Die rol van die vrou in die kerk

“Kontekstualisering,” die post-moderne foefie om die Bybel binne sy bepaalde kulturele tydsbestek te lees en te interpreteer, het ‘n baie handige towerstaffie in die hande van die hedendaagse Paulusse en Petrusse geword om kernwaarhede in die Skrif te verander of selfs geheel en al uit te skryf. As iets in die Bybel ons hedendaagse verwronge vryheidsin bedreig is dit mos baie maklik om te sê: “ Sus of so is nie meer in ons moderne kultuur aanvaarbaar nie omdat dit slegs vir sus of so binne Paulus en Petrus se kulturele raamwerk gegeld het.” Raai wat! Prof Hennie Stander het, soos te wagte, in sy vierde en skynbaar laaste aflewring van sy reeks oor die rol van die vrou die spreekwoordelike “cherry op die koek gesit” en Paulus se uitsprake rondom die vrou agter die tralies van kultuurgebondenheid en tydsgebondenheid toegesluit. Hennie, jy’s vir eers weer aan die woord:

In 1 Timoteus 2:11-12 sê Paulus “’n Vrou moet in die erediens stil en onderdanig wees en haar laat leer. Ek laat haar nie toe om daar onderrig te gee of oor die man gesag uit te oefen nie.” Die vraag is nou of hierdie ’n algemene beginsel is wat vir alle eeue in alle kerke geld, en of dit ’n lokale aangeleentheid is. Ons moet onthou dat nie alle uitsprake in die Bybel bedoel is om vir alle tye te geld nie. . . . Net so, reken ek, is Paulus se opdrag aan Timoteus dat ’n vrou stil en onderdanig moet wees, en nie onderrig mag gee nie, ook tydsgebonde. Binne die kultuur van daardie tyd moes ’n vrou altyd stil en op haar plek wees.

So ‘n bek moet jam kry want dit gebeur nie aldag dat ‘n eksegeet van sy formaat met slegs twee versies uit die Skrif so ‘n grondverskuiwende afleiding kan maak nie. Op die oog af sou ‘n mens waarskynlik kon toegee dat die twee versies kultuurgebonde is maar lees jy verder word dit ietwat moeiliker om die opvolgende dinge waarna Paulus verwys en onlosmaaklik deel vorm van verse 11 en 12 kultuurgebonde en tydsgebonde te maak. Hoe op deeske aarde gaan jy vers 13 kontekstualiseer en kultuurgebonde en tydsgebonde maak?

Want Adam is eerste gemaak, daarna Eva.

Hennie, ten einde standhoudend (konsekwent) te wees in jou gekontekstualiseerde redenasies, MOET jy, ek herhaal, MOET jy die verse wat op 11 en 12 volg ook in aanmerking neem. Die woordjie “want” sê tog  baie duidellik dat vers 13 deel vorm van die vorige twee verse en voorsien aan ons die rede waarom die vrou nie toegelaat word om in kerklike en gesinsverband gesag oor die man uit te oefen nie. Of, miskien sou jy wou redeneer dat Adam se posisie as eersgeskapene kultuurgebonde en tydsgebonde is en dus nie ‘n algemene beginsel vir alle eeue is nie maar slegs ‘n lokale aangeleentheid is. Maar kom ek maak dit vir jou en jou kollegas aan die Universiteit van Pretoria makliker. Ons gaan ter wille van ons hedendaagse post-moderne, post-mortem kultuur nie meer glo dat Adam die eersgeskapene van God was nie, maar Eva en dat die man in werklikheid uit een van haar ribbebene gemaak is. Siedaar! ons het nou nie meer nodig om van die vrou te verwag om onderdanig te wees aan die man nie maar dat die man onderdanig moet wees aan die vrou, dat die ouers onderdanig moet wees aan die kinders en dat die werkgewers onderdanig moet wees aan die werknemers. Die Elza Meyers en ander vroue predikante kan maar nou lustig voortgaan om gesag in hulle onderskeie kerke uit te oefen en vir die mans te leer wat NIE in die Bybel staan nie. Myns insiens is die mans wat hulle deur vroue in die kerk laat leer (sommige daarvan is van die ergste vorme van dwaalleringe) ‘n klomp lamsakke wat versuim om hulle Godgegewe opdragte in hulle gemeentes uit te voer, of miskien is hulle nie waarlik deur God geroep om as predikante in hulle gemeentes te dien nie en is  dus maar net ‘n spul huurlinge.

Adam is eerste geskape maar Eva is eerste verlei en het eerste in die oortreding gekom. Dit is die volgende rede waarom die vrou nie in ‘n gesagsposisie oor die man mag heers nie en weer eens kan dit nie as ‘n kultuurgebonde en tydsgebonde gebeurlikheid beskou word nie. Sou enigeen dit wil waag om Eva se oortreding kultuurgebonde en tydgebonde te maak, sou jy dan ook moes redeneer dat haar oorteding geen gevolge vir ons hedendaagse kultuur en tyd het nie. Waarom dink u het die duiwel die vrou geteiken met sy slinkse verleidinge en nie die man (Adam) nie. Ek hou ogal van Barnes se verklaring van vers 14.

Verse 14. And Adam was not deceived. This is the second reason why the woman should occupy a subordinate rank in all things. It is that in the most important situation in which she was ever placed, she had shown that she was not qualified to take the lead. She had evinced a readiness to yield to temptation; a feebleness of resistance; a pliancy of character, which showed that she was not adapted to the situation of headship, and which made it proper that she should ever afterwards occupy a subordinate situation. It is not meant here that Adam did not sin, nor even that he was not deceived by the Tempter, but that the woman opposed a feebler resistance to the temptation than he would have done, and that the temptation as actually applied to her would have been ineffectual on him. To tempt and seduce him to fall, there were needed all the soft persuasions, the entreaties, and the example of his wife. Satan understood this, and approached man not with the specious argument of the serpent, but through the allurements of his wife. It is undoubtedly implied here that man, in general, has a power of resisting certain kinds of temptation, superior to that possessed by woman, and hence that the headship properly belongs to him. This is, undoubtedly, the general truth, though there may be many exceptions, and many noble cases to the honour of the female sex, in which they evince a power of resistance to temptation superior to man. In many traits of character, and among them those which are most lovely, woman is superior to man; yet it is undoubtedly true that, as a general thing, temptation will make a stronger impression on her than on him. When it is said that “Adam was not deceived,” it is not meant that when he partook actually of the fruit he was under no deception, but that he was not deceived by the serpent; he was not first deceived, or first in the transgression. The woman should remember that sin began with her, and she should therefore be willing to occupy an humble and subordinate situation (Klem bygevoeg).

But the woman being deceived. She was made to suppose that the fruit would not injure her, but would make her wise, and that God would not fulfil his threatening of death. Sin, from the beginning, has been a process of delusion. Every man or woman who violates the law of God is deceived as to the happiness which is expected from the violation, and as to the consequences which will follow it.

