Suid Afrika brand! Waarheen nou?

Die huidige situasie in Suid Afrika is baie uitdagend. Baie sterk en aanhitsende uitsprake word gemaak deur alle betrokke groepe. Wat onstellend is, is om te sien hoe belydende Christene ook deelneem aan die stituasie en vyandige uitsprake maak. Dit kom vanuit beide kampe. Instede daarvan dat Christene uit beide groepe 'n voorbeeld stel en na mekaar uitreik in liefde, is hulle besig om oor en weer verwyte te slinger waarom die huidige gebeure plaasvind. Aan die een kant is daar mense wat die ander verwyt vir kolonialisme, apartheid en onderdrukking en aan die anderkant is daar weer die wat ander verwyt vir hul swak gedrag en onopgevoedheid. Daar word ook nie begrip getoon vir hul verlede en pyn nie. Ek dink nie dit pas by die voorbeeld wat Christus vir ons gestel het met Sy lewe nie. Christene aan beide kante moet vergifnis vra vir die verlede, mekaar vergewe en mekaar in liefde aanneem as gelykes. In Christus is die skeidsmuur afgebreek en is alle volke, nasies, tale, kulture en kleure verenig as een volk van God.

Daar is ook nou al vergifnis gevra vir die verlede. Waarom aanhou hamer op die verlede. Dit is mos nie vergifnis nie. As jou broer sy sonde teenoor jou bely moet jy hom vergewe en aanneem. Vergifnis beteken om op te hou verwyt en uit te reik na mekaar. Dit beteken ook dat die party wat verkeerd was die opregtheid van sy belydenis bewys met 'n nederige gesindheid van diens. Intstede hiervan, raak Christene deel van die bekgeveg en verwyte. Daar is die wat die regte ding doen en saam bid, maar daar is die wat toetree tot die geveg.

Ek dink as Christen moet ons nie toetree tot die geveg en ook vyandige uitsprake maak nie, maar eerder sout van die aarde wees. Dit beteken nie om stil te bly nie. Die kerk en Christene is God se morele stem tot die gewete van die mensdom. Daarom moet ons deelneem aan die gesprek en moet ons die gemeenskap en kultuur "engage." Maar ons moet hul herinner aan die sonde in die mens wat aanleiding gee tot alle vorme van onderdrukking, geweld, vyandigheid, plundering, aanranding en moord. Ons moet die samelewing herinner aan die oordeel van God oor alle vorme van ongeregtigheid teen Sy wet en teen Hom. Ons moet hulle herinner dat God die Skepper van die heelal is en die mens nie geskep het om in sonde te leef nie, maar hom te verheerlik. Tans doen ons dit nie en God roep almal op tot bekering en geloof in Jesus as Here en Verlosser. Sonder wedergeboorte is die mense se hart en emosies onder die beheer van sy eie sonde en die satan. Jesus kan mense harte verander weens Sy kruisdood en opstanding en daardeur werklike verandering bring. Met homself as god en sonder die heerskappy van Christus in sy lewe, is die mens net tot selfsug en eie geregtigheid in staat en sal vyandskap en onderdrukking nie verdwyn nie. Die mens veg vir Sy eie regte as hy nie 'n hoër Gesag het aan wie hy onderwerp en aan wie se wette Hy nie gehoorsaam nie.

Die enigste hoop vir 'n samelewing is die aanbidding en liefde vir die Skepper van die heelal. Dit is slegs moontlik deur die dood en opstanding van Sy eie Seun, Jesus Christus die Here. Jesus is die enigste weg, waarheid en lewe.

Alle Christene moet ophou neerhalende opmerkings maak al mag dit in sommige gevalle waar wees. Hulle moet woorde wat met sout besprinkel is spreek wat 'n voorbeeld stel van liefde, nederigheid, opoffering, diens en versoening in Christus. Dit is doelloos om vir mense te probeer vertel om reg te leef sonder om te fokus op die ware probleem; die selfsug en boosheid van die gevalle mens se hart. Die enigste antwoord daarvoor is Christus. Tweedens, is dit doelloos om die situasie aan te spreek sonder ernstige gebed voor God. En vergeet van die gebeds-mars idees, die "spreek lewe" uitsprake en die aanhoudende beloftes en profesieë van herlewing. God is groter en meer Soewerein as dit. Gaan na jou binnekamer (dit was die opdrag van Jesus) en pleit tot God om in te gryp. Gaan na jou kerk se bidure en kerkdienste en bid saam met die gemeenskap van die gelowiges tot die Skepper van die heelal om in te gryp. Gaan dan uit na die gemeenskap en stel 'n voorbeeld van liefde, respek, verdraagsaamheid, geduld en versoening in Christus. Vertel hulle van Jesus wat Sy lewe gegee het vir die sonde van die mens sodat Hy met God versoen kan word en 'n nuwe hart kan kry om sodoende te leef waarvoor God die mens geskep het; vir die eer van sy Skepper. Dit is met die boodskap, gesindheid en liefde waarmee ons die huidige situasie in die land moet "engage."

