A Selection of Post-Tithe Quotes: Early 1800s

Adam Clarke (ca. 1762–1832)

“I say again, let there be a national religion, and a national clergy supported by the state; but let them be supported by a tax, not by tithes, or rather let them be paid out of the general taxation; or, if the tithe system must be continued, let the poor-rates be abolished, and the clergy, out of the tithes, support the poor in their respective parishes, as was the original custom.”

Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary: A New Edition, with the Author’s Final Corrections,

6 vols. (New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1846), 1:179-80.

Charles Buck (English; 1833)

His article on tithing stated that nothing in the New Testament commanded tithing since “the divine right by which they were raised necessarily ceased.”

Charles Buck, “Tithes,” in A Theological Dictionary, new ed.,

edited by E. Henderson (London: James Duncan, 1833), 905-06.

J. Newton Brown (Baptist; 1836)

John Newton Brown (1803–1868), who wrote the draft of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833), edited an encyclopedia. The article on tithes in this encyclopedia (published in 1836) explicitly said they ceased. The New Hampshire Confession of Faith was a precursor to the Baptist Faith and Message.

J. Newton Brown, ed., “Tithes,” in Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,

2 vols. (Brattleboro: Fessenden, 1836), 2:1124.

G. Campbell Morgan (English Congregationalist; 1898)

“I hear a great deal about the tithing of incomes. I have no sympathy with the movement at all. A tenth in the case of one man is meanness, and in the case of another man is dishonesty. I know

men today who are Christian men in city churches and village chapels, who have no business to give a tenth of their income to the work of God. They cannot afford it. I know other men who

are giving one-tenth, and the nine-tenths they keep is doing harm to their souls.

G. Campbell Morgan, The Westminster Pulpit, 10 vols.,

1906–1916, reprint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 4:40.

A Selection of Post-Tithe Quotes: Baptists and the English Government

Roger Williams (1603–1683)

Roger Williams has been credited with founding the first or second Baptist church in America. In 1652, Williams concluded that ministers of the gospel are to serve freely and be supported freely, “and that not in stinted Wages, Tithes, Stipends, Sallaries, &c. but with larger or lesser supplies, as the Hand of the Lord was more or lesse extended in his weekly blessings on them.”

Roger Williams, The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, 7 vols. (New York: Russell & Russell, 1963), 7:165.

John Milton (1659)

Milton wrote forcibly against tithes, which he considered ceremonial and abolished.

John Milton, Con_iderations Touching The likelie_t means to remove Hirelings out of the

Church: Wherein is al_o di_courc’d of Tithes, Church-fees, Church-revenues; And whether any

maintenance of mini_ters can be _ettl’d by law (London: L. Chapman, 1659), A9–A10, 15–18, 32–35, 37.

John Bunyan (Baptist; 1628–1688)

John Bunyan (1628–1688), author of Pilgrim’s Progress, commented on Luke 18:10–13, “This paying of tithes was ceremonial, such as came in and went out with the typical priesthood.”

John Bunyan, Bunyan’s Searching Works: The Strait Gate, The Heavenly Footman,

The Barren Fig-Tree, The Pharisee and Publican, and Divine Emblems

(Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1851), 24.

The Little Parliament (1653)

The Little Parliament (1653), under Cromwell and the Independent Churches, was moving toward voluntarism, that is, “that the maintenance of Churches by means of tithes ought to be done away.”

Henry William Clarke, History of English Nonconformity, 2 vols.

(London: Chapman and Hall, 1911-1913), 1:374.

A Selection of Post-Tithe Quotes: Reformation Period

Martin Luther (1483–1546)

“I would even be glad if [today’s] lords ruled according to the example of Moses. If I were emperor, I would take from Moses a model for [my] statutes; not that Moses should be binding on me, but that I should be free to follow him in ruling as he ruled. For example, tithing is a very fine rule, because with the giving of the tenth all other taxes would be eliminated. For the ordinary man it would also be easier to give a tenth than to pay rents and fees. Suppose I had ten cows; I would then give one. If I had only five, I would give nothing.”

Martin Luther, “How Christians Should Regard Moses,” In Luther’s Works, vol. 35,

edited and translated by E. Theodore Bachman (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 165-66.

Separatists in Amsterdam (1602–1603)

“That the due maintenance of the Officers aforesaid, should be of the free and voluntarie contribution of the Church, that according to Christs ordinance, they which preach the Gospell may live of the Gospell: and not by Popish Lordships and Livings, of Iewish Tithes and Offerings.”

