Perpetual Incarnation Celebration

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

 

The Perpetual Incarnation Celebration: The Hallmark of Christian Doctrine

 

Every annual December 25th, many Christians celebrate Christmas. Unfortunately, the import of what Christmas represents has evaporated; and instead it has become a secular event. In far too many churches, the birth of Christ sermon is shared with Santa Clause pictures, statues of reindeers and snowmen scattered around the church—at these venues Christmas has become a distortion of the incarnation. Even so, pastors seem obligated to give a limited Christmas message mainly consisting of the manger, animals, wise men, and the shepherds in the field.

Although these things are indeed included in the Gospel narrative, the most glorious event was not merely the birth, rather it was the conception – the hallmark and necessity of our redemption.

The perpetual Incarnation should be taught throughout the year in tandem with other essential Christian doctrines.

Ps. 49:7-8: “Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, 8 for the ransom of their life is costly, and can never suffice” (ESV).

No mere man can—but the Son as God-man, whose sacrifice had infinite value. In His human nature Christ lived the perfect life – fulfilling the “covenant of works” (vicariously) which Adam did not fulfill. (cf. Gen. 2:17; Hosea 6:7; Rom. 5:5-13). As the “last Adam” – Christ met all the requirements of the justice of God; not only His substitutionary cross work (passive obedience), but also, in His perfect and substitutionary life (active obedience).

Rom. 5:10: “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved [‘from the wrath of God,’ v. 9] by His life” (NASB). Christ as God-Man accomplished an actual redemption, a real propitiation.

 

The atoning work of the Son in His physical body accomplished all that was necessary to secure our justification (Rom. 5:6-10; Heb. 10:11-14). His work was definite, eternal, and infallible.

Col. 1:21-22: “making peace through the blood of his cross…. 22 but now He has reconciled you His physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before Him.”

 

The Incarnation

 

“Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel” – 2 Tim. 2:8 (ESV)

 

Biblical Affirmation

 

John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [the Father], and the Word [as to His nature] was God.”

 

The verb translated “was” is from the imperfect verb ēn (from eimi, “to be, am”), which is exclusively applied to the Word in verses 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10. The imperfect tense expresses a past ongoing or repeated action; here denoting the eternal existence of the Word—He was always existing—no starting point. This verb is in contrast to the aorist verb egeneto (from ginomai, “became, came to be”) – referring to all things that came into existence, that is, had a starting point (as in creation, vv. 3, 10; and John the Baptist in v. 6: “there came a man”). It is not until verse 14 that egeneto is applied to the Word “becoming flesh” (incarnation).

 

John 1:14: “Now the Word became flesh and took up residence [or ‘tabernacled’] among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father” (NET).

The verb eskēnōsen (‘took up residence,’ tabernacled, dwelt among us’) derives its meaning from the Hebrew term sākan referring to Yahweh coming down to earth to dwell (cf. Exod. 25:8). As seen, in John 1:1, the Apostle John positively affirmed that the Word was eternal/preexistent; distinct from God the Father; and ontologically God. John shows that the incarnation of the person of God the Word was not merely a temporary theophany or huiophany.[1] Rather, “the Word became flesh”— adding (not subtracting) a new nature (humanity) permanently.

John 1:18, which is the last verse of John’s high christological prologue: “No one has ever seen God [‘at any time’]. The uniquely existing God [monogenēs Theos] who is [ho ōn, lit., ‘the One who is, timelessly existing’] close to the Father’s side, has revealed Him” (exēgēsato, lit., “has exegeted Him”; ISV).

 

The Carmen Christi (Hymn to Christ, as God)

Paul’s christological hymn was utilized by the early Christian church to teach and magnify the preexistence, incarnation, and the true deity of Jesus Christ. Paul exemplifies the ultimate act of humility: God the Son becoming obedient to death on a cross. Paul provides a well-defined summary of the gospel of the Son.

 

Phil.  2:6 starts with the affirmation of the true deity of the Son:

 

“Who, though He was always being[2] in the nature of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but He emptied Himself[3] by taking the nature of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men. 8 And having been found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name [viz., authority/power] that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall will bow … 11 and that every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”[4]

In verses 10-11, Paul loosely quotes the last phrase of the LXX (i.e., Septuagint[5]) of Isa. 45:23: “That to Me every knee will bend and every tongue will confess to God.” These actions are to Yahweh alone and are prophetic – future tenses are used: “will bend, will confess.”

 

Note Paul modifications to the original reading of Isa. 45:23:

 

  1. Hina. He introduces verse 10 with a purpose and result clause indicated by the conjunction hina (“in order that, so that”): i.e., the purpose of Christ being highly exalted (v. 9) was for the result (“in order that”) of every knee bending and every tongue confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord (vv. 10-11), to the glory of God the Father.

 

  1. Paul changes the future indicative verbs of the LXX of Isa. 45:23 (“will bend, will confess”) – to aorist subjunctives (“shall bend, shall confess”).

 

These modifications clearly identify Jesus as the Yahweh and the fulfillment of the Isaiah future prophecy – before whom every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess that Kurios Iēsous Christos (lit., “Lord Jesus Christ”).[6]

 

Lastly, note the grammatical parallel between 2 Cor. 8:9 with Phil. 2:6-11:

 

Nature as God (preincarnate):

 

2 Cor. 8:9 (NASB): “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich” (plousios ōn, present participial phrase, lit., He was “rich being”- i.e., rich in glory).

Phil. 2:6: “although He was always existing in the nature of God” (huparchōn, present participle, “always existing” as God): “rich being” – “God being.”

 

Incarnation:

 2 Cor. 8:9: “Yet for your sakes He became poor” (eptōcheusen, aorist indicative).  

Phil. 2:7: “He emptied [ekenōsen, aorist indicative] Himself”: “became poor” – “emptied Himself.” Both verbs are aorist indicatives—i.e., punctiliar (once) past action.

  

Means and purpose of the incarnation of God the Son:

2 Cor. 8:9: “in order that [hina] through His poverty [incarnation], you could become rich” (rich in glory, i.e., salvation).

Phil. 2:7-11: Christ self-emptied and self-humbled Himself, became obedient to death, “in order that … every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

 

The Carmen Christi (Phil. 2:6-11) so distinctly affirms the gospel of the Son: from His eternal preexistence subsisting as truly God to His self-emptying (incarnation), atoning cross work, and glorification – to the glory of God the Father.

 

The incarnation was perpetual

 Jesus is the two natured person (Acts 1:11; 17:31; 1 Tim. 2:5), contra the temporary corporal appearances of the angel of the Lord in the OT.

Col. 2:9: “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells [katoikei, present tense, ‘always dwells’] in bodily form” (NASB). The Son in His incarnate state is presently the intermediary (or “Mediator”), Priest, and the propitiation for our sins.

 

So essential was the perpetual incarnation that the Apostle John sees it as a defining mark of true Christianity; and anyone denying it is “the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 1:7).

1 John 4:2-3: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come [elēluthota, perfect tense, lit, ‘has come and remains’] in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus [as coming and remaining in the flesh] is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist….” (NASB).

 

Fundamental Truths of the Incarnation

 

  1. God the Son became flesh—truly God, truly man.

 

  1. The atoning sacrifice and mediatorial role of Christ was accomplished in the context of His incarnational work.  

 

  1. The incarnation is a gospel essential.

 

The incarnation is an evangelistic teaching that should be always recognized and celebrated!

 

 

NOTES 

[1] Theophany (Theos, “God” + phainō, appearance). Huiophany (Huios, “Son”)—namely, preincarnate Son appearances (esp. the angel of the Lord; cf. Gen. chaps. 18-19; Exod. 3:2, 6-14 et al.).

[2] The phrase “always being” is from the Greek present participle, huparchōn denoting an ongoing existence – thus, the Son was always subsisting in the nature of God.

[3] “He emptied Himself,” from the phrase heauton ekenōsen (lit., “He Himself emptied”). The reflexive pronoun, heauton (“He Himself”) indicates that the action of the incarnation, that is, the emptying was accomplished by the Son. “He Himself.

[4] In this translation, I had rendered several verbs tenses literally for emphasis.    

[5] The Septuagint is Greek trans. of the OT, which was used frequently by the NT authors for their quotations of the OT. The Septuagint is abbreviated as LXX “seventy,” which was the traditional number of translators (c. mid-third cent. B.C.).    

[6] Note that in Greek, Paul places Kurios (“Lord”) in the emphatic position (first word in the clause)— to draw attention to his christological emphasis of Isa. 45:23: Jesus is the Lord (YHWH) of Isaiah 45:23.

Ecumenism: The Death of Evangelism

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

 

Pope Francis & Pastor Rick Warren, 2014 Vatican Family & Marriage Conference

 

The Gospel

The appointed means that God uses to save sinners is through the proclamation of the gospel: “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation….” (Rom. 1:16, NASB[1]). The gospel (good news) is clearly defined as the atoning cross work of Jesus Christ, including His incarnation. It is the work of the Son alone, not the meritorious works of man.