Does Calvinism kill missions?

There are many who say Calvinists do not have a missionary zeal because they believe God will eventually save the elect without our efforts. However, Calvinists do believe in the sovereignty of God and human responsibility. We further believe God has ordained Christians to be a testimony of the gospel for the salvation of the elect (2 Tim. 2:19; Rom. 10:14). Church history also tells a different story. The life-story of some the greatest reformers reveals that they were very zealous about missions. For example, consider the facts below from the life of John Calvin.

“Calvin and his co-ministers at Geneva started selecting men and training them as missionaries. In the period between 1541 and 1564, it has been estimated that as many as 1200 of those missionaries were sent out from Geneva to France. The missionary thrust inherent in their theology, and the spiritual vision for the salvation of others which it generated ensured that Calvin - and his ministerial colleagues in Geneva - recognised, in the mountain pathways into France, doors of opportunity for spreading the gospel. In 1545, there were five Reformed churches in France. In 1559, there were almost 100. In 1562, the number had reached 2,150.” (Dr Flip Buys)

Does Calvinism kill missions? The evidence suggests something completely different. The facts below is just a handful of the many influential Calvinistic missionaries and leaders in the history of the church. Calvinists understand that God uses means to call His elect to salvation. Therefore, we don’t shy away from missions or evangelism. As history indicates, Calvinism actually encourages missions and evangelism. In fact, many of the greatest missionaries and leaders throughout the history of the church were Calvinists.

By studying church history one is struck by the immense impact Calvinism had on world missions. Below are some facts to confirm this:

• John Calvin: Calvin sent missionaries from Geneva into France and as far away as Brazil. Most of these young men sent to France died a martyr’s death, but the church of Geneva continued to send them.
• John Eliot: A missionary sent to the American Indians in the 1600’s. He is believed to be the first missionary among this people group. As many have said, if William Carey is the father of the modern mission’s movement, then John Eliot is its grandfather.
• David Brainerd: A missionary to the American Indians in the 1700’s. Many historians believe that he has sent more individuals into the mission field than any other person in the history of the church via his diary, An Account of the Life of the Late Reverend David Brainerd.
• Theodorus Frelinghuysen: The great evangelist and preacher, who set the stage for the First Great Awakening in the middle colonies.
• Jonathan Edwards: The great theologian, writer, and preacher of the First Great Awakening. He was also a missionary to the Indians.
• George Whitfield: The great voice and preacher of the First Great Awakening. He journeyed across the Atlantic Ocean thirteen times and scholars believe he preached over 18,000 sermons.
• William Tennent: He founded the Log College, which later became Princeton University. This college trained pastors and provided many of the revivalist preachers of the First Great Awakening.
• Samuel Davies: The famous President of the College of New Jersey (Princeton University), preacher of the First Great Awakening, and evangelist to the slaves of Virginia. It is believed that hundreds of slaves came to saving faith through his evangelism efforts.
• William Carey: He is the famous missionary to India and is considered the father of the modern mission’s movement.
• Robert Moffat: The first missionary to reach the interior of Africa with the Gospel. He translated the entire Bible and Pilgrim’s Progess into Setswana.
• David Livingstone: Arguably, the most famous missionary to the continent of Africa.
• Robert Morrison: The first Protestant missionary to China and the first to translate the Bible into Chinese.
• Peter Parker: An American physician and missionary to China who first introduced Western medical techniques to the Chinese. He also served as the president of the Medical Missionary Society of China.
• Adoniram Judson: The famous missionary to Burma, translated the Bible into Burmese, and established multiple Baptist Churches in Burma. His mission work led many to enter the mission field and was foundational for forming the first Baptist association in America.
• Charles Simeon: The vicar of Holy Trinity Church and the founding figure of the Church Missionary Society. This organization was instrumental in leading many students to the mission field. The Society itself has sent more than 9,000 missionaries into the world.
• Henry Martyn: The renowned missionary to India and Persia. He preached in the face of opposition and translated the New Testament into a number of languages.
• Samuel Zwemer: He is affectionately known as “The Apostle to Islam.” His legacy includes efforts in Bahrain, Arabia, Egypt, and Asia Minor. His writing was used by the Lord to encourage and mobilize an entire generation of missionaries to labor in Islamic countries.
• John Stott: Scholar, preacher, pastor, and evangelist of the twentieth century. He was one of the principle authors and the influential leader in establishing the Lausanne Covenant, which promoted world-wide evangelism.
• Francis Schaeffer: Pastor and found of L’Abri, which has been used by the Lord to draw many to saving faith as they intellectually wrestled with the tenants of Christianity.
• D. James Kennedy: The founder of Evangelism Explosion, which many believe is the most widely used evangelistic training curriculum in church history.

