Theology

Archived Posts from this Category

October 13, 2006

Dying Before One’s Time…Revisited

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[6] Comments 

Do you remember my post titled “Dying Before One’s Time?” I wrote it way back on June 28th 2006 Chad and James made some comments that I never responded to. Chad brought up a particular passage that made me rethink everything. I spent many many hours thinking and writing about it over the last few months intermittently. Pre-move and post-move life has distracted me from being able to post my thoughts until now.

 

I finally responded…and respond I did! I had a lot to say, but I would encourage you to revisit the issue by reading my comments here. What I have to say even has a bearing on our old March 2006 discussion about the efficacy of praying for the lost. You might be surprised to read what I have to say about that!

 

October 9, 2006

Daniel Wallace reviews Bart Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible, Textual Criticism, Theology
1 Comment 

Bart Ehrman, a leading NT textual critic, recently wrote a book by the above title that has been selling like hot-cakes. The book is an introduction to the field of NT textual criticism for a lay audience, but with a theological agenda. Ehrman, an ex-Evangelical turned liberal agnostic, portrays the reliability of the NT text as uncertain. While he makes concessions to the contrary, the emphasis in his book is on our doubts about the text rather than our amazing certainty. Such an emphasis has caused many lay readers to seriously doubt the veracity of the NT.

 

Daniel Wallace has written an excellent review of the book entitled “The Gospel According to Bart.” Wallace is well-versed in the field of NT textual criticism. I would highly recommend you read his review. It is thorough, and yet fairly concise. And as always, Wallace is fair and respectful.

 

October 6, 2006

Is Church Discipline an Invasion of Privacy?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends, Politics, Theology
[6] Comments 

If a church member commits adultery, and the elders enact church discipline via informing the congregation of their sin, is that an invasion of privacy? That’s the issue a couple of churches in Texas are facing since they have been sued by their congregants for doing just this.

Andy and Seni, I’d be interested to get your legal take on this.

This brings up an important matter: the proper interpretation of I Timothy 5:20–“Those guilty of sin must be rebuked before all, as a warning to the rest.” Many pastors understand this passage to mean they are to publicly rebuke saints for personal moral failure. Many use this passage as an excuse to publicly rebuke saints for violating certain pastoral standards as well. Does this verse give them authority to do either? The answer is a resounding NO! The context makes it abundantly clear that those to be rebuked are elders who sin. Consider the preceding verses:

Elders who provide effective leadership must be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. 5:18 For the scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker deserves his pay.” 5:19 Do not accept an accusation against an elder unless it can be confirmed by two or three witnesses. (5:17-19)

The reason elders are to be rebuked is because of their leadership role. Others are following them as they follow Christ. If they are not following Christ, those following them need to know. Furthermore, if the sin is hidden rather than publicly dealt with it opens the church up to the charge of mishandling and cover-up. Just ask the Catholic Church! But when it comes to non-elders it is a different story. According to Proverbs 10:12 “love covers all sins.” I Peter 4:8 says “love covers a multitude of sins.” Love seeks to hide the moral failures of the repentant, not make them public.

 

October 2, 2006

Don’t Call Me Brother…Brother

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends, Theology
[2] Comments 

When I first got into church I enjoyed calling everyone “Brother X” and “Sister X.”  The use of such titles made everyone seem like a family.  Over the years, however, that enjoyment has waned for a couple of reasons.  Now I tend to drop the “brother” bit, and simply call people by their first name.

First, I came to realize that the title–meant to express something beautiful–was being used for ugly purposes. Some view the preface more as an honorary title indicative of personal respect than they do a familial and informal way of referring to one another.  There have been instances in which certain individuals (admittedly always men, always in positions of authority) have berated fellow-believers for not addressing them as “brother X.”  Although this is a minority attitude, the phenomenon did sour my perception of “brother.”

Secondly, the consistent use of the preface seems to keep relationships on too formal of a level.  People we are not particularly close to we call Brother X and Sister X; people we are close to we refer to by their first name.  Why?  Because the preface is too formal.  When the relationship deepens the preface tends to fall out of use naturally.