“The law of God” waarna Barnes hier verwys gaan juis oor die verordeninge van God ten opsigte van die rol wat die man en die vrou in gesins- en kerkverband moet speel. As ons sy verordeninge rondom die man en die vrou in ‘n gesin, die nukleus van die kerk, verontagsaam sal ons die vrugte daarvan pluk en die kerk is besig om tans die vrugte daarvan te pluk omdat God ons oorgegee het aan allerhande dwaalleringe. Die rede? . . . omdat God se orde in die samelewing totaal oor boord gegooi word.

Moet ‘n vrou onderdanig wees?

Prof. Hennie Stander, hoe lees jy die Bybel? In sy jongste aflewring (deel 3) van sy reeks “Moet ‘n vrou onderdanig wees?, sê hy die volgende:

Efesiërs 5:22 sê: Vrouens, wees aan julle mans onderdanig, net soos julle aan die Here onderdanig is.” Die meeste Bybellesers sal seker sê: “Daar het jy dit! Wat soek jy meer? Die antwoord is tog duidelik!” Daar is egter ’n hele paar probleme met so ’n uitleg. In die eerste plek sê die vers dat “vroue aan hulle mans” onderdanig moet wees. Die vers praat dus oor getroude vroue. Dit is nie ’n opdrag vir ALLE vroue nie. Ek kan nie op grond van hierdie vers verwag dat ook die ongetroude vroue in my werksomgewing (of selfs in my gemeente) aan my onderdanig moet wees nie.

Verder, mans vergeet natuurlik gerieflikheidshalwe dat daar ’n ander versie is direk vóór vers 22 wat sê: “Wees uit eerbied vir Christus aan mekaar onderdanig.” ’n Man en vrou moet natuurlik wedersyds aan mekaar onderdanig wees.

Nêrens in die gedeeltes waarin Petrus en Paulus praat van “onderdanigheid” het dit enigsins betrekking op ‘n gesindheid van oorheersing of dominansie nie. Dis nie waaroor dit gaan nie. Dit gaan oor ‘n ordeningsreëling waarin iemand die leiding moet neem, leiding gee en die koers aandui. Kan u dink watter chaos dit sou afgee as ‘n generaal of ‘n admiraal van ‘n leërmag en vloot ‘n wedersydse onderdanigheidreëling met hulle manskappe sou aangaan? Ek is nie besig om die huwelik met ‘n oorlog te vergelyk nie (hoewel die meeste huwelike deesdae ‘n slagveld geword het) en nog minder is ek besig om die man van ‘n huisgesin te sien in die rol van ‘n generaal. Ek is bloot besig om ‘n voorbeeld te gee van hoe uiters belangrik dit is vir iemand om die leiding te neem, en dit  is nou maar eenmaal so dat die Here die man gekies het om hierdie rol in die huisgesin en die kerk te vervul. Waarom? Omdat God beslis het dat sy eniggebore Seun, Jesus Christus, die Hoof van die kerk moet wees en dat die man as Sy verteenwordiger die rol van ‘n leier in sy huisgesin moet speel. Die huwellik moet dus as’t ware ‘n afbeelding wees (netsoos Christus die volmaakte afbeelding van sy Vader is) van Christus se verhouding met sy kerk (die “ekklesia” waarin almal onderdanig is aan Christus). Die huwelik moet inderwaarheid die kerk in die kleine wees. Hoe moet dit as kerk in die kleine funksioneer? Die man moet sy vrou liefhê soos Christus die gemeente liefgehad het en sy lewe daarvoor afgelê het en die vrou moet onderdanig wees aan haar man. Sy is veronderstel om haar man in sy rol as hoof (leier) van die huis in alles te ondersteun en aan te moedig, en as hy te papbroekig  is om sy rol as leier van sy gesin te vervul, dan moet sy in opdrag van die Here nog steeds aan hom onderdanig wees met die doel om hom vir Christus te wen sodat hy gered en vervul kan word met die Heilige Gees wat  hom in staat sal stel om sy rol as verteenwoordiger van Christus in die huis te kan begin nakom. God is ‘n God van orde en nie wanorde nie.

Hennie is blitsvinnig om uit te wys dat die man en die vrou wedersyds aan mekaar onderdanig moet wees en haal die gedeelte voor vers 21 uit die 1983 Afrikaanse vertaling aan om sy standpunt te rugsteun. Die gedeelte wat volg op vers 21 verwys nie net na die verhouding tussen man en vrou nie, maar ook tussen ouers en kinders en werkgewers en werknemers. Indien dit, soos prof. Hennie dit verklaar, sou beteken dat man en vrou wedersyds aan mekaar onderdanig moet wees, dan sou dit ook beteken dat die ouers onderdanig moet wees aan hulle kinders en die werkgewers aan hulle werknemers. Dit beteken gewoon dat die verskillende Godgegwe ordeningsreëlings in die samelewing gehandhaaf moet word. Elkeen van hierdie groepe persone moet binne hulle eie ordeningsreëling onderdanig wees aan die persone wat oor hulle aangestel is — d.i. die vrou aan haar man, die kinders aan hulle ouers en die werknemers aan hulle werkgewers.

Die hele debakel wat tans nog steeds woed rondom die vrou se rol in die kerk en die groeiende aandrang dat die vrou ook ‘n leiersposisie in die huisgesin en die kerk moet speel, is niks anders as ‘n ontkenning en ‘n verwerping van Jesus Christus as Hoof van die sy kerk nie. Dis niks anders as openlike rebellie teen God en sy verordeninge nie.

Die Nuwe gesalfde Paulusse en Petrusse in ons midde

Dit  is hoegenaamd nie ‘n vreemde verskynsel om te sien hoedat daar op die vooraand van die wederkoms van Christus Jesus oral nuwe Paulusse en Petrusse soos paddastoele opduik nie. Daar is egter ‘n hemeslbreë verskil tussen die Paulus en die Petrus van die Bybel en die hedendaagse Paulusse en Petrusse wat dinge sê en verkondig wat lynreg in stryd is met wat Paulus van Tarsus en Petrus in die Woord van God ons leer. Ag, kom ek noem sommer dadelik een van hierdie nuwe gesalfde Paulusse en Petrusse van ons geheiligde post-moderne era op sy naam — Hennie Stander, professor in Grieks in die Departement Antieke Tale aan die Universiteit van Pretoria en ook ’n jarelange medewerker by FINESSE tydskrif, en die redakteur van finesse MAN. Kom ek verseker my lesers sommer wansuit dat ek hoegenaamd niks persoonliks teen Prof. Hennie koester nie, maar ek het ‘n kleintjie dood aan sy verwaandheid om die Woord van God met ‘n enkele oogknip te verdraai. Ja! glo dit as julle wil, Hennie het dit weer gedoen, maar voordat ek my wend tot sy mees onlangse Bybelse verdraaiing moet ek u baie ernstig daaraan herinner dat Petrus en Paulus (dis nou die Paulus van die Bybel) die evangelie en alles wat daarmee gepaard gaan regstreeks van Jesus Christus ontvang het. Onthou dus asseblief, as julle met Petrus of Paulus ‘n appeltjie te skil het oor wat hulle alles in hulle sendbriewe kwytgeraak het, moet julle weet dat julle nie teen hulle nie maar teen Jesus Christus sigselwers stry. Paulus skryf:

