The Sin of Greed in Today's Church

The April issue of Everyday Gospel Magazine featured an article written by Dr. Marc LaMont Hill who touched on the subject of the epidemic of prosperity teaching in the church. I’d like to add my views to the discussion. I feel compelled to talk about this because of the overwhelming number of television preachers and evangelists who are preaching about prosperity. The preaching of the prosperity message in today’s church boils down to one thing: greed.

Most of the preachers, who preach about prosperity, preach about nothing else. Instead of centering their messages on salvation, serving the Lord, Christian living, and the like, they instead center all or most of their messages on money. They entice people into joining their churches by luring them with the promise that they will get rich if they faithfully and consistently give money to the church. The subject of the day is not Jesus; instead the subject of the day is “the hundred fold blessing,” or how to get a big house, or how to get a fancy car. They teach that Christians are supposed to have more material possessions than the average person does. A Honda won’t do, we must have a Bently. If we wear a watch, it must be a Rolex. If we live in a house it must be a mansion. It’s not that these prosperity preachers haven’t been criticized for their message; they have. But what they’ve done in order to combat the criticism is to teach that Christians must have money in order to proselytize and promote the gospel. They’ve convinced their congregations that the only way to spread the gospel is to be rich. They ignore that fact that Jesus and the apostles left their worldly occupations in order to preach the gospel and that they depended on the financial assistance of others, others who were not materially rich. Jesus and his disciples did not gain material wealth from the financial assistance that was given them along their journeys. They only accepted what they needed. The aim was not to get rich. The aim was to preach the word of God.

Prosperity preachers often quote certain passages of scripture in an effort to support their teachings. However, they fail to reveal the true meaning of the word “prosperity” as it is used in the Hebrew. Prosperity is mainly spoken of in the Old Testament and mentioned only sparingly in the New Testament. In an effort to support their views, prosperity preachers frequently quote the following passage of scripture:

“If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings will come upon you and accompany you if you obey the Lord your God: You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country. The fruit of your womb will be blessed, and the crops of your land and the young of your livestock—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks. Your basket and your kneading trough will be blessed. You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out. The Lord will grant that the enemies who rise up against you will be defeated before you. They will come at you from one direction but flee from you in seven. The Lord will send a blessing on your barns and on everything you put your hand to. The Lord your God will bless you in the land he is giving you. The Lord will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the Lord your God and walk in his ways. Then all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they will fear you. The Lord will grant you abundant prosperity—in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock, and the crops of your ground—in the land he swore to your forefathers to give you.” (Deuteronomy 28:1-11 NIV)

Prosperity preachers also frequently quote the following scripture as well; “Misfortune pursues the sinner, but prosperity is the reward of the righteous.” (Proverbs 13:21)

In both of the passages of scripture cited above, the Hebrew word used for “prosperity” is “tob” or “tobah” (a derivative of tob) which basically means to be allotted good things, to be favorably disposed, to be happy and pleased with life. With this said, we can clearly see that to prosper in the Lord does not necessarily mean to be rich. A more fitting definition might be “to live comfortably.” Furthermore, although we can learn from the text and apply the principles of the text to our lives, the passage of scripture in Deuteronomy cited above specifically applied to the nation of Israel at that particular time. It must also be emphasized that we should not conclude that a Christian who is living a less than comfortable life is somehow unrighteous or lacks faith. We must remember that Job, a man who was perfect in all his ways, lived very uncomfortably for a season and that Paul, the apostle was often thrown in prison for his preaching of the gospel. There is no doubt that prison, especial during Paul’s times, was a very uncomfortable setting indeed. Despite this, we cannot overlook the fact that Paul said the following:

“I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.” (Philippians 4:10-12 NIV).

When taking the preceding passage of scripture into account, we see that being comfortable or uncomfortable with one’s circumstances has to do with one’s spiritual state of mind; one’s spiritual maturity. A spiritually mature person can therefore be prosperous (content, happy, favorably disposed, and pleased) even in circumstances where food is not plentiful; even when they are living in want (when they are poor). This is certainly a passage of scripture that you’ll never hear quoted by prosperity preachers.

Greed is a sin. Although a greedy person has what they need and much of what they want, it is not enough for them. They always want more. They always want something bigger, something more expensive, a multiplicity of everything. They are hard to satisfy. Greedy people are materialistic. They rationalize their greed by convincing themselves that they are entitled to the things that they want, or worse yet, that it is God’s will for them to have what they want. It is not always God’s will for us to have the things that we want. Just think: Jesus wanted the “cup” of crucifixion to pass from him, but it was not the Father’s will. After praying three times for what he wanted, Jesus yielded and accepted the Father’s will over his own. (Matthew 26:36-45 NIV)

The sin of greed is so displeasing to the Lord that the word of God tells us not to associate with people who call themselves Christians, yet are greedy. This particular admonishment is found in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 which says, “When I wrote you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy, or are swindlers, or idol worshippers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don’t even eat with such people (NLT).”

If we are not to associate with people who say they’re Christians, yet indulge in greediness, then we should not support prosperity ministries because prosperity ministries are based on greed. It is not necessary for us to have a fleet of cars or a yacht or a jet or a mansion or whatever else prosperity preachers teach that we should have. This is not to say that there aren’t some people who God blesses with these things. And of course, if he does, then he has a reason for doing so and it’s okay. But the scriptures clearly teach us that we shouldn’t seek to be rich. Greed usually manifests itself in the love of money because in order to acquire things one usually needs money. In turn, the love of money can lead to all sorts of sin, including but not limited to, extortion, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, stealing, hoarding, overspending, taking advantage of people, fraud, bribery, kidnapping, swindling, deception, and a host of other sins.

Greed is insatiable as attested to in the book of Ecclesiastics, which says, “Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income.” In other words, greedy people are never satisfied with what they have no matter how much money they have and no matter how nice the things are that they have; they always want something more, something better, something bigger. They don’t seek bigger and better things out of need, they seek bigger and better things out of greed.

Greed is also defined as idolatry as attested to in Colossians 3:5 which says, “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry.” Greed is defined as idolatry because whatever the greedy person fixates on (be it gold, silver, money, material possessions, and so on) is put above spiritual matters, which is a form of idolatry.

Consequently, instead of putting most of their energy in tending to spiritual matters and in serving God, greedy people put most of their energy into acquiring things. Greedy Christians focus more attention on acquiring wealth and material possession than they do in serving God. And many of them convince themselves that they are serving God by acquiring wealth and riches. Prosperity preachers have led many Christians to this point after getting to this point themselves. They have somehow merged serving God with getting rich. They have put the two together and teach that riches come along with serving God.

A very popular prosperity preacher whose ministry is located in Darrow Louisiana recently televised a program in which he said that God wants his people to live in prosperity (get rich) in order to be a blessing to others, for the Kingdom’s sake, and to bless the poor. This is as if to say that without being rich Christians cannot do these things. Another television evangelist who has a church in Forest Park Illinois declared that God wants his followers to be rich and that God is “looking for billionaires” (in other words, he’s looking to make Christians into billionaires, never mind thousands or millions). In order to teach these things, prosperity preachers have to completely ignore a plethora of scripture passages that negate such doctrine. We’ll take a look at a few of these scripture passages below.

1st Timothy 6:3-11 says the following: “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall in temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.”

In the preceding passage of scripture Paul tells us that those who think that godliness is a means to financial gain have been robbed of the truth. He says that people who want to get rich fall into all kinds of trouble and temptation. He says that people should run from trying to get rich and tells Timothy that instead of pursuing money, he should pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance, and gentleness. This is a far cry from the mantra of “money commeth” that has been infiltrated into many prosperity circles.

