Friday, February 19, 2010

Hasn't God said you can have all authority and power

1. My review of Charles Kraft's couple of books

2. A brief history of the NAR and Charles Kraft and his associates

3. It's all about what the meaning of Jesus imparting Authority is



My Review on Charles Kraft's couple of books:

Mr. Kraft's book shows his sincerity, practicality, humble nature, and the fact that he is significantly more open-minded than his peers. Furthermore, this book was obviously the result of many years' experience, and the information was presented well and pleasant to read.


What I did not like was his opinion (which seem to be shared by more and more participants of Christianity) that practically everything which has origins in a non-European culture is demonic. Without biblical regard, saying demons are over in that town.. around this family or habitating here in my mind. He includes, but are by no means limited to: yoga, martial arts, acupuncture, meditation, and probably even incense! Furthermore, all other religions (including those nefarious Unitarians!) seem to be demonic as well.

As all other authors I've read seem to agree, Kraft is of the opinion that most character flaws are the result of demonic influence. However, he doesn't want to be grouped with those "exorcists" who oft see demons where there are none (such as in cases of emotional instability or mental illness). So he distances himself and notes that this is not a book about exorcism but about everything else that is close to it! he likes the concept of "deliverance", which is more malleable to his wish for experimentation and the idea of, "whatever works." He likes the milder and less intensive procedures, similar in many ways to hypnotic suggestion, peer manipulation, mesmerism motifs and so on. Mr. Kraft makes the declaration to use his credit card but not with too much grandiosity. He freely professes that there is much about the subject that he does not know but is willing to experiment. This was a refreshing change from the arrogance and paranoia seen elsewhere by his peers.

Mr. Kraft is an honest and kindhearted man who has studied these matters all his life and speaks with great eloquence -- even though he is mistaken in a number of his opinions about things which are contradictory to the bible which Jesus said was 'Truth', and stating elsewhere, His word-graphe is Truth.

The evangelical movement for years continue to look for ways to entice people into hoping for "hidden magical powers" and "feel good promises of cleaning up the deep places" to remedy their problems. Methods with little verifiable substance to explain their approaches, besides saying they have seen it work here and there, at least in the short term. I would say that unless these 'deep places' are healed in the way the biblical procedures are proscribed, the illusion of healing will not last. The actions Kraft assumes God has given is usurping and directing the powers of the Holy Spirit. That by speaking words the Holy Spirit must act upon these words. Claiming that anything they say with their credit card in hand, must come to pass. All because they say 'in the name of Jesus' is another example of the manipulation of faith gone loopy.

This book does nothing to explain the whys of anything...it simply states that there are lots of demons and expelling them from a person leaves a lot of "garbage" to deal with to fully prevent their return. Maybe the garbage is the real problem and the demons only serve to give these "card carrying therapists" and prognosticators of the hidden realm the personal validity to lead people in need of an anchor to believe this demon evangelical dogma (brain washing) is the real culprit of suffering.

The Q&A section in his book should be changed to Q&NA. The author admits many of the questions HE RAISES have no answers he can find.

There is also scriptural misinterpretation like where the author claims it took Jesus two times to remove a demon of blindness. Jesus did take a slower approach, but this was not because of any lacking of Jesus. It was an example of how many including the apostles were slowly learning to see the truth. It appears he must bring Jesus down to our level of lack to make us feel not so inadequate.

As for Kraft’s new methods of expelling or trampling on demons? Well simply put, just jump right in and start making demands in the name of Jesus. The author has a favorite place for putting demons: In a box at the feet of Jesus. How fanciful and creative. Jesus then often steps on the box. The true spiritual warfare that takes place in this world is reduced to childish metaphors thereby masking the true nature and danger of the spiritual forces that exist.

I was mostly concerned with the number of examples concerning people with multiple personalities. Is it any surprise that these with this sickness could be swayed to quickly conjure a demon like personality when inspired by Kraft and his theories.

The examples are short and I must say, uninteresting with generic descriptions and no detailed follow up. The methods are not well defined, and the logic of demons and why they must obey the person with the credit card is simply based on some scattereing of scripture picking but mostly from guesswork. The evangelical movement seems to desire warm bodies, which don't question much and are illiterate of scripture contexts to fill their of seminars with.


2. A brief history of the NAR and Charles Kraft and his associates.


The presupposition is, if it seems to works temporarely, it is accepted as valid; and from God...

Wagner tells the story of how he was constantly plagued by headaches, he was told by John Wimber who came up to me, “My friend says your problem is a spirit,” he said. The reason for his headaches was a “demon of headache” that needed to be exorcised. “Then our MC510 class met in January 1983. Sure enough, the first Monday night I went to class with a headache. So during the break I asked John to pray for me. John and his wife, Carol, prayed for me. The pain left. But about an hour later it was back again.” “But what am I supposed to do about John replied quickly, “Treat it like a cat on the backporch! Yell at it and tell it to go away!” (ibid. p.69) He says that was the beginning of the end of his headaches.

Wimber became dependent on the experience rather than Scripture, and he took it all to a “new level.” This led him into practicing pragmatism (if it works, it must be from God). His experience formed his theology, he did not use theology (the Bible) to approve what he experience. John Wimber had separated from the fellowship of Calvary Chapel and aligned himself with several other churches. During this time he became associated with Lonnie Frisbee that was also severed from Calvary because of his extreme Pentecostal practices that were concerning. Several years later, they formed officially as the Association of Vineyard Churches. John Wimber said, “So in 1978 I left the Charles E. Fuller Institute of Evangelism and Church Growth to become pastor of what is now called the Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Anaheim, California. It was in this environment, a small group of fifty people, that “I first tested my theories of power evangelism.”


Test new theories = pragmatism, which means if it works, it is accepted as valid and from God. True faith says that I only accept and believe what is based upon God's written Word, the Bible. These two practices are diametrically opposed to each other. From this experimentation came the whole new wave “the third wave” of doing church. Wimber even commented in Charisma magazine in 1995, “ there is nothing in scripture that can support these kind of phenomena that I can see and I can't think of anything throughout the church age that would, I feel no obligation to try and explain its just phenomena, its just people responding to God” (Charisma Feb. 1995 p.26).


Like Wimber, Wagner’s philosophy is based in the mindset of pragmatism, “... we ought to see clearly that the end DOES justify the means. What else possible could justify the means? If the method I am using accomplishes the goal I am aiming at, it is for that reason a good method. If, on the other hand, my method is not accomplishing the goal, how can I be justified in continuing to use it?” (C. Peter Wagner, “Your Church Can Grow - Seven Vital Signs Of A Healthy Church”, 1976, p.137 - emphasis in original)
So what we have is a theory based on the ratio of success, this dictates whether something is correct or not. I fail to see the logic in this, much less an apostolic attitude.


Third Wave


Many were taught by Wimber that they were living in a restoration as the days of the apostles. They were true prophets who told these new apostles and everyone in the Third Wave, too could perform miracle healing, exorcise evil spirits, and raise the dead as did Jesus and the apostles. While I have no qualms over us as Christians doing such things as is in God's domain, it was how this is taught and implemented, and to what extent distorted biblical teachings on this are manufactured and brought to the alter of the apostle judges.
Wimber was also involved in various aspects of the Latter Rain heresy, and we can see this carried over to Wagner his former association. He taught, “Something so astounding, something so marvelous that God has kept it as a mystery, as it were, behind His back and He is about to reveal it to the ages. He is about to reveal it. With the judgment of all mankind will come this incredible incarnation endowment of God's Spirit and we will see the Elijah's.... This End time Army will be made of the Elijah’s of the Lord God” (John Wimber, Docklands England, October, 1990). A number of the prophets under Wagner's leadership seem to hold to this very same Latter Rain concept.