Galasiërs 1:1—12 Soek ek dan nou die guns van mense, of van God? Of probeer ek om mense te behaag? As ek nog mense behaag, dan sou ek nie ‘n dienskneg van Christus wees nie. Maar ek maak julle bekend, broeders, dat die evangelie wat deur my verkondig is, nie na die mens is nie. Want ek het dit ook nie van ‘n mens ontvang of geleer nie, maar deur ‘n openbaring van Jesus Christus.

‘n Mens kan nie altyd agterkom wat agter die kap van Hennie se byl sit om dié dinge te sê wat hy so manhaftig kwytraak nie, maar dit lyk of hy in hierdie geval doelbewus die guns van die skonere geslag in ons land soek en wil wen. Nouja! dit alleen is al klaar ‘n wanklankige doelwit veral as ‘n mens in ag neem dat die guns van mense vir Paulus van Tarsus ‘n nul op ‘n kontrak was. Om ‘n ware dienskneg van Christus te kan wees, moet jy die evangelie vreesloos en kompromieloos verkondig al sou jou eie familielede jou soos ‘n stuk weggooilap behandel. Kom ons kyk dan nou eers wat Hennie gesê het en vergelyk dit met wat Paulus in die verkondiging van Jesus se evangelie gesê het. Dit gaan kortom oor die debakel rondom die  rol wat die vrou in die kerk en die samelewing moet speel. Hennie, jy’s aan die woord:

Laat ek sommer dadelik reg aan die begin sê dat ek baie ongemaklik is met die idee dat die vrou onderdanig aan die man moet wees. My ongemaklikheid word selfs nog groter wanneer ek in die praktyk sien hoe baie mans hulle vroue hanteer (lees “mishandel”). Dan lyk dit vir my amper soos ’n vrou wat op ’n motor se agtersitplek sit terwyl die man alleen voor sit en onverskillig bestuur en roekeloos jaag, terwyl hy verwag dat die vrou haar mond moet hou en moet stilbly. Dit is presies dieselfde wat gebeur wanneer ’n man sy vrou en sy gesin roekeloos “bestuur” terwyl hy verwag dat sy haar mond moet hou en die man moet toelaat om alleen aan die hoof van die gesin te staan.

Hennie, miskien sal jy geskok wees om dit te hoor, maar die Here wil juis hê dat die vrou haar mond moet hou in ‘n huwelik met ‘n man wat hom soos ‘n skarmunkel gedra. Maar, dan moet ek onmiddellik byvoeg dat dit alleenlik heilige vroue wat in Christus is (waarlik gered is) wat so ‘n uiters moeilike opdrag kan uitvoer. So ‘n vrou volg haar Meester na “wat, toe Hy uitgeskel is, nie terug uitgeskel het nie; toe Hy gely het, nie gedreig het nie, maar dit oorgegee het aan Hom wat regverdig oordeel” (1 Petrus 2:23). ‘n Vrou wat die Here nie ken nie (nie gered is nie) kan gerus maar soos ‘n tiewyfie terugbaklei omdat sy nie die Heilige Gees het om haar in sulke moeilike omstandighede die krag en die wysheid te gee om stil te bly nie. Waarom verwag die Here van ‘n vrou om stil te bly in selfs die allermoeilikste omstandighede in haar huwelik? Indien jy nog nie weet nie, is dit miskien nou die geleentheid om weer ‘n slag te kyk na wat Petrus in sy eerste brief hieroor sê. Ek haal uit die Amplified Bible aan omdat dit vir my die saak baie duideliker omskrywe:

1 Peter 3:1-2 IN LIKE manner, you married women, be submissive to your own husbands [subordinate yourselves as being secondary to and dependent on them, and adapt yourselves to them], so that even if any do not obey the Word [of God], they may be won over not by discussion but by the [godly] lives of their wives, When they observe the pure and modest way in which you conduct yourselves, together with your reverence [for your husband; you are to feel for him all that reverence includes: to respect, defer to, revere him—to honor, esteem, appreciate, prize, and, in the human sense, to adore him, that is, to admire, praise, be devoted to, deeply love, and enjoy your husband].

Die Ou Afrikaanse 1953 lui as volg:

Net so moet julle, vroue, aan jul eie mans onderdanig wees, sodat, as sommige aan die woord ongehoorsaam is, hulle ook deur die wandel van die vroue sonder woorde gewin kan word

En die nuwer Afrikaanse vertaling van 1983 sê dit as volg:

Vrouens, julle moet aan julle mans onderdanig wees. As daar van julle is met mans wat nie die woord van God glo nie, en die mans sien hoe godvresend julle is en hoe voorbeeldig julle julle gedra, sal hulle vir Christus gewen kan word deur die gedrag van hulle vrouens. Dit sal nie eens vir julle nodig wees om ‘n woord te sê nie.

A nee a, Hennie, skaam jy jou nie om Petrus se goeie raad in die wind te slaan met jou aweregse uitlating nie: “Laat ek sommer dadelik reg aan die begin sê dat ek baie ongemaklik is met die idee dat die vrou onderdanig aan die man moet wees.” Jy sien, Hennie, sodra Jesus Christus en sy evangelie jou hoogste pririoteit in hierdie lewe word en dit jou hoogste doel is om jou geliefdes vir Christus te win, sal jy bereid wees om SY opdragte uit te voer, al is en klink dit hoe moeilik ookal. Lyk my die vroue wat alles ter wille van Christus wil doen — ja! selfs om haar mond te hou in ‘n ongelukkige huwelik — weet skynbaar beter as die mans wat die volgende skrifgedeelte beteken>

Sagaria 4: 6 Nie deur krag of deur geweld nie, maar deur my Gees, sê die HERE van die leërskare.

(Belangrike naskrif: Hennie Stander het die formaat van sy blog geheel en al verander. Toe ek weer daarop wou ingaan om die res van sy artikels oor die rol van die vrou te lees, het die volgende onaardse kennisgewing my in die gesig gestaar “Jy moet in teken om hierdie inskrywing te sien.” My doppie is dus geklink want ek is hoeka al deur hom aangesê om my ry te kry. Die man hou eenvoudig net nie van my kommentare nie).