 

  • Mark 1:1: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

 

  • Romans 1:1, 3: 1 “The gospel of God…. 3 concerning His Son.”

 

  • 1 Corinthians 15:1-4: “Now I make known to you, brothers and sisters, the gospel which I preached to you, which you also received, in which you also stand… 3 For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

 

  • 2 Timothy 2:8: “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel. . .”

 

Paul’s gospel consists of the person, nature, and finished work of Jesus Christ, God the Son. This gospel is the same gospel of the OT, which was, and is, the very means of salvation:

 

  • Acts 10:36: “The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all).”

 

  • Acts 10:43: “All the prophets testify of Him, that everyone believing in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name” (my trans.).

 

So, proper biblical evangelism is simply proclaiming the gospel, that is, the person, nature, and finished work of Christ, which is the very ground of justification through faith alone.

 

Ecumenism –The Enemy of the Gospel

Ecumenism (adj. ecumenical), from oikoumenē, “the inhabited earth.” (e.g., Matt. 24:14) is an effort to promote “unity” among the diverse professing “Christian” traditions and denominations worldwide. It seeks to collaborate and achieve better relationships among these denominations.

 

Today, the ecumenical movement aims to diminish the historical, cultural, and theological divisions that exist between the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox (EO), and their traditions to achieve a so-called unified Christian body—a “Can’t we all get along” kind of thing. The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), for example, under Pope John XXIII, vigorously pushed an ecumenical agenda promoting Catholic unity with other “Christian” and even “non-Christian” cults and world religions. With absolutely no regard for the Lord nor His Word, note paragraph 841 in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church (Lumen gentium):

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God….”

 

Ecumenism encourages initiatives such as cooperative worship, fellowship services, and theological discussions for the purpose of building relationships among various sects and denominations, which is the ultimate goal. Such as the ecumenical organization, “World Council of Churches” (WCC), which inspires “the worldwide fellowship of churches to work together for unity.” Unsurprisingly, the WCC’s web address is www.oikoumene.org.

 

Ecumenism is anti-biblical and antithetical to the Gospel.

 

So, what’s the problem? Does not the Bible in many places teach that we are to be unified showing love to all? Yes, it does. However, the places that teach unity among believers – Ps. 133:1; John 17:20-23; Eph. 4:3 et al. – is unity around the essentials of the Christian faith—not in spite of them. For example, we do not seek nor do we have theological nor spiritual unity with Mormons, JWs, or Muslims. As shown, the gospel (biblical evangelism) consists of correct theology and correct soteriology[2] (justification).

The teachings of Rome and EO are patently heretical and idolatrous. Although they both would affirm important theological truths such as the Trinity, the deity of Jesus, the resurrection etc. they both categorically and aggressively deny justification through faith alone—apart from works. In other words, Rome and EO separate the person and nature of Christ from His atoning cross work as the sole ground of justification. Especially Romans and Galatians, which should be a stark reminder to Christians that God’s method of justification is through faith alone—the only recognized gospel—which Rome and EO reject.

 

Furthermore, they both hold to meritorious works (water baptism, practice of sacraments, etc.) as requirements for salvation. Both practice functional religious worship to creatures (Mary, saints) and icons. To avoid the sin of idolatry, both posit (i.e., invent) a distinction between so-called veneration/service and worship. However, the Bible (cf. OT, Septuagint, NT) makes no distinction: to venerate or serve in a religious context is the same as divine worship, which is reserved for God alone (Exod. 20:5; 2 Kings 7:17; Gal. 4:8).

So heretical was a denial of justification through faith alone, that twice, Paul pronounced a divine curse (“anathema”) on the ones rejecting it (viz., Judaizers).

Yet, the ecumenist has no problem in accepting Rome and the EO as having the same gospel as that of Protestants—either in obvious ignorance of what these groups teach, and/or a conspicuous biblical illiteracy (which seems to be the primary case), or just plainly unconverted. Either way, it’s a mockery and offense to the Lord. Clearly, the gospel of ecumenism is false—having no resemblance to the biblical gospel, since it excludes justification through faith alone as a vital part of the gospel.

 

Because of the philosophy and inaccurate view of the gospel of the ecumenists, the biblical mandates to Christians are ignored:

 

  • 1 Cor. 5:11 “[Do not] associate with any so-called brother if he is … an idolater … not even to eat with such a person…”

 

  • 2 Cor 6:14: “Do not be mismatched with unbelievers; for what do righteousness and lawlessness share together, or what does light have in common with darkness?

 

  • 5:7: “Therefore do not become partners with them.”

 

  • 5:11: “Do not participate in the useless deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.”

 

By partnering with Rome and EO, ecumenists are in a constant state of disobedience to God. Whether purposefully or ignorantly, ecumenism sacrifices the truth of the gospel for the sake of an unholy and unbiblical union.

 

Polemics, Apologetics, Evangelism

 Polemics is destroying the opposing argument to a particular philosophy while Apologetics is defending a particular philosophy. Both methods are utilized in Scripture (1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 1:3; 2 Cor. 10:5). However, we must not confuse this with biblical evangelism. In other words, many ecumenists rely on a strong polemic in their attempt to reach out to, for example, Muslims. But, then what? As shown, the gospel of the ecumenists omits justification through faith alone as essential; while Rome and EO reject it. So, the ecumenist will either preach the same false gospel as Rome (omitting justification, through faith) or no gospel at all!

 

Further, biblical apologetics is defending the faith (gospel), but if the faith being defended is an ecumenical faith, void of essential doctrines—then, it’s not “biblical” apologetics.

 

Conclusion

 Ecumenism is an enemy of the gospel due to its acceptance and approval of the Judaizer faith + works gospel of Rome and the EO, which is a twice cursed doctrine of adding to the work of Christ for justification. Ecumenism utterly shatters and suppresses the gospel of Jesus Christ in its relegation of justification through faith alone as secondary and unessential. It accepts and partners with Rome and EO in the name of unity. The biblical model of evangelism for the first century church and for faithful Christians today was and is proclaiming the full gospel of the Son (Rom. 1:16). Contra, the ecumenical approach.

 

Stated eternal penalties of denying these essential doctrines:

 The Deity of Christ. John 8:24: “You will die in your sins.” Since Jesus is a distinct person, any denial of the Trinity would result in the same consequences (1 John 2:22-23).  

The belief that Jesus is the Son of God. John 3:16, 36: “… The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.”

The physical resurrection. 1 Cor. 15:12-17. 17 “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.”

The perpetual incarnation. 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7: the one who denies the perpetual incarnation of the Son, is “the deceiver and the antichrist.”  

Justification through faith alone. Gal. 1:8-9: “Let him be anathema.” A gospel apart from justification through faith alone is “a different gospel”—a gospel without Christ.   

 

 

NOTES

[1] Unless otherwise indicated all biblical citations are from  the NASB.

[2] Soteriology (i.e., the doctrine of salvation), from sōtēria (Gk. “salvation”)

Stated eternal penalties of denying these essential doctrines  

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The Deity of Christ. John 8:24: “You will die in your sins.” Since Jesus is a distinct person, any denial of the Trinity would result in the same consequences (1 John 2:22-23).  

The belief that Jesus is the Son of God. John 3:16, 36: “… The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.”

The physical resurrection. 1 Cor. 15:12-17. 17 “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.”

The perpetual incarnation. 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7: the one who denies the perpetual incarnation of the Son, is “the deceiver and the antichrist.”  

And a denial of justification through faith alone. Gal. 1:8-9: “Let him be anathema.” A gospel apart from justification through faith alone is “a different gospel”—a gospel without Christ.

 

Matthew 28:19: The Great Commission & TRINITARIAN Baptismal Formula

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Matthew 28:17-20

“And when they [“eleven disciples”] saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”

 

 

Affirmation of the Commission

 Previously the gospel proclamation was ethnocentric—to the Jews; whereas this Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 is ektocentric (i.e., “beyond” the Jewish people). This direct commission was given to His disciples – to proclaim the gospel to panta ta ethnē (“all the nations”; cf. Rom. 1:8). Paul says in Colossians 1:5-6 5 … you previously heard … the gospel 6 which has come to you, just as in all the world….” (NASB). 

 

The only commandment in verse 19 is “make disciples!” – from the verb mathēteusate, which is an aorist imperative—the strongest way in Greek to issue a command. It stresses urgency.  The verb translated “Go” – is from poreuthentes. The verb is an aorist participle, a non-imperative commandment mood. In this grammatical construction however, the commandment would be: “Go make disciples! of all the nations; Not “as you go,” or “as you are going” – if this were the case, Matthew would have used a present participle, not an aorist participle.