Henry Martyn Dexter, The Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years,

as Seen in Its Literature (New York: Harper, 1880), 307.

“VII. That the due maintenance of the Officers aforeſsaid ſhould be of the free and voluntary contribution of the Church, that according to Chriſts ordinance they which preach the Goſpell, may live of the Goſpell, and not by Popiſh Lordſhips and livings or Iewiſh Tithes and offerings.”

Henry Ainsworth and Francis Johnson,An Apologie or Defence of Svch Trve

Christians as are commonly (but vniuſtly) called Brovvwinsts (n.p.: n.p., 1604), 58.

John Smyth (1609)

John Smyth (1609), a Separatist whom many credit with being the first Baptist, said that Christ abolished tithes.

John Smyth, Parallels, Censures, Observations [Amsterdam]: n.p., 1609, text-Fiche.

John Robinson (1610)

Robinson was the pastor of the “Pilgrim Fathers” before they left on the Mayflower. Robinson remained in Holland with the majority of the congregation. He wrote that he supported the views of Ainsworth and Smyth. In his argument, he claimed that the author of Hebrews taught that “the law is abolished by the gospel, in the sense we speak of: and the old testament by the new, in respect of ordinances,” and tithing was one of those ordinances that had been abolished. He argued that the maintenance of ministers should be through voluntary contributions.

John Robinson, The Works of John Robinson: Pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers,

3 vols., edited by Robert Ashton (London: John Snow, 1851), 2:185-86; 466-67.

A Selection of Post-Tithe Quotes: Pre-Reformation

Didascalia Apostolorum (ca. 225)

“No more be bound with sacrifices and oblations, and with sin offerings, purifications, and vows . . . nor yet with tithes and firstfruits. . . . for it was laid upon them [i.e., the Israelites] to give all these things as of necessity, but you are not bound by these things. . . . Now thus shall your
righteousness abound more than their tithes and firstfruits and part offerings, when you shall do as it is written: Sell all thou hast, and give tothe poor.”

R. Hugh Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum: The Syriac Version Translated
and Accompanied by the Verona Latin Fragments
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929), 2:34–35.

Waldenses (ca. 12th century)

The Waldenses, followers of Peter Waldo (ca. twelfth century), believed that tithes should not be given to priests “because there was no use of them in the primitive Church.”

Allix, “Some Remarks upon the Ecclesiastical History of
the Ancient Churches of the Piedmont,” 1690, reprint,
Bible Truth Library: Bible and Church History Collection,
The Bible Truth Forum, CD-ROM. Available from
http://www.bibletruthforum.com, 218, 232.

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1275)

“Paying tithes, it appears, is no longer of precept, because the precept to pay tithes was given in the Old Law. . . . Paying tithes cannot be considered a moral precept, however, because natural reason does not dictate that one ought to give a tenth, rather than a ninth or an eleventh. Therefore, it is a ceremonial or a judicial precept.”

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, vol. 39 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), 139.

Tithe Rap

So, is this how we should view the tithe? See my answer here.

Forthcoming Books

I have two forthcoming books. The first is "You Mean I Don't Have to Tithe?" It will be a part of the McMaster Theological Studies Series edited by Dr. Stanley Porter. It is NOW listed here. The second book I am the editor and a contributor: "Perspectives on Tithing". This book will have 4 views on tithing presented from various angles. Broadman and Holman will publish this in a little over 1 year.

I Think My Daughter's an Arminian

A response to: "I Think My Wife's a Calvinist." In reality, my daughter is only 9 years old ... though she does read the NLT for her devotions.

Part 4-You Mean I Don't Have to Tithe

The Post-Tithe View: Giving in the New Covenant

The Resurrection

I read a sermon by G. Campbell Morgan today on 1 Cor 15-the resurrection of Christ. He made some great statements:

- "When He was crucified all the little company of people that had been gathered about Him left Him. I am not criticizing them; the more I know of my own heart, the less I can do that."
I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing so much fault in the disciples, seeing them as foolish at times. But as I explore my sinfulness, the darkness residing in my heart, the criticisms of them seem hypocritical ... I probably would have done worse.

- "The reverberation of the hammer that drives the nails is the thunder that scatters His followers."


- "He was the Son of God or the most disastrous deceiver that ever trod the earth."
That famous question - was He Lord, Liar, or Lunatic - is addressed here. He couldn't have been a moral man, for he was a deceiver, the worst deceiver ever. The centrality of the resurrection is sure.

