Questions and Answers, Part 8

Transcript

Questions and Answers, Part 8
10/14/2018
GRM 1201
Selected Verses
Gil Rugh

We’re going to look at some questions tonight. Then I’m going to open it up to you for any questions. So, I’ll probably start with two or three questions that I’ve received, then you get a chance to think about your questions, and we’ll have someone out with a microphone. So, if you have something, be ready and raise you hand when I give you a chance and the men will get to you. I’ve had a number of questions on a variety of subjects so I’m just going to pick a few of those. We try to keep track of those that have been answered. So, if yours seems to be lost, it was either one I didn’t have an answer for or I’m working on it. So, let me just pick up the one on the top.

Question: How can death be thrown into the lake of fire?

Answer: We’ll get to this when we get to Revelation 20 and the last part of the chapter, but you might just want to turn there quickly. Revelation 20 is where this comes from. In verse 14, “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.” I think basically what he’s saying there is those who had died and were in Hades are now receiving their final sentencing. Because verse 13 said, “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them.” So, death, a state of those, because remember all unbelievers have been resurrected to be judged at this judgment. They were in Hades. We’ll talk a little bit more about that in our study in Revelation. So when the judgment is done everyone who appears at the Great White Throne is going to hell. This is the final judgment of unbelievers. So everyone who had died and now is appearing at this judgment would be those who had died and are unbelievers, they were in Hades. So that’s the idea. It’s not death as an independent entity but the dead who had been raised and are now at this judgment, who have been brought back from Hades, all of those are cast into the lake of fire. That’s the second death, the lake of fire, and verse 15 summarizes it, “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” So the ultimate destiny of the dead who were in Hades who are now raised for the final judgment. Jesus talked about that in John’s gospel chapter 5 where there’s a resurrection of life and a resurrection to judgment, just to summarize the two.

When it says that elders and deacons are to be a “one-woman man” does this mean that in order to be a deacon or elder you have to be married? Also is there an age requirement for being an elder or deacon?

Answer: In 1 Timothy chapter 3, verse 2 in the list of qualifications for the elders, 1 Timothy 3:2 our English bibles translate it an overseer must be the husband of one wife. And in this question they have put it as it is in the text, it’s literally a ‘one-woman man.’ So I think it’s not specifically talking about marriage, although it would encompass that, but it’s a requirement along with the others that a characteristic of the life of a believer who is walking as the Lord would have it in his life, and the normal would be marriage. I don’t think it addresses divorce or that. It’s a one-woman man. I don’t think any of these qualifications are lifetime qualifications because if they were no one would qualify. We often pick out this one qualification and say if a person has been divorced at any time, they couldn’t. But what we’re talking about is who has demonstrated godly character through a significant period of time in his life. Part of that is the moral qualification, being faithful to that one woman. It doesn’t mean he has to have been married or has to have children, but that will be the normal condition. So there are family qualifications as well, managing the household well and keeping his children under control. Some hold that you have to be married and you have to have had children to be an elder. It doesn’t say you have to be married and have children but that will be the normal case and when you are, you have to have faithfulness. The one-woman man would be a broad qualification beyond just being married and faithful in that. But a person who has demonstrated, over and again, over a significant period of time, good, godly, moral character.

If you turn over to chapter 5 of 1 Timothy, verse 9, he’s talking about widows who would be enrolled. “A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man,” and that’s the same kind of statement. A ‘one-man woman,’ as you had for the elder a ‘one-woman man,’ denotes a life that characterized a believer with that moral faithfulness, godly character. The woman who’s going to be enrolled, the widow here, has to have demonstrated a life of a godly character, a ‘one-man woman.’ It doesn’t have, I don’t think, any indication whether at one time this was a second marriage. There have been those who carry it. Some of you know S. Lewis Johnson or knew him. He’s home with the Lord now and has spoken here on occasion. As a former professor at Dallas he held this rather strictly. His wife died, and so he resigned from being an elder in his church when he remarried because he thought this qualification meant you could only have had a relationship like this with one woman in your life. I think it’s very rare that it’s held that way. So the way we would hold it is basically it’s just requiring that there be good moral character. If a person is like Paul and not married, then the qualification wouldn’t be applicable because you are a no-woman man. You lead a single, celibate life but you wouldn’t have children. So we haven’t understood that at Indian Hills as requiring marriage or requiring children.

