Article by Cameron Spink

Sometimes I come across a book online that I just buy on the spot. The other week there was a sale on at bookdepository.com and I was able to pick a couple books up cheap. One book that I knew very little about was titled The Most Misused Verses in the Bible. This is written by Eric J. Bargerhuff, an author I'd never seen before but as the book was a good price I thought I'd give it a try.

I'd classify this book as a very easy theology book to read. It is large print and less than 170 pages and it the topics are split into categories that make this book a good resource to turn to if you are discussing any verses this book discusses. The book's heading gives away exactly what the author, Bargerhuff, elaborates in the book. He wishes to show some key examples of how Christians can wrongly apply and use Bible verses in a way that is out of context and ignoring the original author's intent.

Some of these verses are:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Matthew 7:1

"'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:11-13

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20

"If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:23-25

Bargerhuff contends that there are times when Christians use these verses and take them out of context. For instance, the Jeremiah 29 verse in context is rarely used appropriately today. Eric has hit this nail on the head. In the Church there is a desire to use verses without looking at them contextually. This is a great wake-up call encouraging Christians to look more closely at the verses they use.

The key strength of this book is that it is written for the layman. It can be picked up by anyone and browsed through at leisure. Unfortunately, this also is the key weakness to the book. When I want to learn about verses in context this book provides only a small overview and does not abound in references. For a book of this ilk it would be preferable to reference how one came to the conclusion about the mistranslation in context. In many ways this book is commonsensical, most Christians should understand that verses require historical context. Yet, after reading this book I am left wanting more solid ground than Bargerhuff has packed into this book. So, great book to start from but I am sure there are more comprehensive books out there on this topic.

Article by Cameron Spink

Sometimes I come across a book online that I just buy on the spot. The other week there was a sale on at bookdepository.com and I was able to pick a couple books up cheap. One book that I knew very little about was titled The Most Misused Verses in the Bible. This is written by Eric J. Bargerhuff, an author I'd never seen before but as the book was a good price I thought I'd give it a try.

I'd classify this book as a very easy theology book to read. It is large print and less than 170 pages and it the topics are split into categories that make this book a good resource to turn to if you are discussing any verses this book discusses. The book's heading gives away exactly what the author, Bargerhuff, elaborates in the book. He wishes to show some key examples of how Christians can wrongly apply and use Bible verses in a way that is out of context and ignoring the original author's intent.

Some of these verses are:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Matthew 7:1

"'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:11-13

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20

"If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:23-25

Bargerhuff contends that there are times when Christians use these verses and take them out of context. For instance, the Jeremiah 29 verse in context is rarely used appropriately today. Eric has hit this nail on the head. In the Church there is a desire to use verses without looking at them contextually. This is a great wake-up call encouraging Christians to look more closely at the verses they use.

The key strength of this book is that it is written for the layman. It can be picked up by anyone and browsed through at leisure. Unfortunately, this also is the key weakness to the book. When I want to learn about verses in context this book provides only a small overview and does not abound in references. For a book of this ilk it would be preferable to reference how one came to the conclusion about the mistranslation in context. In many ways this book is commonsensical, most Christians should understand that verses require historical context. Yet, after reading this book I am left wanting more solid ground than Bargerhuff has packed into this book. So, great book to start from but I am sure there are more comprehensive books out there on this topic.

Article by Cameron Spink

"For you did not obtain favor by yourself, so that anything should be owed to you. Therefore, in giving the reward of immortality, God crowns his own gifts, not your merits."

Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 3.10

I thought I might elaborate on the essential doctrine of justification by faith that I have mentioned a couple of times in previous articles. I have done extensive reading and my hope is that this article will be a good introduction regarding what is at stake in this contentious topic.

Wayne Grudem gives us a great definition to work from:

"Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which he (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ's righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in his sight."

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg 723

In the legal sense we are justified, made right with God. Paul speaks clearly on this issue many times:

"Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"
Romans 4:4 - 5 (ESV)

There are many Church leaders after Paul who also preached the fundamental importance of justification. Augustine was known as "the doctor of grace" and he had much to say about justification:

"What is grace? That which is freely given. What is "freely given"? Given, not paid. If it was due, wages would be given, but grace would not be bestowed. But if it was really due, then you were good. But if, as is true, you were evil but believed on him who justifies the ungodly (What is, "who justifies the ungodly"? The ungodly is made righteous), consider what by right hung over you by the law and you have obtained by grace. But having obtained that grace by faith, you will be just by faith - "for the just lives by faith.""

Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 3.9

Augustine emphasised the importance of grace in justification. We do not have to work for salvation, it is a free gift imparted from God. It should be stressed that "apart from the grace of God, the [human] free will is not capable of anything good" (Ildefonsus, On the Knowledge of Baptism, pg 100). We do not have the capabilities to justify ourselves (sola fide).

Martin Luther was a major proponent in the Reformation and the chief split between his doctrine and the Catholic Church was justification. His understanding of human interaction with justification was essential to the development of human comprehension of justification since then:

"For inasmuch as the saints are always aware of their sin and implore God for the merciful gift of his righteousness, they are for this very reason also always reckoned righteous by God. Therefore, they are before themselves and in truth unrighteous, but before God they are righteous because he reckons them so on account of this confession of their sin; they are sinners in fact, but by virtue of the reckoning of the merciful God they are righteous."

Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, LCC 15:125

This is the idea of a Christian being simultaneously righteous and sinner (simul iustus et peccator). This is different from the Catholic notion of God's elect being partly righteous and partly sinful (Gregg Allison, Historical Theology, pg 511). This is where the Catholic Church adds the act of sanctification (God working to transform the life of the Christian) to the act of justification (God imparting His righteousness on the sinful). The Catholic Church errs on this important distinction as established by John Calvin:

"By confusing justification and sanctification, the Roman Catholic Church emphasized the infusion of righteousness rather than the imputation of righteousness, and it viewed justification as a reward that could be merited. But justification is not about merit, nor is it about infusion of grace, even with the help of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church has missed the point of justification of grace through faith alone."

Gregg Allison, Historical Theology, pg 512-512 (emphasis added)

God's righteousness is transferred to us. His work in our lives after we are justified (which is the act of sanctification) has no bearing on our right standing before His judgment throne. We are completely dependant upon His actions. As it is He who condemns it is also He who pardons. Our perceived righteousness has no bearing on our salvation.

Of recent times there has been a "fresh" understanding of justification dubbed the "new perspective on Paul". Scholar N. T. Wright has led the charge in this redefinition. Essentially God's righteousness cannot be imparted upon the believer. God's righteousness, according to Wright, refers to His faithfulness to the His own covenant promises. Therefore, "[j]ustification was not so much about 'getting in,' or indeed about 'staying in,' as about 'how you could tell who was in.'" (N. T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pg 119).

This redefinition finds itself heavily on the side of the Catholic understanding of justification. No longer are we justified by faith alone. Covenant faithfulness is one of the works that can lead to salvation. Our justification, by this standard, depends on our whole life lived. Yet Paul is clear that works cannot justify the sinner. We are viewed righteous because God views Christ as righteous. At this junction lies a huge gap between the Catholic Church and the Reformed Churches. Unfortunately, justification is "the principal article of the whole doctrine of salvation and the foundation of all religion" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.2.1). As such it is a difference that cannot be overcome by taking the middle ground as Wright attempts to do.

Justification shortcuts:

1. God bestows His righteousness to us.

2. This is not works dependant but by faith alone.

3. We are simultaneously righteous and sinful.

4. Justification is significantly different than sanctification.

5. The new perspective on Paul seeks to redefine justification.

The Bible reveals much about our creator. We see His nature and His plans. Here are some of the attributes that we can glean from Scripture.

God’s Omnipotence

“Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.”

Jeremiah 32:17 (ESV)

God is all-powerful. In the beginning He created the earth and then, once man rebelled, He saved mankind. Yet can He be all powerful if He “cannot be corrupted, or tell lies, or make the true into the false (such as to undo what has been done), and many similar things?” (Anselm, Proslogion, pg 90). Yet what we find is that the power to do evil is not true power. The inability to sin does not dissuade God’s omnipotence. The ability to sin leads to impotence (that is, weakness) and not to power.

God’s Omniscience

“Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.”

Psalm 147:5 (ESV)

God is all-knowing. But how does this attribute work with the free will of humans? We need to understand that it is “not impossible for God’s foreknowledge (through which he foreknows the future events which are said to happen necessarily) to coexist with freedom of choice (by which much is done freely)” (Anselm, The Compatibility of the Foreknowledge, Pre-destination, and Grace of God with Human Freedom, pg 435-436). God knows our actions but this does not limit our freedom.

God’s Righteousness

Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy before the Lord, for he comes, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness, and the peoples in his faithfulness.”

Psalms 96:13 (ESV)


God is the greatest standard of goodness in the universe. It is His approval that makes actions good and bad. Everything good comes from Him:


“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”

James 1:17 (ESV)

To be righteous is to seek to glorify God’s name. In this way we see that not only does goodness come from God but every action that God undertakes is good because His very character glorifies His own name.