- "When you tell me the story of the resurrection was a fraud, it was a fraud which made men pure and strong, and this is to reveal the absurdity of the charge."
Here he uses the argument of the transformation of the disciples. How can someone argue that they made up the resurrection and that this fake story made them into courageous men ready to die for Christ? That truly is absurd!

- "One has heard in these recent days that what happened on the road to Damascus was that Paul had an epileptic seizure in a thunderstorm. Supposing that were true, then I should set to praying for epilepsy and thunderstorms at once."

The resurrection is truly a central tenet to Christianity. Without the truth of the resurrection, our faith and our preaching are in vain. But, praise the Lord, they are not! For Christ has truly risen from the grave, victorious over death, victorious over sin, and proclaiming himself to truly be the Son of God.

Part 3-You Mean I Don't Have to Tithe

Tithing in the New Testament

Amazing Love

A few excerpts from G. Campbell Morgan's sermon "Amazing Love!"

- "Apart from the cross of Christ you will never persuade me that God loves me."

- "You ask me how I know it, and I take you, not to the infinite spaces where stars march in rhythmic order, not to the hedgegrow where God smiles in flowers; but to the rough and brutal cross of Calvary, to the hour o the dying of the Christ."

As I meditate upon the cross, my worthlessness overwhelms me, but a sense of His love fills me as well. What an act of love that is!

"Love so amazing, so divine, Demands my soul, my life, my all!"

Let us love Him today with our heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Part 2-You Mean I Don't Have to Tithe

Part 2 covers tithing in the Mosaic Law and Malachi 3. Not all the passages on tithing are covered in this study, but the most important one's are.

You Mean I Don't Have to Tithe?

I was recently asked to teach for a month at a Wednesday night Bible study at my church, Old Forest Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, VA. I basically summarized my dissertation on tithing and giving in four parts. The link below is Part 1: Definitions, History, and Tithing before the Mosaic Law.

Two Aspects of the Great Commission-August 2008

NEW DISCOVERY: Not only Jesus' bones, but the Holy Spirit's, too

Scholar's have identified through nuclear powered microscopes and DNA testing that the mysterious bones in the now famous "Jesus Tomb" were actually the bones of the Holy Spirit. How through DNA? Well, they had samples before a person was saved, compared them to after a person was saved, and the difference helped them decipher the genetic make-up of the DNA of the Holy Spirit. The picture of the bones are below.

From CT

This is from Christianity Today's website. While the Haggard situation is not funny, this misquote is:

"This story incorrectly stated that James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, believes people who don't practice what they preach should undergo an exorcism. His quote, in a TV interview about reaction to the firing of evangelical leader Ted Haggard for 'sexual immorality,' was: 'Everybody gets exercised (worked up about it) when something like this happens, and for good reason.'"
—A correction to a November 23 Rocky Mountain News article on Dobson and Haggard, which had the subhead "Dobson: Haggard not a hypocrite, just in need of exorcism."

Live and Learn

It's amazing the "loopholes" students can find. I decided to be gracious to my Gospel of John class and allow them to turn their papers in before the end of the day, since I would be in my office until late that night. As I started the class (after I announced this), a student asked me a question about the paper. I answered it and got about 1 line out of my lecture, when I looked back at him.

He had his laptop open and a stack of books next to it that looked like John commentaries. I said: are you actually working on the paper right now?!" He said yes. Unbelievable! I couldn't believe it, I laughed so hard my stomach hurt for an hour. He was actually going to try to finish the paper during class. That took nerve!

Wright's Simply Christian:Part 1

I’ve been reading N. T. Wright’s Simply Christian over Thanksgiving Break and have found some interesting tidbits I thought I’d share over the next few posts.

Saying “It’s true for you” sounds fine and tolerant. But it only works because it’s twisting the word “true” to mean, not “a true revelation of the way things are in the real world,” but “something that is genuinely happening inside you.” In fact, saying “It’s true for you” in this sense is more or less equivalent to saying “It’s not true for you,” because the “it” in question—the spiritual sense or awareness or experience—is conveying, very powerfully, a message (that there is a loving God) which the challenger is reducing to something else (that you are having strong feelings which you misinterpret in that sense). [Pages 26-27]

He gives a great argument (I think) against an oft-used argument.

Billy and Inclusivism

Billy Graham appeared on Robert Schuller’s “Hour of Power” on May 31^st, 1997, and here is the transcript:

Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer–you know, I think there’s the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. And I don’t think that we’re going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God’s purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name.

