Biblically Born Again

The Leaders, the Message, and the Results of the First Great Awakening

2013-11-29T08:00:00.000-06:00

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

The Leaders, the Message and the Results of
the Great Awakening

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. KEITH GOAD

PROFESSOR

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY ONLINE, SCHOOL OF RELIGION

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

CHURCH HISTORY 302

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY ONLINE

PAUL E. EMERY

MAGNOLIA, TX

25 November 2013

The pendulum of history is always moving; empires rise and fall, science continues to adapt to the ever new theory, political thought moves from one point to another. Can one be surprised that there have been changes and movement in the area of the Church as well? In the 16th century there was a call for reform of doctrine and theology. The 17^th century brought about the “Age of Enlightenment” and the persuasion of reason, and the 18^th century brought about “The Great Awakening”. Like the previous events before it the First Great Awakening brought forth a needed message and results that still impact the Church and society today.

Through the course of the Reformation, and after it, there was great division among the various religious groups. There was still great debate regarding the sacraments of the Church, Baptism and Communion, and how they should be ministered and the message that was conveyed. The debate among those who held to Calvinism and Arminianism raged on. As nations began to define themselves based on their preferred Christian Sect many started persecuting those of other sects. Due to this practice Justo Gonzalez points out how many began to look to reason as they felt the debates of doctrine and theology only resulted in “quarrels and prejudice”.[1] This view lead to the preeminence of reason over religion, and many in Europe were swept away by this way of thought. Enlightenment and reason manifested itself in different ways trough rationalism and through spiritualism.

One of the consequences of reason was the prevalence of skepticism. Skepticism began to spread, and the view of reason permeated into not only Europe, but the colonies as well. The most prevalent form of enlightenment; however, was not through a denial of God, but through a view of God as the cosmic clock-maker who wound up the universe and then let it go its own course. This view is most commonly known as Deism. As Enlightenment was a response to the dogma and religious intolerance, so it too received an answer.

The greatest challenge to the skepticism of the Enlightenment, however, did not come from learned treatise or reasoned debates. Rather, it came from a great spiritual renewal that stemmed the tide of unbelief and brought true revival to God’s church.[2]

As one examines the message and result of the First Great Awakening, and why it served as an answer to the skepticism of Enlightenment it is necessary to first look to some of the key players, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards.

George Whitefield is considered as one of the most well-known evangelists among American and European theologians.[3] Whitefield was a close associate of both John and Charles Wesley having met them while at Oxford as a fellow member of a group of young men Charles had gathered which was soon called the “Holy Club”.[4] Unlike John Wesley, Whitefield was fairly emotional in his preaching, and also insisted on preaching not just in the Church, but in the public square as well. This caused some consternation between Wesley and him.

George Whitefield had several strengths that lead to his reputation. First, Whitefield believed very strongly in using the tools of the World to propagate his message.[5] His use of the printing press is one of the aspects that makes Whitefield’s ministry unique above most of the other preachers of the Great Awakening. As early as 1737 Whitefield had made bold use of the press in England and formulated his use of the “print to preach” strategy.[6]

Another strength of Whitefield was his ability to transcend sectarianism and to work among the various sects, which Lambert believes lead to a new religion.[7] As Whitefield prepared to travel to the colonies in 1739 he sent various writings to the leading Churchman of the colonies, Benjamin Coleman, Jonathan Edwards, and others. In addition, Whitefield sent reports of his ministry activity in England to the colonies to familiarize people with him and his work prior to his arrival

Jonathan Edwards was another significant individual in the First Great Awakening. Edwards was brought up in a very pious home the only son of his parents. He came from two generations of pastors; his father, Timothy Edwards, and his maternal grandfather Solomon Stoddard.[8] Although raised in a pious home he struggled greatly with the doctrine of God’s sovereignty into his college. Caldwell and Sweeney point out that in 1721 as he was meditating on 1 Timothy 1:17 Jonathan Edwards came under “delightful conviction” and the sovereignty of God became his comfort.[9]

As Edwards went on to complete his MA at Yale, he became an avid student and began writing various treatises. In the 1720’s he wrote “Resolutions”, which is still taught today by modern day theologians such as the late Dr. Howard Hendrix. During the 1720s Edwards served as a tutor, and pastored briefly in New York, and then Connecticut.[10] In 1727 Edwards was married, and began apprenticing under Solomon Stoddard in Northhampton until Stoddard’s death in 1729.[11]

From 1729 until 1734 Edwards faithfully served as the sole minister of the Northampton Church. His sermons were well delivered and resulted in some responses, but for the most part there was nothing spectacular. Gonzalez notes that in 1734 something happened that was different, numerous individuals began to respond to Edwards’ message. Some responded with great emotional outpouring, but many responded with what appeared to be a genuine change of life.[12] This change was a result of the message. At the heart of this change was the message Edwards and Whitefield proclaimed; a point this paper will now examine.

One of the main focuses of the Reformation had been to bring the Church back under the authority of Sola Scriptura. As a result the main issues addressed were not necessarily issues of the heart, but issues of doctrine, theology, and orthodoxy. As the Nations began to identify themselves as both a nation and a religious sect, so the people identified themselves based on the same criteria. Although adept theologians and evangelists, Edwards and Whitefield did not focus on as much of the mind as they did the heart.

According to Charles Hambrick Stowe “Seventeenth-century New England Puritans had presented salvation as a process unfolding over a period of months in which sinners moved through successive stages from initial contrition to final conversion.”[13] George Whitefield however, conveyed a message of immediate new birth.[14] This was a part of the message the Whitefield and Edwards proclaimed, immediate salvation.

One of Whitefield’s most well publicized and well known sermons is “The Marks of the New Birth”. In this sermon Whitefield addressed both the converted and unconverted with a message of examination. In the beginning of his sermon Whitefield address the feeling that many believers might have had of resistance to having their fruits examined.[15] In this sermon, Whitefield seeks to deal with those who were raised by the Church teaching them that unless they become as children they will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.[16]

In 1739 Jonathan Edwards had allowed George Whitefield to preach before his congregation. According to Gonzalez, Edwards wept at the preaching of Whitefield, and this sermon reignited a movement that was beginning to falter.[17] As a result of the impact Whitefield had during his travels through the colonies, and because of concern of the message not reaching some areas, “clergy had banded together to stoke the fires of revival by instituting a series of weekday services”.[18]

On July 8, 1741, Edward’s came before the people of Enfield and preached what is considered one of the greatest sermons in American history, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”[19] Edwards took a different approach then Whitefield, but there were aspects of the messages that were similar, primarily the immediate need of salvation. In the beginning of his sermon Edwards proclaimed: “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.”[20] Much of Edwards message focus on the sovereignty of God, and the wrath of God, but like Whitefield Edwards pointed to how Christ had “thrown the door of mercy wide open, and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners.”[21]

Through the message of sin and the encouragement of examining the heart the First Great Awakening occurred. There were various facets of results in regards to the First Great Awakening, some which were immediate, some short-term, and some still have an impact today. The last portion of this paper will examine some of the results.

There was both negative and positive short term results of the First Great Awakening. In the 1740’s Thomas Prince put together a newspaper to report on the First Great Awakening. Dr. Timothy Gloege provided an examination of this work of Prince, “Christian History”, and although he does not view this favorably, his insight provides some ideas as to the negative results of the First Great Awakening. According to Gloege, Prince was concerned with what appeared to be a social order breakdown.[22] In addition, as he attempted to promote the effects of revival, he was challenged by those who were antirevivalists, such as Thomas Fleet.[23]

Another negative result of the First Great Awakening impacted Jonathan Edwards. His grandfather had a philosophy of open communion for all who wanted to participate regardless of profession of faith. During his time as Pastor in Northampton, Stoddard held a belief that communion was a “converting ordinance” which was a belief entrenched in two generations of Northhamptonites.[24] Edwards became convinced, through Scripture, that communion was only to be partaken by those who had been born again as evidenced in their lives. In 1750 Edwards publically opposed Stoddard’s position which resulted in his dismissal from Northampton.[25]

Although there were some negative results related to a struggle for power and authority there were also positive short-term results. First, Gonzalez points out the political consequences that were fairly immediate as the First Great Awakening “was the first to embrace all of the thirteen colonies”.[26] Secondly, the First Great Awakening lead to many people coming forward in professions of faith, including 97 who had joined the Church at the delivery of Jonathan Edwards sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”.[27] Finally, what had started out as impacting individual segments of the Church was united through the work of men like George Whitefield.[28]

Some of the long term results of the First Great Awakening can be seen in Evangelists such as Billy Graham, who in 1964 preached “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” in one of his crusades. The teaching and doctrines of Whitefield and Edwards still impact various Churches today, and although there is some separation, there is still a unity between those who hold to orthodox beliefs that can work together to preach the Word of God.

In conclusion the men, message, and results impacted the time of the First Great Awakening, and still impact the Church today. As conservative theologians turn to Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield they gain a high view of God and His word. The message of the First Great Awakening is desperately needed today, a call to identify ourselves not through the knowledge we have of Christ in our heads, but to have Christ in our hearts. The foundation the evangelical Church of America has today owes much to the First Great Awakening.

Works Cited

Caldwell, R.W. III, and D.A. Sweeney. "Edwards, Jonathan." In Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, edited by Timothy Larsen, 201-5. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.

Dockery, David S., ed. Holman Bible Handbook. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 1992.

Edwards, Jonathan. "Sermon II: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." In Works of Jonathan Edwards. Vol. 2, (with a Memoir by Sereno E. Dwight), 7-12. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974.

Gloege, Timothy E. W. "The Trouble with Christian History: Thomas Prince's “Great Awakening”." Church History 82, no. 01 (March 2013): 125-65. Accessed November 23, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0009640712002545.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Rev. ed. Vol. 2, the Reformation to the Present Day. New York: HarperOne, 2010.

Lambert, Frank. "The Great Awakening as Artifact: George Whitefield and the Construction of Intercolonial Revival, 1739-1745." Church History 60, no. 2 (June 1, 1991): 223-46. Accessed November 23, 2013. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=9&sid=9fe9409c-fd5d-4bef-8e27-e95f938aa1c3%40sessionmgr114&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000840167.

Noll, Mark A. "Whitefield, George." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1273. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Turley, Stephen Richard. "Awakened to the Holy: 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' in Ritualized Context." Christianity and Literature 57, no. 4 (Summer 2008): 507-30. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Whitefield, George. “The Mark of the New Birth”. Spiritual Life. http://www.cbn.com. (Accessed

November 24, 2013)

Winiarski, Douglas L. "Jonathan Edward, Enthusiast? Radical Revivalism and the Great Awakening in the Connecticut Valley." Church History 74, no. 4 (December, 2005): 683-739. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, the Story of Christianity. rev. ed., vol. 2, The Reformation to the Present Day (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 174.

[2] David S. Dockery, ed., Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 1992), 873.

[3] Mark A. Noll, “Whitefield, George,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 1273.

[4] Gonzalez, 267.

[5] Frank Lambert, “The Great Awakening as Artifact: George Whitefield and the Construction of Intercolonial Revival, 1739-1745”, Church History 60, no. 2 (June 1, 1991): 224, accessed November 23, 2013, http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=9&sid=9fe9409c-fd5d-4bef-8e27-e95f938aa1c3%40sessionmgr114&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000840167

[6] Lambert, 224.

[7] Lambert, 224.

[8] R.W. Caldwell III and D.A. Sweeney, “Edwards, Jonathan,” in Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Timothy Larsen (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 201.

[9] Caldwell and Sweeney, 201.

[10] Caldwell and Sweeney, 201.

[11] Caldwell and Sweeney, 202.

[12] Gonzalez, 288.

[13] Charles E. Hambrick Stowe, “The Practice of Piety Puritan Devotional Discipline in Seventeenth Century New England”: pp. 54-90, quoted in Frank Lambert, “The Great Awakening as Artifact: George Whitefield and the Construction of Intercolonial Revival, 1739-1745”. Church History, 1991.

[14] Lambert, 226.

[15] George Whitefield, “The Marks of the New Birth”, Spiritual Life, http://www.cbn.com (retrieved November 24, 2013)

[16] Whitefield.

[17] Gonzalez, 289.

[18] Stephen Richard Turley, "Awakened to the Holy: 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' in Ritualized Context", Christianity and Literature 57, no. 4 (Summer 2008): 507-30, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

[19] Turley, 507.

[20] “Sermon II: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” in Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2, (with a Memoir by Sereno E. Dwight) (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 7-12.

[21] Edwards, 11.

[22] Timothy E. W. Gloege, “The Trouble with Christian History: Thomas Prince's “Great Awakening””, Church History 82, no. 01 (March 2013): 125-65, accessed November 23, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0009640712002545.

[23] Gloege, 138.

[24] Caldwell and Sweeney, 203.

[25] Ibid, 204.

[26] Gonzalez, 290.

[27] Douglas L. Winiarski, “Jonathan Edward, Enthusiast? Radical Revivalism and the Great Awakening in the Connecticut Valley”, Church History 74, no. 4 (December, 2005): 683-739, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

[28] Lambert, 223.

The Sign Miracles: How They Identify Jesus Christ the Son of God

2013-10-04T08:00:00.000-05:00

When evangelizing and sharing Christ in American society there is the likelihood that one will encounter an individual who will deny the deity of Christ or that Christ ever claimed deity. This is particularly true if one encounters a Jehovah Witness or a Muslim. They will blatantly claim that Christ never conferred deity upon himself. With the Jehovah Witness they will deny the translation of John 1:1, and so it is vital that one can present the deity of Christ in another way. This can be successfully done when one understands the sign miracles carefully conveyed in the Gospel according to John.

There are seven miracles or signs presented to the reader in the Gospel account of John. First, Jesus turning the water into wine in John 2:1-11. Second, Jesus healed the nobleman’s son in John 4:46-54. Third, in John 5:1-14 Jesus healed the man who was lame. Jesus’ fourth miracle was the feeding of the 5.000 men, plus women and children, found in John 6:1-14. His fifth miracle was walking on the water (John 6:16-21). Christ’s sixth miracle was the restoring of sight to the man born blind in John 9:1-41. And finally his seventh sign was the rising of Lazarus in John 11:38-43. These are the miracles that most scholars reference when they come to the Gospel of John. Now, Dr. Towns takes a stance that not are there only seven signs performed, but eight, and he looks to the miraculous catch of fish in John 21:5-8.[1] This paper will examine each of the miracles individually and how they demonstrated the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Jesus had just begun his public ministry and at the end of John 1 Christ has called six of his disciples; Andrew, John, Peter, James, Philip, and Nathaniel. In John 2 Jesus and his disciples attend a wedding. While at the wedding an unfortunate event occurred, and the party ran out of wine. Mary comes to Jesus and informs him that the party has run out of wine. Scholars debate as to why she came to Jesus about this. Dr. Towns provides four opinions that have been postulated such as she was asking Jesus and the Disciples to leave, she was asking Jesus to pick up more wine, or she was asking for a miracle, or she was asking Jesus to speak.[2] The text does not indicate what Mary’s expectations where in coming to Jesus, but what the text does specify is that Jesus sees six water pots, has them filled with water, and presented to the Chief Servant, and the water was turned to wine (John 2:7-9).

In this passage Jesus performed his first sign. However, what was the significance of His turning the water into wine? The text demonstrates that only the servants who drew the water, and the six disciples with Christ knew about this miracle (2:9, 11). H.R. Reynolds describes one aspect of this act; “It was a creative act.”[3] T. Croskery further adds to this as he explains how the one “who can create matter can easily change it from one kind to another.”[4] He also explains how this provided for the disciples evidence of the divine nature of Christ, and that “they believed as they never had before.”[5]

John 4:46-54 records Jesus second sign miracle. While Christ was in Cana of Galilee a nobleman came to him pleading for the life of his son who was sick. This was not a Jew who came to Jesus but most likely a Gentile who was in the service of Herod. This man came to Jesus because he had heard about the miracles of Jesus. Upon his request it seems that Jesus gives the man a stern response; “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will not believe” (4:48, HCSB). However, this response does not phase the nobleman at all, instead he again asked Jesus to come and heal his son (4:49). Jesus assures the man that his son will live and sends the man on his journey back home. What is remarkable at first is the belief that the man has in the words of Jesus. At Jesus assurance that his son will live, the man simply starts his journey home (4:50). The first significance of this miracle is that Jesus was demonstrating that he was not limited by space. He was over twenty-five miles away from the boy who was ill. Even today a person may be able to communicate with an individual miles away through cell phone or internet, but there are no direct actions one can do that would at would transverse any distance. In this miracle Christ demonstrated a power that no simple man could attain. Furthermore, Dr. Towns points out that this lead to this man and his whole family believing in the “incarnate Word of God”.[6]

Jesus travels to Jerusalem for a festival of the Jews in John 5. While he is there Jesus provides His third sign and he heals a man who for 38 years had been unable to walk (5:5-8). This sign was directed specifically at the Jewish leadership, and the Pharisees primarily. Christ performed this miracle on the Sabbath which led the Pharisees to further attempt to kill Jesus (5:8, 18). This miracle was significant because of the Jews charge, and Jesus’ response to the charge. The Pharisees were arguing that it was unlawful to work on the Sabbath. Jesus responded that as His Father is working so He also is allowed to work on the Sabbath. As Leon Morris points out, through this sign Jesus was demonstrating that “He could do on the Sabbath things that the Pharisees could not do.”[7] The Pharisees understood the point Christ was “making himself equal to God”.[8]

In John’s record of Jesus’ fourth miracle we are taken to a crowd gathered around Jesus in by the Sea of Galilee, as they are listening to his teachings (6:3). It is now later in the day and as Christ looks over the crowd there is a compassion to care for their spiritual but also their spiritual needs. Jesus talks to Philip, already knowing what He is about to do, but as a faith check on Philip. However, Philip fails the test, and so Jesus brings about another sign and provides not only for the needs of the 5,000 men who are gathered, but also to help build faith in His disciples. Dr. Towns sees the gathering of the twelve baskets as a demonstration of a principle Jesus will further expound on the next day; “That of all that He [the Father] has given Me I lose nothing” (6:39).[9]

Unlike most of the signs of Jesus John leads right from Christ’s sign of the feeding of the 5,000 to Jesus fifth miracle, waking on the water. After the feeding of the 5,000 the crowd purposed to put Christ on the throne of David (6:15) as their provider and defender against Rome. However, the purpose of Jesus at His first advent was not to come as the conquering king, but instead the sacrificial lamb. Jesus removed Himself from the crowd, and sent his disciples across the Sea of Galilee.