New Apostolic Wave

These devotees believe it will completely bring to an end what Martin Luther and the reformers started. Martin Luther rose up to get the church back to the basics found in the Bible. This is not what we find taking place today, instead there is a new direction proposed by new apostles and prophets. Wagner and Kraft, because of a frustration in not seeing results like he would like to, he believes a new structure needs to be put in place for our success. Wagner speaks about the “NEW APOSTOLIC REFORMATION” a movement that he previously has referred to as post-denominationalism. Wagner says that this is the most radical change in the way of “doing church” since the Protestant Reformation. Through this movement the two gifts and offices of prophets (a gift that began coming into prominence in the 1980s) and apostles have become familiar to many Christians. Guess who is head of the apostles and prophets? That’s right Peter Wagner. If the apostles govern the church, and he oversees the apostles, we have a new pope.
The claim is that this restoration is supposed to be more radical than what Martin Luther started. Or as some believe it will completely bring to an end what Martin Luther and the reformers started. Martin Luther rose up to get the church back to the basics found in the Bible. Now there is instead is a new direction proposed by new apostles and prophets and separation from the old church to the new last times. The new prophets saying that the Lord told them of changing the course of Christianity for good. It should more accurately stated that this foundation is built upon “new apostles and prophets,” not the original ones. Peter Wagner calls this movement a “new apostolic reformation.” It is a movement that ultimately will affect everyone within the Church. The challenge to each of us is, will we fight against and reject the movement, or will we support it and flow with it? We can get offended, or we can get on board" “ you are now about to face the greatest challenge of your life, you are being called to reshape the face of Christianity.”

Wagner is the “presiding apostle” of the International Coalition of Apostles (ICA), and “convening apostle” of the New Apostolic Roundtable (NAR). “ as the head apostle, I’m the one that brings them together and when I bring them together things happen. Because that’s a anointing that God has given to horizontal apostles. So once I knew, then I knew I was different from these people and I knew I was a horizontal; apostle and I began using the term in public” (P. Wagner Mobilizing The Prophetic Office, May 11, 2000 National School of The Prophets)

As such, Wagner then should take responsibility for the things that go wrong by these other governmental leaders.
They have also developed their own language, definition of terms and often times redefine the Bible adding new concepts in places where there are none. Wagner’s apostolic Government is broken up into two divisions, Vertical and horizontal apostles, from there are various subdivisions.

Vertical Apostles
Ecclesiastical apostles. Apostles who are given authority over a sphere which includes a number of churches, presumably in an apostolic network headed up by the apostle.
Functional apostles. Apostles who are given authority over those who have an ongoing ministry in a certain specific sphere of service which has defined boundaries of participation.
Apostolic Team Members. Apostles whose apostolic ministry functions in conjunction with an apostle who is seen as the leader of a team of one or more other peer-level vertical apostles. They may be assigned specific spheres by the leading apostle. These are more than administrators or assistants or armor-bearers.
Congregational apostles. Apostles functioning as senior pastors of dynamic, growing churches of more than 700-800.
Horizontal Apostles
Convening apostles. Apostles who have authority to call together on a regular basis peer-level leaders who minister in a defined field.
Ambassadorial apostles. Apostles who have itinerant, frequently international, ministries of catalyzing and nurturing apostolic movements on a broad scale.
Mobilizing apostles. Apostles who have the authority to take leadership in bringing together qualified leaders in the body of Christ for a specific cause or project.
Territorial apostles. Apostles who have been given authority for leading a certain segment of the body of Christ in a given territorial sphere such as a city or state.
Marketplace Apostles-I am not familiar enough with marketplace apostles to suggest sub categories. It seems clear that some marketplace apostles would be vertical (perhaps within a large company) while others would be horizontal (bringing together peer-level marketplace apostles).

Can anyone find these divisions, terms and interpretations from Scripture? Wagner also has his leadership broken up into many segments and has covered everything possible. Some of the names are included that should be easily recognized.
Division of Foundations for Ministry-Michael Brown, Jack Deere, Randall J. Pannell, Dutch Sheets, Stephen Mansfield. Division of Church Leadership under which are Apostolic Ministries headed by John Eckhardt and others.Cells, Small Groups and House Churches; Church Growth; Counseling; Faith Ministries; Leadership; Marriage and Family Pastoral Ministries; Preaching- Jack Deere, Tommy Tenney, Women in Ministry Worship; Writing for Publication; Youth Ministries. Division of Power Ministries under which come Deliverance; Power Ministries; Prayer; Prophecy; Revival-ChÈ Ahn, John Arnott, Michael Brown, Frank Damazio, Winkie Pratney, Richard Riss. Spiritual Mapping- George Otis jr. and Bob Beckett; Spiritual Warfare- C. Peter Wagner, Bob Beckett, Cindy Jacobs, Charles Kraft, Dean Sherman. Division of Outreach; Campus Ministries; Church Planting; City Transformation; Evangelism- Marketplace; Mercy Ministries; Missions.


3. It's all about what the meaning of Jesus imparting Authority is

The new TW and NAR Christian paradigms promises to give us powers beyond what we had before through the ministry of the former prophets and first apostles and eye witnesses to Jesus. Sounds wonderful because we are told we will use these powers to change the whole world. There are those who believe the New Church will have dominion over the world at the end of the age. The nations and governments will be upon their shoulders as they rule for Christ. With this authority, the church will restructure cities, then countries and then the rest of the world. All the secular authorities, governments, rulers and kings will be under the churches rulership, and we see the world change Christ will then return and the kingdom will be presented to Him. This is hardly the scenario of Isa.9:6-7. This theory is based upon the idea that all authority in heaven and on the earth has been given to Jesus and then to the Church. Others believe, since believers are indwelt by the same Holy Spirit that indwelt Jesus, as his body we have all authority on the earth as Jesus has in heaven. Therefore we can do the same miracles that He did. 1. Some are able to tell God to “fill,” give “more” and spirit come and the Lord immediately responds. 2. They send the Holy Spirit to his work, they bind the Devil and his kingdom, 3. they call out diseases by name, 4. they speak salvation and prosperity. 5. With this authority we are supposed to be able to make a tree wither, 6. we can walk on water and appear or disappear and 7. make the blind see and the lame walk.
I hear too many teachers tell others we have all authority in Christ. We have authority, but we do not have ALL AUTHORITY.

It is not God who gives any man all authority, but it is the DEVIL that offers it and he doesn't even have the power to provide the promise of it. He does it for only one reason, to deceive by craftiness the promise of power, and to bring a person to a place of operating in dark human pride. Where he can separate him and have him think he can function without being co-dependent on Christ. The first person that was offered this authority was Eve and Adam. they were offered to be like God and rule. Instead of being satisfied with her position she had, she was offered more, she coveted the power and position that God had. By this the Devil deceived her into losing even what she already had.
In the New Testament We have Jesus being offered authority over the world from the Devil personally. Luke 4:5-7; “Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if you will worship before me, all will be Yours.” Jesus was offered ALL authority, glory, by worshipping a creature only once. Keeping the commandments perfectly and knowing who He was and the Father, He knew he could not worship any creature.

Authority has always been a problem with humanity. Many rulers have come and gone down through the annals of history wanting to rule and become famous. Even the disciples that were learning of Christ whom they were following thought about the authority they would receive from Jesus. “Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.' But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves. But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:24-30). The kingdom according to Jesus is inherited by humility, not by taking things through force. Those who want all authority to promote His kingdom now prove they are not under the authority of Jesus. As He said we are servants, and even when He comes back we will be serving under Him.

The Apostles never taught or practiced things that we hear of today. Furthermore God never put in His word of our taking authority over the spiritual realm, binding devils over cities, or even Satan. Scripture teaches that there were demons so powerful that the Apostles could not cast them out. Paul an apostle was unable to heal all-- even he suffered with an affliction. Certainly they did not have all authority. They had to sometimes ask in prayer, not take authority by prayer. Humility is what Christ taught and true humility means to rely on someone who is greater, real humility is to know your position and enjoy it.


Throughout Jesus’ life He made it clear “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak” (John 12:49) Coming in a humble state He became a servant giving us the perfect example of what the man was created to be like (Phil.2:5-8).

John 7:15-19 “And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man know letters, having never studied?” Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.”
John 12:48-50 “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.”

Notice Jesus does not exert his authority but relies on another for his instruction He teaches us to do the same as in Phil. 2: we are to have the same attitude in us that was in him, the mind of Christ is one of humility.
For even the Spirit does not have the authority that some people claim. John 16:13-15 “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” The spirits focus is Christ, not himself, not the church, and not apostles or prophets.