And that’s what God is doing today, He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.

Schuller: What, what I hear you saying that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they’ve been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you’re saying?

Graham: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

Schuller: I’m so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

Graham: There is. There definitely is.

Dr. John MacArthur, in one of his mailings, said this about Graham and Schuller’s conversation:

This has certainly leaped from Aristotle to the Catholic Church into evangelical Protestantism. Now we have a kind of Protestant viewpoint that says Muslims and Hindus and whoever are going to be in the Body of Christ, in the Kingdom, in Heaven, with salvation whether they ever get a Bible or whether they ever hear the Gospel or whether they ever know about Jesus Christ. The Billy Graham organization affirmed that this position is the same as the one articulated in an article in Decision magazine which Billy wrote in 1960, so this is not something new.

Very interesting …

MacArthur

MacArthur on evangelism:
"If I had an hour to talk to someone about Christ, I’d spend 55 minutes talking about their sin and their condemnation, and I’d spend the last five minutes talking about the solution."

Net or Gross

Interesting article today on BP News ... any thoughts?

Dallas Willard

Dallas Willard is loved by many evangelicals, especially those who are embracing the Emerging/Emergent Church. Here's a quote from his own website. This is a hypothetic discussion with a girl. Right at the end of the (hypothetical) discussion, she says:

"But I still struggle with how I should view those who have other beliefs. I'm not sure I am ready to condemn them as wrong. I know some very good Buddhists. What is their destiny?"

Dallas Willard ... on his own website ... responds:

"I would take her to Romans 2:6-10: 'God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.'

What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say 'he can't save them.' I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: 'There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved.'"

Interesting ... any comments on this man who was interviewd by Christianity Today and the interviewer said:

"He teeters on the edge of openness theology, saying God can choose not to know the future if he wants to, but he doesn't go as far as many openness adherents, whose views he believes 'slip into process theology.'"

Thoughts, please ....

Red-Letter Christians

Red-Letter Christians? It would be convenient for some to throw out much of what Paul had say, wouldn't it.

Patterson, Calvinism, & Revelation

A post on www.ratemyprofessor.com said this about Paige Patterson:

"Very knowledgeable. Very smart. Well-read. If he has a weakness, it may be that his Calvinism definitely comes through too often. This concerns me, b/c calvinists often don't make very good missionaries or evangelists."

Then, on amazon.com, this was a comment about his forth-forth-forthcoming commentary on Revelation (in the NAC series):

"This volume reminds me of Chrysostom's commentary on Romans. Patterson, like all great exegetes, does not tell us what to believe; he simply gives the student the information he needs to make up his own mind about this book. Regarding the great mysteries of the Revelation, Patterson does not pretend to have the answers, he does not give us what he thinks, he just gives us what he thinks we need. A true wordsmith; the words leap off the page. You will likely never read a negitive review on this commentary, Patterson has seen to that. My only regret is that it is currently unavailable; I seem to have misplaced my copy."

Then there was this one:
"Revelation--a word that strikes terror into the hearts of its hearers. Great minds like Calvin and Luther have skated past the aisle of the apocalypse, passed up a second helping of Great Dragon in a Lake of Fire, and cancelled flights on Air Revelation. But not Patterson. In this timeless wonder of a book Patterson sees this plate of mystery and says, "Yummy." Patterson's revelation is so concise with a kind of scholarly brevity that one wonders, "how did he do it?!" One reads with stupefied wonder, the words "I just can't believe he actually wrote it" going through one's mind. The excellence of the Summa Nihilo cannot be put into words. As Alison Krauss so astutely remarked, "You say it best when you say nothing at all." Throughout his exposition of the depths and mystery of the Revelation, Patterson has ingeniously found a way to retain these mysteries from cover to cover. Still, the profound scholarship herein causes the reader to often ask, "What is he saying?" just before realizing, the true genius is in what he is not saying. His utter humility in acknowledging the vast mystery of the book of the revelation causes the pages to virtually turn themselves. It is almost as if you are through with the book before you even start reading it. The only fitting words with which I may conclude are those of the author himself: "

And finally:
"It is not what you see in this commentary that is so remarkable. It is what you cannot see.
As shrouded as the meanings of the Book of Revelation, so is Patterson's illumination of the text to the prospective reader. The reality of his words must ever give way to the invisible pictures conjured in the mind as one meditates upon the depths of the Book of Revelation and upon the years, even decades Patterson has invested in the commentary's production.
As any commentary is forever a work in progress, this commentary is no exception. Only in the imagination of the consumer and Bible student does this work take full flight. Some would say that what we now see is as nothing at all by comparison. I would differ.
What we now see is what we now have. And what we have may be all that there is.
When that is said of a commentary, what more could be said?
Five stars."