In every case in Matthew, when the aorist participle (mostly involving poreuthentes, “Go”) is followed by an aorist imperative, the participle takes the force of a an imperative[1]. For example: Matthew 2:8: “Go search carefully for the child”; 2:13: “Arise take the child”; 9:13: “Go, however, learn; 11:4: “Go tell John”; 17:27: “Go to [the] lake cast a hook.” *The aorist participles are bolded, and the aorist imperative verbs are italicized.    

 

The only commandment in verse 20 is the aorist imperative, idou (“behold”). As a demonstrative particle, it emphasizes what follows: “I am [omnipresent] with you always, to the end of the age.” These words are comforting.  And in verses 19-20, Jesus describes the means of making a disciple by using two participles: “baptizing” and “teaching”—namely, participles of means.

 

Trinitarian Baptismal Formula

Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος·

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

 

Consider the following points:

I. Eis (εἰς ) “into.” The first century lexical meaning of the preposition eis (“into”) could express a transference of/into ownership. Thus, the believer is baptized into the triune God – signifying that he or she passes, or comes into the possession of ownership of the triune God.

 

II. Syntactical- The reading “into the name of THE Father, AND of THE Son, AND of the Holy Spirit” – denote three distinct persons. According to Greek grammar (viz., Sharp’s rule #6) – when the conjunction kai (“and”) connects singular nouns (not proper names) of the same case and the article (“the”) precedes each noun (viz., “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit”), each personal noun denotes a distinct person. Same construction in, 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13 et al. This construction is also abbreviated as ASKAS (article – substantive – kai -article – substantive).     

 

III. This baptismal formula was used historically to affirm the Trinity. Note these pre-Nicaea (A.D. 325) examples:

Didachē (c. A.D. 50-70; chap. 7:1, 3 – same reading: βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.”.

 Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 155; First Apology, 61).

 Tertullian (c. A.D. 213; Against Praxeas, 2, 26): “He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God.”  

 Origen (c. A.D. 244; Commentary on Romans, Book 5, 2:11; 8:7).

 Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. A.D. 260-270; A Sectional Confession of Faith, V, XIII).

 Cyprian of Carthage (c. A.D. 253): “… Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity” (Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, Letter 73:18).

 

IV. Textual Support. Anti-Trinitarian groups especially Oneness Pentecostals (who believe Jesus is the Father) and other unitarian groups (who like Oneness, believe that God is one person; such as, Muslims, JWs et al.) argue that the trinitarian formula is missing from the earliest Greek NT manuscripts (MSS) of Matthew 28:19. They assert that it was added later by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century.

In response to this assertion, we have almost 6,000 MSS extant of the Greek NT. The earliest ones (mostly from the 2nd – 5th century) were written on papyrus, while later ones were written on parchment or vellum (i.e., on animal skin).

To date, there are no Greek NT papyrus MS that contain any complete NT book due to many passages missing and/or damaged. The fact that no early papyrus MS contain the ending of Matthew 28 is not a valid reason to reject it. Would any Oneness Pentecostal reject 2 Timothy since that book is NOT contained in any early papyrus MS either?  

 

Additionally, there are no early papyrus MS that contains Acts 2:28 either; the earliest papyrus MS containing it is from the 7th century (P74). The earliest parchment MS copy of Acts 2:38, along with Matthew 28:19, is from the 4th century! (viz., Codex Sinaiticus, c. A.D. 350 and Codex Vaticanus, c. A.D. 325). Even more, every single Greek NT MS that contains Matthew 28:19 contains the Trinitarian reading, not a “in the name of Jesus” reading (also – there are no variant readings of the Trinitarian baptismal formula.

 

Lastly, every early NT version that contains Matthew 28:19, such as the MSS of the Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Aramaic, Syriac (Peshitta), including Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. A.D. 150), Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Gothic et al. contains the Matthean Trinitarian reading, not a “in the name of Jesus” rendering.

   

 “Name of Jesus” vs Trinitarian Formula  

 

Oneness advocates insist that the “Apostolic doctrine” of water baptism is in “the name of Jesus” – mainly appealing to Acts 2:38 et al.

 Consider this:

1. In Acts, there are approximately eleven cases or recorded baptisms,- some groups and some individuals.       

Only one case (8:38) identifies the baptizer (Philip the Evangelist). Whereas two cases, the baptizers are implied, but not stated—Paul and/1or Silas in 16:32:33 and Paul in 19:5-6. And only four out of the eleven, even mention a so-called “Jesus’ name” formula – hardly a norm. Although only apostles and appointed church leaders like Philip were most likely the agents of baptism (1 Cor. 1:13-17), Luke makes no emphasis of this.

 

Acts 2:38- Peter commands – no baptizer mentioned 

Acts 8:12-16 – “the Samarians and “Simon” – no baptizer  mentioned.     

Acts 8:36-38 – Eunuch – Philip baptized Him – no formula.

Acts 9:17-19- Saul – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 10:47-48 – Gentiles – no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 16:13-15 – Lydia and household – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 16:27-34 – The Jailor and his household – no formula, no baptizer mentioned (Paul and/or Silas implied, but not stated).

Acts 18:5-8 – Many of the Corinthians – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 19:1-5 Disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus – no baptizer mentioned (Paul is implied, but not stated).

Acts 22:14-17 – Saul (as Paul recounts) – no formula, nor baptizer mentioned (but, “calling on His name”).

 

2. Thus, no standard formula. Only in four places do we see a so-called “Jesus’ name” formula in Acts. Acts provides no standard formula- note the variations below:

 

Acts 2:38: epi [ἐπὶ] tō onomati Iēsou Christou – (variant: en [εν] – B D5th) 945 1739 1891; Irenaeus’ Lat trans. (4th); Didymus of Alexandria (late 4th). Also, in D E 614 945 1739, Iēsou Christou is expanded to tou Kuriou Iēsou Christou (“the Lord Jesus Christ”).

Acts 8:16; 19:5: eis to onoma tou Kuriou Iēsou, “into/in the name of [the] Lord Jesus.”

Acts 10:48: en tō onomati Iēsou Christou, “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

 Three different prepositions (epi, eis, en), and three different variations of the formula. Since Oneness Pentecostals pride themselves on and insist that they alone are practicing the “apostolic doctrine” of baptism (i.e., “In the name of Jesus”; contra Trinitarians), you could ask; “If there is no standard “Jesus name baptismal formula” in Acts, which one is the ‘apostolic’ formula?”

 

3. “In the name of Jesus”- not an “audible” baptismal formula. There is no clear grammatical evidence the so-called “Jesus’ name” formula was an “audible” formula used in the recorded water baptism accounts in the Acts narrative. Point 2 also shows this by the lack of a standardized formula. Even if it were, it does not prove the Oneness modalistic notion: Jesus is the same person as the Father.

 

4. Baptism = Identification/unification. Consider, these two points: First, the primary lexical sematic (meaning) of the verb baptizō (“to baptize”) carries the denotative meaning of unification or identification (see 1 Cor. 10:2: “they [Israelites] all were baptized into Moses”). Second, although the Jewish semantic of “name” in both the OT and NT (Hebrew, shem, Greek, onoma) – could indicate the name of a person, place, or thing, the principal meaning is authority or power (cf. 1 Sam. 17:45; Acts 4:7).

 

In light of these two important points, water baptism is an identification ceremony publicly signifying one’s unification or identification into that which the recipient is baptized. So, in Matthew 28:19, just like today; Christian water baptism denotes both unification with and passing into (eis) the possession/ ownership of the Triune God. Jesus gave this commission to His disciples.

 

Since the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, the Christian church has been baptizing new believers “Into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This TRINITARIAN FORMULA was the hope and future glory imprinted in the minds of the OT believers as well as the NT believers to the present day!

 

Appendix: Typical Oneness assertions

Assertion 1. The text reads “into the Name,” not “names” – as with a trinity of 3 gods. So the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes that represent the singular Name, ‘Jesus,’ into which the apostles baptized.

Response: If the singularity of a word applied to God proves unipersonality, then, a plurality of a word applied to God proves multi-personality. In both the OT and NT plural words are used to describe God: Plural verbs, plural adjectives, and plural pronouns (viz., first person com. plural pronominal suffixes).

Into the singular “Name” (onoma [ὄνομα] acc. singular), not “names” 

Jewish semantic (OT and NT): Heb. shem, Greek, onoma (“name”) –  frequently denoted authority or power. Acts 4:7: “By what power, or in what name ὀνόματι have you done this?”

LXX of Genesis 11:4: “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name [onoma, Heb., shem] for ourselves….”

1 Samuel 17:45:  “But David said to the Philistine, ‘You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name [LXX, onomati, Heb. shem] of the Lord God….” 

 

Assertion 2. The Trinitarian formula reading in Matthew 28:19 is missing from the earliest Greek NT MSS (papyri); it was added later by the Catholic Church in the fourth century.

Response: True, but no Greek NT papyrus MS contains any complete NT book (passages missing and/or damaged). Would any Oneness advocate reject 2 Timothy because it is not found in any extant Greek NT papyrus MS?  