The Apostles authority

Luke 9:1-2: “Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.” Luke 10:19-20: “Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” Notice this was power over all demons and to heal. Just because Jesus gave them this authority does not mean in any way they had for themselves all authority, nor did they have it to use at their discrepancy all the time. Even Jesus at that time did not have all authority as He was still in a state of humility, He did only what the Father showed him to do. This changed after the resurrection, when He was exalted (Mt.28). We need to remember that Judas when he was with the others was doing the same miracles right alongside them, but he was a son of perdition. So having this kind of authority really does not validate one being an authentic Christian as Mt.7:21 certainly implies. Certainly this authority was not permanent as they were unable to do many things afterwards, even cast out certain demons. This does not mean we are powerless today, it does mean we should be careful what we are learning about authority and how it is to be used.

How we are to conduct ourselves as servants to others is illustrated by the disciples who became apostles.

2 Thess.3:7-9: “For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone's bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.” Paul’s example was humility, following the example of Christ’s servant hood, no one was abuse or misused. They were careful with their leadership and did not use the office of apostle or prophet as a “above others” position. They remembered what Jesus said “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant (Matt 20:25-28). Their authority came with the willingness to be a servant.
How did the apostles use their authority? 1Thess.2:5-7 “For neither at any time did we use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak for covetousness-- God is witness. Nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, when we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children.” When was the last time you saw a healing or miracle service where someone famous did not say everyone can or will be healed (flattery) or ask to give to his ministry so they can reap a blessing (a cloak for covetousness). Or where someone was not brought up on stage to give an advertisement and to interview them on what happened (glory from men). Or the speaker went in the audience to slay people “in the spirit” and its shown on camera.

Today’s Christianity for the most part lacks servanthood, compassion, kindness, instead it is ALL about authority and power. Selfless service, mercy, and helps are gifts of the Spirit that few want. Most desire gifts that can be used publicly and make a BIG impression. We now define ministers and valid ministries by how many miracles and healing they report, something you will not find in Scripture. “A man came to Jesus saying “Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do you care about anyone, for you do not regard the person of men”(Matt. 22:16). How different it is today with those who proclaim their authority, everything is watched by others and filmed for the public.

2 Cor. 10:13-18 “We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but within the limits of the sphere which God appointed us--a sphere which especially includes you. For we are not overextending ourselves (as though our authority did not extend to you), for it was to you that we came with the gospel of Christ; not boasting of things beyond measure, that is, in other men's labors, but having hope, that as your faith is increased, we shall be greatly enlarged by you in our sphere, to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's sphere of accomplishment. But “he who glories, let him glory in the LORD.” For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.”


The apostles’ leadership was true shepherding as they exemplified the Jesus style of servanthood. As True shepherds they taught people how to follow the one shepherd: not themselves. Cults and abusive leadership will always put themselves in between the people and Christ having them as necessary for someone to follow Christ or for the Church to succeed. We can see this being stated by the apostle prophet movement today. The apostles did not dictate what people were to do but through being personally involved in their lives they instructed them by Scripture, and showed them by example. They did not prophecy who to marry or where one is to move to for ministry. When people tried to follow a certain apostle they were rebuked (Corinthians:11-12). Today many popular teachers make disciples after their own selves. As true shepherds the apostles stood against errors and denounced false teachings and letters that were not from them. 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13: “Now we ask you brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are “over you” in the Lord.” The phrase “over you” in the Greek is also used in 1 Timothy 3:4-5 and 1 Timothy 5:17. It does not mean a “position of authority,” it means “to assist, to protect, to care for or give aid to.”

In third John 9, John named Diotrephes who was the first church cultist. Diotrephes wouldn’t accept the teaching of the apostles and he spoke against them. He wanted to be in authority, to be first among them; he wanted to be noticed. He would not allow other brethren to fellowship with the church he presided over. Isn't that what happens today when people are separated and told not to talk to those who are from another church or those who are being Bereans? There are those who are afraid they will lose control over their members.
There are many who are claiming apostolic authority today. True apostolic authority was to be sold out for the Lord, where they did not love their own lives but instead they give their lives for the sheep. Many commend themselves into a apostolic leadership position that God has not given them. The true New Testament apostles were qualified by the fact they saw the risen Lord and were personally chosen by Him (1 Cor.9:1). The latter rain teach many prophets and apostles are to rule today instead of one person ruling over the Church (such as a Pope). When we get down to it, there is little difference.


Many claim to be prophets but they are prophesying at a 30% average rate of accuracy. This is an abuse of both the title and gift. No true prophet ever had this poor a record: they were 100% correct. Anything less than this is a false prophet and false prophets don’t care if they are right all the time! There are people who are concerned about certain teachers being misrepresented on what they say. I would like to see them have the same concern about the Word that God has said! We cannot separate Jesus from His Word they go together as the truth. To love and hold to His word is to love Jesus. We should have no other word, no other Word.
We were not given the ability to say and do whatever we want. Tagging His name when you exercise authority does not make it anymore valid or authentic. To claim we have all authority; is to say we have the same authority as Jesus; this means we are not under His authority. We are told by Jesus a servant is not greater than his master. Are we servants or are we masters?

2 Peter 2:10-11 “and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.” Those who want to have authority and rule over people and nations even if they have good intentions need to beware. Jude 7-11 “Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.”
When you see people mocking the devil and his angels, speaking boastfully of what they will conquer, boasting of using authority in the spiritual realm, claiming to be the army of God, this is exactly what Jude was speaking of. If you look at the story of Balaam he wanted to make money on his ability to prophecy. In the rebellion of Korah we see people going against what the leader (Moses) spoke that we now have as our Scripture. It is always about challenging what God has said. When people teach new revelations, saying God is revealing more to the Church at this time and it is not found in the Scripture, or is at best distorted Scripture; this is exactly what both Peter and Jude are addressing.

For those who seek authority can easily fall into a trap, great authority and power will be offered at the end. The second beast that is coming will look like a lamb and he will promise authority and a kingdom. Rev 13:4 “So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” Here is the same authority that Satan offered to Jesus, but Jesus refused and stayed a servant. The one who is called the beast will accept it and use it. Rev 13:6-7 “Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.” Notice He is able to say things about himself that is supposed to be attributed to God. He is able to exercise all power over the whole earth.

Rev 13:12-14 “And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast.” This man will have authority he will have the ability to do miracles and he will accept peoples worship.
He was able to deceive by his authority (power). If you wonder whom the Christians are that Jesus warned about the deception in the end, it will be the ones who look for authority, power in miracles and signs as the proof that something is of God.


Dan 7:6-8 “After this I looked, and there was another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it. “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. “I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.” V:11-12 “I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. “As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
Rev. 17:12-14 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.”

Dan.7:19-28 “Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet; “and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows. “I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them “until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom. “Thus he said: 'The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces. The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time. 'But the court shall be seated, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it forever.
Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.' “This is the end of the account. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly troubled me, and my countenance changed; but I kept the matter in my heart.”
Kingdom and dominion is coming when the king comes. The church was never given authority to rule the earth before the king arrives. For whatever kingdom is ruling when Christ come he will destroy.

It was only Jesus who was given all authority. Nowhere does it say we were given all authority in the New Testament. Some discretion for a certain matters or occasions but it is not perpetual for all for anytime and place. Matt 28:18-20 “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” So he tells the apostles and us “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. The word for authority is power. If one has all power they have all authority. It is not the church that has all authority, we need to be under Jesus’ authority just as he was under the Father when he came as a servant. Leadership in the church is about being a servant. Only Jesus can have all authority for the simple reason he is sinless and can rule perfectly, the church is not sinless and can never be trusted with all authority. Yes we as the church have some authority, but not all authority. The sooner we learn this, the quicker we can come under the authority of Christ and enjoy serving under His Lordship.