It is therefore my conclusion that Calvinism is the greatest source of missionary zeal because we understand that the sheep will hear the Shepherd's voice (John 10:26-28) and Christ will build His church (Matt. 16:18). Those who were given to Christ from before the foundation of the world will be drawn to Christ by the Holy Spirit and He will save them (John 6:44; Eph. 1:1-5; Rom. 8:29-30). These promises are a great source of hope in missions and evangelism.

Reference List:

1. Kevin DeYoung. 2013. Does Calvinism kill missions? http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2013/07/03/does-calvinism-kill-missions/

2. Buys, P.J. 2013. Mission Strategy and Theology of John Calvin. http://bit.ly/calvinism-and-mission

Vreemde Skrifhantering rondom besluit van die NGK

Die artikel het in die Gereformeerde Kerk se amptelike tydskrif, Die Kerkblad, verskyn in die Januarie 2016-uitgawe.

Dit is die tweede keer dat die Gereformeerde kerk die NGK se besluit oor homoseksualiteit kritiseer (met baie goeie rede) - kyk Klassis Moot van GKSA oor NGK homo-besluit.

************

Van die redakteur

Vreemde Skrifhantering rondom besluit van die NGK

Aktualiteit 

Die radikale en omstrede besluit van die NG Sinode oor die toelating van praktiserende ho mo seksuele tot al die dienste in die kerk, inslui tende dié van predikant, asook die kerklike “be vestiging” van burgerlike verbintenisse tussen men se van dieselfde geslag, sal nog lank (en waar skynlik wêreldwyd in Gereformeerde kringe) ge debatteer word. Die besluit raak myns insiens die hart van die Gereformeerde teologie, naamlik ons beskouing en hantering van die Skrif en ook die hart van kerkwees in die wêreld. 

Skrifbegronding
In Die Kerkblad van November het ons dit gestel dat die eerste en belangrikste vraag is of daar enige (en indien wel, watter) Skrifbegronding vir die besluit is. Die amptelike redaksie van die sinode besluit werp ongelukkig nie lig op hierdie vraag nie. Trouens, in die sinodebesluit word nie na een Skrifgedeelte verwys nie. Die naaste verwysing na die Skrif vind ons in die woorde dat die besluit “die beste toepassing van die boodskap van die Bybel soos ons dit tans verstaan”, is.

Vreemde Skrifhantering
By diegene wat ná a oop van die Sinode die besluit verdedig en regverdig, vind ons egter myns insiens ’n hantering van die Skrif wat nie net vreemd is aan ons Gereformeerde Skrifbeskouing nie, maar selfs in stryd daarmee. 

• Die sogenaamde anti-gay tekste

Daar is tekste in die Bybel wat op die oog af die praktyk van homoseksualisme in duidelike taal ver oordeel en ook in die verlede so verstaan is (vgl. o.a. Gen. 19 oor Sodom en Gomorra; Lev. 18:22 en 20:13; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Tim. 1:9, 10). Hier die tekste word nou deur verdedigers van die NG Kerk se besluit verklaar asof dit in ’n bepaalde konteks gegee is en nie vandag meer geldig is nie.

So verklaar ds. Danie Mouton (Rapport, 18 Oktober): “Verskeie gesaghebbende teoloë meen die Bybeltekste wat homoseksualiteit afwys, verwys nie na kernhomoseksualiteit soos ons dit vandag ken nie. Dit het eerder met tempelprostitusie, dade van vernedering en ander kultureelbepaalde praktyke te doen.”

