Theology Thursday: Church of Christ, Scientist

An organization founded by Mary Baker Eddy...in 1876 Eddy formed the Christian Scientist Association and three years later chartered the Church of Christ, Scientist...The tenets and bylaws of the church were incorporated by Eddy into the church manual of 1895. The church's fundamental theological teachings are presented in Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.

Theologically, the Church of Christ, Scientist, does not concur with the basic tenets of historic orthodox Christianity...Christian Science's view of God is monistic. God is divine principle, not a supreme being. God is mind, and mind is all...The characteristics and attributes of God become God..God, Christ and Holy Spirit are not persons...Christian Science denies a physical incarnation of Christ...The need of an atonement is nullified since sin, evil, sickness and death are delusions, not reality...Salvation to the Christian Scientist is the gaining of understanding that man's life is wholly derived from God the Spirit and is not mortal and material.



P.G. Chappell, "Church of Christ, Scientist." in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 261-2.

Philosophy Friday: Power of Asking Questions

"Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life."
-Bertrand Russel-



Bertrand Russel, The Problems of Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 16. 

Thursday Theology: Absolution

"From the Latin absolvo (set free), the term absolution is used in theology to denote the forgiveness of sins, being specifically used by Roman Catholics of the remission given through or by the church. It is a suitable word in that the truly free person is one against whom no accusation of sin can be made."


W.C.G. Proctor, "Absolution." in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 20.

Eschatology: The Destiny of the Unsaved

              Eschatology, the study of last things, can conjure up different emotions and thoughts causing one to reflect on their mortality. Chief among these reflections both emotionally and intellectually is the eternal abode of the unsaved. This is a crucial question to answer from an apologetic standpoint and Scripture has much to say on the matter.

             Three major views must be kept in mind when referring to the eternal fate of the unsaved. Annihilationism is drawn from the idea that some if not all persons will cease to exist post-mortem.[1] Perhaps the most common assertion is that while humankind was created essentially immortal those who do not fulfill this destiny in the after life will be utterly destroyed. Eternal punishment stands as the most championed position historically by the church, Christ spoke more of hell than any other person.[2] This points to the sentencing of the unregenerate to an eternity separated from the presence of God (Mk. 9:47-48). The third view, Universalism, espouses that all men will eventually be reconciled to God, thus the Atonement is not limited in its efficacy.[3] This doctrine is viewed from the position of maximum tolerance.

            After studying the definitions above the words used to describe these events must be examined. Hades, which is the rendered form of the Hebrew word Sheol in the LXX, has the meaning of grave or hell. This is the place of bodily decay[4], a state in which disembodied souls live until the resurrection at the last day (Jn. 11:24). Sheol and Hades are virtually synonymous.[5] However, Gehenna, originally referring to the Valley of Hinnom where Baal worshipers sacrificed children to Molech (2 Kings 16:3), encapsulates the more common form of eternal hell, as is currently understood. Sheol and Hades refer to an intermediate state while Gehenna refers to everlasting punishment for the wicked following the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15).[6]

Though compelling arguments can be made from all sides the clearest definition from Scripture supports the eternality of reward and punishment for humankind (Dan. 12:2)[7]. Matthew 25:46 states, “these shall go away into everlasting punishment…righteous into life eternal.” Both words here can be rendered properly into Greek, aiōn or aiōnion. Strong translates these to mean without beginning and end. How can we deny the eternality of punishment while affirming the eternality of reward? If we hope to be consistent in our theology, we cannot. Paul commented on the state of the damned (2 Thess. 1:9) and in the Gospels Luke mentions the fate of the rich man from Jesus parables (Lk. 16:23). Though pointing ultimately to the result of the unsaved living, this parable can shed light on the state of the unregenerate dead.

            The opposition would point to the cessation of existence implied in Scripture (Rom. 6:23; Jas. 5:20)[8] or inconsistency with eternal punishment from a good God (1 Tim. 2:4).[9] The cross, as they espouse, is the place of universal salvation to which the scope of cannot be limited (2 Cor. 5:9).[10] Lastly, Paul appears to explain that eventually all things will be reconciled to Christ (Col. 1:18). 

            Though the opposition’s defense hinges on misinterpretations there is an emotional element that creeps in. How could a good God send some one to hell? However given libertarian-free will, God would be in contradiction to His nature if He forbid people to freely choose or deny Him. Thus those who choose Him will rest with Him eternally and those who don’t are granted their request, eternal separation from the Creator of the universe (Rev. 20:10). John and Jesus both describe reward and punishment eternally[11], yet to affirm one of the opponent’s views is to deny the veracity of their writings and subsequently Scriptures inerrancy. Lastly, the doctrine of hell stretches beyond three mere words[12], destruction (2 Thess. 1:9), damnation (Matt. 23:33), and fiery-furnace (Matt. 13:42).

