8/14/15

From Mark Copeland... "FOLLOWING JESUS WITHOUT DENOMINATIONALISM" Further Thoughts Related To Authority In Religion


              "FOLLOWING JESUS WITHOUT DENOMINATIONALISM"

           Further Thoughts Related To Authority In Religion

INTRODUCTION

1. In the past two lessons in this series, I have stressed that to be
   free of religious division we must have the same "standard of authority"
   a. That standard is the Will of Christ...
      1) As revealed in the "apostles' doctrine", that is, the teaching
         of Christ's apostles
      2) As inspired by the Holy Spirit, and preserved for us in the
         pages of the New Testament
   b. Other standards, both objective and subjective, are not suitable
      guides to lead us in the way of salvation...
      1) Not the Old Testament, majority rule, parents, preachers, 
         creeds and traditions of men
      2) Nor conscience, human wisdom, or feelings

2. But before we leave the subject of authority, there are some 
   questions I believe worthy of our  consideration...
   a. Exactly how does one use the New Testament to establish 
      authority?
   b. Are there limitations placed upon how far we may go in matters of religion?
   c. Will having the same standard of authority "guarantee" unity 
      among the followers of Christ?
   -- In this lesson I wish to share some thoughts along these lines

[Beginning with...]

I. HOW AUTHORITY IS ESTABLISHED
   
   A. AUTHORITY CAN BE ESTABLISHED IN ONE OF THREE WAYS...
      1. Direct command or precept - a direct statement of something
         that can or cannot be done
         a. E.g., "repent and be baptized" - Ac 2:38
         b. E.g., "love one another" - Jn 13:34
         c. E.g., "abstain from sexual immorality" - 1Th 4:3
      2. Approved example - an illustration that shows a practice was
         done with the approval of the Lord's apostles
         a. As an apostle, Paul taught by both precept and example
            1) He encouraged others to imitate him, and sent Timothy to
               remind people of "his ways in Christ, as I teach 
               everywhere in every church" - 1Co 4:16-17
            2) The God of peace will be with those who do the sort of
               things both heard (precept) and seen (example) in an
               apostle like Paul - cf. Php 4:9
         b. So when we have an example that meets with apostolic 
            approval, we know there is authority for the practice
            1) E.g., having a plurality of elders in one church - 
               Ac 14:23; 20:28; Php 1:1
            2) E.g., meeting on the first day of the week for the 
               purpose of breaking bread (i.e., the Lord's supper, cf.
               1Co 10:16-17) - Ac 20:7
      3. Necessary implication, or "forced conclusion" - something 
         neither expressly stated nor specifically exemplified, yet it
         is necessarily implied by the clear import and meaning of the
         language used so that one can only draw a particular
         conclusion
         a. Jesus appealed to necessary implication when He reasoned
            that there must be a resurrection of the dead based upon
            the implication of God's statement to Moses - cf. Mt 22:
            29-33
         b. Peter and the brethren in Judea understood the necessary 
            implication of the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit, 
            that it meant Gentiles were permitted to be baptized and
            enjoy the repentance that leads to life - cf. Ac 10:44-48;
            11:15-18
         c. Therefore, if the evidence of the Scriptures warrant it, we
            may draw certain conclusions because of the necessary 
            implication
            1) E.g., the issue of baptizing infants...
               a) The prerequisites for baptism include faith and 
                  repentance - Mk 16:16; Ac 2:38; 8:37
               b) Infants are incapable of faith and repentance
               -- Therefore the necessary implication (or forced 
                  conclusion) is that baptism is not required of 
                  infants
            2) E.g., the matter of using unleavened bread in partaking
               the Lord's Supper...
               a) There is nothing expressly stated nor specifically 
                  exemplified in reference to using unleavened bread as
                  we observe the Lord's Supper
               b) But when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper at the 
                  Last Passover, we know that He was using unleavened
                  bread - cf. Lk 22:7-19
               -- Therefore the necessary implication is that we should
                  use unleavened bread as we keep His command to 
                  observe the Lord's Supper