Worship Songs

Christianity Today online has an interesting article about an atheist visiting churches after he sold his soul on ebay. One particular line jumped out at me:

"He was also impressed with the live music, something absent from the atheist conventions he attends. The quality of the words, however, was another story: 'I have no idea who writes the lyrics to this stuff, but it sounds like what a four-year-old could write: "God is good. God is strong." And repeat. And repeat. And repeat.'"

Ouch!!! Let me give a defense of these songs ... well, um ... okay, I can't. He's right. So many of the worship songs used today are written by those with a convenient and superficial theology. Why? Why is it that this criticism, which has been ongoing for years, has persisted?

Well, when 'contemporary' music began to be used in the churches, most churches and schools that were capable of training people how to plumb the depths of the Scriptures were anti-contemporary music. So, who could these people go to? Where could they learn the Scriptures?

That created a problem: those who were writing good (or at least decent) music with so-so lyrics were not going to be exposed to great Bible teaching because they were shunned from those camps. Today, most (not all) of these people are in Charismatic circles (Matt Redman, Paul Oakley, etc). Typically (and yes, I'm stereotyping), they aren't known for their great Bible teaching (though Calvary Chapel has some very good Bible teachers). So, the song writers of today are drinking from a very shallow well ... and I think that is at least partially why so much of the contemporary music is shallow.

Don't get me wrong, I think some of it is GREAT. Some of it isn't shallow, but fairly deep. However, most of it isn't, and this atheist's comments were right on the mark.

Darrell Bock and the gospel

Darrell Bock comments on sin and hell and ends up highlighting a real important distinction in how the gospel is presented today. I think what he touches upon here is one of the reasons we have so many "Christians" that never experience the abundant life ... they are just trying to avoid hell.

"The point is how often do we present that gospel as if the goal is to avoid something rather than to enter into something God desires for us. (I am speaking of emphasis here) When we ask, "if you died today would you know for sure you will be in heaven," it sounds like the core of the gospel is avoiding hell. But to me the key to the gospel is God moving to fix a broken relationship and giving his son to bring us to himself, something that starts before we die and lasts forever. Yes, we do avoid hell, but far more important is the restoration and reconciliation that is the gospel. It is not what we avoid that is key, but what we enter into and get to participate in that is central. Now that is really good news. He rescues us from sin but does not leave us there. So the bottom line is not avoiding a fate, but entering into a new state of unbroken relationship with God. This aspect of the gospel message often needs more highlighting or can get obscured if avoiding a fate is emphasized."

Marvelous! Bock nails this important issue; the gospel really is good news, not just the avoidance of bad news!

Another Video

This one is a little longer ... and a little more cheesy!

I can't get this one embedded, but here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEH2dK-KKKA

Video

From The Church You Know ...

TNIV

While the TNIV has received many insults hurled at it and those responsible for it, comments have mostly been over some the gender-inclusive (or gender-accurate, etc.) translation and not other changes.

The NIV has a glaring translation problem that has annoyed me for years now: the mistranslation of the Greek word for "sign" in John's Gospel. The NIV consistently translates this word "miraculous sign". However, it has been demonstrated (if you think that is too strong of a word, then how about "seriously cast doubt upon") that the word does not refer to the miraculous in John's Gospel. Praiseworthy is the TNIV for correcting this error and simply translating "sign" as "sign" and understanding John's use.

Now, regarding the gender-inclusive stuff ....


just kidding :)

Creationism

Christianity Today just posted an article about a conversation Preston Jones (history professor at John Brown University) had with Bad Religion's (the punk band) Greg Gaffin, who apparently has a Ph.D. from Cornell. Gaffin is an atheist. Here is a quote:

"In those months of dialogue I also saw the devastation wrought by the passion for pseudo-scientific theories on natural history among some Christians. Many of my students believe that six-day creationism is an essential Christian belief—that if the first chapters of Genesis can't be taken literally, then the whole Bible is a fraud. What tragic nonsense!
Before Greg and I corresponded, I didn't care. "You wanna believe the earth was created six thousand years ago? Whatever." But Greg helped me see that this kind of gaping ignorance promotes the perception that theologically conservative Christians are the enemies of learning."

