Speaking in Tongues in the Book of Acts: Should Modern Churches Imitate the First Century Church’s Practice of Speaking in Tongues?

 

 

 

 

 

The Arrival of the Holy Spirit to the First Disciples

His arrival was unmistakable and His presence illuminated the room. The author of Acts said that it sounded like a rushing mighty wind as the Spirit of the living God filled the bodily temples of every believer in the Upper Room that Pentecost morning. The faithful had been earnestly praying for forty days and as always God did not disappoint. The Spirit of God appeared as tongues of fire resting upon each disciple giving them the ability to speak in different languages. Assuming the authorship of Acts to be Luke, this letter to the excellent Theophilus is the only record of what happened immediately following the execution of Christ Jesus. Serving as part two to the book of Luke, we see the church at its infancy, at the crucial moment in History when Jesus is ascended and the Holy Spirit descended. Jesus told them to wait on the Holy Spirit who would empower them to be His witnesses from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). They could not fully realize how the living Spirit of God would enable their witness to travel through both space and time. Because of their obedience the world and its new generations continue to be evangelized. The readers of Luke's report are empowered today by the same sovereign Spirit that fell upon the first disciples. Now the modern church struggles to determine the significance and doctrinal implications surrounding the miracle of speaking in tongues among the three occurrences recorded in the Book of Acts.

The Context of Acts

The book of Acts is a letter that most scholars agree was written by Luke to Theophilus. Like with any letter read by a party who is not the intended addressee, the subjects, topics, intent and overall purpose of the letter must be read in its intended context to be fully understood. Reading a letter is a lot like overhearing one side of a conversation between two other parties. As modern readers of Acts we must use Historical context, consider the literary genre and biblical context surrounding the subject to reveal the context of this piece of literature (Duvall 2005).    

So what was Luke trying to convey in this letter? Bock reveals,

Acts narrates God's work in establishing the church through Jesus' activity… Luke, a sometime companion of Paul, put the content of tradition into His own words. He did this in order to indicate how a new movement emerging out of Judaism came to incorporate Gentiles into the community of God. At the core of the activity and preaching stands the work of God through the now exalted Jesus, who in turn distributes the Spirit as a sign that the new era and salvation have come to both Jews and Gentiles (Bock 2007).

 

    Luke, by the Spirit, records the History of the early church in a letter to Theophilus, illustrating how God established His church including both Jews and Gentiles in salvation plan set forth from the beginning. Acts' theme can be found in the first chapter of Acts in verse 8, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." Luke beautifully narrates how the Holy Spirit moves the gospel from region to region beginning with the Jews and ending with the Gentiles in Rome. With this theme in mind, Luke immediately moves to the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

 

    What was the significance of tongues in Acts in relationship to the purpose of the letter? Now that we have established the context Acts let us examine more carefully the content. There are three occurrences of speaking in tongues in Acts. The first happens when Jews and proselytes gathered in Jerusalem at Pentecost forty days after the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2:1-5). Jesus tells His companions to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit who would empower them to be His witnesses to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Luke sets the in this introduction the foundation for the entire book of Acts and the purpose of the coming of the Holy Spirit. In the upper room the disciples experience the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Luke says there was a sound like a rushing mighty wind. Boice says that there is symbolism in the use of the term wind which in Hebrew is ruach. This word represents the spirit or wind and symbolizes the creative, moving, dynamic breath of God. He says that this breath is a divine, life giving wind that blew across the waters in the beginning (Boice 1997). Johns 3:5-8 says, "…No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and spirit. Flesh gives birth to Flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to the spirit… the wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going, so it is with everyone born of the Spirit." According to Boice,

Just as the beginning God breathed into Adam so that he became a living physical being, so also in our day if a person is to be saved God must breath into him or her by His Spirit once again from above, just like the first time so that the person might become spiritually alive." With this symbolism Luke demonstrates the authority and power of the Holy Spirit. God uses His spirit who is able to carry out His will to evangelize the earth. The very first act was to enable the disciple to speak in a new tongue.

The coming of the Holy Spirit was a pivotal moment in church History, marking transition into fulfilled prophecy. How significant is the miracle of tongues in relationship to the pivotal moment? When the Holy Spirit arrived on the day of Pentecost, he empowered the first church to do the extraordinary including speak in tongues. There is no doubt that the speaking of tongues was used to communicate the gospel to the people on the day of Pentecost. Strauss writes,

This purpose of the gift of tongues, namely to communicate God's message to Israel, is verified in the three passages in Acts where speaking in tongues is mentioned. In Acts 2 tongues-speaking was used as a missionary or evangelistic tool in fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11. There was no need for the disciples to learn other languages before they could communicate the Gospel. God overcame the language barrier through the miracle-gift of tongues. … Observe that they were "Jews" from other countries who spoke many languages and dialects, and yet each heard the Gospel in His own tongue.

    Some scholars believe that when the events in the Book of Acts ended so the practice of speaking in tongues should have ended as well. The reasons include the fact that they first disciples did not have the completed word of God and therefore needed signs and miracles. Now that the scriptures are completed, anyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Strauss n.d.). The second reason has to do with the overall cessation of the sign miracles in this day in age.     

    The second and third occurrences of speaking in tongues occur in Acts 10:46 and 19:6. Both incidences happen when Gentiles are converted. One conversion happened with Peter and the other with Paul's conversion of twelve Gentiles. These occurrences are taught to be validations of the Spirit accepting the Gentiles as the Jews were accepted. Strauss argues that the tongues that were spoken amongst the Gentiles were a sign to the Jews who were always present at their conversions. So not only was the tongues used to convey the gospel message, they were also a confirmatory sign. The manner in which Luke structure acts is to show the parallelism between Peter's ministry and Paul's ministry perhaps in order to validate Paul's apostleship. So the latter display of tongues by the Gentiles parallels the conversion of Cornelius.

The Tongues in Acts vs. Tongues Other NT Scriptures

    Some confusion about tongues stems from the other scriptures on the subject chapters 12-14 of 1 Corinthians is dedicated to spiritual gifts and how the gift of tongues rank among the other gifts of the Spirit. Paul says that all do not have the gift of tongues and others have the gift of interpretation, but they do not supersede the gift of prophesy in the edification of the body (chapter 12). Chapter 13 begins,"Though I speak with tongues of men and angels…" What is the tongue of angels? How does Paul know it? 1 Corinthians speak of two types of spiritual tongues. There was obviously the kind that should be spoken alone and one that should be spoken in assembly. There has to be a heavenly language somehow imparted to men by the Holy Spirit with which men can communicate more effectively with God. 1 Corinthians 14:2 says that "he who speaks in tongues does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him: however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries." Paul tells us to keep tongues to ourselves when there is no interpreter in church. Verses 13-15 and 28 implies instances when the Holy Spirit will impart the gift only to be used between that individual and God.

The book of Acts does not make clear if the tongues that the gentiles spoke were incomprehensible or interpreted, but they were used as a sign to those who were skeptical of their conversion. Assuming that the tongues spoken by the gentile converts were speaking were interpretable, the utterances had to sound like babbling to the speaker and to those who did not speak the language.

    Jesus says in Mark 16:17 the His believers will speak with new tongues and cast out demons. The believers in the Book of Acts did both. That was the sign to the new believers, especially where the scriptures were not available.

Pentecostalism

Some scholars argue that though tongues were prevalent in Acts with regards to the arrival of the Holy Spirit, that tongues was not the focal point of the book. But that the prophecy was fulfilled validating further Jesus as the Messiah and the power of the Holy Spirit to further the gospel to the ends of the earth through His disciples. The Spirit arrived as a helper and that the result of the having been filled was that they were able on this occasion to speak in languages other than Aramaic (Smith 1948). Perhaps, if God them to do something else maybe the Holy spirit would have empowered them with a different gift. In other words the ability to speak in tongues in acts was a byproduct of the mission given to the disciples.

Is the modern church supposed to imitate the church in Acts? Pentecostalism, a movement in the US in early 1900's, is mostly responsible for today's trend of speaking in tongues among some churches. The belief that manifestations of the Holy Spirit should play a major role in the life of the church is held by Charismatic churches today and has its roots in Pentecostal Movement (Hill 2006). Hill writes:

[Pentecostalism] had its roots in the Holiness movement, a trend that spread through the churches of the USA- especially the Methodists – in the second half of the nineteenth century. .. Its members stressed that the evangelical life involves two conversions… repentance and forgiveness of sins and the second involves full sanctification, the dedication of oneself to God and the living of a holy life.    

...Charles Parham (1872-1929), Ran a Bible school in Topeka, Kansas. Here, on 1 January 1901, His student Agnes Ozman started speaking in tongues', strange languages that made no sense. It began when Parham had His students study what the New Testament said about the blessings of the Holy Spirit, and Parham became convinced that that those blessings were being suddenly bestowed upon His group.

    At what was called the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in 1906, the preaching of William Seymour (1870-1922), had an extraordinary effect on the people in attendance. Miracles, speaking in tongues and dancing overtook the services everyday for three years. People were healed and there crutches covered the wall of the church. New churches sprang up all over the United states, including the Church of God in Christ, and the Assemblies of God (Hill 2006).

    Pentecostalism inspired what is called the Charismatic Movement among other churches but they are usually the voice of reform among the larger denominations without seeking to start new denominations (Hill 2006).