(Nog ‘n belangrike naskrif: Ek sien Hennie is vanoggend weer terug en almal kan sy blog lees sonder om in te teken).

Only Calvin’s Elect are Lost? The Reprobates are not . . .? Can You Help Me to Solve This Riddle?

I assume you already know that the Reformed fraternity is celebrating the 500th anniversary of John Calvin’s birth on 10 July 1509 this year. You don’t? Well, then it’s about time you dust off the cobwebs from your history books. First off, I must warn you that this is a Calvinistic riddle and they are usually tougher than a genuine South African Boere-toffee. Those of you who do not know the real meaning of the words “world,” “whomsoever,” and “all men,” should not even try to solve the riddle and rather bow out right now. OK! Let’s set the scene with a few very potent quotes from the lips of some of the most famous and distinguished Calvinists.

Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated (Bernard. in Die Ascensionis, Serm. 2). This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite, reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3, Chapter 23, Sec. 2226)

Scripture clearly proves … that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. ” (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 7, Sec. 2210)

For he is speaking of the greatness of God, whose pleasure it is to inflict punishment on fools and transgressors though he is not pleased to bestow his Spirit upon them. It is a monstrous infatuation in men to seek to subject that which has no bounds to the little measure of their reason. Paul gives the name of elect to the angels who maintained their integrity. If their steadfastness was owing to the good pleasure of God, the revolt of the others proves that they were abandoned. Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God. (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3, Chapter 23, Sec. 2229)

Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Boek 3, Chapter 23, Sec. 2231) (Emphasis added)

God, according to the good pleasure of his will, without any regard to merit, elects those whom he chooses for sons, while he rejects and reprobates others . . . it is right for him to show by punishing that he is a just judge . . . The Lord therefore may show favor to whom he will, because he is merciful; not show it to all, because he is a just judge. (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 2234) (Emphasis added).

I am particularly thrilled, enthralled, fascinated and spellbound by Calvin’s vast knowledge of God’s Word. I would never have picked up the part in Scripture which says, “it pleased God to exclude the reprobate from the inheritance which he predestined to his children” if I hadn’t been enlightened by John Calvin’s brilliant insights and “Institutes.” I’m not much of a Berean, but I really try to check out the things I hear from the lips of people who are most esteemed by other much esteemed scholars in divinity. I searched the Scriptures and came upon the following passages that don’t seem to gel with John Calvin’s view of God being pleased to exclude the reprobates . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah. Let’s see what they say.

Ezekiel 18:32 “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live.”

Ezekiel 33:11 “Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’ (Emphasis added)

Now! Is there anybody out there somewhere who could point out the liar to me? Calvin said it pleases God to send the reprobate (the irretrievably wicked) to hell while God Himself says He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Someone is lying and I’m pretty sure it cannot be God who said:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man [such as John Calvin], that He should lie, . . .

Wow! Imagine that. God never tells a lie; He always tells the truth because He is God, the Way, God the Truth and God the Life. There is no shadow of turning in Him (James 1:17). That’s it! Capiche? If God always tells the truth, where do lies come from? Where do they originate? Let’s do the right thing and turn to God who never tells a lie to find out where lies come from. God says:

John 8:44-45 He [Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. “But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.

Do you see the problem here? Once you fail to see that Jesus speaks the truth you begin to fall prey to the lies of the father of all lies, Satan himself. Some may ask of me: “How dare you suggest that John Calvin, one of the greatest reformers in the history of the church was a liar? Blasphemy! Blasphemy!” No, no, no, no, my friend, whoever you may be, I am not suggesting that John Calvin was a liar. I’m proving that God who is no liar said something totally different from what John Calvin claimed He said. I am merely juxtaposing God’s words with those of Calvin and making a reasonable choice. If God speaks the truth, then follow Him but if Calvin speaks the truth, then follow him. You cannot have it both ways. Either you believe God who says that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked or you believe Calvin who said that God is pleased to exclude the reprobate from the inheritance which he predestined to his children. However, bear in mind that if you choose to believe John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination you are actually making God a liar. And please don’t tell me that I do not understand what Calvin said in the above quote from his Institutes. Ah! But even when you quote Calvin word for word our dear Calvinist friends would still accuse you of misunderstanding him. If Calvinism is the purist expression of the Bible and if the Bible is not an obscure book, why must Calvinism be so esoteric?

Here are a few more quotes from the elected and sanctified lips of a few elect.

Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners . . . The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation (David N Steele and Curtis C Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 196, 17) (Emphasis added)

This is called godly favouritism and partiality although Calvinists prefer to call it divine sovereignty. Once again we must determine who is the liar. Could it be God who said that He shows no favouritism whatsoever to anyone? (Romans 2:11) or is it our two distinguished elected favourites who have no qualms whatsoever to twist and turn and mutilate God’s Word?

The following statement by another favourite of God is a real humdinger.

If Jesus died for every person, but not every person is saved, His death did not actually save anybody . . . . If Christ died for people who will be in hell , His efforts cannot actually be called a “saving work” [and] there is no real saving power in the blood. Rather, the power would seem to be in the will of the creature . . . These points lie at the heart of the Christian message, for they rest at the foot of the cross. (Michael Scott Horton, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991, p. 89) (Emphasis added).

Since when is the efficaciousness and value of Jesus Christ ‘blood determined by the amount of saved sinners, in this case every single person? The reasoning here is that if Christ died for all people but all people are not saved, then his blood sacrifice cannot be seen as a saving work. Such a scenario renders his blood sacrifice worthless an a complete failure. Therefore, to make it effectual “all people” must be saved, but it is not “all people” in the sense of it being the entire world. It is “all people within the fold of the elect.” Voila! All the elect who are and will be saved without exception gives the blood of Jesus its efficaciousness and value.

Here’s another one of the elect’s bright and illumined ideas.

Because God has loved certain ones and not all, because He has sovereignly and immutably determined that these particular ones will be saved. He sent His Son to die for them, to save them, and not all the world.” (Edwin H Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Baker Books, enlarged ed. 20th prtg, 1999, p. 50) (Emphasis added)

And now, at last, we come to the riddle which is tied up with Jesus’ words in Luke 19:10: “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Please bear in mind that in the Calvinists’ world there are two groups of people — the “elect” and the “reprobate” and not “believers” and “unbelievers” as the Bible distinguishes between them. As we’ve seen from the above quotes Jesus died on the cross for the elect only because they alone have been predestined before the foundation of the world to be saved monergistically. On the other hand, the reprobates have been chosen or elected by God, even before the foundation of the earth, to be cast into the lake of fire because Christ did not die for them. He only died for the elect. If Jesus Christ came to seek and to save the “lost” and only the elect are saved the obvious conclusion to make is that only the elect were/are lost. Moreover, if the reprobate cannot be saved because they have been predestined to eternal damnation before the foundation of the world, Jesus did not come to seek and to save them and therefore one must conclude that they are, never have been and shall never be lost. Allow me to summarize it as follows.