But doesn’t Scripture use such terminology?  Yes and no.  While the NT commonly uses familial language such as “brother” to refer to fellow-believers in the body of Christ in a generic sense, it only uses “brother” as a personal title for a specific individual on two occasions: Acts 9:17—Ananias called Paul “Brother Saul” (Acts 22:16 recounts same event); Acts 21:20—James called Paul “brother.” (There are 15 additional instances in which specific individuals are named, adding “our brother” or “a brother” (Rom 16:23; I Cor 1:1; 16:12; II Cor 1:1; 2:13; Eph 6:21; Phil 2:25; Col 1:1; 4:7, 9; I Thes 3:2; Phm 1; Heb 13:23; I Pet 5:12; II Pet 3:15; ); however, in every instance “brother” is used as a description, not as a title.)  Compare these two occurrences with the hundreds of others in which people were simply called by their first name.  Calling someone “Brother X” was the exception, not the norm. The opposite is true in most Pentecostal churches.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not opposed to calling people “Brother X,” or referring to fellow-believers as brothers.  I thank God for the appellation!  How many times have we had the luxury of addressing those whose names we have forgotten with the generic, “Hi brother.  How are you?”  What I am opposed to is using the preface as an honorary title, over-using it, or being afraid to address someone without employing it.  There are times in which it is appropriate to call someone “Brother X,” or just plain “brother,” but let’s not forget that the name of our birth certificates does not begin with “brother” or “sister.

 

August 25, 2006

“Study” Doesn’t Mean Study

Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible, Theology
[2] Comments 

One of my favorite verses in Scripture is II Timothy 2:15: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (KJV) While reading Daniel Wallace’s presentation on the history of the English Bible I was astonished to discover that this verse–oft quoted in Bible colleges and seminaries throughout the nation–does not mean what it appears to. Wallace pointed out that the Greek work translated “study” in the KJV, spoudazo, means “be eager, do one’s best to….”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> While we may be tempted to think the KJV translators mistranslated this word, the reality is that their translation was accurate…in 1611. You see, in 1611 “study” meant “be eager, be diligent.” Only by extension and continued association with learning did the word come to denote what it does today. The connection between the historic and modern meaning is clear. One who is eager to learn (studious) spends a lot of effort doing so, hence studying.

 

While “study” was an appropriate translation in 1611, it is no longer appropriate today. Unfortunately the KJV still retains this archaic language, causing people to misunderstand some of what God intended to convey in this passage. All is not lost, however, because while “study” is an improper translation of spoudazo, the sense of the passage remains essentially the same, because an eagerness to rightly divide the word of truth will necessarily manifest itself in what we mean by “study” today.

<!–[endif]–>

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>Daniel Wallace, “The History of the English Bible: From the KJV to the RV”; available from http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1824; Internet; accessed 21 June 2006.

 

August 4, 2006

Thoughts on the Lord’s Supper

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[10] Comments 

For many years now I have harbored concerns about the way we practice the Lord’s Supper. My concerns are as follows: 

  • We practice it too infrequently
  • Our “supper” differs in appearance from that of the early church
  • We make it a time of sadness and fear rather than joy and hope

Let me briefly address each point in turn.

Too Infrequent

Biblically and historically the Lord’s Supper has been a regular part of the Christian gathering. Only after the Reformation did the sermon replace it as the most significant part of a service.

It seems the early church celebrated the Lord’s Supper on a regular, if not weekly basis (I owe much of the substance to the following Biblical arguments for a frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper to an unpublished article by my friend, Nathan Hollenbeck). In Acts 2:42 we read, “They [the Christian converts] were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” (NET Bible) While this could be a reference to general communal eating, the context suggests otherwise. First, eating is not a Christian practice to which converts must devote themselves. Eating is a practice common to everyone regardless of their religious affiliation. Secondly, the surrounding activities are religious in nature: doctrinal teaching, fellowship, and prayer.

In Acts 20:7 we read, “On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul began to speak to the people…until midnight.” A few things should be noted. First, the purpose of the meeting was to break bread. It would seem strange that regular eating would be the purpose for which they assembled. It makes more sense to understand this meal as having religious significance, such as the Lord’s Supper. Secondly, it is explicitly noted that this was the first day of the week (Sunday). This was the day when the body of Christ assembled for worship. Thirdly, another religious activity is spoken of in tandem with this eating: apostolic teaching. These last two points solidify the conclusion that this meal was religious in nature. We have here, then, what appears to be a normative statement regarding the purpose of gathering on the Lord’s Day: to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. This implies that it was a regular, weekly practice of the church.

