Setting the Record Straight—Biblically

Grace Ying May and Hyunhye Pokrifka Joe wrote an article for Priscilla Papers titled Setting the Record Straight: A Response to J.I. Packer's Position on Women's Ordination in which they attempt to respond to J. I. Packer's article Let’s Stop Making Women Presbyters. In their article, they attempt to argue a number of straw man fallacies. They accuse Packer of using two "obscure" verses that "scholars" agree are difficult to translate. They attempt to argue that the rest of Scripture gives support to women as pastors/elders, which simply is not true. They also ignore the context of many of the passages they attempt to use in support of their position, such as 1 Corinthians 11:10, which has to do with prayer. One has to engage in much eisegesis and interpretational gymnastics in order to try and draw support for women as pastors/elders.

These two women demonstrate their ignorance when they write, "Applying such a definition of 'head' to the Godhead would imply that hierarchy and inequality exist within the Trinity, a teaching that the early councils rejected as the heresy of Subordinationism." First, it implies no such thing. Hierarchy does exist within the Trinity, yet they are all equal. Even though they are equal, they have different roles, which is hierarchy. Hierarchy exists in all of life. Second, they clearly do not have any understanding or knowledge of early councils and/or what was rejected as heresy. Jesus Himself even stated that, "the Father is greater than I." The Father sent the Son; the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 are crystal clear in their statement, and there is nothing difficult about their translation. The so-called "scholars" these women refer to are no scholars at all. Some of these so-called "scholars" have called into question many details pertaining to Scripture, yet history and archaeology prove them to be hard, verifiable facts. When "scholars" question the Bible or details contained in the Bible, their "scholarship" must be called into question. Just because someone has an education in a particular field does not make them any kind of expert, nor does it mean they have a clue what they are talking about. All it means is that they were able to read the material, absorb the information, parrot it back on exams, and earn a degree. A monkey could do all of that, yet it is still an ignorant monkey.

If you examine other parts of the Bible, as these women claim they have done, you cannot ignore Ephesians 5:22-33, nor can you ignore 1 Timothy 3:1-7, which is in regard to pastors/elders. Nothing in this passage allows for a woman to be a pastor/elder. It is strictly a role and responsibility reserved for men. In 1 Timothy 3:8-16, which is in regard to deacons, women are allowed to hold this position, as Phoebe clearly did. There was no feminine form of the word for deacon. Thus Paul says, "Women likewise," meaning that women could hold this position. They cannot, however, hold the position of pastor/elder. If women were allowed to, Jesus would have chosen a woman as one of His Apostles as He held women in high esteem, which can be seen in the fact that the first person to see Him after His resurrection was a woman.

The Priscilla Papers uses Acts 18:26 as their key verse, misquoted and twisted so as to put the woman first: "Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos more perfectly in the way of the Lord." The verse reads, "Aquila and Priscilla . . . expounded unto [Apollos] the way of God more perfectly." News flash, women! Aquila is a man: "Aquila . . . with his wife Priscilla" (Acts 18:2). In the Greek, Aquila comes before Priscilla. This verse does not in any way, shape, or form give support to women as pastors/elders. This is a woman, with her husband, under his headship and authority, helping her husband to teach Apollos. It was in private discourse within their home, which is a form of evangelism. It was not in a pastoral/elder manner. Women are allowed to be deacons (something the two women of this article screw up, claiming the position of deacon to be a position of authority), but they are not allowed to be pastors/elders.

If I had more time, I would go through their article point by point and refute and correct it. Maybe at a later date I will. But for now, this blog entry should suffice to answer just some of the ignorant, and possibly willful, errors they attempted to argue due to the cancer that is feminism. As my friend Jerry has said, "Feminism is CANCER, while true femininity in women is the CURE." To coincide with this, he also said, "The Feminist agenda in emasculating men is TOXIC, while true masculinity in men is the TONIC."

For a direct message to women in pastoral/elder positions, calling them to repent of their disobedience and rebellion, please see Attention Women Pastors/Elders!