André van Niekerk (ek meen hy is ook ’n NGdominee) pleit ook daarvoor dat ons hierdie teks te in hulle konteks moet verstaan (Beeld, 21 Oktober). Dan “word gevind dat dit eerder hier oor minagting van vroue, verkragting van vyande en uitbuiting van jong mans gaan”.

Ons het hier myns insiens met ’n Skrifkritiese han tering van die Skrif te doen, wat op kontekstualistiese wyse met die Skrif omgaan en die Bybel nie meer as Woord van God hanteer nie. Volgens ons Gereformeerde Skrifbeskouing is die Skrif gesagvol en ons as gelowiges het die verant woordelikheid om met groot omsigtigheid en op goeie wetenskaplike gronde en metodes die bete kenis en toepassing van die Skrif te verstaan. Die uitleg (eksegese) van ’n Skrifdeel berus op her meneutiese beginsels, dit wil sê op suiwere beginsels of reëls oor die verstaan en uitleg van ’n bepaalde teks.

In hierdie geval word die indruk geskep dat die kanonisiteit (gesag) van die Skrif aangetas word, en asof die beginsels van die ge re formeerde hermeneutiek nie gegeld het nie.

• Die hantering van Genesis 2:18 (Ek sal vir hom ’n hulp maak wat by hom pas)

Daar is blykbaar reeds in die bespreking op die Sinode na hierdie teks verwys asof dit ook op twee homoseksuele persone van toepassing kan wees wat vir mekaar ’n hulp is. Ná die Sinode is dit deur verskeie persone so verklaar (o.a. Neels Jackson en ook ds. Danie Mouton). Ons het na my oortuiging hier te doen met ’n growwe en totaal ongegronde verdraaiing van ’n Bybelteks. Om die skepping van die eerste mensepaar (man en vrou) en die Goddelike instelling van die huwelik as Bybelse regverdiging vir homo seksuele verbintenisse te verklaar, is binne goeie gereformeerde hermeneuse en eksegese on moontlik.

• Skrifverkondiging van die liefde van Christus

Voorstanders van die sinodebesluit beroep hulle veral op Christus se liefde en deernis vir alle mense, asook die menswaardigheid van alle mense. So beklemtoon Van Niekerk (Beeld, 21 Oktober) Jesus se insluiting van kinders, vroue, selfs straat- en heidense vroue, belastinggaarders, me laat ses en ander. En Mouton (Rapport, 18 Oktober) verklaar dat Jesus self nooit iets oor homoseksualiteit gesê het nie, “maar Jesus beveel liefde en deernis. Die homoseksuele naaste kwali seer vir liefde en aanvaarding”. Ons het hier myns insiens met ’n soort hantering van die Skrif te doen wat die waarheid in gedrang bring en van Christus se liefde ’n onbybel se verdraagsaamheid maak wat die sonde ak kommodeer. Van Niekerk en andere is reg: Christus het Hom met prostitute, tollenaars en ander sondaars bemoei, maar nooit het Hy hulle sonde vir een oomblik goedgepraat nie. Die duidelikste bewys en voorbeeld vind ons in Jesus se woorde aan die owerspelige vrou in Johannes 8:11: “Ek veroordeel jou ook nie. Gaan heen en sondig nie meer nie.” Vir Saggeus die tollenaar het daar redding gekom omdat hy hom van sy sonde bekeer het (Luk. 19).

Só het Christus sy liefde aan hulle betoon, deur hulle sonde oop te vlek, hulle tot berou en bekering op te roep en as Verlosser in hulle lewens in te gryp. 

Dit is myns insiens duidelik. Die verdediging van die besluit van die NG Sinode rus nie op die Gereformeerde Skrifbeskouing en –hantering nie. Na my oordeel hou dit verreikende implikasies in vir die NG Kerk self en die verhouding met ander kerkgemeenskappe in die Gereformeerde familie.