Finally, in I Corinthians 11:20 we read, “Therefore when you come together at the same place it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” Again, this sarcastic remark shows that the purpose of gathering together involved the eating of the Lord’s Supper, and that it was a regular practice.

How do Pentecostal churches match up? How often do they fulfill the Lord’s command? Most churches only celebrate the Lord’s Supper once or twice a year. Why? While it is true that the Lord did not specify how often it must be done (“as often as you do this…”), looking at the example of the early church I would argue that we are not celebrating it enough. While it was of maximal importance to the gatherings of the early church, it is absent from most of our own.

Too Different

In I Corinthians 11:20-22 Paul wrote, “Therefore when you come together at the same place it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper. One is hungry and another becomes drunk. Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink? Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I will not praise you for this!” In the apostolic church the Lord’s Supper was actually a supper. Eating the Lord’s Supper involved so much food that people were able to overeat, and involved so much drink that they were getting drunk (on grape juice of course!). I don’t know about you, but I think we would have a hard time getting full on our 1/16 of a saltine cracker, and drunk on our 1/4 of a swig of grape juice! While I don’t think we have to have a full meal to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, clearly this is the way Jesus celebrated His last supper with the apostles, and it is the way the church celebrate the Last Supper as well.

Too Moody

I have long been bothered by the mood created for the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. It’s always the same thing. We read the following passage:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. (I Cor 11:27-31, KJV)

followed by an appeal to repent lest God judge you (kill?) for your unconfessed sin. Then comes the sad music about the blood of Christ being shed for us, followed by weeping and wailing by a minority, and guilt by a majority for not being able to cry when they think they should. Why do we do this? While there are several reasons, the most important is a misunderstanding of the text when it speaks of partaking “unworthily.” We think it refers to our own spiritual state: if we are unworthy of the Lord’s body and blood due to unrepentant sin in our lives Jesus might kill us. This is hardly a festive thought! The grammar and context argues against such an interpretation.

Grammatically speaking the Greek word translated “unworthily,” anaxios, is an adverb describing the manner in which we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, not an adjective describing the quality of our own spiritual state. Contextually speaking, the problem Paul was addressing was the manner in which the Corinthians were partaking of the Lord’s Supper, not personal sin in the lives of the Corinthian believers. Those who brought a lot of food were not sharing with those who had little or none; those who arrived earlier did not wait for those who had yet to show up. As a result there were some who were turning this celebration into a gluttonous and selfish affair, precisely the opposite attitude intended by the celebration. Paul warned against celebrating the Lord’s Supper in this unworthy manner.

Not only is the “repent first, eat later” interpretation of this passage grammatically and contextually flawed, but it is theologically flawed as well. While I agree that one should repent prior to taking the Lord’s Supper, it is only because repentance should be a regular part of our lives. But to think one must make themselves worthy before they partake of the Lord’s Supper is another matter. None of us can make ourselves worthy before the Lord. Jesus is is the only one who can make us worthy, and He did so by shedding His blood at Calvary. That is why we celebrate the Lord’s Supper: to commemorate what He did to make us worthy before God when we could not do so ourselves. How ironic it is, then, that we would use the occasion of the Lord’s Supper to tell people they must make themselves worthy lest God bring judgment on them. In the words of Hollenbeck’s unpublished article, “Truly, if we had to make ourselves worthy before we were able to partake of the Lord’s Supper, we would never be able to approach the table. The most basic meaning of the Lord’s Supper itself is that we cannot become worthy. Hence, Christ came to spill his blood and break his body on our behalf so that he may clothe us with his own worthiness instead. The idea that we should not celebrate his memory often because then we would be more likely to partake unworthily destroys the very meaning of the act itself. The Lord’s Supper emphasizes precisely the fact that while we could never become worthy, his mercy covered our unworthiness.”

Getting back to the mood…. While I find it acceptable to weep during the Lord’s Supper, it should be for reasons of joy and not of sorrow. Indeed, the Lord’s Supper ought to be a joyous occasion. How about some upbeat music for once? How about some dancing and shouting? How about some smiles on our faces? Let us celebrate and be glad for what the Lord did for us!