   B. THERE IS BOTH "GENERAL" AND "SPECIFIC" AUTHORITY...
      1. Using a "direct command" as an example, sometimes it is 
         "general" in its authority
         a. That is, "not limited in scope, area, or application" (The
            American Heritage Dictionary)
         b. E.g, the command to "go" in Mt 28:19 is generic enough to
            authorize all methods of transportation
      2. Sometimes a "direct command" is "specific" in its authority
         a. That is, "explicitly set forth; definite" (The American 
            Heritage Dictionary)
         b. E.g., when God commanded Noah to build the ark with 
            "gopher" wood (Gen 6:14), the specific nature of the 
            command ruled out using any other kind of wood
      3. A "specific" command may itself have a degree of "general" 
         authority
         a. E.g., the command to "sing" specifically authorizes 
            acapella music
         b. It is not generic enough to authorize instrumental music...
            1) ...which is totally different class (or kind) of music
            2) ...but it is generic enough to authorize different aids
               or "expedients" (see below), such as song books, to 
               carry out the command to sing

   C. "EXPEDIENTS" MAY BE USED TO CARRY OUT AUTHORIZED PRACTICES...
      1. "Expedient" means "appropriate to a purpose" (The American
         Heritage Dictionary)
      2. Thus an "expedient" is an aid that is suitable for carrying
         out that which is authorized
      3. Sample "expedients" based upon what is authorized in the 
         Scriptures:
         a. Assembling is authorized, so the meeting house is an 
            expedient to carry out the command to assemble
         b. Teaching is authorized, so arrangement in classes is an 
            expedient to carry out the command to instruct
         c. Giving is authorized, so collection baskets are an 
            expedient for gathering the contribution
         d. Baptism is authorized, so the baptistery is an expedient to
            provide a place for immersion
         e. Singing is authorized, so hymn books are expedient to 
            helping us sing

[These principles on how to establish authority from the Scriptures may
seem prosaic, but they can be very useful in applying the "apostles'
doctrine" (i.e., the Word of God) to our lives.  When properly 
understood and applied correctly, they can be useful "tools" to 
maintain the unity and peace of a local congregation.

Another question that often arises when the subject of authority in 
religion is being discussed:  "Are there limitations placed upon how
far we may go?"  I.e., must we have authority for all that we do in 
religious matters?  To help answer such questions, consider these...]

II. WARNINGS FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

   A. WE MUST NOT CHANGE ITS MESSAGE!
      1. This is especially true in regards to the gospel of Christ! 
         - Ga 1:8-9
      2. Even if we claimed a change was authorized by an angelic 
         messenger, we would be accursed!
      3. Therefore, the gospel of salvation in Christ must be preserved
         in every respect!

   B. WE MUST NOT ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM IT!
      1. We find such a warning at the conclusion of the last book of
         the Bible - Re 22:18-19
      2. Though primarily applicable to the book of Revelation, this 
         warning is consistent with others pertaining to the revelation
         of God's will to man - Deut 4:2; Pr 30:5-6

   C. WE MUST ABIDE IN THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST!
      1. Otherwise, we will not have fellowship with the Father and the
         Son - 2Jn 9
      2. Is this passage referring to the doctrine "about" Christ, or
         the doctrine "taught by" Christ (along with His apostles)?
         a. As pointed out in the Expositor's Bible Commentary, the 
            question is of little importance for John holds equally to
            both positions
            1) It is fundamental to the faith to hold to the proper 
               views about Christ - cf. 2Jn 7
            2) It is fundamental to the faith to obey the commandments
               of Christ - cf. 1Jn 3:24
         b. Thus what John says here applies in either case