Thursday, October 8, 2009

Self Creation and Chance

16th, defending faith, October, 2009

Self Creation and the concept of ‘Chance’

Last time we looked at the concept of Self Creation and it’s various varieties; self generation, gradual self generation and multiple universes coming into being and so on. Lastly, we concluded within contemporary language that the counter to theism is brought on by some type of appeal to what we call “chance creation.” This is what we are going to look at in this session. Sproul has written a book on this subject. Where it covers an analysis and the role of ‘chance in modern cosmology and cosmogony'. He wrote it because as he explored different offerings in the field of science which were trying to work out some of the most difficult concepts for the scientist to deal with and how many scientists have assigned worth to this exploration.

Sproul’s beef or dissent was not with their experimentation but with there articulation of the results of their experiments and the inferences they were drawing from the data that they had worked with. Sproul says he doesn’t have to be a physicist to analyze the content -- the significance -- the coherence of statements. Yes, propositions which philosophers major in and can work through very swiftly are not just the scientists own tools of reasoning. Sproul can give a logical analysis of the truth values of propositions that scientists articulate as to why things function. So, when physicists characterize and articulate their theories in ways which, ultimately, are nonsense, then it is time for the philosopher to blow the whistle, step up to the plate, and say, ‘we don’t understand what you are trying to say here’ because what you are saying is absurd and unintelligible. And please go back to the drawing board and try to rephrase and develop your statements; or simply say, ‘you don’t what you are talking about.’ For the way you are talking about it demonstrates that you don’t know how to talk about it. It reveals that you are not communicating intelligible speech as it refers to your conclusions on you reasoning.

In Sproul’s book, in the preface, he refers to Arthur Kessler which said, “as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism.” Sproul picked up on that for it’s insight. And Sproul would like to go farther. It is not that chance has to rule for this to be true, Sproul thinks that all that has to be demonstrated is that “chance exists” in order to make God into an anachronism. That there is really such a thing as chance out there in reality which is involved with the creation of things.

So, if chance has any authority it deposes God altogether. This comes by the merit that this something called chance - exists. The mere existence of chance is enough to rip God from his cosmic throne. Chance doesn’t need to rule - it doesn’t need to be sovereign - but if it, ‘chance‘, exists in any form, even a most humble servant framework, it leaves God not only out of date, but, out of a job.

Sproul and the Harvard Professor

The basic thesis in his book, in the final analysis according to Sproul, that there is no such thing as chance. The greatest myth in modern mythology is the myth of chance. That is what we are going to address here. What provoked this work of the book in the first place was a discussion Sproul had with a professor at the graduate school of Harvard in the Philosophy of Science. They were discussing the origin of the universe. This professor denies a creation moment. So Sproul asks where did it come from then -- this first Singularity event. The Harvard guy said it came to BE as result of chance. He said the universe was created by chance. So Sproul asks him again, so, the universe was created by chance? He said yes. So Sproul took out of his pocket a quarter and flipped it up in the air - caught it and turned it over and it turned up ‘heads.’ He asked the Harvard professor, what happened? He said it is going to come up either heads or tails 100% of the time. This procedure is going to be either 50% heads or 50% tails. Sproul says if he[the Harvard professor] put it to the test and designed a system that would spin and toss the coin the same way each time, within a vacuum and all other parameters and forces on that coin were constant and repeated in such the same manner, what would happen? Sproul asked him if the professor could bring up his variable percentage of it coming up ‘heads’? And the professor said, of course! This would increase the likelihood. Which is true for what Sproul said initially, they both understood this, that the causal agencies that are involved in coming out with this effect of whether this coin comes up either heads or tails has nothing to do with some mythological power called chance. It has to do with, in this causal experiment, of how we tossed the coin. All the factors that one would establish so it was identical each time you tossed the coin. All variables of physical space and motion are consistent and the outcome is always the same. And with all that for the certainty of one result; we can nevertheless say that it is always 50-50.

Serindipity as chance

There is nothing at all wrong with the word chance in a particular setting. It is a perfectly meaningful word when we use it to describe mathematical possibilities. The word becomes a synonym for the odds of such and such. We also use it in a meaningful way when we speak of ‘chance encounters.’
Sproul describes a train trip where he got on a train and went to various cities on his trip. He had a lay over and there was traffic going the opposite direction and he encountered a friend he hadn’t seen in ten years. They conversed and went their ways. Ten hours later when the train came for Sproul the same teeming masses of people were in this Chicago train station and he sees the same friend he saw ten hours ago. What are the odds of that? It is called a serendipitous encounter. A chance happening. But chance doesn’t explain why it happened. Because chance didn’t cause it. The reason that we happened to meet each other was because we happened to be at the same place at the same time; for a host of different reasons. All these things converging in time and space.

Again, chance is a perfectly legitimate word when we use it in the particular popular way to describe these kinds of unintentional meetings or mathematical probabilities we find ourselves in. But what has happened in modern jargon is the word ‘chance’ has subtly been elevated to something far more than just mathematical odds or probabilities. Where actual causal POWER is attributed to chance. So when he talked to his professor friend they agreed on the incapacity of chance to have Being and gave no chance for ‘chance’ to cause the coin to flip a certain way. Based on this simple illustration of this coin toss this Harvard man literally banged his palm into his head and said, ‘I guess I shouldn’t have said that the universe was created by chance.’

The Ontological status of ‘chance’ is “zero.”

When it comes to addressing the Harvard professor one has to take in the science of Ontology, which is the study of Being, of essence, of reality and of ‘isness’. The Ontological status of ‘chance’ is “zero.” Again, ‘chance’ has no Being. Chance is not a thing that operates and works upon other things. It is simply a mental concept that refers to mathematical possibilities. But in and of itself ‘chance’ has no ontology. So Sproul says of this piece of chalk that he has in his hand; It has some being to it. And the being of this chalk can keep the scientist and the philosopher busy for centuries finding it’s essence or the substance that is found in this cylinder of chalk. The one thing that all can agree on is that it is not nothing. It is something.

Earlier in these lectures R.C. said, “that if Something exists, then, God exists. If there is anything out there with ontological status, then you are driven, by necessity of the term, to a self existent eternal being.”

Chalk has ontological status. It is a thing. It has existence. It is real rather that illusion. So too, are we.

But when we come to chance, and when Sproul and the professor spoke they agreed that chance has no ‘being.’ And as a result of it not having any being, it therefore has no power. For, that which is absent of being, must of necessity, be absent of power. Because for power to operate, it must be from the power of something. Alas you can’t have power generated from nothing. Along with the fact that you cannot have objects generated from nothing. Power, that is doing, has to have a doer. Just like Descartes said a thought needed a thinker.

A premise we must know today, that scientists and philosophers have all agreed throughout the ages is ‘chance’ as a word has come to define our ignorance. We throw chance into the equation when we don’t know what’s going on out there. When we can’t do our homework analytically and come away with a cogent understanding we begin to attribute things we don’t know to chance and some magical power it possesses. Now, you’re going to say to me, there are games of chance and card games where you have probabilities of certain things coming up. And you would be right. But the reason for the card hand I was dealt in a Bridge game is because of how they were shuffled and sifted and arranged before you shuffled them and the sequence of handing out the cards and so on. Chance is not some invisible demon who jumps into the cards and has the power to set in motion the way the cards are going to be handled. There is no invisible power called ‘chance‘.

So again, back to this dialogue between the two of them, where Sproul says, Do you agree that chance is not a thing and cannot exercise power? Do you agree? He said yes. Chance is no thing, again, chance is no-thing, again, it is nothing. So when you say that the universe was created by chance you are saying, analytically, that the universe is created by nothing. You are not just giving some small power to chance, you attributing the supreme power to chance in creating everything. Not only to just some thing, no, you are wanting chance to bring everything into being, the whole of reality manifested by what you attribute to ‘chance‘.

