Monday, June 29, 2015

Lutherans entertaining a bad idea.

The topic of this post is the ordination of women to the pastoral office.

Women should serve in the church. There should be no question, the question is in what capacity? In what role(s)? The Lutheran Church of Australia this October 2015 will deliberate on the ordination of women to the pastoral ministry. I wonder why I have this suspicious feeling that should it pass (because it failed many years ago), some ministers, in time, would leave this synod.

I have read some arguments favouring the ordination of women. Some interesting arguments do not argue exegetically though they claim that their arguments are based on the text of Scripture. Most of these arguments are theological using Justification of the believer as the ticket for either male or female to vie for the pastoral office. In this post I will use the following lines of thought to establish my case why I do not buy into the idea of ordaining women to the ministry. I will use my training in the Biblical languages to argue exegetically, then historically and lastly behaviourally why ordaining women to the pastoral office renders Lutherans in LCA irrelevant. Amazingly when I was a Pentecostal, this was not a problem for me, why is it a problem now? Hopefully in lining up my exegetical, historical and behavioural reflections will enlighten you why I do not buy ordination of women to the pastoral office.

1. Exegetical.

The best question I believe one should ask exegetically is this - do we have texts from Scripture that women were pastors during the time of the Apostles? What were the terms used by Scripture for pastors and was this applied to any women characters mentioned in Scripture? One line of reasoning I have read is the mention of women in the house churches greeted by St Paul. In other words, since St Paul was greeting these women where house meetings are happening, they say that is proof positive that women were pastoring in the early church. What comes to mind are women mentioned in Romans 16, such as Phebe. She was called a servant of the church in Cenchrea. The word "servant" as used in the KJV  was for διάκονος, this is where we get the word deacon.  This is someone who carries out the orders of another. In fact it means attendant, someone who waits for instructions and carries them out. Yet others in favour of women's ordination latch into this and translates this word as "minister" broadening the significance of the word, thereby arguing that Phebe was a pastor too. This is not correct, the word deaconess is quite narrow, it is one who attends to the poor and distributes money collected for their use.

The there is the issue of Priscilla in Acts 18:26. Some argue that the "fact" (it is alleged) Priscilla was mentioned first in Romans 16:3, that shows that Priscilla had a dominant role between her and her husband Aquila. If one looks when these two people are named in Scripture, and we argue on the basis of first mention as being important, this argument is shot down. For in 1 Cor 16:19, in the Greek NT, Aquila was mentioned first. Now was Priscilla really mentioned first in Acts 18:26? Only if you go by an eclectic Greek NT Text, this is NOT so in the Textus Receptus(TR). In Acts 18:26, Aquila was mentioned first!  Six times Priscilla was mention in Scripture, and using your eclectic Greek NT, 3 times Priscilla comes first and other times Aquila comes first thrice. Not so in the TR, we get 4 times Aquila coming first and only twice did Priscilla get mentioned prior to Aquila. If we follow this idea, then the Women's Ordination people appears to interpret Scripture by brute force.  If carries no solid conclusion.

Then there is the allegation that Priscilla taught Apollos on her own in the home church setting! There is no such text in Scripture I can find that Priscilla ever taught anyone without Aquila being there. Such suggestion is more imagination than exegesis. You would have to have a very active imagination to suggest that Priscilla taught Apollos on her own (without the presence of her husband).

I dare say that indeed, those who promote women's ordination on the basis of house churches found in Acts are letting their imagination run wild - going forward where Scripture is silent.

So let us go back to the words used by the Bible to refer to pastors. We can name two - the first we have is episcopos επισξοπος  were we get the title Bishop or Overseer and then the word prysbeteroous πρψβετερους where we get the word Elder or Presbyter. The first word occurs in 1 Tim 3. We can rule out that St Paul ever had in mine women to be Bishops here. The reason is that he used the pronoun he, and referred to this office as a person having one wife etc. All we need is to deal with the text of Scripture and it ought to be obvious that he had no idea that this could be an either male or female role.