    So do the Pentecostals and Charismatics have the correct view of a new dispensation that involves the manifestations of spiritual gifts as evidence of the Holy Spirit? Gordon Fee, an ordained Assemblies of God minister, believes that Pentecostals were incorrect in their theological exegesis of the scripture surrounding the baptism of the Holy Spirit and says that they needed biblical foundation for the experience that they were having. However, he maintains that they are correct in their quest to experience the manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the modern church (Fee 1985).

    Strauss argues that:

It is a mistake to assume that speaking in tongues is synonymous with the baptism of the Holy Spirit." …All the believers at Corinth received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, however all did not speak in tongue." The baptizing work of the Spirit is not an experience in the believer subsequent to salvation. Rather it is that act of the Holy Spirit which joins the believing sinner to the Body of Christ. More emphatically, there is no other means whereby one can become a member of the Church which is Christ's Body. All saved persons have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, but not all saved persons speak in tongues. The baptizing work of the Spirit places the believer in the Body positionally.

    What Fee says makes sense that the early church was used to see the Holy Spirit make His presence known. The writers of the New Testament were writing to the first century church not to later churches that are not used to a demonstrative Spirit. Fee writes:

I think it is fair to note that if there is one thing that differentiates the early church from its twentieth century counterpart, it is in the level of awareness and experience of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Ask any number of people today from all sectors of Christendom to define or describe Christian conversion or Christian life, and the most noticeable feature of that definition would be its general lack of emphasis on the active, dynamic role of the Spirit (Fee 1985).

 

    Some scholars argue that the word of God is the final authority and fulfillment of revelation to the church. There is no need for God to speak directly to individuals through signs, dreams, miracles and such because His word is complete in the canon. Within this battle about the sufficiency of the Bible, scholars question whether accepting new revelations of the Holy Spirit implies that the bible is no longer the infallible sovereign word of God (Allen 1998). Arguments for modern spiritual manifestations like speaking in tongues made by Jonathan Edwards include:

1. The Holy Spirit did not die with the first century church.
   
2. The emphasis of depersonalization of God by the church is causing emphasis on knowledge over relationship.
   
3. The Holy Spirit's guidance is still needed in discerning the will of God.
   

Charismatic churches today say that there is a genuine move of the Holy Spirit in their services and their lives that others characterize as mere emotionalism. Dr. Matthew Allen makes the case that there should be balance in churches today. "We are responsible to offer 'something more' than either sterile rationalism or destructive emotionalism. We must offer a person, real relationship with Jesus Christ."

When the Holy Spirit arrived on the day of Pentecost, he empowered the first church to do the extraordinary including speak in tongues. The modern church struggles to find answers about the mystery of speaking in tongues among the scarce accounts in the book of acts. The modern church needs to know where to place the importance of speaking in tongues in relationship to the evidence of the Holy Spirit.

It is not determined what created that cessation of Spiritual gifts from the time of Acts until today, but I conclude that cessation alone is not reason to discount that speaking in tongues and any other work of the Holy Spirit. God is sovereign and he gave Spirit to be a helper to us to the church to spread the gospel. The facts are that the entire world is not yet evangelized, it has been two thousand years since the writings of the canon and God is still moving in the lives of His believers. God has not stopped speaking to us because His word is living, eternal, and is inside of every believer. Jesus said the woman at the well , "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:23-24. Jesus prophesied in Mark 16: 16-17, "Go into the entire world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;"

As believers, we cannot limit God; we must worship God in spirit and truth. I agree that we must be temperate and balanced in our worship. Sterile, stoic worship was not representative of the worship that the Father expected from the chosen Israelites; why then would He expect it from His Church today?

Furthermore, we should judge that our worship is in truth and if the gift of tongues is displayed that it is to be done according to the guidelines that the Word mandates. God's inspiration in the book of Acts intended to show us that the presence of the Holy Spirit is unmistakable. You don't have to wonder whether the Spirit has arrived because when He falls he empowers the believer to be his witness. Speaking in tongues is not the evidence of the Holy Spirit, a born again life that bears the fruit of witness is the evidence of the Holy Spirit. However, only the Holy Spirit can give the power to speak in tongues that is new to the speaker and interpreted by another.

When one learns to read the bible daily for oneself, it is understood that His Holy Spirit aids in interpretation and revelation of His word. God is able to do exceedingly and abundantly more than we can ever ask or think. With the age of the internet we can evangelize faster and further than ever before. Perhaps God empowered this generation with his spirit because of its ability to go to the ends of the earth. The Bible is patterned by events that show how God moves after centuries of being silent. The call of Samuel, The birth of John the Baptist, and Israel's freedom from bondage in Egypt are all examples of this. God has a way of showing up big after long periods of time. Two thousand years after the church in Acts later God could be pouring out His Spirit on His church to expedite the coming of Christ by our witness.

 

 

    

 

Bibliography

Allen, Matthew. Excited Utterances: A Historical Perspective On Prophecy, Tongues and other manifestations of Spiritual Extasy. Tampa, Florida: Biblical Studies Press, 1998.

Bock, Darrell. Acts: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2007.

Boice, James Montgomery. Acts: an expositional commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering the Years Immediately Following the Execution of Jesus. New York,: Harper Collins Books, 1998.

Damboriena, Prudencio. Tongues As of Fire. Washington & Cleveland: Corpus Books, 1969.

Davies, G. Henton, Alan Richardson, Charles Wallace, ed., ed. The Twentieth Century Bible Commentary. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1955.

Durasoff, Steve. Bright Wind of the Spirit: Pentecostalism Today. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.

Duvall, J. Scott, Hayes, J. Daniel. Grasping God's Word: A Hands'on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Graad Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Fee, Gordon D. "Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence." PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. 1985.

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Oxford, England: Lion Publishing Plc., 2006.

Hindson, Edward E., General Editors., ed. The KJV Parallel Bible Commentary. . Nashville , TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1994.

McCone, R. Clyde. Culture and Contoversy: An Investigation of the Tongues of Pentcost. Philidelphia and Ardmore, PA: Dorrance & Company, 1978.

Melbourne, Bertram L. Acts 1:8 Re-Examined: Is Acts 8 Its Fulfillment? Atlas.

Ralph, Margaret Nutting. Discovering the First Century church: The Acts of the Apostles, Letters of Paul, and the Book of Revelation. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1991.

Schwartz, Daniel R. The End of the ΓΗ (ACTS 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision? Jerusalem, Israel: Department of Jewish History, Hebrew University, 1986.

Smith, Miles w. On Whom the Spirit Came: A study of the Acts of the Apostles. Philidelphia: The Jusdson Express, 1948.

Strauss, Lehman. "www.bible.org." www.bible.org. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=393 (accessed September 30, 2008).

 

Works Cited

Allen, Matthew. Excited Utterances: A Historical Perspective On Prophecy, Tongues and other manifestations of Spiritual Extasy. Tampa, Florida: Biblical Studies Press, 1998.

Bock, Darrell. Acts: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2007.

Boice, James Montgomery. Acts: an expositional commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering the Years Immediately Following the Execution of Jesus. New York,: Harper Collins Books, 1998.

Damboriena, Prudencio. Tongues As of Fire. Washington & Cleveland: Corpus Books, 1969.

Davies, G. Henton, Alan Richardson, Charles Wallace, ed., ed. The Twentieth Century Bible Commentary. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1955.

Durasoff, Steve. Bright Wind of the Spirit: Pentecostalism Today. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.

Duvall, J. Scott, Hayes, J. Daniel. Grasping God's Word: A Hands'on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Graad Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Fee, Gordon D. "Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence." PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. 1985.

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Oxford, England: Lion Publishing Plc., 2006.

Hindson, Edward E., General Editors., ed. The KJV Parallel Bible Commentary. . Nashville , TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1994.

McCone, R. Clyde. Culture and Contoversy: An Investigation of the Tongues of Pentcost. Philidelphia and Ardmore, PA: Dorrance & Company, 1978.

Melbourne, Bertram L. Acts 1:8 Re-Examined: Is Acts 8 Its Fulfillment? Atlas.

Ralph, Margaret Nutting. Discovering the First Century church: The Acts of the Apostles, Letters of Paul, and the Book of Revelation. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1991.

Schwartz, Daniel R. The End of the ΓΗ (ACTS 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision? Jerusalem, Israel: Department of Jewish History, Hebrew University, 1986.

Smith, Miles w. On Whom the Spirit Came: A study of the Acts of the Apostles. Philidelphia: The Jusdson Express, 1948.

Strauss, Lehman. "www.bible.org." www.bible.org. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=393 (accessed September 30, 2008).

 

Are the Sign Gifts Still Alive Today?

It is my personal opinion that the signs gifts are present today, maybe not as much as in the early church but there are plenty of occurrences. I hold this position for three reasons. First I have experience the sign gifts abundantly. Secondly, there is no clear teaching in scripture that says that the sign gifts were only for the early church. And finally, the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit accompany the gospel as a clear sign to validate its message. Christ said that where his gospel is preached, signs would follow. When the Holy Spirit arrived on the day of Pentecost, he empowered the first church to do the extraordinary including speak in tongues. The modern church struggles to find answers about the mystery of speaking in tongues among the scarce accounts in the book of acts. As believers, we cannot limit God; we must worship God in spirit and truth. I agree that we must be temperate and balanced in our worship. Sterile, stoic worship was not representative of the worship that the Father expected from the chosen Israelites; why then would He expect it from His Church today?