   D. WE MUST NOT ALLOW "TRADITIONS OF MEN" TO MAKE THE "COMMANDS OF
      GOD" OF NO EFFECT!
      1. Jesus charged the Pharisees with "vain" worship for doing this
         - Mk 7:5-13
      2. In view of this warning, we should evaluate our religious 
         practices:
         a. Are they based upon "traditions of men", or the 
            "commandments of God"?
         b. If "traditions of men", does our keeping them render the 
            "commands of God" of no effect?
         c. E.g., by keeping the man-made tradition of sprinkling for
            baptism, we render the command of God for immersion (Grk.
            "baptizo") of no effect

   E. WE MUST NOT ABUSE OUR LIBERTY IN CHRIST!
      1. In Christ we enjoy wonderful freedom, but we must be careful
         in our use of it - Ga 5:1, 13
      2. We must be considerate of our brothers' consciences - Ro 14:
         14-15:3
      3. We should be willing to forego our liberty rather than let it
         destroy a brother - 1Co 8:9-13
      4. We should not only ask "Is it lawful?", but also "Does it 
         edify?" - 1Co 10:23-24,31-33

[With such "warnings" weighing upon our hearts, we are more likely to
approach the Word of God with the humility it deserves as we seek to
establish the authority for our service to God.

But one last question related to having the same standard of authority:
Will it "guarantee" unity among the followers of Christ?]

III. AGREEING UPON THE SAME STANDARD WILL NOT GUARANTEE UNITY

   A. THERE ARE STILL CHALLENGES TO FACE...
      1. Which commands are binding today?
         a. Some commands must be understood to be limited in 
            application
         b. Effort must be made to determine whether a command was 
            intended to be limited or universal in application
      2. Which approved examples are to be considered normative for the
         church today?
         a. Much of what we learn about the church pertaining to its
            work and organization is by example, not precept
         b. Effort must be made to determine whether an example should
            be understood as teaching a binding principle for the 
            church to observe universally
      3. When are necessary implications really necessary implications?
         a. People often infer things from the Bible and call their
            conclusion a "necessary" implication
         b. But it may only be a "possible" implication, not one to be
            "necessarily" inferred
      -- These are some of the questions or challenges faced by every
         congregation of Christians

   B. AS CHRISTIANS SEEK UNITY, WE NEED MORE THAN JUST THE SAME 
      STANDARD OF AUTHORITY...
      1. Barton W. Stone, an effective promoter of Christian unity in
         the early 1800's, had these insightful words in an article 
         entitled "Christian Union" published in The Christian 
         Messenger (1828):
         
         "On no other foundation can the parties ever meet, than on the
         Bible alone, without note or comment; and in no other name
         will they ever unite, but in that given to the disciples at
         Antioch--CHRISTIAN.  But should all the professors of
         Christianity reject all their various creeds and names, and
         agree to receive the Bible alone, and be called by no other
         name than Christian, will this unite them? No, we are fully
         convinced that unless they all possess the spirit of that
         book and name they are far, very far, from Christian union."
         (As quoted by J. M. Powell, The Cause We Plead: A Story Of The
         Restoration Movement, 20th Century Christian, 1987, p. 56)

      2. In addition to agreeing on the same standard of authority 
         (i.e., the Word of God), we need the proper spirit to "rightly
         divide the word of truth" - cf. 2Ti 2:14-16
      3. As Paul told Timothy, the servant of the Lord must carefully
         apply the Word when seeking to teach others - 2Ti 2:23-25

CONCLUSION

1. The apostle Paul has more to say on the attitudes necessary to 
   "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace", but we will
   consider those in our next lesson

2. My purpose in this lesson has been to share some thoughts that I 
   pray will help steer us in the right direction as we "Follow Jesus
   Without Denominationalism":
   a. The Bible teaches us, not only by way of direct commands, but
      through approved examples and necessary implications
   b. It is helpful to understand the principles of general and
      specific authority, and when something may be expedient to
      fulfill things that are authorized
   c. Warnings throughout the scriptures should serve to keep us on the
      "straight and narrow"
   d. But as valuable and needful the same standard of authority may
      be, simple agreement on what the standard is will not guarantee
      unity - we need to apply the proper spirit of love, patience and
      humility as we grow together towards unity in Christ

