Does "Whosoever Will" Mean that Anyone Can Become a Christian, Just by Willing?

I have watched a certain well-known TV evangelist make fun of Calvinists a number of times. One of his subordinates even said one time, "'Whosoever will,' that disproves it [i.e., Calvinism] right there!" And I suspect that the majority of American evangelicals would simply nod their heads in unthinking agreement.

But is that actually what the Bible says? I happen not to think so.

Let's begin with the words of Paul. Consider Romans 3:11 (quoting Psalm 14:2), "No one seeks for God." Why is that? Ephesians 2:1, for we "are dead in the trespasses and sins." A dead person cannot will or choose anything. Jesus makes the same point in John 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." For (Matthew 11:27), "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." So, whose will is the deciding factor? Not ours, but His (see also John 1:13)!

So, how does "whosoever will" (Revelation 22:17) fit in? Again, Paul explains (Philippians 2:13): "It is God Who works in you, both to will and to work for His good purpose." Thus, we see that it is true that "whosoever will may come," but it is only because God works in us to create that will! So, TV preacher, that settles it right there!

I Peter 5:2, More Testimony from Scripture Against Bishops in the Church

The first three verses of the fifth chapter of I Peter have some serious implications for church government.

"So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly, not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock." [Emphasis mine]

The words translated here as "elder" and "fellow elder" are forms of the Greek word presbuteros. The word translated "exercising oversight" is episkopountes, a form of episkopos, from which we get the English word "bishop." So, it can be taken to be a message from the Apostle Peter to elders to "bishopize," if I may be allowed to make up a new word. The Apostle goes even further in II Peter 1:1, where he addresses Christians as "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours..." While the Pope claims "the power of the keys" to include or exclude from the body of Christ whomever he chooses, the true apostle eschews any monarchical pretensions. If only the equality of all believers was the motto of the supposed heir of the throne of Peter, I would possibly give his faith a little benefit of doubt.

This seems to me to be a fatal blow to the episcopalian view of church government, as held by Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, all of whom hold to an office of bishop that rules over the church in a certain district.

This passage is especially destructive to the views of the Roman Catholic Church, which claims Peter himself as the beginning of their line of popes, the bishops of Rome. Rome claims that Paul was appointed by Christ in Matthew 16:13-20 to be the head of the Church, an office which he supposedly passed on to his heirs, the popes. However, in the passage here, we have Peter's own words stating that bishopizing is the work of elders. The New Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, uses "elder" in  the passage, but then instructs the elders to "watch over" the church. The New American Bible, the main translation used by American Catholics, says "presbyters," refusing even to translate the term, with "overseeing." To my mind, that is a tacit admission that the American bishops are fully aware of the implications of this passage.

In addition to the positive assertions in Paul's letters, especially I Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, we have here in I Peter the biblical basis for the system of church government commonly referred to as "presbyterian." It is neither "episcopalian" nor democratic. Church government is not an issue of choice. The Head of the Church has laid out how He intends to rule in His body, the Church. And the Pope of Rome is clearly the enemy of Christ's rule over that Church.

Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1

Most Christians can say this verse by heart: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In their New World Translation of the Bible and polemics, Jehovah's Witnesses change the last phrase to "and the word was a god."

Their justification for that change is that theos, the Greek word for "god," has no article in that phrase. And in that, they are correct. However, the problem comes when they go on to say that the absence of the definite article (Greek having no indefinite article) means that "god" here should be taken indefinitely.

But that is wrong.

While it is true that that would be the significance of the lack of an article (called anarthrous in formal grammar) in some places, it is not its significance here. What makes this funny is that "beginning" in this verse is also anarthrous, but the Watchtower doesn't make any quibble about it there. Also, in Mark 1:1, the Greek for "Son of God," "uiou theou," contains no article before theos. So, is Jesus the Son of "a god"? Zeus perhaps? Or Ganesh? Oddly enough, the New World Translation translates Mark 1:1 as "Son of God" with capitals.

