A Charismatic Complementarianism

I have never been ashamed of, nor have I ever made a secret of my belief in the continuation of all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And while I have no problem with owning the label "Charismatic", I find that there is much popular teaching, theology, and ethos within the broader Charismatic movement that I am unable to believe in and endorse. For example, the vast majority of the Charismatic movement believes in the doctrines of free will and Arminianism. I remain a convinced Calvinist. Most Charismatics believe in some form of standard or modified Dispensationalism, whereas I hold without apology to what is often (and pejoratively) called "Replacement Theology".

Now to be perfectly honest, as vehemently as I disagree with free will theology and Dispensationalism, I can, to a degree, get past that. But there is one area of popular Pentecostal/Charismatic practice and belief that for me is a deal breaker. The reality is that most Pentecostal/Charismatic churches believe in the ordination of women to pastoral ministry¹. For example, the Assemblies of God in a position paper on their official website, states,

After examining the various translations and interpretations of biblical passages relating to the role of women in the first-century church, and desiring to apply biblical principles to contemporary church practice, we conclude that we cannot find convincing evidence that the ministry of women is restricted according to some sacred or immutable principle.

Similarly, the Association of Vineyard Churches, on its official website, says this:

In response to the message of the kingdom, the Vineyard Movement encourages, trains, and empowers women in all areas of leadership.

We believe that God calls and gifts leaders within the church as He chooses and that this is not limited by gender, age, ethnicity, economic status, or any other human distinction (1 Cor. 12:11; Gal. 3:28).

The role of the church community is to discern God’s gifting and calling for leadership and also to discern the maturity and character required for leadership (1 Tim. 3:1-13).

In the Jesus-following community, leadership centers around serving the body of Christ in humility and self-sacrificial love (Matt. 20:25-28).

In the New Testament church, we see a call to servanthood in imitation of Jesus – a call given to both men and women equally. We believe we are better together.

This last example is particularly relevant to me because I was previously involved in two different Vineyard churches. In fact, I was, for a time, a worship leader and a pastoral intern of sorts. I had hoped that I would eventually be ordained within the Vineyard family of churches. In many ways, I still very much miss Vineyard. However, the issue of Vineyard's egalitarianism - alongside other issues - led to my eventual departure from the Vineyard USA. While I still share with Vineyard a particular theological understanding of the Kingdom of God that includes miraculous signs, I believe that that the Bible teaches clearly that the governing and teaching offices of the church, such as Apostles and Elders are restricted to men only. I do not believe that the Scriptures sanction women as governing and teaching church leaders.

In the statement of faith of David's Throne Ministries, I describe my position as follows:

In the beginning, God created the human race as both male and female, giving them dominion over the earth to fill it and subdue it. Because of this, men and women are equal in their essence before God. Through the Fall of Man however, discord and conflict have arisen between the sexes. Through the reconciliation brought about by Christ, men and women can again achieve harmony, however imperfectly, through sacrificial love and service.

The Bible teaches that God has given His Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit to both males and females in the Church. However, because of the original created order which Christ came to restore, there are certain functions and offices in the Church which God has specified that only males may perform. These offices are the governing and teaching offices, which are Apostles and Elders (Acts 2:17-18; 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 1 Timothy 2:8-15). 

But before I continue, I feel that I should address the elephant in the room that will inevitably come up. Am I a sexist? A male chauvinist pig perhaps? I mean after all, why would I oppose women as pastors unless it somehow threatens my "toxic masculinity"? 

In all honesty, from a strictly personal perspective, I really don't care. I truly don't. I have always, as long as I can remember, had female authority figures in my life - from my mother, to teachers, to bosses, to police officers, etc... Why should a female pastor be any different? If I wasn't absolutely sure that the Bible disallows female pastors, I would be the first to support it. So the charge that I am somehow protecting my fragile male ego is predictable, but ultimately fails to measure up to the facts.

Now to be clear, I do believe that in this Kingdom age, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on both males and females who believe in Messiah Jesus (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:14-18). I believe that men and women alike may pray publicly as well as possess and exercise the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 11:4-5). I believe that men and women may both equally lead congregational singing (Ephesians 5:19). Lastly and most importantly, it is also clear from the New Testament that men and women share equally in the blessings of the salvation procured through Jesus (Galatians 3:26-28). Additionally, Jesus' kind, counter cultural treatment of women is well-documented.

But I just can't dismiss the two passages of Scripture which clearly and unequivocally indicate that leadership and teaching in the Church must be male. I am speaking of course of 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14. The former passage speaks thus:

 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

This verse gives to us an authority structure for the home and for the Church. In those spheres, there is a divinely-originated male authority structure. But it must also be noted that all men are under the headship of Christ. Whatever authority I may have as a male, I myself am under the authority of Jesus. I submit to Jesus. And it must be remembered that Jesus submits to God the Father. While there is apparently some debate as to whether the Son submitted to the Father in eternity past², it is clear that at least during His earthly ministry, God the Son willingly rendered obedience and submission to God the Father, even though the Son is equal to the Father in every way (John 12:49; John 14:31; Hebrews 10:5-7). With that in mind, it becomes easier to see how males and females can have equality of essence, even as they are distinct in certain roles.

Now there are some egalitarians (as those who advocate for women's ordination are often referred to as) who will argue that the Greek word translated "head" ( κεφαλή, kephale) should rather be translated as "source" instead of "head", thus removing any hint of authority from the text. For example, the above mentioned position paper of the Assemblies of God suggests that "kephale" should likely be thus understood. I am not sufficiently trained in Greek exegesis to determine between the two translations. However, I would argue that it probably doesn't matter all that much anyway. Why? I say that because it should go without saying that the "source" of something has intrinsic authority over it. I am the "source" of my children (as is my wife). Therefore, I (and my wife) have authority over them. So even if Paul meant to say that man is the "source" of woman rather than her "head", it still follows that the man has some authority over her (within the divinely ordained sphere of home and church anyway; it does not to my mind suggest absolute male authority or that a woman can never, in any context, have authority over a man - see my above comments about female authority figures).