Proverbs 28:20 says that a faithful man will be richly blessed but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished.” To be richly blessed does not mean to be blessed with material riches but instead it means to be blessed on a spiritual level…to be blessed with God’s gifts and favor. The verse goes on to say that those who are eager to get rich will be punished for focusing so much on money. This then makes it a sin to go after riches.

Jesus said the following about money: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness. No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” (Matthew 6:19-26 NIV)

The preceding passage of scripture teaches us that we are not to concentrate on building a fortune here on earth, but instead, the fortune that we should be building should be a fortune of spiritual rewards that we will gain in heaven for doing good deeds in the name of our Lord. This point is further supported by what Jesus said to the rich man as documented in the following passage of scripture:

“Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?’ ‘Why do you ask me about what is good?’ Jesus replied. ‘There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.’ ‘Which ones?’ the man inquired. Jesus replied, “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.’ ‘All these I have kept,’ the young man said. ‘What do I still lack?’ Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:16-23 NIV).

In taking the preceding passage of scripture into consideration, it certainly doesn’t follow that God wants all Christians to be materially rich. This very passage of scripture goes against the message of prosperity that is being taught in today’s church. It is a passage of scripture, among others, that prosperity preachers avoid.

Now, all this is not to say that there are not going to be some Christians who the Lord will bless with material riches (Ecclesiastes 5:19). But from what we have read so far it would appear that these Christians would be the exception, not the norm. To those Christians whom God has blessed to be materially rich, the word of God says this: “Command those who are rich, in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.” (1 Timothy 6:17-19 NIV)

We must keep in mind that Jesus taught a parable in which a poor man went to heaven while a rich man went to hell (Luke 16:19-31). We must keep in mind that Satan tried to bribe Jesus by taking him to a high mountain and telling him that all of the Kingdoms of the world would be his if he would just fall down and worship him (Matthew 4:8-11). We must keep in mind that Jesus asked the question: what good is it to gain the whole world and lose your soul? (Mark 8:36). We must keep in mind that Solomon declared that everything under the sun is meaningless (Ecclesiastes 1:1-18). And maybe if we keep these things in mind we won’t be so easily seduced by the promise of riches and wealth when a prosperity preacher comes a calling. And we might even think twice before placing an offering at the preacher’s feet while he’s delivering a sermon because to do so takes the focus away from the message, if but only for a fleeting moment, and places the focus on money.

God bless.

Concerning Speaking in Tongues

Through the years there has been a certain segment of the church that teaches that speaking in tongues is the only indicator that a person is endowed with the Holy Spirit. Many in the church have even taken it a step further and have taught that in order to be saved, one must not only confess Jesus as Lord and believe he rose from the dead but one must also have had spoken in tongues at some point in his or her Christian life, otherwise salvation is not really theirs. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Paul makes it clear in his writings to the Corinthians that tongues is simply a gift of the spirit and whether or not someone speaks in tongues has no direct effect on his or her salvation. Paul goes through great discussion to clear this issue up. It is therefore apparent that the early church put the same undue emphasis on tongues that many in the body of Christ do today. This is unfortunate for those Christians who have never spoken in tongues but are weak in the faith. These Christians walk around believing that they will be eternally doomed if they don’t speak in tongues. Consequently they try to force the issue by “tarrying for the Holy Ghost.” Tarrying for the Holy Ghost is a man-made ritual that some churches embrace in which saints who desire to speak in tongues are coached into speaking what they think is tongues by going through a sort of nonsensical babbling session that is supposed to ultimately result in tongues. There is no Biblical instruction that commands us to “tarry” for tongues. As a matter of fact, Paul clearly indicated that not all of us who are saved will speak in tongues; as attested to in the following passage of scripture:

“Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God as appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:27-30)

Paul asks “do all speak in tongues and do all interpret?” The obvious answer is “no.” All of us in the body of Christ will not speak in tongues and all of us will not interpret. If this is the case then the teaching that says that one must speak in tongues in order to be saved is erroneous, for if one is in the body of Christ, then one is already saved, and by Paul indicating that not all in the body of Christ will speak in tongues then an obvious deduction is that possessing the gift of speaking in tongues does not determine whether or not one is saved for apparently there are many saints who are saved who do not speak in tongues. Furthermore, when looking at Romans 10:8-10 (NIV) the scripture tells us “But what does it say? ‘The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,’ that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming; That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” The word of God tells us that in order to be saved from going to hell all we need to do is confess Jesus as Lord and truly believe in our hearts in his resurrection. The scripture says nothing about speaking in tongues when it comes to receiving salvation.

Paul continues his explanation of tongues in chapter 13 of 1st Corinthians. He says that if someone in the body of Christ speaks in tongues but doesn’t show love to people then the fact that they speak in tongues means nothing. We see this in the following quote: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I posses to the poor and surrender my body to the flames but have not love, I gain nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3 NIV)).

Then Paul turns up the heat when he takes things further in chapter 14. He actually tells the Corinthian church that the gift of prophecy is a greater gift than the gift of speaking of tongues and if we, as Christians, are going to desire gifts, then the gift that we should desire the most is to be able to prophesy, not to be able to speak in tongues. If however, tongues is our way to salvation and the proof of our spirituality then wouldn’t it have been more fitting for Paul to have placed the spiritual gift of tongues as the greater? Certainly it would have. But we see that this is not the case. Paul explains that the reason it is better to prophesy (proclaiming the word of God by preaching or by God-ordained prophetic revelation that does not contradict the word of God that is already in place) than it is to speak in tongues is because prophecy helps to edify the church as a whole since people can understand a person when that person prophesies. However, it is different when a person speaks in tongues for unless there is an interpreter, a person who speaks in tongues only edifies him or herself. Paul emphatically makes his case in the following passage of scripture:

“Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. Now brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:1-12 NIV)

Paul also addresses those who have been endowed with the gift of not only speaking in tongues but with singing and praying in tongues as well. And he emphasizes again that those who speak in tongues should ask the Lord to additionally bestow upon them the gift of interpretation so that not only those who hear them as they speak, sing, or pray in a tongue might be edified by the interpretation that is to follow but also so that the one speaking in the tongue might be edified as well. Paul puts it this way, “For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (1 Corinthians 14:13-19).

Can Paul say it any plainer? There is simply no argument here. One does not have to speak in tongues in order to be saved. But now the question becomes: Is tongues the only evidence of being indwelled with God’s Holy Spirit? This question takes us to the historical account of the day of Pentecost found in Acts 2:1-4 which reads, “When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” (NIV).

According to the scholars of the NIV Study Bible the day of Pentecost was the “50th day after the Sabbath of Passover week (Lev 23:15-16), thus the first day of the week. Pentecost is also called the Feast of Weeks (Dt 16:10), the Feast of Harvest (Ex 23: 16) and the day of firstfruits (Nu 28:26).”[1] The account says that they were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. Those who were filled with the Holy Ghost were those who were earlier referred to in Acts 1:13-15 which lists Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. Many Christians believe that since these men were filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues that speaking in tongues is the only way to be filled with the Holy Ghost. To draw this conclusion is just as erroneous, in say, drawing the conclusion that since only men had this experience at Pentecost then the gift of tongues is only reserved for men and not women. Most theologians would find such a conclusion totally unfounded. The same lack of foundation can be found when using these passages in Acts to draw the conclusion that speaking in tongues is the sole evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit. There is nothing to substantiate such a conclusion. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of scriptures that teach otherwise. We will look at a few below.

Romans 8:9-11 (NIV) teaches us the following; “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.” Paul is teaching us here that all Christians have God’s Holy Spirit living within them.