The absurdity and myth of chance

This concept, under 5 minutes of analysis yields to it’s own absurdity. It manifests itself as the worst kind of mythology. If you couch it in respectable language and communicate in the language of science it almost sounds plausible. Like thinking that metals could be turned into some other more precious metal. And it was respected as possible for centuries by descriptions in respected scientific language. You can give respectability to mythology if you couch your language in academic parlance. Nonetheless, if you say it is something then, I would ask you, what is it? How much does it weight, is it extended or non-extended. Is it an energy field or electro magnetic pulse, what is the genesis of this power?

you should stop saying that nothing causes something

When you find those that want to prove chance you come to people like Neils Bohr who said “contradictions are complementary.” he was willing to affirm both sides of a contradiction. This thinking drove Einstein nuts! He said as soon as Neils Bohr started talking like this he not only ceases to be logical he ceases being a scientist. With Heisenberg’s indeterminacy principle there are certain ways to explain it. When doing experiments on subatomic particles you can say we don’t know why they act in this way. The very experiment may have an influence on the result. For it seems that these particles are acting in a completely irrational manner. It is one thing to say that I do not know why these subatomic particles are behaving in this way, that none of our scientific paradigms account for this inexplicable behavior. And you say, I just don’t know. That is a proper scientific demeanor. When you bump up to the limits of knowledge you say you don’t know. This should be the manner in all fields of study. But it is another thing to say that nothing is producing this event. Unless you know everything attached to an idea - you should stop saying that nothing causes something. It is bad science as well as bad theology to attribute self creation as a power, under any circumstances.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

4 discussions on women issues

`1) Genesis 3:16 What are the translation histories of “desire” and “will rule”? How was the woman punished?

Seldom has so much mischief been caused by a translation error that became institutionalized. Many use this passage to emphatically answer that men should rule over and women will have lustful sexual desire [libido] naturally exhibited to their husbands. But will the text itself bear the weight of such important claims?


How was tsuqah translated in the twelve known ancient versions of the OT (the Greek Septuragint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Old Latin, the Sahidic, the Bohairic, the Ethiopic, the Arabic etc.)? Why did the church fathers (Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanios and Jerome) seem to have translated the Hebrew word in only one way. And it is not “desire.” We need to ask if modern translators are aware of the Italian Dominican monk named Pagnino who translated the Hebrew Bible. Which was used just 7 years later as a source in the Coverdale English bible in 1528.

The Hebrew word tsuqah, now almost universally translated as ‘desire’ was previously rendered and ‘turning.’ The word appears in the Hebrew OT only 3 times. But when Pagnino went with ‘desire’ English Bibles, following Pangnino, rendered this verse and “Thy lusts shall pertain to..” Or libido and sensual desire. It is time the church returned to the real meaning of this word. It should be: ‘As a result of her sin, Eve would turn away from her sole dependence on God and turn now to her husband.’ The results are not pleasant, warned God, as he announced the curse. ‘You will be turning away from me (God) and (as a result) he will rule over you and take advantage of you.’

Now some want to change the second verb from will to shall. But the statement is only to futurity not to obligation or the normalcy of ‘must rule.’ So we may conclude that it is not lust or desire and neither is it rulership over the women as a type of ordering from God as to how relationships must be expressed.

2) 1Cor 11:3 Head of Woman is Man?

Easily one of the most difficult and debated passages in all of Paul’s epistles. So let’s pursue this from the view of the whole chapter. It goes from “head” passage to “image and glory of God while women is the glory of man” and finally, who are “the angels” in 11:10, due to whom “the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head”?

What does the word ‘head” mean. Most English readers of the text innately regard it as ruler, leader, chief, boss and director are places the mind will go almost immediately. Such an understanding of “head” as connoting “authority over” lead to interpretation of this text (and of Eph 5:22-23) as Paul’s teaching about hierarchical order in the relation between men and women. Some who stand within this interpretive tradition go so far as to posit a “chain of command,” where authority is passed along: from God to Christ to man to woman. The literal “head,” as in the NIV, implicitly suggests an interpretation along the same lines because of the common understanding of “head” in English when applied to persons in relationships such as marriage or other institutions. Common phrases like “she is head of the division” or “he is the head of his family” illustrate this everyday metaphorical meaning of “head” in our language.

Apart from the question whether this common English meaning is also the common Greek meaning of “head” when used figuratively, serious issues are raised by such an interpretation. How are we to see the relation between Christ and God? If God occupies a rank superior to Christ, then we have here a revival of the ancient heresy of “subordinationism” and a challenge to the classical doctrine of the trinity.

Further, if husbands (or men; the Greek word is the same) are under the authority of Christ, and wives (or women; the same Greek word) are under the authority of husbands/men, do we then not have a situation where women stand only in indirect relation to Christ, via their husbands and by extension, all men? A conclusion is then reached by some when they understand it as a series (God - Christ - Man - Woman) as indicating a “growing distance from God,“ or a “chain of command”. The Linguistic evidence points strongly , if not overwhelmingly, away from the common English reading of head as “chief,” “ruler,” “authority over,” though there are those scholars who would challenge this.” One, the most exhaustive Greek-English Lexicons covering Greek literature from about 900 B.C. to A.D. 600, among numerous metaphorical meanings for kephale does not give a single definition to indicate that in ordinary Greek usage it included the meaning “superior rank” or “supreme over” or “leader” or “authority.”

Second, the Septuagint didn’t include the idea of “authority over” or “headship.”

Third, nowhere else in the NT is kephale used to designate a figure of authority or mastery. So, those contemporary readers of Paul’s Greek did not hear our ‘headship” concept in this word but rather the idea of “source, origins and connections.” Cyril of Alexandria, in the 4th Century, on this text wrote: “Thus we say that the kephale of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephale of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh (in the beginning). Likewise, the kephale of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature (John 1:1, 8:42, 13:3 etc).” Thus Paul has the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2 in mind. Though it is obvious that, in a final sense, Christ/God is also the source of the woman’s life (1Cor 11:12), Paul is here considering the sequence of creation of the human species in Genesis. This is temporal, sequential thought is taking in to account Adam as the origin of Eve’s being. Behind this temporal sequence stands God who in 1 Cor8:6 says God is the source of everything. So, the passage refers to Creation and the temporal process of how things were made in that very beginning of humankind. Nothing about hierarchical dominance and authority control in this passage.

3) 1Cor 11:7 Why is man said to be the glory of God, while woman is the glory of man?

Once again Paul seems to put women on step further removed from God than men. In brief it has to do with chapters 8-10 which deal with the issue of Christian liberty in light of true knowledge, caring love and concern for living and acting in ways which “build up” others. Paul sums up this discussion with these words: “whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1Cor10:31). Concerns about propriety with regard to appearance in the context of public worship are addressed first (1Cor 2-16). From 1Cor 11:4-5 we must make some deductions from Paul’s answers. We must assume that social, cultural or ritual norms were being ignored or deliberately set aside in the context of worship.

4) 1 Timothy 2:12, 1Cor 14:34: The Meaning of Women Keeping Silent

For another time but, when we consider the role of women in the first century, Jewish people were very, very clearly oriented to thinking that women were mere chattel. What's remarkable is that the empty tomb accounts would feature only females as heroes of the story. This demonstrates that the Gospel writers recorded what happened, even if they felt it culturally embarrassing. Women had no standing in court or other places regarding testimony. Is this passage a study into principle or custom? Which way do you go on this debate? Clues for 1Cor 14 are written just a few sentences before dealing with silence in 34. A few puzzle pieces for you to bring together in literary word use similarities.

5) 1Cor 10:8 Why did Paul use the number 23,000 if what he is quoting in Numbers 25:9 records 24,000? Which text is correct? How does one square this?

Bibliography: Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, Brauch, “Hard sayings of the Bible.”
GleasonArcher, “Encyclopedia of Bible difficulties.”


1 Peter 3:1-7 has at least five words that are mirroring one another and describing the same nature of activities for the Sir and the Lady.

2x hupostaso: voluntary attitude of cooperation, carry your share of the burdens, abide with, assume your responsiblity as heirs in the grace of life, submissive.
2x anastrophe: conduct, manner and way of life, treatment, behavior.
3x phobeo: veneration, to treat with deference, reverence of husband, fearful manner, respectful.
1x hagnos (1x hagios): immaculate, clean, pure of any fault, free from carnality, chaste.
teemay': precious value, respect of one's high office, honor by reason of one's high ranking, deference, reverence, value of one's worthy price, honor.

Genesis 2:18: Ezer Kenegdo

Woman, a helpmate for man?