About age, there’s a certain relativity toward that. The Bible doesn’t indicate age although the background for elder, and it’s used that way in New Testament as well, would be an older person. An older man in this context. So, I say it can be somewhat relative. When I came to pastor this church many years ago there weren’t white haired people around. Everybody was young! Young, young! We had one person in our Junior- and Senior High- age bracket. So most of the children in the families were young so within that parameter obviously you couldn’t have men that you don’t have to be elders. The Bible doesn’t specify an age but it would require a certain level of maturity and that would be relative to the group. At Indian Hills now, being as old of church as it is and with older, godly men would be different than a new church plant.

Remember on Paul’s first missionary journey in Acts 14 he went through and preached the gospel and then turned around and came back through the churches where he preached the gospel. People had been saved and he appointed elders in every church, in those churches. So those men wouldn’t have been believers for the last twenty years. They are relatively new but some of those would have come out of a Jewish background and there could have been some Jews who had been saved earlier. So I don’t know that there’s an age. When I came, I was twenty-six, but I functioned as an elder being the pastor of the church. Obviously, it’s relative to some of the age and things in the church. We had one of our staff members I’ve mentioned before, he said I will never be old enough to be an elder here because you keep raising the age as the church gets older. Of course, he started out younger and it serves him right. (humor) No. But we would look, as you can tell, we look for men who are a little older, more experienced in the ministry. More weathered in their walk with the Lord, grounded in the Word, and having demonstrated a faithfulness to the Word over time. In churches where we have planted you look for the most mature men you have there and work with them.

Ok, maybe I’ll give you a chance before I go on. Some of you say I just keep talking and I never get to ask my question. Somebody have something they are comfortable with you would like to raise? I got one all the way over here. We have some men with mics, here come the men with mics. They were catching a little nap in the back. Here they go, you have to go all the way over to this side, Duane. And if you have a question also, you could raise your hand and let Jeff is over here, so we’ll stay on this side right now. If you have a question just raise your hand even while we’re talking here and Jeff will see you and he can make his way to you.

Question: Gil, thank you for this morning’s message. You brought up an interesting point with regard to King David in the capacity of the first resurrection, coming back to rule. Of course, from Matthew 25 we see the Son of Man coming back to sit on His glorious throne. Could you discuss perhaps the differences of the thrones between King David and the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, or the similarity.

Answer: Ok, you know it does strike us because in some ways with the Davidic Covenant we think it will be a descendant of David that will sit on the throne. Obviously, it is Christ. He’s the fulfillment of that. He will rule from Jerusalem. But His rule from Jerusalem, it seems, is obviously over the whole world. But in the delegated authority under Him it seems that… from what passages where it stresses “David, my servant” and him being raised to fulfill this… he will be given rule over the Jews and the nation because we’re going to delegate this down. We’re going to have multi-layers of authority evidently. As we saw where Jesus in the example of the parable in Matthew 25, you were faithful over men, you’ll rule over these things, these cities. So, we’ll have layers of authority, not unlike we have now. How has God set up rule with the world? Well, you have different levels and Scripture mentions those like Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 where you not only mention kings, but you mention those in authority, down the line. So, I think that will go on in the millennium. It strikes us, and we’re taken back, but it’s interesting that God would do that.

It was the Davidic Covenant established with David that prophesied the coming of the Messiah who would be the ultimate ruler over the earth and yet David, himself, evidently will be raised to rule, but as a sub-ruler under Christ. That too will be true of every other ruler because He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We talk about the universal kingdom of God being in existence today, but you know, you have it carried out, as there is among angels evidently a hierarchy of authority. Michael didn’t bring a curse against Lucifer in the book of Jude over the body of Moses, but he said, “The Lord rebuke you.” Evidently, he recognizes, even though the devil had fallen, when he was created there was an order. So that’s a little bit what it seems to unfold. We just get these glimpses of what will take place in this future kingdom and it seems there, in those passages there, that David… and it would fit because David’s going to be resurrected and there will be rulers like I mentioned, the twelve apostles will rule over the twelve tribes in the kingdom… well, if David is resurrected, he could rule over the nation of Israel, that will be his responsibility. I don’t know if that helps or further adds to the confusion.

Question: Then the Davidic Covenant would be referencing… like Matthew 25 where the Son of Man comes to sit on the throne… the Messiah, prophesied in 2 Samuel 7?

Answer: I think this is where, as revelation progresses, that there’s no doubt the Davidic Covenant establishes the authority of Christ, on the human level, to be the ultimate ruler. But now we find out in these other passages, and we know from the multiplicity of passages, there will be other rulers in the kingdom. We find out David’s role. There’s only… you’ll correct me if I miss this, but I think only David and the twelve apostles have information regarding what particular role they’ll play in the ruling. We are told, like we read in Revelation 2 and 3, the promise to the Church in the kingdom, that we will rule and reign with Christ. But we are not told what particular role or realm we will have. But we are told David’s particular realm and we’re told the twelve apostles’ particular realm. So, I would think its added information.