1. Jesus came to our world to seek and to save the lost.

2. Only the elect are saved.

3. Therefore, only the elect are lost and not the so-called reprobates.

4. If the reprobates are not lost, simply because Jesus came to seek and save the lost (the elect only), it would mean (according to Calvinistic thinking) that every single reprobate will go to heaven because not a single one of them is lost.

The final question that needs to be answered is:

Are the reprobate lost? If your answer is in the affirmative, then you must agree that Jesus came to the earth to seek and to save them as well. If that is true, then Jesus actually died on the cross for them as well. If your answer is in the negative, then it confirms my assertion that only the elect are lost.

The “Eschatology” on “How to Change the World” – Un-rebel Yourself and Become a Grandpa!

I read these sweet winged words on Cobus van Wyngaard’s blog today.

To me, eschatology mean that I believe that the world can change, no matter what the odds! And I’m willing to believe that at least some of the people I know are changing the world right now.

This “Emperor has no clothes” syndrome could have been funny if it hadn’t been so sad. The fact of the matter is that these guys are probably not even capable of changing a baby’s diapers let alone the world.

Do these guys read their Bibles? Had they taken the time to study God’s Word they would have noticed that the world they are trying to change is going to wax worse and worse as the time for Jesus Christ to return draws nearer. Agh! but Cobus and his buddies have stripped, unshackled, freed and emancipated  eschatology of trivial and insignificant things like the parousia of Christ. Do I hear them singing “We are the new generation of Mighty Men who are going to change the world?” Ah! the Emperor is not only naked, he is also singing.

What does God say about the world in his Word?

Re 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him

Re 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The Unholiness of the Renovaré Brotherhood’s “Holiness.”

View Full Album

Adherents to the Emergent Church have an uncanny ability to tell their congregants what to do without explaining what they really have in mind. They have the knack to use biblical terminology very skilfully and expertly but often fail to elucidate the biblical meaning of the words they hit to and fro like a little ping-pong ball. “Holiness” is one of these words. I encountered this again in one of Stephan Joubert’s regular contributions on e-church under the title “No Steroids for Holiness.” Although it may be a very clever post-modernish title it wreaks of heresy from the very outset, especially when one takes into account who it was who coined the witty little maxim. But allow me to use Stephan’s own words:

You can’t cheat your way to holiness. Or can you? Presently, I am at the Renovare Conference in St Antonio, Texas where the theme is: The Jesus Way. Yesterday evening I listened to one of my spiritual heroes, Eugene Peterson. In his fine presentation he stressed that there are no spiritual steroids for holiness. You have to live a holy life, one day at a time. (Emphasis added)

Have you noticed the little ink spots in Stephan’s declaration of holiness?

What is Renovare?

Here are a few facts about “Renovare”

• Renovaré is a movement within the emergent church that was started in 1988 by Richard Foster, a Quaker theologian. The Quaker’s theology is based on the belief that everyone (believers and unbelievers) have an “inner light” which can lead them to truth while they wait and listen to its subjective leading, particularly with the assistance of contemplative practices such as “the silence” and “centering prayer.” Paul Lacout, in Quaker Faith and Practice, described a “silence which is active” causing the Inner Light to “glow.” Their complete reliance on the leading of the inner light has just about ousted the objectivity of God’s Word and its clear-cut doctrines. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Stephan Joubert pledges not to return to the Bible and the church but to advance forward to God (the inner light that guides all of mankind into the Truth)

• As soon as you begin to tamper with biblical doctrine heresy becomes your way and not as the Renovaré brotherhood claims “The Jesus Way.” The Quakers’ assertion that believers and unbelievers have an “inner light” substantiates their equally heretic belief in Universalism. George Fox and Robert Barclay as well as other respected leaders in the Quaker movement hold to the lie that all people are already saved from sin or will eventually be saved from it, the reason being that the Light is within everyone and nobody will therefore be cast into hell. Then there are those within the Quaker movement, such as the Quaker Universalist Group who believe that it is unnecessary to have any faith in Jesus Christ. People of other faiths or no faith at all have no need of salvation because they already have Light within them. Calvinism has a similar pet heresy. Although they do not believe that all men will eventually be saved, thanks to Calvin’s doctrine with regard to the reprobates, they too proclaim that all the elect will be saved without faith. Saving faith, they say, is given as a gift  after the elect had been infused with the inner Light of God by the Holy Spirit (monergism as opposed to synergism).

What does the Word of God teach us about the Light?

John 3:19-21 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (Emphasis added)

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Emphasis added)

• Richard Foster, the author of the Renovaré study Bible, endorses many Universalists and pantheists. Here are some of the revealing things they have said in their books:

“The Inner Light, the Inward Christ, is no mere doctrine, belonging peculiarly to a small religious fellowship, to be accepted or rejected as a mere belief. It is the living Center of Reference for all Christian souls and Christian groups - yes, and of non-Christian groups as well” Thomas Kelly: A Testament of Devotion.

“It is a glorious destiny to be a member of the human race, … now I realize what we all are …. If only they [people] could all see themselves as they really are … I suppose the big problem would be that we would fall down and worship each other … At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusions, a point of pure truth … This little point ..is the pure glory of God in us. It is in everybody. Thomas Merton: Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander

Asia, Zen, Islam, etc., all these things come together in my life. It would be madness for me to attempt to create a monastic life for myself by excluding all these. I would be less a monk. Rob Baker & Gray Henry: Merton and Sufism.

The common denominator between Merton’s brand of Christianity and other religions is mysticism, in particular Buddhism. Stephan Joubert’s spiritual excursion to the Renovaré Conference in San Antonio, Texas is consequently no coincidence. He is merely strengthening his affiliation with his brothers and sisters who are extending a hand of brotherly affection to religions such as Buddhism, and affirming his agreement with Rob Bell who said that truth may also be found in other religions such as Buddhism. When Merton could no longer resist the mystic appeal, he intended to turn his back on Christianity. Guess who advised him to remain a Christian? No! You’re wrong. It was not a concerned Christian but a Hindu swami named Dr. Bramachari. He assured Merton that he could find the very same mysticism within the ranks of the Christian mystics. (Henri J M Nouwen: Contemplative Critic). Dr. Bramachari seems to be far better informed than most Christians of Paul’s warning in 2 Corinthians and seems to know that Merton can do more damage within the ranks of Christianity if he remains therein stead of becoming a converted Buddhist or Hindu.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.  Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Merton affirmed that he could incorporate these mystical traditions into his own Christian tradition if he practiced tolerance of and an openness to Buddhism, Hinduism and other Asian mystical religions. Richard Foster’s entire philosophy is based on Merton’s and others’ contemplative spirituality and their efforts to bridge the gap between Western and Far Eastern spiritualities. Why would someone like Foster who claims to follow The Jesus Way endorse and follow Merton’s heresies? The underlying reason is to forge a new Christianity which gullibly utilizes Christian terminology, such as The Jesus Way and holiness, and gathers together every conceivable religious persuasion under a single umbrella called mysticism, simply because everyone has the Inner Light. Roger Oakland asks a similar question in his book “Faith Undone”