The disciples begin their journey across the Sea of Galilee, but a storm comes upon them, and so the disciples have to work diligently to proceed across the way. As they are attempting to cross the now turbulent sea, they see Jesus walking across the water possibly with the intent of passing them (6:19). They are greatly frightened and even assume this might be a harbinger of doom, yet Christ calls to them, and tells them not to be afraid (6:20). In their moment of fear, Christ came them and offered comfort. Reynolds sees the point of this sign as demonstrating that even in Christ’s divinity He has the ability to comfort all fears and doubts, for nothing can occur outside of His control.[10]

Jesus and His disciples come into contact with a man born blind in John 9. His disciples question Him and ask if this blindness is a result of the sin of the individual or his parents (9:2). Jesus explains that it is not the result of sin from anyone of this man being born blind, but instead so that God the Father might be glorified through Christ (9:3). Again, on the Sabbath day Jesus is about the work of His Father. This sign was to demonstrate the mission and ministry of Christ on earth as Divine Operation[11] as B. Thomas points out in his homily in the Pulpit Commentary. Thomas states that this demonstrates the fact that redeeming grace, an attribute the Jews considered only as coming from God, was within Jesus as well.[12]

The other miracles are also significant in their own ways. In the rising of Lazarus Christ’s demonstrates that He has all authority over life and death, a power only held by God. And in the miraculous catch, Christ demonstrates additional power and authority over all of creation. If one is challenged with the claim that Jesus never claimed deity. His very signs demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that Christ was indeed divine. This was something His disciples came to see, the nobleman, the man born blind, and the Jews saw as well. Three of these groups and individuals came to the right understanding of who Christ was, one was blinded and refused to see the fulfillment of God’s promise to send forth the Messiah.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Croskery, T. Gospel of John. 1890. Edited by H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell. Pulpit Commentary. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978.

Morris, Leon. Jesus Is the Christ. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2012.

Reynolds, H. R. Gospel of John. 1890. Edited by H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell. Pulpit Commentary. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978.

Thomas, B. Gospel of John. 1890. Edited by H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell. Pulpit Commentary. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978.

Towns, Elmer. The Gospel of John: Believe and Live. Rev. ed. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2002.

[1] Elmer Towns, The Gospel of John: Believe and Live, rev. ed. (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2002), xiii

[2] Towns, 19.

[3] H. R. Reynolds, Gospel of John, ed. H.,D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, Pulpit Commentary (1890; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978), 79.

[4] T. Croskery, Gospel of John, ed. H.D.M Spence and Joseph S. Exell, Pulpit Commentary (1890; rerp., Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978), 94.

[5] Croskery, 95.

[6] Towns, 44.

[7] Leon Morris, Jesus Is the Christ (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2012), 28

[8] Morris, 29.

[9] Towns, 60.

[10] Reynolds, 255.

[11] B. Thomas, Gospel of John, ed. H.,D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, Pulpit Commentary (1890; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978), 427

[12] Thomas, 427.

Orthodoxy and the Canon of Scripture

2013-10-02T08:00:00.000-05:00

In a world where absolute truth is rejected it is not surprising that the argument continues to surface regarding the authority and authenticity of Scripture. Can an individual be sure that the books that have been preserved are the right books to reference in relation to truth? What about the Gospel of Thomas or the book of Enoch, should not these books be a part of the Scriptures that are preached from on Sunday morning? How can one be sure that, with the variety of translations, that what is found in the text is actually what is supposed to be in the text? In this paper the formation of the Canon will be examined and explained. Various teaching and heresies will be addressed to help present the reader not only with the reason behind the canonicity, but the authenticity and authority as well.

It is important to realize that in all the writings held as Scripture today were never planned to be included in the Scriptures as they are known today. The apostles of Jesus Christ were Jewish men who were raised in a tradition of oral teaching. F.F. Bruce explains how in Galatians Paul makes it clear that he would rather deliver the context of this letter in person, but due to circumstances he takes the time to write this letter.[1] He further explains how many scholars look at the book of Hebrews as a “synagogue homily”.[2] However, Bruce accepts that the oral tradition could not remain as the soul method of communicating. The books that make up the New Testament were written to prevent the “Christian tradition” from being “scholastic property alone” but available to the whole of society which was “more thoroughly literate”.[3]

As the Apostles began to spread throughout the Roman Empire it became necessary for them to put “pen to papyrus”[4] often times to deal with various challenges that arose in the various Churches they had planted. Paul wrote Galatians to respond to the influx of Judaizes who were attempting to persuade the Galatian believers of the need to obey the law (Galatians 3:2-3), Peter wrote his first epistle to encourage the dispersed in holy living (1 Peter 1:13), Luke wrote his Gospel account to provide certainty of belief to Theophilus (Luke 1:3-4). This is important because all of these books were written with a set group or person in mind, and not looking 2,000 years into the future. However, these epistles and Gospel accounts began to be circulated early and in fact the groups who received some of the epistles were told to pass them around to others (Colossians 4:15). Also in 2 Peter 3:15 Paul’s letters are compared with other Scriptures. Furthermore, the writings of the Apostles and the Words of Christ, as explained in the Gospel accounts, were early on accepted as authoritative, and on par with the Law and the prophets.

Within fifty years from last book of the Bible, the four Gospel accounts, and most of Paul’s letters were used and quoted from by the Apostolic Father’s which puts their use among the various Churches within the very early second century A.D. These books were used by the Apostolic Father’s because they contained such authority, that they simply could not be ignored. In Reinventing Jesus, the authors quote William Barclay who said, “It is a simple truth to say the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them from doing so.”[5]

As the teachings of the Apostles spread, and as Christianity entered into many areas that had been the dens of paganism, it is not surprise that various individuals and groups began to sprout up to provide their doctrines and beliefs of Jesus Christ. In order to defend their doctrinal positions these individuals brought up challenges to the teachings that were circulating. Since at the time of the Apostolic Fathers the “Canon of Scripture” was not recognized, these various doctrines began to make serious impacts on the life of the Church. Two such teachings were the Gnostics and Marcion which lead to the Church realizing a response had to be put forth.

Marcion was born around the beginning of the second century and was brought up around Christianity.[6] Justo Gonzalez explains that in addition to his exposure to Christianity Marcion “disliked both Judaism and the material world”.[7] Marcion had a deep devotion to the Apostle Paul, and believed that Paul alone was the only faithful apostle to the message of Jesus Christ.[8] Marcion took his understanding of Christianity to Rome where, scholars believe, he was hoping to receive a good reception to what he believed were the “new teachings brought to earth by Christ”.[9] Once Marcion began to share his doctrine with the Church Fathers at Rome he found a less amicable reception of his doctrine. In response to the unwillingness to accept his teachings Marcion instead began his own congregation.[10]

In line with the creation of his own Church, Marcion went a step further and put together a set of books which he believed taught the true message of Jesus Christ, Marcion created a “canon of scriptures”. The books he chose were the Gospel according to Luke, and ten of Paul’s letters.[11] However, in what he chose Marcion applied very heavy editing and modification.[12] If there were any references to the Old Testament Marcion removed them, and argued that they had been the result of infiltration of Judaizes.[13] Being in one of the mega centers of Christianity at that time it seems reasonable to formulate that Marcion felt the need to justify his position not through his own authority, but to attempt to associate that authority with Paul. Pheme Perkins from Boston College points out what might have been the reason behind Marcion’s canon; “Marcion presumed that a theological principle isolated from the Pauline tradition would provide the key to a uniquely Christian canon.”[14]

The other teaching that was greatly affecting the development of Christianity was Gnosticism. Gonzalez explains Gnosticism as: “not a well-defined organization in competition with the Church; rather a vast and amorphous movement that existed within and outside of Christianity.”[15] Unlike Marcionism the Gnostics did not have a fixed set of books[16], but almost each group had a book that they followed. It is from the Gnostics that the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, and others originated. Additionally, many of these books cannot be dated until late second century A.D. Many of the teachings of the Gnostics were juxtaposed to the teaching of the apostles. The Gnostics did not believe that Jesus had a physical body because they believed all physical material was evil.[17] Many of the practices and teachings of the Gnostics are not as well known today because the Gnosticism taught that what needed to be known to obtain salvation was secret knowledge, and as a result there is limited historical information about the practices and beliefs.[18]

As the Church began to be challenged by these and other teachings, it was deemed necessary to put forth a response. F.F. Bruce explains: “This the leaders of the catholic church knew, was not what they had heard from the beginning. But their followers had to be shown where those new movements were wrong.”[19] A standard had been presented by Marcion, and other teachings offered by the Gnostics. These fathers and church leaders had been presented with teachings past down from the apostles, so how were they going to respond? Gonzalez points out that a response was: “the church at large began to compile a list of sacred Christian writings.”[20] He further addresses the misconception that this was not done at some counsel, but as a result of consensus.[21]

This necessitates the question as to what consensus was made, and how was it reached. Again the Church had spread throughout the Roman Empire. Dr. Elmer Towns explains the four steps required for canonicity in Theology for Today. The four questions related to canonicity were as follows: 1. Apostolic authorship, 2. “Reveled spiritual nature”, 3. Consensus among the Church, 4) “Evidence of divine inspiration”.[22] Based off of these questions most of the 21 to 22 of the New Testament books were judged canonical.

Many Church fathers began to address or refer to certain books as approved by the Church. Gonzalez addresses the fact that unlike Marcion, the Church at large accepted four gospel accounts which included the Gospel according to Luke, but completed not the heavily edited version of Marcion.[23] Acts was also universally accepted. Bruce references Tertullian who “argues that it was quite illogical for those who maintained the exclusive apostleship of Paul to reject the one book which presented independent testimony to the genuineness of the apostolic claim which Paul repeatedly makes for himself.”[24] Instead of only ten of Paul’s epistles, thirteen were accepted including the Pastoral Epistles, as well as 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. Bruce states that by “The Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 twenty-seven books of the New Testament were listed, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity.”[25]

In conclusion, the Canon of Scripture was not a decision of a council or of the Church at large, but as a result of the authority contained in the twenty-seven books which combined form the New Testament. Although the books determined always had this authority the canon was declared by the Church not as a necessity for authority, but as proof of the accuracy of the teachings of the Apostles and the Words of Christ. The Canon was formed to combat false doctrines that attempted to overcome Christianity. Although these authors were not writing these books for the benefit of the Church today, these books bless the Church and provide “everything required for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1:3, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

Works Cited

Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1, the Story of Christianity. New York: HarperOne, 2010.

Komoszewski, J. Ed, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace. Reinventing Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006.

Perkins, Pheme. "Spirit and Letter: Poking Holes in the Canon." The Journal of Religion 76, no. 2 (April, 1996): 307-27. Accessed September 07, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1204411.

Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. 2nd ed. Mason, OH: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001.

[1] F. F. Bruce, the Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 117.

[2] Bruce, 117.

[3] Bruce, 118-119.

[4] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2006), 121.

[5] William Barclay, the Making of the Bible (London: Lutterworth, 1961), 78. Quoted in J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2006), 124.

[6] Justo L. Gonzalez, the Story of Christianity, vol. 1, the Story of Christianity. (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 73.

[7] Gonzalez, 73.

[8] Bruce, 135.

[9] Bruce, 135.

[10] Gonzalez, 73.

[11] Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, 126.

[12] Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, 127.

[13] Bruce, 135.

[14] Pheme Perkins, “Spirit and Letter: Poking Holes in the Canon”, The Journal of Religion 76, no. 2 (April, 1996): 310, accessed September 07, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1204411.

[15] Gonzalez, 70.

[16] Perkins, 319.

[17] Gonzalez, 70-72.

[18] Gonzalez, 72-73.

[19] Bruce, 150.

[20] Gonzalez, 75.

[21] Gonzalez, 75.

[22] Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today, 2nd ed. (Mason, OH: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001), 84.

[23] Gonzalez, 76.

[24] Tertullian, Prescription, 22f. Quoted in F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 151.

[25] F.F. Bruce, the Books and the Parchments, Third Rev. Ed. (Westwood, NG: Revell Co., 1963), 113. Quoted in Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today, 2nd ed. (Mason, OH: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001), 83.

The Defense of Rome and the Rise of the Papacy

2013-09-29T14:33:00.000-05:00

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

The Defense of Rome and the Rise of the Papacy

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. WILLIAM D. BRYANT

PROFESSOR

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY ONLINE, SCHOOL OF RELIGION

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

CHURCH HISTORY 301

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY ONLINE

PAUL E. EMERY

MAGNOLIA, TX

19 SEPTEMBER 2013

Until Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople, Rome had been a city of prestige and power. However, as the focus of the Roman Empire moved to the eastern portion, the city of Rome began to encounter great challenges. These challenges eventually played a major role in more than just the Roman Empire as a whole, but also on the Church at large in the Roman Empire. A couple of the challenges included immigration without assimilation and attacks from various outside forces will be discussed briefly as they played a part in the rise of power to the papacy. The majority of this paper will examine some individuals whose leadership and involvement made sizable contribution to the increase in the power of the papacy. These aspects lead to great power falling upon the Roman bishop who after a period of several hundred years began to be known as the Pope.

Rome experienced a significant increase in immigrants who sought the comfort and peace of Rome. Often however, these immigrants might have sought citizenship, but they brought with them challenges to the Church in theological positions that were once thought resolved.[1] Many of these immigrants came from locations in which Christianity had spread, but who held to the Arian beliefs that had mostly resolved in the Roman portion of the Empire. Since the time of Constantine, various emperors had banished church leaders and bishops who did not hold to their position on the Arian conflict, and so the people sought clarification and direction not from the Emperor, but from the Church leadership.

Beginning in the fifth century, Rome began to find itself attacked by various forces, and often without the support to the Empire. Rome was attacked by the Lombards and Goths, and then in A.D. 452 when the Huns set out to “Conquer Constantinople” they were diverted to Italy.[2] Leo the Great set out to meet “The Scourge of God” and either through negotiations, or through some miracle, Attila decided not to attack Rome.[3] The constant attacks by the various groups, and the lack or limited response of Constantinople were major contributing factors in the pope gaining great power in Rome for, as Gonzalez states: “they had to take measures for their own defense.” There were two typical approaches to the defense of Rome, either a posturing of strength, or paying off the attacking force, as was practiced by Pope Pelagius II.[4]

The immigration into Rome and the various attacks against Rome itself played a role in the rise of the Pope. However, these actions alone would not of brought about the authority and power of the Papacy had it not been connected to some individuals who took these events and used them for the benefit of Rome. This paper will now turn to examine some major players whose actions in the midst of great challenges lead to the rise of the Papacy; Gregory the Great, Pope Leo II, Pepin the Short, and his son Charlemagne.

After Pelagius II, one of the most respected popes came on to the scene, Gregory the Great. This paper will now take a moment to look at Gregory and his impact on the growth of the Power of the Pope. In his Institutio Christianae religionis John Calvin “regarded Gregory I as the last legitimate claimant to the “cura aliarum ecclesiarium” exercised by the bishops of Rome.”[5] Pope Gregory did not see himself as an all perfect leader, but instead servant, and he conducted himself as such.

Gregory was born into a time of great chaos in Italy, and in the city of Rome. Not only was Rome subjected to various attacks from, but the city of Rome was suffering various times of famine and plaque. Amongst this chaos Pope after Pope sent request to Constantinople requesting assistance and protection. As history would have it, Gregory was one of the envoys sent to Constantinople around 580 A.D. by Pope Pelagius II.[6] For seven years Gregory was in Constantinople, and although he did not complete his primary objective, to bring a response from Constantinople to address the challenges of Rome, John Norwich argues that Gregory’s time was still successful: “he earned the respect of two successive emperors, and returned in 585 with firsthand knowledge of the Byzantine court and its ways.”[7]

Gregory was elected as Pope in 590 AD after Pelagius II fell to the plague that was affecting Rome at the time. Most historians agree on is that Gregory never desired the office of the Pope, and in fact on his return from Constantinople he had placed himself again into a monastic life.[8] Upon his election to the papacy Gregory wrote to the emperor and requested that his election be overruled.[9] In spite of his hesitation, Homes-Dudden described how Gregory, in a letter to a bishop, indicated that he was willing to hold the role as it was the will of God.[10]

Gregory the Great impacted three areas which also lead to the rise of the power of the papacy. First, Pope Gregory had to not only exercise authority in the religious aspect of Rome, but was also forced to take on much of the civilian authority as well. This civilian authority of Gregory was not performed out of a desire to hold this type of authority but a reason of need of leadership. Dr. David Hipshon argues in an article he wrote for Journal of Ecclesiastical History that Gregory lived with a theology that secular authority also played a role in salvation.[11] Unfortunately for Gregory, the exarch of Revenna, Romanus, was either unwilling to deal with the crisis of the Lombardian attacks due to helplessness[12], or simply unwilling to “lift a finger” due to jealousy[13]. As such, Gregory’s “time was taken up secular business”.[14] These challenges of the civilian authority eventually lead to Gregory securing peace with the Lombards.[15] This was demonstrated when Gregory took on the role of defense of Rome when Romanus enticed King Agilulf to attack Rome.[16] Neill and Schmandt explain how in A.D. 599 Gregory again brought about peace with the Lombards and his power then began to outshine the power of Romanus.[17]

The second increase of power to the papacy that was impacted by Gregory was his desire to expand Christendom. With his desire to spread Christianity, Norwich explains how the north seemed “more promising”.[18] “At the beginning of Gregory’s pontificate the principal regions to be taken in hand seemed to be Visigoth Spain, Frankish Gaul, and Anglo-Saxon Britain.”[19] Neill and Schmandt give great praise to the work of Pope Gregory the Great:

He seconded St. Leander’s work in converting the Visigoths, urged the Lombards to accept Christianity, and dispatched St. Augustine of Canterbury to England to bring the Angles and Saxons into the Church. Benedictine monasticism owed its first expansion to him and much of its fame from his biography of St. Benedict.[20]

With this growth in the Church it is no surprise how in almost 200 years after Gregory, the Church is going to find allies amongst these groups evangelized that will only further expand the rise of the Papacy in Rome as will shortly be addressed.