            Given eternal punishment, its wise to heed the words of Christ when he commanded us to make disciples (Matt. 28:19). Proselytizing is meaningless if all are eventually saved or if all cease to exist after death. Evangelism then is the greatest endeavor of every believer who once was lost until they heard the saving grace of the gospel.

            The doctrine of eschatology deals largely with the final state of humankind. A proper understanding of eternal punishment on the unregenerate is the goal of the defender of orthodoxy. With the scope of eternal punishment in mind, all other views opposed should be rebuked for inaccuracy. If these views were to hold firm they would negate the gravity of both the cross and resurrection of Christ and the subsequent evangelizing of the post Acts 2 church. We must resist these views and hold to the clearest explanation scripture has to offer, namely the eternal destiny of all people (Dan. 12:2).

---

[1]             R. Nicole, “Annihilationism.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 64.

[2]             L.L. Morris, “Eternal Punishment.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 395.

[3]             J.R. Root, “Universalism.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1232.

[4]             W.A. Van Gemeren, “Sheol.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1099.

[5]             J.A. Motyer, “Hades.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 532.

[6]             V. Cruz, “Gehenna.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 480.

[7]             Morris, 395.

[8]             Nicole, 64.

[9]             Morris, 396.

[10]             Ibid, 396.

[11]             Nicole, 64.

[12]             R.P. Lightner, “Hell.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 548.

Short Essay on the Role of Women in the Church

Short Essay on the Role of Women in the Church

            The matriarchs and coheirs of the human race have long been subdued from reaching their full potential in society and within the church. However, there are questions that must be examined in order to determine the proper role of women in the church and what subsequent service they might shoulder.

            An elder, presbyteroi, had a prominent function in the New Testament Church. They are associated with the leader of the Jerusalem church, James (Acts 11:30), they were to conduct the oversight of the church as shepherds (Acts 20:28) and as the apostles and prophets ministry began to fade they were responsible to teach and preach at a local level.[1] A deacon, diakoneō, describes a servant and fits their description found in Scripture. These servants were required to be husband of one wife, manage his children well, have excellent standing in Christ, sincere, worthy of respect, not a drunkard, not pursuing material wealth dishonestly, and they must undergo scrutiny to verify their trustworthiness (1 Tim. 3:8-13).

            Women possessed the role of deacon in the church (Phoebe, Rom 16:1). Along with Phoebe other women such as Priscilla served with Paul (Acts 18:18). In the Old Testament Deborah held the role of prophetess in Israel (Judg. 4:4) during the time of the Judges. Galatians 3:28 points to the standing of men and women in Christ, which reflected the utmost of equality in spirit and glanced back on the original creation standard prior to the fall. Though passages such as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 seem to support the silencing and limiting of women in church function this conclusion misses the mark in light of the cultural context. Though women are mentioned solely here it may have been to address the state of affairs in the church at Corinth and was not intended to be a sweeping reform.[2]

            Though women can certainly perform the duties of officers in the church, detractors are still plenty thus their arguments need addressing. Chiefly among the passages lobbied against women serving in churches is 1 Timothy 2:9-15. [3] Though women appear to be charged with the fall of man and are under restrictions here clarity should be given on the type of restrictions that are not representative. First, women are free to teach their children (Prov. 6:20). Second, women should still be schoolteachers and historically this is the case. Third, due to the overwhelming blessing from above on Sunday school programs it is hard to imagine a restriction on women here. Lastly, the same goes as above in reference to women in the mission field.[4] Ephesians 5:22-33 appears to demand women as the submissive partner to their husbands. However to stop there does not do justice to the passage. When viewed in more depth this passage actually levels more responsibility on man as the reflection of Christ’s love for his wife. As Paul points to in Galatians 3:28, “both male and female” were created equally in Christ and thus any restrictions on women should also reflect on their equal gender, men.

            Though some would argue that there are restrictions on women for service in the church no such arguments should be made against workplace limitations. The fall of man has been applied to naivety of women, however this view leads to the idea of the subjugation of the female gender. As with any interpretation that strays from the creation ideal it should be resisted as any other evil since the fall.[5] Women are the bearers of life and the conduit to which God brought about the birth of our Lord (Lk. 1:31-32), how could we restrict their profession?

            Women have held the title of prophetess, deaconess and spiritual leader in Scripture. Evident from examination, God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34); therefore we should shed the ways of the dark ages and embrace the spiritual gifts of God no matter their source in gender. God has endowed mankind, inclusive of both sexes, with certain faculties and as such we are equipped for a number of tasks in the church. Surely if a particular woman enjoys church government she should be elected or disqualified based on her qualifications, not her sex, likewise for man. As with King David, God told Samuel to look not on the outside but inside to his heart to see the character of the man (1 Sam. 16:7), this should be the practice of every church.