Hello, my name is Joe, the Apostle

When one say there are no more apostles today and the gift of signs and wonders has ceased, many would accuse you of saying that miracles have ceased. Miracles cannot cease because Jesus is alive. But the gift of signs and wonders that were given to an individual to show that he is an apostle - to confirm his office, has ceased. The gift of signs and wonders was given to apostles to perform miracles in a very special way to authenticate their message and office in the same way as with Moses. He asked God how would the people know he was speaking the truth? God said that He would give him some signs to perform to show the people that what he said was true. It was the same with the apostles. God gave them the gift of signs and wonders to authenticate them and their message. No one would have believed them if they had not proven the validity of their message. It is important to note the miracles they performed was not ordinary miracles every believer would experience when praying to God for help. It was kind of crazy. Even if people touched the clothes of the apostles they were miraculously healed. Even their shadows healed people. Is there anyone today that can lay claims to this kind of supernatural abilities? There are many who do, but nothing can be proven and it remains stories and speculations. Thus, there is no one that can claim today he is an apostle who can perform the signs of an apostle.

Our heavenly Father is taking care of every child of His and according to His will, He might do a miracle or not. Every individual can pray to Him and trust Him to sort things out the way he chooses. Whether it be a supernatural miracle or providence - in which case both is a miracle as any work of God is a miracle of his grace. BUT again, there is no person that can claim he is an apostle and has the gift of signs and wonders to proof his apostleship. This topic is a bit crazy I think and the end result of people who claim that they are apostles limit God's work to them only and normal Christians cannot experience a miracle. If everybody can equally experience God's miracles the same way, then why the need for an apostle. But as explained above, the gift of signs and wonders was the supernatural ability to perform miracles at will to authenticate both the person (apostle) and their message. The kind of miracles they performed was, as indicated above, not "normal" miracles, but extraordinary workings of God like never seen before. It was the same as in Moses's case. He threw his staff on the ground and it turned into a snake. The apostles could command a man to get up and walk and he immediately did. Even if their clothes touched a person or their shadow fell on someone, they were instantly healed. These things never happened before and was not repeated by anyone after them. Also, I noticed the Bible says the apostles "performed" miracles. It was not like they prayed and waited days, weeks or months before something happened. It was instantaneous. They could say "get up and walk" like a command. I see no one today who has that power and special ability to "perform" miracles, in the same way, they did. Instead, I see all Christians pray and wait for God to do what He wants., when He wants. The apostles were empowered with special power to perform miracles like Moses. If every Christian can pray and trust the Lord for the outcome, then why do we need so-called modern-day apostles. We do not need an apostle. We simply pray and trust the Lord to do as He wills.

Does God send anyone to hell? Who deserves mercy?

When this topic is raised, people argue as if every person is relatively good and treated ungraciously by divine justice. They approach this topic from the preconceived idea that every person is a good person to some extent and deserve God's mercy. They argue from the position that every person has the right to God's mercy. This comes from the humanistic worldview we live in that everyone deserves to be treated with equality. The question is can we apply this thinking to God? This might be true from a human rights perspective, but is it true from a Biblical Worldview. Does God fall under the same rules or does He makes the rules according to whom He is? To argue like this means we judge God and hold Him accountable to the rules we make. God is measured by no one and is self-sufficient in Himself. He is good, holy, merciful and righteous all the time and, therefore, does not err in any of His choices. He is the only Being who never sins and in whom does not exist a spot of evil. If He does decide to give mercy to someone, it is not because that person deserves it. It is because God has chosen to show mercy. He is the standard of divine justice and mercy. He is judged by no one, but He judges everyone according to whom He is.

God sends no one to hell. People chose themselves to go to hell. God just upholds his laws and judges accordingly. Yet people chose deliberately to break his laws. Adam and Eve disobeyed God's law and was punished accordingly. Every human being thereafter followed suit. If you evangelize people you will experience the utter hardness of the human hard who refuses the gospel of grace. We plead with people to be reconciled with God but they deliberately chose hell. Adam and Eve chose hell above God. God do not send people to hell. Every single person that ends up in hell chose it deliberately even when warned. By his love and grace, God chooses to stop some in their tracks and turn them around because of their own accord no one will ever choose God. It is his right to choose on whom he will have mercy and whom he will leave to have it their way. Humanity deliberately blasphemed him and every single one deserves hell. If God leaves all of humanity to go on their way to hell, he is not at fault, but his love and mercy will be compromised. If he saves everyone, his divine justice is not satisfied and his holiness is compromised. If he saves some and allow others to continue on their way and have their choice, his love and holiness are both upheld (Rom. 9:22-23). It is his own prerogative who to save and who to let go (Rom. 9:18). He made it clear that it is his right to have mercy on whom he want and to allow others to harden themselves.