Why would someone who claims to be a Christian as Foster does, after reading and understanding Merton’s position on East­ern religion, promote his ideas? Foster knows the kind of prayer Merton stood for was different from biblical prayer. He admits that Merton’s prayer lined up with that of Zen masters and Bud­dhist monks. And yet he said, “Merton continues to inspire count­less men and women.”[i]

Stephan Joubert  is obviously one of the countless men and women who have been inspired to follow in the Jesus Way of spurious disciples such as Richard Foster, Eugene Peterson and Thomas Merton. The Renovaré (Renewal) Spiritual Formation Bible which was released in 2005 has impacted many people to strive for a renewal in the church. Besides Foster, editors included Dallas Willard, Walter Brueggemann, and Eugene Peterson.

What does the Renovaré Study Bible propagate?

• A great deal of the Old and the New Testament prophecies revolve around Israel, God’s chosen people. Dave Hunt wrote in the second part of “Israel and Prophetic Proof” in a recent edition of The Berean Call  the following:

Israel is the major topic of Bible prophecy, mentioned more than 2900 times, nearly twice as many times as her Messiah. Without Israel there would be no Messiah and no salvation for anyone, Jew or Gentile.

And yet, the Renovaré fraternity deliberately ignore Bible prophecy and re-interpret key prophecies in Scripture without the slightest compunction. In their zeal to make a better place of this world and to usher in the Kingdom of God by caring for the poor and downtrodden (which could be a good thing if the preached the unadulterated Gospel to them, which of course they don’t) they have re-interpreted “Israel” in terms of all the homeless in the world. Jeremiah 31:7-14 is undoubtedly a prophecy relating to the final restoration of Israel in their own promised land. Not so, says the Renovaré Study Bible; It is a promise to all the homeless and downtrodden people in the world. The Gospel cannot possibly be the Good News when Israel is left out of the equation. Sever them from the Gospel then you also need to sever the Messiah from it, which is impossible because Jesus Himself once said “ . . . salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). The Renovaré brotherhood, including Stephan Joubert. boast that they are following The Jesus Way and striving to live a life of holiness (without steroids of course). This is holy (or is it wholly) impossible when you dislodge Israel who gave us our Messiah from the prophecies. All the prophecies (and promises) in the Old and New Testament concerning Israel are all “yea and amen” in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20) and anyone who proclaims anything contrary to Christ’s prophecies relating to Israel are not following the Jesus Way but another way of another Jesus who is blazing the way to eternal destructio0n.

Who is the Jesus the Renovaré brotherhood are following?

Isaiah 9: 6-7 is one of the most magnanimous prophecies in the Old Testament predicting the advent of Jesus Christ.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

In their quest for holiness (without steroids of course) and to prove that they are genuine followers of The Jesus Way the Renovaré brotherhood, spearheaded by Richard Foster and Eugene Petersen (one of Stephan Joubert’s spiritual heroes and the author of the abominable and unbiblical “The Message”) have deliberately denigrated the above prophecy pertaining to Jesus Christ as well as many other Old Testament prophecies that point to Him. Here’s what they dare to do despite the stern warning in Revelation 22: 18 and 19.

1. The Renovaré “scholars” continually downplay the powerful Old Testament prophecies of Christ (pp. 22, 32, 1375, 1377-8, 1384, etc.).

2. They proclaim that the key prophecy in Isaiah 9:6-7 of the coming Messiah, who is “the mighty God, the everlasting Father,” refers to “human agents” ( p. .997).

3. Their holinesses (without steroids) declare that Isaiah’s prophecies are merely “tradition” (pp. 982, 983),

4. They would have us believe that much of that book was not written by Isaiah (there are “three authors”– pp. 982, 1068),

5. One of their most glaring proofs that they are indeed following The Way of Jesus and running afer holiness (without steroids) is their blunt denial that chapter 53 prophesies Christ’s sacrifice for our sins (p. 984)! So please, if you have a burning desire to follow the Jesus Way, tear Isaiah 53 out your Bilbe.

6. Renovaré describes the book of Isaiah as “poetic imagination … Isaiah imagines,” etc. The Renovaré “scholars” declare, “The prophets of Israel are not to be thought of primarily as…predictors of the future … they were poets” (p. 1079). Through poetry, Jeremiah attempts “to make sense of the events of his day …” (p. 1080). This is not holiness without steroids but Blasphemy with steroids, Stephan Joubert!

7. Renovaré rejects the powerful prophecies of Daniel, including the proof of 9:24-26 that Jesus is the Christ. They never say a word about the image foretelling the four world kingdoms and revival of the fourth (Roman Empire) under ten heads (2:36-45) to be destroyed by the Messiah when He sets up His everlasting kingdom. Nor is there a word about the future apocalyptic significance of the four beasts of Daniel 7 coinciding with Revelation 13. The wrath of God poured out upon earth during the Great Tribulation (Renovaré avoids that term) are described as “natural disasters straight out of Exodus” (p. 2268). Yet even the magicians in Egypt told Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God” (Ex 8:19).

So, what is holiness anyway?

Holiness, in a nutshell, is to be like your Creator and Saviour.

1 Peter 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

In practice it means that God’s children should talk, think and act completely different from what our world system expects its citizens to do. It comes down to separateness, severance, apartness from the world system and everything it advocates and stands for. The idea of separateness is seen throughout the Bible. Let’s ponder the following verses from Scripture.

Mark 10: 34-36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

If you proclaim to be a Christian who follows The Jesus Way you dare not associate with false teachers and preachers. Holiness also means to separate yourself from them. it is impossible to plead holiness (without steroids) while you associate with people whose false teaching God hates, to such an extent that He said through the mouth of his disciple,. Paul:

Galatians 1: 8 and 9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Here are a few verses that warn us not to associate with false teachers and preachers.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

2 Timothy 3:5-14 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; (Emphasis added).

I have pleaded with you many times before, Stephan, and I want to do so here again: Repent of your disastrous way which is clearly NOT The Jesus Way and definitely NOT the way of holiness. It is the way that leads to destruction. You are misleading many people in South Africa. Please stop playing with fire and repent!

---

[i] Richard Foster, Devotional Classics, op. cit., p. 61.