But the battleground over women's ordination always tends to come back to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. As usual, I lack space for a full examination and exegesis, so I will simply quote the text and make a few comments on it. First Timothy 2:11-14 states:

 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Now I do not typically have a problem with being frank, so I will be frank here. I really don't see what is so difficult about this passage of Scripture. I mean really, what is so hard here? I can see how it offends modern Western sensibilities. So what? Since when has God ever altered His will to satisfy the fickle and changing whims of a particular culture? Is this not the same God who said, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."? (Isaiah 55:8-9 NKJV)

The Scripture here states with a fair amount of clarity that a woman should not be in a position of ecclesiastical authority over a man. Please note the italicized adjective in the previous sentence. Again, I see nothing here that suggests necessarily that a woman cannot possess authority over a man in the realms of government, business/commerce, law enforcement, etc... As I see it, it is only in the Church where Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy find their place.³ And it should be further noted that Paul roots his instructions in the created order, before the Fall of Man. God's creation of Adam and then Eve has timeless ramifications that cannot be overturned. So, contra the Assemblies of God, there is in fact, a "sacred and immutable principle" of male leadership in the Church. Similarly, Eve's sin has affected all of womanhood, down through the ages. For these reasons, church leadership is male.

That said, it would violate the spirit of this text to suggest that a woman may fulfill the leadership and teaching office of elder, since that office explicitly has to do with ruling and teaching (1 Timothy 5:17). Similarly, Paul's lists of qualifications for elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) assume that the office-holder will be male since the individual in question must be "husband of one wife". It is obvious that a woman cannot be "husband of one wife" (regardless of what modern trends may try to tell us).

There are, of course, other lines of argumentation that are often used to try to argue for women's ordination. Some will attempt to suggest that Junia is a female apostle (Romans 16:7). Now there are those who espouse my position who will attempt to say that Junia (a woman) was actually Junias (a man). I don't know if I buy that really. On that subject, I would say two things. One, the much clearer texts I referenced above should not be set aside due to one (possible, but very debatable) interpretation of a more obscure text. Secondly, I don't think that Junia is actually called an apostle here. The key is the preposition "among". Now it is possible grammatically to say the Junia is "among" the Apostles as meaning that she is an apostle. But I suggest to you that the proper way to see this text is to understand that preposition as saying that "among" or within the closed circle of the Apostles (Paul, Peter, John, et al.), Junia is well thought of. That is, the Apostles think highly of Junia, though she herself is not an Apostle.

Still another line of argumentation is that Jesus was kind to women and so we should ordain women to pastoral ministry. This is what is known in logic as a non sequitur. It does not follow. Everyone agrees that Jesus was compassionate to women, children, gentiles, tax collectors, lepers, etc... But none of that overturns the created order nor the order with which God has established the Church.

The need of the hour in Western culture today is for strong men of God who are not ashamed to be men. The need is for men of courage, responsibility, compassion, leadership, and conviction. While there is always the danger of an irresponsible, overly exaggerated machismo, the equal danger is overcompensating to the kind of wet noodle "beta male" mentality that many of the cultural elites would foist upon our civilization. I for one, by God's help and grace, strive to be the kind of husband, father, and churchman (and perhaps one day Lord willing, elder) that other men would want to imitate. Amen.

¹ That is not to suggest that only Pentecostal/Charismatic denominations/movements ordain women to pastoral ministry. The Church of the Nazarene for example, is part of the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition and essentially non-charismatic, but does practice the ordination of women.

² I have not followed this debate with any closeness so I do not currently have a conviction concerning the eternal submission of the Son to the Father. Presently however, I do not think it has too great a bearing on the main thrust of the issue of women's ordination.

³ Elsewhere, both Paul (Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18) and Peter (1 Peter 3:1-6) instruct wives to submit to their husbands, but that is in the sphere of the home. The present discussion is specifically about the sphere of the Church, although the two spheres do overlap.

Do I Really Need a Uterus? A Refutation of a Common "Pro-Choice" Argument

I am not usually one to get involved in debates on cultural issues. Generally speaking, I prefer to stick to biblical and theological questions and issues. But more and more, I am finding that I just cannot remain silent. Recently, with events that have transpired in Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, and elsewhere, I have seen an uptick in what has become a standard tactic wielded by the "pro-choice" crowd concerning the alleged right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy (read: murder her child). In a nutshell, the argument goes, "no uterus, no opinion". This diversionary tactic essentially attempts to de-legitimize every man from having an opinion on the abortion debate (unless of course, the man in question acts like a good little beta male and slavishly gets in line with the Leftist agenda). After all, abortion is a "women's rights" issue and only women should have a say, right? Wrong.

First of all, let's put the "women's rights" issue to bed right away. The assertion that abortion is all about "women's rights" is a true red herring. A red herring, according to at least one website, is basically a way of distracting from the real issue at hand. It may sound good, but it's not actually relevant. In this case, appealing to "women's rights" distracts from the real issue, which is that some people just want to kill a developing child in its mother's womb, typically (but not always) for reasons of convenience. Now, equal pay for doing the same job as a man? That is a women's rights issue. Protecting against unwanted sexual advances and harassment? That also is a women's rights issue. Abortion? That is not. That is an issue of protecting the rights of the unborn, specifically the rights of the unborn to not be violently murdered by vacuum suction (or by any other savage means).

But let's return to the question of the alleged uterine-possession prerequisite to having a conviction on the matter. Basically, what is being said is that a man should not be allowed to have an opinion on what a woman should do with her body (this assumes of course that the child inside her doesn't have a body of his/her own, but I digress). It sounds plausible on the surface. I mean why should a man be concerned with what women do? The reason is because both men and women exist together on this planet. That is just an obvious fact of life. Men and women share the world with each other in a symbiotic way. What one does affects the other. What happens to one affects - positively or negatively- the other. Feminists would like you to believe that "liberated" women should just be left alone to do what they wish as if it was their business and theirs alone; but the world just doesn't work that way.  So be gone with stupid and foolish arguments that merely distract with pious sounding, but ultimately self-serving sophistry.

You see, the problem with most ideological/political liberals is that they live in a fantasy world. They are trying desperately to create a world that just doesn't exist and can't exist¹. They are masters at effectively trying to deconstruct and redefine the most basic of human institutions and then when their pretentious fantasies are called to account, they resort to crying, mewling, ad hominem attacks, and childish temper tantrums.

