sons, nor the sons be put to death for the fathers; but each shall be put to death for his own sin

b. Challenged Jehoash king of Israel, in hubris, b/c he defeated Edom and lost to him.

c. Turned away from the Lord and was assassinated in Lachish.

9. Azariah/Uzziah*

a. Inaugurated at 16.

b. Struck with leprosy b/c in pride he tried to usurp the priestly function of burning incense.

10. Jotham*

a. Co-regent with his father after Uzziah was struck with leprosy.

b. Built the upper gate of the house of the LORD and cities in Judah.

c. Prophet: Zechariah (different one)

11. Ahaz

a. War with Rezin king of Aram and sought the help of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria.

b. 2 Kings 16;10 Now King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and saw the altar which was at Damascus; and King Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the pattern of the altar and its model, according to all its workmanship

c. Made alterations to the altar and temple in Jerusalem.

d. Worshiped Baal and even passed his sons through the fire.

e. Judah was given over to Aram and Israel during this time.

f. Prophet: Oded. The Israelites were going to take 200,000 slaves from Judah after they were defeated in battle, but he told them they had much guilt and sin before God as well. The Israelites agreed, clothed the naked, anointed with oil, and even put the feeble of Judah and took them to Jericho.

12. Hezekiah*

a. Prophet = Isaiah, Micah

b. Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against Jersualem and his commander Rabshakeh, insisted they give up or be destroyed. Hezekiah prays for deliverance and 2 Kings 19:35 Then it happened that night that the angel of the LORD went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men rose early in the morning, behold, all of them were dead.

c. Hezekiah was about to die, but he prayed and the LORD gave him 15 years.

d Berodach-baladan a son of Baladan, king of Babylon, came and Hezekiah arrogantly showed off all his riches to him. For this deed Isaiah told him

2 Kings20:17 'Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house, and all that your fathers have laid up in store to this day will be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left,' says the LORD. 18'Some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you will beget, will be taken away; and they will become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.'... 19Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, "The word of the LORD which you have spoken is good." For he thought, "Is it not so, if there will be peace and truth in my days?"

3. Jeremiah 26:18 "Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, 'Thus the LORD of hosts has said, "Zion will be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem will become ruins, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest."' - Hezekiah did not put him to death and this analogy was used to spare Jeremiah as well.

4. Led reforms to quickly establish worship back in Jerusalem and reversed all the idolatry of Ahaz.

5. Sent couriers to throughout Judah and even Israel to invite them to worship the Passover.

6. 2 Chrnoicles 30:17For there were many in the assembly who had not consecrated themselves; therefore, the Levites were over the slaughter of the Passover lambs for everyone who was unclean, in order to consecrate them to the LORD. 18For a multitude of the people, even many from Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not purified themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than prescribed. For Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, "May the good LORD pardon 19everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though not according to the purification rules of the sanctuary." 20So the LORD heard Hezekiah and healed the people.

7. 2 Chronicles 32:31Even in the matter of the envoys of the rulers of Babylon, who sent to him to inquire of the wonder that had happened in the land, God left him alone only to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.

13. Manasseh

a. 2 Kings 21:3 For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he erected altars for Baal and made an Asherah, as Ahab king of Israel had done, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them... 6He made his son pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and used divination, and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD provoking Him to anger

b. 2 Kings 21:10 Now the LORD spoke through His servants the prophets, saying, 11"Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations, having done wickedly more than all the Amorites did who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols; 12therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am bringing such calamity on Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle.

c. 2 Kings 21:16 Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; besides his sin with which he made Judah sin, in doing evil in the sight of the LORD.

d. After being captured by Assyria, he humbled himself before the LORD and removed all the idols he had once placed all over Judah.

e. Reigned starting from age 12.

14. Amon

a. 2Kings 21:23The servants of Amon conspired against him and killed the king in his own house. 24Then the people of the land killed all those who had conspired against King Amon, and the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his place.

15. Josiah*

a. Was 8 when he started his monarchy!

b. 2 Kings 22:8 Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan who read it.

c. Josiah removed all idol worship from Judah:

2 Kings 23:16Now when Josiah turned, he saw the graves that were there on the mountain, and he sent and took the bones from the graves and burned them on the altar and defiled it according to the word of the LORD which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these things... (cf. 1 Kings 13:2) 19 Josiah also removed all the houses of the high places which were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made provoking the LORD; and he did to them just as he had done in Bethel. 20All the priests of the high places who were there he slaughtered on the altars and burned human bones on them; then he returned to Jerusalem.

d. Reinstituted the Passover and 2 Kings 23:25 Before him there was no king like him who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him. 26However, the LORD did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath with which His anger burned against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked Him.