King James, Geneva, and Tyndale

There are a lot of people (Christians?) out there who do not know their Bible translations/versions very well. About a week ago, I was trying to look up the numerous times the KJV gave an alternate and incorrect translation from that of Tyndale's, and I ended up reading a few write-ups concerning the Tyndale New Testament, the Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible. The one author was claiming that the KJV is most identical to Tyndale's work, taking largely from him. The same author also claimed that the Geneva Bible had translations that were not very good or in line with the KJV. This author provided a couple of his "examples" to try and prove his case. One such "example" was John 14:6, where he said the Geneva translated it as "that Way, that Truth, and that Life," instead of "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Well, his arguments were entirely wrong and based on purposefully false information.

First, while the KJV translators were supposed to use the 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible as their base text, a comparison of the Geneva Bible with the KJV shows that the translators were far more influenced by the Geneva Bible than any other. Tyndale's work also influenced the Geneva.

Second, I pulled out my 1560 Geneva Bible to see if his claims about John 14:6 were true. The words of the 1560? "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life." Well, maybe he was talking about the 1557 Geneva New Testament. So I pulled it out to check. Its words? "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life." Hmm... Okay, one last check. I pulled out my 1599 Geneva Bible. Ah... Here's what he was referring to. "I am that Way, and that Truth, and that Life." I am willing to bet that if I were to check out all his other "examples" he used, they would have come from the 1599 as well.

Sadly, even the Tolle Lege updated 1599 Geneva Bible has this translation error: "I am that Way, and that Truth, and that Life." And these guys somehow think this edition has a leg up over the 1560 edition? I do not think so!

Be careful what you read when reading about the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible, especially when presented by a KJV-Only individual. They will glorify the King James Bible while demonizing the Geneva Bible with false accusations. These people tend to have zero knowledge of church history or biblical history. They merely regurgitate false information that has been fed to them from other false sources.

Attention Women Pastors/Elders!!!

Any woman who serves as a pastor/preacher or elder is in direct violation of God's Word! Particularly 1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Corinthians 14:33b-38, and 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

If you attempt to argue that Paul was a chauvinist, then you are saying that God Himself is a chauvinist because the Holy Spirit inspired Paul as to what he should write, which makes Paul's words God's words. In other words, you have a problem with God and His ruling.

If you attempt to argue that that was for back then, but not for today, then you testify to the fact that you are ignorant and do not know God or Who God is because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He never changes. What He said back then still stands today. God has given us specific roles within the family and within the body—the church, and women are not allowed to be pastors/preachers or elders in a congregation or to exercise authority over a man to teach him.

Yes, God has given women specific gifts to exercise, and they should use them in accordance with their role and gifting. A woman does not need to be a pastor/elder in order to exercise the gifts the Holy Spirit has bestowed upon her. The office of pastor/elder is for men and men alone. Women are allowed to be deacons, as Phoebe was (a servant to the church), but they are not allowed to be pastors/elders.

Any woman who holds such an office is in direct disobedience to God's Word and rebellion against Christ Jesus.

Women in pastoral/elder positions...

God created you. God is sovereign over you. God has intentions for your life and expressed some of those intentions. Your life does not belong to you. You do not get to do whatever you want to do with it. You were created in order to glorify Him. You glorify Him by being obedient to His will, His intentions, and His Word. To go against His will and intentions is an eternal issue with severe consequences. To go against His will and intentions is a direct attack on the wisdom of God. You are saying that you know better than God and that you are wiser than God. You will only find joy in the will of God. God said that women are not allowed to exercise authority over a man to teach him, nor are they to be pastors/preachers or elders. This role and responsibility God gave to men.

Many of you women, if Christ Jesus were standing in your presence, you would not submit to Him or His authority. This demonstrates what your heart is like and what is in your heart. You need to repent. May God give you the grace to do so joyfully and humbly.

Government Sanctioned Bible

For those unfamiliar with history and facts, the King James Bible, also known as the 'Authorized Version,' was a government-issued and government-authorized translation.

Think about that for a moment.