Transforming Mission

How do you transform Jesus Christ’s original missionary command to go into all the world, to make disciples of all the nations and to teach them to observe everything He commanded us? (Matthew 28:18-20). Its as easy as eating candy floss. The first thing you need to do is to search for Alice in Wonderland’s rabbit hole and deliberately fall into it and then, while you’re tumbling uncontrollably ever deeper into the darkest recesses of the hole, to realize that the world will never be the same again. Everything is caught up in a whirlpool of change. Even our theology, i.e. our perception of the world, of ourselves, of God and eternity, is in a constant flux of change (Thus spake the Zarathustrian Emergents). Now, let’s see how the world has changed. Perhaps you can help me identify some of the paradigm shifts that have irreversibly changed the world. Here goes.

1. Electricity changed our world when it began to illuminate great cities.
2. The wheel and the aeroplane have given man greater mobility.
3. The telephone gave mankind greater connectivity.
4. The computer, the internet and mobile phones enlarged this connectivity to an even greater extent.
5. Man sets foot on the moon for the very first time and since then has explored many other planets in the universe.
6. Major breakthroughs in medicine are said to have enhanced man’s longevity.
7. Quantum physics has had enormous success in explaining many of the features of our world.

If the emergent and contemplative conversationalists, who are tumbling down the “Wonderland rabbit hole” are really and truly honest with themselves, they must admit that none of the abovementioned phenomenal inventions that brought about paradigm changes in our society were able to change the moral fibre of mankind as a whole. Improved environments have never changed man’s inborn depraved moral disposition, and neither does the maxim “from rags to riches.” (Jeremiah 17:9). And yet they persist in their folly to believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ must be contextualized and that mission ought be transformed to accommodate these changes and to meet the people where they are at this present moment. They perceive our modern-day society as a very complex one, as if societies in the past were more congenial and simpler. Men in antiquity who road on donkeys were no less sinful and depraved than today’s jet-setters who effortlessly fly between countries in modern planes and vice versa, the reason being that both inherited the same problem — the old Adam nature. The latter portentous and ominous part of man’s psyche clings to him like the smelly odour of a dead body (Romans 7:24).

The ill-founded notion that our society is too complex to be dealt with sufficiently and efficiently by a set of simple answers has its roots in the abdominal crusade against the Word of God and its solutions to man’s problems, so much so that the Bible narratives must be changed, refurbished, re-invented and moulded into something new that can address the needs of today’s complex souls. This is what one of our more distinguished contemplatives has to say about the complexities of our society.

Theology never should be a simple set of answers to lifes complex questions.

I’m rather intrigued by by his phrase “never should” which implies that theology (the science of studying and commenting on God and how He relates to our world) should always remain detached from or aloof of life’s complex questions. Dangling the proverbial carrot is certainly one way of keeping complex souls from finding solutions for their complex problems. It should never supply concrete answers, because as soon as it does the journey the contemplatives have embarked on will have reached a destination (“we have arrived” kinda concept) which, in turn of course, would derail and crash Brian McLaren’s and other emergents’ need for a “new quest.”  If Christian theology should never be a simple set of answers to life’s complex questions, to what else should complex souls take their refuge to find answers to life’s complexities – psychology, contemplative mysticism, other religions, new norms and values, a global ethic, a transformed missiology? What does God say?

2 Peter 1:2, 3 May grace (God’s favor) and peace (which is perfect well-being, all necessary good, all spiritual prosperity, and freedom from fears and agitating passions and moral conflicts) be multiplied to you in [the full, personal, precise, and correct] knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. For His divine power has bestowed upon us all things that [are requisite and suited] to life and godliness, through the [full, personal] knowledge of Him Who called us by and to His own glory and excellence (virtue). (From the Amplified Bible)

The full, personal, precise and correct knowledge of God and Jesus Christ (which is not merely a head-knowledge but knowledge that pertains to eternal salvation – John 17: 3) produces a peace that surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:7). It leads to perfect spiritual well-being, good and spiritual prosperity (please note: not financial prosperity to make the poor rich as some would want you to believe), and freedom from fears and agitating passions and moral conflicts. Indeed, God has bestowed on us all things through His Son Jesus Christ which enables us to live a life of godliness. Moreover, God has blessed his children with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 1:3). What more do they want; what more do they need? Notwithstanding king David’s life that was inundated with severe complexities, he could sing from the depths of his heart “The Lord is my Shepherd. I shall not want.” Jesus Christ was all he needed to calm the tempestuous sea in his life, so much so that “he laid him down and slept; and awaked; for the LORD sustained him“ (psalm 3:5). This is not so with the unbeliever of whom the prophet Isaiah said” “But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” A theology that never should be a simple set of answers to life’s complex questions is a theology of an incompetent God whose hands are tied and cannot solve repentant sinners complex needs and problems. Such a God is no more and no less than a statue of an idol in your living room picking up dust and dirt. Who is the liar? The one who says that “theology never should be a simple set of answers to life’s complex questions” or the One who promised that He has bestowed on us all things that are suited to a life of godliness, perfect peace free from perplexing fears, agitations and inner conflicts?

Who is this God of the emergent church who sprains, stumbles and gives way under the pressures of the complexities of this life? Cobus van Wyngaard describes this God as someone whose suffering on the cross was not unique here. He says amongst other heretic statements:

It’s as if Christians have this extreme fear of finding out that Jesus was just another human like me and you. Just a plain crusifixion would have been extremely bad, just as bad as it would have been for any other human. You know that it was an early Christian heresy to downplay the humanity of Christ? But by amplifying the uniqueness of his suffering, ain’t we downplaying his humanity? As if the normal suffering that a human would undergo isn’t enough, it had to be worse than anything you could imagine.

I don’t doubt the uniqueness of Christ. But I believe that much of what Jesus did was not unique to him. The Bible doesn’t have a problem with this. It talks about sharing in the suffering of Christ (Rom 8:17; Phil 3:10), about following Paul like he follows Jesus (1 Cor 11:1), about disciples doing the same things that Jesus did (Matt 10). Jesus was imitated, followed. Others have done similar things. In many respects what Jesus broughts was not supposed to be unique, but rather point to something that is common! Maybe his suffering is not supposed to be unique either.

For anything to be unique it must be something that has never occurred before and never shall occur again in the entire history of humankind. A Commonalty, on the other hand, is something that can occur again and again. Cobus van Wyngaard tries very hard to prove that Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was not unique because it was a common occurrence in Roman antiquity. No one can deny that crucifixion was the means of execution in the most horrendous and cruel way during the Roman Empire and that many experienced this ill-fated death. It was this very form of execution that may be associated with the “fullness of time” of which Paul wrote in Galatians 4 because it was only first introduced and used between 6 BC and 4 AD when Emperor Constantine abolished it. Many ask the question why God waited so long to send his Son into the world and why the Roman Empire played such a major role in die “fullness of time” There are several reasons but the most obvious one is that execution by crucifixion was the means God decreed for His Son to die long before it even existed as an instrument of execution. The “fullness of time” was the time when all the Old Testament prophecies in regard to Christ’s death and resurrection were fulfilled in Him so that there could be no doubt about their fulfillment. It was important that such an event as Jesus Christ’s crucifixion in the fullness of time should be predicted in order that there might be full evidence that He came from heaven and not from the earth like all the others who died a similar death (John 8:23); and yet, in order that prophecy may be seen to have been uttered by God, it must be so far before the event as to make it impossible to have been the result of mere human conjecture. There are several Old Testament prophecies in regard to Christ’s crucifixion that can never be associated with any other person who died on a cross during the Roman Empire, making His death on the cross absolutely unique. Let’s take a look at these prophecies and their fulfillment.