27The LORD said, "I will remove Judah also from My sight, as I have removed Israel And I will cast off Jerusalem, this city which I have chosen, and the temple of which I said, 'My name shall be there.'"

e. 2 Kings 23:29 In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates And King Josiah went to meet him, and when Pharaoh Neco saw him he killed him at Megiddo.

f. Prophets/Prophetess: Jeremiah and Huldah

16. Jehoahaz the son of Josiah

a. Reigned only 3 months than 2 Kings 23:33 Pharaoh Neco imprisoned him at Riblah in the land of Hamath, that he might not reign in Jerusalem; and he imposed on the land a fine of one hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold.

b. Jeremiah 22:11 For thus says the LORD in regard to Shallum the son of Josiah, king of Judah, who became king in the place of Josiah his father, who went forth from this place, "He will never return there; 12but in the place where they led him captive, there he will die and not see this land again.

17. Eliakim/Jehoiakim the son of Josiah

a. 2 Kings 23:34Pharaoh Neco made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the place of Josiah his father, and changed his name to Jehoiakim But he took Jehoahaz away and brought him to Egypt, and he died there.

b. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, ruled Judah, but he rebelled against him, and destroyed Judah:

2 Kings 24:3 Surely at the command of the LORD it came upon Judah, to remove them from His sight because of the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, 4and also for the innocent blood which he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; and the LORD would not forgive.

3. Jeremiah 22:18 Therefore thus says the LORD in regard to Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah,
"They will not lament for him:
'Alas, my brother!' or, 'Alas, sister!'
They will not lament for him:
'Alas for the master!' or, 'Alas for his splendor!'
19"He will be buried with a donkey's burial,
Dragged off and thrown out beyond the gates of Jerusalem.

4. Jeremiah 26:20 "Indeed, there was also a man who prophesied in the name of the LORD, Uriah the son of Shemaiah from Kiriath-jearim; and he prophesied against this city and against this land words similar to all those of Jeremiah." - He fled to Egypt, but Jehoiakim found and killed him.

18. Jehoiachin/Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim

a. 2 Kings 24:12 Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he and his mother and his servants and his captains and his officials So the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign... 14Then he [Nebuchadnezzar] led away into exile all Jerusalem and all the captains and all the mighty men of valor, ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and the smiths None remained except the poorest people of the land. [Ezekiel included in deportation and started his ministry in captivity]

b. 2 Kings 25: 27 Now it came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he became king, released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison; 28and he spoke kindly to him and set his throne above the throne of the kings who were with him in Babylon. 29Jehoiachin changed his prison clothes and had his meals in the king's presence regularly all the days of his life; 30and for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king, a portion for each day, all the days of his life.

c. The Davidic Line Curse

Jeremiah 22:30"Thus says the LORD,
'Write this man down childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man of his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David
Or ruling again in Judah.'"

d. Prophets: Jeremiah, Ezekiel

19. Mattaniah/Zedekiah the son of Josiah

a. 2 Kings 24:17 Then the king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah.

b. 2 Kings 24;20 For through the anger of the LORD this came about in Jerusalem and Judah until He cast them out from His presence And Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon.

c. Jerusalem was sieged and overtaken and 2 Kings 25:6 Then they captured the king and brought him to the king of Babylon at Riblah, and he passed sentence on him. 7They slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, then put out the eyes of Zedekiah and bound him with bronze fetters and brought him to Babylon.

d. 2 Kings 25: ...Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9He burned the house of the LORD, the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; even every great house he burned with fire. 10So all the army of the Chaldeans who were with the captain of the guard broke down the walls around Jerusalem... 12But the captain of the guard left some of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and plowmen.

e. Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan [Josiah's secretary], was made governor over the people left in Judah.

f. 2 Kings 25:25 But it came about in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama [secretary under Jehoiakim], of the royal family, came with ten men and struck Gedaliah down so that he died along with the Jews and the Chaldeans who were with him at Mizpah [They then fled to Egypt b/c they were afraid of the Babylonians].

g. Jehoiachin is released by Evil-merodac, King of Babylon, the son of Nebuchadenezzar.

h. Of note in 2 Kings 25:18 Seraiah the chief priest is the ancestor of Ezra

i. Zedekiah tried to ally with Pharaoh Apries (aka Hopra) to rebel against Babylon.

j. Prophet: Jeremiah - Zedekiah did not listen to him.

k. 2 Chronicles 36:15The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them again and again by His messengers, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place;

16but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, until there was no remedy.