The third and final rise of the Papacy that will be discussed as it relates to Gregory is in something that came about with unintended consequences. As someone who had denied his great wealth in order to serve the LORD in the monastery prior to his becoming Pope, Gregory had a great concern and care for those who were poor. As was mentioned earlier in the paper, the attacks of Rome were only a portion of the great challenges that faced this once great city. Poverty, plague, and famine brought about many dire consequences upon the city. The care for the poor had been a major concern for various Popes, and in fact was the direct reason that Pelagius II came into contact with the plaque that lead to his life coming to an end. As Pelagius had shown great care for the poor and distressed of the city, so Gregory in many ways exceeded that of his mentor.

During the greatness of the Roman Empire the many lords and landowners bestowed charity among the poor of Rome, yet after the move of the Capital of the Empire, and the lack of protection offered by the Empire Homes-Dudden points out: “Most of them had removed to Constantinople, some had died out. As things were, the Pope was almost the only wealthy man remaining in the city”.[21] How was the Pope able to help those who were poor? The answer is the “Patrimony of St. Peter, the vast estates belonging to the Church scattered throughout Italy, Sicily, and the north.”[22]

It was in his use and reorganization of the Patrimony of St. Peter which lead to one of Gregory’s biggest and unintended rise of the power of the papacy. Earlier in his life Gregory had served as one of the Perfects of Rome[23], and as such was probably fairly familiar with how the Patrimony was run. As was mentioned previously, Norwich indicated how the knowledge of the Byzantine Court was organized was something that Gregory benefitted from while in Constantinople.[24] With the vast administrative experience that Gregory had over his various positions, Gregory used that to his advantage to organize the Patrimony of St. Peter for the sake of the poor. Norwich explains how this was accomplished:

It (the Patrimony of St. Peter) was effectively in the hands of nineteen deacons, seven of whom had charge of the seven regions of the city. Gregory not only increases their numbers several times over but swelled them further with newly created ranks of subdeacons, notaries, treasurers, and senior executive officers, together forming a civil service unparalleled in Europe outside Constantinople itself.[25]

Gregory was the first to attempt to reorganize the Patrimony of St. Peter. Norwich explains the resulting consequence of this organization: “he unknowingly laid the foundations of what was later to be the Papal State, ensuring the temporal power of his successors which was to endure for the next thirteen centuries.”[26]

After the death of Gregory, Neill and Schmandt speak about how Italy enjoyed a mostly stabilized Italy during the seventh century.[27] However, during this time there was only a further alienation between the Pope of Rome and the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople. Emperor Leo III’s constant involvement in ecclesiastical business only intensified this great separation.[28]

The continued straining of relationship between Rome and Constantinople was the final piece of the equation in relation to the rise of the power of the Papacy. Of all the parts this was substantial because although Emperor Leo III and Emperors that followed continued to try to fight for control in theological issues, they refused to stand up in defense of Rome from the continuing attacks of the Lombards. Pope Stephens sent an envoy to Constantinople to request aid from Emperor Leo III, unfortunately Emperor Leo refused to assist, and instead advised Stephen to “seek alliances from another Germanic tribe”.[29] Finally, after attempts to gain support from the Byzantine empire failed, Pope Stephen went up the Franks and there found support from Frankish ruler Pepin the Short.

Pepin’s loyalty to the papacy was in relation to a debt he owed when Pope Zachary crowned him as King over the Merovingian kingdom.[30] This was a debt that Stephens was willing to call upon and further in debt Pepin and his family in the defense of Rome. When Rome was under siege of King Aistulf, and the new Pope, Stephens, knew that he was in desperate need of the protection from the continual onslaught of Aistulf. Pope Stephens traveled up to see Pepin, and in 764 Stephen crowned Pepin and his sons the “Patrician of the Romans”.[31] In essence Stephens only increased the debt of Pepin and his sons in the hands of the Pope.

Pepin the Short honored his debt to the Pope, and was indeed an able defender of Rome. In 754 and 756, Pepin fought against the forces of King Aistulf and in 756 King Aistulf was disposed from the throne and a steward of Pepin’s was put in his stead.[32] In addition, Pepin committed the land that had been claimed by the Lombards as the property and under the absolute authority of the pope.[33] In his obligations to the Pope, Pepin removed the sovereignty of these areas from the hands of Constantinople who had failed to defend it, and from the hands of the invading forces thus making a step of removing the authority of the state from the head of the Church.

After Pepin’s death, Charles and Carloman took over the rule of the kingdom. However, within three years Carloman died, and instead of his sons being given their portions of the kingdom as was custom Charles declared himself sole ruler.[34] Charles proved as faithful as his father in the defense of Rome and on Easter of 774 Charles came before the new Pope, Hadrian. At that time he not only reiterated his father’s donation, but added to it greatly. Charles also affirmed his intention of bringing all Churches in his dominion into unity with the Pope and the Church of Rome.[35] Possibly unintentionally, Charles did something on this Easter which again added to the power of the Pope. As a king of a vast domain, Charles knelt before Pope Hadrian showing not that the Pope was subject to the secular authority, but that the secular authority was inferior to the authority of the Pope.

It is reasonable that Charles did not realize the significance of this concession, which was demonstrated in his reaction to Pope Hadrian and the issue of iconoclasm.[36] Pope Hadrian had sent a delegation to Constantinople at the request of Empress Irene who had called for an Ecumenical Council. For many years the issues of images used in worship had been a major bone of contention between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church. This had all the appearances of Constantinople making an attempt to reunify an empire that had been separated unofficially. Charles was furious about this development as he, and his father before him, had been the protectors of Rome not only secularly, but also theologically.[37] Charles thought it only right that he should have been allowed to send a delegation to Nicea, and this lead to some tension between Pope and King. However, the relationship was restored, and after Hadrian’s death a strong relationship still remained between Charles and the Pope.

The final player and action that lead to the rise of the power of the Papacy, as discussed in this paper, occurred between Pope Leo III and Charles around December A.D.800. Pope Leo had come to the office of Pontiff not in celebration and excitement but in doubt and suspicion. Upon his ascension around A.D. 797 Leo faced challenges from Pope Hadrian’s family. In late A.D. 800 some charges were brought up against Leo and Charles went to Rome to see how best to support Leo. The question was did Charles or anyone have the right or authority to cast judgment upon the Pope?[38] Pope Leo III did not appear before any authority, but instead made an oath that the charges were false. Two days later, Charles knelt before Leo, and Pope Leo III crowned Charles the “Emperor of the West”.[39] The final piece had fallen into place. With the actions of Leo III, not only did the Pope rise in power, but in action placed upon the Pontiff absolute authority beyond and above any secular authority. For the next thousand plus years the Pontiff had the ability to appoint the Emperor of Rome.[40]

In conclusion, there were several events and situations which lead to the rise of the power of the papacy. Immigration without assimilation had to be addressed outside of secular authority, and theological positions had to come not from the emperor, but from the Church. With all the various outside forces attacking Rome, and with the unwillingness or inability of Constantinople to defend, the Pope took on himself the role of defense both militarily and theologically. More than just militarily, the poor and the sick had also to be cared for and provided, and with the riches falling not upon the citizens, but the Church, the Pope had to use the resources available to answer the challenges of famine and pestilence.

All of these events played a role in the rise of the papacy, but what was the biggest contributing factor were not the events, but the players on the scene. Gregory the Great rose above Romanus in the defense of Rome and in the care of the people. Gregory the Great expanded Christendom beyond Rome, and through his actions brought about the evangelism of the Franks, which lead to the close union of the Franks and the Pope hundreds of years after his death. Through careful restructuring of the “Patrimony of St. Peter” Gregory laid the foundation for the organizational structure that is seen today. Popes Stephen, Hadrian, and Leo through careful practice and blatant claims laid the foundation of rising the Pope from one subject to secular authority to being the supreme authority, even with the ability to name and crown emperors. Pepin the Short, and his son Charles, through their contributions to the Pope in areas of authority, and in actions of submission lead to the Pope as supreme authority over Rome. All these factors and people gave rise to the power of the papacy.

Works Cited

Dudden, F. Holmes. Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought (2 Volume Set). 1905. 2 vols. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. 2nd ed. Vol. 1 of the Story of Christianity. New York: HarperOne, 2010.

HIPSHON, DAVID. "Gregory the Great's ‘Political Thought’." The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 53, no. 03 (July 2002). doi:10.1017/S0022046902004219 (accessed September 19, 2013).

McEniery, Peter. "Pope Gregory the Great and Infallibility." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 11, no. 2 (Spring 1974): 263-80. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost.

Neill, Thomas, and Raymond Schmandt. History of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1965.

Norwich, John Julius. Absolute Monarchs: a History of the Papacy. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Random House, 2011.

[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, the Story of Christianity., 2nd ed., vol. 1 of the Story of Christianity. (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 270.

[2] Gonzalez, 282.

[3] Gonzalez, 283.

[4] Gonzalez, 285.

[5] Peter McEniery, “Pope Gregory the Great and Infallibility,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 11, no. 2 (Spring 1974): 263-80, ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed September 19, 2013).

[6] John Julius Norwich, Absolute Monarchs: a History of the Papacy, 1st U.S. ed. (New York: Random House, 2011), 41.

[7] Norwich, 42.

[8] Norwich, 42.

[9] Gonzalez, 287.

[10] F. Homes-Dudden, Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought (1905; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004), 1:228.

[11] David Hipshon, “Gregory the Great's ‘Political Thought’,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 53, no. 03 (July 2002): page nr., doi:10.1017/S0022046902004219 (accessed September 19, 2013).

[12] Thomas P. Neill and Raymond Schmandt, History of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1965), 123.

[13] Norwich, 42.

[14] Homes-Dudden, 1:246.

[15] Homes-Dudden, 2:13.

[16] Neill and Schmandt, 123.

[17] Neill and Schmandt, 123.

[18] Norwich, 45.

[19] Norwich, 45.

[20] Neill and Schmandt, 123.

[21] Homes-Dudden, 1:247.

[22] Neill and Schmandt, 124.

[23] Homes-Dudden, 1:105.

[24] Norwich, 42.

[25] Norwich, 43.

[26] Norwich, 48.

[27] Neill and Schmandt, 134.

[28] Neill and Schmandt, 136.

[29] Neill and Schmandt, 140.

[30] Norwich, 53.

[31] Norwich, 53.

[32] Norwich, 54.

[33] Norwich, 54.

[34] Norwich, 54.

[35] Norwich, 55.

[36] Norwich, 55.

[37] Norwich, 55.

[38] Norwich, 56-57.

[39] Gonzalez, 289.

[40] Norwich, 57.

The Unholy Alliance of Genesis 6:1-2

2013-05-04T10:35:00.000-05:00

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. Genesis 6:1-2 New King James Version

In the Genesis class I am currently taking at Liberty University we were assigned three interpretive question. The interpretive question I selected on the first of the three was on the identity of the “sons of God”. This is a topic of discussion between different theologians and scholars, and one that generates some sound differences in how one views the Scripture both in part and in whole.

Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, argues that the world was divided into two parts; the family of Seth and the family of Cain.[1] As such, Calvin then points out that he believes the “sons of God” in this passage must be the descendants of Seth. In his perspective, the taking of wives by the descendants of Seth from among the descendants of Cain was a mix of the righteous of God with the unholy or unrighteous.[2] Calvin further goes on to state that this was a serious offense in the breaking of God’s commands.[3] For his final point, Calvin argues: “When Scripture speaks about the sons of God, it sometimes refers to eternal election”.[4]

The second source referenced was Barnes Notes on the Old Testament by Albert Barnes, a respected theologian and scholar from the 1800’s. Although similar in some ways to Calvin’s view of the “sons of God”, Barnes offers some different explanations regarding the severity of these unholy marriages. Barnes agrees with Calvin that the “sons of God” must refer to the children of Seth.[5] He supports his viewpoint by offering an understanding first of how Seth served as a replacement of Abel to Eve, and as such was considered the vessel chosen by which the “seed of the woman” would crush the “seed of the serpent".[6] Barnes argues that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God because “they have his spirit or disposition";[7] furthermore, he argues that they were “being born of the Spirit, and walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” [8]

In his Paradise to Prison Dr. John Davis takes a look at the three primary explanations of the “sons of God”. First, he brings up the argument that the “sons of God” referred to angelic beings who took for themselves, wives from men.[9] Davis provides two challenges to this interpretation, but never dismisses the possibility of this interpretation.[10] The second theory is the one demonstrated by John Calvin and Albert Barnes that the “sons of God” could refer to the descendants of Seth.[11] He presents some arguments for this point of view, but then also addresses a few challenges to this theory, as well.[12] Finally, Davis brings up the concept that the “sons of God” were “dynastic rulers in the Cainite line.”[13] Although Dr. Davis brings up this idea, he dismisses it quickly by providing several significant challenges to this theory.[14] Davis thinks that the most likely identification of the “sons of God” could be either the first or second theories.[15] Davis acknowledges, “the fact is, the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 has not been settled.” [16]

The author of this paper falls in the category of students of Scripture who support that the “sons of God” were angels that left heaven, and settled among men. It seems the arguments for the Hebrew phrase referring to the bene elim (sons of God) is only used a few times in the entire Old Testament, and almost all of these terms relate to angels, as seen in Job 1:6 and Psalms 29:1. It is imperative, when looking at Scripture to understand the perspicuity of Scripture, that is the truth that Scripture is self-attesting. As such, one should not overlook and dismiss passages such as 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 6-7. The passages just mentioned can be easily defended to show that some angels, which had fallen, were not sent upon the earth, but are locked up for grievous offenses to the laws of God. The argument presented “angels are neither given or taken in marriage”[17] is related to angels who currently reside in heaven with God which can be supported when looking at the context of the challenge being presented by the Sadducees in Matthew 22. This is not a hill worthy of dying on in theological discussion, but one in which there can be engagement and well-supported from a biblical basis.

Works Cited

Barnes, Albert. "Genesis 6:1-2." In Barnes' Notes On the Old Testament, page nr. Austin, TX: WORDserach Corp., 2010. WORDserach 10.

Calvin, John. Genesis. 1st. British ed. Edited by Alister McGrath and J.I Packer. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2001.

Davis, John J. Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis. Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Sheffield Pub Co, 1998.

[1] John Calvin, Genesis, 1st. British ed., ed. Alister McGrath and J.I Packer (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2001), 67.

[2] Ibid, 67.

[3] John Calvin, Genesis, 1st. British ed., ed. Alister McGrath and J.I Packer (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2001), 67.

[4] Ibid, 67.

[5] Albert Barnes, “Genesis 6:1-2,” in Barnes' Notes On the Old Testament (Austin, TX: WORDserach Corp., 2010), WORDserach 10.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Sheffield Pub Co, 1998), 110.

[10] Ibid, 111

[11] Ibid, 112.

[12] John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Sheffield Pub Co, 1998), 113.

[13] Ibid, 113.

[14] Ibid, 113.

[15] Ibid, 114.

[16] Ibid, 114.

[17] Albert Barnes, “Genesis 6:1-2,” in Barnes' Notes On the Old Testament (Austin, TX: WORDserach Corp., 2010), WORDserach 10

A Review of Cast of Stones

2013-04-28T10:42:00.000-05:00

A great frustration of many in the realm of Christian fiction is the lack of imagination or uniqueness. This may sound like a slightly exaggerated claim, but there is often a limit of Christian fiction that is not geared towards Amish romance, Old west romance, or murder and drama. None of these are a bad genre, or ones that should be dismissed or ignored, but these limit the appeal of Christian fiction. It is for this reason I was very excited when Bethany House announced the release of a new book by Patrick W. Carr A Cast of Stones: The Staff & The Sword.

Set in an almost middle age’s world, A Cast of Stones is a book that gets off to a quick start with action, adventure, and examination of life. This is the first book in a series that Patrick Carr is offering, and it seems to be a story that will excite and enthrall. The story begins with a young man by the name of Errol who sets out on what seems to be a simple task, and one that he has done many times, but that quickly takes twists and turns that young Errol could not expect.

As the story progresses many changes begin to happen to Errol as his identity and character are challenged, and he must either stay who he is, or become who he was destined to be while being confronted with insurmountable odds. Throughout this story Errol is challenged with a pain that he had spent year suppressing through drink. Errol is not only haunted by these great pains, but also sought after by enemies whom he does not know, and thrown apparently off track by events outside of his control.

Patrick Carr did more than just write intriguing fiction with Cast of Stones, instead he also offers character lessons and moral challenges. In its pages Carr creates a mirror for self-examination. It is for this reason that I give this book five stars for interest, intent, and intrigue. If you love fantasy and adventure, then Cast of Stones: The Staff & The Sword is a book worth reading.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Bethany House as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commision’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

The Apologies of Paul in Acts

2013-03-28T07:11:00.000-05:00

As most of you will know I have been attending Liberty University through their on-line program for almost a year now as I work on completing my Bachelor of Science in Religion with a focus on Apologetics and Theology. This is a research paper I wrote for a class this last sub-term looking over four of the Apologies of Paul. This will be by far one of the longest blog posts, but one I hope will benefit and bless you.

Both the Gospel according to Luke and Acts were written by Luke to provide an absolute assurance to Theophilus on the “exact truth” (Luke 1:4, New American Standard) in relation to that which he had been taught in his faith in Jesus Christ. In Acts there is a narrative provided of how the truth of Jesus Christ was being taught and spreading throughout “Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). In the last quarter of his narrative Luke separates from the spread of Christianity to primarily focus on the accusations brought against Paul and his defenses. The sudden shift of Luke from the historical narrative to the apologies of Paul is to provide Theophilus with not only the historical truth, but also an applicable truth in the defense of the faith in “an atmosphere of hostility, contention, and debate”[1].

In Acts 21 through the end of Acts there are “six defenses”[2] that Paul offers in regards to the faith that he had been proclaiming since his conversion. These defenses, or apologies [a transliteration of the Greek term used by Paul in Acts 22:1 “hear the defense that I now make before you” (English Standard Version)] are shared before different groups, the Jewish Crowd who apprehended him at the Temple; the Sanhedrin; Felix; Festus; Festus with King Agrippa and Bernice; and finally before the Jews in Rome. For the sake of time and size of the paper the focus that will be drawn upon is the focus on three of these apologies in which there appears to be a greater focus on the speeches of Paul. These defenses will be the apologies before the Jewish Crowd; Felix; and Festus, King Agrippa, and Bernice.

The first question that must be answered to fully get into the greatness of these apologies, and why Luke took so much time to focus on these is to understand the charges that were brought against Paul which lead to the legal need for him even to provide a defense. Paul had just returned to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost with the intention of providing an offering that had been taken among the Gentile Churches for the sake of the Church of Jerusalem. Luke does not address the attitude of the elders of Jerusalem in regards to how they received the offering, but he does address that they “glorified God” (Acts 21:20) when they received the report from Paul as to the response of the Gentiles to the Gospel of Jesus.

However, it was also prudent for the elders to share a concern that had come to their attention. The great enemies of the Gospel, the Judaizers, had been spreading reports throughout the Jews, both saved and unsaved, about how Paul had become apostate, and an enemy of the Law, the Jewish people, and the Temple. Although there was no proof to these egregious claims, they were so persistent in their message[3] that many of the Jews who were in Jerusalem were susceptible, and the elders wanted to attempt to prevent any issues in their ministry inside of Jerusalem[4]. There is some debate amongst scholars as to whether the course of action dictated to Paul, to partake in a purification ceremony and to pay for the offerings of the four men who had taken the vow of the Nazirite, was Spirit lead or not. This is not the focus of this paper, but to not mention it would be deft of any student of Scripture. Many theologians today hold to a few that this was well fitting in with Paul’s own admonition in Romans 14, 15, and in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. The author of this paper tends to favor this same conclusion.

In Acts 21:27-36 Paul is in the temple honoring his sacrifice when some Judaizers recognize him, and cause a great commotion in the Temple. They do this by creating a great riot laying against Paul two charges. First, he is the one who teaches people against the Jews, the Law, and the Temple. The second charge is that he had brought Greeks into the Temple, and therefore defiled it (Acts 21:28). The crowd is immediately incensed by the charge, and they rise up and drag Paul out of the inner court with the intent of killing him (vv. 30-31). At that time the Romans who are close by here of the commotion, and quickly come taking custody of Paul.

Now that the charges have been presented the focus of this paper will turn upon the defenses of Paul. The first apology to be examined is Paul’s apology before the Jewish crowd.

Acts 22:1-21 is the very first defense that Paul offers against the charges levied against him. A few important aspects of this apology that jump out is; first, Paul does not provide a direct response against the charges; secondly, Paul choses to address his accusers in the Aramaic dialect. This apology of Paul starts off in a biographical approach to Paul’s defense. There are three approaches to Paul’s apology in this passage which will be looked at individually.

First, Paul identified with the people. F.F. Bruce speaks about Paul’s “first attempt at conciliation was his speaking Aramaic.”[5] The Jews present at this time were Jews throughout the Roman Empire, and therefore Paul could of addressed the people in the language of the empire, Greek, yet he specifically chose to address them in the language of their culture. This is important because it again shows Paul consistent in his philosophy of being a Jew to the Jews in Romans 9.

In his commentary on Acts, Steven Ger points out the fact that Paul used this, as well as his term of affection “brothers and fathers” (Acts 22:1) in order to refute the charge that he was “an apostate Jew” but instead demonstrate that he was an obedient Jew.[6] Ger, John MacArthur Jr., and Darrell Bock all point out the fact that not only does Paul identify himself first and foremost as a Jew, but goes on to explain that along with his exceptional education at the “feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3) but like the people he had great “zeal for God” (Acts 22:3). Darrell Bock points out though that Paul recognized that his zeal for God was not according to knowledge.[7] Having been trained as a Pharisee Paul would have been very knowledgeable of both the Law and the Prophets, yet before his conversion Paul could not see or accept how Christ had been the very fulfillment of the Scriptures that he knew so well. In his zeal Paul sought out to either imprison or to force those who claimed to be members of “the Way” to recant and blaspheme. This hatred for this new sect led Paul to seek out those who had forsaken Judaism far outside of the confines of Judea. In part, as John MacArthur points out, Paul’s own zeal far overshadowed those who brought accusations against him now.[8] As such there was no one present who could realistically challenge his love for God and the law.[9]

The second aspect of Paul’s first apology is related to his calling.[10] Paul informs the crowd about how in the course of his assignment from the religious leadership of Jerusalem, Paul was confronted by a surprising reality; “Jesus the Nazarene” (Acts 22:8). John MacArthur explains this confrontation with Jesus as such: “The One whom he had despised and rejected as a charlatan, a blasphemer, and a false Messiah was in fact the Lord of glory.”[11] It is possible that the Jews could have simply dismissed this claim, but there was one problem. What Paul was describing was very simply historical fact[12], and Paul had some witnesses. The men who had accompanied him to Damascus could attest to the very things that Paul described; a blinding light and a voice.[13] More than just this, the calling that Paul had received on the road to Damascus was confirmed through a healing he received in which God used a man of great piety and respect of the Jewish community in Damascus to bring about in Paul’s own life.[14] Ananias not only was the tool God used, but also the voice that God used to confirm Paul’s ministry.[15] Bruce explains how Paul ultimately became a follower of Christ because the circumstances left him no additional options.[16]

Paul’s final point he makes to the Jewish crowd is related to the fact that he was commissioned by God to be a “witness to the nations”.[17] However, even in his commission Paul’s heart is always first towards the Jews. After three years in Nabataean Arabia Paul came back to Jerusalem[18] and preached Jesus Christ Messiah, the great persecutor became the great preacher. So great was Paul’s heart for the people of Israel that even after an assassination plot was discovered, it took the word of Christ to persuade him to leave.[19]

In his first defense Paul clearly demonstrated that he was not anti-Jewish[20] as the crowd claimed. G.R. Perry says this about the defense of Paul: “Luke’s mature characterization of Paul clearly rejects the charge of infidelity to the Law and confirms the scriptural legitimacy of Paul’s mission.”[21] In his defense Paul tried to focus on how by being a follower of “the Way” but even a more legitimate follower of God whose new zeal for God “was rooted in revelation and knowledge”.[22] In this defense Paul’s focus was on his heart for the Jewish people.

The second apology that will now be looked at is Paul’s apology before Felix in Caesarea found in Acts 24:1-21. This particular defense of Paul is different from the first one addressed as it is not biographical, but as Bruce points out: “the most directly forensic of his speeches”.[23] In this speech Paul will directly counter the individual charges leveled against him by the Jewish leadership.

In Acts 24:1 there is an introduction to a new player on the field, an attorney Tertullus. Tertullus was a paid orator. MacArthur notes that often Jews would hire someone who understood Roman law and proceedings to represent them in Roman courts.[24] Clarkson however points out that there must have been great agitation on the side of the Jews that they even had to appeal to a Roman judge to get their own countryman returned to their jurisdiction.[25] The Jews were angry and were not seeking justice, but condemnation.

Upon the beginning of the proceedings Tertullus laid out three accusations against Paul. Ger provides a great explanation of the charges. Paul was stirring up sedition throughout the Roman Empire, the ringleader of the sect of the “Nazarenes”, and finally that he had defiled the temple.[26] Bock points out that the charge of Paul being the ringleader of the Nazarenes was more political in nature then the charge originally Acts 21:28, and it is “framed in a way that connects this case with Felix’s chief area of responsibility, keeping the peace”.[27]

Acts 24:10 begins Paul powerful apology as they related to the charges that were laid against him. First Paul addressed the issue of sedition by providing a few details of his trip to Jerusalem. First, he was only in Jerusalem for a very short time. There is debate among scholars as to how it was determined that Paul had only been in Jerusalem for twelve days. Of the details that are known Paul was at least five days in Caesarea locked up and therefore unable to cause any kind of riot or sedition in Jerusalem.[28] MacArthur also points out the fact that the other days prior to Paul’s arrest were spent in the purification process.[29] Ger points out that in reality Paul was also attempting to keep a low profile per the request of the elders of Jerusalem, and so there was no evidence that anywhere in Jerusalem was he caught trying to spread derision.[30]

Additional to the lack of support[31] that could be offered for the claim Paul was seeking to cause sedition, is the fact that he testified before Felix that he had come on a mercy of mission to Jerusalem[32]. Far from wanting to cause declension in Jerusalem Paul “was supportive of Judaism and the nation of Israel” and sought to foster unity in honor of the “contribution Jerusalem has made to the Gentiles’ faith”[33] and was bringing an offering that he had received from the various Gentile Churches in support of Jerusalem. This will be also discussed in the third aspect of his defense.

Regarding the charge that Paul was a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5) Paul does profess that he is a follower of “the Way”; however, this is not an acceptance of guilt, but just a general confirmation of his faith[34]. First, by identifying Paul as a member of this sect Tertullus basically showed that this was still a part of Judaism. Due to the Pax Roma that was in effect in Rome, Judaism was a legal religion in the Roman Empire. This charge of Paul being the ring leader of the sect of the Nazarenes as well as his alleged defilement of the temple are religious in nature, and as such were outside of the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire.[35] In verses 14-16 Paul makes the case that the sect is actually a more orthodox faith then even his accusers hold to. The biggest contention is the fact that Paul does not just believe in the resurrection of the dead, both the “just and unjust” (Acts 24:15) as do the people who are bringing this religious charge against him, but that he believes the Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Trites explains that in this discussion Luke is demonstrating that Christianity is not a “religio illicita” (an illegal religion).[36] More than that, as Ger points out: Paul “presented Christianity as the truest representation of Judaism.”[37] Moreover, as Paul continues to offer his apology he stresses the fact that because of the religious view he holds to, he attempts to “maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men” (Acts 24:16, N.A.S.B); therefore, his “orthodoxy impacts his life”.[38]

In his response to the accusation of him “defiling the Temple”, Paul again stresses that he came to Jerusalem not to stir up controversy or sedition, but instead to honor his people with a gift that had been received from the various Gentile Churches. In verse 18 Paul stresses that the charges that were brought against him were not based off of any kind of uproar in the temple in which he was the cause, but instead that other Jews caused the commotion and Paul was simply about his religious practices as an orthodox Jew. Barker in his homily in the Pulpit Commentary points out that Paul “had not been the originator of any disturbance.”[39]

Paul continues in his apology by making another point “there were certain Jews from Asia” (Acts 24:18). In verse 18 and 19 one can hear that Paul almost seems to indicate that it was these Jews who caused the commotion in the temple; however, he holds that comment in check, and instead choses to focus on the fact that these Jews who had originally brought the charges against him were not now present before Felix. Ger argues that Paul is therefore making the point that the entire proceeding was an “abuse of Rome’s time and energy.”[40] Although there is certainly validity to this claim, Bock paraphrases Sherwin-White who makes a very clear statement regarding the lack of the accusers being present at the hearing: “the Romans thought little of people who abandoned their legal charges.”[41] Perry explains the brilliance of Paul’s defense the best when he wrote: “Paul’s solitary and rhetorically adept refutation of their charges exposes the weakness of their case.”[42]

The third and final apology that will be discussed in this paper is Paul’s appearance before Festus, King Agrippa, and Bernice in Acts 26. This particular apology is very unique due to the very evident evangelical purpose of this apology. John MacArthur makes the point that Paul sought to not necessarily defend himself of the charges, but instead to convert Agrippa.[43]

Paul has now been in Caesarea for over two years as he was kept their under Felix, and not released when Felix was transferred to Rome, and therefore Paul’s case was brought by the Jewish leadership before Festus. Festus had attempted to transfer Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 25:9). After Paul’s defense before the Jewish Crowd and the Sanhedrin Christ had appeared to him and told him that he was also going to be a witness in Rome (Acts 23:11); therefore, Paul exercised his right as a Roman citizen and appealed to Caesar. This appeal did put Festus into a quandary as he knew that he had no charges to send on to Caesar. Taking advantage of a visit from Agrippa and Bernice, Festus decided to have Agrippa offer some insight, as one knowledgeable of Jewish law to help him compose his letter to Caesar.

Paul’s defense before Agrippa can be again broke down into three key segments. Like his defense before the Jewish Crows Paul begins this apology with a biographical introduction[44] (Acts 26:2-11). In verse 4 Paul first makes the point that all the Jews of Jerusalem knew of his upbringing and dedication to the law. Paul was raised up in Jerusalem as a “pious Pharisee”[45] and later was the “chief persecutor of the Christian faith.”[46] More than that however, Paul was still living as a Jew who had come to realize the hope of the promise made by God found in Jesus Christ the Messiah. As Bruce points out, Paul’s preaching indeed focuses on the promises given to the nation of Israel through Moses and the Prophets.[47]

In verses 12-15 Paul begins his second segment of his defense, his confrontation by Christ on the road to Damascus. In his zeal and desire for the purification of Judaism Paul had set out not only in Jerusalem but also in “foreign cities”[48] Paul set out to bring any of the blasphemous members of Christianity to Jerusalem to face charges. Again MacArthur stresses the fact that Paul is confronted by the Jesus Christ, whom he had considered a false Messiah.[49]

Paul uses his conversion account to flow into his third and final segment of his presentation before Agrippa, his commission and his obedience to this commission. In his commission there was a key aspect that Paul was to present to Jews and Gentiles alike, repent and turn to God[50] (Acts 26:20). It was this message that Paul then delivered, and it was this message that Paul delivered now. In verse 24 Paul’s apology is interrupted by Festus, but Paul does not lose focus. He turns to Agrippa and asks a powerful question, in which he then answers for him: “Do you believe the prophets” (Acts 26:27).

In this paper there have been three apologies of Paul that have been carefully examined and explained. Each of the apologies was unique in perspective. Paul’s defense before the Jewish Crowd was biographical in nature, attempting to show that Christianity was not contrary to Judaism, but a more complete understanding of the Law and the Prophets. In his apology before Felix, Paul is more direct, and willing to deal directly with the charges laid against him by the Jewish leadership. However, again Paul demonstrates that his belief was a natural conclusion based on an understanding of the Law and the Prophets. Finally in his defense before Agrippa, Paul did not seek so much to defend himself from the charges, although he did address them; but instead Paul sought to show clearly to the audience the need for repentance and turning to God as based off an understanding again of the Law and the Prophets.

In conclusion, Luke turned to these defenses of Paul to provide Theophilus with a firm foundation of the faith that he had come to believe (Luke 1:4). Perry explains how through “Paul’s proclamation, practice, and mission” Theophilus would be able to see that they “were contiguous with “the Law and the Prophets and authorized by Israel’s Messiah.”[51] Theophilus lived at a time when “the Messiahship and Lordship of Jesus” were in dispute, and Luke sought to “demonstrate these claims ‘by many convincing proofs.’”[52] For the believer today, these apologies provide a framework as we engage a post-modern culture that also has great “hostility, contention, and debate”[53] towards any claim of Jesus Christ as God and the only way to eternal salvation.

Works Cited

Barker, P. C. "Homilies by Various Authors." In The Acts of the Apostles Vol. II, edited by H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, 202-3. The Pulpit Commentary 18. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007.

Bruce, F. F. "Paul's Apologetic and the Purpose of Acts." Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 69, no. 2 (01/01/1987): 379-93.

Clarkson, W. "Homilies by Various Authors." In The Acts of the Apostles Vol. II, edited by H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, 198. The Pulpit Commentary 18. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

Ger, Steven. The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World. Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series. Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 2004.

MacArthur, John Jr. Acts 13-28. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996.

Perry, Gregory R. "Paul in Acts and the Law in the Prophets." Horizons in Biblical Theology 31, no. 2 (November 2009): 160-77. doi:10.1163/019590809X12553238843140 (accessed March 05, 2013).

Trites, Allison A. "The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language in the Book of Acts." Novum Testamentum 16, no. 4 (October 1974): 278-`284. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560223(accessed March 01, 2013).

[1] Allison A. Trites, "The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language in the Book of Acts,"Novum Testamentum 16, no. 4 (October 1974): 278, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560223(accessed March 01, 2013).

[2] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 258.

[3] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 250.

[4] Ibid, 251.

[5] F. F. Bruce, "Paul's Apologetic and the Purpose of Acts," Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 69, no. 2 (01/01/1987): 381.

[6] Steven Ger, The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World, Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series (Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 2004), 277.

[7] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 660.

[8] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 265.

[9] Ibid, 266.

[10] Ibid, 266.

[11] Ibid, 267

[12] Steven Ger, The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World, Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series (Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 2004), 277.

[13] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 267.

[14] W. Clarkson, “Homilies by Various Authors,” in The Acts of the Apostles Vol. II, ed. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary 18 (repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 198.

[15] Ibid, 198.

[16] F. F. Bruce, "Paul's Apologetic and the Purpose of Acts," Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 69, no. 2 (01/01/1987): 382.

[17] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 659.

[18] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 269.

[19]Ibid, 270.

[20] Ibid, 264

[21] Gregory R. Perry “Paul in Acts and the Law in the Prophets,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 31, no. 2 (November 2009): 176, doi:10.1163/019590809X12553238843140 (accessed March 05, 2013).

[22] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 663.

[23] F. F. Bruce, "Paul's Apologetic and the Purpose of Acts," Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 69, no. 2 (01/01/1987): 382.

[24] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 303.

[25] W. Clarkson, “Homilies by Various Authors,” in The Acts of the Apostles Vol. II, ed. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary 18 (repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 236.

[26] Steven Ger, The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World, Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series (Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 2004), 288.

[27] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 690.

[28] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 306.

[29] Ibid, 306.

[30] Steven Ger, The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World, Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series (Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 2004), 288.

[31] Ibid, 288.

[32] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 308.

[33] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 693.

[34] Ibid, 692.

[35] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 307.

[36] Allison A. Trites, "The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language in the Book of Acts,"Novum Testamentum 16, no. 4 (October 1974): 283, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560223(accessed March 01, 2013).

[37] Steven Ger, The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World, Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series (Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 2004), 289.

[38] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 307.

[39] P. C. Barker, "Homilies by Various Authors," in The Acts of the Apostles Vol. II, ed. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary 18 (repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 242.

[40] Steven Ger, The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World, Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series (Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 2004), 289.

[41] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 694.

[42] Gregory R. Perry “Paul in Acts and the Law in the Prophets,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 31, no. 2 (November 2009): 176, doi:10.1163/019590809X12553238843140 (accessed March 05, 2013).

[43] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 332.

[44] Steven Ger, The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World, Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series (Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 2004), 294.

[45] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 714.

[46] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 333.

[47] [47] F. F. Bruce, "Paul's Apologetic and the Purpose of Acts," Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 69, no. 2 (01/01/1987): 388.

[48] John MacArthur Jr., Acts 13-28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996), 334.

[49] Ibid, 335.

[50] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 719.

[51] [51] Gregory R. Perry “Paul in Acts and the Law in the Prophets,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 31, no. 2 (November 2009): 177, doi:10.1163/019590809X12553238843140 (accessed March 05, 2013).

[52] Allison A. Trites, "The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language in the Book of Acts,"Novum Testamentum 16, no. 4 (October 1974): 284, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560223(accessed March 01, 2013).

[53] Ibid, 278.

Ecclesiology: A Look at the Offices of the Church and the Role of Women

2013-01-27T13:00:00.000-06:00

In all institutions that the LORD set up there are roles and responsibilities that are orchestrated and structured based off of God’s perfect plan and care for His elect. As such the topic of roles in the Church, such as the elder and deacon/deaconess, as well as the structure of these roles are import to the Church. There is debate on both the offices and structure, but these debates are warranted as there are major concerns when God’s structure is ignored, or deemed culturally irrelevant.

The role of the deacon/deaconess is a great responsibility and blessing. The heart of the deacon/deaconess is a heart of service. Those who take this role seek to serve God and His people. They serve as a great reminder of the heart of Jesus Christ “who came not to be served, but to serve”.[1] Therefore according to Scripture we see that the role of the deacon/deaconess is a role of service (Acts 6:1-7).

Deacons are introduced in Acts 6 in the choosing of the seven. Burge notes this concerning deacons in the first century: “Luke’s intimate knowledge of Paul’s church organization and his extended interest in this passage no doubt suggest that he is here introducing what was for Paul an important office”.[2] In the New Testament only Paul discusses the requirements of the deacon/deaconess.[3] Burge notes “Romans 16:1” and “1 Timothy 3:11”and states “women served actively as deacons” [4] These Scriptures mentioned are why most Churches agree; there is a place for women in the ministry of deaconess.

The next role in the Church is that of the elder. Throughout Scripture the role of the elder has been demonstrated. One occurrence in the Old Testament is when Jethro encouraged Moses to “appoint godly men to judge the people”.[5] Dr. Wallace notes this regarding the elders in the Old Testament “They later administer local government and have a hand in national affairs even after the institution of the monarchy.”[6]

In the New Testament we are given two qualification regarding elders by the Apostle Paul. These qualifications are given to Timothy[7] and Titus[8]. A lot of debate surfaces on the issue of the qualifications, and one question that has to be answered is, did Paul intend women to serve as elders? Of the many debates in ecclesiology, this is probably the greatest.

Egalitarians will stand in support of women in all roles of ministry. Roger Nicole points out a supposed contradiction of Paul; “1 Corinthians 14:33-36: This passage has often been construed as forbidding women to speak in the public gathering of the church. This understanding would put the passage in direct contradiction with 11:5, 13”.[9] Nicole also notes that Christ did not appoint women to apostles for the following:

It is true that our Lord appointed only males as his apostles, but this does not necessarily represent a discrimination, since the ministry of the apostles needed to be readily received and for that purpose the attitude of some of those to whom it would be addressed needed to be considered.[10]

This brings up the argument of culture that many egalitarians argue is the reason why Paul forbade women to “teach or usurp authority over a man”.[11] Dr. Hoggard-Creegan argues “…the Great Commission was given without distinctions of gender.”[12] The final argument used in support of this position is Galatians 3:28 and how “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

These are valid arguments, but complementarianism has Biblical responses to these arguments. First, 1 Corinthians 11 the context is general council and not related to the gathering of the Church. Chapter 14 however, references the public gathering of the Church. In relation to the culture argument: When it comes to the explanation that Paul gives he does not reference culture, but creation. Finally, Galatians 3 has a specific focus of sanctification. Paul is not addressing the structure of roles, but a doctrinal concern. These are just some of the responses and reasoning in support of complementarianism.

In conclusion, the theology of complementarianism continues to show the most Biblical support; however, this in no way discriminatory. When one considers the responsibility of a man to “love his wife as Christ loved the Church”[13] and to “live with his wife in an understanding way”[14] God desires a man to lift up his wife, and certainly God is a savior of both men and women. An important note that must also be made is in relation to the majority of denominations who have ordained women. Ordination of women has led to greater doctrinal concern such as questioning the inerrancy of Scripture, and the ordination of individuals who engage in sin contrary to Scripture.

Bibliography

Burge, Gary. "Deacon, Deaconess." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 320.-21. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Hoggard-Creegan, Nicola. "Ordination of Women." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1286-89. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Nicole, Roger. "Biblical Concept of Woman." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1281-86. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Wallace, Ronald. "Elder." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 369-70. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

[1] Mark 10:45 New American Standard Bible

[2] Gary Burge, “Deacon, Deaconess,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 320.-21.

[3] 1 Timothy 3:8-13

[4] [4] Gary Burge, “Deacon, Deaconess,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 320.-21.

[5] Exodus 18:13-26

[6] Ronald Wallace, “Elder,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 369-70.

[7] 1 Timothy 3:1-7

[8] Titus 1:5-9

[9] Roger Nicole, “Biblical Concept of Woman,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1281-86.

[10] Ibid, 1283

[11] 1 Timothy 2:11, New American Standard Bible

[12] Nicola Hoggard-Creegan, “Ordination of Women,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1286-89.

[13] Ephesians 5:25, NASB

[14] 1 Peter 3:7, NASB

A Look at the Heart of God in Marriage and Divorce: A Look at Anthropology

2013-01-07T09:00:00.000-06:00

In Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 Moses recorded the creation account. In these two chapters people are given the first institution ordained by God. “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.”[1] At the end of His sixth day of creation God instituted the sacred union between a man and woman known as marriage. It is unfortunate that marriage has constantly been treated with disdain, even in religious circles, as marriage impacts not just society, but also represents the relationship between Christ and the Church.

It is important to understand the purpose of marriage before one begins to sort through the challenges to the theology of marriage. Hazel Perkin said: “Marriage is established by God for the good of mankind.”[2] Dr. Granberg and Mr. Root explain “To be made in the image of God is to be made as a social being capable of relationship.”[3] They go on to explain that marriage is the “most significant expression” of relationship.[4] The Bible provides great teaching on the issue of marriage, although in the New Testament the focus is more on how the husband and wife should respond to each other. In the Old Testament the children of Israel were provided requirements and limitations, although in a very limited sense. The restrictions included whom you should marry based off of closeness of family, and in relation to those not of Israel. Restrictions also included the issue of divorce, adultery, homosexuality, just to name a few.

There are at least two perspectives in the Church about what constitutes marriage. Although not necessarily debated, they are very distinct views and both have some defense in Scripture. “Some, arguing from 1 Corinthians 6:16, maintain that marriage is effected through sexual intercourse. A person is considered in the eyes of God to be married to that member of the opposite sex with whom he or she first had sex relations.”[5] This view is not supported in society today, and not even necessarily in the Church. There are some who might argue that this would be the correct view, however there is another view that has equal support. Granberg and Root provide a second perspective, and one also supported by Scripture. “Others consider marriage to be brought about as the result of a declaration of desire to be married,”[6] Even at the Old Testament Law there is a support for this view. Exodus 22:15-16 the issue is brought up about a man seducing a virgin. In verse 15 there seems to be the support that he is to pay the bride price and then take her as his wife, however, verse 16 puts that choice upon the father of the virgin who can chose not to let her be taken as the man’s wife, but the man who seduced her must still pay a penalty for his sin and no restriction is placed upon him, or the virgin in regards to marriage.

Unfortunately the Church is plagued by the issue of divorce just as much as society in a whole. Of course people will point to the issue of adultery as an acceptable cause of divorce as shown in 1 Corinthians 7, Matthew 5:31-31, and Matthew 19:3-9. Although divorce is allowed it is not commanded. Dr. Atkinson takes a view that many believe is more in-line with the heart of God. “However, taking the divine covenant as our guide, divorce is never obligatory, even the sin of sexual unfaithfulness can be an occasion for forgiveness and reconciliation.”[7]

In general I believe that marriage is not based off of sex. Those who hold to a different position would use 1 Corinthians 6:16 their response. I point out that fornication is a sin equal with all sins. I then argue that if one is going to hold to a verse that is not in the context of marriage between a man and a woman, but instead as a picture of our relationship with Christ that we need to look at the whole teaching on marriage and a man or woman is bound by a choice of who they will marry as they are bound by a choice to be united with Christ.

In the issue of remarriage I think that the Word of God does cover this issue in great detail, and that those who divorce due to sexual sins in their marriage, people who are divorced from an unbeliever, and those who are widowed are all allowed in Scripture to remarry.

Marriage and divorce are issues of great importance. The impact of divorce in society is very evident in how people relate to each other, and to God. People should not enter into the covenant of marriage lightly, but with a heart of obedience to the LORD Jesus Christ, because marriage is the greatest picture of God’s relationship to His people.

Bibliography

Atkinson, David. "Divorce." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 345.-48. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.

Granberg, Lars, and Jerry Root. "Theology of Marriage." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 743-45. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.

Perkin, Hazel. "Marriage, Marriage Customs in Bible Times." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 740-43. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.

[1] Genesis 2:24; Holman Christian Standard Bible

[2] Hazel Perkin, “Marriage, Marriage Customs in Bible Times,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 740-43.

[3] Lars Granberg and Jerry Root, “Theology of Marriage,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 743-45.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] David Atkinson, “Divorce,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 345.-48.

How Can a Loving God Allow Evil to Exist? A Look at Hamartiology

2013-01-01T10:00:00.000-06:00

Hamartiology and theodicy are some of the most discussed theologies both by theists and atheists. Theists discuss these as they derive and discuss understandings of God’s grace, mercy, justice, holiness, and other attributes and His creation; whereas, the atheists discuss these as a way of supporting their view that there cannot be a God because of the inconsistencies, which they argue, must exist because if there is an all-powerful God why is there also evil in the world. It is important for these topics to be deliberated because the Word of God does provide answers to the study of sin as well as the doctrine of God’s justice, and as believers there is a need to “always be ready to give a defense”.[1]

J.S. Feinberg says that “a successful theodicy resolves the problem of evil for a theological system and demonstrates that God is all-powerful, all-loving, and just despite evil’s existence.”[2] The problem of evil is a great challenge believers face in defending their faith. In his article on the problem of evil, Dr. Feinberg argues there are many problems with evil, there is “religious”, “philosophical/theological”, as well as the “intensity and gratuitousness of evil” just to mention a few.[3] Evil does exist in the world, one simply turns on the news and sees the many atrocities that mankind commits, yet it is very mistaken to attribute this evil to God. Evil exists as a result of man’s heart and mind being twisted away from the holiness of God towards his/her own thoughts and desires.

Evil is evident both in moral and natural aspects. Dr. John Gerstner describes these two aspects of evil as “bad (moral evil) or the harmful (natural evil).”[4] An example of moral evil would be a person making the conscious choice to kill a fellow person. Natural evil would be when there are unintended victims as a result of poor choices, for instance the person who drinks alcohol and then drives and as a result kills or injures another individual.

The philosophical problem of moral evil is a result of the choice of Adam to sin by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.[5] Because of Adam’s choice to violate the only provision that God had given Adam missed the mark, and brought about sin upon all mankind.[6] The philosophical problem of natural evil is in part a result of Adam’s choice to sin, and so man’s free-will cannot be dismissed in conjunction with natural evil. Because of Adam’s sin “The ground is cursed because of you.”[7] This is also validated in the Flood in Genesis 6 because of the evil of man God extinguished all life on earth save Noah and his family.

Dr. Feinberg discusses three particular theodicies, the “extreme rationalistic theological system” best demonstrated by Gottfried Leibniz, the “modified rationalistic system” seen in the Augustinian tradition, and the “soul-building theodicy” in the Irenaean tradition best represented by John Hick.[8]

Each of the theodicies provides a consistency in dealing with the problem of evil. This is necessary in order to provide the answer that people desire when it comes to understanding the complex aspect of an all-powerful and all-loving God while also dealing with evil in the world. In regards to the theodicy presented in this paper, a reasonable defense is also available, but a few other things need considered. People are finite in their understanding and will always be perplexed by an infinite God. A look at theodicy would be incomplete without considering Job. Ultimately Job was never provided an answer regarding his suffering. In the last three chapters God basically informs Job that as God, He does not have to provide rhyme or reason to the finite mind, however, when one considers the outcome in Job’s life his wealth and family were doubled. Romans 8:28 is a verse that should be carefully considered when looking at the issue of God’s justice. Thus evil exists as a result of man and man’s choices and desires, yet even man’s evil can be used for God’s good. When one considers the Scriptures mentioned, evil is a result of the choice of Adam to sin, thus bringing evil into what was a perfect world.

It is imperative to realize that personal experiences of evil can affect the lives of an individual and their relationship with God. When it comes to evil occurring in a person’s life they are responsible for how they handle the pain and grief caused by evil. Many people will chose to look at God unjustly, they will argue that they are a good person evil should not happen to them. There are two flaws with this supposition; first is the supposition that they are a good person, “all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory”.[9] Secondly, even if a person is saved we still live in a fallen world, and God makes it clear that “rain on the righteous and the unrighteous”.[10] The other opportunity is for people to look at the trials and tribulations through the lens of James 1:2-4.

In conclusion, as believers we need to understand both the doctrine of sin and God’s justice. We live in a fallen world, as a result of Adam’s sin, yet there is hope through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to overcome sin. Someday all evil will be eradicated, and those who have Christ as their savior and LORD will again be restored to the perfection God has intended.

Bibliography

Feinberg, John. "Evil, Problem of." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theolgoy. 2nd ed, edited by Walter Elwell, 413-15. Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001.

Feinberg, John. "Theodicy." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter Elwell, 1184-87. Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001.

Gerstner, John. "Evil." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter Elwell, 412-13. Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001.

[1] 1 Peter 3:15 Holman Christian Standard Bible

[2] John Feinberg, “Theodicy,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001), 1184-87.

[3] John Feinberg, “Evil, Problem of,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001), 413-15.

[4] John Gerstner, “Evil,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001), 412-13

[5] Genesis 3:6 Holman Christian Standard Bible

[6] Romans 5:12-21 HCSB

[7] Genesis 3:17

[8] John Feinberg, “Theodicy,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001), 1184-87.

[9] Romans 3:23, HCSB

[10] Matthew 5:45, HCSB

A Biblical Look at Satanology and the Existence of Evil

2012-11-05T08:00:00.000-06:00

Every religion and philosophy has some belief on the issue of good and evil. This is well seen, especially this time of year as Halloween approaches. However, there is a difference in how most religions and philosophies view this concept of good and evil in contrast with Christian believers. For many people there is this “yin and yang” view that both good and evil exist and that they are two equal forces since eternity at work. Believers see this differently as they recognize the personification and existence of evil, but not as equal or as eternal. Believers know that evil is not eternal because the personification of evil, Satan, is not eternal. He is a created being created in eternity past through the creative work of God who is eternal.

Satan was a created being, and was one of the highest, if not the highest ranking angel that even when contending over Moses’ body, Michael could only rebuke Satan through the name of Christ[1]. Ezekiel describes Satan as the “guardian cherub[2] which places him before the very throne of God. However, in his splendor Satan chose to become full of pride, and stated five “I will” statements[3] that lead to his being cast out of heaven[4]. Until Satan’s pride, sin did not exist, and therefore evil is not eternal.

Of course there are some objections to these interpretations of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. Many people argue that these refer to kings of Babylon and Tyre, yet no name is given for either of these kings. In Isaiah some will attribute this pride to Nebuchadnezzar, Dr. Towns points out a major problem with this belief that Isaiah 14 is referring to a contemporary king when written by pointing out the time frame mentioned in Isaiah 14:1-3. “Israel is described as returning to their land (emphasis added), as ruling over those who had ruled over them, and as resting from their sorrows and fear”[5]. The objection that Ezekiel is referencing an actual king of Tyre is also misguided just by a basic understanding of the text. “You were in Eden, the Garden of God”[6]. No person contemporary to Ezekiel could have been in the Garden of Eden and as Scripture should be taken literally unless there is evidence of a figurative explanation this passage again must be referring to the fall of Satan.

In Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 one sees a picture of one who fell by their own choice. Satan was puffed up with pride in Isaiah 14:13-14 and therefore evil began in his mind, not in the creative work of God. God created the angels with free will and the ability to make conscious decisions and choices. The granting of free will does not make God responsible, but the individual or being through their own conscious choices. Dr. Towns points out the need for free will, “It was necessary that God crate the angels with free will in order that they might offer true praise and worship to God”[7] .

Satan has many limitations in his ability as clearly demonstrated through Scripture. In 1 Peter, the Apostle Peter describes Satan as “roaring lion, looking for anyone he can devour”[8]. This as well as Job demonstrate how Satan is not omnipresent. When you look at Satan’s continuous attack against God, and understand that he does know Scripture you see that he is not omniscient or else he would have to realize he cannot win. In Job we also see that Satan is limited in his power when God granted Satan power over all that Job owned, but restricted Satan’s access to Job’s body[9], and again when God granted Satan power over Job’s body, but would not let Satan kill him[10].

“The Devil made me do it” became a nationally known catchphrase by Flip Wilson, a famous comedian during the 1970s. This has permeated society as well as the Church, yet it is not a Biblical concept. Even in the Garden of Eden Satan did not make Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, even though Eve attempted to blame Satan for her decision[11]. It is because Adam made the conscious choice to eat the fruit therefore violating God’s command which is why sin is in the lives of everyone today[12]. James gives us the clearest understanding of sin, “But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires (emphasis added)”[13]. The Apostle John also explains how sin is a result of what people chose to occupy their minds, “If we say we have fellowship with Him, yet we walk in darkness (emphasis added), we are lying and are not practicing the truth”[14].

Bibliography

Blum, Edwin, Jeremy Royal Howard, and Holman Bible Editorial Staff, eds. HCSB Study Bible, Black Genuine Leather. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2010.

Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001.

[1] Jude 9 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

[2] Ezekiel 28:14 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

[3] Isaiah 14:13-14 (HCSB)

[4] Isaiah 14:15 (HCSB)

[5] Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001), 364.

[6] Ezekiel 28:13 (HCSB)

[7] Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001), 366.

[8] 1 Peter 5:8 (HCSB)

[9] Job 1:12 (HCSB)

[10] Job 2:6 (HCSB)

[11] Genesis 3:13 (HCSB)

[12] Romans 5:12 (HCSB)

[13] James 1:14 (HCSB)

[14] 1 John 1:7 (HCSB)

Spiritual Gifts: Their Purpose and Use

2012-10-29T08:31:00.001-05:00

One of the common queries for believers comes down to, “What is my spiritual gift?” These believers will go to their favorite Christian bookstore, and comb the shelves for something that will indication them how to discover their spiritual gift. With the dawn of the internet many organizations have added “spiritual gift analysis”. In a Christian college a person will often take one of these tests in a Christian Ministry class.

The Apostle Paul is the only author of the New Testament to discuss Spiritual gifts. There are three lists of spiritual gifts in different books that he authored; Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4. In one of these chapters, Paul gives a very clear description of the purpose of spiritual gifts. “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;”[1]

Now there are people who will look at the fruit of the Spirit found in Galatians 5:22 and associate that with spiritual gifts. Spiritual gifts are bestowed on each believer at the time of salvation, and will often be reinforced by some natural talents as well. So why does the Apostle Paul address the fruit of the Spirit? In the area of Galatia there was a great resurgence of Jews going to these various Churches and counseling these believers the need to be circumcised and follow the Law in order to be saved. In writing to these believers Paul was reassuring them that they were free from the Law because the Law is not what justifies or saves. However, as he was beginning to finish his letter he wanted to stress that although the Galatian believers were free from the obligation to the Law it was not to serve as justification for living according to the flesh. In Galatians 5 Paul gives a contrasting example, the fruit of the flesh which leads to spiritual death or separation from God. He then focuses on the fruit of the Spirit which leads to a walk with God.

Although the gift of tongues is stated in a few passages, there are only two demonstrations of this gift which instigated division in the Church of Corinth, and causes division today in the Church as well. In the Holman Christian Standard Bible the Greek word glossa and dialektos is translated languages. In the demonstration of tongues found in Acts 2 it actually gives a definition of what the people where hearing. “How is it that each of us can hear in our own native language”[2] and “Cretans and Arabs we hear them speaking the magnificent acts of God in our own languages”[3]. In this passage tongues was known languages of the Jews from different regions of the Roman Empire. The other demonstration of the gift of tongues was in Acts 10 when Cornelius and those in his house heard Peter’s sermon. The biblical definition of tongues then would be only seen in these two passages, and was the definition Paul was using when describing the spiritual gifts.

The demonstration of the gift of tongues is often associated with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This links back to the two demonstrations of tongues in Acts 2 and 10. This however, seems to be a misconstruction of the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Towns defines the baptism of the Holy Spirit this way, “The baptism of the Holy Spirit is an act whereby the individual is placed in the body of Christ.”[4] When one looks at the various letters of Paul it does appear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is something that occurs at conversion, and not at some point after.

There are denominations that believe that to demonstrate the gift of the Holy Spirit one must speak in tongues. This would be in disagreement with the Apostle Paul when he is talking to the Church of Corinth. “Do all have the gifts of healing? Do all speak in other languages? Do all interpret?”[5] This is a series of rhetorical questions which Paul is answering answers in a previous verse, No.[6] Each of the gifts of the Spirit is a part of the body of believer.

As demonstrated in Acts 2, there no longer seems to be valid evidence in the gift of tongues
today. In 1 Corinthians 13:10 Paul discusses when the “perfect shall come the partial will come to an end”. In today’s society many linguistic specialists go throughout the World with the purpose of living amongst an indigenous populace. These missionaries spend years living amongst the people, and learn the language of the people. They will complete a translation of the Bible for those people hence the need for tongues because the people are then able to partake of the perfect Word of God.

[1] Ephesians 4:12 (New American Standard Bible)

[2] Acts 2:8 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

[3] Acts 2:11 (HCSB)

[4] Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today, 2nd ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001), 296.

[5] 1 Corinthians 12:30 (NASB)

[6] 1 Corinthians 12:28

A Basic Look at Christology, the Humanity and Deity of Jesus Christ

2012-10-23T14:17:00.000-05:00

Secularists and other religions will claim the man of Christ. They will celebrate in the examples He gave us, but only focus on His humanity. These people will speak of Him in the same context as Gandhi, Mohammad, Buddha, and consider Him a great teacher, maybe even a prophet. However, these same people will then deny the deity of Christ. As C.S. Lewis explained;

Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.[1]

Who therefore is Christ and what is important about Christology?

In the New Testament there is ample evidence of Christ’s humanity. The Apostle John in his first epistle addresses how he, and other witnesses, had “heard, seen, beheld, and handled the Word of Life”.[2] Peter speaks about Christ’s resurrection in his first epistle (1 Peter 1:3, 17-21). In his second epistle, Peter stresses the fact that he and the others did not “follow cleverly devised tales…but were eyewitnesses”.[3] The Gospels also give proof of the humanity of Christ. Two of the four Gospels give an account of Christ’s birth in Bethlehem and all four gospels give an account of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. Even the Old Testament addresses the need for Christ to come in the flesh (Gen. 3:15; Deut. 18:15-18, Isaiah 53). The deity of Christ is probably the most problematic for most secularists and theologians. Muslims and Jehovah Witnesses will claim that Jesus never claimed deity, and the Jehovah Witnesses have gone to great lengths to try to remove all claims of deity from their particular translation. However, if one is willing to look at the “I Am” statements in the Gospel of John they will see Christ’s deity. In the New World translation the major I am statements are left intact, an example: “Martha said to him: ‘I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.’ Jesus said to her: ‘I am the resurrection and the life…”.[4]

Other key Scriptures are the “I AM” statements in John (John 4:26; 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51; 8:12, 18, 28, 58; 10:7, 11; 11:25; 13:19; 14:6; 15:1; 18:5) These are just some of many Scriptures that support the deity of Christ.

Even in the Old Testament we see the deity of Christ. Dr. Outland speaks about four scriptures that also identify the deity of Christ in the Old Testament.

Psalm 45 rejoices in one who is both royal groom and eternal Ruler. Psalm 110 esteems the son of David who also towers over David as God’s final answer to worldwide human rebellion. Isaiah 9 celebrates the birth of a child who, as our divine warrior and endless benefactor, will advance David’s kingdom successfully and infinitely. Daniel 7 reveals heaven’s decree of worldwide, eternal authority conferred on a celestial being who stands forth also as a man.[5]

People who argue that Jesus could not be both fully-God and fully-man miss some key aspects of Christology. Christ was “tempted in every manner as we are” yet also claimed the “ability to forgive sins” something only “God could do”. Christ had omniscience as we see when he addresses Nathaniel, yet chose at times to restrict His knowledge in the situation of the woman suffering from a blood disease. Christ could be fully-God and fully-man because He did not “empty Himself” of His deity, but simply of His glory. The Hypostatic Union is basically “the deity and humanity of Christ exist without confusion, without change, without division, without separation”[6].

In Romans 7 the Apostle Paul explains the purpose of Christ becoming incarnate to save humanity. Because sin entered into the world by a man, it was necessary for righteousness to also enter into the world through one man.[7] This man had to be perfect, “tempted in every area as we are yet without sin”[8]. The writer of Hebrews goes on to explain that the “shedding of blood is necessary for the forgiveness”[9] of sins. Jesus’ incarnation was necessary so that the payment of sin could be paid to satisfy the Law.

When one overemphasizes the deity of Christ it can devalue His sacrifice on the cross, and the fact that He “emptied Himself” for the sake of mankind. To deny the deity of Christ brings into question the very character of Christ, and removes the possibility of Him being a good teacher. When we overemphasize the humanity of Christ it disallows salvation from being accessible, and all people are therefore condemned. To deny the humanity of Christ also denies the possibility of salvation to all people because there is no payment that has satisfied the demands of the Law.

Through Church history there have been several challenges to Christology. As one evaluates these claims it appears there are two fronts of attack. Dr. Buswell presents a chart where he demonstrates these attack fronts.[10] The first front actually came from those who denied the humanity of Christ and would include the Docetists, Apollinarians, and Eutychians. One simply needs to look at Philippians 2:5-11 and John 1:1-18. The second front, which is the more common today, is the attack on Christ’s deity. This doctrine was supported by the Ebionites, Arians, and Eutychians. Christ clearly claimed deity in numerous incidents through the “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John. A clear example is in John 8:48-59.

In my own personal life the humanity of Jesus is very important. Even though He was fully God, still He spent great amounts of time in prayer. He was about His Father’s business, and gives me an example of what I need to follow in bringing people the gospel of Jesus Christ. As long as the LORD allows me, my desire is to be following after the example of Jesus.

Bibliography

Buswell, J. Oliver. "The Person of Christ, His Deity and His Humanity." In Soteriology and Eschatology, 46. Vol. 2 of A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973.

Hall, J.H., ed. "Council of Chalcedon." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 218.-19. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity: A Revised and Enlarged Edition, with a New Introduction, of the Three Books, the Case for Christianity, Christian Behaviour, and Beyond Personality. Macmillan paperbacks ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1952.

Morgan, Christopher W., and Robert A. Peterson, eds. "The Deity of Christ and the Old Testament." In The Deity of Christ, 58. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2011.

[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: MacMillian Publishing Company, 1952), 56.

[2] 1 John 1:1 (New American Standard Bible)

[3] 2 Peter 1:16 (New American Standard Bible)

[4] John 11:24-25 (New World Translation)

[5] Raymond Outland, “The Deity of Christ and the Old Testament,” in The Deity of Christ, ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 58-59

[6] J. H. Hall, “Council of Chalcedon,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2001), 219

[7] Romans 5:12-19 (NASB)

[8] Hebrews 4:15 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

[9] Hebrews 9:15 (HCSB)

[10] J. Oliver Bushwell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), 46

A Short Essay on the Inerrancy and Inspiration of Scripture.

2012-09-06T23:04:00.000-05:00

I am going to preface this particular post with a disclaimer. This was an essay written for my Theology 201 class at Liberty University and as such there was s very strict word length, which I still ended up being above, although I substantially cut some of the words used. This is in no way a complete and thorough evaluation of Inerrancy and Inspiration, but I do believe it presents some points worth considering. With this disclaimer, I do hope you will read over my humble thoughts, and will be blessed.

Short Essay on Inerrancy and Inspiration

The challenges of inerrancy and inspiration have plagued the Church for millennium. Secularists and liberal theologians will challenge the entirety of Scripture while arguing that the Bible is still a good moral authority. Even pastors in denominations that are fairly conservative will challenge the need for an inerrant and inspired account of God’s word. In Theology for Today Dr. Towns quotes Dr. Robert Bratcher who stated, “To invest the Bible with qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false God.”[1] As the Bible is the Word of God, it seems not plausible, but necessary for the Bible to be authoritative, inerrant and inspired.

2 Peter 1:3 says “seeing that His divine power has granted to use everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence”. Joshua 1:8 says, “This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it;” Each of these two verses contains at least one very important word, “everything” in 2 Peter 1:3, and “all” in Joshua1:8. The Bible is what should direct the lives, through the power of the Holy Spirit, for every believer, and truly for all people.

As the very Word of God, the authority of the Bible is two-fold. Christ, who was God in the flesh, used Scripture as He battled against Satan during His forty days in the desert. For each of the tests Satan placed before Him the Son of God responded with Scripture to respond to each temptation (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10; Luke 4:4, 8, 12). In His use of the Scripture, Christ validated the “ontological authority” of the Scripture. The Bible also obtains it’s authority from God, Himself. “Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s will in thought, purpose, and action),” (2 Timothy 3:16). Scripture is God breathed, just as His spirit was put into man in Creation through the breath of God (Genesis 2:7).

Dr. Towns gives a great definition of Inspiration in relation to the Scriptures in his book Theology for Today, “Inspiration is the guidance or influence of the Holy Spirit on the human writers of Scripture so that God controlled them in such a way that what they wrote was exactly what God wanted them to write without error” (Towns 2001, 59). Inspiration of the Scripture is directly taught by the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16. Christ supported the inspiration of the Scriptures in Matthew 5:17-18 when He addresses that He came to “fulfill the law” (Matthew 5:17), how until “heaven and earth pass away” not one portion of the law “will pass away” (Matthew 5:18). Inspiration or dictation of God is also supported in 2 Peter 1:21 and 1 Corinthians 2:13.

P.F. Feinberg has a fairly solid definition of inerrancy. “When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms” (Elwell 2001, 156). In his introduction to the Gospel he compiled Luke explains how he “carefully investigated everything from the first” (Luke 1:3). Since God has provided us “everything we need for life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3) the information has to be inerrant, and completely truthful. Again in Matthew 5:18 Christ says: “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.”

There are four major arguments that Feinberg identifies when it comes to the discussion on inerrancy. The first argument Feinberg identifies is “the Biblical Argument”. In this argument the premise is that Scripture itself teaches its inerrancy, even if the word itself is never used. This draws back to the point in the beginning of this essay that the Scripture cannot be a good book or profitable in some of its teaching and not in others because the Bible itself proclaims that “Every Scripture is God-breathed”. This argument however, would seem to be easily rejected by those who are outside of the faith because it can appear as circular reasoning. The second argument is “the Historical Argument”. Many secularists and liberal theologians will say that the cannon of Scripture was not created until the Council of Nicaea. In this argument though there is abundant evidence of the quotation of Scripture all the way back to 2^nd century Christian fathers as Dr. Towns points out in Theology for Today, pg. 78-79.

Some would claim that the last two arguments are the weakest. In the “Epistemological Argument” the challenge is that some of the scripture is not inerrant then there can be no sure indication of which portion is inerrant, and which portion is not. “The Slippery Slope Argument” would then go a step further and argue that if you give up on inerrancy other doctrines will be more easily rejected. This seems to be the most appropriate argument because what has been demonstrated in many mainline denominations that have moved into areas of much greater concern for example the Episcopalian Church and their acceptance of homosexuality after rejecting the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

The relationship between inspiration and inerrancy is that of a symbiotic relationship. If the Scripture is indeed “inspired by God” who is perfect then the Words which He chose for His revelation must be inerrant not just as it relates to “faith and practice” but as Dr. Towns attests "There was no error in grammar, historical locations, sociological understanding mathematics, geology, geometry, or geography” (Towns 2001, 59). If even one portion of Scripture is not inerrant, then all of Scripture needs brought into question as to whether it could be breathed by God.

In taking the view of the absolute authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of Scripture means that one accepts it in its entirety as Peter suggests, that the Scripture is the revelation of Christ and therefore has “granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness.” (2 Peter 1:3). It also verifies the Apostle Paul’s claim that the purpose of Scripture is “profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s will in thought, purpose, and action),” (2 Timothy 3:16). The Scripture is God’s perfect revelation to us, and as such will always point us to living for God's glory.

Bibliography

Blum, Edwin, Jeremy Royal Howard, and Holman Bible Editorial Staff, eds. Hcsb Study Bible, Black Genuine Leather. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2010.

Feinberg, Paul, ed. "Inerrancy and Infallibility of Bible." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 156-59. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.

Ryrie, Charles C., ed. Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update. Expanded ed. Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1995.

Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. 2nd ed. Nashville, Tenn.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001.

Zondervan. Amplified Bible. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

[1] Robert Bratcher, “Biblical Authority for the Church Today,” Christianity Today, (May 29, 1981): Quoted in Elmer Towns, Theology for Today. (Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2008), 65

If You Have a Love Problem, You Have a God Problem: A Review of Marriage Matters

2012-06-13T10:26:00.000-05:00

No matter what culture says, there is no doubt that marriage is an important foundation of society. Regardless of race, religion, political, or social background marriage exists and has existed in every society that we know of from the ancient Egyptians to every country in the world today. Yet marriage is also greatly under assault. Much of this is due to how we treat marriage; the proliferation of no fault divorce and adultery are just some examples of how we continue to attack this foundation.

I have been married for almost eleven years now and know with how little regard I have treated my marriage. Although, through the power of Christ, I have made many strides to restore my marriage, and to again build upon a Biblical foundation there is no doubt that with the attacks I have leveled against my marriage I needed some guidance and insight into what I can do better. Recently I received the opportunity to begin book reviews for another publishing house, New Growth Press, and this review will focus on a book I received from them, Marriage Matters: extraordinary change through ordinary moments by Winston T. Smith.

Until recently I have never been a fan of marriage books, yet as I have been growing in my relationship with my wife it was a marriage book that ultimately helped me realize that I was no doing all that I could. Just prior to our middle daughter being born Jen and I got to take part in a couple study on Love and Respect. This book was the beginning of turning me around in how I loved and treated my wife. This does not mean I still have not struggled on loving her like I need to, but I began to see things that made sense to me. When I saw Marriage Matters as one of the options for review, I decided to take a look at another marriage book to see what else I might learn.

Smith starts off this book with sharing a personal story about his own marriage. In brief summary he felt that his wife was not keeping his needs in perspective as she went out on a Saturday morning and early afternoon with her friends. This particular day was a busy day, as any parents of two or more children can imagine. He explains how one had to get to baseball practice, the other had to go to a birthday party, and Smith was trying to prepare for a Bible study that evening (Smith 2010). How many of us have been in a similar circumstance? We know that there are things we need to do, but our spouse is not home, or is tied up doing something. Suddenly we do not care whether or not what they are doing is important after all they are messing with a schedule we had already agreed upon. I know I have fallen into this cycle myself many times. Smith describes these as the ordinary moments (Smith 2010).

In these ordinary moments we often time questions the love our spouse has for us. In all reality though we are not showing love to our spouse. Instead we are thinking about ourselves, and the impact their supposed self-centeredness had on what we needed to accomplish. We begin to treat our spouse in an unloving manner, either getting angry or withdrawing into ourselves. Smith quotes from 1 John 4:7-12 as he begins to get into the meat of chapter 1.

Dear friends, let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love. God’s love was reveled among us in this way: God sent His One and Only Son into the world so that we might live through Him. Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Dear friends, if God loved us in this way, we also must love one another. No one has ever seen God. If we love one another, God remains in us and His love is perfected in us (Holman Christian Standard Bible, HCSB).

Shortly after quoting this Scripture Smith makes a very interesting and powerful observation. “A lack of love should prompt us to not just look more closely at our marriage but at our relationship with God.” (Smith 2010) He then goes on to say, “The bad news: your love problems are bigger than you think because love problems are God problems.” (Smith 2010) What a powerful observation, and one I was very oblivious to for the majority of my marriage thus far.

From this observation Smith begins to help show how the ordinary moments can be extraordinary. Smith divides his book into three sections to help build upon this basic principle. In the first section Smith focuses on “God in the ordinary moments.” The second section is “Extraordinary love in the details of marriage”, and then his final section is “Staying on the path”. Each section is well built upon, and upon the ending of this book the reader does have a good picture of what it looks like to see “extraordinary change in ordinary moments.”

In this book I see no weakness at all. Smith does well using personal stories to explain his points in each of the chapters, and this book is filled with Scripture and Scripture references. There are many strengths in this book which make it great for not only reading as an individual or couple, but also for small group or Bible Studies as a tool to help tackle the Biblical principles of marriage. Each chapter contains questions to help the reader focus in on the picture that the chapter is trying to portray. This is a book I will certainly read again.

I find it very easy to rate this book 5 out of 5 for practicality and application, as well as insight and direction. This book will benefit engaged couples as they prepare to enter into the challenges and joys of marriage as well as the veteran couple who have been married for decades. I look forward to seeing the other books that are offered by New Growth Press.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from New Growth Press as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Healing Your Church Hurt Book Giveaway Winner

2012-05-01T17:57:00.002-05:00

And the Winner Is:

Biblically Born Again Blog is pleased to announce the newest winner of our free book giveaway. The winner is going to receive a certificate that can be redeemed at any Christian retail company, or sent directly to Tyndale for a free copy of Healing Your Church Hurt by Stephen Mansfield.

We want to thank Tyndale for providing us the opportunity to review Healing Your Church Hurt as well as providing a free copy of this book to one special reader of our blog. Tyndale Publishers has been publishing since 1962. Founded by Dr. Kenneth N. Taylor so that he could publish The Living Bible, Tyndale continues to bless Christian authors and readers by publishing Christian fiction, nonfiction, children’s books, and other resources.

The winner of our Healing Your Church Hurt giveaway is Gerry Snyder from Decatur, TN. Gerry is an avid blogger at http://www.scripturelinks.com. Gerry will receive his certificate in the mail. I want to thank all of you for your participation, and I look forward to see our response next book giveaway.

Healing Your Church Hurt Book Giveaway

2012-04-22T12:49:00.000-05:00

Have you or someone you have known suffered from Church hurt? Have you felt rejected or looked down upon them that are your brothers and sisters in Christ? Has a Pastor, Elder, or Deacon/Deaconess said something about you that you felt was untrue, or not in love or kindness. The truth of the matter is we live in a fallen world, and even those who mean well will at times hurt us. 95% of the time this is unintentional. I myself have experienced Church hurt in the sense of people who I held in high esteem went so far as to questions my salvation, not to me, but to my father. Yet, even today do I hold this over these godly men? The answer is, No.

In his book, Healing Your Church Hurt, Stephen Mansfield addresses the issue of Church hurt, and what should be our response to it. I hope you all had a chance to read my review of this great book. Now I have something I want to announce. As part of the blog tour I was given the ability to give away one copy of this book. Others who I have shared my review with have known others who might benefit from reading this book. So now I want to give you the chance to get a copy of this book.

This drawing will end on April 30^th, and here are the details. If you would like a chance to get a free copy of this book please follow these simple steps.

1. If you have Google + add and leave a comment for me at pemery4christ92@gmail.com. This will give you two entries.

2. If you have not sent me a friends request at Facebook, add me as a friend and leave a comment. This will give you two entries.

3. If you are not following my blog become a follower or subscribe to the blog at http://www.biblicallybornagain.blogspot.com. This will get you one entry.

4. You can also follow the Emery Family Blog at http://www.theemeryfamilyblog.blogspot.com. This will get you one entry.

5. Go to the book review of Healing Your Church Hurt and leave a comment. This will give you one entry.

6. Share the book review on the social media of your choice, the more media sources you share the more points you will earn, and then send me a link to your share so I can verify. Points will be based off verification.

7. Do you blog? Then connect your blogs to mine using Network Blogs. This will give you one entry.

I look forward to sharing future contests with you.

In Christ,
Paul Emery

The Issue May Be with the Church, but it is also an Issue with You: A Book Review of Healing Your Church Hurt

2012-04-18T11:51:00.002-05:00

Back in December Tyndale Publishers announced another blog tour. This time there were two books available The Resignation of Eve and Healing Your Church Hurt. I would be lying to say both of these titles caught me a little off guard, and I again chose to participate in the blog tour because I again thought I was going to see yet another attack against the Church. I have not received The Resignation of Eve but I did receive Healing Your Church Hurt.

Healing Your Church Hurt is written by Stephen Mansfield with a forward from George Barna. The forward by George Barna starts off with Barna bringing up a few occasions when he experienced church hurt from various congregations and leaders of churches he attended. Getting through the forward was kind of challenging because it seemed to be a slight against the body of Christ. However, it was this premise which Mr. Mansfield was addressing in this book, how we are to heal from church hurt.

As I began to read this book I went in with the assumption of this being an attack on the body of Christ. I was sure that this book would stir up passions of insult and injustice on the fellowship of believers. However, as the old adage goes “never judge a book by its cover.” Within the first chapter my assumptions were not just addressed, but quite frankly, blown right out of the water. So now I will share with you all some of what I got out of this book and what I think you can get out of it as well.

In Chapter One, “The Image of Our Folly”, Stephen addresses three important truths to the reader that are necessary if one is to benefit from reading this book. His three truths are; first, he is a coach not a counselor; second, he mentions how one cannot become free of Church hurt unless someone gets tough with them, and then finally he addresses what was my initial concern. I will use Mr. Mansfield’s own words to explain this point.

Finally there is a myth we need to knock in the head…When we’ve been hurt by the church we often tell ourselves that we are going to keep on loving Jesus but that we no longer want anything to do with his people. We say this to ease our pain but we are fools when we do. (Mansfield 2012)

This is a major point that often is not addressed as well as it should be. How often do people say that they still love Jesus, and can worship Him privately and will not attend a public gathering of believers in Christ? Hebrews 10:24-25 says, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” (English Standard Version 2001)

People who have been hurt by others, have a natural tendency to hold on to this hurt, and to become victims of the circumstances that have befallen them. People will then generally respond to this sense of victimhood in one of two ways. They will both retreat into their shell, and remove themselves from regular interaction with people. The second possible response is for the hurt individual to become confrontational, and tell everyone how poorly they were treated, or what wrongs were committed against them. Mansfield takes the time in this book to show how people do not have to retreat into either of these two spectrums of response, but how to take their hurt, and learn from it.

Another common situation that Mansfield addresses is the tendency of people to feel as if they are all alone, or no one can understand how they feel. Mansfield dedicates the second chapter of Healing Your Church Hurt to an introduction of several men throughout history who experienced their own hurts at the hands of those who were their friends. These notable people in history are Abraham Lincoln, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Vincent Van Gogh, and others. The main focus of “The Sea Breeze of the Centuries” is the fact that regardless of how we feel, we are not in our hurt alone.

Of course there is so much more I could say about this book. What I will say is I went from a skeptic to a believer on the points that Stephen Mansfield makes in this book. What I was originally thinking I would rate as a 1 out of 5 stars I now gladly give 5. If you have been hurt by the Church, and I do know some who have been, I think you may find some of the answers you are looking for in Stephen Mansfield’s Healing Your Church Hurt.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Tyndale House Publishers as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commision’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Where are the Shepherds of the Family? A Book Review of Family Shepherds

2012-02-19T08:00:00.001-06:00

Since May of 2011 I have had the privilege of reviewing 14 books on various topics and of different genre, and from various publishers. I am honored to have this opportunity, and humbled that my opinion is of value to you who have read my various book reviews. I owe a special thanks to my friend and Christian Brother, Dave Jenkins, who was willing to contact Crossway and let them know that I would be honored to review for them as well. Thank you Brother. Dave and I have a lot of similar interests in books, and the book I’m writing on today is no different. I have just finished reading Family Shepherds by Dr. Voddie Baucham Jr.

Dr. Baucham is a pastor at a Church here in my area. He serves as the preaching pastor at Grace Family Baptist Church out of Spring, TX. It is possible I have met Dr. Baucham as he is a shopper at a Christian retail location where I work. I don’t recall if I have or not, but it is exciting that there is a chance if I haven’t I someday may.

I usually select books that interest me to review for the various publishers. I figure if I am going to take the time to read a book then it should be something that can give me some practical guidance for where I am at in my life. Family Shepherds falls well within this category. As a husband and father of five I am always trying to see the best way to serve and to lead my family in the path of righteousness and to deepen their love for our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ.

Deuteronomy 6:4-9 is a passage that every father/family shepherd should know, for in it we see the very foundation of why we should be the family shepherd.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all you soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of you house and on your gates. (Englsih Standard Version 2001)

One of the key words in this passage is the word “command”. God did not ask us to teach our children, He commanded that we do so. It is with this premise that Dr. Baucham begins to write Family Shepherds. In Family Shepherds Dr. Baucham breaks the roles of the Family Shepherd into four key areas. These four key areas break down like this; first, family discipleship and evangelism; second, marriage enrichment; third, the training and discipline of children; and finally, the need for lifestyle evaluation. Since my job is to get you interested in the book we are only going to take a look at a couple of these areas momentarily, and then you’ll have to read the rest.

I write out this key passage from Deuteronomy not just to challenge you, but to challenge myself. This is how I felt as I began to read this newest book from Voddie. How am I doing in discipleship and evangelism? Is my marriage stronger now than it was ten years ago? Am I training my children as I ought, teaching them the need of salvation for the deliverance of their sin, or am I teaching behavioral/morality changes without the necessary authority and need of Christ as LORD of their lives? Dr. Baucham quotes Charles Hodge, a well known theologian in the mid-nineteenth century (Baucham, Voddie 2011) who said: “The character of the Church and of the state depends on the character of the family. If religion dies out in the family, it cannot elsewhere be maintained.” (Hodge 1871) If fathers are not doing the job God entrusted them with, then we are only leading to our own demise.

In his section on Family Discipleship and Evangelism Dr. Baucham discusses the benefit and purpose of having a family catechism. The idea of a catechism has been part of the Church for probably centuries, and was used by Catholic and Protestant Theologians alike. To be honest when I first saw this chapter on catechism I was about ready to skip it. However, I decided to read it because I was curious about what Dr. Baucham’s thoughts where on this idea.

First, for those who maybe aren’t familiar with the term catechism let me first use Dr. Baucham’s explanation. “It is simply a pedagogical method employing questions and answers to teach a set body of knowledge. Ultimately, it is a means of teaching Christian doctrine in a concise, repetitive manner. (Baucham, Voddie 2011) Although a very foreign concept in today’s modern day Protestants the catechism was used by great Protestant theologians such as Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards. I am blessed to have in my possession a copy of Luther’s small catechism that belonged to my father. My wife and I are in discussion in to implementing a catechism in our house thanks to this section of Family Shepherds.

Another powerful section of Family Shepherds is the section on the training and discipline of children. This is a very hotly contested area especially in light of the post-modern day view of “love and tolerance”. So often we hear people say we shouldn’t judge, we need to let our children make their own decisions, so forth and so forth. To the secular world the very idea of a “family shepherd” is counter-intuitive, yet as we see crime rates grow, never has something been more important than the role of fathers raising their children.

In Christianity especially there are two authors who have addressed the specific topic of discipline and training of children; Michael Pearl and his book To Train a Child and Tedd Tripp and his book Shepherding a Child’s Heart. Again I own a copy of both of these books so when I came to chapter 10 I came to it with an understanding of both of the trains of thought represented by these two authors. Between these two authors there is a major difference that I noticed as did Voddie. First Michael Pearl has the philosophy that “training doesn’t necessarily require that the trainee has reason; even mice and rats can be trained to respond to stimuli.” (Pearl 1994) However, Tedd Tripp starts off his book this way, “The Scripture teaches that the heart is the control center for life.” (Tripp 1995)

One doesn’t have to look very far to spot the vast difference between these two authors. Michael Pearl believes you can teach behavior through stimuli while Tedd Tripp points to the fact that the heart is the control center of a person’s life which means to train them up you must address the heart. In Family Shepherds Dr. Baucham says this, “We must have a grasp on our children’s greatest need if we ever hope to see it met.” (Baucham, Voddie 2011) I would be lying to say that this did not strike me right between the eyes. So often when I train or discipline my children, I’m not focusing on the control center of their lives, their hearts, I’m focusing on what makes me happy.

If we as fathers are only focusing on behavior or morals, then we do not love our children as Christ loved us. If we are focusing on behavior or morals then we are not training up our children to love the LORD with all of their heart and all their soul and all their might. Jeremiah 17:9 tells us that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Englsih Standard Version 2001) Matthew 12:34 says, “You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” (Englsih Standard Version 2001) If we as fathers do not address the heart of our children, and strive to lead them to saving faith in Jesus Christ, then we are shepherds who have failed. Dr. Baucham quotes the great Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards (Baucham, Voddie 2011) who said, “How few are there who are thorough in maintaining order and government in their families! How is family-government in a great measure vanished! And how many are as likely to bring a curse upon their families, as Eli.” (Edwards 1835)

Dr. Baucham is a huge proponent of the age-integrated congregation. What this means is that his Church does not practice such things as nursery, children’s church, youth group, or even Men or Women’s Bible studies, although they do have a monthly Men’s meeting. I do not agree with Dr. Baucham on this of course, and in fact want to point out what I see as a slight contradiction in his book. First, he says this:

Virtually all the debate over the discipleship of young people begins with the assumption that church structures and programs such as the nursery, children’s church, Sunday school, and youth group are foundational discipleship tools and whatever happens must take place within that framework. (Baucham, Voddie 2011)

I disagree with this assumption, and would in fact argue that these programs and church structures are helpful, and can serve as a supplemental, not a foundational discipleship tool. More so I believe that Dr. Baucham contradicts himself only three pages later when he says, “We do not rely either on the pulpit or on the home. Both institutions are charged to play their role.” (Baucham, Voddie 2011) This being said however, I do find this to be a book that every Church leader, father, mother, and Church staff should read. I agree with the premise that discipleship ultimately rests in the home. As one looks at the direction society is taking there is no doubt in my mind that it is time for the father to be his family’s shepherd.

From where I stand, even though I may not agree with everything that Dr. Voddie Baucham believes I still see this book as a must read, and gladly rate it 5 out of 5. I’m honored to have added this book to my library and look forward to reading through it again and again as Dr. Baucham helps teach me and all men how to be Family Shepherds.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Crossway as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Works Cited

Baucham, Voddie. Family Shepherds. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

Edwards, Jonathan. "Christian Cautions: or, The Necessity of Self-Examination." In The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 1:183. New York: Daniel Appleton and Co., 1835.

Englsih Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2001.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. New York: C. Scribner, 1871.

Pearl, Michael. To Train Up a Child. Pleasantville: NGJ Ministries, 1994.

Tripp, Tedd. Shepherding a Child's Heart. Wapwallopen: Shpherd Press, 1995.

Like it or Not Dads, You are Needed! A Book Review of What A Son Needs from His Dad

2012-02-04T08:00:00.001-06:00

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. And he will turn The hearts of the fathers to the children, And the hearts of the children to their fathers.” Malachi 4:6-7 (New King James Version)

One just has to watch some of the popular shows of today to see how the world views fatherhood. Think of The #@$% my Dad says, Family Guy, American Dad, or the Simpsons to only name a few. For probably the past 30 years or more media, pop culture, and so the so called women’s liberation have sought to portray all men as vile predators always seeking their next pound of flesh. Instead of standing up to this assault men have either accepted it, and began living in this lie; or they have simply lain down, and faded into the background.

This started out impacting the African-American population especially and continues to lead to an increase in the number of single mothers raising their own children. When even “authentic black men[1]”, such as Bill Cosby, address this issue, they are vilified and chided by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. These men who have made something of themselves are then called Uncle Tom’s or told that they have become rich black men who have lost touch with their own race. It hasn’t only impacted Blacks though; it now is impacting Hispanics, Whites, and even Asians.

I have been following this trend even prior to becoming an adult, and now as a father of 5 and a husband, who is thankfully been married to his beautiful bride for almost 10 and a half years, I’m even more aware of the attack on men and especially on fathers. It is for this reason that I was so pleased to see a publisher releasing a book called What A Son Needs From His Dad for review. Written by Dr. Michael O’Donnell this book was certainly worth the read.

Over the past couple of months it really seems like I have began to read a lot more books that deal with men in general or fathers specifically. Lately I’ve read Every Single Man’s Battle, Family Shepherd, What A Son Needs From His Dad, and here shortly, Man Alive. This was not by intention of course, but seems to be a major topic of discussion in movies and books today. Now I’ll return to my focus of today’s post.

What A Son Needs From His Dad was a great book to read, and one that really challenged me directly. In fact a few weeks ago I posted a blog called “A Dad Who Has Forgotten How to Play” as a result of reading over this book. When I first got this book I thought it would be a simple read, something I would read quickly and post just a short review on. As has been happening a lot lately I was way off on that forecast. I ended up reading over a chapter, and then often times I found myself rereading a chapter just to see if I missed something.

At just over 137 pages, this book is truly an easy read for almost any level of reader. Are you like me, a dad who has forgotten to play? Well then my recommendation to you would be to jump right to chapter 5, “All Work and No Play.” Are you a dad fearful of that birds and bees conversation? Well, chapter 9 if for you. Basically what I’m saying is depending on where you are at in your life as a father, I think that there is a chapter in this book for you.

If you are part of a Men’s group and looking for a book to study, then this book provides that opportunity as well. With plenty of Scripture references throughout, Dr. O’Donnell gives men the tools they need to really begin to grow in their roles as father. Couple this with the fact that each chapter also has some discussion questions, this book would be worth looking at to get you looking at the importance of fathers.

This book deserves 5 out of 5 for readability and content. If you are looking for a book to help encourage you as fathers, take a look at What A Son Needs From His Dad by Dr. Michael O’Donnell found wherever good Christian books are sold.

[1] Rev. Al Sharpton, while addressing, then Senator, Barack Obama for his lack of being down in the struggle during the Democrats Primary in 2008

Dr. Tony Evans on being a Kingdom Man

2012-02-02T13:26:00.000-06:00

Your Big Game
I love football. I played every evening and weekend from about the time I was crawling until a leg injury ended my game. And one of my favorite aspects of ministry has been serving as the chaplain for the Dallas Cowboys.
It was also a great honor to be asked by the Steelers home office to speak at the team chapel service last year before their eighth Super Bowl appearance. That was a great game, but who can forget watching the Steelers claim the NFL record for the most Super Bowl wins—six—in 2009.
At 20–7 in the fourth quarter, the game looked like an easy Pittsburgh victory. But that was before Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner put 16 unanswered points on the board in the last 15 minutes.
Only one drive remained for the Steelers to respond.
And what a response it was.
With less than a minute remaining, six yards between the Steelers and the end zone taunted them to settle for a field goal and a tie. But the Steelers wanted more. They were playing for greatness.
On second and goal with three defenders around him, Ben Roethlisberger threw the ball high at a sliver of end zone. In one of the greatest catches in Super Bowl history, Santonio Holmes somehow managed to reach his hands high enough to grab the ball—and the victory.
The war of ’09 was decided.
Men, you are in a war. You are in a spiritual conflict. You are in a battle of epic proportions. God is looking for men to advance His Kingdom down the field of life.
As you watch the Super Bowl, ask yourself and your buddies:
Am I satisfied with the practice squad—settling for a mundane life?
Am I ready to play for greatness?
Am I ready to align myself under God’s Kingdom agenda and benefit others?
Am I ready to be a Kingdom Man?
—Dr. Tony Evans
Check out the book trailer for Dr. Tony Evans’ upcoming book, Kingdom Man here.

Pre-order copies of Kingdom Man by Dr. Tony Evans here for everyone who attends your Super Bowl party.
Sign up here to receive a series of Kingdom Man Boot Camp emails — monthly challenging and encouraging samples from Dr. Evans’ book.

Need a Super Bowl snack tip? Check this one out:

Big Game Black Bean Dip
Ingredients:
• 1 small tomato, diced
• 2 tablespoons chopped red onion
• 1 tablespoon chopped cilantro, plus extra sprigs
• 2 (15-oz) cans black beans, drained
• 1 teaspoon hot sauce (or more to taste)
• 1 tablespoon ground cumin
• salt
Directions:
Using a food processor, pulse tomato, onion, and cilantro until well chopped. Add black beans, hot sauce, cumin, and salt, to taste, and pulse until the mixture is mostly smooth. Transfer to serving dish, garnish with cilantro sprigs, and serve with tortilla chips.

Q & A with Dr. Michael O'Donnel on his book "What A Son Needs From His Dad"

2012-02-02T08:00:00.001-06:00

Here in the next few days I will be posting my newest book review. Thanks to Bethany House Publishers I had the privilege of reviewing Dr. O'Donnell's book What A Son Needs From His Dad. Before I share the book review I would like to share a Q&A between Bethany House and Dr. Michael O'Donnell.

I hope you enjoy!

Q U E S T I O N S & A N S W E R S W I T H M I C H A E L A . O ’ D O N N E L L , P h D

1. Why is your book What a Son Needs from His Dad an important resource for fathers?

Research now confirms what the Bible has known all along—that the more nurturing the father the more masculine the son. In short, boys derive their sense of manhood from their fathers. Thus, fathers need to know how to be properly engaged in the life of their sons so that they feel approved and admired in their burgeoning masculinity. In part, that’s what I’ve attempted to provide for dads: what their sons need from them.

2. You’ve worked with fathers and researched the role of fathering for more than twenty years and have authored nearly ten books on the subject. Why did you write this particular one for dads?

Because research shows the average father spends less than thirty-seven seconds a day of meaningful interaction with his sons; and that’s simply not going to get the job done! A father needs to have tangible, concrete examples of what an effective dad looks like. Unfortunately, many men can no longer rely on their own fathers for examples on how to do fathering commendably in the twenty-first century. This is largely due to “father absence” or detached and distant dads. Thus, I was motivated to provide men with solid and practical ideas on how to give their sons what they need so that they break that cycle of intergenerational pathology.

3. What’s the biggest struggle most fathers face?

Knowing how best to model the right behaviors for their sons to emulate and to follow. Men are generally trained for success in business; but unfortunately, they are not given the tools necessary with which to succeed in the whole arena of parenting.

4. Some of our fathers listening today might not be familiar with nurturance. What is it and what should fathers know about it?

According to my colleague and fathering expert, Ken Canfield, nurturance is expressed by attitudes, words, and actions. Nurturance can even be nonverbal, but should include affection (don’t forget to speak the language of love to your son, especially the words “I love you!”), support (be there for his athletic events, after-school programs, and any significant religious occasions, such as confirmation and baptism), comfort (tuck him into bed, hold him, rock him, soothe his wounds, both physical and emotional), and intimacy (don’t underestimate your actual physical presence; sons tell us that having their father in the next room while they sleep is very reassuring to them).

5. Exactly what is the “The Real McCoy Dad”?

The “Real McCoy” Dad is easy to spot. He is characterized by supportiveness, acceptance, and love. In general, he has confidence in his child-rearing abilities. Although he is quite aware that he will make mistakes, he tries to have a relaxed, balanced, and positive approach to fatherhood. Most important, he is determined to do whatever it takes to be an effective father.

6. You write that much of what’s involved in giving our sons what they need comes down to telling them what we think and feel. Can you elaborate?

Thomas Lickona, author of Raising Good Children, calls this “teaching by telling.” Children can’t read our minds. They want to know something about their moral, religious, and cultural heritage from us. They shout, “Talk to me!” with every tug of the pant leg, every jump in the lap, and every tap on the shoulder.

You see, theirs is a confusing, mysterious, exciting, painful, and wonderful world. Your explanations, your values, your opinions are the only answers that matter—for now. Why squander your chance to impact them for life? Instead, use your time wisely.

Our sons need not only to see us living lives that are worth imitating, they also need to hear why we do it—the values and beliefs that guide our actions and shape our words.

7. What’s one of the hardest things for a father to do?

To talk about “the birds and the bees”! But I would remind dads who are listening to me right now that your son’s knowledge of sex begins long before that heart-to-heart talk between you and your son. You first teach your son about human sexuality by the way in which you relate to their mother.

What a son sees will be what he gets in the way of habits, thoughts, feelings, and attitudes. It is truly amazing what children learn just by watching us; it is God’s plan, His way of preparing our sons for life. Again, the greatest gift a man can give his son is to love his mother! And, I might add, to love her in appropriate ways.

8. Any parting words for dads?

Yes, this prayer that I’ve adapted from Proverbs 3:1-4:

O, Lord, may their sons never forget your teachings. May their hearts keep your commandments. Then, Lord, you will give many more days and years to their lives and you will add your peace.

May kindness and truth never leave them, Lord. May they bind them about their necks and write them on their hearts.

Then, Lord, you will give them favor and a good reputation, both with you and with man.

Amen.

A Book Review of Die Young by Michael and Hayley Dimarco

2012-01-13T09:01:00.000-06:00

First I do want to give credit to Michael and Hayley Dimarco for the premise of this book. I think the ideas that they are trying to convey are needed in today’s Church. We are so enamored by life that, at times, we forget the basis of our faith, which is dying to the flesh so that we may live for Christ. I was honored to be able to receive an advanced proof of this book, and to share my honest opinions.

One really good chapter that was in this book was entitled “Less is the New More”. The focus of this chapter was the tendency for all of us to fall into covetousness. This is a major struggle I think for everyone. In this chapter the Dimarco’s make some excellent points. One point they make is if we are not caught up in more we are better able to give that which we do have. There are many other great points to this chapter, but again my job is to draw you to read the book, not tell you everything it says! Ultimately, and I believe this is a point the Dimarco’s make fairly well, covetousness is choosing an idol over our LORD Jesus Christ.

However, I am going to address a very common flaw I find in people who love to mention Mark 10:25. For those of you who are not familiar with this verse it states: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” In this section of Chapter 3 (Dimarco 94) they almost argue that you have more faith if you have fewer possessions. Although I agree, that there are wealthy people who feel as if there is no need for Christ, I’m blessed to know many wealthy people who use their wealth to further the gospel of Jesus Christ. People who will reach out to those in need, not to have their name praised by men, but people who give in secret and who will receive their reward on the day of the Bema judgment. These people should not be ignored or forgotten because many of them have simply chosen to be good stewards of that which the LORD has blessed them with.

Another great chapter is chapter 4 which is “Weakness is the New Strength”. Again this chapter was very easy to read, and started off with a good illustration of the fact that since the creation of man we all have pursued strength. It continues with the example of the tower of Babel, Satan, and even Peter, who, until after the resurrection of Christ, often tried to attain in his own strength. This chapter had great flow, and was a chapter that challenged me and yet also encouraged me.

Now, I need to give some of the problems I see with this book. This book is not for someone looking for an easy read. The reading of this book was rather challenging. I wish it was due to content, but really it was related to flow. Until I got to about chapter 2 I had a very hard time even following the flow that Michael and Hayley were trying to develop. Another major set-back to this book was the constant inserting of “Here Lies…” I am a huge believer in being personal in the way you write, and sharing your struggles and set-backs as well as your victories, however, this caused me a lot of frustration as it didn’t work with the flow that they were already having a problem developing. I think what they shared was great, and ultimately I just waited until I finished the book to read those entries.

I also noticed some things that made me sit back and scratch my head wondering what they meant. For example, in Chapter 1 the Dimarco’s write “Death threatens a part of you, if not all of you (Dimarco 26).” Last time I checked death was always a threat to the whole and not to just a part. Especially in the topic of dying to our flesh, our whole flesh needs to be dying so that we might walk in the newness of life that is found in Christ Jesus. Then in Chapter 2 they have a paragraph that starts, “In our squalifies us from the fight; it means we’ve love, we’ve been taken down, and they’ve won (44).” I don’t even know where to begin on this as when I looked up squalifies in the dictionary I couldn’t find a result.

For me, I am going to have to rate this book a 2.5 to maybe a 3. Since this is an advanced proof it is my hope that they go through and are able to clean up the flow, and make it a little easier for the reader to follow. As I said to begin with I think the premise to this book is great, and with some cleaning up I think this would truly be a good book.

Our Journey Together: Weekly Update #1 January 01 - January 10, 2012

2012-01-11T08:00:00.003-06:00

So it seems like just yesterday Jen and I posted our first blog entitled “Our Journey Together”. However, it has already been a week, and now it is time for us to post our first update. I think that for me, this has been a decent week. Spiritually speaking my focus has been fairly good. I still haven’t been having the quiet time I desire to have on a daily basis, although, from time to time I do manage to get into the word some.

Some of the strengths of this week though have been the fact that I have began a daily reading plan that should get me through the whole Bible in one year. The plan I chose is a chronological plan. How it has worked thus far is I use an application called “You Version” and is available for I-products, and also android products. It is called the “Reading God’s Story” and was authored by George Guthrie. This product is nice because this app has an audio feature, and so we have actually been listening to the readings on a daily basis every lunch time, and so the whole family is benefiting from this change.

There are some things however, that I’m also needing to work on. I have a quick temper, and therefore I have a tendency to yell when I don’t feel like Jen or the children are listening to me. In my relationship with Jen this can cause conflict of course, and then I worry about my children seeing me in fear, instead of seeing the love I really do have for them. Because of this tendency I have decided to try to memorize Proverbs 15:18 which states: “A hot tempered man stirs up conflict, but a man slow to anger calms strife (Holman Christian Standard).”

Physically things are going very well. I’m doing better at least doing my daily body tests, but I still need to do better on regular exercise. The good thing I have done is I have begun to lower my caloric intake, and through that I have actually lost over 10lbs in the past two months. I’m very excited to add a few extra notches to the belt, plus I’m already seeing small changes in my blood pressure and pulse.

I have set myself a goal of losing 7 pounds in the next two months, although I may change that to 10. This week I see myself needing to be more faithful in regular, 30 minute exercise segments. I hope to continue on this path of weight loss, and see if I could realistically get at least half way towards my goal of over 80lbs of weight loss by the end of 2012.

Spiritually speaking, I am again going to try to focus on being more committed in my goal of having regular quiet time. I have in fact sent out a request for suggestions as to which book of the Bible I should study for this next year as in-depth as I can go. Thus far James and 2 Timothy have been suggested, but I’m more than willing for some additional suggestions.

Now for Jen’s update:

Good evening my dear friends, I hang my head in shame as I have to tell you this week did not go so well for me. It started off good, but my depression got the better of me. I don’t do well with change, and even the prospects of it, which it has been full of both…. I’m not going to go into details of it, but it started with a new routine, and sick little ones that totally hindered my perfectionist’s agenda.

So, now that I think about it, I didn’t do as badly as I thought, but my depression did get pretty bad. For most of the week I had one or two sick babies that needed me what felt like every! Single! Moment! Which I’m not complaining about, it just makes it hard when I set such high goals for myself and not give myself the grace I truly need, instead of the emotional beatings. Tomorrow I am really hoping to start getting up earlier and getting in the Word, and at least catching up a little on my Bible reading as I have fallen behind already; also, to spend a few minutes on my Wii. I once read that if I at least show up, that is an improvement. I know that once I get back into the Word and just try to make sure I am not letting lil miss princess perfectionist get in the way and do the baby steps again, I’ll be on the right road.

I am sooooooooooo tired of always being tired; I am so tired of the cycle of being too tired to work out and so then vice versa. I am so tired of not fitting in my largest clothes and not being able to find pretty ones because either they are all taken at the stores that I shop or they don’t make them in my size or the cost is astronomical at a reg store because of the darn size. I am so tired of not being able to use my lap to put Bible on so I can take notes in church. I am so tired of others, not all, but some, avoiding me because of my weight. I am tired of being a cranky pants and so I am too focused on myself to be a blessing to others. This has gotta stop! So, that’s my update, and I’m stickin to it, lol. Thank you for sitting through my lil pep talk, if that’s what that was…….

See you next week with the next update.

The Importance of Sexual Purity: A Review of Every Single Man’s Battle By Stephen Arterburn, Fred Stoeker and Mike Yorkey

2012-01-05T08:00:00.005-06:00

I have had this book sitting on my shelf for probably five months. After I received this book, I was wondering why on earth I would bother choosing this book to read. Then just the previous day, I was talking to a friend of mine about needing to read this book, and I was informed that Stephen Arterburn went through a divorce. This meant that I was even more hesitant to read a book, because after all, if it didn’t work for him, why read it? As soon as I read over the introduction I knew I wasn’t giving Mr. Arterburn a fair chance. I have now read this book, and will share my thoughts with you all.

Before you read any further I want to put in a warning right here. This book review is not meant for children. I will be willingly addressing the issues that Stephen Arterburn, Fred Stoeker, and Mike Yorkey address. I will also be honest in this review as I see things that I can directly relate to and share my own insights and experiences. In this review, I will be direct but not graphic.

The backdrop to Every Single Man’s Battle is Stephen Arterburn’s reentry into the dating world. Stephen writes this book to aid fellow brothers in Christ who may be single or recently divorced by challenging them to be men who flee from sexual temptation and pursue integrity. The author writes not from a place of superiority or strength, but to walk alongside men who may be struggling with sexual sin. In a society that devalues marriage, and the marriage bed, and instead advocates for shacking up, Mr. Arterburn in this book provides a helpful defense, and response to the sacredness of sex between one man and one woman in marriage.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of Every Single Man’s Battle is Stephen, Fred and Mike’s courage in dealing with issues such as masturbation and porn. Many men struggle in silence with these issues but the authors provide helpful answers by highlighting how the point of intimacy is to grow closer together with our spouse not to fulfill our fantasies. On this point Stephen and Fred helpfully teach that when sexual intensity supersedes our sexual intimacy the marriage bed becomes defiled (Arterburn, Stoeker, Yorkey, 25).

Although I was raised in a solid, Biblically based, Christian home, I allowed myself to fall right into sexual temptation many times, and in many different ways. I participated in pornography, masturbation, and premarital sex. Even after being married for over a decade, I continue to struggle with sexual purity and integrity. Rather than fleeing from sexual sin, I allowed myself to fill my mind with the drug of sex, and sought not my wife, but my fill of adultery.

The authors in this book do not dance around the issues but press the reader to understand the issues they examine from a biblical worldview. For example in the first two chapters they cover the issue of sex, masturbation, and pornography, as well as accountability. They quote one pastor, Mason, who is in his thirties and single who says: “Single men should not live alone” (28). Chapter two makes the point that all Christian men should have godly male friends who pray with them and hold them accountable to the Word of God as they wage war against the sins of the flesh (Romans 13:11-14).

In September, I choose not to be accountable in my war against sexual sin, and decided that I didn’t need anyone to help me. In reflecting on this time in my life, I realized I acted like a fool. At this time, I was blessed with some money coming in from some work that I was doing, and instead of being wise with my money, I gave into my sin and went to a strip club.

At least one of my friends knows about that night where I gave in and chose to sin. On that night I was thinking about calling someone to talk to about my sinful thoughts, but ultimately talked myself out of calling one of my friends and instead gave in fully to my sin. Embracing my sin rather than forsaking my sin that night burned a lot of bridges that I had been working hard to build for a number of years.

Men need accountability it really is that simple. Men need godly brothers to come along side of us, and to, quite frankly, give us a smack upside the head like Gibbs does to his fellow-team members in the original NCIS show. The Christian life is not a war we can engage in on our own. Men need to rise up and link arms with our brothers, and keep fighting. Some people may say, “It was only a strip club”, but that strip club took my thoughts off the LORD, off my wife, and put them on an idol. For a moment I chose to love my sin more then I love my Savior. As a result of this occurring, I have resolved in my heart to no more love my sin but to genuinely turn from my sin to Jesus Christ. I now have godly brothers whom I will call, men who will hold me accountable, and smack me upside the head if I screw up again. I’m very blessed by these brothers, these comrades!

Every Single Man’s Battle is only three chapters plus an introduction covering pages 6-54. The remaining 129pages are a study guide for Every Man’s Battle which serves as an eight week study. Even though this turned out more to be a Study then a book, the value of this book is great.

I rate this book as a must read for every Man, married or not! The topics covered will address some topics that men have often preferred to keep secret. I will actually be purchasing a copy of Every Man’s Battle in the near future with the intention of using this study guide as a spring board, not only for my own use, but one I plan to recommend to the men of my Church as well.

Men the battle for our integrity and our sexual purity is a must win battle, and one we cannot escape. The Gospel provides the foundational reason why as men we can overcome sexual sin and be pure. Jesus died to give sinners new life, and as men who are redeemed through the blood of Jesus, and adopted as His sons, we have the ability through the empowering work of the Holy Spirit to put sin to death and put on the Lord Jesus Christ. As men we desperately need to rise up to the challenge to love our wives as Christ loves the Church, and be men of integrity. Men love the Lord Jesus Christ with all their heart, soul, and mind! Let us fight this battle together!

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Waterbrook Multnomah Publishers as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commision’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”