Imagine Justin Trudeau or Barack Obama issuing a translation of the Bible authorized by themselves. The KJV was forced upon our ancestors as the "only Bible" the people should use. (Sound familiar?) The Bible of our ancestors was the Geneva Bible, a Bible translated by the people for the people. Our ancestors fled from England to the Americas clutching their beloved Geneva Bible, escaping from the religious persecution of King James, the Church of England, and the KJV. The Reformers, the Puritans, William Shakespeare, and early American colonists used the Geneva Bible exclusively. In fact, America was founded using the Geneva Bible.

It is interesting to note that the Geneva Bible was book-ended by religious persecution. At the front end was religious persecution from Queen "Bloody" Mary Tudor and the Catholic church, while at the back end was religious persecution from King James and the Church of England.

The Geneva Bible is the only Bible ever able to outsell and exceed the popularity of the King James Bible, until its printing ceased in 1644. It would be several decades before the King James Bible overtook the Geneva Bible in popularity with the people.

While I love the KJV translation, people need to learn some history before arguing utter foolishness (such as "The KJV was written by the Apostles."). The KJV was a Bible of religious persecution against our ancestors, and is today still being used as a tool of persecution by KJV-Onlyists who know nothing of church history and/or Bible history (let alone facts of reality). The Bible that helped shape the English language and our theology was the Geneva Bible. It was the first Bible to add numbered verses to each chapter; it was the first Bible to use Roman-style typeface instead of Gothic-style typeface; and it was the first "study Bible," utilizing extensive commentary notes in the margins. The KJV, while not a perfect translation, is nevertheless a good translation, but it is not the Bible of our ancestors. The Geneva Bible holds that title.

You Don't Get Into Heaven For Being Straight

You don't get into Heaven for being straight (heterosexual).

Let's see if we can clarify that statement.

Obeying God's original heterosexual design for man and woman will not get you into Heaven. Why do I say this? While homosexuality is a sin that goes against God's creation and purpose, there are some out there who actually think their heterosexuality will get them into Heaven. Sorry, but all your obedience and all your good works are like a menstruation rag in the sight of God Almighty. Your heterosexuality amounts for absolutely nothing. There is only one thing that can get you into Heaven—Jesus.

With that said, you are for sure not getting into Heaven if you're purposefully and habitually practicing the sin of homosexuality (or any other sin). By embracing it and living it out, you are living in direct defiance to God, His Word, and His creation purpose for man and woman. Unless you repent of your sin of homosexuality (stop doing it, turn 180 degrees, and start doing what God demands of you), as you must with all other sinful practices, you will perish and spend eternity in Hell separated from the presence of God.

God created man. He said it was not good for man to be alone. In creating a partner for man, He did not create another of the same kind. He created the opposite kind, so that man and woman might be paired together. He then stated that man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife. This goes for every man and woman out there. He then gave His mandate to be fruitful and multiply, something homosexuality will never be able to fulfill.

God created us. He is sovereign over us. He has intentions for our lives. Our lives do not belong to ourselves. We do not get to do whatever we want to do with our bodies. They were created in order to glorify Him. We glorify Him with our bodies in the way that He prescribed them to be. If you're a man, it's because God created you to be a man. If you're a woman, it's because God created you to be a woman. To try and be something you're not is to go against Him, which is an eternal issue that has severe consequences. By trying to do so, you are directly attacking the wisdom of God. You will only find joy in the will of God. By pursuing homosexuality and transgenderism, you are not only disobeying the will of God, but you will never find joy in them. Doing evil for the sake of doing evil brings temporary fulfillment, but never satisfies.

Even in places like San Francisco, one of the most tolerant and accepting places for homosexuality and transgenderism, the suicide rate of transgenders is still skyrocketing. Why? Because they know intrinsically that something is wrong; that they are not who and what they are pretending to be. If I pretend to be a dolphin and "identify" myself as a dolphin, it does not change the reality that I'm a human being. Even if the entire world approved of and accepted their perverse and twisted practice, they would not be happy because their conscience would continuously remind them that what they're doing is not proper.