Acts 1:1-8 (NIV) reads as such; “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel? He said to them: It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Jesus told his apostles that the power of the Holy Ghost would come upon them and that when this happened they would be witnesses of him all over the earth. He did not say anything about them speaking in tongues.

Ephesians 5:15-20 (NIV) admonishes us in the following way; “Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here, the scriptures teach that speaking the word of God in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs can also be evidence that one is filled with the Spirit of God.

Acts 19:4-6 gives this account: “Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus. On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.” They not only spoke in tongues when the Holy Spirit came upon them but they prophesied as well.

The last four passages of scripture strongly support the position that speaking in tongues is not the only evidence that one is indwelled with the Holy Spirit. Witnessing the good news of the gospel as well as singing songs of praises can also be evidence that one is filled. Prophesying is yet another evidence of being filled with God’s Holy Spirit. And finally, those of us who are Christians have the Spirit of God dwelling within us just by virtue of the fact that we are indeed Christians. So, when the final verdict is in; one does not have to speak in tongues to be saved and speaking in tongues is not the sole evidence that a person is filled with the Holy Ghost. Therefore, think on these things the next time this issue arises and make sure to read all of 1 Corinthians Chapters 12, 13, and 14 to get the best understanding of how tongues should operate in the church. God bless.


[1] Barker, Kenneth L. Zondervan NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids Michigan 1973, 1978, 1984, p. 1685

Is it wrong to refer to members of the clergy as "reverend?"

I belong to approximately seven on-line Christian groups. These are groups in which people who participate are able to post messages to everyone in the group and receive messages in the same way. A couple of the groups are composed of a few members, a few are composed of hundreds of members, and one particular group is composed of a couple of thousand. Often times, the moderator will post a question or thought and ask for feedback from the group. Some subjects elicit little response but others subjects elicit quite a bit of response. One of the moderators of one of the groups brought up the subject of the title of “reverend.” Basically the question was whether or not it was wrong for ministers to wear this title. The topic brought in many opinions and much debate. There was quite a bit of objection to the title. I had no idea that this was such an issue. I thought I’d tackle the subject here, especially since I am part of the clergy who the title has been bestowed upon.

The main point of contention has to do with the passage of scripture found in the King James Version of Psalms 111:9 which reads, “He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.” Many Christians believe that since the word “reverend” is rendered as God’s name then we should only use it when referring to him. However, the actual word in the Hebrew that is used is “yare” which means awesome, not reverend. The New International Version of the Bible reads, “holy and awesome is his name.” The New American Standard Bible also reads, “holy and awesome is his name.” The prime root of the word “yare” means “to fear.” So, according to most theologians the more appropriate translation for the usage of the word “yare” in this particular text (Psalms 111:9) is “awesome” not “reverend.” Despite this, there are indeed other places in scripture where the most appropriate translation for the “yare” is indeed “revere” (specifically, Leviticus 19:32, Deut 4:10, 13:4,, 14:23, 17:18, 28:58, Job 37:24, just to name a few). However, none of these particular passages actually say that “yare” is God’s name, but instead tell us to “revere” God and “revere” his name.

To take the matter further, Deuteronomy 13:4 specifically uses the Hebrew word “yare” to describe reverence to God. It reads, “It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere (NIV).” However, this same word “revere” (“yare”) was also applied to men, specifically Joshua and Moses. This is attested to in Joshua 4:14. It reads, “That day the Lord exalted Joshua in the sight of all Israel: and they revered him all the days of his life, just as they had revered Moses.” The same Hebrew word that is used to describe reverence to God (“yare”) is the same Hebrew word used to describe reverence to Joshua and Moses, both of whom were prophets and spread the word of God. Therefore, I wouldn’t go so far to say that it is unbiblical to “revere” men, for these men were revered by means of exaltation from the Lord. Therefore, according to Joshua 4:14 it is all right to revere (not to worship) a human being.

According to the English dictionary, to revere someone means to “show honor and devotion” to that person. That’s all that it means. When the church uses the title “reverend” it is an indication that the office that the person is occupying is being revered, not necessarily the person himself. Also, we need to acknowledge the fact that Psalms 111.9 (KJV) also says "holy" is God's name as well as "reverend." There are two identifiers here: holy and reverend. If we say that we cannot use the word "reverend" when referring to a certain office a person holds in the church or when addressing a member of the clergy then we must also say that we cannot use the word "holy" when referring to human beings. But Ephesians 1:4 says that we are to be “holy and blameless” in God’s sight. This is just one instance of the word “holy” being applied to human beings in the Bible. But to be fair, I should emphasize that 1 Samuel 2:2 says that there is no one holy like the Lord. So, there is no way that we can be as holy as God. However, we can still be holy and therefore we can still be referred to as such. Consequently, it follows that the same would apply to the word “revere” or “reverend.”

There are only two titles that Jesus taught should not be applied to man. Those are the titles of “Father” and “Teacher.” We see this in Matthew 23:2-10 in which he said, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.”

Fr. Richard Ballew explains it this way; “For after saying only ‘One is your Father,’ Jesus proceeded to declare ‘And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ” [Matthew 23:20]. Yet he himself acknowledged Nicodemus to be a ‘teacher of Israel’ [John 3:10]. And in the church and Antioch certain men were called ‘prophets and teachers’ [Acts 13:1]. Then again, the Apostle Paul not only recognized teachers as gifts of God to the Church [1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11], but he also did not hesitate to call himself ‘a teacher of the Gentiles’ [2 Timothy 1:11]. Furthermore, in this present day, almost all of us have at one time or another called certain people Sunday school teachers. The discussion thus goes far beyond any Protestant-Catholic lines. Therefore, in saying we should call no one ‘father’ and ‘teacher,’ except God the Father and Christ Himself, the Lord Jesus appears not to be taking issue with the use of these particular titles in and of themselves. The context of the passage gives us the interpretive key we are looking for. In this ‘call no man father’ passage, our Lord is contending with certain rabbis of His day who were using these specific titles to accomplish their own ends.” 1

It should also be noted that in many circles of the clergy, the title “Reverend” indicates that the person holding the title is specifically ordained as a minister. Not all ministers are ordained. There are basically four levels of minister (preacher) which are: the ordained minister, the licensed minister, the minister, and the minister in training. This does not apply to every denomination. Ordained ministers have been established by a church and/or church council as equipped to preach the gospel. They have been recognized by the elders in the ministry. The church backs them. Not only does the church back them but all fifty states recognize an ordained minister as one who can legally officiate weddings and funerals. Also, in most churches, only ordained ministers baptize. And usually only ordained ministers pastor churches. Licensed ministers are also backed by the church but they do not officiate weddings or funerals. The church elders determine who becomes ordained and who becomes licensed. The title “reverend” usually denotes an ordained minister. The title of “minister” doesn’t tell us whether or not that person is ordained or licensed, but the title of “Reverend” does. The title of “Pastor” usually denotes an ordained minister who also oversees a local church. The Church of God in Christ uses the title of Bishop to identify one who is ordained and oversees many pastors and their respective churches. The Catholic Church uses an entirely different set of titles than does the mainstream church. Consequently to discuss the use of their titles would constitute an article in itself. Therefore we will not include the Catholic Church in this discussion.