I believe that there are plenty of sign gift manifestations in the church today. I just believe that miracles are easy to be explained away when you are not the subject or receiver of the miracle. There are many counterfeit miracles, and false teachings that stifle the legitimacy of some sign gifts. I also believe that God works his gifts and signs seasonally. There may be a cessation of gifts for now but there is not biblical evidence that insists that the canon was the line of demarcation for gifts. I think that because we have seen less spiritual gifts manifested in the church today that people need a reason to attribute the less frequent events to some biblical explanation. But there is none. Why limit God. God always has the power to use miracles at any time in the present or the future.

It is not determined what created that cessation of Spiritual gifts from the time of Acts until today, but I conclude that cessation alone is not reason to discount that speaking in tongues and any other work of the Holy Spirit. God is sovereign and he gave Spirit to be a helper to us to the church to spread the gospel. The facts are that the entire world is not yet evangelized, it has been two thousand years since the writings of the canon and God is still moving in the lives of His believers. God has not stopped speaking to us because His word is living, eternal, and is inside of every believer. Jesus said the woman at the well , "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:23-24. Jesus prophesied in Mark 16: 16-17, "Go into the entire world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;"

Charismatic churches today say that there is a genuine move of the Holy Spirit in their services and their lives that others characterize as mere emotionalism. Agree with Dr. Matthew Allen who makes the case that there should be balance in churches today. "We are responsible to offer 'something more' than either sterile rationalism or destructive emotionalism. We must offer a person, real relationship with Jesus Christ." Gordon Fee, an ordained Assemblies of God minister, believes that Pentecostals were incorrect in their theological exegesis of the scripture surrounding the baptism of the Holy Spirit and says that they needed biblical foundation for the experience that they were having. However, he maintains that they are correct in their quest to experience the manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the modern church (Fee 1985).

    Strauss argues that:

It is a mistake to assume that speaking in tongues is synonymous with the baptism of the Holy Spirit." …All the believers at Corinth received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, however all did not speak in tongue." The baptizing work of the Spirit is not an experience in the believer subsequent to salvation. Rather it is that act of the Holy Spirit which joins the believing sinner to the Body of Christ. More emphatically, there is no other means whereby one can become a member of the Church which is Christ's Body. All saved persons have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, but not all saved persons speak in tongues. The baptizing work of the Spirit places the believer in the Body positionally.

    What Fee says makes sense that the early church was used to seeing the Holy Spirit make His presence known. The writers of the New Testament were writing to the first century church not to later churches that are not used to a demonstrative Spirit.

Some scholars argue that the word of God is the final authority and fulfillment of revelation to the church. There is no need for God to speak directly to individuals through signs, dreams, miracles and such because His word is complete in the canon. Within this battle about the sufficiency of the Bible, scholars question whether accepting new revelations of the Holy Spirit implies that the bible is no longer the infallible sovereign word of God (Allen 1998).

The Gift of prophecy as well as all of the sign gifts, is alive and well today. Paul admonishes everyone in the body of Christ to prophesy. Speaking in tongues is a tricky subject but I do know that though I do not personally speak in tongues I have the gift of interpretation of tongues. I think that tongue speaking has become a cultural emotional type practice. And I caution people not to speak in tongues in that manner because that practice shines a negative light upon the true occurrences. However, I believe that if the tongues that are spoken in public are genuine, there will be an interpretation.

    Furthermore, we should judge that our worship is in truth and if the gift of tongues is displayed that it is to be done according to the guidelines that the Word mandates. God's inspiration in the book of Acts intended to show us that the presence of the Holy Spirit is unmistakable. You don't have to wonder whether the Spirit has arrived because when He falls he empowers the believer to be his witness. Speaking in tongues is not the evidence of the Holy Spirit, a born again life that bears the fruit of witness is the evidence of the Holy Spirit. However, only the Holy Spirit can give the power to speak in tongues that is new to the speaker and interpreted by another.

When one learns to read the bible daily for oneself, it is understood that His Holy Spirit aids in interpretation and revelation of His word. God is able to do exceedingly and abundantly more than we can ever ask or think. With the age of the internet we can evangelize faster and further than ever before. Perhaps God empowered this generation with his spirit because of its ability to go to the ends of the earth. The Bible is patterned by events that show how God moves after centuries of being silent. The call of Samuel, The birth of John the Baptist, and Israel's freedom from bondage in Egypt are all examples of this. God has a way of showing up big after long periods of time. Two thousand years after the church in Acts later God could be pouring out His Spirit on His church to expedite the coming of Christ by our witness.

 

Bibliography

Allen, Matthew. Excited Utterances: A Historical Perspective On Prophecy, Tongues and other manifestations of Spiritual Extasy. Tampa, Florida: Biblical Studies Press, 1998.

Bock, Darrell. Acts: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2007.

Boice, James Montgomery. Acts: an expositional commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering the Years Immediately Following the Execution of Jesus. New York,: Harper Collins Books, 1998.

Damboriena, Prudencio. Tongues As of Fire. Washington & Cleveland: Corpus Books, 1969.

Davies, G. Henton, Alan Richardson, Charles Wallace, ed., ed. The Twentieth Century Bible Commentary. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1955.

Durasoff, Steve. Bright Wind of the Spirit: Pentecostalism Today. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.

Duvall, J. Scott, Hayes, J. Daniel. Grasping God's Word: A Hands'on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Graad Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Fee, Gordon D. "Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence." PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. 1985.

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Oxford, England: Lion Publishing Plc., 2006.

Hindson, Edward E., General Editors., ed. The KJV Parallel Bible Commentary. . Nashville , TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1994.

McCone, R. Clyde. Culture and Contoversy: An Investigation of the Tongues of Pentcost. Philidelphia and Ardmore, PA: Dorrance & Company, 1978.

Melbourne, Bertram L. Acts 1:8 Re-Examined: Is Acts 8 Its Fulfillment? Atlas.

Ralph, Margaret Nutting. Discovering the First Century church: The Acts of the Apostles, Letters of Paul, and the Book of Revelation. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1991.

Schwartz, Daniel R. The End of the ΓΗ (ACTS 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision? Jerusalem, Israel: Department of Jewish History, Hebrew University, 1986.

Smith, Miles w. On Whom the Spirit Came: A study of the Acts of the Apostles. Philidelphia: The Jusdson Express, 1948.

Calvinism vs. Arminianism

The view of salvation that makes most sense to me travels past both roads to Calvinism and Arminianism. I believe both views are too narrow thus neglect the true context of salvation history. Both paint God's plan from a human perspective, limiting God to the way humans experience salvation from our inside perspective bound by time looking out towards God's ability to save man. Rather, they should be looking at salvation from eternity inside to our history as God intended it. God's specific plan to save mankind while destroying all sin in both heaven and earth for good, begins in salvation's history with a seed in Genesis 3:15 and ends with a harvest which is a number no man can number Revelations 7:9. The correct view of God's salvific plan is not found within the confines of either the Calvinistic View or the Arminian view, but, it lies outside of human perspective, taking in account His original eternal plan to save mankind through His Son, while bringing judgment upon the earth.

Predestination and Salvation's Plan

God chose not to destroy the earth immediately without first retaining a remnant. And he uses His remnant as seed. This pattern has been repeated throughout the history of earth in the bible. From the Garden of Eden through the flood in Noah's day, through Sodom and Gomorrah, electing the children of Israel and finally to the present church, we can see that God always elects the few to be a seed for a greater harvest of believers. God's plan of salvation chooses to use the way he created earth to operate as a sign of His work in the earth over time. Every way that the father intervenes into earth's history has been in this pattern. It helps believers to identify His work in the earth. So, yes, God elected some to be saved. But, the proper context to view this fact is that he elected a few to be a seed to harvest a multitude of people that could not be numbered by man. More specifically, God intervened many times in history, by choosing individuals to carry out His will within the earth according to His plan to save mankind. Yes some are lost and some are blinded but all according to His plan.

Predestination and Choice

I don't look at predestination from the defense of Arminians who believe that God would be unfair to predestinate some and damn others. Nor do I choose to look at it from the Calvinistic viewpoint that God because both predestinates those he saves and knows which ones who are going to be save at the end, that those who are predestinated have to choose to be saved. That argument seems to me to be a logical fallacy.

Being predestinated neither takes away your choice to accept God's invitation of salvation, as Armenians choose to view, nor does it mean that being predestinated means that you are automatically saved. For example, I could predestinate my friend to go to Las Vegas on New Year's Eve 2010. I equip her with a ticket headed for Las Vegas to arrive December 30th, 2009, in time for the celebration. Not only can she choose not to go, but she can also choose to go after rejecting the offer at first. She could, change her mind and arrive in Vegas and turn around and come back. She can even change the ticket to another destination altogether. Her choice not to follow the original plan, in no way negates the fact that she is predestinated to arrive in Vegas at the appointed time. If she follows the plan of action, she also does so because she is predestinated.

More specifically, predestination means that God chose to show you the truth of His salvation plan, giving you the privileged choice of life with him in eternity or eternal damnation. If you choose eternal life through Christ Jesus, it was your destiny all along. If you choose to stay bound after being presented the truth, you simply did not follow your destiny.