The phrase in Hebrew is EZER KENEGDO
Genesis 2:18 should be read as, as I see it; “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding [and equal] to man.”

The Creator regarded Adam’s situation as incomplete and deficient while he was living without a proper counterpart. The Creator judged Adam’s situation quite negatively: “It is not good.” Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 expresses this same opinion about aloneness. Two are better that one…if one falls down…

Which category bears the evidence; we know, or will know soon, what history and custom have rendered to women; but what does tradition say versus scripture: helper for domestic servitude and female inferiority, error prone, subservient, made ontologically the same but in function less capable and hence must follow, lower rank versus strong effective help, rescuer, equal and co-regency, designed for equal merit, corresponding to and in full view of each other, to bond effectively

EZER

The role of woman as 'helper' to man in Genesis 2:18 has often been taken to mean a kind of domestic servitude and female inferiority. The term 'help-mate' is a mishearing of the AV phrase, "an help meet for him" and was used in Darby's 1884 translation, "a helpmate, his like". It is NOT a subordinate term as it is also used of God in the majority of its occurrences, (e.g., Psalm 70:5; 121:1-2) "...From where comes my help? My help comes from the Lord...". The older English term "meet", meant "appropriate" or "corresponding to".) Most translations render her (women) to be a ‘helper’ by these translations. (RSB, AB, NKJV, JB, NIV, Coverdale, Message, WEB) However perplexing these modern translations appear in uniformity, the customary translation of the two words ‘ezer k-negdo as “helper fitting him” is almost certainly wrong.

The Hebrew is )zr 'ezer, as in 'eben-ezer, 'stone of help' or Ezra 'help'. The LXX, Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, uses the word bohqos boêthos (Strong's 998) to translate 'ezer. Of its 45 uses, boêthos is used 42 times to refer to help from a stronger one, from a more secure or strengthened position, without need of reciprocal help. This strengthens the idea of 'help' as equal or superior rather than inferior. The possible root behind 'ezer may have been either '-z-r "to rescue, save" (as the Ugaritic) and or 'g-z-r meaning "to be strong". The Hebrew letter ghain probably, like Arabic, having previously had two forms implying two roots that may have later got confused when just one Phoenician sign served for both letters. The use of the root verb )zr 'âzar (Strong's 5826) in the Old Testament extends to some 80 occasions, generally of military aid, help from a position of supply or strength. Although the noun is also used of military aid (e.g., Isaiah 30:5; Ezekial 12:14; Hosea 13:9), it does not always imply a victorious intervention or superior assistance. On one occasion it is paralleled with terms for salvation and support (Isaiah 63:5) in the sense of one being leant.F1 In many of the passages it is used in parallelism to words that clearly denote strength or power. Examples are Deut 33;26 and Deut 33:29 etc.

A survey of 'ezer's 20 or so uses reveals strong contexts and parallel terms for might or power, not one of service or slavery. A better and new translation: "I will make a power/strength corresponding to/equal to man." A relationship of equals. In short, it should be suggested that we translate Genesis 2:18 as “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding [and equal] to man.” F.F. Bruce says and Freedman even suggests on the basis of later Hebrew that the second word in the Hebrew expression found in the verse should be rendered ‘equal to him.’ Heightened in Genesis 2:23 where the phrase “ bone of my bones” has an idiomatic sense of “one of us” or in effect “our equal” or “corresponding sameness.”


KENEGDO

The last part of v.18 reads literally as "I will make him for him a helper as in front of him." The phrase 'as in front of him', kenegdô, occurs only here and in v.20, and suggests correspondence, with the new creation (woman) being neither inferior nor superior, but equal. The substantive, negdo, means 'that which is conspicuous, in full view of, in front of', the related noun, nagid, means a 'ruler' or 'prince', and the verb, nagad, means to 'declare, tell, expound, reveal, announce' (interesting in the light of the denial of women teachers by some) or 'go ahead'. This last one suggests 'achievement, pioneering, risk and deliberate thrust into the unknown'.

Thus anyone attempting to use v.18 to put women down or dismiss their ministry is in danger of having the Hebrew words thrown back at them as rather suggesting woman's superiority, ability to declare, teach, expound and reveal, and to be a pioneering leader out in front! In Rabbinic Hebrew, kenegdô is translated as 'corresponding to'. Gretchen Gabelein Hull coins the helpful phrase of woman as "'completer', not his competitor."

Genesis 1:26-28 should be taken as an a priori interpreter of 2:18, as it precedes it, and both are pre-Fall statements. Here, dominion, image, and blessing are conferred upon man, but the text continues, 'let them have dominion ...', 'them' could conceivably refer to all 'male-kind' or the generic inclusive term, 'man-kind'. Since, literally speaking, only Adam and Eve then existed, and the creative blessing to 'go forth and multiply' needed to be spoken over the first couple in order to put the rest of us here on this planet, it would suggest that the 'them' referred to is Adam and Eve. Indeed 1:27-28 elucidates: "male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion ..."
Thus, as Galatians 3:28 ("there is neither male nor female, all are one in Christ") interprets the other New Testament statements of Paul, so Genesis 1:28 interprets other Old Testament statements, for Scripture must interpret Scripture.
The idea of joint dominion as joint heirs is not alien to the rest of the Bible. In the Old Testament women could inherit in the absence of male heirs, and 1 Peter 3:7 speaks of "being heirs together of the grace of life."

NT SONSHIP

Sonship, and its companion ideas of inheritance and access to God as Father, is a privilege of both men and women in Christ (cf. John 1:12; Romans 8:17; 2 Corinthians 5:17). Though the politically incorrect use of a male term to describe a male and female privilege does not deny its 'equal opportunities' application (cf. later, where bishop, elder and particularly, deacon, were male terms but could include females such as Phoebe). Further, sonship also implies the priesthood and ministry of all believers (1 Peter 2:9), male and female alike.

So we should neither make man superior nor woman inferior. She corresponds to man as left is to right, different yet equal, taken from his side, not his head nor his foot. The customs and subjugation that suggest woman is lesser and only fit for laborer 'helper' duties would have to place God as a helper and employee also. As I would not consign ‘God is my helper’ only to the kitchen and laundry sink neither is women!


PREAMBLE

The biblical case against the women having access to various authority depends primarily on three New Testament texts: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (veiling of women); 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (silence of women); 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (silence of women).

Opponents of women’s ordination will often point to Ephesians 5:21-33 (submission of wives to husbands) and Genesis 2 (secondary creation of women) to buttress their position, as well as to Jesus’ choice of twelve males as his most intimate disciples. Now I happen to believe that all of these biblical passages, when rightly understood, actually support the ordination of women. But I will grant that, on the surface, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, and 1 Timothy 2 appear to oppose this practice.

Yet the passages I have just mentioned are not all the Bible has to say about women in positions of authority in God’s kingdom. In fact, there are many, many passages that either portray women in positions of authority or provide theological support for this perspective. Let me mention some of the main passages:

Genesis 1:26-28 - Man and woman created in God’s image; Man and woman given the command to fill the earth and subdue it.

Genesis 2:18 - Woman is created as a “helper” for the man. Ezer, the Hebrew word for “helper,” almost always refers to a stronger person, and, in the Old Testament, usually to God.

Judges 4-5 - Deborah was a prophetess and judge of Israel, with obvious and divinely endorsed authority over Israelite men.

Luke 8:1-3 - Jesus had many women among his entourage of disciples. Women were the first at the tomb after the resurrection; and, as such, they were the first to broadcast His victory over death (Luke 23:55-24:11). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all called attention to the loyal women who participated in Jesus' Galilean ministry and followed Him all the way to the cross and the grave. They shared the greatest news: “He is not here, but has risen” (Luke 24:5 NRSV).


John 20 - The resurrected Jesus chose a woman to be the first “evangelist” who bore witness to his resurrection.

Acts 2:17-18 - In fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, the Holy Spirit is poured out on men and women, and it is stated that women will prophesy.

Romans 16:1-2 - Phoebe is a minister (Gk. diakonos) and someone whose authority should be respected by the Roman church.

Romans 16:7 - Junia is named as a prominent apostle. (Most likely reading, in my opinion, among several options.)