It doesn’t in any way change the Davidic Covenant because the Davidic Covenant doesn’t require David to sit on the throne. It requires Christ and His worldwide rule but then Christ will delegate authority out and we just happen to get information there. It just happened in the plan of God that David will be raised to fulfill that particular realm. So I wouldn’t find that particularly in the Davidic Covenant. But as the development of what would take place out of the Davidic Covenant, we find David has a particular place and the twelve apostles, and the rest of us will have some level of authority. I guess it would be like… (I better not say that, I was going to pick out one of the small towns) somebody might get that (small town) and someone might get a larger city. Just like someone is appointed to be king and someone is appointed to be a governor in a particular city or a particular realm.

Anybody else?

Question: Gil, it’s Aaron back here at the sound booth. Ok. Question came in that I can say several of us were wondering about and talking about this morning. Believers are raptured prior to the tribulation. If tribulation saints and Old Testament Jews are raised after the tribulation to start the millennium, when would Old Testament saints prior to Israel be raised? Examples, Adam, Eve, Noah?

Answer: Yes. Good question and that’s where I use the expression, “Israel and Old Testament saints” because it would seem that’s the point where they would fit as far as we have Scripture unfolded. They are not particularly addressed. We know Enoch knew something about the coming of the Lord because, again Jude references that he prophesied “the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints” so I would include all Old Testament saints, those prior to, for example, Genesis 12 and any believers that are part of that early period outside of Israel like Melchizedek. Melchizedek in Genesis 14 where he is a priest of the Most High God and he’s also ruler at Jerusalem. So, his priesthood which we know almost nothing about in the Old Testament except that brief revelation where he comes to meet Abraham and Abraham acknowledges his superiority by giving gifts to him. And the book of Hebrews develops it so Melchizedek would be one of those Old Testament priests whose priesthood is used as a type of Christ in the book of Hebrews where Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. So I would say Old Testament saints and tribulation saints would be raised at the end and included in there. Not because there’s anything specifically said about those outside of Israel but it would seem in the unfolding of the Old Testament revelation given through Moses, that, that would be the place that they would fit because they’re definitely not part of the Church. In what resurrections are mentioned… remember at the end of Daniel, I think it’s the last verse of Daniel, he is promised you will be raised… so in those, what we have, the information… and I will mention this next week as well… we talk about the “first resurrection.” This is the first resurrection. The first resurrection. This a quality of resurrection. If you noticed it on the chart, I didn’t draw attention to it, that’s a quality of resurrection. It would include the Church. It would include Old Testament saints and Israel and tribulation saints. That’s part of the first resurrection because all believers are part of that. The subsequent resurrection is the resurrection of the lost.

Question: I have more that have come in. Two more for you. One is about, how did the early church leaders decide what manuscripts were God’s word. For example there’s passages like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, those aren’t in the earliest of manuscripts. How did church leaders decide which got in the Bible?

Answer: Ok. Some of you have done some of the classes that are taught here which would help in the details. There were things in the early church that picking out the books and then what would be included. That’s a process of working through. We have a multiplicity of we’ll just call them manuscripts, copies, and we go back. Now the oldest copies we have, and there is a debate. Obviously the later you get the more manuscripts you have; more copies are made. Like when the King James was done and these manuscripts come out of a certain line, that’s what they had. So, there’s some passages that were in the later manuscripts that when earlier manuscripts were found, and we have fewer of those, but there is more authority usually placed with those because they are older. It’s a process of working through all these manuscripts we have. Some of you, if you would be able to use a Greek New Testament, you have notes at the bottom if you get the copy which are standard. Some of the notes are more full than others. Then you can get Metzger’s and they evaluate the evidence for the different manuscripts. So, you might see where there’s a debate like Mark 16 or where there’s a word where a manuscript might differ and down there, they will list the different ancient sources. Not just the Greek manuscripts but some of the Latin and things like that often and you can get the American Bible Society’s edition and it will rate how they say it. Because if you have manuscripts and one might have this word here and other manuscripts this, but almost all the manuscripts have this they might give it an “A” rating. You can go all the way down to “D” which means, well, it’s not sure because there is enough difference.