Greek (and we are talking about ancient Greek; the modern language may be different) doesn't depend on word order in the way English does. Rather, grammar is determined by variations in the form of the words themselves. Instead, word order determines emphasis. Furthermore, in a predicate nominative, as in the phrase before us, since both the subject and the predicate are in the nominative case, the article is used to distinguish the subject.

So, the grammar here is properly explained thusly: the use of the article with "Word" indicates that it, and not "God," is to be taken as the subject of the sentence. In addition, "God" placed before "Word" is to be taken for emphasis, as if John were shaking us by the shoulders and yelling it in our faces to make sure that we get his point: the Word, i. e., Jesus, is the very God of the universe! In other words, the Greek grammar is intended to express the exact opposite of the meaning that Jehovah's Witnesses force upon it!

Thus, "and the Word was God" is the proper translation of the Greek, not as it is misrepresented by the Jehovah's Witnesses. And, since this is Greek 101, so to speak, I don't for a second believe that the leadership of the Watchtower Society doesn't know this. In addition, as can be seen with Mark 1:1 above, the Watchtower has no problem translating an anarthrous theos as "God" when they have nothing to gain from it. That is why I consider the Watchtower Society to be a cult, and the average Jehovah's Witness a victim of deception. It is also why I am posting this here, in the hope that some sincere Witness will see it and be set free from the bondage of the Watchtower.

Please, to any Witness reading this: The Watchtower Society is lying to you about the teachings of the Bible regarding Jesus. I beg of you to take the step, as scary as it surely is, to free yourself from that deception, and ask the real Jesus to reveal Himself to you.

When a Mega-Church Pastor Baptizes Pop Psychology, Does It Have to Be by Immersion?

I live in the area where Pastor Steven Furtick has his ministry, called Elevation Church. In fact, I live just down the road from one of their branch "campuses." Though it is never mentioned in their promotions, Elevation is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. As their neighbor, when I joined Blogging for Books, I chose one of his books as the first one that I review for that program. Make note of that disclosure: I received a free copy of the book in return for posting a review here on my blog. A positive review was not required.

Crash the Chatterbox is available from Amazon. It is published by Multnomah, so I would expect that it would also be available from any bookstore.

The book has two separate sections, though I suspect that the division was unintentional. The first two-thirds, up to page 133 out of 210, can only be described as baptized pop psychology. While Furtick does include bible references, they are only to illustrate his point, not as the source of his

applications. But I'll come back to that.

This is no theological tome. Rather, it is filled with juvenile humor, and pop cultural references, such as to "The Voice" on pages 21-22. It seems to be more a matter of how clever the author is, rather than how wonderful the Author is. Furtick defines the chatterbox as "the lies we believe that keep us from accurately and actively hearing God's voice." Which leads to my view of "chatterbox": a minister who subsumes the Word of God to frivolity. If he reads this, I hope that my use of words above junior-high reading level doesn't throw him off.

In contrast to the chatterbox, God wants, according to Furtick, "to communicate with you in tones, pitches, and frequencies that this world is not wired for, to fulfill you with affirmation that your soul has been thirsting for" (p. 11). Really? Even ignoring the mixed metaphors, is that what the Bible says? I read in Isaiah 64:6 that "all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment." And in Romans 3:12, "All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." So, when the chatterbox is telling me that I am worthless, no good, it is telling the truth!

What is Furtick's solution? P. 15, "We become liberated from lies as we actively embrace the ways God wants to re-imagine and re-create our hearts." That is a load of mystical, new-age hogwash! P. 29, "The more adept you become at talking smack back to the chatterbox, the more ingrained the reality of who you are will become." I wish that he had included the reference for that, because I couldn't find "talking smack" in my Bible concordance. Maybe I can find it in some book about "the power of positive thinking," or in the sermons of some preacher of "positive confession." Another reference I would have liked to see was for "our inestimable worth in His [i. e., God's] eyes" (p. 65).