1 Corinthians 7:4 - A wife has authority over her husband’s body, even as he has authority over hers.

1 Corinthians 11:5 - Women pray and prophesy in church.

Philippians 4:2-3 - Euodia and Syntyche are leaders in the Philippian church and Paul’s co-workers.

Titus 2:3 - Older women are “to teach what is good.”

Revelation 2:18-29 - The church in Thyatira accepts a woman as a prophet and a teacher. This acceptance is never criticized, only the content of her teaching.

Of course I could point to many other passages that, in my opinion, support the ministry of women beyond teaching small children in seperate rooms. And, of course, I realize that those who oppose the principle of women have their own ways of interpreting the passages I have just mentioned. But even the staunchest opponents of women’s use of their talents would have to admit that these passages, at least on the surface, suggest that God can and does use women in positions of distinct authority in his ministry, even in positions of wise complimentary authority over men.

Responsible, respectful, in the lead and with corresponding sameness.

Genesis 3:16

Was Adam with Eve when tempted and who is responsible and to be given initial blame? (Genesis 3:6)

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." (Genesis 3:6, NKJV)

In the age-old debate of male-female blame various accusations have been leveled. Was Eve weaker? Certainly Paul describes her as the one who, unlike Adam, was deceived (2 Corinthians 11:3) and who transgressed (parabasiv parabasis Strong's #3847) first (1 Timothy 2:13-14) but elsewhere he regards sin (amartia hamartia Strong's #266) as having entered the world through one man's disobedience (Romans 5:12,19).
Many have responded to this by saying that Adam should have known better, you can't blame Eve; he was his own man he need not have eaten too; Adam should have taught Eve the commandment better - it was poor discipleship and headship.

I was recently asked the following question as the crux of the larger condition of how translations can effect the very essence of the meaning of an important event:

A friend of mine is having a lively discussion about whether or not Eve had her husband "with" her when the serpent beguiled her resulting in their eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The CONTEXT indicates that Adam was "with her" when she was being beguiled by the serpent. “...she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Genesis 3:6, KJV) My friend is saying that the punctuation indicates that he was NOT "with" her like I am supposing. I pointed out that the King James translators put the punctuation in there, and there ISN'T any punctuation in Hebrew.

The respondent is correct, there was no punctuation in the Hebrew. In fact, the New King James Version tries to make the actions even more separated by adding a period and capitalizing the new action “…and ate. She also gave…”, forming a new version of the Gap Theory, allowing eons of time between her eating and her giving to her husband later at home:
“…she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” (Genesis 3:6, NKJV)

Calvin ( whom I find a great expositor) disputed Adam's presence with Eve during this encounter: “From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible.” (Calvin, on Genesis 3:6)
Rather than not “credible” it is incredible that some would try to read obvious words so obtusely so as to excuse Adam from implication. In the original Hebrew the connecting "ands" indicate a running narrative with what has gone before and after and not a huge time delay with Eve going off to find her husband several hours afterwards. It could have said “she gave to her husband later” but doesn't.

Literally the Hebrew reads:

“…and-she-took from-its-fruit and-she-ate and-she-gave also-to-her-man with-her and-he-ate.”

Furthermore, the word "with", Hebrew )Ie ‘im, implies joint action, as indicated in its dictionary entry in the authoritative HALOT Hebrew lexicon, “communal action or action in company...”.

Backing up a bit it is interesting to note that in each of verses 1-5 of Genesis 3, whilst the conversation is between the woman and the serpent, all of the statements are “you” and “we”. One thing the King James Version did have right, irrespective of its added punctuation, was an obvious distinction between you singular and you plural. Throughout these verses it is “ye” not “thou” and so it appears the serpent was talking about both Adam and Eve, if not to both Adam and Eve.

Eve may have been deceived but she silently gave to Adam, who, without comment, ate. There is nothing to indicate that she was a “temptress” as von Rad describes her (Genesis, p.87) or full of an “impure look…, infected with the poison of concupiscence”, as Calvin commented on Genesis 3:6, or indeed that she even “persuaded her husband” (The New Bible Commentary). She simply gave, Adam took, “Hers is a sin of initiative. His is a sin of accepting and acquiescence”, says Hamilton (NICOT, Genesis 1-17, p.191). No conversation is indicated as Adam was there and had heard the whole dialogue.

It is again significant that in the following verse it is only after both have eaten that “Then the eyes of both of them were opened” (Genesis 3:7). If Adam had not been present and there had been a delay before his eating too, Eve's eyes would already have been opened to her deed, her nakedness, and her sin, and would have rushed home, fully clothed, to deceive Adam or more probably hide from her husband as well as from her God.

That Adam was there all along in his silence is indeed curious but it would seem that his presence is implied. Perhaps Adam was observing Eve listen to the serpent, they had no reason not to listen as they did not yet know evil existed, and holding back himself, but accepting for Eve to make the first move. Of course, later, he was going to be able to say, in the classic double pass-the-buck statement, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I ate” (Genesis 3:12), blaming God for giving him Eve and Eve for giving him the fruit!

In conclusion, Eve, and Adam, and therefore “Mankind” were present and in communal participation, have joint and several liability on their actions. Which is “an undertaking by a group of two or more people to be responsible, either individually or jointly, for any liability which may exist after any member or members have failed to meet their obligations”.

Friday, August 28, 2009

What is Apologetics

February08, 08

What in the world is Apologetics?

This is going to be what this course is about. The discipline and science of apologetics. Which in the world of theology is a separate science to theology itself. The science of apologetics is to provide and intellectual defense for the truth claims of the Christian faith. This is the type of help that would result in knowing what to believe and why to believe it. This is the task of what apologetics is about.

The Greek word is apologia: the term means to give a defense or reply or answer. 1 Peter 3 uses this word as an admonition with respect to this aspect; to be able and be ready to give a response to the hope that is in us. That we would stop the mouths of the obstreperous and unbridled and those that revile these same claims would be ashamed. At this time in the church they needed to have a defense for all the accusations and charges to the Christian community. At the beginning it was The demand for Emperor worship and the saying of Kaiser Kurios and the true life story of Justin Martyr and his defense of the reality of the true God. The charge that Christians were atheists. Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna and his discourse with the Emperor Antoninus Pius The charge that they were cannibals. The eating and drinking of Christ’s body and the rumor of this spread throughout Rome. A clarification needed to be made. Again, a sound and cogent apologetic was the tact.

A new world view had been given a new ethic to be enunciated. Not just a new religion but a new philosophy. As Greek ideas were waning, at this time, in the schools of new-Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Aristotelians and other systems competing with Christianity in this beginning period. Our early forbearers were able to make a clarifying response to these schools of thought. They dueled with the best philosophers of their day. They appealed to the LOGOS. John introduced this concept in John 1:1. The Greeks used this concept for centuries and the Christian used this as the concept of Christ as Lord.

A full orbed Apologetic

The way in which the Church engages in apologetic answers, when challenged or when there is an objection, we have to respond to it. It must be by point by point by point. That you deliver the truth claims of who Christ is. One might say one’s defensive stance.

The positive or offensive position would be to construct a whole philosophical defense of Christianity that should be applicable to every culture and every theological environment which the Church ever finds itself. A case for the Truth.

Christians have wrestled with the best strategy for presenting the best case. So where do you start?

You might say that the first method is the case for the existence for God. But others argue for a historical approach. So there can be differences in which may be the most appropriate method, In this course we will discuss some of these different approaches.

A Reformed view: Why convince others to moral ascent if it is a Herculean waste of time?
If we can’t convert thru savvy and compelling reason, why bother? Why do it if it can’t, in the end, bring faith and conversion to anybody?

1 Peter 3:15: This is a mandate to do specific kinds of things. To have tools and to use them. To have weapons and to be able to know tactics of skill and use and a manner and attitude of delivery. To be wise and winsome.

Is Christianity true? What is faith and what is credulity?

If these tools are rational and supportive they should verify the truth claims of Christianity rather than it be demolished. We should have nothing to be afraid of from reason or scientific inquiry. It is our ally and asset. If we do have fear from those levels of opposition then, perhaps, what we have is not faith at all but credulity (willingness to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility. )

There are a lot people that claim to have faith but really are just superstitious people. They may even be fortunate enough to believe all the right things, but, for the wrong reasons. We are supposed to be able to tell the world what we believe, but, also, WHY we believe it.