Christianity Today included this at the end of the article: "This article, as with all "Speaking Out" pieces, does not necessarily represent the views of Christianity Today." That's all and well, but this history teacher just got duped by an informed evolutionist. While there surely are many Christian's who use pseudo-scientific arguments against evolution, this man must not be very well read on some of the most recent Christian arguments against evolution.

What did I learn from this? Well, if a history teacher debates the issue of evolution with someone who has a Ph.D. in it, they will probably lose ... and be convinced. I wonder why CT would publish this? As an advertisement for this man's book, maybe?

Prosperity Gospel

Is it okay for a Christian to be rich? Well, Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:17-18, "Instruct those who are rich in this present world ..." now, if it wasn't okay to be rich, what would follow; something like "sell all and give to the poor," but Paul doesn't say that ... "not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share." Nothing about them being evil or in sin because they are rich.

However, the Prosperity Gospel goes from "it is okay to be rich" to "God has planned for all Christians to be rich". A logical jump of mammoth proportions!! Christianity Today online just reported about a recent Time magazine article and they included this about Rick Warren, a non-Prosperity Gospel preacher:

"This idea that God wants everybody to be wealthy?", [Rick] Warren snorts. "There is a word for that: baloney. It's creating a false idol. You don't measure your self-worth by your net worth. I can show you millions of faithful followers of Christ who live in poverty. Why isn't everyone in the church a millionaire?"

CT online says:
"It's smart for Time to make Warren the piece's chief critic of the Prosperity Gospel. (One of his favorite lines, "I don't think it is a sin to be rich. I think it is a sin to die rich," doesn't appear.)"

Go Rick Warren. That was the exact theological, technical word that I was thinking of regarding the Prosperity Gospel: baloney!

Jill Briscoe and CT online

Jill Briscoe answered a question about women in ministry at ChristianityToday.com. She is the executive editor of “Just Between Us,” a magazine for ministry wives and women in leadership. She also serves as Minister-at-Large at Elmbrook Church in Milwaukee.

Her presentation in this article was very superficial and her knowledge of this subject that obviously is close to her heart is somewhat disturbing. Her argumentation is weak, as the comments below are intended to show.

She said: “So, after becoming a Christian, imagine my dismay when I first joined a church where women weren't allowed to do any of the things in which I knew they excelled!”
Response: I’m sure there are churches like this, but it seems to me that the majority of churches that I’ve been a part of would say that women can’t teach MEN, not that they can’t teach. The Bible never says they can’t teach … just not over men.

She said: “It wasn't that those who challenged me thought I shouldn't be exercising my gifts—it was that they believed "God thought" I shouldn't! This went against the very root of my identity and calling.”
Response: So she must believe that God has called her to teach men … the very thing the Bible speaks against in 1 Timothy 2:12. So, what should we trust more: someone’s subjective experience in their relationship on God’s life OR what the Bible clearly (yes, 1 Tim 2:12 is clear) declares? The answer may seem obvious to some, but obviously not all. This is similar (though the example I’m about to give is a much worse situation) to when a man says that God told him to divorce his wife and marry his secretary … after all, God wants him to be happy, right?

She said: “They believe Paul felt that because Eve was deceived, women are gullible and therefore mustn't teach men.”
Response: Somewhat of a straw man. Actually, Paul gives two reasons for why women shouldn’t teach men. The first one she ignored because it is a nearly impossible argument to defeat … because Adam was created first. Thus, it is bound up in creation (not culture). Instead, she focused on the second argument that is: a) controversial, and b) not held by all who are complementarians. So, somewhat of a straw man: she mentioned what some would consider the weaker argument used by complementarians (those that say women should not teach nor have authority over men in the church) and she ignored the stronger, more often used, argument.

She said: “Others think Paul was addressing specific circumstances in Ephesus …”
Response: She can now make this argument since she ignored the argument from creation. So, she points to culture as the reason for Paul’s argument, ignoring the very reason he gave for the command of 1 Tim 2:12 (“for Adam was created first”).

She said: “Years ago, when I discovered I had gifts half the Christian church didn't think I should have …”
Response: For the record, I don’t deny (along with many, if not most, who hold my position) that women can be gifted in teaching. They can also be gifted in pastoring (if you believe in such a gift). That is NOT the issue. The issue is the USE of the gift. She very well may have the gift of teaching (I don’t deny this), however, if she is teaching men she is MIS-using that gift according to God’s clearly revealed Word.