Again, this is not the kind of thing I like to do. As I mentioned before, cultural issues like abortion are not the main emphasis of this blog. Even less of an emphasis of this blog and ministry is the kind of bare-knuckled polemics I have just engaged in. Nevertheless, I felt that it was necessary to address this issue head-on because a bad argument advanced by depraved child-murderers and their enablers continues to make the rounds, particularly on social media.

¹ Of course I would be remiss not to point out that the problem with many ideological/political conservatives is that they are just jerks with a gun fetish. 

Learning Theological Terms: Creation Ex Nihilo

One of the clearest contrasts between biblical Christianity and secular, evolutionary belief concerns the doctrine of creation. While the average secular person believes that the universe came into being basically by accident via the "Big Bang", the Christian holds that God created all things that exist by His powerful Word (Genesis 1:3; John 1:3). Moreover, the Christian believes that God, through Jesus Christ, continues to uphold the entire cosmos through that same powerful Word (Hebrews 1:3).

While Christians take different stances on many of the details of creation¹, biblical Christians of all stripes believe in what theologians refer to as creation ex nihilo. Ex nihilo is a Latin theological term which, when literally translated means, "out of nothing". In other words, creation ex nihilo declares that God created the entire universe - both things seen and things unseen - out of nothing. That is, God did not create using preexisting matter. Rather, God spoke the cosmos into existence by fiat, and it simply became.

There are several Scriptures which best bear this concept out. Although written in a context discussing justification by faith alone and God's promise to Abraham, Paul writes in Romans, ...As it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations” in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did... (Romans 4:17 NKJV). Paul, almost in passing, makes the point that God calls things which do not exist into existence. Obviously this implies that God creates out of nothing since what He calls into existence did not previously exist.

The second Scripture which teaches creation ex nihilo is in Hebrews. In the eleventh chapter, the anonymous writer gives to his Hebrew Christian readers (and us) the very definition of faith and a very important, specific application of the same:

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. (Hebrews 11:3)

While it is true that God and His attributes are made obvious in the created order (Romans 1:18-20), nevertheless, it is by faith that we believe that all things were, in fact, created by God. But the important part for our purposes is the second clause of verse 3. The writer of Hebrews teaches that the visible universe is not the sum of preexisting parts, but is rather framed by the Word of God.

Finally, there are verses in the Bible which teach that Jesus Christ Himself is the creator of all things. These verses are not only powerful testimony to Christ's deity, but they are also further evidence that all things are created ex nihilo, that is, out of nothing.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

(John 1:1-3 NKJV)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

(Colossians 1:15-17 NKJV)

In both of the above cases, the Scripture writers are seeking to show the total preeminence of Jesus Christ. One of the ways in which they do so is to show that Jesus is the creator of the universe. By implication and by direct statement, this means that Jesus is God. But the above quoted verses also establish creation ex nihilo because they state unequivocally that there was absolutely nothing that existed prior to Christ. Jesus is literally before everything and in Him, everything that could possibly be came into being through Him. It is important to understand this. Everything that is, from quarks to quasars, from amoebas to archangels, and everything in between, exists only because Jesus Christ - as creator God - says so. God the Son did not create from anything preexisting precisely because there was nothing preexisting!

The creation of the universe and all things in it, whether seen or unseen, exists only through the sovereign word of Almighty God. And despite the originally good creation being marred by sin, it is still true that, The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psalm 19:1 NIV). Amen.




¹ The position of David's Throne Ministries is that of Six-Day, Young Earth Creationism. This position is most consistent with a plain sense, face value reading of the text of the early chapters of Genesis as well as being the assumption of the rest of the Old Testament, of Jesus, and of the writers of the New Testament. Two excellent ministries which defend this view of creation are Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International.

The Heavenly Throne of David

Is the throne of David heavenly? Or is it only earthly? Or is it both? One's answer to that question will tell you quite a bit about their theological outlook. Generally speaking, those of the Amillennial and Postmillennial persuasions will only find the Davidic throne in Heaven, while those espousing (one of the thousand forms of) Dispensationalism will argue for a future, earthly-only fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant in the Millennium. Consistent with my own position of Historic Premillennialism, I believe that David's throne has both a present heavenly and an earthly future manifestation. But my purpose in this post is not to argue for the Millennial display of Christ's Davidic Kingship. In another post, I made some brief arguments for Christ's earthly reign after His return.

My purpose today is to answer one of the most common arguments against the present session of Christ on the throne of David - namely that the Davidic throne must only be located on Earth and cannot be expressed from Heaven. This is a stock argument of Dispensationalism. I will argue that both Old and New Testaments, at least partially, locate the Messiah's Davidic rule in Heaven.

It is often said that Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted Old Testament verse in the New Testament. Jesus Himself appealed to it to show that the Messiah is greater than David since He is David's Lord (Matthew 22:41-45). The reason why it is such a vital OT passage is because it proves that it was God's plan all along for the Messiah to return to Heaven as King and to minister as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek (verse 4; Zechariah 6:12-13). But the Dispensational theologian will attempt to distinguish between Christ's heavenly session and His Davidic Kingship. Does this distinction hold up? After all, there is no explicit reference to David or to David's dynasty in this text. I believe that we must understand Psalm 110 as a description of the heavenly reign of King Jesus upon the Throne of David. Take a look at the first two verses:

The LORD said to my Lord,

“Sit at My right hand,

Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.

Rule in the midst of Your enemies!

Firstly, it should be noted that even the very language of sitting at the right hand of God is royal language. To sit at the right hand of a reigning monarch (YHWH, or the LORD) is to be that monarch's equal and to share rulership. Secondly, verse two describes Messiah's rod (scepter) and rule. These are obviously descriptions of a king. In fact, the language of Psalm 110:2 is almost completely parallel to that of Psalm 2! So if Psalm 110 is describing Messiah's Kingship at God's right hand, and the New Testament clearly applies Psalm 110 to the present session of Christ in Heaven (Acts 2:33-36; Ephesians 1:19-21; Hebrews 1:13), then it is clear that Christ rules as King from Heaven.

Further evidence for the heavenly Throne of David is found in Daniel 7. Elsewhere, I have made a similar argument so I won't repeat it here (but I definitely encourage the reader to view that post!). Suffice it to say however that in this very heavenly scene, the Son of Man receives: dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:14 NKJV; cf. Mark 14:60-62; Acts 1:9; Ephesians 1:19-21).