1 John 4:10 (ESV)

Many people will overplay this attribute of God and downplay others (like His jealousy or His wrath/justice) but this is still a key trait of God’s nature. He has immense love for His Son (John 3:35) and for His people (Romans 5:8). It is this love that defines what love actually means. Not some hippy love, not merely a tolerant love but one that burns in holiness for His creation.

There are many more attributes of God that I won’t discuss in this article (but some will reveal themselves in later articles) which are found in the Bible but this gives you some basis to work from. It is worth noting what Calvin says about dwelling upon the attributes of God:


“For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men, It being thus manifest that God, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image imprinted on the fair form of the universe has given the assistance of his word to all whom he has ever been pleased to instruct effectually, we, too, must pursue this straight path, if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God – we must go, I say, to the word, where the character of God, drawn from his works is described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated, not by our depraved judgment, but by the standard of eternal truth.”


John Calvin, Institutions of the Christian Religion, pg 28 (emphasis added)

Article by Cameron Spink

It was brought home to me last night that one of the chief concerns with some young believers is the disbelief regarding the inerrancy of Scripture.

Many people will not be familiar with the term biblical inerrancy so to suffice I will give you a very compact definition. The belief in biblical inerrancy is the understanding that the Bible is free from error or contradiction. The basis for such a concept is summed up in the Greek word theopneustos - breathed out by God.

Last night, at Bible study, we read through and discussed 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 (ESV):

"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved-so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!"

This verse discusses those who are saved from God's wrath and those who are subject to it. The key component differing between these two groups is how they accept the Bible, as the "word of men" or as the "word of God". It is extremely concerning that this battle now rages within the faith. It seems to go without saying that we are saved because we believe that the Bible possesses power above and beyond the literary writings of man. Yet, there are those who second-guess or revise the Bible despite claiming an allegiance to Christianity.

It is my hope that this article will arm and equip you to counter such assertions. If you are taken by these manipulations then hopefully you will be challenged and convicted to rethink your position. The concept of theopneastos is established in 2 Timothy 3:16 "[a]ll Scripture is breathed out by God" but is best elaborated in the second of Peter's letters where he says:

"[W]e have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

2 Peter 1:19-31 (ESV) (emphasis added)

It is established scripturally that the words presented in this very text are God-inspired and God-breathed. This internal reference to the Bible as the ultimate authority within the Bible may seem like circular reasoning yet theologian Wayne Grudem has no such concerns:

"It should be admitted that this is a king of circular argument. However, that does not makes its use invalid, for all arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately appeal to that authority for proof: otherwise the authority would not be an absolute or highest authority. This problem is not unique to the Christian who is arguing for the authority of the Bible. Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief."

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg 78-79

As such, there is no logical fallacy in the Bible's claims that it is a higher authority. Yet, we still haven't established that we should put any trust in the claims of Scripture. So how about this, the Bible can be trusted because it has been shown to be historically accurate, as well as internally consistent and, more persuasively, prophecies are fulfilled within Scripture (Grudem, pg 78). These evidences, however, are secondary. Our assurance is given by the Holy Spirit as we delve into His word. This may sound foreign to the outsider but is perfectly plausible within a biblical worldview. Our understanding and trust in Scripture given from His Spirit is the fulfilment of the ultimate proof.

Such a belief in scriptural inerrancy will be challenged. There will be those outside the faith who say "there are errors in the Bible". Do not be persuaded by these pretensions, it is simple enough to ask them where the error in Scripture exists and, if they can point to it, it is perfectly fine to go away and research this supposed error yourself. There are many resources available on the numerous theological websites and you are more than welcome to email me on This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . A great place to start includes this list of books:

-          Gleason L. Archer - Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

-          William Arndt - Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

-          William Arndt - Bible Difficulties

-          John W. Haley - Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible

(as taken from the footnotes of Grudem, pg 98-99)

Understanding biblical inerrancy will affect the way you live as Christians. It will give you renewed hope and help you avoid the pitfalls of doubt as encouraged by the world around us. I will finish with an encouragement from Charles Spurgeon:

"Brethren, we have not followed cunningly devised fables. We are not wanton boys that swim on floats that will soon burst under us. But we are resting on firm ground. We abide where heaven and earth are resting, where the whole universe depends, where even eternal things have their foundation. We rest on God Himself. If God will fail us, we gloriously fail with the whole universe. But there is no fear. Therefore, let us trust and not be afraid. His promise must stand: "The mouth of the Lord has spoken." O Lord, it is enough! Glory be to your name, through Christ Jesus! Amen."