She said: “I don't want to get to heaven and hear him say, ‘Half-done, thou half-faithful servant.’”
Response: Well, at least she didn’t try to manipulate emotions J

She said: “I don't believe women should bury their gifts or let anyone else bury them.”Response: We are in agreement. Don’t bury your gifts women; men, don’t force them to … however, use them appropriately. Just as with most gifts, there are appropriate and inappropriate uses for our spiritual gifts.

Duvall and Hays

Daniel Wallace has posted some comments on his blog regarding inerrancy. Andreas Kostenberger has responded with some of his thoughts. Alan Bandy has also added some comments into the discussion. In preparing for a class this morning, I ran across another view from J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays in the 2nd edition of Grasping God's Word, an introductory hermeneutics book (published by Zondervan). They raise the issue this way: "which comes first, faith in Christ or belief in the inspiration of the Bible?" This is under the title (on page 410) "The Chicken or the Egg?" They conclude: "In actuality, it seems to us that the two go together and are inseparable. We believe in the divine inspiration and trustworthiness of the Bible because we know Jesus Christ, and we know Jesus Christ through the testimony of the Bible."

Inerrancy Discussion Continues

Andreas Kostenberger has an interesting post on inerrancy ... and he cites Wallace's post. This was a really good read, I thought.

Realized Eschatology in John's Gospel: Part 4

Reflecting back on the Gospel then, the disciples did not receive eternal life at 2:11, nor did the “many” in 2:23, nor the Samaritan’s in 4:39–42, nor the Jews in 7:31; 8:30, 31; 10:42; 11:45; 12:11, 42. No one was able to receive eternal life until after the Holy Spirit was given (see 6:63; 7:38–39; 16:7). Referring to the disciples, Culpepper says “that their faith (will) be incomplete until after the completion of Jesus’ work at his death” (Culpepper, Anatomy, 91). This is why I have attempted to discern how John portrayed the belief of those presented in the narratives in my Th.M. thesis, rather than whether or not they received eternal life. Taking salvation-historical considerations into account, the non-receiving of eternal life is not a reflection of how a person’s or group’s belief is portrayed. Terms such as “adequate” and “inadequate” are not completely appropriate, then, in this dialogue. Rather, I have tried to use terms such as “positive,” “negative,” “neutral,” “inchoate,” “spurious,” “deficient,” and others like it which are more suited for this discussion.

Daniel Wallace Challenged on Inerrancy

Daniel Wallace, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, was challenged on a blog on his views on inerrancy. He responded in this very forthright article from bible.org.

Forthcoming Commentaries

I found a great site that details forthcoming commentaries in many of the major series being published today. See here.

Realized Eschatology in John's Gospel: Part 3

Because the Holy Spirit had to have been given before eternal life can be bestowed upon anyone, we can glean from this an understanding about how Jesus talked about soteriological realities during his earthly ministry. Though he may have talked about the results of believing in terms that were vivid and current, his words were really for a future reality. This applies to our discussion of eternal life and believing.

During Jesus’ earthly ministry no one received eternal life and no one received the Holy Spirit (in the current dispensation/administration way). As C. K. Barrett said, eternal life “in John resembles ‘kingdom of God’ in the Synoptic Gospels. That which is properly a future blessing becomes a present fact in virtue of the realization of the future in Christ” (Barrett, John, 215). The results of believing are for a different age. Just as no one in the Old Testament received eternal life or the permanent indwelling (sealing) of the Holy Spirit, no one before the exaltation received either as well. Abraham was reckoned as righteous before God, and therefore those in John’s Gospel whose belief is deemed as a complete response to what Jesus was calling for may be thought of in those terms. However, it would be inappropriate to attempt to analyze individuals or groups in John’s Gospel in terms of whether or not they have received eternal life. This is the wrong question. The correct question is to attempt to understand how John is portraying the belief described in each narrative. From this, we can then develop Johannine definition(s) of believing. Therefore, with Raymond Brown, “the full gift of life does not come during the ministry of Jesus but only afterward through the resurrection” (Brown, John, 1:lxviii).

Carson's Quotables

D. A. Carson is known for some extremely quotable comments in is writings ... places where he waxes eloquent out of nowhere.

Here is one from his John commentary, commenting on John 6:45:

"When he compels belief, it is not by the savage constraint of a rapist, but by the wonderful wooing of a lover."