This leads me to double predestination. Predestination in my definition, is not the mechanism the damns people to hell. It is the Judgment of Christ that determines your qualification for damnation (John 12:44).

Predestination and Free Will

The choice that you make once enlightened to the truth is a choice that you previously did not have. He does not trample a free choice that you innately have. Instead, He offers you a choice that you otherwise would be oblivious to. I think that this view would fall in favor of the Calvinistic view point. Although I do not agree with the "Total Depravity" stance, I do also deny the Arminian "free will." The rationale is that at the time of the fall Adam had a true free will. A choice to obey the Father or relinquish His will to Satan. After that all mankind inherited a will in bondage to sin. The truth is that salvation frees you from that bondage. For, Christ came to set the captives free from the bondage of sin according to John 8:36. There is freedom in the Word of the Lord. If you abide in the word and the word abide in you then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free (John 8:32). In sin you are bound, you are lost, you are dead, in Christ there is liberty. It is the love of God that shows mercy on your soul. And His loving kindness that predestinated you to be saved.

Eternal Security vs. Conditional Security

Why does the security have to be labeled with such constraints- eternal or conditional? The bible makes it clear that you are saved upon very specific criteria. I agree with the Arminian whose viewpoint says that one sin cannot get you out, and that the only way to get out is denying the way you got in. I also recognize the severity of falling into a pattern of specific sin whose spiritual consequences, in relationship relative to spiritual warfare; can lead you dangerously towards denying Christ. God's way to salvation is so perfect, so simplistic. It only involves your belief. Even the smallest measure of faith with in the minimal understanding of the Truth can obtain it according to John3:16. The, "Once saved always saved" of the Calvinist is a blanket belief that does not take into account the obvious possibility that you can lose your salvation in a way specifically spelled out in scripture- to deny the one who saved you. The security of your salvation lies within the Father's infallible plan. It is infallible because he is infallible and that no one can snatch you out of His hand once you have made the decision. His criteria are not going to all of a sudden change, and really have never change from the beginning of time. And His plan is so flawless that just so happened that all that he gave to Jesus did not fall away, excluding the son of perdition who followed God's plan that Christ be crucified. So, we can be secure in knowing that he equips us with what we need to endure until the end.

Two aspects of both viewpoints that I resent are, the way in Calvinism, God's is painted as an unfair by picking and choosing who he wants to save, using only His unrelenting sovereignty without regard to the choices of mankind. The other viewpoint I resent are Arminians whose teachings places on the children of God the extra burden of constantly being fearful of losing their salvation to every sin that is left unrepented, on a moment to moment basis. I John 2:1-2says, "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." The correct stance is that God really does not want anyone to perish, and those who do without the knowledge of Truth are the casualties of evil, ugly sin not the fault of the savior's perfect plan.

So, why do we need to endure if our salvation is secure? Because once we choose to receive the Father's gift of the Son, we will be tested by God and attacked by the adversary. We are equipped with gifts and the Holy Spirit as a guide to all truth, to overcome the world, the way Christ overcame the world. We can use His example of yielding His will to the will of the father every time He was tested.

I choose the view the difficult passages that speak towards the eternal security argument as a confirmation that you are equip with everything you need to succeed in God's predestination for your life. The one's that speak in favor of the Arminian view may serve as a measure of the caliber of Christian he is. For instance, Jesus speaks of the Kingdom as person's representing three types of soil. All three soils are in the kingdom but some receive the truth according to their soil. Rocky, Good or thorny are the soils that received the revelation of truth. In other words these passes can be a warning that says you think that you are saved, if this is how you are acting then this is the type of Christian you are. You never received it, you received it and lost it or you rejected it.

Unconditional Election

As far as unconditional election, I do believe that God chooses who He wills out of His Sovereign will accord His salvific plan. The elect did not earn it by any merit. God knows why and we are assured that His plan works for the good of those who are called… (Romans 8:28). I do agree with the Armenians that your election is not against your will. But, not that that will is free, it is only yours. To be elected is to be chosen, purposed in His plan, to hear His call, and to be enlightened to the truth. So, if when we hear, we receive and if we accept, His gifts, His power, we are equipped by His Spirit, and we are rewarded with eternal life. If we hear His call and we choose, to reject, or to be led astray we were part of the elect but now we are lost. He knows what your choice is going to be, but you don't.

That is why we must spread the gospel so that every man should have a choice. Christ will return when the gospel message reaches the ends of the earth (Matthew 24:14). The bible frequently speaks to the idea that he who sows will be overtaken by the reaper. In John 4, Jesus tells His disciples that the Harvest is ripe and the laborers are going to reap what they have not sown and enter into the labors of others. He also says that when you reap the fruit of eternal life.

God's predestination was necessary within His plan to save many. And it is the reason he is able to save any. This works to our advantage also, that if he is able to save any it is through His mercy that he predestinates some in order to win all. His way of seeding and harvesting is consistent throughout earth's history. His knowledge of who will be saved is merely a natural result of His omniscience and should not be entered as a matter of fact into His selection of the elect. Nor should it disqualify His fairness in judgment. Furthermore, the amount saved will be sufficient to ultimately demonstrate God's love, mercy and fairness in His judgment of the world. When God sows, He reaps exponentially. For the bible says that John saw a number that no man can number having the harps of God; and they sang "the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying: "Great and marvelous [are] Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true [are] your ways, O King of the saints (Revelations 15:3)!"

 

Boyd, Gregory A. and Paul R. Eddy. Accross the Spectrum; Understanding the Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

 

The Destiny of the Unevangelized and the Nature of Hell

 

There's a computer in my home that I just cannot get rid of. It has a pesky virus that I know has corrupted my hard drive. I am just not ready to let it go. I like to think that this PC can be representative of the unevangelized within the context of this illustration. The computer and its contents can be saved by taking it to get anti-viral software. However, I have not done so yet, due to a variety of reasons, including unbelief that all of my contents will be truly saved and that its technology is outdated. At, any rate, the state that my computer is in is useless and is headed for total destruction. Now if I never introduce anti-viral software, there would be no difference in the destiny of my computer than me throwing it away forever at a later time, after implementing the software. The choice alone is mine.

This demonstration represents three of my beliefs about the destiny of those who are unevangelized and their subsequent experience in hell. First, I am an exclusivist and believe that the unevangelized are not saved. Secondly, their fate is no worse off than if they had heard and rejected the gospel. Finally, those who suffer hell are eventually destroyed through annihilation. Instead of using the two arguments that our text uses to defend the annihilationist view, which are that the cruelty of hell is inconsistent with both God's love and victory, I would like to briefly include two other perspectives. First, I'd like to factor in my belief of the state of the dead, and secondly, the context of hell to its intended inhabitants.

To begin with, the unevangelized destination is hell. Salvation is predicated on the fact that there are those who will be lost. Everyone deserves death according to their works, according to Romans 6:23. Everyone is lost- unless they accept Jesus. It is unfortunate that the gospel has not reach the whole world yet. I do not think that God is unjust because he does not save everyone. God is so just that in order for at least one person to be saved, He had to watch his perfect son die for sins of the entire world.

    God says that he places his word even above himself, Psalm 138:2. God's word is inerrant. God is sovereign. God's plan of salvation supersedes that of lost man. To get salvation, you must receive it the way He prescribes. There is only one way to receive it. Even if you do not know how to receive it, there is no exception to the rule. The consequences never hearing the gospel are the same as the consequences of not being saved. Unfortunately, a sinner who has not heard the gospel is no worse off than he deserves.

    With that being said, what is hell like for them? The bible says that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life. I think that because of sin we all have to experience death once. But those who are lost will experience death at least twice. The last time is forever, never to be resurrected again, after judgment when they are cast into the Lake of Fire. Their punishment is eternal in many ways including that their punishment in hell's fire will be so effective that it will feel like eternity to the lost one. Secondly, it will be forever recorded in the lamb's book of life. Finally, those who are saved have eternal life the remembrances of the consequences of sin and rebellion will live on. According to the revelations 1:18 Christ has the keys to hell and death. In Revelations 20:13 and 14, death and hell gives up their wicked to be judged before their second death. Then, both hell and death are cast into the lake of fire. Destruction by definition is permanent; hell itself is temporary.

    This brings me to another point, hell, taken in context, was meant for Satan and his angels. They know what eternity means and the consequences of annihilation holds a greater punishment for them.

We cannot fathom eternity yet because we have not experienced it. We can conceptualize it as intelligent human beings and value it, however, Satan and angels have experienced eternity. So, we are nearsighted when it comes to eternity. We can trust that God's wrath will be quenched by hell's fire. We can trust that His enemies' destruction will suffice. Who knows how long it takes for an angelic being to be destroyed by fire. It may seem like forever to me, a human being. I would like to think that there are levels of punishment in hell as there are rewards in heaven. Furthermore, I believe that after God get rid of sin in this world, he won't need hell's fire after he creates a new heaven and a new earth.