The last line of evidence that I will point out is from the mouth of the resurrected Lord Himself from the book of Revelation.  For example, Revelation 1:5, in the midst of a Trinitarian benediction, speaks of Jesus Christ as, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. This language is clearly borrowed from Psalm 2, which speaks of the "kings of the earth" making futile plots against the Messiah who rules over the nations.

In chapters 2 and 3, the Risen One appears to John and gives him several messages for the seven churches in Asia Minor. In each case, Christ opens His message with an exalted self-description and closes with a promise to him who overcomes. Several of these self-descriptions and promises to overcomers are germane to our discussion.

At the end of chapter 2, Christ ends His message to the church in Thyatira with this promise:

And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations -

‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron;

They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’—

as I also have received from My Father;

This is an important passage for a "now/not yet" understanding of the Kingdom of God. The promise is that those who overcome the seductions of the false prophetess "Jezebel" will rule with Christ over the nations in Psalm 2 fashion (which I understand to mean, at least partially, sharing in Christ's Millennial rule). But Jesus also goes on to add that this Psalm 2 rule over the nations has already been given to Him by God the Father as He reigns from Heaven.

Further evidence in Revelation that Jesus reigns as Davidic King from Heaven is found in chapter 3. In verse 7, Jesus begins His message to the church in Philadelphia by self-identifying as, He who is holy, He is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens". Adam Clarke in his commentary on this passage, explains:

"See this metaphor explained, Matthew 16:19. Key is the emblem of authority and knowledge; the key of David is the regal right or authority of David. David could shut or open the kingdom of Israel to whom he pleased. He was not bound to leave the kingdom even to his eldest son. He could choose whom he pleased to succeed him. The kingdom of the Gospel, and the kingdom of heaven, are at the disposal of Christ. He can shut against whom he will; he can open to whom he pleases. If he shuts, no man can open; if he opens, no man can shut. His determinations all stand fast, and none can reverse them. This expression is an allusion to Isaiah 22:22, where the prophet promises to Eliakim, under the symbol of the key of the house of David, the government of the whole nation; i.e., all the power of the king, to be executed by him as his deputy; but the words, as here applied to Christ, show that He is absolute."

Lastly, I want to consider Revelation 3:21. After Christ's loving rebuke of the church in Laodicea, He again makes a promise to those who overcome: 

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

The first and most obvious thing to point out is that by overcoming (dying and rising again), Christ has sat down on a throne. This would obviously make Him a King. But more than that, Christ states that He has sat down on His Father's throne. But by sitting on the throne of His Father, does that necessarily imply that Jesus also sits on the throne of David in Heaven? I believe it does. As we compare parallel Old Testament passages, it becomes apparent that Scripture equates David's throne with God's throne. 

Then Solomon sat on the throne of his father David; and his kingdom was firmly established.

(1 Kings 2:12 NKJV)

Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

(1 Chronicles 29:23 NKJV)

This is important for another reason. I believe that understanding the equation between God's/David's throne is further evidence (in addition to the mountain that already exists) of the full deity and humanity of Christ. After all, only a human (one descended from David) can sit on the throne of David. And it should go without saying that ultimately only God can sit on God's throne. 

Hopefully, the scriptural evidence I have provided should show beyond reasonable doubt that the heavenly session of Jesus Christ at the Father's right hand is equal to reigning as King/Priest from David's throne. May grasping the exalted heavenly place of Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit bring Him glory as His people love and worship Him to the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Learning Theological Terms: Aseity

If there is one thing that all people have in common, it is that we all have needs. Some people seem to have more needs than others. I am sure all of us have met other individuals who could easily be classified as "needy". But even without considering the ways in which some people practice manipulation, the reality is that every single human being has needs. We have physical needs like oxygen and food so as to provide energy for our cells to function properly. We have emotional needs like love and acceptance from others so that we can be productive people. And of course, each person has spiritual needs like forgiveness from sin so that we can escape the judgment of God which is coming. Even inanimate objects need things. My car requires gasoline, oil changes, and regular maintenance. Otherwise it won't take me where I need it to.

But there is one notable exception to everything having needs: God Himself. Did you know that God doesn't have need of anything? That's right. God needs nothing in order to exist. God exists simply because God exists. God, and God alone has self-existence. Sometimes this is referred to as God's "independence". But this aspect of God's being is also described by the Latin theological term, aseity.  Aseity is the combination of the Latin prefix "a", meaning "from", and "se", meaning self. In other words, God exists from Himself. This is what is meant by aseity. The Westminster Confession of Faith put it like this:

God hath all life, glory, goodness,

 blessedness, in and of

himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing

in need of any creatures which he hath made

(WCF 2.2)

Now this is a concept that is very important practically. The reason why is because unless one is careful, one could begin to assume that by obeying and serving God, one is doing God a favor; that perhaps, I am supplying God with some good or service which He was previously in need of. Moreover, I have sometimes heard in popular religious settings that maybe God created the human race because He was lonely. I don't have to tell you how spectacularly wrong that is.

The truth of the matter is that even before creation, God had perfect fellowship within Himself in the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have all existed eternally as One God in Three Persons. God has never been lonely.

But more than that, we should not think of God as being in need of anything outside of Himself in order to exist and move. While people and things are derivative and require something else in order to be, God just is.

This is what God was communicating to Moses at the burning bush. You recall the story. God had called to Moses to deliver Israel out of Egypt. Moses, being unsure, asked God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM' has sent me to you'" (Exodus 3:13-14 NKJV).

In calling Himself, I AM, God is stating that He consists in and of Himself, eternally. Note the present tense. No matter when or where - from eternity past to eternity future - God and God alone can say I AM. You and I could never say that. If we are discussing the distant past, the only thing I could say about myself is "I wasn't". If we're talking about the future, the best I can do is to say, "I will be, Lord willing" (James 4:13-15).

This independent, self-existence is attested to elsewhere in Scripture also. As the Second Person of the Trinity, it is written of Jesus that, in Him was life... (John 1:4a). Moreover, Jesus Himself spoke of the self-existence that He shares eternally with God the Father:

For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself

(John 5:26 NKJV)

This verse is especially important because it not only speaks of the shared self-existence of the Father and the Son, but also points to the intra-Trinitarian relationship that the Father and the Son possess.