I especially found objectionable the use he makes use of questionable psychological methods. On page 128, he refers to a seminar by a Christian psychologist: "Toward the end of his last session, he started explaining something called 'learned helplessness' and the three p's of negative thinking. I was captivated because so much of what he was sharing coalesced with what I've been learning about the chatterbox." And on page 132, he quotes new-age psychologist Carl Jung. I can't understand how Furtick is not conscious of his inspiration, non- or even anti-Christian psychology, not the Bible.

Furtick almost fixes the problem when he finally reaches the final third of his book. He opens that section, beginning on page 133, by quoting Galatians 2:20, and talking about what Christ has done. On page 139, he quotes Romans 8:3-4, and adds, "What I could never do, God already did! As a believer, I no longer live under the tyranny of condemnation, because God, the righteous Judge, condemned my sin in Christ. All. All of it!" And that is right on the money! I only wish that Furtick had started his book at that point.

However, Furtick doesn't finish there. Instead, he returns to the garbage that he had spouted in the first two-thirds of the book. For example, on p. 196, he writes, "Your words will give weight to the very dread and discontent that the Enemy intends to use to discourage you." That is the same prosperity-gospel and pop-psychology nonsense that fills so much of the book.

Here is my solution to the "chatterbox": when Satan (or one's conscience) keeps throwing up the accusation that one is unworthy of God's love, then agree with him, because it's true. But don't stop there. I am unworthy, but Jesus is worthy! Revelation 5:12 says, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" And, by grace through faith alone, I am clothed in His worthiness! Revelation 3:18 encourages us "to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen..." See also Zechariah 3:3-5.

So, to "crash the chatterbox," avoid this book, avoid clever TV preachers, and avoid cheesy psychology. Rather, let the truth of your sinfulness and the glory of redemption in Christ drown out the accuser. For the just shall live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4)!

The Promises to Israel, Fulfilled in Christ

In II Corinthians 1:19-20, the Apostle Paul tells us, "The Son of God, Jesus Christ, Whom we proclaimed among you, ...was not Yes and No, but in Him is always Yes. For all the promises of God find their Yes in Him." So, to my mind, those who advocate all sorts of divine promises for the modern State of Israel, apart from conversion to the only Messiah, are depriving them of the true promises to them. And, more importantly, they are stealing the glory of Christ and giving it to constructs of their own making, a form of idolatry.

Look at the prophecies of Jeremiah, where so many of the political promises are supposedly found. In Jer. 33:14, God says, "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah." What is that fulfillment? Jeremiah continues (verse 15), "In those days and at that time, I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up  for David, and He shall execute justice and righteousness in the land." So, the promise isn't fulfilled by a political or economic blessing, but in a Person.

This Branch is prophesied in other books, as well. We see Him in Isaiah 11:1-5, and twice in Zechariah, Zech. 3:8 and 6:12, to name just a few.

What does Jeremiah tell us about the Branch? Chapter 33 continues, in verses 17-18, "For thus says the Lord, 'David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in My presence to offer burnt offerings and to make sacrifices forever," So, the Branch will fulfill both the political and religious roles in providing for the people of God. That is something that was impossible under the pre-Christian economy, for the the kingship came only through the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10), and the priesthood was limited to the line of Aaron, in the tribe of Levi (Numbers 16:40, cp. Hebrews 7:13).

That Aaronic reference is the connection to the prophetic references to the Branch. In Numbers 17:8, the sign God gives of the choice of Aaron was that his staff, out of all the staffs of the tribal representatives, sprouted. This is the source of the image of the Branch.

God first unites these two lines in Zechariah 6:12-13, "And say to him [i. e., the High Priest Joshua], 'Behold the Man Whose name is Branch: for He shall branch out from His place, and He shall build the temple of the Lord. It is He Who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on His throne. And there shall be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." Here we see two of the offices of Christ, His kingship and His priesthood (His prophetic office not playing a role here), united and described.