 

Ironically, no Greek NT papyrus MS contains Acts 2:38 before the seventh century (P74). As seen: Earliest Greek MS of Acts 2:38 (along with Matt. 28:19) is from the fourth century—Codex ℵ (c. 350) and Codex B (Vaticanus, c. 325). *P45 contains only Acts chaps. 4-17.  

 In fact – Every single Greek NT MS where Matthew 28:19 appears, it contains the Trinitarian and not a “Jesus’ name,” reading – No variant of the Triune formulaic reading.   

NT versions. The MSS of Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Aramaic, Syriac (Peshitta), including Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. A.D. 150), Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Gothic et al. that contain Matthew 28:19 contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The early church primarily used the Matthean Trinitarian formula starting with the early first century document, the Didachē.

 

Assertion 3. Eusebius (fourth century). 

Twenty-eight times in ten of his works, Eusebius cites or alludes to Matthew 28:19, partial or paraphrase (viz., “short readings” – only some with “in the name of Jesus”), or the passage in full. Oneness advocates only point to Eusebius’s short readings and argue that he never cites a Trinitarian baptismal formula, rather, he cites “in the name of Jesus” as the baptismal formula.

 

In response: First, Eusebius and many other church Fathers (and NT authors, cf. Phil. 2:10-11 – Isa. 45:23), abbreviate or paraphrase passages. Second, Eusebius does cite the Trinitarian reading five times (four times he includes “baptism”) and one time prior to Nicaea.

 

Eusebius’s usage was not at all constant

He used three basic forms – alluding or citing Mathew 28:19: Note: the phrase “In the name of Jesus” is never mentioned.

 

1. “Go (‘Going,’ ‘Go ye,’ ‘Go forth’) make disciples of all the nations”- six times, five variations – No connection with baptism.

2. “In My, in His Name” – seventeen times, with variations – No connection with baptism.

3. Eusebius cited the Trinitarian formula five times, no variations, all but one are connected with water baptism; and one prior to Nicaea.

 

Theophania (c. A.D. 313-318; Book 4, sec 8).

Letter on the Council of Nicaea to Caesarea (c. 325; sec. 3).

Against Marcellus (c. 335;  twice – Book 1, chap 1). 

Ecclesiastical Theology (c. 335; Book 3, chap 5; but also cites the short reading in chap. 3 – citing Marcellus).

Notes

[1] Syntactically, an “attendant circumstance” (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics).

Matthew 28:17-20

 

Who is the Good Samaritan?

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The overall paradigm of the first century church was love and doctrine: Gal. 5:14: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (cf. Rom. 13:8-10). Gal. 5:22-23: 22 “The fruit of the Spirit is love joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” In Greek, it is possible to place the sense of the English colon after “love.” If so, it may be that Paul’s idea of the singular “fruit” (Gk. karpos) is love and the eight characteristics following is how he defines love.    

Luke 10:30-37

Samaritans were considered social outcasts and were very unpopular which intensified, the point of the parallel. Starting in Luke 10:25-27, we read:

25 “And behold, a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ 26 And He said to him, ‘What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?’ 27 And he answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’”

Note the context preceding the parable: Jesus’ citation of the Shema (Duet. 6:5): “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” Although the first part is omitted by Luke, it is found in full, in Mark 12:29: “Jesus answered, Hear, Israel! The Lord is our God, The Lord is one. . . .” (note the imperative [command] verb, akoue, “to hear” contra the polytheistic doctrine of the LDS (Mormons) who don’t hear, that is, deny that God is one.

 

Luke 10:28-29 “And He said to him, ‘You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.” 29 But wanting to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 “Jesus replied and said, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. . . .’” Although this journey from “Jerusalem to Jericho” was about 17 miles, it was recognized as a very dangerous road that ran through areas of lone desert, where many robbers could hide.  Jerome later termed this road as “the bloody way.” It was the most traveled road in all Judea.

 30 “…and he encountered robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead.”

 This similar incident in terminology is found in Matt. 27:28 and applied to Christ: “And they stripped Him and put a red cloak on Him.” 

31 “And by coincidence, a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.” The most frequent travelers on this road were priests and Levites. No reason stated as to why the priest refused to help him. “He passed by on the other [or, ‘opposite’] side.”[1] The text implies that the priest actually went way “on the other side,” that is, out of his way, totally avoiding the scene altogether.

32 “Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw Him, passed by on the other side” (same aorist verb is used (antiparēlthen, see footnote 1 below). A Levite was a member of the Hebrew tribe of Levi which traditionally provided assistance to the priests within the Jewish temple with worship. The two aorist participles: “having come” and “having seen.” This grammatically indicates that the Levite took a “fast peek” then left in a hurry— note again the aorist verb: “passed by on the opposite side,” as used with the priest.     

 “A vivid and powerful picture of the vice of Jewish ceremonial cleanliness at the cost of moral principle and duty. The Levite in Luke 10:32 behaved precisely as the priest had done and for the same reason” – A. T. Robertson

 

33 “But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion. . . .” The least likely person (in contrast to the respected Levite and priest), the Samaritan, who felt compassion. When the Samaritan “saw him, he felt,” that is, he was “moved to compassion.” The two verbs (both in the aorist) – “having seen” and “moved to compassion” denote a simultaneous action.

The phrase, “he felt compassion” is from esplagchnisthē, the aorist indicative of the verb splagchnizomai. The verb literally denotes the inwards parts of a body such as liver, lungs, heart, bowels, kidneys, etc. Thayer defines the verb here as: “to be moved as to one’s bowels . . . to be moved with compassion (for the bowels were thought to be the seat of love and pity).” In fact, this verb is used frequently of Christ in response to individual(s) suffering.[2] As in Luke 7:13: “When the Lord saw her, He felt compassion [lit., “was moved to deep compassion”] for her, and said to her, ‘Do not weep.’”

This is what made the Samaritan different: He felt compassion for the man and expressed love for him (again keeping with the commandment before the parable—love for God and neighbors).

“Showing” loving and compassionate actions towards others demonstrates one’s actual salvation greater than loudly praising God, singing hymns on Sunday morning, endless praying, etc. Loving others via actions, tangibly demonstrates our faith as true. 

 

“Though the worship of God is greatly preferable, and is more valuable than all the duties of a holy life, yet its outward exercise ought not to be estimated so highly as to swallow up brotherly kindness” – John Calvin Commentary on Mark 12:33.    

In the next two verses of Luke (34-35), the seven acts of love and compassion, that the Samaritan shows:

  1. Came to him.
  2. Bandaged up his wounds.
  3. Poured oil and wine on them.
  4. Put him on his animal.
  5. Brought him to an inn.
  6. Took care of him.
  7. Gave the innkeepers money for his care and his stay.

 

Jesus then asked in verse 36 “Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” Remember the question to Jesus from the lawyer (i.e., expert in the Law) in verse 29: “But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” So here Jesus turns the question around on the lawyer to a question of becoming a neighbor by demonstrating love Jesus is showing the “expert” in the Law that determining “who the neighbors are” does not concern him, but rather, who “he is” is what matters. 

37 “And he said, ‘The one who showed compassion to him.’ Then Jesus said to him, Go and do the same.’” In a broader context: The priest and Levite representing the OT Law would not nor could not deliver (save) the man from his pain, grief, suffering, etc. It was powerless to do so—it condemned (cf. Heb. 7-10).  

 

Jesus the Ultimate Samaritan

Ironically in John 8:48, the Jews called Jesus a “Samaritan,” but in a pejorative sense. However, unrecognizable to them, note the similarities of the good Samaritan and Jesus the ultimate good Samaritan: 

  1. Christ also journeyed, however His journey was from heaven to earth becoming flesh, to do what the OT Law could not do: provide rest, peace, and infallible atonement (salvation). In this sense, Jesus Christ was the ultimate Samaritan. His vicarious redemptive work on behalf of His elect was motivated by His redemptive love and compassion for them.

 

  1. Similar to the good Samaritan, Christ prepared a place for us. In heaven, He gives rest and safety—thus, eternal life: “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:28).

 

  1. In Christ alone is our means of peace, that is, reconciliation (cf. Rom. 5:1; Col. 1:19-22): “In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7).

 

Jesus Christ, God the Son is the ultimate Samaritan who saved us!

 

Salvation is Solus Christus (“Christ alone”)

 All the Latin Solae (or solas, meaning, “alones”) of the Reformation (sola gratia (grace alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola scriptura (Scripture alone), soli Deo gloria (to the glory of God alone) are established on Solus Christus – “Christ alone.” Solus Christus is the teaching that incarnate Son of God alone is the “one Mediator between God and men.” His mediatorial work does not fail! The perfect substitutionary cross work of the God-Christ is the very ground of our justification. Acts 4:12: “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

The five Solae of the Reformers were reactionary to Rome’s false gospel; reacting (responding) to Rome’s auto-soteric (self-salvation) system of salvation; a doctrine of “ands”:     

  • God’s universal plan and man’s so-called free will.
  • Faith and works (e.g., water baptism, sacraments, etc.).
  • Jesus and
  • Intersession and prayers to Jesus and Mary (and so-called saints).
  • The cross and the perpetual propitiatory sacrifices of Christ at the so-called Mass.
  • Biblical doctrine and the Church being the sola authoritative interpreter.
  • Scripture and so-called tradition of uninspired men.
  • Christ and the pope, etc.

 

This teaching was contrary to the biblical teaching in both the OT and NT that salvation is through Christ alone, through faith alone – apart from works” (Rom. 4:4-8; Eph, 2:8-9).

 Acts 10:36; 43: 36 “The message that He sent to the sons of Israel, gospelizing peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all). .  . . 43 “To Him all the prophets testify, that everyone believing in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name” (lit.).

Christ Alone was the hope and future glory imprinted in the minds of the OT believers as well as the NT believers and as always, ours today!  

NOTES

[1] The phrase “passed by on other side” in vv. 31 and 32, comes from the verb antiparēlthen, which is the aorist indicative of antiparerchomai—from anti, “opposite” and parerchomai, “to go past, pass away.”

[2] See Matt 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 18:27; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; 9:22.

2024 Philippines Pastors Conference: Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura)

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

We will be ministering again in Baguio, Philippines. There we will hold the annual First Love Pastors Conference and participate in hosting the local Christian radio station.  

Because so many Christians in the Philippines lack basic essential theological teaching, they are targets for prominent non-Christian cults and world religions. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (2020) almost 80% of professing Christians are Roman Catholic, followed by Islam with 6,981,710 persons (6.4%), and then, the anti-Trinitarian cult, Iglesia ni Cristo (‘Church of Christ’[1]), which has nearly 3 million members, which makes them the largest aboriginal so-called Protestant church in the country.

 

Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura)

The subject matter of this Conference will be on Scripture – the inspiration, sufficiency, authority, and Scripture as the sole authoritative infallible rule of faith for the church—the NT is the final and complete revelation to the church, thus, a closed canon.         

Scripture alone is an important and necessary topic for all Christians, esp. pastors. Again, the dominating religion in the Philippines is Catholicism, which teaches that “Scripture” is contained in both the written Word and so-called “Tradition” (i.e., the general consensus of early church Fathers on particular doctrines). The official Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that God’s infallible Word, “Does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (CCC, paragraph 82).

Opposing Rome’s and her salvation by faith + works, the Protestant concept salvation is summarized in the five Solae (or Sola’s): solus Christus (through Christ alone), sola Gratia (by grace alone), sola Fide (through faith alone), sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone), and soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”). It is important to realize that the Reformers did not invent the five Solae. Rather, the concept of the five Solae was reactionary to Rome’s denial of all of them. Contra Rome’s rejection of sola Scriptura, the Reformers loudly proclaimed that the church’s sole infallible authoritative rule of faith for issues of faith and practices that involve doctrine was Scripture.

 

Main topics: the inspiration, sufficiency, authority, and canonicity of the NT.

 

Inspiration: The entire content of divine revelation (Scripture alone) is God breathed out. 2 Peter 2:20-21: 20 “Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” 2 Timothy 3:16: 16 All Scripture is God-breathed [theopneustos, from Theos, ‘God’ + pneuma, ‘breath’] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be equipped, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

The phrase, “All Scripture is God-breathed” seems to refer to, not a canonical list of books, but rather, the nature of Scripture—as inspired by God. 

Sufficiency. Because the content of both the OT and NT is “God breathed out,” it is sufficient in and of itself to thoroughly equip the one devoted to God “for every good work,” says Paul. Everything necessary for our salvation is contained in the biblical content. Hence, the Scripture is the only infallible standard upon which to test all things determining truth from falsity.   

Authority. Again, inspired Scripture is the sole authoritative infallible rule of faith for the church. In the Temptation narrative (Matt. 4:1-11), Jesus’ answers the devil from the authority of Scripture (Jesus cited five passages from the OT).[2]

Canonicity (viz., the NT canon). This will my primary area of address “Canon,” (Greek, kanōn, Latin, canon). Originally, meant “reed,” then, measuring rod or rule (cf. Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:16 [TR]). Later it was used to mean standard or norm to denote the list of authoritative OT and NT books. Athanasius first used it to refer to the 27 books of the NT in Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter in A.D. 367. The main criterion of canonicity of the NT books for the early church was apostolicity. Namely, a book had to be written by a first century eye-witness apostle (Matthew, John, James, Peter, Jude, Paul) or by one who had apostolic authority—one who was closely associated and/or called by an eyewitness apostle (Mark, Luke, the author of Hebrews).   

 

In the first four centuries, there were many books being circulated, many of which were falsely ascribed by NT characters or apostles (e.g., “Gospel” – of Thomas, of Peter, of Barnabas, of Philip, of Mary, of Jude et al. and many of these forgeries were called “Acts” – of Paul, of Peter, of Pilate et al. Even more, some were called “Apocalypse” – of Paul, of James, and many more. Most of these were Gnostic in content.

Although others were edifying to be read in churches, they were not canonical (e.g., Didache, 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas et al.). In regards to the NT (before official recognition of the 27 books), it was necessary for the Christian church to establish and distinguish the books that were “apostolic,” that is, canonical. This was especially needed for teaching in the church, proper evangelism and missionary purposes. Although there were additional criteria; again, the primary criterion of the NT canon was apostolicity. The canon is a list of authoritative books. Opposing Rome’s idea that canon is an “authoritative list of books”—, which implies an “ultimate authority” (as in the Roman Catholic Church) that created and oversaw the NT canon. 

 

Regarding the official recognition of the NT canon, subsequent to Athanasius’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter in A.D. 367, there were two regional Councils (or Synods) that affirmed (not invented) the 27 NT books as Canon: The Council of Hippo, A.D. 393 and The Third Council of Carthage A.D. 397. First, we must understand that these Councils never made a claim of infallible authority as Rome does. Rather, these Councils merely discovered and codified that which was already recognized by the people of God before them. Consider this, presently (extant), there are thousands of NT quotations contained in early church documents, such as Ecumenical Councils and their resulting Creeds, Confessions, church Fathers, etc. In fact, before the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), there are about 36,000 NT quotations in the literature of the early church Fathers.

 

Canon within a Canon

However, long before Athanasius and the two regional Councils, we find an authoritative, yet partial, NT Canon within the NT. For example, in 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul refers to Luke’s Gospel as graphē (Scripture): “For Scripture says, ‘you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing’ [Deut. 25:4] and ‘the laborer is worthy of his wages.’” Both citations are under the phrase, “Scripture says.” But the latter phrase is only found in Luke 10:7. Since Luke also wrote Acts, then, Acts would also be “Scripture.” In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter refers to Paul’s “letters” as “Scripture.” Moreover, in 2 Peter 3:2-3, it seems Peter was dependent on Jude (cf. 1:7; or the converse). So then, most of the NT was canonized, that is, established as “Scripture” by the NT authors in the first century.

Lastly, as the NT record shows, immediately after the NT letters were written, they were, collected (cf. Rev. 1:11); circulated (cf. Col. 4:16; 2 Pet. 3:15-16), and read-quoted in the original first century churches (cf. 1 Thess. 5:27: “I charge you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren”; cf. Rev. 1:3). The first century church enjoyed and recognized the apostolic teachings, contained in the letters, which were sufficient for the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, faith and practice.      

 

The Canon is Closed

 It is closed theologically. As said, every NT book was written by an apostle (or one with apostolic authority). Subsequent to the OT canon, it was these writings alone that were Theopneustos (“God breathed”- 2 Tim. 3:16; cf.  2 Pet. 1:19-21). The Apostolic Age ended with the death of the apostles (cf. Acts 1:22)—upon which the church was once for all time built (Eph. 2:20)—with Christ as the corner stone. Thus, God’s ‘last day’ revelation is complete (Heb. 1:2).

It is closed historically. There is no evidence that anyone possessed the special gift of apostolicity after the death of the apostles (cf. Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3-4); nor is there any evidence that a letter that was authentically apostolic was not included or missing from the canon of the NT. The early church drew a sharp distinction between apostolic writings and the writings of others.

It is closed providentially. God’s providence secured that His infallible Word would be complete. God promised that His Word would endure forever. Since God orchestrates all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11), the NT canon is really a matter of God’s providence. That a historical selection process undertaken by fallible human beings and fallible institutions, originally established the canon – is no reason to reject the role of the providence of God in the formation of the canon.