In conclusion, I hope to see the modern apostolic church move more in the direction of the early apostolic church in their practice of the Lord’s Supper. Let us celebrate the Lord’s Supper more often (at least once a month). Let us celebrate the Lord’s Supper with more food and drink (at least once in a while). Finally, let us celebrate the Lord’s Supper with joy and thanksgiving rather than sorrow.

 

June 28, 2006

Dying Before One’s Time

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[14] Comments 

When someone dies before their time—whether by disease or tragedy—Christians often ask why God allowed it to happen. This is particularly the case when the person was killed tragically in an unsaved state. As Christians we wonder why God did not intervene to prolong their life, affording them more time to make a decision for Christ. Maybe—we muse—they would have turned to Christ five, ten, or twenty years from now if only afforded the time, but now that possibility is gone.

 

I propose that every person who dies prematurely in an unsaved state would not have accepted Jesus as Savior even if they lived a full life—and God, in His omniscience, knows this. On the basis of such knowledge God allowed them to die, rather than intervening to prolong their life. On such a view there is no need to wonder “what if they had more time?” because their untimely death proves they never would have accepted Christ. Would they have done so in the future God would have preserved their life in the present. My rationale for this position is as follows:

 

First, God’s omniscience includes knowledge of all true propositions, including counterfactuals. Not only does God know all that ever was, all that is, and all that ever will be, but He also knows all that could have been, all that could be, and all that might have been in the future had the circumstances and set of facts been other than what they were (hypothetical vs. actual). This knowledge allows God to know what person X would do if he continued to live beyond the time of his untimely death. God, seeing that person X would not serve Him even if he lived a full life, can allow him to die without impeding his chances for eternal life.

 

Secondly, according to Paul God wants every person to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved (I Timothy 2:4). Furthermore, God is tolerant and patient with man so that he will come to repentance (Romans 2:4). If God’s greatest desire is for His children to come to saving faith, and he knew person X would come to saving faith in the future, it is stands to reason that He would have intervened to prolong his life, and then patiently waited for him to make that decision in the future. To believe God would allow a sinner to die prematurely with the knowledge that she would have chosen to serve Him in the future if given the time is inconsistent with God’s will as expressed in Scripture.

 

I would even argue that a sinner’s premature death might be a blessing in disguise, because it prevents him from accumulating more sins for which he will have to give an account. The less sin, the less punishment.

 

What do you think of this argument? Is it theologically sound? Is it Biblically based? Is it rational and logical?

 

While we’re talking about this, what do you think about saints who dies prematurely? I’ve heard many Christians claim God might take these people prematurely because He knew they would turn away from Him in the future if given the time to do so. What do you think of this claim? Do you think God would do this at times?

 

June 19, 2006

Can Someone Lose the Holy Spirit?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Soteriology, Theology
[9] Comments 

Can someone lose the Holy Spirit? This is an oft-asked question in Pentecostal circles. Rather than simply stating my position on the question I will offer a few thoughts and insights to stir up your own. Once there has been sufficient discussion I will state my position.

I am somewhat uncomfortable with the way the question is even framed. While it could be a mere limitation of language, I wonder if the way we frame the question reflects a theological misunderstanding of the nature of Spirit baptism. To be filled with the Spirit is not merely having the spiritual substance of God enter your body and spirit in a special way. Spirit baptism involves the regeneration (making-alive) of an individual’s spirit that was “killed” by sin. It is a rebirth as Jesus described it in John 3.

If this understanding of what it means to be filled with the Spirit is correct, then to lose the Spirit would mean our spirit has to be spiritually “unborn.” Losing the Spirit would not be a mere departure of God’s spiritual presence from one’s body/spirit, but a removing of the spiritual life God infused into the individual, so that her human spirit is left for dead once more.

Is this feasible? Is it possible for God to undo a spiritual birth? Nicodemus asked Jesus how a man could re-enter his mother’s womb to be born again. He recognized that birth is a decisive moment in time that cannot be repeated, nor undone. If such is true of the first birth, is it also true of the second? Can the spiritual birthing of our spirit from a state of death to life be undone, yet alone repeated (for those who believe one can lose and then regain the Spirit)? We know it is not possible to undo a natural birth, but is it possible for God to undo our spiritual birth?