17Therefore He brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on young man or virgin, old man or infirm; He gave them all into his hand.

18All the articles of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king and of his officers, he brought them all to Babylon.

19Then they burned the house of God and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burned all its fortified buildings with fire and destroyed all its valuable articles.

20Those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia,

Israel

1. Jeroboam I the son of Solomon

a. Promised by God through the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite that he would control 10 tribes (1 Kings 11:31)

b. B/c of his idolatry God cursed him in 13:2 "He cried against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, "O altar, altar, thus says the LORD, 'Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name; and on you he shall sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.'" - Unknown Prophet who was tricked by another and struck down for disobeying God

c. He tells his wife tries to go in disguise adn try to fool Ahijah, but then gets this prophesy in 14:9b-10 I am bringing calamity on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male person, both bond and free in Israel, and I will make a clean sweep of the house of Jeroboam, as one sweeps away dung until it is all gone. 11 "Anyone belonging to Jeroboam who dies in the city the dogs will eat. And he who dies in the field the birds of the heavens will eat; for the LORD has spoken it."'

d. Never recovers from the battle with Abijah

2. Nadab the son of Jeroboam

3. Baasha the son of Ahijah of the house of Issachar

a. 1 Kings 15:27 "...struck him [Nadab] down at Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines, while Nadab and all Israel were laying siege to Gibbethon."

b. Ruled in Tizrah for 24 years.

c. Constant war with Asa.

d. Due to his idolatry, he received the same punishment as Jeroboam.

e. 1 Kings 16:7 "Moreover, the word of the LORD through the prophet Jehu the son of Hanani also came against Baasha and his household, both because of all the evil which he did in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him to anger with the work of his hands, in being like the house of Jeroboam, and because he struck it."

4. Elah the son of Baasha

a. Reigned 2 years - killed while drunk at Tizrah.

5. Zimri the commander of half of Elah's chariots

a. 1 Kings 16:11 "It came about when he became king, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he killed all the household of Baasha; he did not leave a single male, neither of his relatives nor of his friends. 12Thus Zimri destroyed all the household of Baasha, according to the word of the LORD, which He spoke against Baasha through Jehu the prophet"

b. Reigned 7 days from Tizrah and 1 Kings 16:18 "When Zimri saw that the city was taken, he went into the citadel of the king's house and burned the king's house over him with fire, and died" - as a punishment for idolatry.

6. Omri the commander of the army

a. 1Kings 16:17 "Then Omri and all Israel with him went up from Gibbethon and besieged Tirzah."

b. More evil than all the kings before him.

c. Ruled from the hill Samaria.

d. 1 Kings 16: 21-22 "Then the people of Israel were divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; the other half followed Omri. But the people who followed Omri prevailed over the people who followed Tibni the son of Ginath. And Tibni died and Omri became king."

7. Ahab the son of Omri

a. Marries Jezebel 1 Kings 16:31b "the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went to serve Baal and worshiped him."

b.1 Kings 16: 34 "In his days Hiel the Bethelite built Jericho; he laid its foundations with the loss of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates with the loss of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which He spoke by Joshua the son of Nun." (cf. Joshua 6:26)

c. Prophets during his reign: Elijah, Elisha, Obadiah (who helped hide 50 prophets from Jezebel and was close to Ahab), the prophet who told Ahab to attack Ben-hadad (20:13), the "man of God" who told Ahab that he would succeed against Ahab when he came back (20:28), the man of the "son of prophets" who told the man to strike him (20:35), and Micaiah

d. Cursed, but he Humbled himself once before God and it was prolonged until the reign of his son (21:29).

8. Ahaziah the son of Ahab

9. Jehoram/Joram the son of Ahab

a. Ahaziah's brother

b. 2 Kings 3:2He did evil in the sight of the LORD, though not like his father and his mother; for he put away the sacred pillar of Baal which his father had made. 3Nevertheless, he clung to the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel sin; he did not depart from them.

c. Elisha prominent: Miraculous water that came and tricked the Moabites, widow of a prophet's oil, shunammite's woman's miraculous birth of a son and later resurrection from the dead, poisonous stew, Naaman healed/Gehazi becomes a leper, axe head, Aramean's flee from the sound of a great army,

d. Cannibalism from from Ben-haded King of Aram's seige.

e. Jehu anointed by Elisha's messenger: 2 Kings 9:7 "You shall strike the house of Ahab your master, that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the LORD, at the hand of Jezebel."

10. Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi

a. Assassinates Joram King of Israel, Ahaziah King of Judah and all his relatives that he met at at Beth-eked of the shepherds, Jezebel, all 70 of Ahab's sons, and 2 Kings 10:11 "...all who remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men and his acquaintances and his priests, until he left him without a survivor."

b. All the worshipers of Baal

c. Hosea 1:4 And the LORD said to him, "Name him Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.

d. 2 Kings 10:29 However, as for the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel sin, from these Jehu did not depart, even the golden calves that were at Bethel and that were at Dan. 30The LORD said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in executing what is right in My eyes, and have done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in My heart, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel." 31But Jehu was not careful to walk in the law of the LORD, the God of Israel, with all his heart; he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam, which he made Israel sin.

11. Jehoahaz the son of Jehu

a. 2 Kings 13:2 "He did evil in the sight of the LORD, and followed the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel sin; he did not turn from them. 3So the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He gave them continually into the hand of Hazael king of Aram, and into the hand of Ben-hadad the son of Hazael."

12. Jehoash/Joash the son of Jehoahaz

a. 2 Kings 13: 17 He said, "Open the window toward the east," and he opened it. Then Elisha said, "Shoot!" And he shot. And he said, "The LORD'S arrow of victory, even the arrow of victory over Aram; for you will defeat the Arameans at Aphek until you have destroyed them." 18Then he said, "Take the arrows," and he took them. And he said to the king of Israel, "Strike the ground," and he struck it three times and stopped. 19So the man of God was angry with him and said, "You should have struck five or six times, then you would have struck Aram until you would have destroyed it But now you shall strike Aram only three times."

b. 2 Kings 13:21 As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a marauding band [of Moabites]; and they cast the man into the grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet.

c. Defeated Amaziah king of Judah in battle.

13. Jeroboam II the son of Jehoash/Joash

a. 2 Kings 14:25 He restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, which He spoke through His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was of Gath-hepher. 26For the LORD saw the affliction of Israel, which was very bitter; for there was neither bond nor free, nor was there any helper for Israel. 27The LORD did not say that He would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, but He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.

14. Zechariah the son of Jeroboam

a. Reigned 6 months in Samaria and was assassinated by Shallum the son of Jabesh.

b. 2 Kings 15: 12 This is the word of the LORD which He spoke to Jehu, saying, "Your sons to the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel." And so it was. (cf. 2 Kings 10:30)

15. Shallum the son of Jabesh

a. Reigned one month and was assassinated by Menahem.

16. Menahem the son of Gadi

a. 2 Kings 15:16 Then Menahem struck Tiphsah and all who were in it and its borders from Tirzah, because they did not open to him; therefore he struck it and ripped up all its women who were with child.

b. 2 Kings 15:19 Pul, king of Assyria, came against the land, and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver so that his hand might be with him to strengthen the kingdom under his rule. 20Then Menahem exacted the money from Israel, even from all the mighty men of wealth, from each man fifty shekels of silver to pay the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria returned and did not remain there in the land.

17. Pekahiah the son of Menahem

a. Ruled 2 years and was killed by his officer Pekah in Samaria.

18 Pekah the son of Remaliah

b. Killed by Hoshea the son of Elah after 20 years.

19. Hoshea the son of Elah

a. 2 Kings 17:3 Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against him, and Hoshea became his servant and paid him tribute.

b. Hoshea sought the help of the Egyptians and stopped paying tribute to Assyria and eventually they besieged Samaria for 3 years and "carried Israel away into exile to Assyria, and settled them in Halah and Habor, on the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." (2 Kings 17:6)

c. 2 Kings 17:25 At the beginning of their living there [Israel], they did not fear the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them which killed some of them... 28So one of the priests whom they had carried away into exile from Samaria came and lived at Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD... 41So while these nations feared the LORD, they also served their idols; their children likewise and their grandchildren, as their fathers did, so they do to this day.

Notes from Aland's Text of the NT

2007-09-28T18:19:00.001-05:00

There are 5400 extant Greek NT, not including quotations from the Church Fathers.

Uncial: a style of orthography characterized by somewhat rounded capital letters; found especially in Greek and Latin manuscripts of the 4th to 8th centuries

Lectionary: A schedule of readings from Holy Scripture for use in the weekly liturgy. In current use are both an historic, one-year lectionary with readings that have been in use for centuries, and a more recently developed three-year lectionary. Use of a lectionary provides the congregation with the opportunity to hear carefully chosen sections from the entire Bible.

Codex: Book like format, as opposed to a scroll

Opisthograph: A manuscript, parchment, or book having writing on both sides of the leaves.

Provenance: Evidence of the history of the ownership of a particular book (eg: auctions records, booksellers' records, book plates, etc.) The book may be important because of who owned it; perhaps a president or important bookseller, collector, royalty, or someone who may be related to the book in some way. Important in establishing the ownership of especially rare items.

Minuscule: a portion of the New Testament

Folio: a book (or manuscript) consisting of large sheets of paper folded in the middle to make two leaves or four pages

Fascicles: Are sections of a book, usually a reference work, that because of its length, is issued in parts so that the information may be made available to the public as soon as possible rather than waiting years or decades to complete the entire work

Minuscule: A New Testament minuscule is a portion of the New Testament

[A New Testament uncial is a copy of a portion of the New Testament in Greek or Latin capital or uncial letters, written on parchment or vellum.

New Testament uncials are distinct from:

* New Testament papyri — written on papyrus and generally more ancient; and

* New Testament minuscules — written in minuscule (small, connected) letters and generally more recent.]

Catholic Letters: James, I and II Peter, I, II, and III John, and Jude

Apostolos: Acts and the Catholic Letters

Stemma: A tree diagram, showing the family relationships among manuscript copies of the same text. One key principle in constructing a stemma is to group manuscripts having the same error or eccentricity in common, as being all descended from the manuscript which first made that error.

Recension: Stem. The process of preparing a family tree or stemma of manuscripts. The first step in traditional stemmatics.

Interpolation: In relation to literature and especially ancient manuscripts, an interpolation is an entry or passage in a text that was not written by the original author. As there are often several generations of copies between an extant copy of an ancient text and the original, each handwritten by different scribes, there is a natural tendency for extraneous material to be inserted into such documents over time.

Interpolations may be inserted as an authentic explanatory note, but may also be included for fraudulent purposes.

Western non-interpolations : Are additions in view of the Wescott-Hort

Palimpsest: a manuscript which has been re-used by scraping off the original text and writing over the top

Free Text: a text dealing w/ the original text in a relatively free manner w/ no suggestion of a program of standardization

Normal Text: Relatively faithful tradition which departs from the its exemplar only occasionally

Strict Text: Differs from exemplar only rarely

Majority Text -The Majority Text is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek manuscripts; but because most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts, there is a family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text.

Byzantine text-type The kind of text found in the majority of medieval manuscripts

Alexandrian text-type the ancient type of text which is exhibited in our oldest available manuscripts

Courtesy of Bible-reasearcher.com

Remember there are no verified separate Western, Casarean, or Jerusalem texts.

Orientals (Hebrew and Islam) = sanctity to the letter; Greeks = Sanctity to the message

************************************************************************

p⁵² 125 A.D. contains John 18:31-33, 37-38

Chester Betty papyri/p^45,46,47:

45 (3^rd Cent) = Gospels and Acts lacunae Matt 20:24 - Acts 17:17;

46 (200 AD) Pauline Letters lacunae 2 Thess, Philemon, and Pastorals

47 (3^rd Cent) Rev. 9:10-17:2 w/ small lacunae.

Bodmer papyri: p^{66, 72, 75}:

66 (200 AD) John1:1 – 14:39 w/ almost no lacunae and the rest in fragments. Sewing almost intact;

72 (3/4^th century) *Jude and 1-2 Peter*. Has relatively undamaged pages

75 (3^rd Century) Luke 3:10 and on w/ few lacunae and John 1:10 – 15:8 w/ few lacunae. Still has its binding and may be exemplar to Codex Vaticanus, thus eliminating the theory of recensions (that revisions were happening in the 4^th century).

100 AD – Didache has the Lord’s Prayer

144 AD- Marcion Canon

170 AD – Muratorian Canon

150AD – Discernible quotes from the Gospels in Justin Martyr

175 A.D. - Tatian's Diatessaron, produced was the most prominent of a number of harmonies of the four Gospels, that is, the material of the four distinct Gospels rewritten as a continuous narrative, resolving conflicting statements and removing duplicated text (see synoptic problem). Only 56 verses in the canonical Gospels do not have a counterpart in the Diatessaron, the bulk of the excluded material comprising the two apparently irreconcilable genealogies of Jesus (one in the Gospel of Matthew and one in the Gospel of Luke), together with the pericope of the adulteress (John 7:53 - 8:11). No significant text was added; but, in order to fit all the canonical material in, Tatian felt free to create his own narrative sequence that departed radically from the succession and order of episodes in every one of the four Gospels. The final work is about 72% the length of the four gospels put together (McFall, 1994). Students of gospel harmonies frequently distinguish between the "textual" tradition - i.e. the sources and transmission for the words and phrases within each pericope; and the "sequence" tradition - i.e. the sources and transmission for the order in which pericopes are presented.

Courtesy of Wikipedia

180 AD – Closure of the Gospel and Pauline corpus

200 AD – Because of the spread of Christianity, there was a need for the translation of the NT and by 250 AD, the church was Latin.

3/4^th Century – No centralized organization of the church, thus you have many varying manuscript traditions until than.

After Decius and Valeraion Persecutions (250-260 AD) the Koine Text started in Antioch, which became the Byzantine Imperial Text (also called the Lucian text in the 4^th century). During the persecution many manuscripts were burned and lost, thus sciptoriums were built and copied the NT.

Papryus Bodmer XIV-XV/p⁷⁵ – early 3^rd century

383 AD – Jerome finishes revising the Gospels, from existing Latin text,in the Vulgate (rewrote mainly the OT from Hebrew)

4^th/5^th Century – k (Codex Babiensis) = earliest extant Latin manuscript

5^th Century- Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis/Dwritten in N. Africa or Egypt though it is called the “Western-Text.” Lots of tendentious revisions from its exemplar.

8^th Century Uncial E or Basilensis - ignored by Erasmus

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis/D^ea 5^th Century and Codex Claromontanus – Theodore Beza’s Library (16^th Century) – poor translations – Wrote 9 editions of the Greek NT

1452-1456 – Johann Gutenberg’s 42 line Latin Bible in Mainz

1/10/1514 - Complutensian Polyglot (published 3/22/1522)

1590 – Pope Sixtus V declares the Vulgate the authoritative text.

1592- Pope Clement VIII again declares the Vulgate’s authority

3/10/1516- Desiderius Erasmus Novum Instrumentum Omne – First edition of the Greek NT (edito princeps). Also known as the Textus Receptus. Total of 5 revisions

Relied on 12/13^th century Byzantine Imperial text, Koine text, or the Majority text

1550 & 1551 – Edito Regia – 7 editions first to use verses by Robert Estienne = Stephanus

1734 – Johnn Albrecht Bengel editied the TR and classified it as α = original reading w/ full certainty β = a reading superior to the TR, though w/ less than absolute certainty

Used Codex Alexandrinus (A) and commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesaerea

1751-1752 Johann Jakob Wettstein 2 vol. edition

1775-1777; 1796-1806 Johann Jakob Griesbach

1830 – Karl Lachman “Down w/ the late text of the TR, and back to the text of the early 4^th century church.”

19^th century - Constantin von Tischendorf deciphers the Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C) 5^th century text; also found Codex Sinaticus {N/S}

1857-1859 – Cardinal Mai uses Codex Vaticanus (B)

1881 – The New Testament in the Original Greek by Wescott – Hort ; Primarily uses Codex Vaticanus (B) (4th century text)

1898 Eberhand Nestle – Novum Testamentum Graece (final nail in the coffin for the TR). Compared the Wescott-Hort and Tischendorf versions and where they agreed he kept. He consulted a third edition Weymouth’s 2^nd edition of 1892 and after 1901 Weiss’ 1894 -1900 edition)

1902-1913 – Von Soden’s “The Writings of the New Testament, restored to their earliest attainable form on the basis of their textual history.”