    Now, let's briefly revisit the example of my virus ridded computer. Right now, because I have not followed through with my decision to totally destroy my PC, it is sitting in an unconscious state upon my desk. The power is turned off but it can be resurrected, either to life or before eternal destruction. I can destroy it by fire. And if I do, it does not have to burn for long before it is annihilated. It will not stay powered on forever and ever. The files will be destroyed never to be resurrected, and the power will never return to the unit. The status of the PC in its powered off mode now is like the state of the dead who are lost. I make this point in contrast to the point made by the classical view in the textbook. The authors say that, "It seems odd for God to resurrect people from the dead only to annihilate them," (Boyd and Eddy, 2007, pg. 256). I believe the state of the dead is a deep sleep, therefore, death, like hell is temporal (I Thessalonians 4:14-18, John 11:11). Who holds the keys to death and the grave? Jesus does!

    I must be honest in saying that the Classical view has its advantages and intriguing arguments, though they are not strong enough to sway my beliefs. The strongest argument from the opposing view is that Jesus' own words seem to paint a picture of eternal torment in hell. I don't believe that my view opposes what Christ said as I presented it. Obviously destruction in hell's fire will not be instantaneous, rather it there will be consciousness until destruction. But once, you are destroyed, you are gone for good. I am glad that the nature of hell is not a fundamental belief. I believe that if it was, God would have included it in the wording of John 3:16 or, along the Roman Road.

In conclusion, I believe that hells nature is clearly debatable but its existence is the end of the road for every unbeliever, unevangelized or not. One cannot say that hell's fire has to be eternal to be effective in evangelism because it is not always effective. Eternal life with Jesus is prize enough. Death is not the same as being destroyed in hell. And Hell was not meant for humans, but for the fallen angelic beings, Satan, the beast, the false prophet and the like. Hell's fire is more than adequate Carry out God's punishment of the wicked. The wicked will be totally annihilated and in the end so will Death and Hell according to Revelations 20:13, 14. Everyone is lost- unless they accept Jesus. How can you accept Jesus unless you hear of Him? The destruction of the unevangelized is unfortunate, however God's is sovereign and just, for they will endure no more than they deserve.    

i. I am an exclusivist that believes that some who died prior to Christ’s incarnation will be saved. My views are not based on the postmortem view, or the God knows their hearts theory. However, I hold this view based on some facts about the sacrificial system, Biblical accounts and God’s sovereignty. Due to brevity I will not be arguing this point in this paper at this time.

Boyd, Gregory A. and Paul R. Eddy. Accross the Spectrum; Understanding the Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Does an Evolution world view Impact the Value of Life

How does an evolution worldview or a creation worldview impact the way that human life is valued?

 

Those who subscribe to the evolutionary world view may have difficulty determining purpose or may not consider human life only as valuable as it pertains to world as a whole, because of their belief that the origin of the world was not designed, but instead was an accidental or random occurrence. The value of human life is left to the understanding and will of one who does not see himself as a part of a world that has both an origin and a destiny or ending. It is up to that person to determine the value of a human life. For example, few evolutionists are pro-lifers as it pertains to abortion, or do not have an issue with stem cell research or capital punishment. However that does not mean that evolutionists are totally unable to see the value of human life or that all evolutionist share the same views of abortion, stem cell research or other human values issues. Those who subscribe to the creation worldview may have an easier time valuing a single human life as purposed individual with destiny within the Creator's overall plan for the earth. A person who recognizes that their value lies within the plan of a creator who determines the beginning and end of earth's history understands that their life will be judged against the expected outcome that the creator intended for their particular life.

Junk DNA

It amazes me that evolutionist use the most manipulatively, transparent excuses to back up their weak alternative to the origin of earth. Instead of being objective in their evaluation of the data, they make up shallow superficial arguments and falsely present them as hard evidence to support their theory. One of these superficial arguments circulates around what is referred to as Junk DNA. Junk DNA is actually not junk but it represents fragments of DNA and RNA found in human cells, which at first glance seem to serve no function rather they replicate within the cell but are not part of the chromosomes themselves itself.
The fascinating thing about these DNA fragments is that because they seem to show no significance within the cell and were once thought to remain dormant therefore they have been dubbed
“Junk DNA.” Evolutionists once said that because its dormancy and uselessness, Junk DNA actually represented unused traits that were left over throughout evolution as humans transitioned from previous life forms until the present. These gene represent trait which are no longer needed within the cell of humans. They say that these genes represent what was abandoned through the process of natural selection.
What junk DNA is in actuality, according to new scientific discovery, are DNA material that aid in gene sequencing and replication. These fragments actually are essential to the development of DNA within the cell. The caption under the video Junk DNA- Another Failed Prediction of Evolutionists reads,


“In June 2007, a[n] international team of scientists, named ENCODE, published a study that indicates the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. This "complex interwoven network" throughout the entire DNA code makes the human genome severely poly-constrained to random mutations (Sanford; Genetic Entropy, 2005; page 141). This means the DNA code is now much more severely limited in its chance of ever having a hypothetical beneficial mutation since almost the entire DNA code is now proven to be intimately connected to many other parts of the DNA code.” (Junk DNA - Another Failed Prediction Of Evolutionists 2008)

So, it becomes very obvious that the evidence that evolutionist can use to support their theory is eroding. What they once held as junk to support their theory pulls the foundation for neo-Darwinism. All parts of the cell are ordered and have a specific purpose to keep human cells as human cells. Our Creator is awesome and every molecule obeys his command like the day he created them. Our God did not make junk, instead he made us humans and every part of us to ensure that we remain
Bibliography
"Junk DNA - Another Failed Prediction Of Evolutionists ." Google Video. August 07, 2008. http://video.google.com/videosearch?oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=Memory%20and%20the%20Human%20Brain%207-30-05&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#q=junk+dns&hl=en&emb=0 (accessed February 19, 2009).
The Institute for Creation Research. "Junk DNA - The Evolutionists Hope." Google Video. August 2007. http://video.google.com/videosearch?oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=Memory%20and%20the%20Human%20Brain%207-30-05&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#q=junk+dns&hl=en&emb=0 (accessed February 19, 2009).

human.

The Context of The Book of Romans

Although Paul was clearly not the founder of Roman Church, because the church was predominantly Gentile, he felt an obligation to address the church as its apostolic leader. Paul was responsible for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles and establishing the Gentile churches. The church is believed by scholars to either have been established by the apostle Peter, or by Jews who returned from Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Although the Catholic Church maintains that the church was founded by the apostle Peter according to the ordination Jesus gave him in Matthew 16:18, the most likely method of foundation was by the Pentecostal Jewish converts. Paul expressed the strong desire to visit the church in order to establish apostolic gifting and harvest fruit among them according to Romans 1:11-13.
As mentioned before the Roman church was not always predominantly Gentile. It began in the late AD 30’s or early 40’s as a largely Jewish congregation. The shift came when all of the Jews were expelled from Rome in AD 49 by the emperor Claudius. He expelled them because of the commotion that they caused by arguing about “Chrestos.” Gentiles took their places in society during the Jews absence. It is estimated that after their return in AD 54, Paul wrote this letter to the Roman Christians from Corinth in AD 57. The Jews returned to a mostly Gentile congregation that did not take the laws of the Torah as seriously as they did. Paul writes this letter to a church deep rooted in social tension arguing over issues such as Gentile circumcision. The Roman church was most likely comprised of small house churches and the Jews and Gentiles did not worship together. Some scholars think that Paul wrote Romans as a kind of rehearsal for his appearance before the Council at Jerusalem. These same issues were being debated at that meeting. One purpose for writing Romans was to unite them in order to bring praise and glory to God according to Romans 15:7-14.
 
BIBLIGRAPHY
Moo, Douglas J. Encountering the Book of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

The New Perspective on Romans

The New Perspective on Romans
Christians have been accused of having the tendency to read their own experiences into their interpretation of the bible. We project our cultural experiences and preconceived notions into the passages we read. This is called introspective conscience. An example of this would be how Martin Luther interpreted Romans from his experience of being under the oppressive legal thumb of fifteen century Roman Catholic Church which eventually sparked the Reformation Movement. Luther read the plain meaning of the text ignoring the contextual and historic context of the book of Romans, equating the legalism of the Church to be the righteousness by works of the Jews that Paul was rebuking. This Reformation Approach to interpreting Romans has been taught in churches uncontested ever since. The reformation approach emphasizes the individuals need to be in right standing with a holy, sovereign God through justification by faith as opposed to the justification by works being taught by the Jews of Paul’s Day.
The new perspective on Romans emerged in the latest century recognizing the historical and contextual context of the book of Romans. First of all, Romans is a letter sent to a real group of people in history who had real issues that were addressed by the apostle. We cannot read this letter apart from the actually intentions and purpose that it was intended for when it was written in AD 57. The new perspective takes this context into account by placing emphasis on people groups and the covenantal nomistic view of Judaism. Unlike the Reformation view, this view recognizes the justification by works that Paul addresses the Jews about, was actually result of a soft legalism that was a result of their belief that their covenant with God would save them. They did not believe that their keeping of the law would save them; however, they believed that their keeping of the law was their badge of salvation. This belief automatically excludes the gentiles from the opportunity of salvation.
However, both interpretations of Paul’s letter to Romans has its weaknesses , so Douglas Moo, the author of Encountering the Book of Romans, offers a modified reformation approach. This interpretation of Romans recognizes the covenantal nominism of new perspective and takes into consideration that Paul was writing about “how an individual human being could get in right standing with God; it is about how Gentiles can be added to God’s people without disenfranchising God’s original people, the Jews” (Moo 2002) . The modified approach reads the Roman letter, with respect to its historical context and recognizes that Romans is about individual salvation and the new people of God.