You say, well then, how do we know? Well, one thing we know, where there are any differences, we are aware of that. We have more manuscripts for the Old Testament by far than any other ancient document in existence. This would include fragments. More copies so the Lord in His providence has preserved manuscripts so that, they can work through and compare and say, well, this is what we have. So, where there are differences like the end of Mark, that becomes a major one because a larger portion. The woman taken in adultery in John’s gospel, that appears but it doesn’t always appear in the same place in the manuscripts. But I think the general view is it is a true account, the woman taken in adultery but it may not have been at that place in John’s gospel. So, it’s that kind of discussion. But there are not doctrines affected. Not changes that we would say, well, boy, there’s a doctrine that hinges on this. So, those who have worked through it, and that’s where, if you have an accurate translation that works to accurately and carefully translate the Greek, not a paraphrase, then you pretty well have what it says.

I’ve shared, the Old Testament used to be more of an issue because we didn’t have older manuscripts. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found the latest manuscripts were like 1100 years after Christ. Well, it used to be said by liberal scholars, well, Christians after Christ had changed like some of the prophecies. But then when they found the Dead Sea Scrolls that go back a couple hundred years or more before Christ, they found nothing had been changed in the manuscripts. So, then it didn’t make the liberals become believers, they just changed their way that they explained it away.

So, all of that to say, how do we come to it? We have all these manuscripts and God has gifted individuals with the ability to sort through the manuscripts and even a liberal scholar like William Barclay who died a number of years ago in the early eighties, viewed as the perhaps most preeminent Greek New Testament scholar of his day, who as far as I can tell from reading was not himself a believer. He said anyone who thinks we don’t have accurate rendition just has never studied the matter very well, I’m paraphrasing him, because he said there’s really not any significant debate. Individual words here and there or maybe a passage like the end of Mark or the woman in adultery but he said we have so much support with the thousands of manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts and others sources, there’s not really an issue over what the Bible says. And he says that even though he didn’t believe much of what the Bible said, he thought the evidence was overwhelming.

Question: Another one, what does the Bible say about abortion?

Answer: You know, directly nothing. It just doesn’t say you shall not practice abortion. We get our view on abortion primarily from carrying out what the Scripture says. For example, and foundational, the sin of Adam is passed on from Adam to subsequent generations. If life is not passed on how does the sin of Adam get passed on and the sin nature? So in that sense, life has to be present from conception. That’s why David says “in sin did my mother conceive me.” Not that conception itself is sin but he was a sinner from the moment he was conceived because that sin nature of Adam was passed on so that issue of life being present, the viability of life and that, as they discuss it. So I don’t know of any passage.

Sometimes in the debate passages are used that I would question whether that’s what it’s talking about such as where a woman who is pregnant maybe is injured and she loses the baby, the penalty for that. I don’t think they are talking about abortion as an abortion. From my understanding of life being present from the beginning is basically the theology of the Bible and life is passed on from Adam, human life. God created Adam directly, but He doesn’t directly create a soul. Some of you have studied in the classes around or in your own reading this issue. It was settled I think for me in church history, but I think the Scripture is clear. But there was a debate. Does God directly create a new soul when a baby is conceived? I would say no because sin is present and passed on. I think He created life and the ability to pass on that human life with Adam and Eve and every subsequent generation. But since Adam sinned that is part of what is passed on with the humanity now. So life has to be present otherwise we are in a serious theological problem. Where does sin come from? Every life starting out as innocent and sinless? That would not be biblical. So that’s a little bit where I would go with abortion. I think we want to be careful not getting too far along.

This is why it’s hard to deal with the unbeliever who rejects what the Bible says. He has no foundation for what he does. I mean, we go to the Bible for our foundation of a difference between a male and a female. The world doesn’t believe what God says so they make up their own idea of male and female and what it is and isn’t. This is true on life. Where does life come from? It just evolved and if that’s it, what does that mean? So, it’s hard to deal with the unbeliever. In that sense I want to be clear. We have a position as believers in the Word of God, on these and other issues, but I don’t have any foundation to come to agreement with the unbeliever on. I realize some unbelieving and other religions would still hold but I want to be careful. We are not in agreement.

So, we as believers understand and we declare, God says that He created life and that life is passed on so in abortion there is the taking of that life. A person says I don’t believe what the Bible says. Well, it’s like every other thing we deal with. I’m just telling you what God says. Now you choose not to believe it, I can’t fix that for you. I still stand where the Bible speaks. So that’s where I am on the issue of life.