 

Evangelize & Teach Pastors = Reach ALL People 

The ultimate goal of these annual pastor conferences, is to evangelize and teach the pastors. Evangelize, in the sense of increasing their biblical understanding of the gospel. For the same reason, Paul stated to the Roman Christians: “I am eager also to preach the gospel to you.” All pastors should be eager to preach the gospel to their people—ensuring the gospel presentation is accurate. When the pastors are theologically equipped on essential doctrines of the Christian faith, they will equip their people to boldly defend and positively affirm the Christian faith to the saved (Rom. 1:15) and the unsaved (Rom. 1:16), and in the Philippines, particularly to the groups that so aggressively attack it (viz., Rome and Iglesia ni Cristo).      

 

Christian Radio in the Philippines

 In between the conferences, we spend hours hosting Christian radio. Before we came several years ago, the station was merely playing country Christian music. Although music can be calming—the people need biblical teaching. On the radio shows, we provide teaching on essential issues, apologetics and biblical Q&A. In a country dominated by Roman Catholics and hard-hitting unitarian groups, the Christians here really need help.   

April 15-30th – Please pray for God’s mercy and favor in ministering to the pastors and the people in the Philippines at the conferences and hosting the radio shows – affirming the sola Scriptura- that salvation is through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone—all to and for the glory of God alone.

 

              

For more information on theological, apologetic, and evangelistic subjects, visit our YouTube page, 

 We thank you graciously for your continual support both financially and prayerfully especially during this unprecedented time. Rest in His Sovereign Grace during this time and always!

 

Notes 

[1] Not to be confused with the Stone-Campbell Movement, known as the Church of Christ, which emerged in America in the nineteenth century.   

[2][2] Matt. 4:4 (Deut. 8:3); 4:6 (Ps 91:11-12); 4:7 (Deut. 6:16); 4:10 (Deut. 6:13). 

Mary & Roman Catholicism

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The Marian dogmas of Rome, start with Rome’s view of an impotent Jesus, whose atoning cross work was anything but sufficient. Rome’s teaches that the work of Christ merely made “a pathway” for man to justify himself by adding to the work of Christ by performing “required meritorious works” (such as water baptism, charity, religious devotion to Mary, Sacraments, etc.). Rome believes that man assists Christ in the salvific process—thereby denying that the alone cross work of Christ was sufficient.

Rome’s esoteric (self-salvation) system is a system of “and (&)”:

  • Jesus and Mary. 
    –
  •  God’s universal plan & man’s so-called free will. 
    –
  •  Faith + works such as water baptism, sacraments, holding to all the Marian doctrines, fide implicita, that is, an uncritical blind “implicit faith” in the Roman Catholic Church). 
    –
  •  Intercession & prayers to Jesus & Mary & so called saints. 
    –
  •  The cross & perpetual sacrifices of Christ at the Mass. 
    –
  • Biblical doctrine & the Church. 
    –
  •  Scripture & so-called tradition of uninspired men. 
    –
  •  Christ & the Pope, etc.

 

Contrary to the biblical doctrine of Christ, the Christ of Rome is anything, but a powerful Savior. The Roman Christ does not and cannot save alone, instead it is a shared cross work that Rome embraces. Rome asserts a false Christ who did not become perfect man (due to the Transubstantiation)[1] nor did He become the righteousness of all who believe (John 1:14; Phil. 2:7-8; 1 Cor. 1:30-31). Rome’s doctrines greatly oppose so many fundamental biblical teachings, especially on justification and the atonement. For example, Rome’s denial of justification through faith alone, apart from works, leaves the Roman Catholic with no assurance of salvation in this life nor glorification in the afterlife.

 

According to Rome, a so-called “saved” person now could always forfeit his or her justified status by a lack of performance (esp. unconfessed mortal sins). Refuting Rome’s claim, the Bible is rich with passages that teach that justification is a one-time permanent, objective, declaratory act of God pronouncing a sinner not guilty through the instrument of faith. (Rom. 4:6-8; 5:1). A regenerated justified Christian is sealed for eternity. As Christ promised, all the ones the Father gave to Him (John 6:37), “I lose nothing but, raise it up at the last day” (John 6:39, cf. v. 44). In Romans 4:8, Paul states that there is not even a possibility that such a one justified by faith apart from works would have any sin against them. Even more, passages such as John 10:28; Romans 8:1, 28-39; 1 John 5:12; and Hebrews 13:5 clearly affirm the preservation of true believers against Rome’s unbiblical soteriology.    

The Marian Dogma                            

Among the massive documents and books regarding the Marian doctrines of Rome, is the renowned book, The Glories of Mary, written by Alphonsus Liguori, which became one of the most commonly used manuals of Catholic teaching and devotion to the Virgin Mary.[2] Note some samples, which delineate the Roman view of Mary (emphasis added):    

“On account of the merits of Jesus, the great privilege has been granted to Mary to be the mediatrix of our salvation” (169).

“So, says St. Bernard, We have access to Jesus Christ only through Mary. And St. Bernard gives us the reason why the Lord decreed that all men should be saved by the intercession of Mary. . . .” (191-92).

“If you ever wish for another advocate with this mediator, invoke Mary, for she will intercede for you with the Son. . . . He who neglects the service of Mary shall die in sin . . . He who has not recourse to thee, oh Lady, will not reach paradise. . .. That those from whom Mary turns away her face, not only will [they] not be saved, but can have no hope of salvation” (228, 256).

“Mary is called the Gate of Heaven, because no one can enter into heaven, as St. Bonaventure declares, except through Mary” (744).

These are only a few samples of Catholic voices affirming Rome’s distinctive Marian doctrines.

The Catholic Church is a life of embracing and practicing perpetual idolatry in giving Mary what is reserved for God alone—namely, religious worship.

Because of Catholic tradition, Roman apologists err enormously regarding the lexical-semantic of the Greek noun douleia (Latin, dulia, “service”) and the verb douleuō (“to serve”) in a religious context—in both in the OT (LXX) and NT. There is a simple explanation here which does not require a lengthy corrective. To avoid the charge of idolatrous worship to Mary, Rome developed a three-tier scheme in which they distinguish between so-called service or honor given to Saints and Mary, and worship given to God denoted by three Latin terms:

I Dulia from the Greek noun, duleia (“service, slavery, bondage”); from the verb douleuō (“to serve, be enslaved, be in bondage”). Catholics are taught to give dulia, that is, “service” (veneration) to so-called canonized “Saints,” who previously died.

II Hyper-dulia (“super-superior service”) is given to Mary alone.

III. Latria from the Greek noun, latreia .(“the service or worship of God” – Rom. 12:1; Heb. 9:1); from the verb latreuō (“to give religious honor, worship” – Dan. 7:14; Luke 4:8; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 9:14), which is reserved for and given to God alone.

This distinction of three kinds of service/worship is not biblically valid. First, nowhere in Scripture does it teach that faithful Christians should give dulia (Greek, duleia) and especially Rome’s concocted term, hyper-dulia to creatures, in a religious context. Second, this distinction of three kinds of service/worship is biblically wrong. Semantically, to give dulia to anyone in a religious context is the same as giving latria (Greek, latreia)—they both denote worship reserved for God alone.

Hence, by Catholics praying to creatures giving them dulia (religious veneration), bowing before statues of Mary is the very thing God prohibits. Paul strongly expresses this point in Galatians 4:8: “However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves [‘you served,’ from the verb douleuō] to those which by nature are not gods.” Paul was clear: “to serve” (from the verb i.e., to give dulia) anyone other than God in a religious context is biblically wrong—it is simply- idolatry. Paul sees the unconverted pagans as doing this: “When you did not know God”—you were giving dulia to creatures. Regarding idols and false gods, God commands His people in Exodus 20:5: “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I the LORD your God, am a jealous God.” The Hebrew word translated “serve” (NASB, ESV, KJV, etc.) is from abad (“to work, serve”), which is the most usual English translation of the term. In a religious context, however, to serve God is the same as worshiping Him—an action reserved for God alone (Exod. 4:23; 20:5; Mal. 3:18 et al.).

In many OT passages, however, there are more than a few standard versions that translate abad as “worship” at Exod. 3:12; Ps. 2:11; Isa. 19:23; Jer. 35:15 et al. The NIV translates abad as “worship” at Exodus 20:5: “You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (same at Exod. 3:12; Isa. 19:23). In the Septuagint (LXX), abad is frequently translated as latreuō (“to worship, serve”; Exod. 3:12; 20:5; etc.) and also translated as douleuō. In other words, in a religious context, both latreuō and douleuō mean the same thing—to give divine worship.

These Marian doctrines are purely outside of and against Scripture. In fact, aside from a passing reference of the virgin birth of Jesus in Gal. 4:4 (without mentioning Mary by name), after Acts 1:14, Mary is never mentioned again in any NT Epistle. Neither Jesus, nor any of His disciples, nor any NT Apostle prayed to her or referred to her as “Our Queen, “Our Life,” “Our Hope,” “Our Mediatress,” “Our Advocate,” “Our Salvation,” etc.