Paul likewise spoke of the independence, or aseity of God in his sermon at the Areopagus:

God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

(Acts 17:24-25 NKJV)

Paul was speaking to Greek philosophers whose ideas of deity were very different from the Hebrew doctrine. While Greek "gods" were needy, fickle, and often capricious, the One true God revealed in Jesus Christ does not actually need physical temples to dwell in since He created all things and gives life to all that is. Still less does God demand worship because it fills Him with something that He otherwise would lack. God demands worship because He alone is worthy, and because it is right that we worship Him. 

I want to close this post with a very short video where the late R.C. Sproul speaks briefly about God's aseity.  One of the things I enjoy about the video is Sproul's enthusiasm for God's self-existence. Far from something merely abstract or theoretical, it is something that evidently filled him and certainly fills me with awe and worship for Almighty God. 

Of Jesus, John the Baptist, Pharisees, Tax Collectors, and Sinners

Easily one of the most wonderful and glorious truths about Jesus in the Gospels is that He was a friend of sinners. Indeed, His most vocal opponents, the Pharisees, questioned and derided Jesus because of this.

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

(Matthew 9:10-13 NIV)

Clearly Jesus was more than willing to associate with those whom the larger society had deemed undesirable and unforgivable, and to forgive them. More on this later.

In addition to the occasion referenced above, other episodes in the earthly life and ministry of Jesus illustrate His compassion toward social outcasts like prostitutes, tax collectors (who collaborated with the hated, occupying Romans), Samaritans, gentiles, lepers, the blind, the crippled, and others who are simply called "sinners". For example, Jesus healed the daughter of a Canaanite woman from demonic possession (Matthew 15:21-28), a leper from his leprosy (Mark 1:40-45), the servant of a Roman centurion (Luke 7:1-10), forgave a sinful woman of her sins (Luke 7:36-50), dined with and forgave Zacchaeus the tax collector (Luke 19:1-10), as well as conversed with a Samaritan woman about Living Water (John 4:4-26), and forgave the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11, though there are questions of textual variation which surround this account).

But it is not only in the ministry of the incarnate Son of God where we find this willingness from God to forgive and accept the socially unacceptable. The Apostle Paul tells the Roman Christians to, Live in harmony with one another, Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited (Romans 12:16). Elsewhere, Paul says, Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are... (1 Corinthians 1:26-28).

At the risk of belaboring the point, even the Old Testament provides evidence of God's mercy for outcasts.

David left Gath and escaped to the cave of Adullam. When his brothers and his father's household heard about it, they went down to him there. All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered around him, and he became their leader 

(1 Samuel 22:1-2 NIV).

Now in contrast to the compassion and mercy of Jesus was the smug self-righteousness of the Pharisees. It is well known that they were the primary antagonists to Jesus during His earthly ministry. And it is also well noted that their antagonism to Jesus was at least partly due to the way He openly associated Himself with those who were considered by the Pharisees to be "sinners", especially the hated tax collectors (Luke 15:1-2). Of course the Pharisees' self-righteousness was broader than their disdain for common sinners and Roman collaborators, but this was nevertheless a major bone of contention.

Even so, with all of this biblical data, one can excuse me if I find incredulous the many ways these facts are often twisted out of biblical proportion and used to justify all kinds of compromise, muddled thinking, half-truths, and even outright falsehoods (the theological left is particularly guilty of this, though certainly not alone). What I hope to do in this article is to challenge common assumptions about Christ's interactions with Pharisees and the tax collectors and sinners, and find some contemporary application. 

Let's talk about the Pharisees first. It is often just assumed that the modern equivalent to the Pharisees are religious (especially Christian) Fundamentalists. Now to be sure, that can be and often is one very relevant contemporary application. But what if I told you that it's not that simple? I am convinced that a Pharisee is anyone who adds to the Word of God through tradition, and/or nullifies the Word of God through that tradition, and/or trusts that they are "good people" and looks down at others who are "sinners" - and they may or may not be religious!

Now of course a modern day pharisee may not exemplify all of these traits in exactly the same way. But consider that last characteristic - that a modern pharisee may not be religious. How could I possibly say that? Isn't a pharisee by definition someone who is religiously conservative? Actually, not necessarily. I don't know about you, but I have met plenty of non-religious secular people who, trust in themselves that they are righteous and despise others (Luke 18:9). I know of plenty of people with no discernible religious affiliation who look down on other people for not being as "loving" as they are, or not as "tolerant" or not as #woke, or some other pretentious secular value. Now someone will object that the Religious Right is full of hypocrites and bigots. I will buy that. My purpose is not to excuse evil or hypocrisy from the Fox News-loving crowd. But I can find just as much, if not more, pharisaism from the CNN-loving crowd!

And what about the "sinners"? Certainly in the days that Jesus walked the earth, they were usually found among the morally loose segments of society. But it seems to me that the modern versions of the "tax collectors and sinners" are those whom the larger society as a whole (not just the religious crowd) considers too dirty to associate with, whatever the specifics of their sin. I would venture to say that white supremacists are just one example of contemporary "tax collectors and sinners".

Now I am not trying to be edgy here, or do any kind of "shock jock" routine. The reason I say it is because to really understand the compassion of Jesus toward tax collectors and sinners, one must first feel the outrage at what they were guilty of. So let's consider the tax collectors (of whom was Matthew, one of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, whose names are written on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem - Revelation 21:14). Do you really know and understand just how evil and disgusting these people were? They had sold out their people and had collaborated with the brutal, oppressive occupation of the Romans. These tax collectors had gotten unbelievably rich off of bilking hard-working men and women out of their rightfully earned wages. They had turned social injustice and systemic oppression into an art. They could make even the most shady of con artists blush with embarrassment. To the common Jew in the 1st century, the tax collectors were traitors, collaborators, and swindlers. All of their fancy clothes and jewelry was paid for by the toil and labor of people who could barely feed their families. To be honest, one could almost understand the offended reaction of the Pharisees at seeing Jesus eat a meal with them. They truly deserved their reputations.