If so, how? What Biblical or rational evidence leads you to this conclusion? What would it take for God to “unbirth” you? Is it persistent sin? If so, how long does one have to persist in that sin before God reverses their regeneration? Is it a particular amount of sin? If so, how much is too much?

If regeneration is not reversible, how do you explain the many passages of Scripture that warn of believers falling away from God?

 

June 9, 2006

Does God Know Where There Is?: Omnipresence Revisited

Posted by Jason Dulle under Nature of God, Philosophy, Theology, Theology Proper
Leave a Comment 

“Prior” to the creation of the material universe ex nihilo there was no space or time. Because there was no time we conclude that God existed atemporally (timelessly). What about the absence of space? Would this not mean God existed non-spatially without creation? Yes it would. How does that conclusion square with the Biblical teaching that God is omnipresent? How can a being that is spaceless in nature be omnipresent? Is the Bible contradicting itself in its description of God’s nature? What exactly is the nature of God’s omnipresence? Has He always been omnipresent? These questions ought to cause us to think more clearly about what it means to say God is “omnipresent.”

To be all-present requires that there be a “here” and a “there” to be present at. Without the existence of spatial location the notion of omnipresence is meaningless. Seeing that there was no space “prior” to creation it follows that God was not omnipresent prior to creation.1 Omnipresence, then, is not an essential attribute of God’s nature; spacelessness is essential to God’s nature. “God existing alone without creation is spaceless.”2 God became omnipresent concurrent with creation in virtue of the creation of space.3 Omnipresence emerged as a contingent relation between God and the spatial universe. (more…)

 

June 8, 2006

Don’t Put God in a Box

Posted by Jason Dulle under Nature of God, Theology
Leave a Comment 

Melinda Penner at Stand to Reason had a good blog post

yesterday on the cliché, “Don’t put God in a box”. Among her various criticisms of this cliché she wrote:

The box is one of God’s own nature we’re all just trying to figure out what the box looks like. God should be in a box. What’s the alternative? God has no limitations on what He can be like or act like? That is frightening. God Himself is limited by His own nature. He can’t lie. He can’t sin. He’s can’t go out of existence. God’s box – the definition of what He is like – is what makes Him God and a Person we can love and trust and glorify. If God isn’t in some kind of a box, He would be arbitrary. … Our goal is to get the best idea of what that box looks like.


I love it! God is in a box because God is an ontological reality, and as such there are certain things that are true about Him and a lot of things that are not true about Him. The task of theology is to separate the false notions about God from the true so we can get an accurate picture of who God is, what He is like, and what He wants. So the next time someone tells you “Don’t put God in a box” tell them, “He’s already in a box. I’m just trying to delineate what that box looks like.”

 

May 18, 2006

To Love Good is to Hate Evil

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[2] Comments 

I was listening to Dennis Prager this morning, the connoisseur of moral clarity. He made a point that is worth repeating. He said one cannot truly love good without simultaneously hating evil. Someone who is not morally outraged by atrocious acts of evil cannot claim to love the good. It’s like trying to have one side of a coin. A one-sided coin cannot exist.

 

I thought this point was fitting in a day when we have become so accustomed to seeing and hearing about evil that we are desensitized to it. It seems to me that we have nearly lost our ability to feel moral outrage. Do we really hate evil anymore? If not, we can’t truly love the good.


See Psalm 91:10 and Proverbs 8:13

 

May 5, 2006

The Rap on the Rapture

Posted by Jason Dulle under Eschatology, Theology
[7] Comments 

Since I have been posting about the rapture I thought I would repost something I sent out on my old e-blog a year ago concerning the timing of the rapture.

Many of you know I am post-trib when it comes to the timing of the rapture. I consider this to be a secondary, not a primary doctrine in the overall taxonomy of doctrine, and thus I do not believe differences of opinion on eschatological matters such as this should serve as dividing lines for fellowship. Neither do I normally make a point of actively proselytizing pre-trib Pentecostals to the post-trib side. But when the topic comes up I engage the issue thoroughly and with passion. After all, we are talking about our future hope. The subject is definitely an important one, and I take it rather seriously.

(more…)

 

May 4, 2006

No Secret Rapture

Posted by Jason Dulle under Eschatology, Theology
1 Comment 

While we’re on the topic of what “the” rapture is not, it is not secret either. The notion that we will be transported into heaven in the blink of an eye is a misreading of Scripture. Check out my article on the topic on my main website.