The church today puts an emphasis on titles that the word of God does not. Many men and women of the clergy insist on always being addressed by their title. However, all of us who are Christians are on a first-name basis with Jesus. Therefore if the use of the title of “reverend” is in question then all titles should be in question. I say this because the titles that are used so frequently today when addressing the clergy were not used in the time of Jesus in the same way. Although Timothy was a pastor (as we know it) Paul did not call him “Pastor Timothy” but simply called him Timothy. Although Peter was an apostle and an evangelist, Peter was simply addressed as Peter. As a matter of fact, the twelve apostles gave Joseph (a Levite from Cyprus) the nick name of Barnabas, which means Son of Encouragement (acts 4:36). The most prominent example is this: not only do we address Jesus by his first name but the saints in times past who walked with Jesus did so as well. Furthermore, when quoting Jesus, the writers of the gospel used his first name to quote him. Additionally, we refer to all of the apostles and prophets by their first names as they did themselves. Therefore, it is my belief that the clergy should also allow others the option of calling them by their first names as well. I certainly do. I give people an option. If people want to call me by my first name, they can. It’s perfectly all right with me if they do and I encourage it. However, if they feel more comfortable addressing me by my title then that’s okay too. This is not to say that there aren’t times when there are certain situations in which I would feel that it is more appropriate for people to refer to me or address me by my title. I’d be lying if I said there aren’t times like that. But since the Bible doesn’t put a lot of emphasis on titles, then neither should I and neither should the church.

To take things further, if we say that it is wrong to address someone by the title “reverend” because it is one of the names of God, then what do we do with men who are actually named Jesus? Jesus is also the name of God and there are many men who carry the name Jesus. If we insist that people who hold the title of “reverend” change their title to something else, then shouldn’t we also insist that men who are named Jesus change their names? And what do we do with men who are named Emmanuel (which means ‘God with us)?

The title of “reverend” is a title of honor that is bestowed upon ministers in the gospel in recognition of the duty God has called them to. I humbly receive it as do others. And I am grateful for the honor to be recognized in my calling, especially since I am a woman and there was a time when women were not recognized by the church as being called of God to preach the gospel. In taking into consideration what has been discussed in this article, I do not see the use of the title “reverend” as sacrilegious and therefore, I do not believe that it is wrong to refer to members of the clergy as such. However, I do realize that there are those who would disagree with me and to them I say; I don’t have any plans to give up my title, but if it bothers you to refer to me as reverend, then please… feel free to call me Elreta.

God bless.

End Note: Ballew, Fr. Richard, http://www.protomartyr.org/fater.html.

Once saved, always saved?

There is great debate in the church today as to whether or not salvation can be lost once it is obtained. There are those who believe that once a person is saved, he or she is always saved and then there are those who believe that salvation can be lost. Those who believe that latter adhere to the theological position that says a saint can backslide to the point where salvation no longer belongs to him. Those who believe the former believe that once a person is saved, his heavenly eternal destiny is secure. The purpose of this discussion is to give support to the belief that once a person is saved, he or she cannot lose their salvation; they are always saved.

The main passage of scripture that those who agree with the doctrine of Eternal security (once saved, always saved) use to support their position is found in Ephesians 2:1-8. It reads, “1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past yea walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (KJV)

The passage of scripture begins by telling us that all of us who are saved and are now in the Lord were once dead in our trespasses and in our sins. The text is not speaking of the physically dead because Paul (the writer of Ephesians) is addressing his letter to those who are alive. He was addressing his letter to the church of Ephesus. What he said to the saints then applies to us who are saints now. Therefore the passage of scripture is speaking of those who were once spiritually dead but are now spiritually alive. As Christians, before we were saved, we were spiritually dead in our sins. Verse 2 goes on to explain that while we were in that spiritually dead state we were under the influence of Satan himself, who is the prince of the power of the air. And since we were under the influence of Satan, we lived according to the course of this world and fulfilled the desires of our flesh (v. 3).

However, the main point of the passage is expressed in verses 8 and 9 which tell us that we are saved by grace and not of works. This being the case; no man can boast about what he has done of his own self to obtain salvation. The scripture is clear that it is God’s grace that saves us and not our good deeds. We can therefore not work our way into heaven and if we cannot work our way into heaven then it follows that we cannot work our way out of it. Matthew Henry puts it the following way:

“Our faith, our conversion, and our eternal salvation are not the mere product of any natural abilities, nor of any merit of our own: Not of works lest any man should boast. V.9. These things are not brought to pass by any thing done by us, and therefore all boasting is excluded; he who glories must not glory in himself, but in the Lord. There is no room for any man’s boasting of his own abilities and power; or as though he had done any thing that might deserve such immense favours from God. And then by grace you are saved (v. 5) and by grace are you saved through faith—it is the gift of God, v.8. Note; every converted sinner is a saved sinner. Such are delivered from sin and wrath; they are brought into a state of salvation, and have a right given them by grace to eternal happiness. The grace that saves them is the free undeserved goodness and favour of God; and he saves them, not by the works of the law, but through faith in Christ Jesus, by means of which they come to partake of the great blessings of the gospel; and both that faith and that salvation on which it has so great an influence are the gift of God. The great objects of faith are made known by divine revelation, and made credible by the testimony and evidence which God hath given us; and that we believe to salvation and obtain salvation through faith is entirely owing to divine assistance and grace; God has ordered all so that the whole shall appear to be of grace.” 1

Matthew Henry apparently agrees that salvation cannot be lost once granted. It is through faith in Jesus Christ that we are saved. Romans 10:9 tells us that if we confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that he rose from the dead we will be saved. John 3:16 tells us that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. These are just a few of the several scriptures that can be quoted in favor of the doctrine of Eternal security. Despite these many scriptures, there are still those who purport that the gift of salvation is conditional upon the satisfactory works of the recipient, those works being how one lives his or her life. Passages of Scripture used to support this opposite view include, but are not limited to, the following:

“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-28 NASB)

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB).

If we say that salvation can be lost after it is obtained, then we make the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross of none effect. What was the purpose then of Jesus sacrificing himself in order for us to obtain salvation if we are the ones who must work to keep it? Jesus has already done the work for us. Our work can never compare to his ultimate work of the cross and to his glorious resurrection from the grave. No amount of holy living can top that. Therefore Hebrews 10:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 must be referring to those who were never saved to begin with. The passage in Corinthians clearly states that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God and then goes on to list several sins that signify who the unrighteous are. The problem in today’s time is that there are many who claim to be Christians who live unrighteous lives. Therefore the question becomes: how can someone be a Christian and at the same time live an unrighteous life? The answer is: they can’t. Christians are made righteous through the blood of Jesus and through a confession in him. This does not mean that Christians never sin because the scripture tells us that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This means that Christians don’t set out to unremorsefully practice sin. Hebrews 10:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 are speaking of those who never were Christians. Therefore, they have no salvation to lose but are already lost. They have received the knowledge of truth as indicated in v. 26 of Hebrews 10, but they willfully keep on sinning after having had received that truth. This then does not describe a saint in a backslidden condition but instead describes a sinner in a non-repented condition; one who never really believed in the first place.

To further the point; there are many who call themselves Christians and think themselves to be Christians who are not. Jesus made this clear when he said that not everyone who calls him Lord will be saved. This is attested to in Paul’s letter to Corinthians when he says the following: “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)

It is questionable whether many so-called Christians are Christians at all if they are living immoral lives. Paul tells us to stay away from these people. This is similar to his mandate that instructs us not to be yoked together with unbelievers (2nd Corinthians 6:14). The comparison gives further weight to the distinct possibility that those who call themselves Christians and practice immorality without remorse are not really Christians. Therefore they have not lost their salvation because they could not have lost something that they never had to begin with.

Jesus was the first to address this issue as documented in Matthew 7:21-23 when he said the following: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ (NASB)

Jesus didn’t say that he knew them once and now he doesn’t know them anymore. It was those who were practicing lawlessness that Jesus said he never knew, even though they apparently thought he did. Those who were practicing lawlessness thought they were saved but weren’t. They even preached, prophesied, and cast out demons (all of which can be counterfeited by the devil) in the name of Jesus and still Jesus said that he never knew them. These are not people who were once saved and lost their salvation because of their sins. These are instead people who thought they were saved but were never really saved because they willfully and without remorse practiced sins (ye shall know them by their fruits) and were never saved to begin with.