Is it really that much different with the outright, in-your-face racism of white supremacist groups? Consider how offensive and abominable they are. Consider how evil is the level of hatred and murder toward others simply over the color of their skin! Ponder how disgusting and outrageous it is to violate the image of God in other human beings because they come from a different country or culture, or speak a different language. Think of the visceral reaction their Satanic symbols, flags, banners, and salutes engender within you. Now imagine if the Son of God, the Messiah, the One promised to come to save and deliver - imagine if he had dinner at the house of one of their leaders. Picture Jesus eating at his dinner table and promising him full forgiveness and cleansing if he would simply confess his sin, give up everything, and follow. Imagine the outrage! Think of the scandal!

Or imagine if Jesus were to have lunch with an A-list celebrity or high-level corporate big shot that has just recently been credibly accused by multiple women of sexual assault and showering forgiveness and grace on that person! Maybe now we can appreciate what it was like when Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners.

But why did Jesus associate so freely with people who so richly deserved their place at the bottom of the social ladder? It isn't a big secret.  It is because, unlike the pharisees, the tax collectors and "sinners" were most acutely aware of their sinfulness and most eager to repent and to receive Christ's forgiveness. There were no religious sensibilities; and there was no social cachet that they could hide behind. The pharisees by contrast, believed themselves already to be "good people" and not in really in any substantial need of repentance and forgiveness. To be honest, at least in my experience, this is less like a Christian Fundamentalist and more like a leftist liberal (whether secular or "Christian").

But more than that, I would argue that most of the tax collectors and sinners were already in a penitent state even before Jesus came to them. And that is because before the "tax collectors and sinners" responded to Jesus, they first responded to John the Baptist.

What do I mean by that? Well, to answer that question, we first have to understand the purpose of the ministry of John the Baptist in relation to that of Jesus. John the Baptist was sent before Jesus as the "forerunner". His ministry was to "prepare the way" for the Messiah, so that the people of Israel could be ready to receive him. But John did not just appear in a vacuum. The Old Testament Scriptures had predicted his coming:

A voice of one calling: "In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all people will see it together. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
(Isaiah 40:3-5 NIV)

"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. 
(Malachi 3:1 NIV)

God had promised the people of Israel to bring them back from exile and to return to them and forgive them of all their sins through the ministry of the "Servant" (Isaiah 42:1-4; 49:1-7; 52:13-53:12). However, before the Servant/Messiah could come, the way had to be prepared for his coming through the ministry of a herald, or forerunner - as Isaiah and Malachi predicted. 

And that is exactly what John did. He preached to the people that they should repent of their sins and receive ceremonial washing through baptism (Mark 1:4). But the interesting thing is that the New Testament records that large crowds came out to him to be baptized from Jerusalem and from the area surrounding it (Matthew 3:5). The Gospel writer Luke goes into greater detail though. Luke gives examples of the kinds of people who came to John to be baptized:

 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.

 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”

 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.

Luke 3:10-13 NIV

According to this text, even the hated tax collectors had gone to John the Baptist to receive his baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. This indicates that they received Jesus and His ministry out of an already penitent and prepared heart. The other reason this is relevant is when one considers just what kind of preacher John was that "prepared" the people of Israel to meet their Messiah. John was, if you will, a true hellfire and brimstone preacher of repentance. Far from glossing over sin, he was easily a take-no-prisoners, black-and-white Old Testament Prophet. Just before the above exchange, John had been preaching this:

John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

Luke 3:7-9 NIV

And before we so easily dismiss John the Baptist as being some legalistic meanie, I should point out that Jesus explicitly endorsed John and connected his ministry with preparing the tax collectors and sinners to receive the Gospel:

 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’

 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.

 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”

“The first,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

Matthew 21:28-32 NIV

Or consider this:

After John’s messengers left, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear expensive clothes and indulge in luxury are in palaces.  But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written:

“‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,

    who will prepare your way before you.’

 I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)

Luke 7:24-30 NIV

As these Scriptures show, John's no-holds-barred preaching of repentance was what led to the repentance of the tax collectors, which prepared them to receive the grace that Jesus offered to them. This angered the sanctimonious, self-righteous pharisees, who now rejected Jesus, just as they had previously rejected John. This also tells us that preaching repentance from sin and the reality of Final Judgment is in harmony with the ministry of Jesus, despite what much popular piety would have us believe. 

To summarize, it is evident that the wishy-washy platitudes of those who most loudly proclaim to imitate Jesus in receiving "tax collectors and sinners" do not accurately understand what was really happening in the ministry of the Lord. They may think that they are following Jesus, but they are actually following the wisdom of this world, which will perish. While it is true that extreme Fundamentalism can and does exhibit a pharisaic spirit, it is equally true that pharisaism is very much at home in a liberal, "progressive" environment.

But ultimately the takeaway must be that the grace of Jesus is available to all who are willing to receive it by faith, in humility recognizing their need for forgiveness. The self-righteous and arrogant, whether they be religious fundamentalists, so-called "Progressive" Christians, secular SJWs, or just the man on the street, will find themselves without a wedding garment (Matthew 22:11-14) unless they too come to humility and repentance. Amen.

Learning Theological Terms: Common Grace

In the last post in this series, I explored the theological term adiaphora, and found how it refers to matters that are indifferent. In this post, I will unpack the theological concept of common grace. Although the term itself does not appear in Scripture, the truth that it conveys is well-grounded in Holy Writ. Wayne Grudem defines common grace as follows: Common grace is the grace of God by which he gives people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation. 

(Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic Theology (p. 657). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.)

In other words, common grace refers to the many ways in which God bestows non-salvation grace to all people, whether they are among the Elect or not. Common grace is in contradistinction to saving grace - that is grace that is given only to the Elect by God to cause them to believe in Jesus.

We might say then that common grace is general, while saving grace is particular.  Examples of common grace would be air, food, clothing, talents and skills, physical beauty or attractiveness, material possessions, influence and respect, athletic ability, conscience, law and government, families, etc... These are blessings that God may give or withhold at His sovereign discretion, irrespective of whether or not the recipients ultimately believe the Gospel or not.

Scripture gives us a few examples of texts which teach common grace:

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

(Matthew 5:43-45 NKJV)

While preaching in Iconium, Paul said,

[God] in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

(Acts 14:16-17 NKJV)

Paul, in preaching to the Athenians on Mars' Hill told them this:

God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 

(Acts 17:24-25 NKJV)

And these are just in the physical world. As noted earlier, there are many other ways in which God has given common grace to mankind. Conscience is an area where common grace can be seen. Even in a world in rebellion against God and His rule, typically speaking, even non-believing people we encounter on the street understand the difference between right and wrong in the abstract. To be sure, the Depravity of Man ensures that that sense of right and wrong is often warped and twisted, but it's there nevertheless. 