1 Douglas Moo. Encountering the Book of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Acedemic (2002), 24.


 
BIBLIOGRAPY
Moo, Douglas J. Encountering the Book of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Wood, Thomas E. How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005.

Romans 9-11

Paul bases his arguments in Romans upon the history of salvation that acknowledges the continuity of God’s plan to create a people for Himself that originated in the Old Testament, culminates with the coming of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Paul, in Romans Chapters 9-11, tries to explain to these myopic Jews that God’s original plan of salvation always included Gentiles and that the God’s election is based on grace not race. These chapters were essential in Romans in order to maintain the integrity of God within Paul’s argument. Paul was trying to explain to the Jews of his day, how the election of Israel as God’s remnant, transfers to the church as God’s remnant in the earth.
Paul attempts to erode the age old belief that God promised all of physical Israel salvation based upon their ethnicity thereby excluding every Gentile from salvation. The central problem with the Jewish people in Paul’s day was that they could not understand how God could embrace and save the Gentiles without disenfranchising the Jews. These chapters were intended to get the Jews to recognize the continuity of God’s salvation throughout the History of the Old Testament. Paul lets them know that with Jesus Christ a new era was upon them and the old era was passed away. Christ was the culmination of the torah; by fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law, and that through belief in Him anyone could be saved. Chapter 11 in particular explains how God blinded the eyes of Israel from receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ in order that the Gentiles would be saved. Ultimately the salvation of Gentiles will spark jealousy within the hearts of the Jewish people leading to their embracing of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Romans 11:26 says that eventually all of Israel will be saved.










Bibliography
Moo, Douglas J. Encountering the Book of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

THE MAN, THE SPIRIT, AND EMPEROR:

THE MAN, THE SPIRIT, AND EMPEROR: The Foundation of Orthodoxy and the Canon




To understand how the church fathers established the canonical books and determined what methods and criteria to be used to determine their inclusions, one must recognize the historical context in which the need for the canon arose. The era of peace and freedom of worship finally arrived for the often persecuted Christians of the 3rd century Roman Empire, when Emperor Constantine became a Christian. Suddenly an incongruent, diversified, non unified Christianity came out of hiding, which eventually divided the church along the lines of the nature, humanity and deity of Christ. Particularly the teachings of Arius and those of Gnosticism threatened the unification of the church the most. The orthodoxy of the church and the Canonization of the bible was the church’s defense to the Arian and Gnostic heresies, set in motion by the conversion of Constantine.

Orthodoxy’s Timeline

The historian, Arian bishop and confidant of Constantine, Eusibius of Caesrea, tell us that the emperor converted just before his Battle of Midvian Bridge in A.D.312. At the time that persecutions of Christian’s were common, paganism was the common religion in Rome. Upon his return from a victory attributed to his conversion to Christianity, Constantine began the change in Rome that eventually led to Christianity becoming the official religion of the Empire. Constantine, along with the Eastern emperor, Licinius, signed the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. This document established religious tolerance and put an immediate end to the persecutions of Christians.

Rather than a show of public confession of Christianity and proof of his conversion, the sole purpose of the Edict of Milan was to restore public order in the empire. This fact is also seen as reason some scholars speculate whether or not Constantine’s conversion was sincere. Coupled with the fact that he did not baptized until his deathbed, which was common, some scholars argue that he secretly remained pagan and only used Christianity as a method to control the empire and promote his own agenda. They also argue that his conversion was not genuine because he never did anything that showed overwhelming allegiance to Christianity and he never publically renounced paganism.

Regardless of his personal sincerity in Christ, the impact of edict elevated Christianity within the empire by leaps and bounds. The new law brought Christianity into the mainstream, ended persecutions, and lead to Christian participation in higher government offices. In Constantine’s New Rome, churches were built instead of pagan temples which shifted the tradition of Christianity being practiced in homes to Christianity being practiced in basilicas and cathedrals. Most importantly, the shift shed light on the diverse practices, beliefs, teachings, and doctrines of Christians who once worshiped in hiding. Mainstream Christianity began to tackle the subsequent emergence of the heretical teachings of Arianis and Gnosticism. Arianism, roughly, is the belief that Jesus was merely and mortal man. Gnosticism is a belief of dualistic deity, and consequently, the declaration that Jesus was all spirit and non-material. These beliefs denied Christ’s deity and humanity respectively.

Who Was Arius?

Arius (A.D. 250-336), was a self proclaimed theologian who believed and taught that Christ was a mere man. Hill writes, “He believed that there was a tim when the son had to come into being, and that the son was definitely lower than the Father…the Son was not divine: he was a creature like any other. Certainly he was the greatest creature of all…but he was not God. (Hill 2006) ” This teaching directly abutted the Trinitarian teachings of the majority of the church fathers. As a result of his doctrines he was condemned by Alexander, and the bishops of Alexandria. Arius’ impact was great because his beliefs were shared by some bishops and regarded as heresy by others. After his exile he defended his views at the Council of Nicaea which was specifically convened to settle the matter of the deity of Christ.

What is Gnosticism?

Gnosticism was made up of many views that shared a common theme that the spirit is good and the material world and body is evil. God being spirit is good and, therefore, would not be involve with the creation of the material world. The material world was made by an evil deity. Thus the Gnostics taught dualism. They taught that true one must avoid evil by living an austere life, while elevating the spiritual things and denying the desires of the body Christ also being good could not be at all human. This view threatened the doctrine of salvation, because it disqualifies Christ as an adequate sacrifice for the atoning of sin. Gnosticism existed both outside and within mainstream Christianity. Some Gnostics believed that there was a secret knowledge only obtainable by some and only those with this spiritual spark could be save. Thus it shared some influence from mystery religions. The confusion caused by this ambiguous belief system caused for clarity and separation of the body of Christ. Stylianopoulos states in his article, Scripture and tradition in the Church, “[The] Son of God truly took on flesh, died a true death, and rose from the dead in a transformed body, and that the human body and all of creation are intrinsically good and redeemable. All of these major teachings, often disputed by heretical teachers, defined the content of the Church’s doctrinal sensibilities in the heat of controversy (Stylianopoulos 2008) .”

Orthodoxy as a response

The Orthodoxy and the canon rose out of the need to quiet the heretical views that divided Christianity, unify the Christian doctrine, and distinguish Christian doctrine from that of those of Gnosticism and Arius. So, Constantine being the lover of order in his kingdom, called the Council of Nicaea. Historians tell us that the bishops of the empire were ordered to attend and vote upon the first doctrine to emerge from the council – The Nicaean Creed. This doctrine established the Trinitarian view as doctrine. And as a result, all those who held Arian views were exiled as heretics.

This meeting started the tradition of holding ecumenical councils which determine doctrine later on in history. Also determined was the institution of Easter as the first official Christian holiday, by Constantine himself. The fate of those who denounced Christianity to avoid persecution was discussed but not determined.

Creation of the canon

It is not known if the canon was decided at the Council of Nicaea. However, the canon was definitely created as a result of the solidification of the doctrine at council of Nicaea. There were the exclusion of the Biblical books that did not contain Gnostic teachings and the inclusion of views that enforced the Trinitarian views. Stylianopoulos writes,

“Doctrine has to do with normative principles and teachings that define the dogmatic framework of the faith critical to the unity of the Church… The ‘rule of faith’ was not some vague theological awareness but a doctrinal sense of clarity pertaining to foundational beliefs. Examples are that God the Father is the sole true God and Creator of the universe; that the Old Testament is Holy Scripture…these major teachings, often disputed by heretical teachers, defined the content of the Church’s doctrinal sensibilities in the heat of controversy (Stylianopoulos 2008) .”



But, there was a deeper systematic approach to canonizing the biblical books beyond just silencing the heretics.

First of all, the church fathers recognized the scriptures as the inspired word of God. Again we see from stylianopoulos, “The later Church Fathers continued this tradition and viewed the entire corpus of scripture,Old and New Testaments, as directly inspired by God and disclosing God’sexpress will. On that basis, because God is the main actor both behind andin the Bible, the Orthodox tradition advocates the supreme authority and primacy of scripture. (Stylianopoulos 2008) ” They acknowledged the God of Judaism as the God of Christianity subsequently establishing, the Old Testament as being the historical foundation of Christianity. The church fathers understood Christianity to be the natural progression of Judaism, as a result of Christ’s fulfillment as the Messiah. Considering the fact that the scriptures were considered by Christ as being complete at that time, they used the Septuagint as the standard of the OT.

The books of the New Testament were determined by many methods including the aforementioned confirmation of the Trinitarian views and those books that were considered Gnostic were not included in the New Testament. Above all those chosen had to be inspired of God as well. Those which were not considered authentic Apostle Writings were excluded. The New Testament included books that referenced OT doctrines and Scriptures Jasper tells us in his article, Literary readings of the Bible,

“Within the canon of Scripture itself, in both Hebrew and Christian Bibles, an intricate pattern of cross-referencing establishes a web of intertextuality … not only a theological as well as a literary coherence between the books of the canon, but it also makes possible a particular view of 'history', as, for example, in the first two chapters of St Matthew's Gospel, where the 'historical evidence' for the birth narratives lies precisely in the literature of the Hebrew Bible, understood as 'history' because these events were exactly what the writings of prophecy announced would happen (Jasper 2009) .”