Jesus said “I never knew you: Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” The key word here is “practice.” Those who willfully practice sin without remorse have been given over to a depraved mind. Then there are those who indeed know God but have backslid, and by doing so, store up the wrath of God. They are different from those who never knew God and practice sin. However, the two look the same, which is why there is confusion in the church on the issue of whether or not salvation can be lost. Romans 1:28-32 gives some clarity to the matter. It says, “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” (NASB)

Verse 32 says that those who practice such things are worthy of death. They are worthy of death because they are not saved. Paul is really alluding to a spiritual death, although a physical death is apropos as well. Then in Romans 2:1-8 Paul addresses those saints who really are saved but are having trouble living a holy life. He says, “You therefore, have no excuse, you who pas judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, no realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God will give to each person according to what he has done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil there will be wrath and anger.” (NIV).

Many will use the above passage of scripture to support their view that salvation can be lost. However, Paul was speaking of two kinds of people: Gentiles who reject the truth and follow evil (sinners) and Jews who act like sinners but think they're excused because they are Jews. The same distinction can be made between sinners and those Christians who act like sinners but think they're excused because they're Christians. One cannot tell the difference between them and the unsaved. And this is where the problem arises. Paul never says that these types of Christians will lose their salvation, but he does make it clear that they will not escape God’s judgment. They are still saved by grace but are no longer protected by God’s mercy and could very easily die early or suffer through great trials brought on by their own sinful lifestyle. We see this when looking Samson. Samson is listed as one of the men of great faith in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, although he had sinned to such a point in his life that God turned him over to his lusts and turned away from him. But there is no doubt that he is with the Lord at this very moment. Otherwise, the writer of Hebrews would not have listed him among those who had great faith in God.

The basic objection of those who oppose the doctrine of Eternal security is the belief that those who support it are saying that the saved can continue to sin and get away with it. But Paul refutes this, which is evident in Romans 6:1-2, when he says, What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” (NASB) Here, Paul is discouraging sin. He undoubtedly states that having grace does not mean having a license to sin. There is clear indication, just by looking at the lives of David and Sampson, that this is not the case. God chastises those he loves.

For us as Christians to think that we can keep ourselves saved by not sinning is at best unwittingly zealous. We, as Christians sin when we don’t know we sin. We cannot entirely eradicate the sin in our lives. If we could live righteously enough to work our way into heaven, then the Old Testament Law would still be in effect and there would have been no reason for Jesus to die on the cross. Jesus bore our inequities on the cross. He atoned for our sins and became the ultimate sacrifice for that atonement. We are therefore saved by grace through faith in Jesus. Therefore, those who are saved are made righteous through the blood of Christ. This is attested to in the following passage of scripture:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works his wage is not reckoned as favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” (Romans 4:1-5 NASB)

The fact that we, as Christians, believe in Christ, means that we are automatically righteous. This does not mean that we will get away with not doing good deeds and not living holy, for faith without works is dead (James 2:26). In other words, the person who professes faith but has no works to show for it, never really had faith. It was dead from the beginning. Most assuredly then, the works that we do are not the way to our salvation but instead are the proofs that we do indeed have it. And we do not lose that salvation. Once we are spiritually born again we can never be unborn. Even for those of us who are babes in Christ or backsliders, we can still never be unborn. It is the same in the natural. Once a baby is born it can never be unborn.

End Note:
[1] Henry, Matthew Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Modern Edition, Volume Six, Acts to Revelation, Hendrickson publishers Inc, 1991, Seventh printing 2003, p. 558

Does the Word of God forbid women to pastor churches?

I have a friend who recently started a church. Normally that would be considered a good thing. But this friend of mine received many phone calls from Christians who discouraged the venture. The reason…my friend is a woman. Many Christians believe that women should not pastor churches. I’ve looked into this issue considerably and cannot find any concrete scriptural evidence that forbids women to become pastors. However, some would vehemently disagree with me.

The main point of debate has to do with how some interpret the passage of scripture found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. It reads, “Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to mange his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.” (NIV)

The term “overseer” is synonymous with “pastor.” Since the scripture identifies an overseer by roles that apply to men (i.e. husband of but one wife, managing the family) many theologians argue that this in itself is enough to prove that the role of pastor is not for women. However, if this is the case, then we should see no place in scripture where a woman has held a position that is identified by roles that apply to men. But on the contrary, we do. Phoebe, a woman, is identified as a deacon in Romans 16:1-2, yet the office of deacon is identified by roles that apply to men. Romans 16:1-2 (NLT) reads, “Our sister Phoebe, a deacon in the church in Cenchrea will be coming to see you soon.” It should be noted that the NIV, NASB, and King James versions use the word “servant” instead of “deacon” while the NLT uses the word “deacon” and the Amplified version uses the word “deaconess.” Clearly this is a point of contention among biblical scholars. However, the same Greek word (“diakonos”) that is used for “servant” in Romans 16:1 when identifying Phoebe is the exact same Greek word that is used for the “deacon” in the passage of scripture that defines the role of a deacon, which is found in the following passage of scripture: “Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife, and must manage his children and his household well.” (1 Timothy 3:8-12 NIV)

There is no doubt that the scripture identifies the office of deacon by roles that apply to men (i.e. husband of one wife, manage household well) just as the scripture identifies the office of pastor by roles that apply to men. If then a woman can be a deacon despite the fact that the office of deacon is identified by roles that apply to men, then it follows that a woman can be a pastor despite the fact that the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to men.. Therefore the argument that says a woman cannot be a pastor because the office of pastor is identified by the roles of men is made void since there is a woman (Phoebe) identified in scripture that served in a position in the church that is identified by the roles of men.

To take the point further, if the conservative view says that since the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to men and therefore women cannot hold position in that office, then the conservative view should also say that since the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to married men then single men cannot hold position in that office. If we are to look at the passage of scripture in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 conservatively then there should be no double standards in interpretation when it comes to gender. The passage says that a pastor should be the husband of but one wife and should be able to manage his family. This therefore defines the office of pastor, not just generally by roles that apply to men, but more specifically by roles that apply to married men. If we apply the same conservative view to men as some do to women when looking at the passage, then we would have to conclude that single men should not pastor. However, even though some in the church might agree with this conclusion, most of us in the church would find this conclusion erroneous and a misinterpretation of scripture, even those who use the same reasoning to forbid women to pastor. This is where the double standard lies.

The unsettling part to all of this is that the church will put up with a man serving in the office of pastor who does not meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 before it puts up with a woman serving in the office of pastor, who does. Not only should a pastor have no more than one wife and be able to manage his family but he must be above reproach (not be guilty of disgrace), he must have control of his temper, he must be self-controlled (not prone to fall into temptations of the flesh), he should be respectable, he should be hospitable, he should be able to teach, he should not be a drunkard, he should not be quarrelsome, he should not be violent, he should not be a recent convert, and he should not be a lover of money. It is safe to say that if a pastor fails at meeting even one of these qualifications, he is, according to 1 Timothy 3:1-7, not qualified to serve in the office of pastor. However, there are many male pastors in the church who do not meet these qualifications and the church merely winks at them.