Charles Spurgeon, The Essential Works, pg 937

Article by Cameron Spink

Far be it for me to tell off a church leader. Cardinal George Pell is essentially the head of the Catholic Church in Australia. As a Christian he and I should be on the same side. Yet, when he debated Richard Dawkins on Q & A on Monday night he was worlds away from what should be considered an accurate understanding of the Bible.

Dawkins was, as ever, the champion of “reason”. Whilst he may have made the studio audience snigger at times I found him significantly more compelling than George Pell. Not because I believe, or understand as truth, anything he propositions, but because I know exactly what he is going to say and because he is consistent. What is worse, he was accurately pointing out the implications of scripture while Pell was getting them dead wrong.

An example of this was when the discussion turned to evolution. A pointed question from the audience revealed that Pell believes humans to have descended from Neanderthals. This immediately moves God from the key player in the origins of humanity to a third party who plays a minimalistic part. God's word is no longer authoritative, instead we have blind processes in charge. God plays no personal role, instead He sets the world into motion and lets the chips fall where they may. God is less father and more bully.

This discussion leads abruptly to how Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve fits into Pell's understanding of evolution. Pell's response is baffling:

“Well, Adam and Eve are terms - what do they mean: life and earth. It’s like every man. That’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science but it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and the universe. Secondly, that the key to the whole of universe, the really significant thing, are humans and, thirdly, it is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and suffering in the world....”

Sensing Pell's mistake Dawkins asks “Well, I’m curious to know if Adam and Eve never existed where did original sin come from?”. We never hear Pell's direct response to this question but Richard Dawkins has asked an excellent question. The logical conclusion that Adam and Eve are a myth is devastating to Christianity decidedly because Jesus is no longer required to solve the problem of original sin. If Adam didn't exist we have no longer rebelled from God's instructions. We are no longer inherently evil and God has been removed further from the equation.

This is terrible scriptural comprehension from a church leader but he manages to out-do himself. When presented with a question from an atheist about his salvation after death Pell states:

“Well, I know from the Christian point of view, God loves everybody but every genuine motion towards the truth is a motion towards God and when an atheist dies, like everybody else, they will be judged on the extent to which they have moved towards goodness and truth and beauty but in the Christian view, God loves everyone except those who turn his back turn their back on him through evil acts.”

Oh boy, Pell has managed to make a mess of origins and salvation in less than an hour. Dawkins really doesn't need to say anything because the words coming out of Pell's mouth are as toxic as any an atheist can say. Pell has removed the requirement of justification by faith alone and placed the new requirement of justification by works. John Calvin deals adequately with Pell's interpretation:

“If we destroy the righteousness of God by establishing our own righteousness, then, in order to obtain his righteousness our own must be entirely abandoned. This also, [Paul] shows, when he declares that boasting is not excluded by the Law, but by faith (Rom 3:27). Hence it follows, that so long as the minutest portion of our own righteousness remains, we have still some ground for boasting. Now if faith utterly excludes boasting, the righteousness of works cannot in any way be associated with the righteousness of faith. This meaning is so clearly expressed in the fourth chapter to the Romans as to leave no room for cavil or evasion. “If Abraham were justified by works he has whereof to glory”; and then it is added, “but not before God” (Rom 4:2). The conclusion, therefore, is, that he was not justified by works. He then employs another argument from contraries, i.e., when reward is paid by works, it is done of debt, not of grace; but the righteousness of faith is of grace: therefore it is not of the merit of works. Away, then, with the dream of those who invent a righteousness compounded of faith and works.”

John Calvin – Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Third, Chapter 11, 13, pg 485-486 (2008 ed) (emphasis added)

Calvin correctly shows the folly of those promoting justification by works. Pell maintained that it is the pursuit of “goodness and truth and beauty” that defines salvation. Yet, even distorting salvation to this fails to help the atheist. Goodness and truth are established in God's commandments. The first being that His people should have no other god before Him (Exodus 20:3). This is echoed by Jesus when He says the greatest commandment is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37 ESV).

It should be clear that disbelieving in God is against truth and goodness as a person cannot love God with all their mind if they don't believe He exists.

Pell's response should have been that atheists must be condemned if they are not justified by faith alone. He should have said that evolution is incompatible with a historical account of Genesis. He did neither and pandered answers with no scriptural integrity. It is not a common occurrence when a church leader is more destructive for Christianity than Richard Dawkins.