Notes

[1] Rome’s pagan doctrine of Transubstantiation makes Jesus’ body ubiquitous. In other words, day after day millions of Catholics around the world receive the Eucharist at the Mass, and simultaneously eat the literal body, and ingest the literal blood of Christ, “with his soul and his divinity” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1413)  This clearly implies that Jesus’ physical body is ubiquitous—namely, it’s in multiple places at the same time! This contradicts the biblical teaching: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14); “having been made in the likeness of men.” In this way, Rome deforms, and thus denies the biblical view of the incarnation of the Son.

[2] Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has named only 37 Doctors of the Church (with Irenaeus, A.D. 180, being the last one named).

 

God the Holy Spirit

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The Holy Spirit

1) Is called God and Lord in a religious context.  

2 Is identified as YHWH.

3) Possesses the divine attributes.

4) Accomplishes divine works.

5) Was worshiped as God; that is, in the same way as that of the Father (and Son).

6) Possesses personal attributes and characteristics affirming His personhood.

7) Is a distinct person from the Father and the Son.

 

Biblical Data

 1) Just as the Son is, the Holy Spirit is referred to as God and Lord in a religious context.

The biblical authors were strict monotheists (i.e., believing in one God), they present the Holy Spirit as truly God distinct from God the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is called Theos (“God”). In Acts 5:3-4, the personhood of the Holy Spirit is unquestionably seen by the fact that only a self-aware “person” can be lied to—one cannot lie to a rock or electricity.

In verse 4, the person of the Holy Spirit, to whom Ananias lied, is called Theos (“God”). After Peter harshly asked Ananias, “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?” Peter then explained in the next verse, “You [Ananias] have not lied to men but to God.” Also, in the narrative (5:9), the Holy Spirit is called, “the Spirit of the Lord.” The OT, the phrase, “the Spirit of the Lord [YHWH]” occurs two-dozen times. “The Spirit of YHWH” was indeed God. The Holy Spirit is called Kurios (“Lord”) in a religious context (2 Thess. 3:5). As mentioned above, the NT authors cited OT passages referring to YHWH and applied them to the Holy Spirit. The person of the Holy Spirit is referred to as both God and Lord in a religious context, thus, ontologically (in essence).

 

2) The Holy Spirit is identified as YHWH.

In the OT, the Spirit of God was in fact God.  David rhetorically asks YHWH, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?” (Ps. 139:7). The Hebrew parallelism here indicates that David sees YHWH’s Spirit as the very presence of YHWH. Further, throughout the OT, the “Spirit” (or “Spirit of YHWH/God”) shares the same attributes as YHWH. For example, He is presented as the Creator (Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; Ps. 104:30); He abides with believers (Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10-11); He gives wisdom, understanding, and knowledge to men (Exod. 31:3).

Also, as with the Son, the NT authors cite OT passages referring to YHWH and apply them to the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25-27, Heb. 3:7; 10:15; also cf. Acts 5:9 with Deut. 6:16).

3) The Holy Spirit possesses divine attributes.

As God, the Holy Spirit possesses the specific attributes that only God has. The author of Hebrews indicates that the Holy Spirit is eternal: “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb. 9:14). The author of Hebrews refers to the Spirit as pneumatos aiōniou, lit., “Spirit eternal.” The same adjective (aiōniou, “eternal”) is used of God in Rom. 16:26: Theou aiōniou, “God eternal.” Thus, the person of the Holy Spirit is the eternal God—for only God is eternal.

4) The Holy Spirit accomplishes divine works.

For example, Holy Spirit is the agent of Mary’s pregnancy (Matt. 1:18); He regenerates a spiritually dead man (John 3:5; Titus 3:5); He dwells in/with the believer (1 Cor. 3:16); distributes spiritual gifts according to His own will (1 Cor. 12:11); seals believers for redemption (Eph. 1:13); and sanctifies believers and works in their life (Thess. 2:13). Only because the Holy Spirit is God, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is He able to complete these acts. Moreover, Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:10 that the Holy Spirit “searches all things even the depths of God.” The Greek term translated “searches” is erauna (from ereunaō). This verb carries the idea of “logical investigation” (BDAG). The tense indicates that the “searching” is continuous and active—He is always searching, knowing all things at all times. In verse 11, the Holy Spirit is said to know the thoughts of God. Only God can know the thoughts of God.

5) The Holy Spirit was worshiped as God.

In Matt. 28:19, Jesus commands all new converts to be baptized into the name (i.e., “power, authority”) of the triune God. Water baptism signifies the unification or identification with whom the participant is being baptized—the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Another kind of religious worship is direct prayer. In Matt. 9:38, Jesus instructs His disciples to “beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest.” First, the fact that Jesus refers to “Lord of the harvest” in the third person (“His”, not “My” harvest) indicates that the “Lord of the harvest” is not Himself. Second, as seen, the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” several times in the NT in a religious context. Third, there is no contextual reason to believe that the “Lord of the harvest” is the Father. And finally, in Acts 13:1-4, the Holy Spirit sends out the laborers (“Barnabas and Saul”) to the missionary (harvest) field. As God, the Holy Spirit was worshiped and honored in the same sense as that of the Father and Christ.

                   

6) The Holy Spirit possesses personal attributes and characteristics affirming His personhood.

As seen, groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) reject the personhood of the Holy Spirit equating Him to an impersonal force like electricity. However, the personhood of the Holy Spirit is biblically demonstrated and defined by the Holy Spirit’s use of personal pronouns and first person verbs of Himself and the personal attributes that the Holy Spirit possesses. The same biblical data that supports the personhood of God the Father is applied to the Holy Spirit.

– Personal pronouns and first person verbs. In the NT, personal pronouns are applied to the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10:19-20, for example, the Holy Spirit identifies Himself, not merely as “God’s activity,” but rather as egō (“I”), that is, a self-aware person:

19 “While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I [egō] have sent them Myself.”

Note Acts 13:2, “While they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set Barnabas and Saul apart for Me for the work to which I have called them.’” Here the Holy Spirit not only issues personal commands, but refers to Himself as moi (“Me,” from egō) and uses the first person verb proskeklēmai (“I have called them”)—in the NT, this verb is only used of persons. not forces, nor modes, nor manifestations.

– Personal attributes and characteristics. It would be a fallacy of equivocation to equate person with people, as many anti-trinitarians do. Those who do so misunderstand the meaning of both terms. For example, angels fall under the category of “person,” but they are not “people.” Likewise, the Holy Spirit can be called and ontologically categorized as “person,” though He is not in the ontological class of “people” (same with the Father). So, all people are persons, but not all persons are people. Hence, God the Father, Satan, demons, angels, and the Holy Spirit are persons, but they are not people.

The Holy Spirit possesses many personal characteristics (as with the Father and Son) denoting that the Holy Spirit is a self-aware subject or Ego (i.e., person) cognizant of His own existence, which is clearly demonstrated by the specific personal characteristics or attributes He possesses:

He can be blasphemed (Mark 3:29, 30).

He can be lied to (Acts 5:3).

He intercedes or prays on the behalf of the believer (Rom. 8:26).

He issues commands (Acts 13:2, 4; 16:6).

He is intelligent in that He investigates and searches (1 Cor. 2:10-11; Rom. 8:27).

He has a will (1 Cor. 12:9-11).

He could be grieved (Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30).

He testifies (Neh. 9:30; John 15:26; Heb. 10:15) and teaches (John 14:26).

 

Only cognizant persons can exercise and engage in intelligent communication (Acts 10:19-20; 13:2, 4). Scripture presents many clear examples of the Holy Spirit intelligently communicating to others (as shown above). Even the anti-trinitarian JWs, in the Watchtower’s Awake magazine, distinguish a personification from a person as they rightfully define a person: “Is the Devil a personification or a person….? Can an unintelligent person carry on a conversation with a person? … only an intelligent person can.”[1]

The Apostle Paul, in his Trinitarian benediction, comforts the saints in Corinth with these words: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14). Only self-aware persons can experience true koinōnia (“fellowship”). This same koinōnia, believers have with the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3). Moreover, as a distinct person, the Holy Spirit gives love: “Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me” (Rom. 15:30).

Love is something that the Holy Spirit possesses and gives. As with true personal fellowship, only persons can possess, give, and experience love. Hence, abstract things such as natures, modes, manifestations, electricity, etc. have not the ontological capability to accomplish these things—only persons do. Thus, He is a person, not a mere influence.

7) The Holy Spirit is a distinct person from God the Father and the Son.

As with the Son, the Holy Spirit is frequently juxtaposed with the Father and the Son (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18). The Son personally relates to the Father and to the person of the Holy Spirit, and the reverse is altogether true of the Father and the Holy Spirit relating to each other. In John 14:16, Jesus said, “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [allon] Helper [better trans., “Advocate”] that He may be with you forever.”

Scripture presents that the Holy Spirit is a self-aware person or self. He possesses personal attributes and personal pronouns are applied to Him. The same evidence that confirms the personhood of the Father confirms the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Scripture clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God in the fullest and truest sense. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit should be worshiped as God. He is distinct from the Father and the Son. He is the eternal almighty God, who regenerates sinners and glorifies the Father and the Son—He is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

NOTES

[1] Awake!, 8 December 1973, 27.