What is your attitude toward the authority of God's Word?  Are you
willing to accept the authority of Jesus Christ, as delegated to His
apostles? - cf. Mt 28:18-20; Ac 2:36-38

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

Moses and the Art of Writing by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=860

Moses and the Art of Writing

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Some time ago, a young lady from a local university visited our offices at Apologetics Press and requested to speak to someone about a “new theory” she had been taught in her freshmen literature class. For the first time in her life, she was told that Moses could not have been the author of the first five books of the Old Testament. Supposedly, Jesus, Ezra, Paul, and others were wrong in ascribing these books to Moses (cf. Mark 12:26; Ezra 6:18; 2 Corinthians 3:15). This impressionable young freshman was beginning to think that what she had learned regarding the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch in her Sunday school classes and at the Christian school she had attended nearly all of her life was wrong.
The idea that Moses did not write the Pentateuch—a theory known as the Documentary Hypothesis—actually has been thrown into the faces of Christians for more than two centuries. And yet, amazingly, one of the first assumptions upon which this theory rests was disproved long ago. From the earliest period of the development of the Documentary Hypothesis, it was assumed that Moses lived in an age prior to the knowledge of writing. One of the “founding fathers” of the Documentary Hypothesis, Julius Wellhausen, was convinced that “ancient Israel was certainly not without God-given bases for ordering of human life; only they were not fixed in writing” (1885, p. 393, emp. added). Just a few years later, Hermann Schultz declared: “Of the legendary character of the pre-Mosaic narrators, the time of which they treat is a sufficient proof. It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing” (1898, pp. 25-26, emp. added). These suppositions most certainly had an impact on these men’s belief in (and promotion of) the theory that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Old Testament.
One major problem with the Documentary Hypothesis is that we now know Moses did not live “prior to all knowledge of writing.” In fact, he lived long after the art of writing was already known. A veritable plethora of archaeological discoveries has proven one of the earliest assumptions of the Wellhausen theory to be wrong.
  • In 1949, C.F.A. Schaeffer “found a tablet at Ras Shamra containing the thirty letters of the Ugaritic alphabet in their proper order. It was discovered that the sequence of the Ugaritic alphabet was the same as modern Hebrew, revealing that the Hebrew alphabet goes back at least 3,500 years” (Jackson, 1982, p. 32, emp. added).
  • In 1933, J.L. Starkey, who had studied under famed archaeologist W.M.F. Petrie, excavated the city of Lachish, which had figured prominently in Joshua’s conquest of Canaan (Joshua 10). Among other things, he unearthed a pottery water pitcher “inscribed with a dedication in eleven archaic letters, the earliest ‘Hebrew’ inscription known” (Wiseman, 1974, p. 705). According to Charles Pfeiffer, “The Old, or palaeo-Hebrew script is the form of writing which is similar to that used by the Phoenicians. A royal inscription of King Shaphatball of Gebal (Byblos) in this alphabet dates from about 1600 B.C.” (1966, p. 33).
  • In 1901-1902, the Code of Hammurabi was discovered at the ancient site of Susa (in what is now Iran) by a French archaeological expedition under the direction of Jacques de Morgan. It was written on a piece of black diorite nearly eight feet high, and contained 282 sections. In their book, Archaeology and Bible History, Joseph Free and Howard Vos stated:
    The Code of Hammurabi was written several hundred years before the time of Moses (c. 1500-1400 B.C.)…. This code, from the period 2000-1700 B.C., contains advanced laws similar to those in the Mosaic laws…. In view of this archaeological evidence, the destructive critic can no longer insist that the laws of Moses are too advanced for his time (1992, pp. 103,55, emp. added).
    The Code of Hammurabi established beyond doubt that writing was known hundreds of years before Moses.
As early as 1938, respected archaeologist William F. Albright, in discussing the various writing systems that existed in the Middle East during pre-Mosaic times, wrote:
In this connection it may be said that writing was well known in Palestine and Syria throughout the Patriarchal Age (Middle Bronze, 2100-1500 B.C.). No fewer than five scripts are known to have been in use: (1) Egyptian hieroglyphs, used for personal and place names by the Canaanites; (2) Accadian Cuneiform; (3) the hieroglyphiform syllabary of Phoenicia; (4) the linear alphabet of Sinai; and (5) the cuneiform alphabet of Ugarit which was discovered in 1929 (1938, p. 186).
Numerous archaeological discoveries of the past 100 years have proved once and for all that the art of writing was not only known during Moses’ day, but also long before Moses came on the scene. Although skeptics, liberal theologians, and college professors will continue to perpetuate the Documentary Hypothesis, they must be informed (or reminded) of the fact that one of the foundational assumptions upon which the theory rests has been shattered by archeological evidence.