Those who argue against women serving as pastors also use 1 Timothy 2:11-12, to support their position. It reads, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” This was part of Paul’s instructions to Timothy as to how Timothy was to care for the church at Ephesus during the time that Paul would be in Macedonia. Those who argue that women should not pastor emphasize the part in which Paul says that he does not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. If a woman is not to have authority over a man, then it follows that she is not to pastor a church, since undoubtedly to do so would put her in a position in which she would have authority over men. However, many theologians see Paul’s instructions to Timothy as specifically applying to how Paul thought it best for the church at Ephesus to function due to the customs of that time and they emphasize the fact that Paul personalized his instructions by using first person. In other words, he was saying to Timothy something like, “this is how I do things in the church at Ephesus and I suggest that you follow my lead on this.” If indeed Paul’s instructions to Timothy regarding the church of Ephesus applies to all churches today then not only should women not serve as pastors, but women should not teach Sunday school, women should not teach Bible study, women should not be choir leaders or choir directors, and women should always sit still in Bible study and Sunday school never saying a word or asking a question. But the church today doesn’t exercise such restrictions on women because it realizes that, the way that Paul was instructing Timothy had a direct correlation to the culture of Ephesus at the time.

There are just a couple of other things that must be looked at regarding this issue. The first has to do with the fact that serving as a pastor is listed as a spiritual gift, as attested to in the following passage of scripture: “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men. What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe. It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:7-13).

The scripture says that Christ has given “some to be pastors.” The word “some” is not gender specific. In other words, “some” applies to human beings as a whole, which of course includes women. There are those who might like to argue that where the scripture says, “and gave gifts to men,” designates gender specification of men only. But when looking at the Greek it is clear that “men” in this context is simply an English translation for “mankind” or “human beings.” Therefore women are not excluded from receiving the gift of pastor. Logically then, if God has given women the gift of pastor then it stands to reason that there are women that he would call to the office of pastor as well. The definition of the word “pastor” is not diminished when it is applied to women.

Finally, there is an example in scripture whereby it appears that a woman actually functioned in the role of a pastor. The entire letter of 2 John is a letter from John the Apostle to whom the New International Version and New Living Translation translates as the “chosen” lady and her children. The King James Version translation reads the “elect” lady. Verses 9-10 (NIV) reads, “Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.” Verse 10 in the New Living Translation reads a little differently. It says, “if someone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth…” The operative word here is “meeting.” All would agree that during the times of the early church many church meetings were held in houses. If indeed this chosen lady held a church meeting in her home and was directly instructed not to let anyone into the meeting who taught opposite the teachings of Christ, then it is not a stretch to presume that it is quite possible she was the primary leader of a church assembly, which, in essence is the function of a pastor.

There are opposing interpretations that attempt to nullify any possibility that this chosen lady could have been a pastor. The main opposing interpretation is that this “chosen lady” was not really a woman but was instead a local church and that her children were the members of that local church. In other words the term “chosen lady” was just a figure of speech, a metaphor used to refer to the saints of a local church and its members. The problem with this interpretation is that, nowhere else in scripture is the word “lady” used as a metaphor for the church. Furthermore, John closes his letter by saying to this chosen lady “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” (v.12). This is the exact same closing that John used in his letter that he wrote to his male friend, Gaius (third letter of John). John also greets Gaius in the same way that he greets the chosen lady. In verse 4 of John’s third letter, John also refers to children as he did in his letter to the chosen lady. However, theologians do not question that John is talking to an actual man in his letter to Gaius, but there is question as to whether or not John is talking to a woman in his letter to the chosen lady although both the letters are quite similar in style. The point here is that the argument that John was referring to a local church in his second letter instead of to an actual woman is indeed a weak one. After all, he speaks of hoping to visit with her and talk to her “face to face.” It is quite apparent that there was definitely a woman who John referred to as “chosen” and that this woman assembled the saints together in her home, for what could have very possibly been a sacred assembly. Thus, it is evidently conceivable that this lady functioned in the role of pastor. It is also possible that she did not. But the possibility that she could have, should not be denied.

There is simply no concrete scriptural evidence that forbids women to pastor. If we say that a woman can be in authority over a man as long as there is man in authority over her, then we must say that a woman can pastor a church as long as there is a man in authority over her (just as Paul was in authority over Timothy). And if we contend that women should not serve as pastors because it puts them in authority over men, then we must take it as far to say that women should not perform any service at all in the church which puts them in authority over men. Otherwise, we become hypocrites. And if we say that women should not perform any service at all in the church which puts them in authority over men, then we must sincerely ask ourselves…where would that leave the church? Overall, when it’s all said and done, if a woman believes she is called to pastor a church then she should seek to pastor one. For it is better to obey God rather than man. So to my friend I say, carry on my dear sister in the Lord, no matter how many discouraging phone calls you get, carry on.

Is the Sabbath for Today?

There are some in the church who believe that many Christians are violating the word of God by going to church on Sundays (the first day of the week) instead of going to church on Saturdays (the seventh day of the week). To justify this, they point to the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), particularly the fourth commandment which says, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (vs. 8-11 NIV).

The seventh day of the week is indeed Saturday, not Sunday. However, we as Christians are no longer required to rest from our work on Saturdays. In order to justify this position, we must first take a look at the theology of Dispensationalism. The original theology of Dispensationalism was brought about in the early 1800s by Margaret McDonald of Scotland and further developed by J.N. Darby of that same time. Dispensationalism is the teaching that the work of God has been divided into seven different God-ordained time periods since the beginning of the creation of man. God established certain laws by which mankind is to live. But there are those laws that only apply during a particular dispensation and then there are those laws that apply (in a more expanded way) across all seven dispensations.

The seven dispensations in order of occurrence begin with the dispensation of innocency, which was the period of time during Adam and Eve, before they sinned. Then, the dispensation of conscious, which was the period of time after the fall of Adam and Eve when they became aware of good and evil. Next was the dispensation of human government, which was the time following the flood when Noah and his family were left to begin building anew. Following was the dispensation of promise, which was the period of time during the fulfilling of the covenant that God made to Abraham that his descendants (the Jews). God promised that they would become a great nation and inherit a certain land which is now called Israel. After that was the dispensation of the Law which was the period time that began after the Jews’ exodus out of Egypt when God established certain laws (including the Ten Commandments) through Moses. Then, the dispensation of Grace, which is the period of time that began during Christ’s ministry on earth and continued after his resurrection. This is the dispensation we are living in now. We are saved by grace and not of works [of the Law] lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:9). The final dispensation will be the dispensation of Kingdom. This will be the period of the time after the second-coming of Christ when he establishes his kingdom on earth. It is interesting to note that just as there are seven dispensations during the course of time in the history of mankind when it comes to the development of our relationship with God, there were seven days cited in biblical history when it comes to the creation and development of the earth and all things living.

As stated earlier, we are currently living in the dispensation of Grace. This means that certain Mosaic Laws, given to the Jews during the dispensation of the Law, no longer apply to us in the same way today because Jesus, by his sacrifice on the cross and resurrection from the dead fulfilled all aspects of the Law. Jesus is quoted in Matthew 5:17 as saying “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” In other words, Jesus is the Law unto himself, and by believing in his deity and Lordship, we automatically abide by the Law by abiding in Christ. Righteousness is automatically attributed to us. This does not mean that as Christians we never sin (Romans 3:23), but that our sins are covered by the blood of Jesus and that if we are truly Christians are consciousnesses are seared by any sin we commit and we therefore do our best to rid ourselves of it. The NIV Study Bible puts it this way, “Jesus fulfilled the Law in the sense that he gave it its full meaning. He emphasized its deep, underlying principles and total commitment to it rather than mere external acknowledgment and obedience.”