There was some early rejection of the book of Revelations because its symbolism was thought o be allegorical. However it was eventually included in the canon.

As we can see the conversion of Constantine had far reaching ramifications for the church that set in motion the chain of events that ended in the canonization of scripture. For the first time the church had to deal with Caesaropapism, which is treating the emperor as pope. Constantine displayed his unprecedented authority over the church’s doctrine and affairs when as he saw fit. In A.D. 336, the emperor lifted the exile of Arius. It was the emperor who called the Council of Nicaea in the first place and it was he who established Easter and Sunday as holidays. As a result nearly all churches protestant and catholic alike still worship on Sunday and the same books remain as in the original canon.

Jonathan Hill, Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Oxford, England: Lion Publishing Plc, 2006, 80.




Theodore G. Stylianopoulos. Scripture and tradition in the Church.(2008) Cambridge Companions Online Cambridge University Press, accessed September 12, 2009. 8.

Theodore G. Stylianopoulos. Scripture and tradition in the Church.(2008) Cambridge Companions Online Cambridge University Press, accessed September 12, 2009. 8.

Theodore G. Stylianopoulos. Scripture and tradition in the Church.(2008) Cambridge Companions Online Cambridge University Press, accessed September 12, 2009. 8.

David Jasper, Literary readings of the Bible. (2006) Cambridge Companions Online Cambridge University Press, accessed Septembe



Bibliography

Cunningham, Mary B. and Elizabeth Theokritoff. "Who are the Orthodox Christians? A historical introduction. The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology." Cambridge Collections Online. 2008. http://cco.cambridge.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/uid=2451/extract?result_number=1&search_scope=global&book_id=ccol0521807948_CCOL0521807948&query=The+impact+of+the+Fall+of+the+Western+Empire+on+the+Church.&id=ccol9780521864848_CCOL9780521864848A001 (accessed September 06, 2009).

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Oxford, England: Lion Publishing Plc, 2006.

Jasper, David. " Literary Readings of the Bible." Cambridge Collections Online. 2009.

Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. "Scripture and tradition in the Church." Cambridge Companion Online. Cambridge University Press. Edited by Mary B. Cunningham and Elizabeth Theokritoff. 2008. http://cco.cambridge.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/uid=2451/extract?result_number=2&search_scope=global&query=the+council+of+Nicaea&id=ccol9780521864848_CCOL9780521864848A014> (accessed September 12, 2009).

Wood, Thomas E. How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005.

THE RISE OF THE PAPACY IN THE 6TH -9TH CENTURIES

THE RISE OF THE PAPACY IN THE 6TH-9TH CENTURIES


The Roman Catholic Church rose to great power in the 6th century, that with a careful stewardship lasted throughout the 9th century. The barbarian invasions that tore the Roman Empire apart and ripped through Europe were the circumstances that propelled the Church to reach its great altitude. Interestingly enough, all of Western Europe and the preservation of Western Civilization owe its existence to the ascent of the Church. If it were not for the churches alliance with barbarian royalty, which led to careful, methodic preservation of literature, and agriculture as well as being the conduit of learning, nothing would have survived the middle ages.

How and Why Rome Became the Center of Power As It Did

Several circumstantial as well as purely coincidental factors contributed to the high regard of the church by the 6th century. First, the church’s unsolicited popularity could be attributed to its relationship to the early apostles. The papal office was understood to be directly descendent from the apostle Peter whom Christ appointed the head and steward of the church. Pope Damasus used the Matt 16:18-19 as a foundation for this doctrine. Roman church was regarded as first in the empire to be established by the Apostles.

The church’s self proclaimed indicators stemmed from Damasus I, who lived 366-384, referred to the church in Rome as the apostolic see and to himself as the pontifex maximus, a name once held by the emperor of Rome. This is the origin of the present day title of the pope -pontiff. This elevated the authority of the church in the minds of Christians. The synod held in Rome was the first to title the pope “Vicar of Christ,” further elevating the churches perceived authority, by placing the pope as the surrogate of Christ on earth. These proclamations had their roots in caesaropapism which is literally treating the emperor as pope. Earlier in the century, the church found itself in an unprecedented position; Constantine usurped his authority over doctrines and church affairs. His actions blurred the lines between the head of the state and the head of the church. It also had the reciprocal effect of raising the political power of the church.

Therefore, Roman society was primed since the 4th century to receive the church as the highest power in its land.

As purely circumstantial reasons, Christianity and the Church had risen to great popularity in the empire partly due to the fact that Christianity became the official religion of the empire in AD395. Also, The Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, among other things, determined the 5 dioceses. This declared the bishop of Constantinople to be second in authority in ecclesiastical matter only to the bishop see of Rome because it was the New Rome. The Roman bishop stood alone in the West while the East had four bishops to satisfy when major issues occurred.

The culmination of the Barbarian invasions, the inadequacy of the emperors to defend their front, the success of the Christianity, and the immense popularity of the church set the stage for the rise of power that the Bishop of Rome achieved. The Roman generals of the fifth century fought over who would rule and ignored and did not properly guard their frontiers. This created defensive gaps which ultimately led to the collapse of Rome. With Rome under the barbarian thumb the authority of the Empire was left to the Church. Having a great leader like Pope Gregory immensely enhanced the organization’s influence. He was responsible for the improved standing of the papacy. He took charge of Rome’s finances, food water supply and policing. He was able to achieved peace with the Lombards and was able to ransom prisoners from the Lombards who invaded the Empire in the 6th century. He was credited for establishing a new Liturgy of the church as well as being a great theologian. Gregory believed the purpose of the papacy is to aid the poor and he established the papal title “Servant of the servants of Christ.” Gregory put a face of benevolence and integrity on the once considered self seeking papacy.

What Factors Contributed to Its Dominance of Western Europe Until the Reformation?

All of Western Europe was under the attack of invading barbarians. Gaul, Italy and Byzantine Empire was plagued by raids and vandalism while the church remained independent. The empire was subject to division amongst the predecessors of emperors. The power of the empire was divided whilst the church’s power remained undivided and stable. Because of a lack of strong leadership in Rome the Pope Leo II was the only defense against the Huns.

As the barbarians invaded the Church converted. Their motto was, ”to convert the monarch and the people would eventually follow (Wood 2005) .” Because of successful missions sent by the early church, some barbarians were already Christians. Most of the Christianity in Western Europe was Roman Catholic Christianity. The church could not look to the Eastern Empire for help, so the church created alliances with the Barbarians themselves that proved fruitful. In AD 481, Clovis became the king of the Franks who settled in Gaul. According to Thomas E. Wood,

“Historians have speculated that Clovis’ marriage to the beautiful pious and Catholic Clotilda was inspired and arranged by the bishops, with an eye to convert her royal husband to the faith… it would be another four hundred years before all the barbarian peoples of Western Europe had been converted, But the project was off to an auspicious start (Wood 2005).”





Ulfilas, who was born in Cappadocia but Goth raised, had a large impact on the Goths in the 5th century. He was sent to Constantinople to be ambassador to the Goths, instead Ulfilas was crowned bishop early 5th century. He translated the bible into the Goth language furthering the spread of Christianity so that many Goths were already Christian and allowed to settle in the empire.

The Merovingian’s were the ruling line of kings from 6th to the 7th centuries. As they fought among themselves they traded power and land which eventually weakened them.

Because of the church’s alliance with the Merovingians, their degeneration affected the church.

The Carolingians, being the more sophisticated barbarian, benefited from the Merovingians decline as they seized power to the throne. They once served as mayors and other positions in the empire. Recognizing the their superiority Caroling, the mayor in 765, wrote a letter to the pope asking if it were right to get credit for being the king if one were not responsible for the decisions being made. The church jumped on the opportunity to approve the transfer of power from the Merovingians to the Carolingians by crowning Charles Martel, the great grandfather of Charles the great as king. The church looked to them for protection from invasion instead of aid from the eastern empire that was deep in conflicts with the Arabs and Persians themselves.

Charles the Great, also known as Charlemagne, became the Franks sole ruler in 771 and established a new post imperial Europe on the basis of Catholicism. Unable himself to read, Charlemagne encouraged education, the arts and called upon the bishops to organize schools around the cathedrals. His mandates for education caused what is referred to as the Carolingian Renaissance. This was a time in Western European history when the intellectual regression in terms of education that was caused by the impact of the barbarian invasions on cities, was beginning to be weakened by the ideals and directives of Charlemagne.

After the death of Charlemagne, the church continued the spread of learning in Europe.

Local councils, Synod of Bavaria (798), Council of Chalons (813), and Council of Aix (816),

were called by the church bishops for the opening of schools.

What Were the Positive and Negative Ramifications of This Reality?

During these centuries the barbarians’ government was to be influence by the Church and Christian conversion. “The Church had to continue to guide them, both to guarantee that the conversion had truly taken hold and to ensure that the faith would begin to transform their government and way of life,” says Wood. Specifically, the conversion of the Franks led directly to the Carolingian Renaissance through Charlemagne until the reign of his son Louis the Pious (814-840). Charlemagne encouraged education under the influence of the church and transformed the barbarians into civilization builders. Simply put, Western Europe owes its survival to the Roman Catholic Church.

Carolingian Renaissance.

Charlemagne appointed Alcuin, a great intellect and head master of the cathedral school at York, and other scholars to his court to educate his family. Alcuin an Anglo-Saxon, was responsible for teaching the Germanic people grammatically correct Latin. By learning Latin, the study of the Church fathers and the classical world of ancient Rome could be studied.



Scholars looked to ancient Roman model for the basis of Carolingian education.

That is where they found the seven liberal arts. “They were the quadrivium of astronomy, music arithmetic, and geometry, and the trivium of logic, grammar and rhetoric,” records Woods. This was the foundation on which future intellectual progress would develop. Also under the rule of Charlemagne began a legal system that was absent within the courts of the barbarians. Another accomplishment for the Carolingian Renaissance was the Carolingian miniscule that was developed by Fredegise, the predecessor of Alcuin. Miniscule introduced lower case letters, spaces between words and other standards in script that made writing and reading much easier than before. The Carolingian miniscule and was essential to building the literacy in Western Civilization.

Monastic Ideal

The second ramification of the rise of papacy was the impact of the Monastic Ideal. The monastery and its lifestyle had become popular before the 6th century where we begin to see nuns for the first time. Nuns were virgins that consecrated themselves to lives of prayer and sacrifice. Monasticism had become so popular that even royalty retired to the monastery. Western civilization owes its existence also to the monks. They were the catalysts of education. No literature would have survived had the monks, under the command of Charlemagne, tirelessly copied all the literature that had survived up until that time.

Monks also were responsible for the growth and development of practical arts including Agriculture, breeding cattle, deforestation and they even drained swamps. Monks loved hard unattractive labor. They felt that the more unpleasant the task the more Christ-like they became. The monasteries were allowed to keep one fifth of the land that they deforested for the kingdom. This land would stay in the ownership of the Church forever.

In conclusion, the survival of western civilization hangs upon the culmination of events that fastened the Church to the barbarian. The papal fathers rise to popularity was due to the culmination of many factors including the empires inability to defend itself against the barbarian invasions and the success of the spread of Catholic Christianity. As the barbarian remodeled the Western Europe, the Church remodeled the barbarian, his government, and his heart. This union between the two preserved, revitalized and reeducated western Civilization. 
Thomas E. Wood, How the Church Built Western Civilization,Washington D.C., Regenery Publishing, Inc., 2005, 13.


Thomas E. Wood, How the Church Built Western Civilization,Washington D.C., Regenery Publishing, Inc., 2005, 13.



Thomas E. Wood, How the Church Built Western Civilization,Washington D.C., Regenery Publishing, Inc., 2005, 17-18.




BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cross, Barrie Ruth. The Catholic Church. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987.

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Oxford, England: Lion Publishing Plc, 2006.

Foote, G. W. & J.M. Wheeler, The Rise of the Papacy: Excerpts from the Crimes of Christianity, The Nazarene Way of Essenic Studies



Wood, Thomas E. How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005.

CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE CRUSADES ADVANCED THE CAUSE OF CHRIST?

There is no debate as to whether or not the Crusades were successful for all historians agree that after the triumph of the first crusade, the success of subsequent battles declined to a dismal failure. To say that the Crusades advanced the cause of Christ is to say that the body of Christ grew in quantity or that Christianity reached new frontiers as a result of the Crusades either directly or indirectly. However, the Church felt that they had just cause to ignite holy wars on God’s behalf to further Christianity and defend the church from the infidel. Although their efforts and intentions seemed noble at the onset of the Crusades, the papacy twisted their motives around their missions with every advancing crusade and the result was a barely indirect advancement of the cause of Christendom.


As head of a Christian empire and the guardian of Christian orthodoxy, that emperor of Byzantium was responsible for the defense and expansion of Christendom. This role was inherent in his title and was part of his legacy as successor to the first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great, and the rescuer of the Holy Cross, Emperor Heraclius.



The attitude of Emperor Heraclius at the time of the Muslim invasion of the Holy Land in 1009 was fueled by pride and not by a sincere obligation to protect artifacts of Christianity. It damaged the emperor’s ego not to be able to protect what he held so much pride in and what was the basis of his authority. The church idolized the religious relics and places even more than the teachings of Christ.

What better solution, than the Roman church coming to rescue its older less competent, weaker sister- the Eastern Orthodox Church. When Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called on Pope Gregory VII, surely the pride of the papacy was boosted. The papacy wanted to sit on the throne of the earthly Jerusalem as the highest office on in the world. What better way to show who was the more powerful, and favored by God than to launch and win a crusade on His behalf. The first crusade was nothing more than the papacy’s, drunk with power, infected with the barbarian fever, attempt at yet another chance to exert its authority over not only its rival, but over the object of its desire. Since Pope Gelasius self exalted his throne in 492 to declare himself the Vicar of Christ, the papacy has methodically raised his position from lowly bishop to the Holy Roman Emperor, even to God’s only representative above all earthy rulers by the decree of Pope Gregory VII. The struggle of investiture was evidence of this argument.

When the church under to rule of Urban II waged a counter attack in 1095 the church used bribery also known as Indulgences, charismatic preaching and propaganda to rally support to fight against the infidel. The church had declared that the bible is to interpreted by the church, therefore, the lay Christian of that time relied on the church for the interpretation of God’s will.

The spread of Christianity meant the spread of the pope’s power. The church fathers swore that the crusade stood for the advancement of the gospel, defenses against the infidels that plagued the Eastern Empire and travelers to the Holy Land, and protection for the safe passage for visitors to the Holy Land. The Crusaders took an oath and were promised immediate forgiveness of sins if they were to perish in battle. Aside from the questionably harsh brutal that they carried out, the intentions of the crusaders seemed to be a pure sincere love of Christianity.

Some theologians of that time tried to argue against or limit Holy War. However, the time called for a strong church that was triumphant against the enemy that oppressed the Church century after century. Chivalry was celebrated especially among the descendants of the barbarian tribes. War still ran through their veins and the western European catholic Christian was too eager to ride out to war in exchange for wealth, honor, land, and forgiveness of sins. Prowler writes,

The Christian Citizen has a fundamental problem to face: Is he entitled to fight for his country? His religion is a religion of peace; and war means slaughter and destruction, the earlier Christian fathers had no doubts. To them a war was wholesale murder. But after the triumph of the Cross, after the empire had become Christendom, ought not its citizens to be ready to take up arms for its welfare ?



One could argue that God was not a pacifist, and there clearly are biblical examples of war. And God could have erected an earthly army to fight for his glory or any reason he could choose. However, Jesus left very specific instructions for how the body of Christ is to deal with enemies, how to deal with authorities and rulers, and how to spread the Gospel. In Matthew 5:44 Jesus tells his disciples to love their enemies, bless them that curse them, do good to those who hate them, and pray for those who persecute them. He tells them in Matthew 22:21 to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Paul tells us in Romans 13 to submit to authorities and that rulers are put in place by the Father and that they are given authority by God to punish evil doers. The bible says in Galatians that “if any man preaches any other gospel …let him be cursed.” What gave the bishop of Rome the right to use the gospel to wage war? Had the Christians of the Middle Ages been encouraged to study the bible for themselves, they could know what the truth and the truth would have set them free. The Holy Wars were not a justified method of spreading the Gospel. Preaching the Gospel did just fine.

Even though the wars were ill-conceived they still could have been an overall success, but they weren’t. The capture of Jerusalem was preceded by and followed by losing crusades. No reason for any of the subsequent crusades even surpassed the first. After Jerusalem was captured by the crusaders the church could not deliver on its promise to populate the Kingdom of Jerusalem with enough settlers and the siege of the nation was short lived. In the East the Christians were outnumbered by Muslims, and Jews. After the Crusades the knights wanted to return to the west. The crusaders technique of conversion was bloody and encouraged the hate of Christianity among the Muslims and Jews.

The crusades were still ingrained in the hearts of the Europeans in the fifteenth century. Time passed but the crusader never died. In the 14 and fifteenth century the crusader reemerged as the spirit of exploration. The explorers remembered the chivalry and cause of the crusades and vowed to Christianize the new world. Christopher Columbus wrote, “The Gospels need be diffused all over the world and the Holy city of Jerusalem has to be given back to the Christian Church .” Although the main motivation for exploration was to conquer new lands for the crown, because of the misconception that the world was smaller than it was, there was a notion that Islam could be attacked from its back door from the east.

History can attest to how successful the exploration age was in establishing Christianity in the new world. The crusade spirit indeed succeeded in the advancement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ but not immediately as the Church thought in the eleventh century. By the age of explorations most of Europe was Christian. In the end God get’s the glory, because, regardless of the motives of sinful men God is in control and his agenda remains intact. God’s will was and is that the gospel reaches the end of the earth. History shows that He used a corrupt church to bring about his will. As for the Roman Catholic Church, the bible says that God will not be mocked, for that which you reap; you shall also sow (Gal 6:7). What the Church reaped for all of the corruption and ill-conceived activity was Reformation and collapses of absolute power.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Oxford, England: Lion Publishing Plc, 2006.

Prawler, Joshua. The First Crusade. London: The Folio Society, 1951.

—. The World of the Crusaders. London: Quadrangle Books, Inc., 1972.

Riley-Smith, Jonathan. What Were the Crusades? London, England: Thr MacMillan Press, LTD., 1977.

Robinson, J. John. Dungeon Fire & Sword: The Knights Templar in the Crusades. new York, New York: M. Evans and Company. Inc., 1991.