REFERENCES

Albright, W.F. (1938), “Archaeology Confronts Biblical Criticism,” The American Scholar, 7:186, April.
Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Jackson, Wayne (1982), Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Pfeiffer, Charles F. (1966), The Biblical World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Sayce, A.H. (1904), Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies (London: The Religious Tract Society).
Schultz, Hermann (1898), Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark), translated from the fourth edition by H. A. Patterson.
Wellhausen, Julius (1885), Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black), translated by Black and Menzies.
Wiseman, D.J. (1974), The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

God’s Ceramics Are More Than Pottery by Kyle Butt, M.A.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1234

God’s Ceramics Are More Than Pottery

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

Scientists all over the world are constantly looking for better materials with which to build things. Companies need stronger metals, more flexible nylon, and tougher fabrics. This intense demand for better “building blocks” often makes it difficult for scientists to originate new ideas fast enough to keep pace. One approach that has greatly enhanced scientists’ ability to supply fresh, practical ideas has been to turn to nature and copy the structures found there. Copying design in nature has become so prevalent that the scientific community has named the field of study “biomimicry.” From the research done in this field, it has become obvious that nature’s Designer is possessed of far more creative ability than anything humanity has been able to produce.
Specific examples of excellent design in nature abound. In an article for Technology Review, Katherine Bourzac recently detailed one such example. In her article, titled “Ceramics That Won’t Shatter,” she mentioned the challenge that materials scientists face when working with ceramics. Ceramics can be an excellent construction material since they are hard and lightweight. One major drawback of using ceramics, however, is the fact that they fracture and break, much like a flower pot or dinner plate. Bourzac summarized this difficulty by saying that scientists are trying to find ceramics “that combine strength (a measure of resistance to deformation) with toughness (a measure of resistance to fracture)” (2008). Interestingly, researchers have discovered exactly what they are looking for in “the porous but resilient material called nacre that lines abalone shells.”
Bourzac explained the marvelous design of nacre, also known as mother-of-pearl. It is a combination of calcium carbonate, which breaks very easily, and special natural glue. Combined, these two substances are “3,000 times tougher than either constituent.” The efficiency of this composite material is amazing. Robert Ritchie, a scientist from the University of California who co-led the research and development of the new biomimetic ceramic, said: “When nature makes composites, the properties are better” (as quoted in Bourzac). The list of possible applications for the new ceramic is virtually endless. The new material could be used to make lightweight automobile frames, airplane hulls, bulletproof vests, and military vehicle armor.
Ritchie and his team are still working to perfect the new ceramic that is based on the natural mother-of-pearl structure. He noted that in nature, the ceramic has structures that are “smaller and closer together,” qualities that the team hopes to mimic in newer versions of their ceramic. The researchers are optimistically hopeful that they can come even closer to designing a ceramic that can be mass-produced, and that combines the strength and toughness of the natural material.
While the discovery of a new, efficient ceramic is interesting, it pales to insignificance in light of the necessary implication that should be drawn from such a discovery. If brilliant scientists have only recently discovered this technological wonder of the natural world, and they cannot mimic the structure as effectively as nature constructs it, then it must be admitted by the honest observer that nature’s Designer possesses superior mental abilities to those of the scientists. And yet, as clear and straightforward as this implication is, millions of people will utilize technology based on God’s original designs, but claim that random, chance processes of evolution should be given the credit.
In the Old Testament book of Job, the Bible records one of the most interesting verbal exchanges in all of human history (chapters 38-42). Job wanted an answer from God about why he was suffering. God spoke to Job with a series of questions that Job could not possibly answer. God asked where was Job when God hung the foundation of the world on nothing (38:4)? Could Job command the morning to occur or cause the dawn to break (38:12)? Could Job count the clouds (38:37) or cause the hawk to fly (39:26)? After God’s intense questioning, Job realized that he could not begin to answer God’s questions, much less possess the power to accomplish the things that are necessary for the Universe to continue to exist. Job responded to God by saying: “I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.... Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me which I did not know” (42:2-3, emp. added). We in the 21st century would do well to learn from Job’s wise response. The fact that we are just now scratching the surface of the technology found in a “simple” abalone shell should force us to humble ourselves and worship nature’s divine Designer.