Realized Eschatology and John 7

Let’s start a John 7:38-39: “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” Jesus uses the present participle of pisteuō. In the context, He appears to be referring to the current moment in which he makes the statement … that is, during his earthly ministry. The result of those who believe, in 7:38–39, as John clarifies for us (7:39), is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus seems to be saying that anyone who believes him at that moment will become the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (“From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water”). While much discussion on this verse has centered on the OT reference, that isn’t as important for us here. Some of the suggestions are Isa 44:3; 55:1; 58:11; Prov 4:23; Ezek 47:1; Joel 3:18; and Zech 13:1. I prefer Zech 14:15-19.

Regardless, John says that the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus had yet to be glorified. When Jesus was glorified, the Spirit was given, and then those who believed would become a fulfillment of this. However, during Jesus’ earthly ministry this was impossible. Jesus said himself in John 16:7 that it was not until he left that the Holy Spirit would come. And as Raymond Brown concluded: “it is apparent the gift of the Spirit is Jesus’ way of granting eternal life” (Brown, John, 2:741). So how could eternal life be granted prior to the Holy Spirit being given?

Baptists and Calvinists ... getting along?

May all participants in the upcoming White/Ascol vs. Caner bros. debate continue with the charitable attitude displayed in the last few days. I do look forward to October 16th.

Realized Eschatology and the Fourth Gospel

Thinking about Leon Morris and my "first love" of Johannine studies, I thought I'd turn my attention to the Fourth Gospel.

The Fourth Gospel contains verses that appear to say that eternal life was presently available to those Jesus was preaching to during his earthly ministry. For example:

5:24: “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life.” (NET)
6:47: “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who believes has eternal life.”
6:54: “The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
10:28: “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand.”

Other verses are complimentary to this theme: 3:15; 5:21; 6:40; and 17:3. Other verses said by the Evangelist also contain similar statements: 3:16, 19, 36; 8:51; 12:25. So, were people able to receive/have/possess eternal life during Jesus’ (earthly) ministry? Was Jesus referring “literally” to the present? Was the use of the present a literary device? What about a futuristic present … is there really any good evidence for that category?

Realized eschatology in the Fourth Gospel has been a popular topic of discussion (see references below). I propose that Jesus did not literally mean that during his ministry some were receiving eternal life.[1] Rather, he was speaking in the present about only something that could happen in the future. When one takes into consideration historical-salvation considerations, and in particular, the Johannine definitions of “eternal life” and “sin,” this dilemma can be solved.

So, to say it more boldly, Abraham did not have eternal life, when the disciples believed in Jesus they did not have eternal life, and no one actual had eternal life prior to the cross. How is that possible? We shall see ………


Note
[1] Contra Carroll, “Eschatology,” 66, who states: “the disciples of Jesus, who believe in him as the Son sent from the Father, already possess eternal life.” See also, Pamment, “Eschatology,” 84, “One may reason that since belief in Jesus is possible now, eternal life can be a present possession.”

Some sources for Realized Eschatology in the Fourth Gospel:
Charles H. Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958).

Charles H. Dodd, History and the Gospel (New York: Scribner’s and Sons, 1938).

Roderic Dunkerley, “Unrealized Eschatology,” The London Quarterly and Holborn Review 186 (1961): 51–54.

John T. Carroll, “Present and Future in Fourth Gospel Eschatology,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 19 (Ap 1989): 63–69.

John F. Walvoord, “Realized Eschatology,” Bibiotheca Sacra 127 (Oct.–Dec. 1970): 313–323.

Robert Berkey, “Realized Eschatology and the post-Bultmannians,” Expository Times 84 (Dec. 1972): 72–77.

Robert Kysar, “Eschatology of the Fourth Gospel,” Perspective 13, no. 1 (1972): 23–33.

John Painter, “Theology, Eschatology, and the Prologue of John,” Scottish Journal of Theology 46, no. 1 (1993): 27–42.

Donald R. Sime, and Jere Yates, “Eschatology in the Gospel of John,” in The Last Things (ed. W. B. West and Jack Pearl Lewis: Austin: Sweet Publishing, 1972), 124–139.

Severino Pancaro, “Statistical Approach to the Concept of Time and Eschatology in the Fourth Gospel,” Biblica 50, no. 4 (1969): 511–524.

Margaret Pamment, “Eschatology and the Fourth Gospel,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 15 (1982): 81–85.

Some commentary sources:
Bultmann, John, 155–7, 164–7, 219–20, 236, 256–62, 402–403.

Brown, John, 1:lxviii, cxx–cxxi, 2:741.

Barrett, John, 215.