 

May 3, 2006

“The” Rapture is Not an Event

Posted by Jason Dulle under Eschatology, Theology
1 Comment 

I wanted to share with you an observation I think you will find fascinating. (I am indebted to William Arnold for this observation)

The debate over the timing of the rapture in relationship to the second coming of Christ presupposes that the rapture and the second coming are both events, and then seeks to determine when each event will take place in relationship to the other. Is that a valid presupposition? Is it justified by Scripture? Does the Bible describe the rapture as an event?

The only clear passage in Scripture that describes a rapturing of the church is I Thessalonians 4:14-17. Paul wrote:

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. (NKJV)

The first thing we should notice is that the word “rapture” does not appear in this passage. In fact the word “rapture” is not found anywhere in Scripture (we get it from the Latin Vulgate). The Greek word translated “caught up” in verse 17 is harpadzo. While the word accurately describes a rapturing of the church, it is a verb, not a noun. The importance of this grammatical fact cannot be overstated. As a verb it describes an action, not an event. The only event Paul is discussing in this passage is the coming of the Lord (“coming” is from the Greek word parousia, which is a noun). The action of being caught up will take place at the event of the coming, but it is not an event in itself capable of being separated from the coming. That’s why William Arnold wrote:

When we realize that Scripture does not speak of the rapture but rather says that at the coming of the Lord we will be raptured (caught up), it sheds new light on the discussion. It is misleading to speak of the rapture and then to ask when the rapture will take place. The Bible only mentions the coming of the Lord and says that when he comes we will be caught up together to meet him. But pre-tribulationists start by talking about the rapture and the second coming as if they were two separate events and then claim that post-tribulationists confuse the two. The fact is, however, that the Bible does not make this distinction. Instead, it uses the word “coming” (parousia) when we would expect to see the word “rapture” if indeed this were a different event.

 

Since Scripture never speaks of our being raptured as an event it is absolutely meaningless to ask when the rapture (action) will take place in relationship to the Coming (event), because there is no “the rapture”—only a “be raptured.” I do not oppose the use of the word “rapture” to describe what will happen at the Coming-event, but I do oppose the use of “rapture” as a noun. It is not an event, but a description of what we will be doing at the Coming-event.

I think this little tidbit of knowledge recasts the whole rapture question and makes the post-trib position all the more clear in Scripture. We are looking for the second coming of the Lord—not the rapture—and there can only be one second coming…not two!

Check out William Arnold’s online book The Post-Tribulation Rapture at www.therapture.org for further reading.

 

May 1, 2006

The Gospel of Judas

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Archaeology, Bible, Religions, Theology
Leave a Comment 

Several of you have asked about my take on the Gospel of Judas. I spent a lot of time researching the document over the past few weeks. The fruit of my research is presented as the cover article in this week’s edition of Ninetyandnine.com. You can read the article here.

 

April 27, 2006

Women Deacons: To Be or Not to Be?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Gender Issues, Theology
[12] Comments 

NASB (New American Standard Bible)

Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 3:9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 3:10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 3:11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 3:12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 3:13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (I Timothy 3:8-13)

NET Bible

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not two-faced, not given to excessive drinking, not greedy for gain, 3:9 holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 3:10 And these also must be tested first and then let them serve as deacons if they are found blameless. 3:11 Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect. 3:12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife and good managers of their children and their own households. 3:13 For those who have served well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (I Timothy 3:8-13)


Notice the difference in the two translations (the bold-faced words in particular)? The underlying Greek word behind these two different renderings is gunaikas. The word can be translated as “women” or “wives” depending on the context. There is considerable scholarly debate over which choice is the proper translation in this particular context. Most translations translate it as does the NET Bible: wives. Some, however, translate it as “women.” Many translations note that it could be translated either way.

Why does this matter? It is important to the doctrine of ecclesiology. If gunaikas refers to “women” in general this is positive proof that the office of deacon can be held by women as well as men. If “wives” is the correct translation, however, it is not.

New Testament scholar Andreas Kostenberger argues that the proper translation is “women” and thus Paul is referring to women deaconesses. You can read his arguments here.