You are who God created you to be. If you were just "being yourself," as you claim to be doing, then you would be accepting yourself in the precise way God created you. If you are a man, then "being yourself" requires you to be a man and pursue women for relational completion. If you are a woman, then "being yourself" requires you to be a woman and pursue men for relational completion. God created you to be who He created you to be, and He did not make a mistake in doing so. God created you man or woman. His purpose for man and woman is monogamous heterosexuality. Anything outside of this, that goes against this, is sin—it is evil.

Repent and trust the Saviour who saves from all sin!

The Filioque

The Latin term "filioque" was added to the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (commonly known as the Nicene Creed), which has lead to great controversy between the Eastern and Western churches. The term describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son, and not from the Father only. Whether or not the term is included, some say that it implies a serious underestimation of the Father's role in the Trinity, while others say that it implies a serious underestimation of the Son's role in the Trinity. Both these groups are in the wrong. Whether it is included or not does not underestimate either the Father's or the Son's role in the Trinity. However, by having the term included actually makes the Creed more biblical. Observe:

"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever;" John 14:16

"But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." John 14:26

"When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me," John 15:26

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." John 16:7

According to the first two verses, the Comforter—the Holy Spirit—proceeds from the Father. According to the last two verses, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. In the last two verses, Who sends the Holy Spirit? Jesus. All three Persons of the Trinity were involved in creation, the birth of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, salvation, etc., etc., etc. So it is no surprise that the Holy Spirit would be sent by both the Father and the Son. This fact should end the controversy between the Eastern and Western churches.

The Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, and the church in the east are in error for rejecting the addition of this term, seeing as how it is derived directly from Scripture.

Augustine's Pears

Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354—430, sometimes referred to as Saint Augustine) and some friends went into a neighbour's property and stole pears from the neighbour's pear trees. Augustine did not even eat the pears, but dumped them out elsewhere. Augustine confesses that he merely took the pears simply for the sake of doing evil. In other words, he did evil just to do evil. This is how evil works. As human beings, we do something bad simply because we want to enjoy the bad thing. After doing it, we find that doing evil does not truly make us happy. Yet we continue to choose to do evil simply for the fact of doing evil. That is how sin works, and that is why sin is so evil. We do evil because we enjoy it. Only grace can change us from bad people to good people, from sinful people to forgiven people. Only grace can reverse our course so that we can pursue what is good, right, and perfect. This is why we need Jesus. This is why we need salvation. Because apart from it, every evil act we commit is a transgression against a thrice holy God. Since we are made in His image, every time we sin we are telling the universe, "This is what God is like." Our sin is against an infinitely holy God, and therefore an infinite punishment is not only fair, but worthy.

Infant Baptism

Infant baptism has been the majority practice of historic Christianity, and is still practiced today by the majority of Christian denominations. These are irrefutable facts!

I was raised under Dispensationalism. I held to the concept of believer's baptism for years. The only infant baptism I knew of was that practiced by the Roman Catholic church, and I utterly reject their heretical practice thereof, which is full of superstition (that baptism protects against demons) and false doctrine (that even if your child lives the life of a devil, he/she will still make it into heaven because he/she was baptized).

Many individuals who have come out of paedo-baptism have done so because of two reasons: (1) poor teaching of the subject on the church's part, which has relegated it to a mere tradition of men, and (2) inadequate and incomplete study of the subject on their part. If these individuals understood hermeneutics or how to properly study the Bible in the first place, they would not make such blunders in their private personal studies. No matter how wrong they are in their conclusion, nevertheless they are brothers and sisters in the faith and we should treat them as Augustine treated Pelagius, even after he was deemed a heretic: love them and hold out hope for them. It may be a secondary issue that does not affect their salvation, but God still desires His children to conform to every biblical truth—not just those that meet their fancy.

Many former credo-baptists have since become paedo-baptists. Some attempt to argue that it even happens the other way around, which it does. But this argument is not in their favour. For example: Many former Catholics have since become Protestants. But one could also argue that some former Protestants have since become Catholics, which they have. I have even talked to former "Christians" who have since joined cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. The question that needs to be asked is, Which changes in belief are actually based on Scripture and proper in-depth biblical study? Guess what? Both cannot be. The Holy Spirit is not divided and does not and will not lead two of God's children in two completely different directions. Everyone claims conviction of and leading by the Holy Spirit, but some of those claims are false and are merely based on personal feelings and opinions (as well as poor biblical study, if any at all). Scripture will decide the case between the two every time!