Before getting into what the Sabbath means for this current dispensation of Grace, we should examine what it meant to follow the Sabbath during the dispensation of the Law. During the dispensation of the Law (the time of Moses), the Sabbath day was not only identified as a day of rest but also as a day of sacred assembly (Leviticus 23:3). However, it didn’t stop there. Those who desecrated the Sabbath day were to be put to death (Exodus 31:14). God’s people could not even light a fire on the Sabbath day as attested to in Exodus 35:2 where it reads, “For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.” Rest meant just that…rest in the most conservative sense.

Everyone was to rest from even the slightest resemblance of work. Lighting a fire was considered work. It took effort to light a fire. The prohibition to light a fire during the Sabbath day would probably translate into prohibition of household chores in today’s world. Other activities that were forbidden on the Sabbath day included carrying a load (Jeremiah 17:21-22), gathering wood (Numbers 15:32-36), selling or buying merchandise (Nehemiah 10:31), selling or buying food (Nehemiah 13:15), and cooking (Exodus 16:23-29). With this said, if we were to truly keep the Sabbath day holy according the Mosaic Law, then not only would we go to church on Saturdays instead of Sundays and not only would we stay home from our jobs on that day, but we would also have to make sure not to do any chores, not to light any fires, not to gather anything, not to carry anything, not to cook anything, not to buy anything, and not to sell anything. This means that stopping to get gas for the car would even be prohibited. If we are going to keep the Sabbath then we must keep it in its purist form. If we don’t keep it in its purist form then we are not really keeping the Sabbath. It is doubtful that those in the church today who claim to keep the Sabbath are keeping it the way God mandated that it be kept during the dispensation of the Law.

But we are no longer mandated to keep the Sabbath in the same way the early Jews were mandated to keep it because the word of God teaches us that the Sabbath of the Old Testament was a shadow of things to come. Paul supports this in his letter to the Colossians, which reads “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17). Paul brings the point home further in Romans 14:5-6a which says, “One man considers one day more sacred than another, another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.” The implication here is that he who regards every day alike also does so to the Lord. The main message here is that it doesn’t matter whether or not one regards Saturday as special, it is a disputable matter and one’s take on it does not affect one’s salvation. The Christian who regards Saturday as special is allowed to do so as long as he is convinced in his own mind that it is special. And the Christian who deems every day alike and therefore does not treat Saturday any more special than any other day is allowed to do so as long as he is convinced in his own mind that every day is alike and no day is more special than the other. Either way, Paul says that one should abide by his or her conscious regarding the matter. The Sabbath is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith, meaning a Christian is still a Christian whether or not he acknowledges Saturday as the Sabbath or not as long as he follows the tenets of Christianity that point toward salvation.

For the sake of further clarification, it must be pointed out that Jesus’ disciples “worked” on the Sabbath (they gathered grain) and Jesus healed on the Sabbath. Mark 23-28 and 3:1-6 gives us the account. The first passage reads, “One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?’ He answered, ‘Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for the priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.’ Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” In saying this Jesus enhanced the meaning of the Sabbath. He made what was once unlawful, lawful. The account goes on in 3:1-6, and reads, “Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, ‘Stand up in front of everyone.’ Then Jesus asked them, ‘Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?’ But they remained silent. He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

The Pharisees and Herodians not only wanted to kill Jesus because he was, as far as they were concerned, breaking the rules of the Sabbath, but also because Jesus was taking on the role of God by establishing different rules for the Sabbath. Of course, he was taking on the role of God because he was God manifest in the flesh (John 1:1-14) and he is the second part of the Godhead who now sits at the right hand side of the Father (Mark 16:19). But the Pharisees, Herodians, and many of the Jews didn’t want to believe that he was/is God the Son and therefore wanted him dead.

The most decisive argument in favor of the doctrine that says that the Sabbath of the Law (the Ten Commandments) was only a shadow of the Sabbath of the dispensation of Grace (and that today’s Sabbath is the complete fulfillment of yesterday’s Sabbath) is the explanation of a Sabbath-rest for the people of God. This explanation is found Hebrews 3:16-19 and 4:1-10 and is quoted below:

“Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief. Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. Now we who have believed entered that rest, just as God as said, ‘So I declared on oath in my anger, they shall never enter my rest.’ And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.’ And again in the passage above he says, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’ It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: ‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.’ For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.”

The scriptures speak for themselves. “Today” is now the Sabbath, not just the seventh day (Saturday), but Today. Today is everyday because everyday is Today. Therefore the Sabbath day has expanded into everyday. As Christians, we enter into God’s rest simply by confessing that Jesus is Lord and Savior and believing that God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9). Because of this we are free to convene a sacred assembly on any day of the week because every day of the week is our Sabbath-rest. We have therefore not neglected the Sabbath by not going to church on Saturday and by not resting from our work on that day. We only neglect the Sabbath by not entering into the rest that Jesus has given us. And only those who are unsaved are not allowed to enter. Those of us who are saved rest in Jesus everyday and by doing so we fulfill the fourth commandment which is greatly enhanced by the testimony and ministry of Jesus Christ as is all of the other commandments. The church today has chosen to worship on Sunday partly because the apostles gathered together in sacred assembly on Sunday (Acts 20:7-12) and Jesus revealed himself, on a Sunday, for the first time to his disciples after his resurrection (John 20:19). Since everyday is Today and Today is the Sabbath, then there is no wrong done in assembling on Sunday instead of Saturday.

In consideration of the aforementioned, going to church on Saturday is no holier than going to church on Sunday. Those of us who attend church on Sunday instead of Saturday have not broken any commandments or desecrated a holy day. We have instead understood that the Sabbath (a shadow, sample, example of Today’s Sabbath) of the Mosaic Law was mandated by God so that Israel could enter into God’s rest at least for one day of the week but as Christians living in the dispensation of Grace our confession of faith has allowed us to enter into God’s rest automatically everyday. This is why the word of God admonishes us to be anxious for nothing (Philippians 4:6), to fear not (Isaiah 35:4), to understand that no weapon formed against us shall prosper (Isaiah 54:17) and to grasp hold to the fact that everything works out for the good of them who love the Lord and are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28). It is in these assurances (and much more) that God has given us rest, along with the ultimate rest he has given us in the gift of salvation which we will completely experience when we cohabitate with him eternally during the dispensation of the kingdom, our final glorious rest. So in answer to the question of whether or not the Sabbath day is for today…the Sabbath day is Today.

Does God predestine some people to go to Heaven and others to go to Hell?