The other one we need to deal with is the word elder or presbyter. Now, there was the office of old widows mentoring the younger women apparently this can be found in Ellicott's Commentary.   This is where this word might be applied to a woman. It is like an order in the Church. In other words, a woman who is by reason of age is a senior in the church whose job is to be a spiritual mentor to the younger women specially the younger wives. I am getting ahead of myself in discussing the historical aspect of this post, but more of that later. When St Peter and St Paul addressed the church, they used the masculine form of presbyter. Note that St Peter considered himself also as an elder in 1 Pe 5:1.

The last word is that of pastor - poimen (ποιμήν) - which is from the word "shepherd".  In Eph 4 is the only place I know where this word occurs. However, it is attached to the idea of eldership. For example St Peter in 1 Pe 5:1 instructed his fellow elders to "shepherd" the flock of God. Most of the time, that title is reserved for Jesus - who is the Good Shepherd - the real Pastor of the Church. Since Jesus is male, by analogy, elders shepherding God's people from the male population fits the parallelism well. Besides, the job of herding sheep in Bible times was never regularly performed by women. It is unlikely that St Peter had women elders too in mind when he said this about shepherding God's people.

2. Historical.

We have no surviving tradition of women holding the office of pastor in any known ancient Christian denominations from either the West or the East. I think this is a fair statement. It is probably of significant consequence. For there there is plenty of evidences of women in the priesthood of pagan cults. Correct. The pagans had no qualms in having women lead them in their religious affairs. In Ancient Egypt and Greece, women had already been in the forefront of religious leadership. It stands to reason that since pagans have female goddesses, it is natural that their priest who should mediate between the goddess and the people would be a woman akin to the goddess itself. See for example in the Eleusinian Mysteries. It is possible that this is one of those matters that made Christianity different from pagan religions - that of not having female leadership.

Then there were mention of women attending the altar around 400-500 AD. It is usually in and around a male presbyter who has become a heretic. So sure you will find some women who performed the role of priest in the churches but they were congregations with suspicious orthodoxy. You can find inscriptions of women being called presbytera but that does not mean they presided over the church as shepherd for as we said, there were these elderly women in church whose job was to teach younger women.

The most brief treatment of this issue is found here in a Christian History Institute Article.

Why we should look at history for this question? It is because the same way we treat the Canon of Scripture. For example it is known that St Paul wrote a letter to the Laodecians. What if suddenly historians found a papyri purporting to be that letter of St Paul? Are we going to rip our New Testament and make room for this letter to be included in our NT? I venture, no Christian will do such a thing. The reasons is that there is no tradition stating or which evolve to this effect that St Paul's letter to the Laodecians is Scripture. Therefore because we do not have clear evidence first from Scripture that women served as pastors (no question, the served as deacons!) neither from history (other wise we would see them operating in church, when we got born into this world of which we know the church is older than us) then in this counts it is deviant to to ordain women now in the pastoral office.

3. Behavioural.

Let us face it women are numerous in church than men. Let us for the sake of argument we ordained women into the pastoral office. Then yet again, that is one more reason for men to abdicate their duty and console their conscience leading them to further laziness, cowardice and indifference to the call for ministry. As a man, I know how to reason and make excuses. Hey wait there is one keen woman here who wants to do the work, problem solved, just let her do it just like she does at home. We go sit in the couch and watch TV.

I cannot pin point what are the motivations of these present male ministers advocating for women in the pastoral office - is it really because they see it in Scripture? I am finding it hard to believe this because most arguments I have seen were either dramatical, emotional or bereft of fair even handed exegesis. Or something else is motivating this, perhaps a hero complex?  Yeah sure ladies, I will advocate for you to be in the pastorate, I will be your hero, we got equal rights in the church too.

Often times I see Roman Catholic apologists hurling insults at Lutherans along this line - how dare they say they are more catholic than us Romans?

Well, when the Lutherans start ordaining women into the pastorate - I'd say they have left catholicism itself. They lose their right to claim a return to the catholicism that is Biblical and Evangelical. Certainly such a synod is not catholic anymore.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Westcott-Hort Axiom on Textual Criticism Does Not Pass Statistics

I was with the King James Version of the Bible when I first believed. Sometime in the late 1980 I started toying with other versions of the Bible. One of the most disgusting versions I have come across is the NIV, so I am sorry if you are a fan of this Bible translation, as I am not.