I don’t go out on crusades against abortion. My goal is not to try to bring the unbeliever into conformity with what I would understand to be consistent with Scripture. But it is also true, sin is a reproach to any nation and the more open we become in our sin and rebellion against God’s Word, the more it is a stain on us as a nation. I think abortion is a stain. It’s a disregard for life. It is a disregard for that precious new life that has been presented and people don’t want to hear that. That’s why those in abortion don’t want pictures of that fetus and that little baby at any stage. They say they shouldn’t be showing that. Well, why? If it’s just a piece of meat what’s the problem? Well, it has an emotional impact.

I want to be careful. We as believers can address these issues but that’s not the problem for the unbeliever. The problem for the unbeliever is he’s in a state of rebellion against God and you see this. The more it becomes acceptable to manifest your sin, the more the majority join in on supporting it. So now if you go and address these issues the unbeliever’s comfortable. I can understand when you have a cover of what they call the “Judeo-Christian ethic.” But that’s rather shallow because the unbeliever is ready to be moved away from that in an instant. They only went with it when God in His common grace, provided that opportunity. But moralism isn’t salvation. Paul didn’t give the unbelieving Jews any more space than he gave the pagan Romans so that’s where I want to be careful on these issues.

Question: What is your position as a church?

Answer: Here’s our position on abortion. We believe life begins at conception. That’s consistent with what the Bible says. We can give reasons why but I want to quickly move the discussion of that or any other of those kind of issues to “but that’s not the real problem we are dealing with.” The real problem we are dealing with is our sin. God says you are a sinner in rebellion against Him. Any area of your life, your thoughts, that’s a consistent pattern. I want to say on abortion that’s my view.

Question: On the rapture, is there any blessing on the believer that is a Jew before the rapture or are they just assimilated into the Church?

Answer: Good question. For the Jew who becomes a believer during the Church Age, he is assimilated into the Church, but he does become an evidence of God’s grace toward the nation. Paul sees his Jewishness as a blessing from God and an evidence that God is not totally done with the Jews. The Jews will be raptured in the Church and they are part of the Church. They have their own uniqueness. Because they are blessed to be part of the nation God chose for Himself and the people that are special to Him, they in that sense… you appreciate their salvation. Not that their salvation is greater than a Gentile but there is something special about Jewishness. They are still God’s only chosen nation and the fact they would be saved by God’s grace in this day of primarily Gentile salvation is special, but they are part of the rapture. There’s no indication they will be different although the twelve apostles who will be part of the Church are going to be reigning over Israel, the twelve tribes. So there is a connection with their Jewishness even though they are part of the Church, but there’s nothing marked out particularly different.

Question: Ok, then, are there any Jewish believers today then that go to the covenantal side of theology or are they all dispensationalist like we would be?

Answer: They should be dispensationalist! I can’t speak authoritatively but I think generally they would be dispensational. Now again, I haven’t done a survey, but the number of Jews being saved are few in this day, comparatively. The Jews I can think of, that I know, would naturally be on the Jewish side and they appreciate the role God has given them. To be a covenantalist and Jewish would be an odd thing. You would really be rejecting your Jewishness because it is really not anything of great significance believing there’s just one people of God and we’re sort of all joined together. So, I would tend to think, like Arnold Fruchtenbaum and others, they are strongly, we would say, dispensational, appreciating the part they have in God’s program. They often end up being those addressing this issue. Arnold Gaebelein, one of the past, the Feinberg’s, Charles and his sons John and Paul are those that I can think of. I can’t think of any believing Jews that I know of who are writing from a covenantal viewpoint. I wouldn’t say there aren’t any but be being dispensational would be more normal.

Question: Another question, Jesus was very interactive with people during His ministry on earth. In your opinion, how will His reign during the millennium be similar or different? Will Christ be approachable?

Answer: Some of these things are hard for us to put together in our mind. I think He will be very approachable, even as God is now when He says come with your requests to the throne of grace. So in that sense He’s very approachable. He says I as a believer am welcome to come into His very presence, before His throne, with my requests and He wants to hear them and answer them. There He’ll be personally present on earth, in Jerusalem. And then when we get into the eternal aspect, when we get into chapter 21 we’ll find God the Father is present on earth. So in that sense, from what we see with the angels in heaven and around the throne and that, I think yes. They each will be approachable with the reverence that is due them as God. It’s not a casualness reduced to a familiarity in the sense. It will be like a child and a parent. There is the warmth and closeness but there is in that child the respect for the parent. But I think He’ll be here. He’ll be present. When Christ was glorified He sat down and ate fish with His disciples. We will be the Bride of Christ. When we get to chapter 21 the new Jerusalem, the gates are never closed, God’s throne is there, and the triune God is present there. God the Father, God the Son particularly. The Spirit will be there but the focus is on the Father and the Son.