Through the annals of church history there has been much debate as to the meaning of predestination. The underlying question is whether or not those of us who are saved were predestined to be saved before we were even born. The gist of the argument surrounds the debate over whether or not the gift of salvation has already been promised to some even before they’ve confessed a belief in Christ or whether or not salvation is a gift that is not given until one expresses a heart-filled belief in the Lordship and deity of Jesus Christ. It is my contention that the latter train of thought, between the two, is the only one that is doctrinally reasonable. The doctrinal teaching of predestination stems from the following verses of scripture that are cited below:
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he called he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” (Romans 8:28-30 NIV) Then Ephesians 1:5-11 (NIV) reads, “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.”
Because of the interpretation given to these scriptures, many theologians believe that God made certain people for salvation and certain people for damnation and that those made for damnation never had a chance for salvation because they were predestined to be damned the day they were born. They go on to say that there are those who, on the other hand, were predestined for salvation before they were even born again, before their faith in Jesus Christ became manifest. This is what is referred to as the Calvinist view of predestination.
Then there is the Arminian view of predestination. The Arminian view says that faith comes before regeneration (before one is born again in Christ) and although God predestined those who were called, they were predestined because God is all-knowing so he knew (foreknew) that they would, at some time, confess a belief in Christ and therefore they were predestined to be saved. Those who support the Arminian view use the following verses of scripture, among others, to support their arguments:
“But what does it say? ‘The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that is the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, ‘Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:8-13 NIV). Then John 3:16 quotes Jesus as saying, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:16-18 NIV).
It appears that Calvinism first developed from the teachings of John Calvin who was born in Noyon Picardy France in 1509. Jacob Arminian boldly opposed the views of Calvinism at a time when it was not popular to do so. He was born in Oudewater Holland in 1560, four years before Calvin’s death.
The debate surrounding Calvinism and Arminianism is found in many theological texts, particularly those writings that focus upon Christian apologetics (studies that defend the faith). In their book, The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli have this to say about the Calvinist views of predestination: “Perhaps the worse exaggeration of hell is the Calvinistic doctrine (not even held by all Calvinists) of a double predestination. According to this doctrine, God decrees and designs some souls for hell before they are born; God wills their damnation. This is contradicted both by Scripture (Mt 18:14) and by moral sanity—how could one love such a monster God?” 1
The basic disagreement between Calvanism and Arminiamism has to do with whether or not human beings have free will to express and confess a belief in Jesus or whether or not a confessed belief in Jesus is totally due to God’s will. In order to obtain even a clearer understanding of the two differing positions it is important to briefly present further comparisons.
There are five subcomponents to the two opposing views. The first has to do with free will. Calvinism teaches that there is nothing that human beings can do to save themselves. Human beings have no free will. And therefore, if a person has faith in God, that faith did not derive from the person’s own heart but was instead planted in the person’s heart by God. Arminianism teaches that all sinners do indeed have free will to believe and confess the Lord Jesus as Savior. He or she has the option whether to accept Christ (exercise faith) thus reaping the gift of salvation. Arminianism teaches that this decision rests on the sinner. The sinner is faced with cooperating with the Holy Spirit (because as Paul has told us, one cannot be saved without having the Holy Spirit) to experience the regeneration of being born again or rejecting the unction of the Holy Spirit altogether and continuing to live a sinful life without God.
The second subcomponent has to do with the argument of whether or not election is conditional or unconditional. Calvinism subscribes to what is referred to as unconditional election. Unconditional election supposes that a person’s receiving of the gift of salvation is an unconditional occurrence on the part of that person. In other words, that person did not have to do anything to receive salvation because God’s will was for that person to have the gift of salvation before he or she was even born. On the other hand, Arminianism says that salvation is conditional upon the confession and belief of the one who is seeking it. The gift of salvation is available for everyone. But having a gift available and receiving that gift and making use of it are two different things. While Arminiansim says that the gift is available to everyone but in order to be useful must be received, Calvinism says the gift is not really available to everyone but only to those who are assigned to have it and that it is therefore hoisted upon the receiver with an assurance of a guaranteed acceptance.
The third subcomponent focuses on atonement. Calvinism says that Christ only came to save and atone only for those who were already elected to be saved. No one else has a chance, only those who were previously elected by God. Arminianism says that Christ died for the salvation of everyone and that his atonement on the cross (the ultimate living sacrifice to redeem the world of sin) is available to all who will embrace him.
The fourth subcomponent has to do with the argument of whether or not the Holy Spirit can be rejected or resisted. Calvinism says that the Holy Spirit calls sinners to salvation, but only those sinners whom God has called to be saved. The call is irresistible and once the sinner is called, he or she cannot resist the call. Arminiansim says that because of the free will that God has given man, all sinners have equal opportunity whether or not to accept the Holy Spirit’s invitation to embrace the gift of salvation.
The fifth and final subcomponent has to do with the argument of whether or not salvation can be lost, once obtained. The Calvinist view says that once someone is saved, he or she is always saved, especially since they were predestined to be saved and really didn’t have anything to do with the gift of salvation that they have obtained. The Arminian view is split on this point. There are some who support the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” as do I. Then there are others who believe that the saved can fall from grace and lose their salvation.
In his book, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit, the renowned Christian apologist R.C. Sproul argues on behalf of the Calvinist viewpoint by stating the following: “A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person. The prefix mono—means one. The word erg refers to a unit of work. Words like energy are built upon this root. A synergistic work is one that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things. The prefix syn—means ‘together with.’ I labor this distinction for a reason. It is fair to say that the whole debate between Rome and Martin Luther hung on this single point. At issue was this: Is regeneration a monergistic work of God, or is it a synergistic work that requires cooperation between man and God? When my professor wrote ‘Regeneration precedes faith’ on the blackboard, he was clearly siding with the monergistic answer. To be sure, after a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step, the step of regeneration by which a person is quickened to spiritual life, is the work of God and of God alone. The initiative is with God, not with us. The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we cannot. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him from the dead. It is probably true that the majority of professing Christians in the world today believe that the order of our salvation is this: Faith precedes regeneration. We are exhorted to choose to be born again. But telling a man to choose rebirth is like exhorting a corpse to choose resurrection. The exhortation falls upon deaf ears.” 2
In the preceding quote Sproul concludes that the relationship between regeneration and faith can only be one of monergism (produced singularly by one person without the cooperation of another party). He concludes that regeneration is a monergistic occurrence since, in his view, being born again happens without human influence and only by the will of God. This thinking gives justification to his Calvinist views. He, and other prominent theologians, reject the possibility that regeneration is a synergistic occurrence, involving cooperation between God and man. Sproul concludes that regeneration cannot be synergistic because, as he puts it, those who are spiritually dead cannot make themselves become spiritually alive. But Sproul, (as well as other theologians) totally neglects a third possibility: that regeneration and faith are simultaneous monergistic occurrences. In other words, when one confesses a belief in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, regeneration happens instantly, not afterwards…but during. The Holy Spirit is at work instantly.
When looking at it this way, we can counter Sproul’s dead man argument by pointing out that a man who is dead in the Spirit can indeed experience a rebirth as a result of his faith if we conclude that upon his confession and belief, rebirth takes place at the exact same moment that faith is made manifest. Therefore, faith doesn’t have to occur before regeneration for regeneration to occur. This view upholds the monergistic view of regeneration while at the same time supporting the Arminian view of predestination. When taking into account the possibility of simultaneous occurrence between the regeneration and faith, one does not cancel out the other.
A particularly daunting question comes to mind when entertaining the doctrinal teachings of Calvinism, and that is this: If God made certain people specifically to be doomed to hell then wouldn’t we consider the conditions upon which every sin they commit as spiritual entrapment? Entrapment is when governing authorities purposely lure someone to do wrong (an illegal practice). Then, once the person succumbs to the temptation, they are arrested and thrown in jail. By the same token, hell is an eternal jail for those who have practiced sin and have never accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. God is our ultimate spiritual governing authority. But If a person, therefore, is created to be damned then it would seem that God would not punish him or her for acting in ways that are familiar to the nature of one who is already condemned, because to do so would be spiritual entrapment. Hell is a punishment made for those who are spiritually dead and are spiritual lawbreakers by their own choice, just as jail is a punishment made for those who are societal lawbreakers by their own choice. Immorality is a choice not a calling. And therefore to go to hell is not a calling, but a choice.
The debate regarding predestination will continue to persist until the Lord raptures the church. Only then will we all know for sure. But it is my estimation that there is a simultaneous cause and effect relationship between expressing one’s faith and being reborn. There is indeed something we must do in order to be saved. We must confess and believe that Jesus is Lord. The Calvinist view is a particularly dangerous one. For those who uphold it, it can lead to feelings of superiority, racism, and arrogance. In closing we must keep in mind the declaration Paul made in Romans 10:13 which reads, “For anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Anyone means everyone. And everyone excludes nobody.

1.Kreeft, Peter, and Tacelli Ronald, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1994
2.Sproul, RC., The Mystery of the Holy Spirit, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc Wheaton Illinois, 1990, p. 103-104