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them, in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

(Romans 2:14-16 NKJV) 

As can be seen, God has given many manifold blessings to all of mankind. Indeed, the very fact that the human race is not immediately consumed because of sin, is itself an act of grace. While common grace does not save, it is nevertheless a vital aspect of God's dealings with the human race. 

What Ministries Does DTM Do?

This blog has been in existence since 2011 in one form or another. In 2016, I rechristened it "David's Throne Ministries". In another place, I clarified why I call it "David's Throne" Ministries. But in this post, I want to talk about why it is called David's Throne "Ministries". In other words, what kinds of "ministries" (note the plural) is DTM involved with? That is an excellent question!

At the moment, the primary ministry of DTM is this blog. This blog is designed to be a place where I, Christian Edmiston, can write freely about various, biblical and theological issues from the perspective of an ultra-conservative, predestinarian, charismatic, and non-dispensational believer in Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean that Christians with differing views than mine are unwelcome to interact, or that I think of them as somehow lesser than myself. I feel though that it is good to state where I am on these issues for the sake of clarity. I also have found that in most other places, I would be hampered from ministering according to my conscience based on my beliefs. Therefore, I set up this blog where I can be unfettered. 

As much as I love writing, that is not all that I hope to do. In the coming months, I am (Lord willing) going to begin a YouTube Channel where I will begin producing videos along the same lines as this blog, but which can go deeper. But in addition to that, I hope to begin posting more sermons on this site. At the moment, you can hear one message I preached here (click the link, go to "speakers", and find my name). But next month, I will be bringing the Sunday morning message at Allentown Bible Church, which I plan on making available via recording on this site. Hopefully, that will lead to more opportunities to teach and preach, something which is a passion of mine. As time goes on, I hope to make myself available for pulpit supply.

Additionally, I also have experience leading congregational worship and singing. If God sees fit, I hope to also make myself available as a fill-in worship leader for Sunday services, mid-week gatherings, or conferences. 

Mind you that all of these things are only possible through God's sovereign will and prayer. If you are reading this, I hope that you will consider praying for me and with me. I do not dare believe that I am sufficient unto myself to do anything of value in the Kingdom of God. But I do believe that I possess the calling, gifting, and passion that would make these possible through God's grace. Blessings in Christ.

-Christian 

Learning Theological Terms: Adiaphora

I had the idea recently to begin a series of short posts that would explore the definitions and applications of theological terminology. I am certainly not the first, last, or only one to do so, but I thought it would be a profitable exercise. Today, I want to discuss the meaning of the term adiaphora.

What in the world is adiaphora? I am so glad you asked! Originally, adiaphora was a Greek term. The Baker Compact Dictionary of Theological Terms written by Gregg R. Allison partly defines it as: "...activities that are neither moral nor immoral" 1. So these are matters that are not biblical commands, nor are they biblical prohibitions. For example, positively, the Bible commands all believers to forgive those who sin against them (Luke 17:3). Negatively, we are forbidden from worshiping idols (1 John 5:21). There is no gray area with these issues. They are not up for discussion or debate. But what about those things which the Bible neither commands nor forbids? Those issues are described by the term adiaphora.

In other words, adiaphora refers to those issues in Christian living that in the grand scheme of things, cannot be said to be either right nor wrong in and of themselves. It can refer to theological issues of third level theological importance, or to debatable activities and/or observances, like how the Sabbath should be understood in the New Covenant.

Paul takes up this issue in Romans 14. In that chapter, the Apostle to the Gentiles urges unity in the Church between Jewish and non-Jewish members:

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,

‘every knee will bow before me;

    every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

As the text above makes clear, there were issues within the Roman church that the believers had different opinions on. In the specific case Paul was addressing, the issues centered around food and Sabbath observance. Some in the church evidently observed a strict vegetarian diet and/or kept the seventh-day Jewish Sabbath. Others felt free to eat meat and/or had no scruples about keeping the Sabbath. As you can imagine, this probably led to friction and factions within the fellowship of the church. Paul pleads for toleration and love, while still urging the members of the church to be true to their consciences. 

So how does that apply today? What kinds of issues are adiaphora in our own context? There are many, but I will highlight two: alcohol consumption and observance of holidays.

When it comes to moderate alcohol consumption, some believers are called teetotalers. A teetotaler is one who, for reasons of conscience, abstains completely from consuming alcoholic beverages. There are many fine Christians who are teetotalers. Other believers (such as myself) do not believe that the Scriptures demand total abstinence from alcohol, even though the Bible does roundly condemn drunkenness (Romans 13:13; Galatians 5:21). Since then, this is an issue over which the Bible is silent and which does not concern a primary doctrine of the Faith, the issue of whether or not believers should drink alcoholic beverages in moderation is adiaphora.

Likewise is the issue of observance of certain holidays like Christmas and Easter. I would even place the Old Testament Hebrew festivals in this category (these were mandatory festivals for the people of Israel during the Old Covenant, but now under the New Covenant, their status is sometimes up for debate). The Bible is silent concerning observing the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ respectively. These holiday observances developed later in church history after the Bible had been completed. This means that it is an indifferent matter whether Christians should celebrate or should not celebrate Christmas and Easter, or the Jewish festivals of the Old Covenant. Some Christians will, and others will not. It is not something that believers should divide over. Christmas, Easter, and other holidays are thus adiaphora. 

I hope this has been a helpful discussion for you. Certainly there are many, many other issues that are indifferent and fall under the category of adiaphora, but this small sampling hopefully gives you a good idea. 

1. (Allison, G. R. (2016). The Baker Compact Dictionary of Theological Terms (p. 14). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.)

Negative Reinforcement: The Rightness of Maintaining Negatives

I don't go out of my way to try to be contrarian. Really I don't. The problem of course is that there is so much out there that is wrong that requires contradiction. Naturally one person can't reasonably spend his time battling everything that is wrong out there (though some seem intent on trying). Nevertheless, I am convinced that it is necessary from time to time for Christians to be clear and unequivocal about not only what we do believe, but also what we do not believe. In other words, it is often necessary to maintain negatives.

Now I hardly need to belabor the point that this is not a popular approach these days, especially in many churches. I remember one occasion a few years ago when I was a worship leader for a small church in Florida. The main pastor was talking about what initially drew him to the fellowship of churches that we were a part of. He said that one of the attractive elements of this particular group of churches was that they were always "calling out the positive", and never dwelling on the negatives. Now on the one hand, there is some virtue in that. I know I don't want to be around perpetually negative people who are always going on diatribes on why this or that sucks. I get it.

But this pastor's point was deeper than that. He was essentially saying that as a fellowship of churches, we never, ever spoke about what we disagreed with. We only encouraged the good things we found in others. There was rarely (if ever) any place given for confronting error; only for affirming truth. On the surface, that might sound really admirable and even Christlike. The problem of course is that it isn't.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones saw the danger in his own day. Lloyd-Jones said this, "One of the first signs that a man is ceasing to be truly evangelical is that he ceases to be concerned about negatives, and keeps saying, 'We must always be positive'..."The argument which says that you must always be positive, that you must not define the man in terms of what he is against, as well as what he is for, misses the subtlety of the danger. If that argument is left uncontested the door is open to a repetition of such things as the Galatian heresy..."What was the Galatian heresy? Well, it stated that those people who had led the Galatians astray had not denied the gospel; they were not denying anything; what they were doing was to add something, namely circumcision, which, they said, was essential. Oh yes, they said, you've got to believe the gospel, all these positives are quite right. But then they brought in their addition. So it is important, you see, that the evangelical should also have his negative criticisms and be ready to say that you must not believe this and you must not do that."  (emphasis mine)

(Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1992). What is an Evangelical? (pp. 37-38). Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust.)

Lloyd-Jones was right. The Judaizers that troubled the Galatians had not taken anything away from the Gospel. As far as we all know, they were in complete agreement that Jesus is the Messiah, that He was sinless, that He died on the cross as a substitute for sinners, and that He gloriously rose again, ascended to the Father's right hand, and will return again in glory to judge the living and the dead. And obviously they advocated faith in Jesus. But they went one step further, and this is the key. They added circumcision, especially to new gentile Christians. And that is what Paul was attacking. Paul was saying absolutely not to circumcision as a means to be made right with God! Paul, in short, was asserting a negative.

Now on the one hand, I could point out the logical absurdity of only making positive affirmations. By definition, when you affirm one thing, you are implicitly denying its opposite. To use a baseball analogy, if I say I like the National League because the pitchers are expected to be able to hit, then I am implicitly criticizing the Designated Hitter rule in the American League. Similarly, a positive affirmation of monotheism is by implication a denial of polytheism and atheism.

On the other hand, I would much rather just state a positive case for maintaining negatives. What I hope to do is provide just a few examples in Scripture when God or his spokesmen actively said no to some false belief and/or practice. Paul's polemic against the Judaizers in Galatia referenced above is but one example. There are many others. I will call attention to only a handful.

One of the most clear examples of making negative cases against a false religious system in Scripture is the Lord's conflicts with the scribes and pharisees. It should be noted that Jesus didn't simply positively teach concerning the Kingdom of God, He was quite forceful in confronting error. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to read of an encounter between Jesus and these religious frauds that didn't prominently feature criticism or even outright confrontation:

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?"

He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied of you hypocrites; as it is written:

"These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

They worship me in vain;

their teachings are merely human rules."

(Mark 7:5-7 NIV)

I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”
 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

(John 8:38-44 NIV)

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

(Matthew 23:1-7)

Likewise the Apostles of Jesus were never shy about stating what not only must be affirmed, but what must be denied. The disciple whom Jesus loved, John, was probably way too black and white for today's church. Nevertheless, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he could write like this concerning false prophets:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

(1 John 4:1-3)

John minces no words here. Most commentators believe that John is combating a nascent form of the heresy known as Gnosticism. A simple description of the Gnostics is that they believed that true saving grace could only come from access to esoteric "knowledge" which was accessible only to an elite few often via certain spiritual experiences. Additionally, the Gnostics believed that the material universe was inherently evil and that only the spirit world was of any value. As a consequence, they posited that the true God only created the spirit world and that a lesser "god" created the physical universe. The upshot to that is that the Gnostics denied the Incarnation - that Jesus truly came in the flesh. Jesus must have been a disembodied phantom or maybe the man Jesus carried the "Christ" spirit in him for a time. Either way, John deliberately takes aim at the false doctrines of the proto-Gnostics. He evidently did not consider it beneath him or beneath God to maintain negatives. In this case, the denial that Jesus was only a phantom or a ghost.

The last case I will consider comes from the Old Testament. There is a section in the book of Isaiah where the Prophet, speaking for Yahweh Himself, attacks the lifeless and useless idols of the nations which the peoples of Israel and Judah had also taken for themselves to worship. This is what God says through Isaiah:

With whom, then, will you compare God?

To what image will you liken him?

As for an idol, a metalworker casts it,

and a goldsmith overlays it with gold

and fashions silver chains for it.

A person too poor to present such an offering

selects wood that will not rot;

they look for a skilled worker

to set up an idol that will not topple...

No sooner are they planted,

no sooner are they sown,

no sooner do they take root in the ground,

than he blows on them and they wither

and a whirlwind sweeps them away 

like chaff.

(Isaiah 40:18-20; 24)

All who make idols are nothing,

and the things they treasure are worthless.

Those who would speak up for them are blind;

they are ignorant, to their own shame.

Who shapes a god and casts an idol,

which can profit nothing?

People who do that will be put to shame;

such craftsmen are only human beings.

Let them all come together and take their stand;

they will be brought down to terror and shame.

(Isaiah 44:9-11)

As I intimated before, there are those who abuse and overdo the biblical position of maintaining negatives. I am sure we can all think of examples of Debbie Downers who only seem to talk about what they don't believe and why everyone else is wrong and has nothing to offer. Despite that though, it is important not to swing the pendulum back to the opposite extreme. It is right and good to state both affirmations and denials. If we don't and only want to be "positive", then wolves in sheep's clothing will have free reign to add their innovations to the truth of the gospel and no one will be able to confront it with biblical (negative) conviction. Amen.