REFERENCE

Bourzac, Katherine (2008), “Ceramics That Won’t Shatter,” Technology Review, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21767/?nlid=1561&a=f.

Christians and the Theory of Evolution by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2791

Christians and the Theory of Evolution

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

It is not uncommon to hear Christians in the 21st century claim to believe in evolution. I have read, corresponded with, and met many people in the past decade who professed to believe both in the inspiration of the Bible and in many aspects of macroevolution. Some claim that the multi-billion-year Big Bang theory is valid, but that God played a part in it. Others assert that the Earth’s layers represent hundreds of millions of years of time, and that the fossils found therein are many millions of years old. Some “Christians” even think that God made man from monkey-like creatures. They believe that humans evolved from lower life forms, while God supposedly directed the process.
I am continually baffled by such claims from alleged Christians for three different reasons. First, as we have addressed many times in the past, the Bible clearly teaches that the Earth is only five days older than man, and even atheistic evolutionists do not believe that man has been on Earth for billions of years (cf. Lyons, 2006). Christians can choose to believe the multi-billion-year evolutionary time scale, which claims that people evolved approximately 13.996 billion years after the beginning of the Universe, or they can believe what Jesus and Paul taught—that man has been on Earth since the foundation of the world (Luke 11:49-51; Mark 10:6; Romans 1:20). You cannot logically or scripturally believe both views.
Second, macroevolution has never been proven. Many Christians have accepted evolution even though the entire theory is based upon assumptions. Evolutionists assume that because there are certain similarities between humans and animals, humans must have evolved from animals. In truth, however, these similarities prove no such thing. (They more accurately point to a common Creator Who made living creatures with many similarities because we live on the same planet, breathe the same air, eat the same kinds of food, drink the same water, etc.). Furthermore, neither geology nor paleontology proves macroevolution. All methods of dating rocks are based upon built-in assumptions (see Riddle, 2007). Evolutionary geologists and paleontologists have not “proven” that the layers of the Earth and the fossils in the Earth are millions of years old, they merely assume that the assumption-based dating methods are accurate. Moreover, there are no evolutionary family trees in the fossil record, but only evolutionists’ interpretations of the fossils. Simply put, macroevolution has never been observed or confirmed.
Finally, many Christians seem willing to defend evolution more blindly than some atheistic evolutionists. For example, even though many professed Christians have swallowed Big Bang Theory hook, line, and sinker (e.g., a senior biology major at a Christian University once informed me that all of her science professors “believe in the validity of the Big Bang”), some of the world’s most decorated evolutionary astrophysicists freely admit that “we are still as confused as ever about how the universe began” (Coles, 193[2593]:37). In short, while Big Bang Theory is falling on hard times within some atheistic evolutionary circles (cf. Brooks, 2008, 198[2659]:31; Coles, 2007, 193[2593]:33-37), it is still propagated among some “Bible believers” as factual. Unbelievable! “Christian” evolutionists are even known to accept alleged “missing links” as proof of human evolution. Another Christian college student once told me about one professor’s espousal of the idea that “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis) was likely one of our hairy, half-human, half-ape ancestors who lived a few million years ago. In truth, the idea of Lucy being our ancestor has been known for years to be riddled with problems, which even some atheistic evolutionists have acknowledged (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 41-57).
Sadly, many professed Christians have bought into Darwin’s damnable doctrines despite (1) it never being proven, (2) notable atheistic evolutionists having doubts about, and problems with, many aspects of evolution, and (3) Scripture clearly teaching that the Earth is relatively young and not billions of years old. Scripture and science do not disagree with each other, but God’s Word and the General Theory of Evolution do. May God help His people stop kowtowing to evolutionary scientific elitism and start accepting God at His Word.