Prophecies	Fulfillment
Isaiah 53: 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.	Matthew 26: 62, 63 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Isaiah 50: 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.	Mark 14: 65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
Psalm 69: 4 They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.	John 15:23-25 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
Isaiah 53: 4, 5 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.	Matthew 8:16, 17 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.	Matthew 17: 38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.	John 20: 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Psalm 22:6-8 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.	Matthew 27: 39, 40 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Psalm 69: 21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.	John 19: 29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
Psalm 22:8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.	Matthew 27: 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
Psalm 109: 4 For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.	Luke 23: 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Zechariah 12: 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.	John 19: 34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
Psalm 22: 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.	Mark 15: 24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
Psalm 34: 20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.	John 19: 33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
Isaiah 53: 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.	Matthew 27: 57-60 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

All the above prophecies refer uniquely to Jesus Christ and Him alone, unless our very reverend Cobus van Wyngaard can prove that they also talk about all the criminals who were crucified in the time of the Roman Empire. To lay claim that “Jesus was just another human like me and you” portrays not only a gross ignorance of what God teaches us about the uniqueness of His Son in his Word, but a dangerous susceptibility to heresies that inevitably lead onto the road of destruction (Pr 14:12).

What exactly does Cobus mean when he says that Jesus was just another human like you and I? Does he mean that He was also born in sin? Was He also shackled to the old Adam nature? Was He a sinful man or without sin? If the Roman soldiers’ scourging and whipping of Jesus, the placing of the crown of thorns on his head, the nails in his hands and feet and all the other agonizing sufferings He experienced on the cross were able to bring about reconciliation between man and God, then anyone could have done it. It was not his physical suffering that was/is able to redeem man from his sin and fallen nature. It was/is the fact that his Father laid on Him who was without sin all the sins of every single human being since Adam and Eve right up to the very last person ever to be born into this world. It was/is the fact that Jesus cried out in agony “Eloi, Eloi lama sabactani (My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?”). His sweat did not turn into blood in the Garden of Gethsemane because He feared his impending physical suffering on the cross but because He knew that His Father was going to lay all the sins of humanity (which was the kenosis of his bitter cup) on Him and that His Father was going to forsake Him during the time He had to pay the ransom for our sins.

Indeed, Jesus suffered the pangs of hell (His Father’s turned back on Him) while He bore our sins on the cross. Cobus tries his level best to generalize Christ’s crucifixion by saying “I don’t doubt the uniqueness of Christ. But I believe that much of what Jesus did was not unique to him. The Bible doesn’t have a problem with this. It talks about sharing in the suffering of Christ (Rom 8:17; Phil 3:10), about following Paul like he follows Jesus (1 Cor 11:1), about disciples doing the same things that Jesus did (Matt 10).” No man can ever suffer the way Jesus suffered on the cross when His Father forsook Him in our behalf. God can never lay the sins of the whole of humanity on anyone else. No man can or will ever be able to bear the sins of the whole of humankind. “Sharing the suffering of Jesus” can therefore never ever refer to these particular sufferings Jesus had to bear on our behalf. Romans 8:17 and Philippians 23:10 refer to the suffering of humiliation, rejection, persecution and even martyrdom but never the suffering of being forsaken by God. Yes! of course, those who refuse to accept by faith Jesus Christ’s vicarious death on the cross for their sins will eventually have to pay for their own sins in hell when God is going to forsake them (turn his back on them) for all eternity. In fact, God the Father forsook his Son on the cross so that He needn’t forsake us for all eternity. Following Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:1) definitely does not mean that we should follow Him in his vicarious death for our sins. Once again no one else is able to do that. It simply means that we should deny ourselves and die to our old Adamic nature (Luke 9:23). Matthew 10 does not mean that we should do the same things Jesus did for us on the cross.

Let’s look at some other unique features of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion.

• We learn from Isaiah 53:10 that it pleased his Father to bruise Him and that his vicarious death would produce a spiritual offspring. Who else’s death on a cross could produce a spiritual offspring whose sins had been forgiven?
• Neither the Roman soldiers nor his suffering on the cross killed Jesus. He Himself laid down his life and took it again at his resurrection (John 10: 17, 18). The criminals who died on the cross had no jurisdiction or authority over their deaths. Only Jesus, the Son of God, was able to lay down his life without having been put to death by human hands.
• The moment Jesus died many graves in Jerusalem opened up when an earthquake struck and many saints were resurrected. Now you tell me, Cobus, who else’s crucifixion accomplished such a thing? (Matthew 27: 51-52).
• He remained in the grave for three days after which He rose triumphantly from without the dead.

This is the kind of transformed mission Cobus van Wyngaard and many of our pastors who follow a Jesus whose crucifixion was not unique proclaim from their pulpits. But this is nothing new. Kenneth Copeland and the Faith teachers spread the same heresies. Here’s what Kenneth Copeland said about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

The Spirit of God spoke to me and He said, “Son, realize this. Now follow me in this and don’t let your tradition trip you up.” He said, “Think this way—a twice- born man whipped Satan in his own domain.” And I threw my Bible down.. . like that. I said, “What?” He said, “A born-again man defeated Satan, the firstborn of many brethren defeated him. “He said, “You are the very image, the very copy of that one.” I said, “Goodness, gracious sakes alive! ” And I began to see what had gone on in there, and I said, “Well now you don’t mean, you couldn’t dare mean, that I could have done the same thing?” He said, “Oh yeah, if you’d had the knowledge of the Word of God that He did, you could’ve done the same thing, ’cause you’re a reborn man too.” (Kenneth Copeland: :”Substitution and Identification” Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989; tape #00-0202)

Do the honourable thing. Step down from your pulpits and never venture to stand and preach from there ever again because you are heaping up unto yourselves wrath and indignation against the Day of Wrath. Repent! and begin to follow the real Jesus of the Bible.

Romans 2: 4, 5 Or are you [so blind as to] trifle with and presume upon and despise and underestimate the wealth of His kindness and forbearance and long- suffering patience? Are you unmindful or actually ignorant [of the fact] that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repent to change your mind and inner man to accept God’s will)? But by your callous stubbornness and impenitence of heart you are storing up wrath and indignation for yourself on the day of wrath and indignation, when God’s righteous judgment (just doom) will be revealed.