1927 – Erwin Nestle’s 13^th ed. of the Nestle Text

1922-1955 – Vogel’s Novum Testamentum Gracae et Latine

1933-1984 – Merk’s Novum Testamentum Gracae et Latine

1942-1986 – Bover’s Novi Testamenti Gracae et Latina

Vogel-Merk-Bover = Roman Catholics

1966 – The Greek New Testament (GNT)

1979 – Pope John Paul II starts work on the Neo-Vulgate (initiated by Pope Paul VI)

Latest and greatest are the Nestle-Aland²⁶and GNT⁴ (NA²⁶ closest to GNT³)

Gospel Contradictions Answered! Part 5 + Some Other Stuff

2007-09-18T12:43:00.007-05:00

Did Mark Misquote Malachi and Give Credit to Isaiah in Mark 1:2?

I didn't even realize I had this little gem in my blog! So if you missed it too, don't worry. Some people think that Mark misquotes Malachi 3:1 and wrongly attributes it to Isaiah in Mark 1:2, hence there is an "error" in the Bible. Once again, we shall see with a little insight, this is far from being and "error."

Mark 1:2

2As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU,
WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;

3THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,
'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,
MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT

and

Malachi 3:1

"Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts.

Isaiah 40:3

A voice is calling,
"Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God."

Mark puts two verses together Malachi 3:1(v2) and than Isaiah 40:3(v3), and as the literary custom of the day, he attributes the entire quote to the higher ranking prophet.

BTW, notice that in original quotation Malachi, God/YHWH uses the pronoun "Me," while in Mark when refering to Jesus it is "You." Why is that? Because Jesus is the second person of the Godhead and so when God/YHWH says something, it is appropriate to quote Jesus as saying it.

Courtesy of Dr. Knox Chamblin Lectures on the Gospel and Acts

For more answered contradictions see the links here:

Gospel Contradictions Answered! Part 1

Gospel Contradictions Answered! Part 2

Gospel Contradictions Answered! Part 3

Gospel Contradictions Answered! Part 4

*********************************************************
Extra Credit:

For a good explanation of why we need the Law go to the Role of the Law in Galatians 3:19-25

Here's a little quote from Doug Ward of CRI:

Likely anticipating the objections to his treatment of the law, Paul strives to find a positive role for the law in 3:19-25. Two questions introduce the potential problem that others would have with Paul’s explanation. "What then, was the purpose of the law" (19), and "Is the law opposed to the promises of God?" (21).

Paul answers his own question in verse 19 with one of the most troublesome phrases in his letters, "it was added because of transgressions" (NIV). This phrase could potentially have a variety of translations. 1) The law was added because of transgressions, with a restraining effect. 2) The law was added to create transgressions, acting as a lure. 3) The law was added to increase or intensify transgression, acting as an identifier. One clue within this phrase is the inclusion of the word parabaseon ("transgressions"). This word is used specifically within Paul’s letters to denote wrongdoing done in the presence of the law. Romans 4:15 functions almost like a dictionary entry when Paul writes "where there is no law there is no transgression."
Parabaseon is a specialized word. Before something can be called a transgression, there must be some standard to transgress, and that standard in Galatians is the Mosaic Law. One scholar has rightly noted that with the word transgression "Paul is not thinking of the general condition of sin that justifies the infliction of God’s wrath, but the more specific situation that obtains wherever people are confronted with clearly defined, verbally transmitted laws and commands. Parabaseon always refers to passing beyond the limits." [6] The use of "transgression" here does not imply that the law itself brings sin, but rather a qualitative difference to the sin. Instead of a vague imperfection or general wrongdoing, it now becomes outright disobedience to a known command of God. This is also how this word is used in Romans 5:14, where the first sin of Adam is described as a transgression since it involved Adam’s disobedience to a known command of God.

This consideration of the meaning of parabaseon gets to the heart of what Paul means in Galatians 3:19. If one considers that a transgression is not even possible unless there is a law to transgress, Paul cannot mean that the law was given to restrict transgression, for there was no transgressions to restrict until the law appeared. So the function must be different. The law is valuable here in that it was added to identify the character of sin, labeling it as explicitly contrary to God. So the law was added to label, identify, and condemn sin as something contrary to God.

Finally a Creationism Post

2007-09-16T22:47:00.003-05:00

Here are some links to some old, but not well known ideas, and to some very new research that is quite illuminating for Creationist/Intelligent Design proponents. Much kudos to Uncommon Descent, the blog of prominent ID proponent and Christian Seminary Professor Dr. William Dembski, where I received much of this info.