REFERENCES

Brooks, Michael (2008), “Inflation Deflated,” New Scientist, 198[2659]:30-33, June 7.
Coles, Peter (2007), “Boomtime,” New Scientist, 193[2593]:33-37, March 3.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Lyons, Eric (2006), “Man Has Been on Earth Since...,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3068.
Riddle, Mike (2007), “Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old?” [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove.

Female Leadership and the Church by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1407

Female Leadership and the Church

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Amid the polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who, on the one hand, wish to conform to Bible protocol, and those who, on the other, wish to modernize, update, adjust, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say that the church as we know it is the product of a male-dominated society and that consequently it has misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.
As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as one who engages in “fresh, scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is viewed as being guilty of prejudice and of being unduly influenced by “church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of our society?

RELEVANT BIBLE PASSAGES

A detailed study of all of the relevant biblical texts in a single article like this is impossible. However, God’s Word is understandable on any significant subject in the Bible. In fact, it is the recently emerging “scholars”—with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias—that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (see Osburn, 1993). For example, Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.

1 Corinthians 11,14

Chapters eleven and fourteen of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“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.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men in worship. Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter fourteen. In chapter eleven, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.
The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an authoritative act of leadership. To wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an implicit directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated explicitly in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted in the created order—not in culture. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).
In chapter fourteen, Paul addressed further the confusion over spiritual gifts, and returned specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasized the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, the phrase “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence”; cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to: (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word; and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).
Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters eleven and fourteen address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts no longer are available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see Miller, 2003), and veils, in Western society, no longer represent a cultural symbol of female submission. Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.

1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).
The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is: proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.
Paul affirmed that adult males (andras) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech—a metonymy—in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth out of holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus upon appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast set up in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text. Authentein should be translated “to have authority.” Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.
Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment—stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum—until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit gave the reason for the limitations—a reason that transcends all culture and all locales. Paul stated that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because Adam was created before Eve. Here, we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate.
Paul was saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male first as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate (though certainly not inferior) assistant. God could have created the woman first—but He did not. He could have created both male and female simultaneously—but He did not. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.
This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created as a “help meet for him,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that, in a unique sense, the woman was created for the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating, “the woman whom You gave to be with me” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of naming the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evinced through the practice of primogeniture—the prominence of the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man first was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission order of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).
Observe that Paul next elaborated upon this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with, and act in violation of, divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.
God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership and thereby circumvented the divine arrangement of male/female relations.
Paul concluded his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche, in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God—tasks undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).
Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives, rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11, suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church but then permit single women to lead?