In the New Testament, His kingship is prominent in Hebrews (e. g., Heb. 1:8), and especially the Revelation, e. g., 17:14 and 19:16. His priesthood is especially prominent in Hebrews, (e. g., chapters 7 and 8), but especially Heb. 9:11-14. Through our union with Him, we share in His  royal priesthood (see, for example, Isaiah 61:6, I Peter 2:9, and Rev. 5:10). That is the fulfillment of the promises (Romans 4:13) to the people of God, the true Israel (Galatians 3:7, 6:16). Thus, to use the modern political State of Israel as a fulfillment of promises to the people of God is to misidentify the people of God, the promises, and the fulfillment, as well as to downgrade the blessings we have in Christ.

Preaching: New Testament Prophecy

"Pursue love and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands him, but he utters in the Spirit. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church."

Two contrasting images are set before us by Paul in this passage (I Corinthians 14:1-4).

On one hand he describes one who speaks in tongues, not understood by those around (unlike what happens in Acts 2). The distinguishing mark of that gift is that it is communication between the believer and God, i. e., a private conversation. Over against this is the gift of prophecy. The New Testament prophet addresses the church, for upbuilding, encouragement, and consolation.

Notice what he does not say: nowhere does Paul even intimate that this gift of prophecy is a revelatory gift. In that sense, this New Testament prophet is quite unlike his Old Testament counterpart. Isaiah, for example, was the intermediary between God and Israel in the proclamation of new Scripture. The New Testament prophet, i. e., the preacher of the Word, is proclaiming previous revelation, such as that of Isaiah, to the church for the purpose of edification. This is the historic understanding of this passage, at least among orthodox Protestants. The 1560 version of the Geneva Bible explains "prophesy" in verse 1 (with modern spelling), "That is, to expound the word of God to the edification of the Church." The interpretation that became popular among Pentecostals runs contrary to at least 350 years of Protestant history!

We see Paul encouraging his theology student Timothy to "guard the deposit entrusted" to him (I Timothy 6:20). What deposit was that? We see the answer in II Timothy 3:14-16, "As for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from Whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Again, look at what Paul tells Timothy: continue in the deposit that he had received even from childhood, the Scriptures! What does he not tell him to do? To seek new revelation! Isn't this the very opposite of what today's continuationists, such as Wayne Grudem and self-described Pentecostals, advocate?

Someone will ask about I Corinthians 13:8, "As for prophecies, they will pass away." Doesn't that mean, if my interpretation is correct, that prophesying will cease? Well, no. "Prophesying" does not pass away; "prophecies" do. Or, as he phrases it just above, in verse 2, "prophetic powers." Related terminology, obviously, but referring to two different things. Prophecy is gone, because the Scriptures are sufficient, "that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (II Timothy 3:17). "Prophesying" is still essential for teaching and applying those same Scriptures. That's why Paul describes it as the superior gift for the Corinthians. It is also why Paul exhorts Timothy (II Timothy 4:2) to "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching."

Was the Apostle Paul a Pentecostal?

In I Corinthians 14:18, the Apostle Paul makes a simple statement: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you." Pentecostals love to quote this verse to prove that their theology has an apostolic origin. But does it?

Another thing that Paul says of himself, in Acts 21:39, is, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia." As a native of that mostly-Gentile city, he would have grown up as a native speaker of Greek. He repeats that information in Acts 22:3, and adds, "[I] was educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers." This refers to his training as a Pharisee (cf. Acts 23:6, 26:5, and Philippians 3:5). Both as a Jew by birth and as a Pharisee by training, he would have been intimately familiar with Hebrew. And the accounts of his defense before Roman authorities (e. g., Felix in Acts 24, Festus in ch. 25, and Agrippa in ch. 26) strongly imply a fluency in Latin.

In other words, the historical account describes Paul speaking at least three tongues, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Nowhere does Scripture describe Paul sing-songing "la-la-linga-dinga," or any such gibberish.

So, does Scripture give us an Apostle Paul who spoke in tongues? Absolutely! Do we find anywhere a Paul who could be compared to modern Pentecostals? Only in the imaginations of those who claim that name for themselves.