However through the years I let NASB, NRSV and now ESV hang around my library and when I was pastoring  I even preached from these.

Now that I have more time, I have recently in the last couple of weeks studied a bit this matter of Textual Criticism.

I process of copying Biblical text by the ancients was an extremely and complex human activity and the axioms of Westcott and Hort people are very simplistic and do not account the physics of this writing process.

Let me give a few examples of why for a trained mathematician the following axioms must be rejected. Now we know that these textual criticism axioms are not like mathematical axioms that are self evidently true. TC axioms are not like this of course but these TC axioms are not even scientific.
Here are the axioms I reject.

1. Manuscripts are to be weighted not counted.
Now what is the rational of this? Well we can say that simply because it is many does not mean it came from the original. Now this may be true, but that depends on what is being copied and the nature of that document being copied. If you forgive me, I feel this is quite stupid when applied to the New Testament. Right now, all them modern versions come from Alexandrian type manuscript. Yet there are more than 5000 copies of Byzantine manuscripts.  Here statistics wins. Why do we have many copies of Byzantine and no inundation of copies of Alexandrian? It is because the ancients believed the Byzantine source is most reliable, it is the one worth copying and the Alexandrian is not.

2.  The shorter reading is to be preferred.
Now to be frank, before this axiom, there is another axiom that prevails - the more difficult reading is to be preferred. In the modern translations besides KJV and NKJV, since they base their text from Alexandrian type manuscripts, all the readings that are short have been preferred. This presupposes the scribal writer has the tendency to add text. Again, this does not work. Humans are the ones copying these text, not like computers, so they struggle with lighting and tiredness; so they are likely omit words or phrases when they are tired. Sure there may be a double checkers but the process we know is not air tight, therefore the longer reading is to be preferred.

More later.





Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Why I believe Calvinists are not catholics (small c)

Definitely Calvinists are not Roman Catholics. That is something I think they are proud about. I suggest they are not even catholics (note that Romanism started 600AD roughly, all Christians before that were catholics - universal), and I suggest that is not something to be proud about. In fact that is something one should worry about (if one is a Calvinist).

Let me explain.

Well, if we take a typical Calvinist, we assume he would subscribe to the T.U.L.I.P. principle and would be an adamant promoter of Limited Atonement(LA). Here is the problem - the Nicene Creed.

Now I know Reformed people claim to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, but they do not really know what that implies. I find this specially true for Baptistic Calvinists. As typical I have found them to put their own spin on what the Nicene Creed. Case in point, the Nicene Fathers were not re-baptizers - remember the line " we believe in ONE baptism, for the forgiveness of sin"? A Baptistic Calvinists can not affirm that, since if you were baptized as a baby, you will be re-baptized by them once more, so  right there Calvinists of Baptistic bent are out of catholicism.

Yet there is more and so I come now to their affirmation of LA. In the Nicene Creed  we have one line which Lutherans affirm - on Jesus we confess - "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;"
The phrase "who for us men" - means all of humanity that was how the Nicenes understood that phrase, so if you believe in LA, you can not affirm the Nicene Creed - for LA says that Jesus did not die for the whole human race, he only died for the elect - which is of course only a subset of the human race.

One has to really warp this passage of the Nicene Creed if confession to it and affirmation of LA is to be maintained. The two are incompatible.

So a question , if Jesus did not die for the whole world - that means he did not die for all men, then what happened in the incarnation? That is, we can ask this question - when Jesus became man, did Jesus leave behind the humanity of the non-elect - since after all according to LA, he was not meant to die for them anyway so did Jesus assume the humanity of these people whom he would not die for in the first place? No Calvinists I have asked dared answer this question, all I hear are just evasions. Clearly in the Scripture it says - he tasted death for every man - Heb 2:9.

Calvinists and UOJ are alike - and here is their fallacy - they conflate the Atonement with Justification. They both think that when one is Atoned for, one is automatically Justified as well.

As far as I know, only Lutherans who believe in Justification By Faith Alone, are the ones who make this distinction between Atonement and Justification properly and mediated by the Means of Grace.