DEACONESSES

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek word diakonos, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.
The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office itself is under consideration.
In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all non-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.
Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. Paul’s phrase, “our sister,” designates her church membership, and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.
Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2, translated “help,” implies a technical usage. It is true that prostatis can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that diakonos does, in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that, since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.
Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (paristemi) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (prostatis) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun prostates can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun prostatis means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.
The second passage to which some have appealed in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since gunaikas (from gune) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy—as “female” (2:9-12,14) and as “wife” (3:2,12; 5:9).
Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in speaking of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual for Paul to switch, in the middle of the discussion, to female deacons for a single verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could mean simply that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with gunaikas (“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons, since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).
Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two ministrae. This term has the same ambiguity within it that diakonos has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).
Not until the late third century in the Syrian Didascalia do we find a reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women, hardly would be content with such tasks.
Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males, and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.
The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office, do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.
A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women often are superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men, anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of all human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing are we to fit ourselves into God’s arrangement?”

CONCLUSION

A massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards has been taking place in American culture for over forty years now. The feminist agenda is one facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values. Virtually every sphere of American culture has been impacted—including the church. Those who resist these human innovations are considered tradition-bound, resistant to change, narrow-minded, chauvinistic, etc.—as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters.
If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words, we will be judged (John 12:48). May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of heaven.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).
Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does kephale (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal, 6 NS, 38-59.
Lewis, Jack (1988), Exegesis of Difficult Passages (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.
Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993), Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Osburn, Carroll (1994), Women in the Church (Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).
Woods, Guy N. (1986), Questions and Answers: Volume Two (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

From Gary... That which cannot be put into words...


Since there may be some of you out there who do not know what HIPAA is...

http://whatishipaa.org/

What is HIPAA? In 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or the HIPAA was endorsed by the U.S. Congress. The HIPAA Privacy Rule, also called the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, provided the first nationally-recognizable regulations for the use/disclosure of an individual's health information. Essentially, the Privacy Rule defines how covered entities use individually-identifiable health information or the PHI (Personal Health Information). 'Covered entities' is a term often used in HIPAA-compliant guidelines. This definition of a covered entity is specified by [45 CFR § 160.102] of the Privacy Rule. A covered entity can be a:

  • Health plan
  • Healthcare clearinghouse
  • Healthcare provider

  • Overview of the Privacy Rule



  • Gives patients control over the use of their health information
  • Defines boundaries for the use/disclosure of health records by covered entities
  • Establishes national-level standards that healthcare providers must comply with
  • Helps to limit the use of PHI and minimizes chances of its inappropriate disclosure
  • Strictly investigates compliance-related issues and holds violators accountable with civil or criminal penalties for violating the privacy of an individual's PHI
  • Supports the cause of disclosing PHI without individual consent for individual healthcare needs, public benefit and national interests

  • Now that I have probably spoiled the joke for many of you, I will continue.  The thing is... This furry guy is telling you a joke that he can't tell you. Well, that is our government for you- saying much but explaining very little!!! But wait, didn't Jesus do the same thing? You bet...

    Matthew, Chapter 13 (WEB)
     10  The disciples came, and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 

      11  He answered them, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but it is not given to them.   12  For whoever has, to him will be given, and he will have abundance, but whoever doesn’t have, from him will be taken away even that which he has.   13  Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they don’t see, and hearing, they don’t hear, neither do they understand.   14  In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says, 
    ‘By hearing you will hear, 
    and will in no way understand; 
    Seeing you will see, 
    and will in no way perceive: 
      15  for this people’s heart has grown callous, 
    their ears are dull of hearing, 
    they have closed their eyes; 
    or else perhaps they might perceive with their eyes, 
    hear with their ears, 
    understand with their heart, 
    and should turn again; 
    and I would heal them.’ 

    Truthfully, much of what Jesus taught was aimed at the heart and not the head. Parables have a way of reaching right into the heart of a spiritual person and teaching heavenly concepts. While it is true that the twelve did not always understand Jesus, they could be taught because of their willingness to learn. I guess all that remains to be said is: Gary, are you still willing to learn? And if I can ask this question of myself, hopefully you can do the same.