Now you know, we begin to try to put this in our mind and it’s an awesome thought. We just get a little glimpse of it. Come unto Me all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. There is a personalness in the invitation and a warmth. Jesus said I’ll never leave you or forsake you. Think about it. The Holy Spirit dwells within you. How personal does that get? God the Spirit is dwelling in your body as a believer. Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. That’s about as intimate and close as you can get. We can’t grasp it all but He is there. As I submit to the Spirit, don’t grieve the Spirit, the Spirit produces the fruit and the character of God in our life from within. So that intimacy I think is part of what we’ll be even more (what do I say?) visibly manifest because He will be visibly present. Now it all happens in the spirit realm and we sometimes lose sight of it because we can’t see. To be able to come up to Jerusalem and see Christ and see the Father. Because in the book of Revelation the Father’s presence is manifested and there’s something described of Him. I know the Old Testament says no man can see My face and live and they can’t behold the fullness of that glory. But when sin is removed… Remember God came and walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening in the Garden. It was that personal relationship that got broken when sin came into the world. So yeah, I think in the kingdom and on through eternity we will have those privileges.

Question: Let me answer this as it relates to some of what we have been saying but is different. If a woman is a Christian speaker, author, blogger for specifically a woman’s ministry and a man happens to hear or read one of her sermons, books, or blogs is it sin for her or is it sin for him or is it sin on both parts?

Answer: I think the Scripture’s clear. God’s intention is the man be the teacher of Scripture. I was interested in this question because one of the theological journals I get came this week had a number of articles and I think they reviewed about thirty books in the journal. It’s from an evangelical school. I use that word evangelical broadly, they wouldn’t hold to all the things we would hold to. But a number of the books they reviewed, commentaries on Scripture, are written by women. I think there is an issue here. We go around what the Scripture says and sometimes they say, well, we’re not a church so we decide we’ll do what God says the church cannot do. But since we don’t call ourselves a church we can do it. I think men are appointed by God to be teachers of the word of God.

Woman’s ministry, I think there’s a place for woman’s ministry. Titus 2 talks about the older woman teaching the younger women but what they are teaching them is primarily the application of the Word to their responsibility as women. How to love their children, love their husbands, and so on. So I’m not saying women can’t be teachers in that sense.

What they do… and you’ll see people say, well, Paul says I don’t allow a woman to teach or be an authority over a man, but he does say to Titus, older women are to teach younger women. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Finish the context. He tells them what the older women are to teach. So I think we’ve got this in our seminaries. Dallas seminary started it. I still have the article when they had approved allowing women into the programs that had been limited to men for training pastors. Well, we have to train women to do women’s ministries. But that’s not where women are to get their teaching. The bible says they are to get their teaching from the men. So I think that whole development is unbiblical. We’ve got women’s ministries that develop out here. It’s not biblical as far as I can find. Now they say, well, we’re not a church but we take what the church is said to do… but we think we can ignore… So while the church, we’re to be teaching the Word. But we’re not the church teaching the Word, therefore we don’t have to be governed by what the Bible says about how the Word ought to be taught.

I think it’s contrary to Scripture. I think seminaries have departed from the truth. They’re training women to be teachers of the Word and then they come out and they are the most knowledgeable in the church cause they’re the only ones that went to seminary and then they write the commentaries. And I’m interested in how many of these commentaries have departed from the truth. It’s not a role given to women.

I’m not against women’s ministries and women helping women to understand how the Word of God applies to them in their realm but we want to be careful. We try to make that distinction and the women who lead and oversee our women’s ministry work to that as well. It doesn’t mean they can’t use Scripture because the Scripture does address about the woman’s relationship to her husband and about children and so on.

So, I think it’s an area that we can drift from. And I think this whole parachurch ministry… think about it. “Parachurch,” it’s something outside the church that comes alongside the church. Often to do what the church should be doing, but isn’t doing, so we start our own ministry to do it. Well, God established the church. I think the pattern is clear. So, on this, I wouldn’t be listening or reading, listening to the woman who’s got her women’s ministry. I was at the pre-trib conference many years ago, in the early years of it and they had a woman there and she got up to speak one time. So, she had to put on a hat to acknowledge that I’m not in the right position. But she has her own ministry and much of it is teaching. And she puts out teaching material, but these are for women.