The NET Bible offers the following footnote that summarizes some of the same arguments presented by Kostenberger et al, but argues for the superiority of translating gunaikas as “wives”:

Or “also deaconesses.” The Greek word here is γυναῖκας (gunaikas) which literally means “women” or “wives.” It is possible that this refers to women who serve as deacons, “deaconesses.” The evidence is as follows: (1) The immediate context refers to deacons; (2) the author mentions nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7); (3) it would seem strange to have requirements placed on deacons’ wives without corresponding requirements placed on elders’ wives; and (4) elsewhere in the NT, there seems to be room for seeing women in this role (cf. Rom 16:1 and the comments there).

The translation “wives” – referring to the wives of the deacons – is probably to be preferred, though, for the following reasons: (1) It would be strange for the author to discuss women deacons right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons; more naturally they would be addressed by themselves. (2) The author seems to indicate clearly in the next verse that women are not deacons: “Deacons must be husbands of one wife.” (3) Most of the qualifications given for deacons elsewhere do not appear here. Either the author has truncated the requirements for women deacons, or he is not actually referring to women deacons; the latter seems to be the more natural understanding. (4) The principle given in 1 Tim 2:12 appears to be an overarching principle for church life which seems implicitly to limit the role of deacon to men. Nevertheless, a decision in this matter is difficult, and our conclusions must be regarded as tentative.

While this is only an introduction to the debate, I think these two sources present some of the most compelling arguments in behalf of each view. You be the judge as to which is correct.

 

April 18, 2006

A Pastor’s Job Description

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[14] Comments 

First Timothy 3:1-7

This saying is trustworthy: “If someone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a good work.” 3:2 The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money. 3:4 He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. 3:5 But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God? 3:6 He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall into the punishment that the devil will exact. 3:7 And he must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil’s trap.

Several weeks back I was having a conversation with a fellow believer. This individual made a remark about her pastor that spoke volumes, demonstrating how Biblically uninformed our culture’s view of a pastor has become. She said, “My pastor is very knowledgeable about the Bible, and is a really good teacher, but he’s not a very good pastor.” Why? Because he was not a very good counselor.

My mind immediately harkened back to the passage quoted above. Have you ever stopped to compare this qualification list against our modern-day conception of what a pastor should be? Paul lists 15 criterion by which we can judge a man’s fitness for the pastoral office: 10 positive, 5 negative. Among those named all but one pertains to the individual’s character and lifestyle. That one criterion is a skill requirement: he must be an able teacher. (The list in Titus 1:6-9 is similar. There Paul wrote, “He must hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and correct those who speak against it.”)

While a pastor will surely be involved in counseling the saints of his congregation to one extent or another, counseling is not a required skill-set for pastors. In fact, many of the skills we often associate with pastors in our church culture (administration, relationship expert, etc.) are not found in Scripture. A pastor who happens to be skilled in those areas will be an added asset to his congregation, but those skills are not necessary to being a good pastor. The only skill a pastor needs to be a good pastor in the Biblical sense is the skill of teaching the Word of God.

Interestingly, the one skill required of pastors is often the one skill they lack. It has been my experience that few pastors do much teaching. Wednesday night Bible studies often differ little from Sunday evangelistic services. They all follow the same basic pattern: read a Bible verse, close the Bible, tell several stories, yell loudly, and then at the end of the message refer back to the Bible verse, taking it out of its context to make it applicable to the point they want to convey. That may be a cynical and generalized depiction, but most of you have been in a church like this so you know the truth of what I’m saying.

It’s a sad reality that most Pentecostal pastors are uneducated in the Scripture. What little they do know rarely comes out in their sermons. They tend to emote rather than instruct. They lack theological content and categories. Their theology consists of catchy phrases and one-liners. Their idea of a good sermon is coming up with a new twist on an oft-read passage of Scripture. They lack the ability to instruct their congregations on meaty doctrinal issues such as justification by faith, the relationship between sanctification and justification, how Jesus can be divine and human simultaneously, the relationship of faith and science, etc. Neither could they intelligently address important cultural and moral issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, cloning, stem cell research, etc. This ought not be. This is not to dismiss the many good things they can do, but all of those good things combined cannot make up for their lack in the one area required of them: teaching.