            Male and female were created equally in the image of God and should perform duties worthy of that resemblance. Though different in emotions and physical characteristics if a woman is a capable candidate for a spiritual office, the church would do well to accept her contributions. God promised to pour out His spirit on both men and women in the last days (Joel 2:29), who are we to silence that movement?

---

[1]             R.S Wallace, “Elder.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 369.

[2]             R. Nicole, “Woman, Biblical Concept of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1284.

[3]             Ibid, 1284.

[4]             Ibid, 1285.

[5]             N. Hoggard-Creegan, “Women, Ordination of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1288.

Short Essay on Anthropology: Marriage and Divorce

Marriage found its origins with the command from God that it was not right that man should be alone (Gen. 2:18). Despite its holy intent marriage has become a trendy arrangement. Moreover, the haphazard manner in which marriage vows are dismissed in present time should cause the student of God to turn and evaluate the biblical stance on the matter.

Biblical teaching on marriage centered on the union between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24). This bond is best portrayed in the relationship of a covenant. In this way a marriage is seen as growing, healing and maturing through time, mirroring the relationship between God and his people. [1] As the two became one flesh, we should understand this was a godly ideal to remain intact forever (Gen 2:24). There were however guidelines for a biblical marriage. After the Levitical laws marriage to family was outlawed (Lev. 20:19), marriage to foreigners was dangerous, with Old and New Testaments attesting to this (1 Kings 11:1-2-10; 2 Cor. 6:14-15), and both parties were to be submitted to one another (Eph. 5:22-33).

In the Old Testament a groom did not posses his wife until the bride price was paid (Gen. 34:12). Prior to this the bride and groom were betrothed, a legally binding contract, for a year in which they were to remain celibate (Matt. 1:18). There was an understanding that the marriage was to be consummated on the first night, in which the stained linen cloth would attest to the bride’s virginity. [2] Despite Scriptures references to intercourse being intended for the married couple society has a different view of things. There is a “try it before you buy it” mentality and promiscuity reigns supreme in the dating scene, particularly in Hollywood touting the “living together” culture that is a mainstay of America. Without the long-term commitment of marriage, partners are free to come and go as they please with no apparent consequences.

Divorce indicates a severing of what was once a living union. [3] The Bible allows for divorce yet it was not a God ordained reason but for the hardness of men’s hearts (Matt. 19:8). In Jesus’ time the reasoning for divorce had become so rampant that Christ had to take a very strict stance on allowing for divorce based on adultery only (Matt. 5:32). This was in response to the Hillelite Pharisees who sought divorce for any reason including a poorly cooked meal.[4] Other reasons were certainly permissible such as desertion to which Paul points to but it should be understood as a last resort.[5] Though not as dramatic as the Hillelite’s, today’s culture seeks divorce almost as indiscriminately. Many have been married multiple times and have sought the arms of another to save them from the bonds of a bad marriage.

Though biblical, there are many reasons permissible for divorce including abuse, life-threatening situations and desertion however, there are objections to deal with. Matthew 5:32 has been used to point out adultery as the sole reason for dissolution. This misses the mark however. Christ was not stating an absolute regarding divorce rather he was pointing to the holy standard set forth in creation.[6]  Yes a marriage should mirror God’s covenant with man, however because of man’s fallen nature divorce is permissible.

A Christian is permitted to remarry once they have repented for breaking the covenant of marriage with their partner. Remarriage was presupposed in the Deuteronomy legislation (Deut. 24:1-4), although it was forbidden for a woman to remarry and then return to her former spouse. [7]  In Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 regarding remarriage, Jesus did not forbid remarriage considering it was understood in Jewish society that remarriage almost always followed divorce or death, see Ruth’s example of Levirate marriage (Ruth 2:20-4:10).

Divorce is damaging; “two became one flesh” and there is a tearing that takes place. It is the role of the church to support those affected with divorce. The church should accept the divorced parties not refuse them membership. [8] Second the church should support and guide the divorced in their future, which may mean emotional, spiritual and material care. [9] The results of single parent homes have been well documented with children of divorce parents more likely to divorce themselves. Permanence in marriage should be the goal of any covenant couple to strengthen the nation as in biblical times.

Though never the ideal set forth by God divorce is a part of fallen creation. Among the reasons for divorce adultery is chief, yet it should be recognized that God never approves of abusive relationships for we should love one another as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25). Certainly remarriage can occur but it must not be entered into lightly as it carries the sting of the past divorce. The church should aide in the recovery and healing of divorced persons.

---

[1]             D.J. Atkinson, “Divorce.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 347.

[2]             H.W. Perkin, “Marriage, Marriage Customs in Bible Times.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 742.

[3]             Atkinson, 346.

[4]             Ibid, 347.

[5]             Ibid, 348.

[6]             Ibid, 347.

[7]             D.J. Atkinson, “Remarriage.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1007.

[8]             Atkinson, 348.

[9]             Ibid, 348.