Are women to be taught something different than men regarding the truth? Now there’s the applications of truth that particularly pertain to her as a woman. Just like there are things that pertain particularly to a man as a man. I’m not against that, but we want to be careful we don’t separate women out to be taught differently than men. Well, you say, well, women need to be taught. So do men. If we don’t have enough teaching for the women in this church and its ministries, we don’t have enough teaching with the men, for the men. So, let’s add more teaching where they can come and be taught. Early on, I talked to one women’s classes and it was great. It’s fun teaching the women, they’re more alive and active then the men. So, you know, I did a Tuesday morning ladies study in the chapel and it was great, full chapel. I begin to think, what am I doing? Is this biblical? I’m teaching them the truth, and I’m a man, the problem is, the women are to what? In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, ask their husbands at home. I said, I’m here teaching them the book of Romans. Their husbands are out grinding it out making a living all day long. Now, when they come home at night and their wife says, I’ve got a question about Roman I didn’t quite understand. Well, poor guy hasn’t been able to be in the class on Romans. So, I just shut down the study. I don’t think this is good. I tried doing… I’ll have a class for the men, but I couldn’t get all the husbands in. I think, you know, there is an order established, and the constant pressure is to adjust that order or change that order.

So, I’m not on the attack on parachurch ministry. Somebody is going to do what they have to do. But my view is, God has established the church, the church ought to do it. That’s why I’ve said, why do we have these parachurch ministries to reach the campus? We’ve got enough evangelical churches in town. All believers do is move around from one place to another, find out which one they like, and yet we can’t reach the campus. We’ve got people in Pennsylvania paying to support a missionary to come and reach the campus at the university here, one is a parachurch ministry. Why doesn’t the church do it? Duh, I don’t know. Well, do it! So, I’m committed to the local church. Parachurch, where do you get parachurch? When Christ rebukes the churches for not doing what they should do in Revelation 2 and 3 where we’ve been, He doesn’t say, somebody ought to start another ministry to do what the church is not doing. He tells the church, you better get about doing what you’re supposed to do. So, we come up with these ideas and it’s what happens.

Give me a question like that. Is it sin? Well, I have to side with the Lord. I don’t find that it’s biblical. So, is the next step then, if it’s not the biblical thing to do, then we shouldn’t be doing it. I guess you can say it can be sin. Men, we’re responsible. There was a time when I told Marylyn, there are certain books I don’t want you to read. They had me reading this book, thinking this is what a godly woman ought to do. Then I come home and she’s frustrated with me cause I’m not doing what that book said a godly husband ought to do. Now, we’ve got things reversed. I said, look, I don’t care what that book says, you’re my wife, I’m your husband, let’s look at the scripture and do what the scripture says. A man ought to guide. Wives are out there listening and reading things on the internet that they shouldn’t. I’m not blaming the wife particularly, but the men ought to be in charge here. And men end up following the wives because the wives get into things, the wives get upset. The next thing you know, the man is following along with what the wife is doing. We’re called to be leaders. That doesn’t mean that my wife is stupid, it’s just not the realm the Lord is given to her. She may be more intelligent than me. But God has given to me to be the leader, and I’m responsible to know the word. And I don’t want her submitting to other teachers that might lead her astray. So, we’ve got all this stuff floating around there, and the internet just compounds it. We as men ought to sort that out and be careful. Alright, enough on that subject, right?

Question: I have a question back here Gil. What are similarities and differences between covenant theology and reformed theology?

Answer: Ok, covenant theology and reformed theology, we often use the terms interchangeably because reformed theologian, reformed people are usually covenantal. The difference is, reformed theology is usually defined as summarized in the five points of Calvinism, which we use the TULIP. T = total depravity, U = unconditional election, L = limited atonement, I = irresistible grace, P = the perseverance of the saints. That fittingly is the summary of reformed theology. Covenant theology is basically what I shared with you on the covenants. Those who interpret scripture through the eyes of a covenant of grace, a covenant of redemption, a covenant of works. So, when there is a distinction, that’s the distinction. Why I say we use them interchangeably is because most reformed people are covenantal.

Now, where it can be confusing, we are in agreement with some of reformed theology. I believe in total depravity, I believe in unconditional election. I believe in irresistible grace, so we believe in four of the points. But since reformed theologians… cause you go back to Calvin, Calvinism and that whole time of the reformers, and what happened 50 to 75 years after Calvin’s death, and the debate between what we would call reformed theologian and Armenians, Calvinists and Armenians. Those who were drawing from Calvin’s theology, and he was the master theologian and had written “The Institutes,” the two volumes some of you have read. I took the staff, many years ago, through the first volume, and they prayed for mercy that we would not do the second volume. That’s where they drew their theology from. But they also messaged it and brought into what their thinking had developed over that 75 or so year period. And what the five points of Calvinism were, were the response to the five points of the Armenians. But it got solidified. So, there’s debates to this day. Did Calvin really believe in limited atonement? We say, well, Calvinism believes in limited atonement. But you can read extensive material, no, this argues what Calvin wrote here, he believed that Christ had died for all men. But, by the time you get to 75 years later when they’re solidifying this, the covenant of works doesn’t. First we can find of it, is at the end of the 16th century, Calvin had been dead for about 50 years, where they come up with a covenant of works. But it gets absorbed, then these reformed theologians develop Calvin’s stuff. But Calvin was covenantal and some of his theology… he didn’t see a distinction between Israel and the Church. Because that goes back to not interpreting prophecy literally… all the way back to Augustine, comes down through the reformers.