Calvin and the obstreperous:

He made a distinction between proof and persuasion. You can marshal evidence that is demonstrable. That is overwhelmingly and objectively sound to the point that they actually prove the thesis and yet have people remain unpersuaded by it. So, the task is not to persuade but to form a proof that is unassailable. A sound argument. Even if it is somewhat offensive.

The story of Charlie and his thinking that he is dead. His wife tries to persuade him. Then his Doctor tries to persuade him. Then a psychiatrist tries to prove to him he is alive. Nothing was going to persuade him that he wasn’t dead, because he didn’t want to believe.

Axiom: people convinced against their will hold their original opinions still.

Victories in debate don’t happen immediately but when one loses they know it. They may not admit it or submit to it but when they lay their head on their pillow and sleep they will know it.

To give protection to young Christians to these ideas of contrary argument. Also, the avalanche of challenges from scholars or other skeptics. Just to paralyze you and embarrass and intimidate you can render you paralyzed, But there is a body of knowledge that can answer these skeptics. Here we will get the assistance of help from others. This is why this task is so important.

If you would like to go over any of this, you can contact me: harkinspve@cox.net

Faith vs. Credulity

2nd, 03-28-08

Faith vs. credulity

Review: 1 Peter 3:15, and to give a cogent reason and why do you believe it. Defend the honor of Christ. For people will say, I understand partially what you believe but they will ask why. Substantiate the content of our faith and why it’s legitimate to be proclaimed.

Christianity involves, not only the proper proclamation of events and the evidence, but a defense of why it is so. Peter writing to his readers in 56 AD. that it was not clever myths or fables we offer you but we declare what we have seen and heard.…

Luke begins his telling of events that he researched carefully, as a historian as well as a doctor, what the eye witness accounts were. Pursuing what the life of Christ was like. Drawing on the original sources of those who had been actual witnesses to these various events.. Like in a courtroom of our time we would bring in direct witness to give a testimony to the truth or falsehood of what is being avowed. So the New Testament does the same sort of thing.

Last session Sproul recalled the dilemma that those who are in the Reformed faith have. That is, nobody comes to the Living God unless God the Holy Spirit first brings the character of change to a person. But it doesn’t void us from our place to reason and teach and speak and study. But it is God who brings the increase not us.

So, there are those that will say I don’t need to do anything for that would go against the spiritual work that must come from God. We shouldn’t study or work on philosophy because that will get in the way of the Spirit. Don’t be vain in knowledge, they‘ll say. In as much as one can be wise, how can you beware but by being aware. It is a necessity to pay attention to the world philosophies around you. You will not be seduced if you have paid heed to the content they have to offer first.

Pre-evangelism and Post evangelism, Short review

First, Justification is by faith alone. So, what kind of faith saves. All the Apostles, including James says something on this and what results from true faith. What an evidence of faith is. A living faith is what it is called. But not a meritorious faith that we come to the table with or provide on our own. Justification is by Faith alone but not by a Faith that is alone

What is it that comprises faith. What levels or nuances must come together. Here are 3.

1) Notitia: When we say we are justified by faith it has to have a content. A faith in what is what you should ask. Faith in Banana-mango juice, faith in Buddha? We have this idea in our culture that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere. Ohhhh my! Does that mean I can put my trust in Satan and be saved? Or the OT people, could trust in Baal or Asteroth and other Canaanite deities? Of course, the answer we provide is no-no-no. This has to do with the content. Christianity is such that it needs a certain level of information about the person and qualifications of Jesus Christ first.

This is all apart of the “notes” or “data” or notitia. This is the information part of faith. Before saving faith can come they must have required information of the content that they are asked to believe. And that involves the mind. That involves information that people can understand. Before you can call upon the LORD you must know why you must call upon him. Yes, if you are wondering here, you need understanding and information prior to faith.

2) Assensus: Which is simply the Latin word for intellectual assent. If I say to you do you believe that G. Washington was the first president of the United States. If you said yes, it doesn’t mean that you put your personal trust in GW to have power over you. Just that he is who he was in history. I’m asking if your mind gives assent to the proposition that GW was the first President.

(Their is a whole movement today in contemporary theology that says propositions have nothing to do with faith. That the bible only has to do with relationships. And it is relationships that count and not propositions. These people say that all I have to do is have a personal relationship with Jesus. And then with that, they say, I don’t need doctrine and I don’t need theology. I don’t need to affirm any creed about Christ, just Christ. I don’t believe in propositions-I believe in Jesus. He is a person not a proposition. You here this quite often, don’t you. You say you have a personal relationship with Jesus but if it is not the same as the “notitia”, the facts and data of who He is, for then you might be having a relationship with a corpse or a myth or a fable. All the things we say about Jesus must be true, outside of relationship or believe. What we say about Jesus, what we believe about Jesus must be understood thru the mind-saying yes-to the propositions of truth.)



3) Fiducia: This portion can only be engendered by the work of the Spirit. It is a personal trust and reliance on Christ; that aspect which is an affection that flows out of a new heart and new mind.

So, you can’t go straight to 3 without attaining number 1 and 2. Sproul repeats; having 1 and 2 without 3 will get you no where. But you can’t have 3 all by itself either. Remember, statements about faith have to be tied to this ‘apologitic’ regard for right information. When the surrounding citizenry thought that Christians were cannibals the task of the apologist was to say, no-no-no this is wrong “information.” They were responding to a distortion. Let me clarify for you what the New Testament says. So you will have a correct understanding of what the information is. So with rightly understood facts, at least, you will know what I am stating. You may reject it, but you won’t be reaching for a ‘straw-man’ rationale but will be rejecting Jesus on the principle propositions itself.

*Again, we are living in a time of “fideism” which says, I don’t have to have a reason to what I believe. I can just say God told me what to do apart from scriptural integrity. I just close my eyes, scrunch my nose and try real hard and will just believe in a Jesus with my own faith. And that is all I have to do. I will take this ‘blind leap of faith’ into his arms. It gives Sproul a pain in his foot that shoots all the way up his back. Because, he says, the Bible never tells you to take a leap of faith into the darkness. It says, on the contrary, to leap out of the darkness and into the light. And that is not a blind process. The NT calls us to be rooted and grounded in what God does and He makes it very clear that what you do, then, is framed by truth.

Sproul’s example that supports his case is Paul of Tarsus at Mars Hill where he spoke to the sophisticated crowd and said, in your former days of ignorance God overlooked your inattention but now he commands everyone every where to have a transformational change (repent.) Because he has appointed a day where he will judge all. By that one who he has proven to be so. He didn’t do this in secret. Paul said to King Agrippa, these things were not done in a hidden corner, but publicly.

Do you see the difference between the various faith aspects. Are we to have no proven facts, no valid first person historical reports, no witness accounts to a resurrection but were asked to just believe anyway. This is not faith but credulity. This is superstition. The task of apologetics is to show that the evidence that the NT calls us to commit our life to is compelling evidence and worthy of your full effort. And that takes a lot of work. And many of us would rather duck our responsibility of doing the homework and wrestling with the problems and answering objections and would rather just say, just take it on faith. That is the ultimate cop-out. We honor Christ by offering the cogency of the truth claims of the scripture. Even as God does.
Ÿ When God sends Moses to Pharaohs court to tell him to let the Hebrew people go so they may worship me on this mountain Moses responds by how exactly is this going to happen. Who am I. How are they going to know. God responds by telling Moses to put his hand in his shirt and He will show Moses how we will show them. Well, the point is that Pharaoh would, in the end, not deny this power and proof.
That is why we have to do the work before the Spirit does his work. Because the Spirit does not ask people to put their trust and affection and faith in nonsense or absurdity or unsubstantiated truth claims. That is why we have the testimony of the scriptures for our consideration.

* 2 times Sproul talks on a contemporary faith distortion that is readily seen in the American church if not worldwide.

Credulity: noun --willingness to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility