Friday 26 December 2014

Women Pastors and Elders: A Degradation of Scripture

It is very common today, even in churches that have elders, for there to be women elders. Many today see no problem with this and in fact see it as a great advancement from what was perceived to be male domination in all areas of leadership including the church. A great imbalance that existed between men and women has thus been addressed by the ordination of women elders into the church. And yet the ordination of women elders into certain churches emanates from two main presuppositions which are either that:

1) Culture has advanced since the time of the writing of the bible. What was written then was for that culture and is no longer relevant for today. We have come a long way since then. The male biases and domination in authority need to be overthrown and this is especially true in the church. This presupposition places culture as the defining factor as to how Scripture is interpreted and how it is applied in the church today.

2) The bible is unclear about whether women elders are allowed in the church. The bible lacks clarity as to its context, interpretation and application as to the ordination of women elders in the church. Based on this supposed lack of clarity there is therefore no prohibition against women elders. The Scriptures are simply silent about the matter. Thus we simply do not know and so in light of how the role of women in society has progressed it is appropriate that women should be allowed the same leadership positions as they do in other areas of life. 

Both of these positions undermine the authority of Scripture. The first position because it makes culture as the lens through which the bible is read and when the bible does not line up with culture it must either be reinterpreted so as to fit or be rejected altogether. The second because it supposes that God has spoken with so little clarity in the bible about elders that it is not binding or that the bible simply does not address it at all. So whether it is the lens of culture or supposing that God has not spoken clearly, what is being undermined is the authority of Scripture to define elders not only for today but for the church in every generation.

It is right, I believe, that wherever such an approach to Scripture is adopted that then allows women elders it will inevitably be followed by other teachings that fall outside biblical parameters. This is because what is at stake is not primarily female vs male elders in church but the authority of Scripture to teach us what God has spoken with clarity. What at stake is the bible as the sole source of teaching both for Christian faith and living especially as to how Christ's church is to be led and who is to lead it. What under girds the belief that women elders are allowed today is the belief that the biblical teaching is no longer applicable or is no longer clear and if this is so with regards to elders then it stands to reason that when biblical authority and clarity is degraded then the doors are opened for a whole plethora of unbiblical teachings to come into the church because when Scripture is no longer the measure of what is true and what is right men and women will be.








The Abhorrent Religion of Roman Catholicism

It has been said the Galatians were amateurs compared to the modern day Roman Catholic Church. While the Apostle Paul rebuked the Galatians for adding circumcision to faith in Christ and thus negating the gospel, the Roman Catholic Church has added hundreds of rituals and beliefs to the gospel. From the Marian dogmas especially as her being sinless and therefore the mediatrix between man and God and her being the mother of God, to the priesthood and the priest as being the alter Christus (as acting in the place of Christ) as he calls down the person of Christ from heaven and sacrifices him every Sunday in the Eucharist by which God is placated and the priest's office as the intercessor of man's prayers so that through the priest they are offered up to God, to purgatory and the intermediate state whereby man is purged of his remaining sin, to indulgences whereby a person can purchase righteousness for those who are in purgatory from the overflow of merit be it Christ's, Mary's or the Saints, to the belief that faith alone does not save but it is faith and works that save, to the Pope and his title as the Vicar of Christ (Christ's representative on earth and the direct successor of the Apostle Peter) whereby when he speaks ex cathedra he speaks infallibly as the very voice of God , to the Roman Catholic magisterium as giving the sole infallible interpretation of the bible and as it not being the sole source of Christ’s teaching but that there is a double rule of faith, namely, Bible and Tradition. Tradition being the sum of revealed doctrine which has not been put down in Sacred Scripture but has been handed down to the Church from age to age. It is this belief that the bible is not the sole source of Christ's teaching and the appeal to Tradition that allows all sorts of modern Catholic beliefs to be defended even if they are not found in Scripture.

In view of all this, which is not taught in Scripture and which are direct attacks on the authority of Scripture, the personhood of Christ and his substitutionary atonement, and the grace of God which is sufficient to save, modern day Catholicism is not only not a denomination of Christianity but falls outside Christianity all together. Sadly many Christians today do not view these heresies with the seriousness that they need to be. Those who speak out against modern day Roman Catholicism are often seen as eccentric voices in the wilderness. Yet since the time of the reformation, when Martin Luther then John Calvin rallied against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, those teachings have only become more heretical not less. And yet many today view the divide between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism as being slight and minor. But I view the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church as being so serious that if a person believes them and therefore follows them they are walking down a path that will lead them to hell. This is therefore serious because it is a matter of   the gospel and a person's soul. (Romans 1:16-17) It is a matter of how a sinful person is saved and reconciled to a holy God. (Ephesians 2:13-16) It is a matter, not of the necessity of grace, but of the sufficiency of grace to save. (Ephesians 2:8-9) It is a matter of the sufficiency of Christ's death to save to the uttermost those who would draw near to God and his intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:22-25)









Thursday 25 December 2014

A Certain Kind of Calvinism

I am a Calvinist. I am a Calvinist because this theology teaches that the bible is the infallible and sole rule of faith and living for the Christian life. The bible exalts the glory of God over the glory of man. Declares that God is sovereign over all things including man's salvation. And teaches that God's grace is not only necessary but is sufficient to save. This is the heart of biblical teaching and because of this it is the heart of Calvinism. 

And yet there is a kind of Calvinism that I have little time for. There is a kind of Calvinism that believes in the right doctrines but those doctrines have not impacted on the heart such that they cause a person to be more loving towards God and people. There is a kind of Calvinism that says all the right things and yet is cold in worship, and is ungracious and condemning of those who are fellow Christians but who do not yet embrace all that the bible teaches. There is a kind of Calvinism that will trample on people's feelings just to prove a point, will speak truth with little accompanying love, and will be argumentative and combative towards any who are unsure. 

There is a kind of Calvinism that can hold to all that Calvinism has historically taught and yet be as dangerous as a caged tiger ready to be set free upon an unsuspecting fellow Christian. This kind of Calvinist does not yet know that he is no better than anyone else for he is the recipient of God's undeserving grace without which he would perish. He does not yet know what it is to totally rely on the sovereignty of a loving God during the most debilitating and agonizing times of suffering. He does not yet know what it is to have all his legs of self-righteousness taken out from under him and to find his peace and rest not in the rightness of his theology merely but in Christ which the rightness of his theology points him to. And this kind of Calvinism views emotions as being inferior to knowledge rather than allowing the emotions to be swelled up in adoration and affection to God because of what is known about God especially in Jesus Christ. 

This kind of Calvinism I have little time for. For if you believe in Calvinism and the doctrines of grace, how much for should your love burn for God and for all people. How much more should you be gracious towards those who would disagree with you, and how much more should your words be spoken and expressed with the adornments of love. How much more should your worship burn with emotions of adoration because of what is known about God and his saving grace in Christ. I love this Calvinism, I embrace this Calvinism. This is the Calvinism of the bible.




The Atonement of Christ

Another Christmas has past. Another Christmas to celebrate all that Jesus came into the world to do for sinners like me. Another Christmas to celebrate the amazing grace and love of God that came in the world in the life and death of his Son. For Jesus came into the world for the end of dying that sinners might live. And so it seems a good time to ask the question, "who did Jesus die for. For whom does his death make atonement?" Most Christians today believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. That is, his atonement is for every one's sin. And the usual scripture which will be used as evidence for this is,

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

And so those who believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world will say "look Jesus died for your sins and it is only your not believing that makes his death ineffective for you." But is this what this passage of Scripture teaches?

Firstly John uses the term "world" in 10 different ways in his gospel:

1. The Entire Universe - John 1:10; 1:3; 17:5

2. The Physical Earth - John 13:1; 16:33; 21:25

3. The World System - John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 

4. All humanity minus believers - John 7:7; 15:18

5. A Big Group but less than all people everywhere - John 12:19

6. The Elect Only - John 3:17

7. The Non-Elect Only - John 17:9

8. The Realm of Mankind - John 1:10; (this is very probably the 

best understanding of the word "world" in John 3:16 also)

9. Jews and Gentiles (not just Israel but many Gentiles too) - John 4:42

10. The General Public (as distinguished from a private group) 

not those in small private groups - John 7:4

("WORLD" - John's Ten Uses of the Word by Pastor John Samson)

Firstly, it is thus simplistic to say than when John uses the word world means the entire world. It must first be ascertained as to what context John is using the word in. And it is right to interpret the world as the mass of sinful humanity into which the Son was coming to give his life. It is into this mass which encompasses the whole world that Jesus was coming to give his life. And his coming proceeds out of God's love for the mass of this sinful humanity.

Secondly, the English words "whosoever believes" read in the Greek, hina pas ho pisteuwn. They literally mean, "everyone believing" and it is because of their believing in Jesus that they "should not perish but have eternal life." This believing is on-going and though it may diminish and increase it remains continuous through out a person's life. Jesus did not come to die for the sins of the whole but only for those in the world who would belong to the group called "everyone believing." 

Thirdly, God does not love everyone in the world in the same way. It is very common to restrict God's love to one type, and yet we do not love other people in this way. A husband should love his wife in a far different way than other women. And parents should love their children in a far different way to other children. We distinguish between the different types of love we have depending on who the people are. Like wise God loves in different ways depending upon who the people are. The two main types of God's love is his general love such that he, 

"makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." 
(Matthew 5:45)

And his specific love or the love he has for the elect such that he,


"chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he blessed us in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:4-6)


So when John wrote "for God so loved the world" he is speaking of God's specific love as being towards who would believe from the mass of sinful humanity and it is for this group that Jesus came and died.


Fourthly, if Jesus died for the sins of the whole world does his death then only make men savable but it is up to men to contribute their part if they are to be saved. Does Jesus death fail to save? If he died for the sins of the whole world then how can God send anyone to hell, for Christ has already been punished for those sins on the cross? Is Christ the High Priest for the whole world and does he make intercession for the whole world? Is the the mediator between man and God for all men?


Another Christmas has come and gone and it is amazing that Jesus came die that I a sinner might have life in all its fulness in him. That my sins have been dealt with on the cross, that Jesus is my all sufficient sacrifice who saves me to the uttermost. He is my High Priest who cleanses me from all my sins by his blood. And he intercedes for me and id my mediator with the Father. It is only by his being born and by his death that he could be all of this for me.


Soli Deo Gloria!