1. Haldane's Dilemma (my personal favorite)

Go to Walter Remine's website for an excellent explanation of the issue.
In a nutshell, the human and primate split happened (last common ancestor) about 6.5 million years ago, but let's use 10 million years for the ease of mathematics. The human genome has 3,000,000,000 nucleotides ("pieces of DNA) and let's say chimpanzees do also. Both have a scientifically accepted generation of 20 years (i.e how many years it takes them to reproduce; some flys are 10-12 days). Now we've all heard that there is a 2% difference in between the human and chimp genomes (false, but we'll skip that for now) so that means there needs to be 3 billion x 2% = 60,000,000 changes.

The numbers are approximate, but the main idea is that 10 million years is not enough time for the propagation and domination of those genetic changes.

Note: Keep in mind that when you hear about the 2% difference is not putting human and chimpanzee DNAs side-by-side and that they only have a 2/100 DNA differences. I mean humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and chimps 24 (doesn't that already eliminate the 2% difference). According to the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, there are "35 million single nucleotide changes, 5 million insertion/deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements." This puts the number at little over 1%, but stating all these changes in the light of Haldane's dilemma should show us how unlikely all these changes could've happened in the last 6.5 million years or so.
*********************************************************

2. The Sea Anenome's Genome

How can the Sea Anenome, a creature that predates bilateral symmetry, have the genes for breast cancer?!? How could evolution know to put them there?

Sea Anemone Provides a New View of Animal Evolution. SCIENCE VOL 317 6 JULY 2007

Moreover, the anemone genes look vertebratelike. They often are full of noncodingregions called introns, which are much less common in nematodes and fruit flies than invertebrates. And more than 80% of the anemone introns are in the same places inhumans, suggesting that they probably existed in the common ancestor [750 Million years ago]...Finnerty and his graduate student James Sullivan also looked in the anemone genome for 283 human genes involved in a wide range of diseases... Moreover, in a few cases, such as the breast cancer gene BRCA2, the anemone’s version is more similar to the human’s than to the fruit fly’s or to the nematode’s.

Here's the link to the summary and the full article

3. Deletion of Ultraconserved Regions Produce Functional Mice

How can regions of the genome that have been ultraconserved (ultraconserved elements have been defined as a group of extremely conserved sequences that show 100% identity over 200 bp or greater between the human, mouse, and rat genomes) be so unimportant? If evolution went so out of its way to conserve these areas, why are they so frivolous? Think, if you had some of your heart and brain genes deleted (which are presumably highly selected for) would you live?

Link to the article

4. The Genes for Limbs Already in Fish

How can the instructions for limbs before they are needed be in fish?

Link here at physorg.com

Long before animals with limbs (tetrapods) came onto the scene about 365 million years ago, fish already possessed the genes associated with helping to grow hands and feet (autopods) report University of Chicago researchers in the May 24, 2007, issue of Nature.

5. Genomics and the Irreducible Nature of Eukaryote Cells

That is the original title of the article - I SWEAR!
Basically it smashes the idea of prokaryotic to eukaryotic evolution. Obviously, the authors still believe in evolution, but its nice to see this concept of endosymbiosis seriously reconsidered. Remember from a design standpoint , its easy to see b/c of the design constraints of a prokaryotes that they could not have mutated or "fused" into what we know as eukaryotes. This eliminates (makes highly dubious even from an evolutionary standpoint) one of evolutions prized idea that Creationist have known to be false for a long time.

Here's the Link to the article, hopefully you can find access for it at your school or library.
*********************************************************
Extra Credit: A clear point for Design Theorist

There is this whole idea of "Junk DNA" which scientists thought were evolutionary remnants, of you guessed it, worthless/junk DNA, that just stayed in our genome. Prominent evolutionary proponent and professor of Biology at Brown University said :

From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b -globin genes.

Ken Miller, Life's Grand Design Technology Review Feb/March 1994 Volume 97 (2):24-43

While, prominent Intelligent Design proponent and professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, Dr. Michael Behe predicted in his book Darwin's Black Box that Junk DNA, would have a purpose.

Guess who won? You got it - Dr. Behe.

See here:

Encyclopedia of DNA: New Findings Challenge Established Views on Human Genome

Much thanks to Uncommon Descent for this one.

More!
Another prediction that Creationists got right and Darwinist got wrong - The Appendix!

Darwinists predicted that the appendix had no function, while the Creationist (from a design standpoint) predicted it did... who won? You got it Creationists.