Tuesday, December 02, 2014

Thoughts on the "Western Wall"

The Western Wall is the wall known as the Wailing Wall, where Rabbinic Jews in Israel come to pray. It is specially now called the "Western Wall" to emphasise the "fact" that it is the western wall of the 2nd Temple. Indeed many of Jewish faith use this term to highlight this idea.

I would like to express my opinion as to why I do not believe this wall is part of the 2nd Temple. I do not mean any dis-respect to those who disagree with my opinion, they are entitled to their beliefs just as I am.


Now, there are evidences from historians and archaeologists who do not believe this wall is part of the last Temple. I admit they are a small number. I won't go into those evidences, for example that the wall was actually the wall of Fort Antonia and it used to be a Christian dump site, etc. Josephus an eye-witness of the 70 AD destruction by the Romans, wrote that the Temple was completely destroyed.

As a Christian, I will however offer my reason why I disbelieve that the "Western Wall' is part of the 2nd Temple. The reason is Jesus Christ - Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said in Mk 13:And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

Think of that for a moment,  that statement is very very crucial to your faith - be you a Christian or of another persuasion. Jesus said that no stone will be left upon another -  now if that wall is indeed part of the 2nd Temple and is even the western side of the Temple, then Jesus' prophecy failed and so Jesus is found to be a false prophet. He said no stone will be on top of another and yet there is that wall - a part of the Temple standing. So he is a false prophet and thus a false Messiah. This then mean also that the whole Christian faith crumbles, for we believe in a person who just lied and falsely prophesied to us. Did you get it?

Now, we have Josephus himself a non-believer of Christ who as a historian and eye-witness of the 70 AD destruction of the Temple by the Romans testified indeed that the whole Temple was completely destroyed.

Now assume for a moment if you come from Jewish persuasion and admit that the "Western Wall" might not be a part of the Temple, then Jesus' prophecy came to pass and that means he is worth pursuing. However I doubt and am pessimistic if the Jewish authorities in Israel will change their minds about this - the reason is that asserting the "Western Wall" to be part of the Temple is also asserting that Jesus is a false Messiah and that justifies ignoring the claims of Jesus of Nazareth.

If the real location of the Temple is not in the "Western Wall", then Jews and Muslims can give up the fight for  the control of this area.  Everybody wins.

As a Christian, we have no care of any Temple at all, at least I for one do not care. The reason again is Jesus and what Apostle Paul said - Jesus said in Jn 4:21 that we will not worship in any mountain nor in Jerusalem and in Mt 12:6  he said -- But I say to you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.    Then the Apostle Paul said in 1 Cor 6:19 that our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Won't it be a shame if WWWIII began based on a false belief of a holy site?

Monday, October 13, 2014

Why I listen to Dr. Ichabod's Sermons.

Why do I listen to Dr. Greg Jackson's sermons? Very simple reason. Not for the eloquence, not for lofty and clever speeches, not for terrific engaging style, none of that. Only one thing - he encourages me to have faith in Christ and in Christ's Word by simple exposition of the text.

How pathetic, Lutheran preachers, reads a text of Scripture but then go talk about something else during the homily so you wonder after the service, what was it all about? Did I get something from that?


I observe that people have an over estimation of themselves. I observe most Lutherans in particular and Protestants in general, believe they have no problem with faith that is why they listen to false teachers that pat them in their sin.

I live with myself all the time and I know how I allow my anxiety to overwhelm me.

Luther was right when he said, we neither fear, nor love nor trust God. At least what he said was true about me. I confess my sins each Sunday but the root of those sins is one source - my lack of faith.

I need to be prodded to believe God, that Christ covers my sin, that God will take care of me even though I have been unfaithful, that God will not leave me nor forsake me and will provide for me etc etc. Lack of faith, that is the diagnosis of my decease - I go for the preacher who stirs me in this faith direction, that is why I listen to Dr. Jackson's sermons.


Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Christ my only hope

I have just been thinking the other day.

I was alone with my thoughts. It dawned on me in a deep and profound sense that without Christ, I have no hope for the forgiveness of sins and how hopeless I would be without Christ. There is no other way, but to look to Christ for the forgiveness of all my sins.

Is this what it means to hope in Christ?

Romans 5:2-7

LPC