So, the basics of Covenantalism, even though he wouldn’t have held to all, like a covenant of works. The church becomes Israel, no distinction between Israel and the Church, gets blended in with the reformed theology. So, that’s why we often use it differently. But if you read some articles, they’ll say, now we want to be careful to distinguish between reformed theology and covenantalism. And that’s because we hold to some of the points of reformed theology. But, we don’t hold to the eschatology held by most reformed theologians, because they are coming out of the Reformation. And they continued their Catholic theology. It came out of Augustine as we’ve talked about. So that’s the difference, if you keep the five points, that’s reformed theology summarized and covenant theology. But they do to all intents and purposes blend together. Reformed theologians hold the covenant theology basically.

Question: What was Adam’s age equivalent to when he was created?

Answer: It’s hard to say what it would be because remember when Adam was created, he was perfect in his humanity. And Eve also. There would have never been a man as handsome and as complete in every way as Adam. And the same with Eve. And there was no age because there was no development for him. There was no deterioration for him. At that point, he is there as the direct creation of God. So, hard to say an age because all our age involves what? Either development that has to take place or deterioration that will take place. So, in that sense, he’s unique and he’s going to live for over 900 years from that point. Goes downhill from that point because of sin. So, I don’t know that it’s possible. You know people try to say, well, probably it would have been 33. Because we figure out and think, Christ would have been 33 when He was crucified. I don’t think that’s helpful because Adam wasn’t 33, he was one day. The day he was created, how old was he? One day. This is the first day he would have been. How old is he? Two hours, God just created him out of dust. But he’s perfect! We’ve never seen… in all history there’s not been a man that looked like that. I realize Christ was born without sin, but it’s hard to make that correlation when He’s not going to live 900 years in His humanity. So, even though He was born sinless, he was born into that sinful environment of sinful parentage and that. He got hungry, He got thirsty, He got tired. Those things would not have effected Adam in the same way as the initial creation. Although he was created obviously to eat and to do things. So, I don’t know that we could really say that. There was no age for Adam because our age gets associated with when we were born, how long have we lived, how much development does that allow. And then they’ll say what? When you reach 20 or 22, you’ve reached your peak, it’s downhill from there. I don’t know. We could say it’s an unanswerable question because Adam and Eve as well are unique beings. The first and the only direct creations of God. Even Christ in his humanity was conceived of the Holy Spirit, but in the womb of Mary. It’s true humanity, but only Adam and Eve are fully human, the direct creation of God in every way. So, I don’t have an answer for the age of Adam. So, that’s a good one to end on, because I don’t think there is an answer.

Alright, I’ll keep marking these off and you keep thinking of your questions. You can text them in and that way you don’t have to ask them directly. Understand you can be more comfortable with that as well. Appreciate you being here tonight. Let’s pray. Thank You, Lord, for the revelation that You’ve given of Yourself. Lord, a revelation that You have preserved in Your word. How precious this is. Lord, we can say with the Psalmist, Your word is more precious to us than silver and gold. Lord, the most precious possession given to us, Your word! A word that we are to feed upon. That it is more necessary than our earthly food. It gives us spiritual sustenance. It is a word that is totally unique because it is alive and powerful! Lord, the truth of this word is the power of Your salvation. It’s the message of Christ, the truth concerning Him, when believed brings about the miracle of transformation. Lord, pray that we’ll never become indifferent to the word, lax with the word. Lord, it’s easy, especially with the passing of time. We take for granted this privileged possession we have. And Lord, we want to be diligent in the word. Everyday, Your word is important and precious. And we want to spend time with You in Your word. Thank You, for the time today, thank You, for this evening. Thank You, Lord, for being challenged in our thinking as we reflect on different areas of the word and how they apply. Bless us now, as we look forward to the week before us. Lord, may our light shine brightly wherever we are. We pray in Christ’s name. Amen