Most Christians avoid studying a given subject or doctrine because they are afraid that Scripture will not confirm their views and/or support their position. Rather than be like the Bereans and search to see what Scripture has to say and gladly conform their life and beliefs to it, they would rather be disobedient and rebel. Sadly, most Christians' primary obligation does not include being faithful to God's Word and maintaining a clear conscience before Him.

We have historic records of the practice of infant baptism from as early as the second century A.D. The first objection against the practice of infant baptism does not appear until the 1500s. If the Apostles never taught and/or practiced infant baptism, as some individuals attempt to argue, and from the second century on we have evidence of everyone practicing it, what happened during the 100 years or so between the Apostles and the second century practitioners? If it was something that was never supposed to have been practiced, and suddenly in the second century onward everyone is practicing it, where are the voices who raised objection to its sudden development? If infant baptism was not practiced by the first century church, how and why did this departure from orthodoxy happen so fast and so pervasively? Not only was the spread rapid and universal, but the extant literature from that time does not reflect any controversy concerning the issue. How do credo-baptists explain this? This is their greatest issue to confront.

In the 5th century A.D., Pelagius argued that children were born sinless. Augustine replied something along the lines of, "If children are born sinless, then there's no need for us to baptize children." Pelagius then responded something along the lines of, "I know of no one who would withhold baptism from children and such a person should be held in anathema." Baptism was seen as a Christian act of consecration.

God has always dealt with His people via covenants. Circumcision was instituted under the Abrahamic covenant—not the Mosaic covenant, which has been made obsolete (see Hebrews). Abraham was an unbeliever who came to faith as an adult. He came to faith before he was circumcised. As an adult who had come to faith, he had the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision) applied. Isaac, however, received the sign and seal of the covenant before he had the faith that the sign signified. This was also the case of every other future son of the covenant. In the New Testament, we see former unbelievers who came to faith as adults. These came to faith before they were baptized. As adults who had come to faith, they had the sign and seal of the covenant (baptism) applied. Now, while we do not see it presented in Scripture (at least not with absolute words), one would expect to see the sign and seal of the covenant being applied to children before they had the faith that the sign signified, which is exactly what we see from early church history.

One quarter of the baptisms mentioned in Scripture indicate that entire households were baptized. This strongly suggests (though it does not prove) that infants were included among those baptized. It is highly unlikely that households that consisted not only of your immediate family members, but also of extended family members and of servants, that not one single individual in these households had any children or infants. Children, who were included in the former covenants, would naturally be assumed to be included in the new covenant. If children were no longer included in the new covenant, that puts them in a worse condition and makes them worse off than they had been under the previous covenant.

The new covenant is far more reaching and much more inclusive. Hence the Gentile inclusion. Does it make sense that God, Who included children in all His previous covenants, would suddenly exclude children from His new covenant? Essentially equating them alongside the heathen and their children? If children were no longer to be included, there would be such a command, a "thus says the Lord," found in Scripture. There is nothing! Since the covenant sign and seal of circumcision could only be applied to male children, would it not make sense that the covenant sign and seal of baptism would include female children, rather than eliminating children altogether?

The new covenant is more inclusive than the old, yet those who dispute the validity of infant baptism would make it less inclusive with respect to children, relegating their children to an equal position with heathen and their children.

Many of the arguments of credo-baptists against paedo-baptists are also arguments against themselves and their own position. The arguments from silence to the one are also the same arguments from silence to the other. It is argued that there are no examples of children being baptized in Scripture, yet it is failed to be acknowledged that there is likewise no examples of children of believers growing up and being baptized as adults. Until you study the subject of baptism more broadly, seeing what Scripture has to say about children and covenants, rather than blindly limiting it to a mere look at the word "baptism," you will fail to understand baptism correctly in all its depth and meaning.