Homosexuality 21st Century

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, NET). 

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. DOMA defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It barred federal recognition of same-sex marriage by restricting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman. However, December 13th of this year, the 117th United States Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act and it was signed into law by President Joe Biden, which repealed the DOMA.

There was a time when this country stood unmovable against biblical offenses such as homosexuality and abortion—even enacting laws against such practices.  What we use to call an abomination and see as evil are now celebrated and recognized as a “cultural norm.” For example, before 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, now we expect the unregenerate to embrace, promote and even applaud homosexuality and other ungodly practices. However, when professing Christians, due to passivity or ignorance, accept a homosexual lifestyle as biblically permissible- that is a travesty.

God is love, true, but “God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.” (Ps. 7:11, NKJV).[1] God takes a dim view at those who say, “Jesus is Lord,” then dishonor Him by their practice and acceptance of egregious sins—Scripture is crystal-clear on the subject.

What is alarming is the growing community of pro-homosexual “professing” Christians. To make the Bible conform to their philosophy, lifestyle and carnal practices, they patently misinterpret passages and pretext biblical narratives. For example, explaining that Leviticus 18 and 20, which condemns the practice of homosexuality merely refers to temple prostitution. They espouse that David loved Jonathan in a homosexual way, saying Jesus never condemned homosexuality and that God loves all men unconditionally, etc. Or, asserting that in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 (although most have never even read these passages), Paul only condemned prostitutes and pederasts, and not monogamous male-to-male relationships, etc. Although claiming to be in the faith, they naturally disagree with the definitive biblical prohibitions against homosexuality and are extremely tolerant of it.


The Biblical Prohibition

The Bible has much to say on the topic starting in the OT Law, example: 

Lev. 18:22: “You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination”

Lev. 20:13: “If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. . . .”

In spite of the clarity of these passages, liberal theologians and pro-homosexual advocates attempt to downplay these OT precepts by limiting the homosexual prohibition to a cultural meaning (e.g., referring to temple prostitution). However, if the prohibitions were speaking only against temple prostitution, why then are only male to males mentioned? Why would not the law include both men women? Or state plainly anything about “temple prostitution?”

Also, contextually the prohibition against homosexual acts are sandwiched between the other laws concerning sexual behavior, such as prohibiting sex with an uncle, aunt, animals, etc. Clearly, the prohibition is not confined to such a limitation as temple prostitution. Now, the law does indeed speak explicitly against temple prostitution, but not in Leviticus, rather we find that context in Deut. 23:17-18. The fact is, the passages in Leviticus are not vague commandments against prostitution, but specific injunctions against homosexuality in all forms—as severely as its condemnation in the NT as well.

 

But what of David and Jonathan in 2 Sam 1:26?

“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women” (ESV).

First, note verse 23, where the same term (as a verb) is used to describe the love between a Saul and Jonathan. In verse 26, the phrase “surpassing the love” is from the Hebrew noun, ahabah. Both this noun and the verb (aheb) are similar to the English word, “love”—in which context determines the meaning. As in verse 23, frequently, the verb is used to denote the love of the father for his son. For example, Abraham’s love for Isaac (Gen. 22:2; also see Gen. 37:3,4; 44:20; Prov. 13:24 et al.). Even more, the term could also denote the love with which women love their husband and children. 

Second, the flawed pro-homosexual interpretation neglects to take into account the Middle Eastern concept of a man’s relationship to his wife. In the Middle East, a man’s primary kinship is with other men, not with his wife. For example, during dinner time, the wife and daughters would set up the table, however, when it was time to eat, the man and his sons, and, if any friends were invited, they would all eat together while the women would leave and eat separately or after the men. This is still a common practice in the 21th century.

Third, it is an established fact that throughout the ancient world, the friendship between a man and a man was esteemed higher than the relationship between a man and a wife. So, it is completely natural within this culture that David’s “love” for his closest and best friend Jonathan, “surpassed that of women.”  

New Testament

The NT provides the same categorical condemnation against the sin of homosexuality as in the OT—primarily, in Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9; and 1 Tim. 1:10. Before we examine these texts, an argument that liberals and skeptics like to propose should first be mentioned. They point out that Jesus himself nowhere condemned homosexuality, so it must be permitted. It is ridiculous to assume that Jesus covered every single doctrine and repeated every single commandment contained in the OT in a period of three years. In point of fact, many doctrines, He left up to His apostles to teach; hence, many things that Jesus said and did are not recorded in the NT, “if they were written in detail, I expect that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).        

But, Jesus did indeed condemn homosexuality. In Matt. 19:3-6, Jesus teaches that “from the beginning,” God defined marriage as the union between male and female, as does Paul in Eph. 5 citing the same Adam and Eve reference that Jesus did.

 

ROMANS 1:18-32

Paul’s entire thesis here is dealing with the constant suppressing of truth by pagans and its consequences (viz. God’s wrath “continuing” to be on them; cf. v. 18). Paul uses an argument from nature (creation) to show that they are without excuse—for “For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. . . .” (v. 25, NET).

Because of this, “God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones” (v. 26, ibid.). The phrase, “the natural sexual relations” is a literal translation of the Greek phrase tēn phusikēn chrēsin—phusikēn (“nature”) and chrēsin (“use,” i.e., sexual use/function). This, Paul says, is para phusin (“against nature, unnatural”).[2]

Homosexual men likewise, says Paul, “abandoned” tēn phusikēn chrēsin [‘the natural sexual function’] with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error” (NET).  Alluding to Lev. 18 and 20, Paul sees homosexuality as not only unnatural, (viz., “contrary to nature,” ESV), but as having the same consequence as stated in the OT: “those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them” (Rom. 1:32). “Professing” Christians who practice and/or approve of homosexual relationships cannot remove the contextual significances of Rom. 1:18-32.    

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10:

9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners [malakoi] practicing homosexuals [arsenokoitai], 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God” (NET; note v. 11: “Some of you once lived this way”).

 

1 TIMOTHY 1:9-10:

9 “for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitais], enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.” (ESV).

The two key Greek terms in both 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10 are malakos (only 1 Cor. 6:9, “passive homosexual partners, effeminate”) and arsenokoitēs (“homosexual” or more literally, “sodomite” [NKJV] or “men who have sex with men” [NIV]). And both terms are plural (malakoi, arsenokoitais/ arsenokoitai). Malakos (“soft”) appears in four places in the NT. In every place, the term refers to “soft garment/clothing” (cf. Matt. 11:8) except in 1 Cor. 6:9, where contextually it refers to the “soft” passive (effeminate) partner in a homosexual relationship.

Whereas arsenokoitēs is a Greek term that Paul actually made up (only appearing in these two passages). Apparently, the source of Paul’s usage of his compound term, arsenokoitēs (from arsēn, “a male” and koitē, “a mat/bed” with the idea of intercourse) comes from the LXX (i.e., Greek trans. the OT) of Lev. 18:22 (“with a male [from arsēn] you shall not lie in bed/intercourse [from koitē] [as with] of a woman”). Same terms and semantic in Lev. 20:13.  

This shows unequivocally the apostle’s intended meaning of 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10- “both of them have committed a detestable act [toebah]; they shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:13). As with a number of other languages, Greek distinguishes the “active dominate” (arsenokoitēs) and the “passive effeminate” (malakos) roles in a homosexual relationship. For example, BDAG (Walter Bauer’s, Greek Lexicon of the NT, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker), defines Paul’s term as “one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity.”   

To pretext and thus circumvent the obvious meaning in these passages, liberals and pro-homosexual “professing” Christians make eisegetical leaps – arguing that arsenokoitēs narrowly refers to “promiscuous homosexuality,” pederasty, and/or prostitution, etc., and not a monogamous loving relationship between two of the same sex. They also remove malakos from its contextual import in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:9-10. Naturally, they do so to justify their own lifestyle and/or personal philosophy—making the Bible say what they want it to say.

Although arsenokoitēs can refer to prostitution, abuse, pederasty, etc., the lexical-semantic of arsenokoitēs (again, Paul’s unique term) in 1 Cor. 6:9 and in 1 Tim. 1:10, condemns homosexuality in all forms, as does Rom. 1:18-32; Lev. 18:22; and 20:13.

 

In closing, homosexuality, in our day is just as depraved and abominable to the Lord as it was when the “Old and New Testament” were being written. It is without a doubt our “calling “to speak out as believers against this growing, fertile and depraved LGBT Mob Cult of our century and send them packing.

May God bless our courage in the face of this egregious sin against Him!

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Notes 

[1] All biblical citations are taken from the NASB (2020) unless otherwise indicated.

[2] From para with the accusative (“against”) and phusin (from phusis, “inherent nature,” cf. Gal. 4:8; Eph. 2:3).