In light of my recent thoughts on this topic I was more than happy to see that Al Mohler will be doing a three part series on this very topic this week: “The Pastor As Theologian.” The first part of the series was released yesterday. The other two parts will be released on Wednesday and Friday. They can be accessed by clicking on the above link as well. I think you will enjoy what Mohler has to say on this topic.

 

April 14, 2006

Why Such Anger Over Hell?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Hell, Theology
Leave a Comment 

Have you ever noticed that when you are witnessing to a non-Christian, and it comes out that you believe they will go to hell if they do not trust in Christ to pay for their sins, that they often get angry, say how offended they are, or some other negative response?Have you ever wondered why that is?

One reason for the negative response could be the way in which the information was communicated.If the believer presented the information in a contentious or angry manner, it should be no surprise when the negative emotions are reciprocated.But what if the information was presented in a gracious manner?

For the most part people do not get upset over fantasies and fairytales.If we were to tell the same non-Christian that Santa Clause was not going to give him any presents this year because Santa checked his list and found him to be naughty rather than nice, would he be upset with us?No, because he knows it is not true.At worst he might laugh us to scorn for believing such silly things.

So why the negative emotional response to the message of Christianity?If Christianity is not true, and there is no such thing as hell (or at least the Christian version of it), why get so upset?Do they usually get upset at fairy tales?Maybe the reason for their negative response is because deep down inside they know it is true, but do not want to accept the truth.The emotional response is a reaction of their spirit struggling against the truth they don’t want to believe.Just maybe….

 

 

April 12, 2006

Are You Telling Me I’m Going to Hell Because I Don’t Believe in Jesus?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Hamartiology, Hell, Tactics, Theology
[7] Comments 

That is the dreaded question we all face from time to time.How do we respond to it?Greg Koukl has offered some helpful insights.

First, we should point out that Christianity does not teach that people go to hell because they don’t believe in Jesus.The reason people go to hell is because they are guilty of wrong behavior, not wrong belief.They are condemned already.Belief is the only thing that will prevent them from experiencing the natural consequences of their behavior.Sin is like a terminal disease: if it is not treated it will eventually kill you.Those who die of an untreated disease do not die because they haven’t visited the doctor, but because they have a disease.Likewise, people do not die of sin because they have not visited Dr. Jesus, but because they have a spiritual disease.Jesus is the one who holds the cure for their disease.By not accepting the cure, they choose to die in their sinful disease.

How can we communicate this to unbelievers?First, we should be sure to avoid giving a simple “yes” or “no” answer to this question.The reason for this is tactical, not rhetorical.A simple “yes” answer makes the Christian look like a judgmental bigot, and all too often the non-Christian will immediately pounce on you for your response, allowing you little chance to explain your answer.So it’s best to give an explanation as your answer.Here’s how this approach might look in action:

Non-believer: “So do you believe I’m going to hell?”

Believer: “Do you think people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?Justice demands that people who are guilty of wrongdoing be punished for their crimes.The message of Christianity is that those guilty of moral crimes ought to be punished for those crimes unless they have been pardoned.God has provided such a pardon in Jesus Christ.He is the only answer to our sin problem because He—and only He—paid the penalty for our crimes.We can either take that pardon and go free, or refuse it and stand alone before God to pay for our own crimes such as they are.We will be judged fairly, but justice will prevail.

“The pertinent question, then, is whether or not you have committed any moral crimes.All of us have.That’s the bad news.The good news is that we can be pardoned for those crimes by putting our trust in Jesus, and accepting what He did on our behalf.Are you willing to accept His pardon?”

I hope this tactical approach proves helpful in your own evangelistic efforts.Not only will it take the edge off of an uncomfortable question, but it will also explain the essence of the Gospel in the process.

 

March 29, 2006

No Fill-in-the-Blank-God

Posted by Jason Dulle under Quote of the Day, Theology, Theology Proper
Leave a Comment 

Quote of the day:

 

“The concept of God is general and benign–no real threat. But if you talk about Jesus, sparks fly. Jesus is God with a face, not the fill-in-the-blank variety we conform to our own tastes. He can’t be twisted and distorted and stuffed in our back pocket. And that bothers people. If God is silent, it’s anyone’s game. We can speculate all we want and think what we like. But if God speaks, then our opinions don’t matter. He’s the authority on what He’s like and what He wants. We have to take Him as He is, shy brunette or fiery redhead, on His terms not ours.”–Greg Koukl

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »