What is truth?

 T

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

A.  Introduction

In 1993 when I was co-host of a talk-back radio show in Canberra, Australia, a caller was defending the right and value of sleeping around with anybody. As I began to present God’s absolutes as they apply to human relationships, she said something like, “That might have applied thousands of years ago, but it has no relevance whatsoever in today’s world. That’s out-of-date garbage.”

During October 1993, I advertised three times in The Canberra Times, personal column of the classifieds (Saturday edition): “There is a way out of homosexuality for gays who want to change. Ph Spencer (and I gave the phone number).”

I received about 25 phone calls, some of them abusive, but enough men wanted to begin my “Steps Out” group for those who want to be redeemed from homosexuality. One fellow who responded to the advertising, when I mentioned that this was a Christian-based group, shouted: “That’s your opinion; I know that homosexuality is right. I was born that way.” And then came a pile of swear words.

Sometimes I have shared my testimony of how Christ invaded our Bundaberg, Qld home through the 1959 Billy Graham Crusade in Brisbane (a land line crusade rally at the Bundaberg Show Grounds) and my parents trusted Christ as their Lord and Saviour. This led to the salvation of the three children in the family. I have thought: I’m sure a Hare Krishna could tell of a changed lifestyle. Mormons speak of a “burning in the bosom” that convinced them that the Book of Mormon was true and this changed their lives. If I base my witnessing on a personal testimony, what’s the difference from the Hare Krishna or the Mormon?

That great English defender of the faith and writer, the late C.S. Lewis, saw the battle lines. He contended that the final conflict between religions would involve Hinduism and Christianity, because these two would offer the only viable religions. Because Hinduism absorbs all religious systems, and Christianity excludes all others, maintaining the supremacy of the claims of Jesus Christ alone. [1]

These examples raise a critical issue when we consider Christianity: Are we dealing with an individual religious experience, a personal opinion, a personal choice, or is this truth? One of the core verses is:

B.  What does Jesus say? (John 14:6)

“Jesus said to [Thomas], ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (NASB).


We often think of Christ’s words as metaphors:

I am the door; I am the vine; I am the light of the world; and we can tend to see these words metaphorically: I am the way; I am the truth; I am the life.

In our world today, that bases truth on personal opinion, the majority vote, or the views of a prominent leader, Jesus is saying something remarkably radical. So revolutionary that it will change our view of the church and our world if we understand what Jesus is saying.

Jesus said:

1.    I am the truth

  • He is not stating that He is the Messiah or Son of God in this instance. Although he is Messiah, that is not His point here.
  • He is not saying this is truth about Me.
  • He is not saying I am one way to truth.

He is saying: I am the truth. It could not be clearer.

2. What is truth?

This was Pilate’s great question to Jesus Christ (John 18:38).

One dictionary definition is: Truth is “genuineness or veracity”; “that which is true; a fact; a reality; that which conforms to fact or reality; the real or true state of things.” [2] Another dictionary adds that truth is “that which is in accordance with what is, what has been, or must be.” [3]

This is confirmed by my Greek word studies of aletheia which state: “John uses aletheia regularly in the sense of reality in contrast to falsehood or mere appearance… The revealed reality of God.” [4] Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says of aletheia: “The word has an absolute force. . . not merely ethical truth, but truth in all its fulness and scope, as embodied in Him.” [5]

When we apply this to Jesus, this is an amazing statement. Jesus is saying, “I am ultimate reality. I am the root of what was, what is, what will come, I am the foundation of all that is genuine, factual and real in the world. Everything flows from Me.”

Jesus is the truth.

God revealed himself to Moses at the burning bush, “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex 3:14). To the unbelieving Jews, Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58) and they wanted to stone Jesus. No wonder. He was not claiming to be like God, or sent by God, but he was claiming to be Yahweh — the “I AM.”

When I speak out against abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality; make a stand for justice for oppressed people; when I proclaim the atonement and salvation through Jesus Christ alone; when I practise biblical ethics on the job; when I write letters or articles for newspapers or magazines, my aim is never to promote my own opinion. My sole desire is to proclaim Jesus Christ as the ultimate reality of all that exists and has existed and will exist.

We do the greatest disservice to you, and especially our young people, when we ask them to experience Jesus without an understanding that we are talking about truth.

The world wants to separate faith from knowledge and reason. Christians don’t want to mix faith with reason. “Thou shalt not think” seems to be the 11th commandment. And yet, what did the apostle Paul do when he proclaimed the Gospel? I read through the Book of Acts and this is the kind of language I appears:

  • “explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead” (17:3)
  • “he was reasoning in the synagogue. . . trying to persuade Jews and Greeks” (18:4). cf 17:2,4; 18:19; 19:8, 26
  • “solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ” (18:5). cf 20:21, 23
  • “This man persuades men to worship God” (18:13).
  • “He powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ” (18:28).

What drove Paul to be such a defender of the faith?

Second Corinthians 5:10-11 gives us the key: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due to him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad (NIV). Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men” (NASB).

Yes, Paul was a gifted apostle. Most of us do not have such a gift. But what drove Paul, must drive us: All Christians will appear before Christ’s magistrate’s court one day to be judged for our rewards. If you know what it is to fear the Lord, you must be involved in persuading people of the God who exists, who they are before Him, and how they can be set free from a life of sin and enter into eternal life by repenting of their sin and trusting Christ as Saviour and Lord — this will mean that your life must be as salt and light in this world.

This is quite in contrast with the scientific world where a Carl Sagan, of the Cosmos TV series, could so arrogantly say: “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” [6] Western civilisation was built on the foundation that there is a God of truth who gives objective truth that is ultimate reality. This is the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Here are two recommended resources for an analysis of the nature of truth:

C.  It is crucial that we understand Christianity as truth.

Down through the centuries, people have tried to find answers to life through the biblical world view and hundreds of other philosophies. But we have reached utter despair in Australia today. I see it in kids who are high on all kinds of drugs, youth who are committing suicide as a phenomenal rate. When I was working for the international Christian-based drug rehabilitation and counselling agency, Teen Challenge, Canberra, we as staff were confronted with three attempted suicides referred to us in one week. There is a sense of hopelessness and disillusionment in Australia. Families that are busting apart. Crime on the increase. Approximately 100,000 unborn babies slaughtered in Australia every year through abortion. That’s about one every seven minutes.

This should not be surprising when our society is influenced by the Eastern mysticism and occult of the New Age Movement, or straight secularism — this life is all there is to live for and then you die you rot. So eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die. In eastern mysticism you seek meaning within yourself. For secularism, it is this life — so rip into it and use and abuse people, yourself and your environment. Who cares? You only go round once.

As a result, the Australian culture and much of the world are morally exhausted. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the suicide rate, sexual promiscuity, divorce rate, premarital pregnancy rate, abortion and euthanasia, sexually transmitted diseases (in 1988, there were 51 STDs. Now we are approaching 60 STDs, with a new one discovered about every 9 months. [7]  Australia and the Western world are morally destitute.

It is critical for Christians to understand that Christ is the truth, ultimate truth. This will alter your view of Christianity and the nature of the world. Your university studies, the environment for political and ethical decisions, your personal worth and significance, the whole of life, need to be measured by Him. If a personal God is not there, who is? When Charlie Chaplin heard that there was no life on Mars, he said, “I feel lonely.” [8] Ultimate questions are too horrid to contemplate if there is no meaning apart from me and the universe. Thank God we have this revelation:

Jesus Christ says, “I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13). The beginning and the end flow from him. The past, present and future are His.

Colossians 1:15-17 says: “And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

This Jesus, who said, “I am the truth; I am the beginning and the end” and “all things hold together through Him” is also the one who said, “Sanctify them by the truth; [the Father’s] word is truth” (John 17:17 NIV).

Plugged-In
ChristArt

D.  God has spoken truth through the Scriptures.

His word is truth, true to reality. II Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

 

This is not the place to develop a defence for the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Word of God (see, ‘Can you Trust the Bible?).  But sufficient to say that the Bible will leave the writings of antiquity for dead when it comes to assessing the accuracy of a document. I recommend John Warwick Montgomery’s, History and Christianity, Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable, and Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament History?[9]

With the Bible, we are dealing with accurate, verifiable, objective truth that can be trusted. It matches up with the external world around us, and the uniqueness of human personality.

Do you understand the implications of this? When you want truth about morality: you shall not commit adultery and flee sexual immorality are the truth about relationships.

It means that there is no such person as an atheist. Fools, yes! But certainly not atheists. The truth of God’s word says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God” (Ps 14:1).

Why is this? Because of the objective truth of Romans 1:18-20!. So-called atheists are “suppressing the truth” of God’s evidence in creation, “by their wickedness.”

That’s why Ps 14:1 can be emphatic in giving the objective truth — a fool says there is no God.

I support the scientific enterprise. Christianity gave science its foundation with a personal God who created an orderly universe that could be investigated in a systematic way. But, I am amazed at all the philosophising about the origin of the universe, when the simple fact is: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The more modern cosmology develops, if scientists would bring God into the equation, the more one sees the enormity and complexity of the universe — and the might and mystery of Creator God.

Yet, as I was finalising my preparation for this message (preached in 1993), I picked up The Canberra Times (Nov 7, 1993, p. 19), in which there was an article, “The Eternal Question”. I was thrilled to see that a capital city newspaper was taking up the subject of life-after-death.

But I was shocked to read the statement by Rev. Neil Adcock of Canberra Baptist Church that “he does not believe that some souls will be eternally damned to Hell.”  He says that “judgment is largely an assessment of oneself in the light of the reality of God and all that God stands for.”

“‘All the stuff of fires and brimstone really comes out of the medieval idea of the earth being flat — Hell was underneath and Heaven was up there. We know that is not the case… I do not necessarily believe that the goal of a Christian life is to get to Heaven. “‘I think the goal of a Christian life is to grow in character like Jesus Christ… [The article’s statement: “He is honestly unknowing about the difference between an afterlife in Hell and one in Heaven” is incorrect, according to my personal phone call to Neil. He said he doesn’t know where the journalist got that from. When I asked him about judgment, he said he considers the Old Testament prophets inferior to Jesus and the New Testament.]

“‘Judgment is largely an assessment of oneself in the light of the reality of God and all that God stands for.'”  That’s Rev Neil Adcock from Canberra Baptist Church.

Yet, the Jesus who said, “I am the truth,” will say to unbelievers at the judgment, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt 25:41), a place, Jesus says, where there “will be weeping and grinding of teeth” (Matt 24:51). And Neil Adcock doesn’t know what hell will be like?  Is this a statement about his view of Scripture?

He says, “Judgment is largely an assessment of oneself in the light of the reality of God and all that God stands for.” The ultimate truth of God’s Word is much different. Romans 2:5 says: “But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed”. In the Book of Revelation 6:17, “For the great day of their wrath has come and who can stand?”

“More than one writer has drawn attention to the fact that there are more references in the Bible to the anger and wrath of God than there are to the love of God.” [10]

I phoned Neil Adcock five days after the publication of the article, and not one clergyman or anybody else in Canberra, had phoned to ask about the unorthodox theology in the article. Where are the defenders of the faith today?  However, Neil did tell me that members of his congregation had commended him for going public with his views.

Let’s look at:

E.  The modern world

Flower   If there is no ultimate truth, your school and university studies are only a process with no ultimate answers to be found. If there is no ultimate truth, you have no solid, unchanging standard to judge music, art, literature, business deals, the church, politics and government, or your personal life. There is no way to judge between the horrors of Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the work of Mother Teresa. The difference between good and evil amounts to personal opinion, the majority vote, or the imposition of a dictator or a government elite.

The late Francis Schaeffer shared the speakers’ platform with a former American cabinet member and urban leader, John Gardner. Gardner spoke on the need to restore values to our culture. After he finished speaking, a Harvard University student asked him: “On what do you build your values?” Gardner, who is usually articulate and scholarly, paused, looked down, and said, “I do not know.” [11]

In our secular, relativistic culture, there is no basis for values. Absolute, unchanging values are so vital for politics and government, law and order in society. If we look to puny human values, we are doomed.

What is truth? Jesus said, “I am the truth.” God’s Word is truth. Ultimate values are centred in

Flower  the God who was;

Flower the God who is;

Flower  the God who is to come.

Pilate said, “You are a king, then!” “Jesus answered, ‘You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me'” (John 18:37, NIV).

Christianity is not some psychological religious experience. This is not a feel-good religion. Contrary to Sigmund Freud, Christianity is not an illusion. It is not the opiate of the people, as Marx would say. Christianity is Christ, who is truth, ultimate truth. Christianity is true to reality. It can be verified and falsified.

Pontius Pilate symbolises modern people. Just turn on the TV to Donohue and Oprah, or here in Australia to Kerry O’Brien, Ray Martin, Mike Munro, and other current affairs’ hosts and imagine their asking questions like:

Flower  What is the meaning of life?

Flower  How does this affect our lives?

Flower   Is it right, moral or good?
Flower  What is true?
Flower  What is truth?

Francis Schaeffer: Courtesy Wikipedia

 

Francis Schaeffer was right, “Modern man has both feet firmly planted in mid-air.” [12]

R.C. Sproul puts it another way: “Modern man is betting his life that this is it, and that there is no judgment and that there is no eternity.” [13]

Listen to the words of distinguished historian, Arthur Schlesinger: “It is this belief in absolutes … that is the great enemy today of the life of the mind…. The mystic prophets of the absolute cannot save us. Sustained by our history and traditions, we must save ourselves at whatever risk of heresy or blasphemy.” [14]

Australian philosopher/bioethicist formerly at the Human Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, and now at Princeton University, NJ, USA, Dr Peter Singer, wrote:

 

“Once the religious mumbo-jumbo surrounding the term ‘human’ has been stripped away, we may continue to see normal members of our species as possessing greater capacities of rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and so on, than members of any other species. . . If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant… Species membership alone, however, is not morally relevant.” [15]

If we follow this kind of ethic, I am convinced it will lead our culture into a shambles. I believe, this kind of ethic will help Australia to become a lawless moral mess.

But Jesus said, “I am the truth.” God’s “Word is truth” — real truth, objective truth that is ultimate reality.

F. The challenge

We are living in a decaying society and we cannot afford to be aloof in our comfortable churches.
Charles Colson says a ‘dark age’ is upon us;
Carl Henry writes of ‘the twilight of our culture’.
Malcolm Muggeridge predicted the end of Christendom.
Francis Schaeffer warned of the “spiritual collapse of the West.” [16]

Moral and spiritual clouds are looming. The crisis is not just some small shower, but a mighty thunder storm. The crisis may shake the very fabric of Australia. The boundaries that held back our vices and promoted our virtues are eroding.

What can the people of God do?

  1.    We, the church, must defend the truth, objective truth, ultimate reality.

Church leaders will need to equip their people to do apologetics in a post-Christian society. We must!

No wonder their is moral rot in Australia — sexual immorality and perversion, family breakdown, crime, drugs. Christian values are on the decline across the nation. Why?

Christians are generally illiterate when it comes to defending the faith. There has been a fierce attack on the Christian world view for at least 30 years. The mass media feed viewers with a regular dose of violence and sexual sensuality. And we Christians vegetate in front of the box while our Christian values are assaulted — and there’s hardly a murmur.

Church leaders undermine the word of God, like the Canberra Baptist pastor I mentioned, with hardly a whimper. This must change as we equip a new generation of believers to defend the objective truth of God’s Word.

John Wesley challenges us: “Making an open stand against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness which overspreads our land as a flood is one of the noblest ways of confessing Christ in the face of enemies.”

There is no other way out of this mess Australia is in, without the salt and light of the people of God. We are the only ones who can provide the answer and show a crumbling, sceptical culture the ultimate and only reality, Jesus Christ.

2.     We must have a renewed commitment to truth.

The evidence is compelling that the Scriptures are God-breathed, authoritative and trustworthy, without error in the original manuscripts in all that they affirm. We need to stand boldly for the inerrant Word of God.

3.    We must challenge our culture in its moral choices.

Mark 7:23 says, “… All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean.” This is an offence to modern people to say that evil actions come from within the person. Homosexuals tell me, “I was born that way.” Or as a woman told me the other day, “I had the demon of lust cast out of me.” Or, I was a victim of my upbringing, alcoholic parents, domestic violence. Or, my generational sin has caused this problem I have with the occult. When will we get back to the sinful nature within as the problem, and personal responsibility for overcoming it?

R.C. Sproul shocked me when I read: “If you think about it, we are all really more like Adolf Hitler than like Jesus Christ.” [17]

The atrocity is that we in the church have allowed our society to decay by not standing for truth, not confronting our culture, failing to promote an intelligent, consistent Christian world-view, and not consistently living the truth in our own lives.

Former Dutch Prime Minister, Abraham Kuyper [lived 1837-1920] , would encounter some stiff opposition from the civil libertarians if he promoted this view today:

“[Our call] is this: that in spite of all worldly opposition, God’s holy ordinances shall be established again in the home, in the school and in the state for the good of the people; to carve as it were into the conscience of the nation the ordinances of the Lord, to which the Bible and creation bear witness, until the nation pays homage again to God.” [18]

It is urgent: We need to equip ourselves to offer a reasoned, consistent defence of God’s absolute truth, the biblical world-view, in the marketplace of our cities and towns.

Proverbs 29:18 (New International Version) summarises it so well: “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law.”

This is where we are in the twenty-first century. The people are casting off restraint. We are in an age of chaos personally, in the family, in many nations and internationally. September 11, 2001 was a gross symptom of what is happening world-wide. Will you join me in defending the Christian faith now to all peoples and nations? Will you join me in living out the Christian life with authenticity in these crisis times?

Take a look at Norman Geisler’s view of the nature of truth.  He concludes that truth is that which corresponds to reality.  Check our what this apologist says in his defense of the nature of truth as applied to Christianity.  Douglas Groothuis answers the question, “What is truth?”

Notes:

1. In Walter Martin, The New Age Cult. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1989, p. 13.
2. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged). Collins World, 1977.
3. In Charles Colson with Ellen Santilli Vaughn, The Body: Being Light in Darkness. Milton Keynes, England: Word Publishing, 1992, p. 158.
4. Colin Brown, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Vol 3). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978, pp. 889, 891. 5. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. London: Opliphants, 1940, p. 159.
6. In Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview (Vol. 5). Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1982, p. 439).
7. John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Myth of Safe Sex. Chicago: Moody Press, 1993, p. 53.
8. In Charles Colson, The Body, p. 161.
9. John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity. Minneapolis Minnesota, Bethany House Publishers, 1965; Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972; Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987 (InterVarsity Press, USA); F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1960 (rev. ed.); Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament History. Sydney: Hodder & Stoughton, 1986.
10. Eryl Davies, An Angry God? Bryntirion, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan: Evangelical Press of Wales, 1991, p. 70.
11. In Colson, The Body, p.163.
12. Ibid.., 165
13. Ibid.
14. From Schlesinger’s speech at Brown University, in Brown Alumni Monthly, May 1989, pp. 18, 22, in Colson, The Body, pp. 170-171.
15. Pediatrics, July 1983, p. 138, in Franky Schaeffer, Bad News for Modern Man. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1984, p. 156.
16. In Charles Colson with Ellen Santilli Vaughn, Against the Night. London: Hodder & Stoughton, p.10. [Servant Publications, USA]
17. In Charles Colson, The Body, p. 191.
18.  In ibid., pp.196-97.

The Truth will set you free!

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 16 September 2016.

Apparent contradictions and inerrancy

(public domain)

By Paul Gear

I’ve been studying the Gospel of John at college this semester, and one view that i’ve encountered is the view that John’s chronology of the Passion week, in particular the day of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion, contradicts that of the Synoptic Gospels. This article by Barry D. Smith explains some of the issues and argues for the view that there is no contradiction.

This got me thinking about the implications of this view for the doctrine of inerrancy. Inerrancy is a presupposition in this case (the only one that i’m prepared to bring to biblical studies), but i think it is a reasonable one based on inductive study of the Scripture. Wayne A. Grudem, “Scripture’s Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture”, in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), argues decisively that Scripture itself gives Christians no option but to accept inerrancy.

Here are some quotes from his article (emphasis in the original in all cases):

God’s words, especially God’s words as spoken and written by men … are viewed consistently by the Old Testament authors as different in character and truth status from all other human words; … In truth status they are seen as being different from all other human words, for human words invariably contain falsehood and error (Ps. 116:11), but these do not; they are spoken by God who never lies (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29). They are completely truthful (Ps. 119:160) and free from impurity or unreliability of any kind … (p. 35)

Perhaps it has not been stated emphatically enough that nowhere in the Old Testament or in the New Testament does any writer give any hint of a tendency to distrust or consider slightly unreliable any other part of Scripture. Hundreds of texts encourage God’s people to trust Scripture completely, but no text encourages any doubt or even slight mistrust of Scripture. To rely on the “inerrancy” of every historical detail affirmed in Scripture is not to adopt a “twentieth-century view” of truth or error; it is to follow the teaching and practice of the biblical authors themselves. It is to adopt a biblical view of truth and error. (p. 58-59)

To believe that all the words of the Bible are God’s words and that God cannot speak untruthfully will significantly affect the way in which one approaches a “problem text” or “alleged error” in Scripture. To seek for a harmonization of parallel accounts will be a worthy undertaking. To approach a text with the confident expectation that it will, if rightly understood, be consistent with what the rest of the Bible says, will be a proper attitude. (p. 59)

I have looked at dozens of [“problem texts”], and in every single case there are possible solutions in the commentaries. If one accepts the Bible’s claim to be God’s very words, then the real question is not how “probable” any proposed solution is in itself, but how one weighs the probability of that proposed solution against the probability that God has spoken falsely. Personally I must say that the “difficult texts” would have to become many times more difficult and many times more numerous before I would come to think that I had misunderstood the hundreds of texts about the truthfulness of God’s words in Scripture, or that God had spoken falsely. (pp. 367-368; 59n84)

The last two paragraphs quoted above are particularly relevant here. It seems to me there are a few possibilities in the particular case of John’s Passion chronology:

  1. John might or might not have been aware of the Synoptics, and was unaware that his account contradicted theirs. (This might also include such views as that John was written before the Synoptics.)
  2. John was aware of the Synoptics, was aware that his account contradicted theirs, but didn’t care because he wasn’t seeking to be historically accurate.
  3. John was aware of the Synoptics, was aware that his account contradicted theirs, and was consciously seeking to correct them.
  4. John might or might not have been aware of the Synoptics, or might or might not have been aware that his account contradicted theirs, but decided to change which night the Last Supper was on for theological, thematic, stylistic, or other reasons.
  5. Neither John nor the Synoptics was being precise about their use of Passover festival terminology, thus there is no contradiction.

Smith’s article seems to prefer solution #5. There may be other options that i haven’t considered. I’d be happy to hear about them if you have any references.

Based on the principles outlined in Grudem’s article, i would make the following conclusions about each option:

  1. John, while not specifically contradicting the Synoptics, may nonetheless be guilty of historical blunder.
  2. John is not specifically contradicting the Synoptics, but is working at a lower level of precision. This runs aground on the fact that his language is specifically locating the events in question on certain days, so it would be hard to argue that he is aiming for less precision.
  3. At least one of the two chronologies (John or the Synoptics) is historically incorrect.
  4. John, in specifically employing an unhistorical approach, is saying that these details are inconsequential, and secondary to his greater purpose, which is to engender faith. This runs aground on the same issue as #2 (his specific language about days), and also raises the question, “Why should i believe in a Jesus presented by someone who has deliberately muddied the waters about the details of the object and origin of that belief?” Or, put another way, “How does setting Jesus’ upper room discourse and crucifixion on days on which they did not really occur help to promote belief in Jesus? Rather doesn’t it diminish belief in Jesus?”
  5. This view seems to take appropriate account of the facts marshalled by Grudem, while acknowledging that the level of precision used by the Gospel writers does not meet with 21st century expectations of precision (the so-called “videotape view of history”).

Assuming i have a reasonable grasp of the available options, i can’t see any reasonable option for Evangelicals but to choose #5 (or possibly a combination of #1 & #5, although i think this is infeasible on other grounds).1

Of course, there is another alternative: that the biblical authors were incorrect (either by mistake, or by deliberate misrepresentation) in asserting that the Scriptures are without error and that God cannot lie, and that we should not require ourselves to believe what they believed. (I am discounting the possibility that Grudem’s conclusion about Scripture’s self-attestation is wrong. He brings literally hundreds of Scriptures to bear on the problem, and the evidence marshalled is overwhelming.) My question in response is: if the biblical authors were wrong hundreds of times about the trustworthiness of Scripture, what were they right about? If i am to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but at any point he could be lying (because in this view, God can lie) about Scripture, salvation, or anything else of consequence, that is not a Jesus i am willing to believe in.

Notes

1  See Richard Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark” in The Gospels for All Christians: rethinking the Gospel audiences, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998. Bauckham’s argument is that John assumed knowledge of Mark on the part of his readers, and left specific markers in the text to enable readers to calibrate his chronology with Mark’s.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 16 October 2015.

Blue Greek Key With Lines Border by GR8DAN - A blue greek key based border.

The Rhema Barb and Its Poison: The Rhema vs. Logos Controversy

Related image

(courtesy Player FM)

By Spencer D Gear

John Dawson, as Director of Youth with a Mission, wrote Taking Our Cities for God, in which he stated: “There is always the release of God’s power when we declare out loud His word.  The Greek word rhema is the biblical term for the specific personal communication of God with His children here and now.  This is different from the logos, which refers to the already revealed word recorded in Scripture.” [2]   Is this really the case?

Kenneth E Hagin (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

The name, rhema, is particularly associated with the ministry of the late Kenneth Hagin Sr. (died 2003). The doctrine of “rhema,” as proclaimed by the Hyper-Faith Movement, claims that “you can have what you say” or “how to write your own ticket with God” (the language of Kenneth Hagin Sr.) [3]  if you will only confess it.  So, health, wealth and many other outcomes are based on a confession of the “rhema” in one’s life.  “Name It and Claim It” theology is based on this understanding of “rhema.”  Can this distinction of rhema be sustained by a study of the New Testament? 

These statements have developed a doctrine of the spoken word, known as, “rhematology,” or “positive confession.”  It stresses the power of one’s thoughts and words in affecting reality in a person’s life. 

It is common, particularly in Pentecostal and charismatic circles, to try to distinguish between the two Greek words that are translated, “Word, ” in the New Testament – rhema and logos. The point made is that rhema is “often a word spoken for a particular occasion.”  It is God’s word for you in your present situation. 

This is seen at the popular level in Dr. Paul Choo’s article on the Spirit-filled life and victorious faith: “Logos refers to the whole revelation of God (e.g.. John 17:17). Rhema (which is found in Rom. 10:17) refers to a part of God’s Word, i.e. a specific promise.” [4] A search on the www revealed that this was a common theme: “‘Rhema’ means ‘spoken word’, and ‘Logos’ means ‘written word.'” [5]

It is claimed that “the logos is universal while rhema is particular.  The logos is objective, while the rhema is subjective.  The logos is eternal, while the rhema is contemporary.” [6]   However, when we examine the biblical evidence, the differences between rhema and logos cannot be sustained.

Both rhema and logos for spoken word

Both rhema and logos are used in situations where the “spoken word” is indicated.  In Luke 5:5, Peter’s words to Jesus were, “But at your word [rhema] I will let down the nets” (ESV). [7]   On the other hand, it is said of the nobleman whose son was healed by Jesus, that “the man believed the word [logos] that Jesus spoke to him and went on his way” (John 4:50).

Some want to conclude that rhema is never applied to the person of Christ.  In Matt. 4:4, Jesus stated, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word [rhema] that comes from the mouth of God.”  Another example is the use of rhema in verses such as Matt. 27:14, where Jesus was on trial before his crucifixion: “But he gave him no answer [rhema], not even to a single charge”

When Peter denied the Lord, he “remembered the saying [rhema] of Jesus.”  As already indicated, Luke 5:5 says, “But at your word [rhema] I will let down the nets.”  Luke 7:1 is a telling example: Speaking of Jesus, it states:  “After he had finished all his sayings [rhemata, the plural of rhema] in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum.”  Therefore, the honest interpreter of the New Testament must conclude that it is incorrect to say that rhema is never applied to the person of Christ.

Peter, in his epistle, used both rhema and logos without thinking that there was any difference in meaning.  He said that we are born again “through the living and abiding word [logos] of God” (I Peter 1:23).  Two verses later, Peter writes that “the word [rhema] of the Lord remains forever” (v. 25).

Korean Pentecostal leader, Paul Yonggi Cho, maintained that we as Christians “can link our spirit’s fourth dimension to the fourth dimension of the Holy Father—the Creator of the universe—we can have all the more dominion over circumstances.”  The Holy Spirit causes this through dreams, visions, and visualisation.  By the latter we “incubate our future” and “hatch the results.”  This happens through our speaking that rhema word that “releases Christ.”   How does one receive this rhema?  According to Cho, it is a “specific word to a specific person in a specific situation” and is attained by “waiting upon the Lord.” [8]

“If rhema is supposed to be a spoken word and logos the written word, Paul [the apostle] apparently did not recognize that distinction.  When talking about the gifts of the word of wisdom and the word of  knowledge, he used logos rather than rhema (1 Corinthians 12:8).  It seems that rhema would have been more appropriate if the distinction which some make is valid.” [9]

Logos and rhema are synonymous words in Greek

Two passages that seem to be referring to the same action, use rhema and logos interchangeably.  Jesus said, “Already you are clean because of the word [logos] that I have spoken to you” (John 15:3).  When Paul spoke about Christ sanctifying and cleansing the church, he indicated that Christ “might sanctify her [the church], having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word [rhema]” (Eph. 5:26).

This is further illustrated in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint (LXX), the translation which was completed about 250 BC.  The first two verses of Jeremiah read: “The word [rhema] of God which came to Jeremiah” (v. 1) and “the word [logos] of God which came to him” (v. 2). [10] It is clear that even as far back as the third century before Christ, rhema and logos were used interchangeably.

For NT Greek buffs, this technical information confirms that rhema and logos are synonyms.  If we examine the Greek verb forms of these two words we find:

“In the present tense, the verb form of logos is lego.  But other tenses for this verb contain the stem used in rhema (ero, eireka, eiremai, errethen).  It is an irregular Greek verb.  The present tense (I say) and the logos use the same stem, but most other tenses use the stem from which rhema is derived.” [11]

The Englishman’s Greek-English Concordance [12] lists every mention of the words, rhema and logos in the New Testament.  An examination of these will clearly show that the contemporary distinctions between rhema and logos do not hold up under careful investigation.

(image courtesy sharefaith.com)

What can we conclude?  The evidence does not point to any kind of difference of  meaning between rhema and logos.  They “are very close synonyms, and we must not force on them a distinction in meaning.  Often a change is made from one word to the other simply to give literary variety.” [13]

David Watson gave a helpful summary of the evidence for rhema vs. logos. [14]  His conclusion supports the evidence above:

“In no New Testament dictionary or Greek lexicon of any substance can the claimed distinction between the two words be found….  The massive weight of evidence shows that there is no clear distinction to be made between logos and rhema in the Scriptures.  Thus the two far-reaching inferences mentioned above are based on a false premise.” [15]

I endorse Anthony Palma’s practical conclusion:

“This matter is of more than academic significance.  Among some who promote this distinction in meaning, a danger exists that the so-called spoken or contemporary word will be esteemed more highly than the Scriptures.  But the principle given in 1 Corinthians 14:29 is that all messages must be evaluated, and the only sure basis for evaluation is the written Word of God.”[16]

This wrong-headed doctrine of rhema has had some materialistic and threatening outworking in ministries such as that of Paula White on a Benny Hinn Telethon, LeSEA Network, April 16, 2004.  In her promotion of the alleged meaning of rhema, she proclaimed, “Now, get up and go to the phone!  When God begins to speak to you dial that number on your screen.  Don’t you miss this moment!  If you miss your moment you miss your miracle!….  He’s [God’s] giving you a Rhema Word right now….  The God that I serve is speaking to you right now!”  She proclaimed that “God is looking for somebody to believe that this is a Rhema Word.”[17]

The contemporary confusion in understanding of rhema and logos is “a reminder that a little ‘knowledge’ is a dangerous thing.” [18]  How many more people are going to be hurt and misled by the false rhema doctrine of a “special word for an occasion” that comes with a barb like that of Paula White, in this same Benny Hinn Telethon.  She gave this threatening message: “You will die!  You will die unless you go to the phone and do what God says to do.” [19]

Conclusion

What difference does it make?  When preachers with a high public profile or ordinary believers proclaim that sickness can be healed when a person experiences God’s rhema [special word for the occasion], and it doesn’t happen, some people are left disillusioned with the Christian faith because their God has not met His obligations.  One other alternative is that these people are accused of not having enough faith or having the wrong kind of faith.  For the ill, this is a particularly cruel accusation — their God did not come to the party OR their faith is sub-standard.  These are the people who need God’s encouragement and not condemnation. 

The real issue does not amount to a wrong kind of faith but it is the promotion of a theology of health and wealth that is a false doctrine.  These preachers and teachers need to be exposed for what they are – false teachers!

Based on an examination of the biblical material, we can conclude that the differences between rhema and logos promoted by some prominent preachers in the charismatic movement, cannot be sustained.

They promote a false distinction between rhema and logos and are thus false teachers.

Endnotes:

[2]  John Dawson 1989, Taking Our Cities for God, Word Publishing, Milton Keynes, England, p. 197.

[3] Hagin Sr., K. E. 1979. How to Write Your Own Ticket with God, Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Tulsa, OK.

[4]  Pastor Dr. Paul Choo, preached at Gospel Light Christian Church, Singapore, 10 December 2000,”The Spirit-Filled Life I – Faith Is the Victory,”available from: http://www.glcc-online.com/sermons/sglcc0012101.htm [Accessed 4 May 2005].

[5]  From Arthur Chiang, “The Power of Words”, 17 September 2004, Free Community Church, available from: http://www.freecomchurch.org/05-170904.htm [Accessed 4 May 2005].  Jason Clark wrote of “logos being the entirety, like a full-sized sword; and rhema, a small portion” in “What Do You Think About Preaching?”, available from: http://emergent.typepad.com/jasonclark/2005/03/what_do_you_thi.html [Accessed 4 May 2005].

[6]  For a critique of this popular view, see Anthony D. Palma, “Word…Word,” Advance, May 1977, p. 27.  Palma alerted me to the distinction between rhema and logos in this article from this  Assemblies of God (USA) magazine, Advance.  Much of the following information is based on Palma’s article.

[7]  Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version 2001, Crossway Bibles, Wheaton, Illinois.

[8]  Paul Yonggi Cho 1979, The Fourth Dimension: The Key to Putting Your Faith to Work for a Successful Life, Logos, Plainfield, NJ, pp. 41, 44, 81,91, 97-100.  For an assessment of Cho’s theology of the Holy Spirit, see Simon K.H. Chan 2004, “The Pneumatology of Paul Yonggi Cho,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies (7:1), pp. 79-99, available from: http://www.apts.edu/ajps/04-1/04-1-SimonChan.pdf [Accessed 4 May 2005].

[9]  Palma, p. 27.

[10]  Please note that these are literal translations from the Septuagint and are not following modern English translations of Jeremiah1:1-2, such as the ESV.

[11]  Palma, p. 27.

[12]  For example, Jay P. Green, Sr. 1976, The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament, Associated Publishers & Authors, Wilmington, Delaware, p. 4483.

[13]  Palma, p. 27.
[14]  David Watson 1982, Called & Committed: World-Changing Discipleship, Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois, pp. 110-112.

[15]  Watson, p. 111.[16]  Palma, p. 27.
[17]  Cited in “Paula White,” available from: http://www.myfortress.org/paulawhite.html [4 May 2004].
[18]  Watson, p. 112.

[19]  Paula White, Forgotten Word Ministries, available from: http://www.forgottenword.org/white.html [12 January 2007].

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 16 November 2018.

Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9

 

Should God heal all Christians who pray for healing?

Jesus calming the storm

(Jesus calming the storm, courtesy allthingsclipart)

 

By Spencer D Gear

Is it the will of God to always heal people when we pray for them?

A Christian friend wrote to me asking for recommendations concerning  a situation in which he was asked to pray for healing for a sick person. My friend was impressed in his heart that instead of praying for healing, that he should trust the Lord for what God was doing through the sickness. When this information was revealed to the person who asked for prayer for healing, my friend was accused of this giving an ‘almost heretical response’. Why? It was because my friend had an inner impression that God had a bigger issue in the sick person’s life than physical healing.

There are dangers with ‘impressions’ because they are subjective and I find it difficult to discern if my friend is hearing from God or if this is a personal view. We know that God gives the gifts of the Spirit that require ‘some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching’ (1 Cor. 14:6 ESV). The safety of the church gathering that enables discernment of the manifestation of gifts is much more suitable than to receive a private impression. However, we do read in passages such as First Chronicles 14:10, 14 where ‘David inquired of God’ (ESV) and received the answer that he should go against the Philistines and God would give them into his hands. On another occasion (1 Chron. 14:14), God’s answer from David’s inquiry was that he was not to attack the Philistines.

Does the Bible teach that during the ministry of Jesus there was no person who wasn’t healed by Jesus? Let’s examine the Scriptures with a few examples, but they are enough to cause us to question the ‘almost heretical’ statement that a person does not believe that God always heals.

A few fundamentals are happening with the ‘almost heretical’ statement that are very different from when Jesus walked this earth and contrary to what we should expect from God when we ask for physical healing.

  • The Scriptures do say on occasions that Jesus did heal all who came to him in verses such as Matt. 8:16; 12:15; and Luke 6:19. But there’s another dimension.
  • On other occasions Jesus healed, not all, but “many” who came to him. See Mark 1:34; 3:10; 6:13.
  • BUT, there were circumstances in which Jesus did not heal people. I’m thinking of Mark 6:4-6:

‘Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.” He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their lack of faith’ (NIV).

  • What about the events like that at the Pool of Bethesda according to John 5:1-9? Verse 3 says that at that pool ‘lay a multitude of invalids-blind, lame and paralyzed’ (ESV) but only one invalid who had been at that Pool for 38 year was healed. The facts are that Jesus did not heal all who were sick in Israel at the time of his life and he didn’t even heal all invalids at the Pool of Bethesda. It is false information to say that Jesus healed all. He clearly didn’t.

People may ask why Jesus didn’t heal all. My understanding is that healings are pointers/signs to God’s greater healing of the human soul through salvation and God’s ultimate healing of the universe that will happen with a new heaven and a new earth at the end of time.

However, I do need to say that I accept the gifts of the Spirit are available for today’s Christians and one of the gifts is the gift of healing (1 Cor. 12:28-29).  We must not overlook the biblical fact that God’s gifts to Christians function according to the “measure of faith” that God has given to believers:

‘For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you’ (Rom. 12:3 NIV).

According to James 5:14-15, the ministry of healing is available through the local church (and it is sadly neglected in most churches) in the anointing of oil by the elders of the church:

‘Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven’ (NIV).

Again, the emphasis is on “the prayer offered in faith” will cause the sick person to be raised up by the Lord.

I do not find any indications that Jesus healed all people. Nor do I find examples in the New Testament where all people were healed whenever there was a prayer for healing. I do find this in James 4:2b-3:

‘You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures’ (NIV).

There are many reasons why we do not receive physical healing when we pray and when others pray for us. The major reason is that God is sovereign and we are puny, fallible human beings who can have the wrong motives.

There is also the further biblical truth that most Christians find hard to bear as stated in James 1:2-4:

‘Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing’ (NASB).

God has a greater plan for our lives than physical healing. The trials of our lives are meant to be considered with an attitude of ‘all joy’ by the Christian because God knows what trials are instrumental in achieving. Difficulties in our lives are are designed for the testing of faith to produce endurance of the faith so that we will be “perfect and complete, lacking nothing” when we face Jesus. This is a hard dose to take for many Christians.

May I say personally that I would not have reached this point of growth in my Christian life if it were not for the many trials of sickness that God has put me through. This has included 3 bouts of rheumatic fever when I was a child, aged 6, 10 and 12, that left me with leaking mitral and aortic valves in my heart. This has resulted in five (5) open heart surgeries in my adulthood to replace (4 times) the valve with4 mechanical ones and one surgery was for a repair around the valve. The last surgery in 2013 was to replace both mitral and aortic valves.

As an adult, I have prayed on all five occasions for healing and the church has prayed for my healing, so that I would avoid the surgeries, but God has not chosen to heal me. God has a greater purpose in my life and that is Christian maturity and endurance in my faith.

My wife, Desley, has a debilitating physical disease, polycythemia rubra vera, that has the possibility of becoming leukemia. I am amazed at her godliness and trust in the Lord through severe headaches and lack of energy on a daily basis, and her venesections from time to time to drain blood from her.

It is not biblical to demand that God heal others or oneself when you and others pray. Jesus did not do it and there is ample evidence for God’s greater plan of development in Christian maturity.

May I also add, that the demand for God to heal all people, can come with a diminished view of what life in the presence of God is all about. For believers, to have a desire to continue to live in this present evil world has some irony about it. Why is not living in the presence of God at death, and living for Him through trials in this life, not the way God plans it for all believers?

See these related articles:

Turning trash into treasure (James 1:2-4). This is based on a sermon I preached.

“Were miracles meant to be temporary?” (Jack Deere)

St. Augustine: The man who dared to change his mind about divine healing (Spencer Gear)

Are there apostles in the 21st century? (Spencer Gear)

Are miracles valuable? (Spencer Gear)

’Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer’ (Romans 12:12 NIV).

 

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 11 October 2015.

Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9

Baptism of the Holy Spirit: When does it happen?

clip_image002

By Spencer D Gear

There is continuing controversy over the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The classic Pentecostal teaching is that the initial physical evidence is speaking in tongues. As examples of this emphasis, here are some statements from various Pentecostal denominations:

  • “WE BELIEVE in the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as promised to all believers” (Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa).
  • “The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance” (Assemblies of God USA).
  • “We believe that those who experience Holy Spirit baptism today will experience it in the same manner that believers experienced it in the early church; in other words, we believe that they will speak in tongues—languages that are not known to them (Acts 1: 5, 8; 2:4)“ (International Church of the Foursquare Gospel).

Other evangelicals disagree, saying that it happens at salvation. Examples of these would be:

  • Calvary Baptist Church, Simi Valley, California, an independent Baptist church, believes: “The baptism of the Holy Spirit [is] at salvation, making each believer a priest”.
  • Larry Wood attends a house church in Florida and he believes that “in order to get home to Heaven after a person dies, the person must have believed in Jesus Christ and received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit at Salvation”.
  • Southern Baptist, Jimmy Draper, published this statement in Baptist Press, on the subject: “Doctrine: Baptism by the Holy Spirit”: “This means that you don’t get a piece of Spirit baptism when you get saved and then more later. God does not baptize on an installment plan. All of the Holy Spirit you are ever going to get as a believer you got when Jesus baptized you by means of the Holy Spirit into His body at your salvation. The question is not, “How much of the Holy Spirit do you have?” Instead, you should be asking, “How much of me does the Holy Spirit have?”
  • John MacArthur, eminent Bible teacher of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California, stated in, “Is Spirit baptism a one-time event?”:

Despite the claims of many, the apostles’ and early disciples’ experience is not the norm for believers today. They were given unique enabling of the Holy Spirit for their special duties. They also received the general and common baptism with the Holy Spirit in an uncommon way, subsequent to conversion. All believers since the church began are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18) and to walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Yet these early apostles and believers were told to wait, showing the change that came in the church age. They were in the transitional period associated with the birth of the church. In the present age, baptism by Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit takes place for all believers at conversion. At that moment, every believer is placed into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). At that point the Spirit also takes up His permanent residency in the converted person’s soul, so there is no such thing as a Christian who does not yet have the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; cf. 1 Cor. 6:19–20).

The baptism with the Holy Spirit is not a special privilege for some believers, nor are believers challenged and exhorted in Scripture to seek it. It is not even their responsibility to prepare for it by praying, pleading, tarrying, or any other means. The passive voice of the verb translated be baptized indicates the baptism by Jesus Christ with the Spirit is entirely a divine activity. It comes, like salvation itself, through grace, not human effort. Titus 3:5–6 says, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.” God sovereignly pours out the Holy Spirit on those He saves.

Others contend that it happens after salvation but there is no necessity of speaking in other tongues.

Now there are some, as we have seen, who say that there is really no difficulty about this at all. They say it is simply a reference to regeneration and nothing else. It is what happens to people when they are regenerated and incorporated into Christ, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 12:13: “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” … Therefore, they say, this baptism of the Holy Spirit is simply regeneration.

But for myself, I simply cannot accept that explanation, and this is where we come directly to grips with the difficulty. I cannot accept that because if I were to believe that, I should have to believe that the disciples and the apostles were not regenerate until the Day of Pentecost—a supposition which seems to me to be quite untenable. In the same way, of course, you would have to say that not a single Old Testament saint had eternal life or was a child of God….

This is an experience, as I understand the teaching, which is the birthright of every Christian. “For the promise,’ says the apostle Peter, ‘is unto you’ — and not only unto you but — ‘to your children, and to all that are afar off (Acts 2:39. It is not confined just to these people on the Day of Pentecost, but is offered to and promised to all Christian people. And in its essence it means that we are conscious of the incoming, as it were, of the Spirit of God and are given a sense of the glory of God and the reality of His being, the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we love him. That is why these New Testament writers can say a thing like this about the Christians: ‘Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory’….

A definition, therefore, which I would put to your consideration is something like this: The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the initial experience of glory and the reality and the love of the Father and of the Son. Yes, you may have many further experiences of that, but the first experience, I would suggest, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The saintly John Fletcher of Madley put it like this: ‘Every Christian should have his Pentecost.”

So for Lloyd-Jones, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was an experience after salvation. He explained further:

The baptism of the Holy Spirit, then, is the difference between believing these things, accepting the teaching, exercising faith—that is something that we all know, and without the Holy Spirit we cannot even do that, as we have seen—and having a consciousness and experience of these truths in a striking and signal manner. The first experience of that, I am suggesting, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or the Holly Spirit falling on you, or receiving the Spirit.  It is this remarkable and unusual experience which is described so frequently in the book of Acts and which, as we see clearly from the epistles, must have been the possession of the members of the early Christian Church.

Lloyd-Jones does not emphasise speaking in tongues as the initial physical evidence of this baptism in the Spirit. He stated in 1977:

“The trouble with the charismatic movement is that there is virtually no talk at all of the Spirit ‘coming down’. It is more something they do or receive: they talk now about ‘renewal’ not revival. The tendency of the modern movement is to lead people to seek experiences. True revivals humble men before God and emphasize the person of Christ. If all the talk is about experiences and gifts it does not conform to the classic instances of revival”.

Another who believed that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was after salvation was Andrew Murray who had 60 years of ministry in the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa. He put it this way in his sermon, “Baptism of the Spirit”:

What we see in Jesus teaches us what the baptism of the Spirit is. It is not. that grace by which we turn to God, become regenerate, and seek to live as God’s children. When Jesus reminded His disciples (Acts 1:4) of John’s prophecy, they were already partakers of this grace. Their baptism with the Spirit meant something more. It was to be to them the conscious presence of their glorified Lord, come back from heaven to dwell in their hearts, their participation in the power of His new Life. It was to them a baptism of joy and power in their living fellowship with Jesus on the Throne of Glory. All that they were further to receive of wisdom, and courage, and holiness, had its root in this: what the Spirit had been to Jesus, when He was baptized, as the living bond with the Father’s Power and Presence, He was to be to them: through Him, the Son was to manifest Himself, and Father and Son were to make their abode with them.

‘Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.’ This word comes to us as well as to John. To know what the baptism of the Spirit means, how and from whom we are to receive it we must see the One upon whom the Spirit descended and abode. We must see Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost. We must try to understand how He needed it, how He was prepared for it, how He yielded to it, how in its power He died His death, and was raised again. What Jesus has to give us, He first received and personally appropriated for Himself ; what He received and won for Himself is all for us: He will make it our very own. Upon whom we see the Spirit abiding, He baptizeth with the Spirit.

On Christian Forums, not4you2know posted:

My problem with tongues is that so many followers of Christ have not experienced it. If it was the natural outcome of saving faith then every altar call and every confession of faith would be followed by speaking in tongues. Yet there are millions of believers who have never done this; are we then to assume that their faith is not genuine? (#167)

I (ozspen, #172) responded:

For me this problem is overcome if the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not linked with the second blessing of tongues. I do not agree that the second blessing doctrine is scriptural. See my exposition HERE.

When this second blessing doctrine is excluded, it then enables us to see all of the gifts as from God (I Cor. 12-14) and that God gives gifts according to His sovereignty. The biblical language is that the ‘varieties of gifts… varieties of service … varieties of activities’ (1 Cor. 12:4) are given with this proviso:

“All these [gifts] are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills “(1 Cor. 12:11 ESV).

This means that ALL of God’s people have gifts that have been given by the sovereign Spirit, according to the Spirit’s will.

We say, thank you, Lord for the gift(s) that you have given the body and me!

This is my understanding of the giving of gifts and there is no second blessing of the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues.

JEBrady (#174) responded to my post:

One thing that nettles me about your stance (and I did read your link) is, how does a person know if they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and how does anyone else know if someone has been baptized in the Holy Spirit?

The scripture says not one of the Samaritans had been, but they obviously had become believers, otherwise the brothers ministering to them would not have baptized them. And if they had the Holy Spirit, why did they call for Peter and John? Same thing in Acts 19. I mean, Paul had to ask them if they got the Holy Spirit.
Thoughts?

I replied (ozspen #175):

There is not agreement in theology of the meaning of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. See these three examples.

“What is the baptism in the Holy Spirit?”

“Baptism in the Holy Spirit. What is it?”

“What is the baptism of the Holy Spirit? How does a person receive it?”

I am more persuaded to believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit happens at salvation, based on 1 Cor. 12: 13, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (ESV).

However, there may be a time subsequent to salvation when we receive a special “touch” from the Holy Spirit, but I would not describe this as a baptism in/with the Holy Spirit.

I am satisfied with the conclusion of the second article above that reads:

Baptism in the Holy Spirit – What Does It Mean To You?
To summarize, baptism in the Holy Spirit does two things. First, it identifies us spiritually with the death and resurrection of Christ, uniting us with Him. Second, baptism in the Holy Spirit joins us to the body of Christ, and identifies us as united with other believers. Practically, baptism in the Holy Spirit means we are risen with Him to newness of life (Romans 6:4), and that we should exercise our spiritual gifts to keep the body of Christ functioning properly as stated in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Experiencing baptism in the Holy Spirit serves as an exhortation to keep unity of the church (Ephesians 4:5). Being identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection-through baptism in the Holy Spirit-establishes the basis for realizing our separation from the power of indwelling sin and our walk in newness of life (Romans 6:1-10, Colossians 2:12).

“You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ” (Romans 8:9).

Your language seems to indicate that you expect people to experience something so that you know they have been baptised in the Holy Spirit (after salvation) when you state,  “How does a person know if they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and how does anyone else know if someone has been baptized in the Holy Spirit?”

This is how I thought as a classic Pentecostal, but there is no need to think like that when I accept that the baptism of the Holy Spirit it received at salvation. The only evidence should be a changed life and desire to fellowship with the people of God.

See my article, “Tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit”.

 

Copyright (c) 2012 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at Date: 11 October 2015.

 

I Corinthians 14:29, “weigh carefully” [1]

scales by scott_kirkwood
(courtesy Scott Kirkwood, openclipart)

By Spencer D Gear

It seems that we run into problems with confusion and disorder in the church because we do not take seriously (in practice in the gathering of the ekklesia) some of what Paul exhorted in I Corinthians 14. Some of these issues are (NIV):

“Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church” (14:12);

a. “In the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue” (14:19);

b. “Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said” (14:29);

c. “God is not a God of disorder but of peach” (14:33);

d. “Be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues” (14:39);

e. “But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (14:30);

I have observed a number of concerns about the exercise of these spiritual gifts, but two need especial attention in the contemporary church:

1. When prophets prophesy, their messages need to be “weighed carefully.” I have yet to see this done (that doesn’t mean it is not done in some churches). Of this statement about weighing carefully, Gordon D. Fee (1987:693-694) notes that this verb is the same as for “distinguishing between spirits” in 1 Cor. 12:10.

“This is probably to be understood as a form of ‘testing the spirits,’ but not so much in the sense of whether ‘the prophet’ is speaking by a foreign spirit but whether the prophecy itself truly conforms to the Spirit of God, who is also indwelling the other believers. Other than in 12:3, no criterion is here given as to what goes into the ‘discerning’ process, although in Rom. 12:6, we are told that prophecies are to be ‘according to the analogy of faith,’ which probably means ‘that which is compatible with their believing in Christ.’ Nor is there any suggestion as to how it proceeds, but must always be the province of the corporate body, who in the Spirit were to determine the sense or perhaps viability of what had been said”.

I am convinced we are fostering disorder and confusion in the gatherings of believers when we don’t have a procedure for weighing carefully what is said, through the Spirit; and

2. Failing to prevent everything being “done in a fitting and orderly way” (14:39 NIV).

With respect, we are seeing chaos and unacceptable practices in our churches because we do not take these two points seriously.

My son, Paul, wrote an assignment, “The gift of tongues in I Corinthians,” for one of his courses at the Bible College of Queensland (Brisbane)[2] in which he included the following exposition. With his permission, here is a section of his paper, as it deals with some of the topic that we are discussing.

A. Gifts and Intelligibility (14:1-25)

In chapter 14, Paul’s argument takes on its most practical and concrete form. Here he focuses on the distinction between tongues and prophecy and their application to the Corinthian situation. His purpose is to apply the teaching about the goal (the common good) and foundation (love) of spiritual gifts to the practice of tongues in congregational worship at Corinth.

Firstly the apostle Paul deals with the reason tongues are a problem in this setting: intelligibility. He explains this by using a series of contrasts between the gifts of prophecy and tongues (14.2-4):

1. Tongues are directed to God, but prophecy is directed to men.

2. Tongues are not understood by anyone, but prophecy is.

3. The content of tongues is ‘mysteries in the Spirit’, whereas the content of prophecy is ‘upbuilding and encouragement and consolation’.

4. Tongues edify the speaker, but prophecy edifies the congregation.

Paul would rather people prophesy than speak in tongues; prophecy is greater than tongues in that it enables the church to be edified. However, interpreted tongues can function in the same way as prophecy. (14.5)

Paul goes on to explain his intelligibility concern with two examples: musical instruments, and battle horns. In both of them, there is no value if the results are not intelligible (14.6-8). The examples are then applied to the Corinthians: if they ‘in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said?’ There will be no benefit to the hearers (14.9-11). Again, he appeals to the Corinthians that, since they are ‘eager for manifestations of the Spirit’, they should show their genuine spirituality by seeking the edification of the congregation (14.12).

The practical outcome of this argument is that anyone ‘who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret’ (14.13). For those who pray in tongues, prayer in an understandable language is also necessary, so that outsiders can understand (14.13-17). Paul notes that he speaks in tongues also (and is thankful for it), but he is far more concerned about intelligibility in the congregation than his own benefit (14.18-19).

Following this, Paul presents another reason for seeking intelligibility: unbelievers who may be present. In their uninterpreted form, tongues can only result in judgement on unbelievers (as they did in Isaiah). If unbelievers are to be benefited (hopefully to the extent of salvation), then it will be through intelligible discourse.

B. Gifts and Order (14.26-40)

In this passage Paul sums up the changes he wants the Corinthians to make in their practice of tongues and prophecy and offers some concluding statements.

Paul’s opening statements indicate his expectations of what should happen when the church comes together: there should be a variety of manifestations brought by various members of the congregation for the purpose of mutual edification (14.26). These manifestations must be conducted in an orderly fashion, regardless of their type or origin (14.27-32). In the text as it stands in most versions, injunctions of restraint on women come under the same category as these other instructions (14.34-35). This is God’s will for the exercise of the gifts because that is his nature (14.33a).

With these instructions, Paul becomes firmer. He criticises them for thinking that they can go their own way without heed to the practice of the other churches (14.33b) or Paul’s instruction to them as an apostle. His word is binding on the churches and the Corinthians can expect there to be consequences if they do not recognise this (14.37-38).

Paul’s final statement on the matter needs no summary: ‘[E]arnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order.’

C. Synthesis

1. Spiritual Gifts

Much of Paul’s argument regarding tongues and prophecy is spent with building up an overall framework of spiritual gifts. Thus it is important to outline this framework before moving on to tongues specifically.

a. Spiritual Gifts Are Spiritual

For Paul, all spiritual gifts are spiritual (pneumatikos). While this may seem to be stating the obvious, Paul belaboured the point that the gifts come from the Spirit. The Spirit is mentioned as the source of the gifts eight times in 1 Corinthians 12.4-11. All spiritual gifts are seen as manifestations of the Spirit (12.7). There is no notion of ‘miraculous’ and ‘non-miraculous’ gifts in these chapters per se.

b. Spiritual Gifts Are One in Purpose and Nature

A clear unifying purpose for gifts emerges from the pages of 1 Corinthians, which is that gifts are given by God for the benefit of the Church. This is first introduced with what can be termed the ‘prime directive’ for spiritual gifts: ‘To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good’ (12.7).

This purpose is further reinforced by setting the context for spiritual gifts in the community of Christ (12.1?3), by application of the body metaphor with its emphasis on the necessity of all the parts (12.21-24a), by emphasising love’s focus on the good of others (13.4?7), and by focussing on the benefits that tongues and prophecy can bring to others (14.5-6, 12, 16-17, 26b, 31).

In this respect it must be argued that those who maintain a pre-parousia cessation of spiritual gifts have missed a crucial emphasis in Paul’s argument. Chapter 14 cannot be viewed without the context of chapter 12. Seeing miraculous gifts as a means of authenticating Christ and the apostles and their message (which is surely correct) must not be allowed to outweigh the clearly stated purpose of gifts in the context of 1 Corinthians.

c. Spiritual Gifts Are Many and Varied

Scholars are generally agreed that none of the lists of gifts encountered in the New Testament are exhaustive (given that they are all different), and many would say that neither is the sum total of the lists.

Paul’s consistent emphasis on diversity in the body (12.14, 19, 29-30), and his use of “diaireseis” to qualify gifts (12.4-6) and “gene” to qualify tongues in particular (12.10, 28; cf. 14.10) shows that he expected diversity in the function of gifts.

d. God Is the Sovereign Giver of the Gifts

At various points in Paul’s argument, he reminds the Corinthians that God is the one who gives spiritual gifts, and that he is responsible for their distribution. This is evident in the sections which deal with the Spirit-inspired nature of the gifts (12.3-11), as well as those which portray God as the divine arranger of the body (12.18, 24b, 28).

For Paul, there was no apparent conflict between the notion of divine sovereignty in the distribution of gifts and the instruction for the Corinthians to ‘earnestly desire’ certain gifts (12.31a; 14.1, 12-13), or for him to wish that all of them could speak in tongues and prophesy (14.5, 18).

End of the section from my son, Paul Gear’s, paper.

clip_image002

What Paul, the apostle, said to the Thessalonians has especial relevance for us in this discussion: “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil” ( I Thess. 5:19-22).

I believe these Thessalonian verses provide keys to openness to the Holy Spirit’s ministry through the gifts today, but with order established and confusion eliminated by “testing everything.” This will cause us to retain what is good and edifying in the Spirit’s ministry among us and to eliminate confusion and evil among us.

I hope that this contributes to this discussion.

clip_image002[1]

D. Appendix I

The following is a discussion I had with Edda on Trinity Theological Seminary Forum to which I used to contribute when a student there for a brief time. I no longer have access to that forum. I wrote:

Edda,[3]

I was asking if any other students have attended churches where the “testing of everything” was taken seriously and any particular format was used in the gathering.

As a starter, let me suggest what I think would keep every preacher on his/her toes and be consistent with the biblical revelation:

At the conclusion of the message (preaching or other manifestations of gifts of the Spirit), ask the preacher or person giving the “message” to be open to the congregation and provide an opportunity for free-flowing “testing” according to the Word of God.

The Word is the standard. This will encourage both preacher and listener to be conversant with the Word of God. All feedback and interaction must be done with love, grace and mercy. However, if any “message” is contrary to the Word, it needs to be corrected there and then.

I have not met any preachers or those providing other manifestations of the Spirit, who have submitted to such in 40 years as a believer.

I consider this to be appropriate biblically according to I Thess. 5:19-21 and I Cor. 14:29-33. What do you and other students and preachers think? Is it a biblical requirement? If so, how can it become a practical reality?

If you are interested in viewing my son, Paul’s, paper, it is on his homepage as, “The Gift of Tongues in I Corinthians“.

Works consulted:

Fee, G D 1987. The first epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Notes:

[1] My son, Paul Gear, has helped with a major part of the content of this article. He has an earned MDiv.

[2] It is now known as Brisbane School of Theology.

[3] This message was from the T-DELTA Forum [http://go.CompuServe.com/Trinity], on CompuServe [http://www.CompuServe.com] CompuServe Forum Messaging is intended for private use only. © Copyright CompuServe Interactive Services, Inc., 2002 . The topic was, “Order or Confusion” msg #61498, 6 April 2002. I went under the name of OzSpen. However, it is not available to the general public, but only for Trinity students.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 4 May 2018.

The gift of prophecy as non-binding revelation

White Dove on Gold

(courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not unusual to hear some cessationist, evangelical Christians who are opposed to continuing revelatory charismatic gifts for Christians today, making cessationist[1] comments that cannot be aligned with Scripture. They think that all such revelation ceased with the apostles and the completion of the New Testament Scriptures. I encountered two of these:

  1. Pastor Paul Cornford (2008) of North Pine Presbyterian Church (Petrie, Brisbane, Qld) supplied me with his article. He begins his exposition by raising the issue of ‘the meteoric rise of modern pentecostalism and its claim to ongoing revelation’. Rightly he points to the challenge that this view puts to traditional churches, especially those of the cessationist persuasion. His view is that God spoke through these means in the Old Testament, but not since the conclusion of the New Testament. See my online response to him in, “Does the superiority of New Testament revelation exclude the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit? Is cessationism biblical?“
  2. On Christian Fellowship Forum, I encountered Chris whose view is that

in the matter of the nature of religious authority you have completely departed from the reformation and returned to the Catholic view here. That is, God still gives new doctrine or revelation of content by men today, just as He did in the past.[2]

My response was that this statement showed how he was committed to tradition before biblical revelation.[3]  I provided him with biblical evidence for the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit from I Cor. 14 and he had the audacity to state that I have departed from Reformation thinking and returned to a Catholic view.  That is an audacious and false representation.  I am committed to a biblical view of the continuation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and that includes the gift of “revelation” through the gift of prophecy. He stated:

Your only difference is to see which claim of this being so, that of the pope or tradition on one hand or the new prophets and apostles on the other, we should be listening to.  But in the end the river has been crossed and it really makes little difference which new revelations of content one desires to find valid, for the same ‘logic’ supports them all.[4]

This is a nonsense statement.  Since when has Chris been the arbiter of deciding what should be cut out of the Bible of NT Christianity?  I am affirming nothing more or less than what contemporary, evangelical, Reformed theologian, Wayne Grudem, states:

“Spiritual gifts are given to equip the church to carry out its ministry until Christ returns.  Paul tells the Corinthians, ‘you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor. 1:7).  Here he connects the possession of spiritual gifts and their situation in the history of redemption (waiting for Christ’s return), suggesting that gifts are given to the church for the period between Christ’s return and says, ‘When the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away’ (1 Cor. 13:10), indicating also that these ‘imperfect’ gifts (mentioned in vv. 8-9) will be in operation until Christ returns, when they will be superseded by something far greater. . .  Paul reminds believes that in their use of spiritual gifts they are to ‘strive to excel in building up the church’ (1 Cor. 14:12)”(Grudem 1994:1018-1019). [5]

Concerning the gift of “revelation”, Grudem explains that it is

“a spontaneous ‘revelation’ made prophecy different from other gifts. If prophecy does not contain God’s very words, then what is it? In what sense is it from God?

Paul indicates that God could bring something spontaneously to mind so that the person prophesying would report it in his or her own words. Paul calls this a ‘revelation’: ‘If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged’ (1 Cor.14:30-31). Here he uses the word revelation in a broader sense than the technical way theologians have used it to speak of the words of Scripture—but the New Testament elsewhere uses the terms reveal and revelation in this broader sense of communication from God that does not result in written Scripture or words equal to written Scripture in authority (see Phil. 3:15; Rom. 1:18; Eph. 1:17; Matt. 11:27).

Paul is simply referring to something that God may suddenly bring to mind, or something that God may impress on someone’s consciousness in such a way that the person has a sense that it is from God. . . .

Thus, if a stranger comes in and all prophesy, ‘the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you’ (1 Cor. 14:25). I heard of a report of this happening in a clearly non-charismatic Baptist church in America. A missionary speaker paused in the middle of his message and said something like: ‘I didn’t plan to say this, but it seems the Lord is indicating that someone in this church has just walked out on his wife and family. If that is so, let me tell you that God wants you to return to them and learn to follow God’s pattern of family life.’ The missionary did not know it, but in the unlit balcony sat a man who had entered the church moments before for the first time in his life. The description fitted him exactly, and he made himself known, acknowledged his sin, and began to seek after God.

In this way, prophesy serves as a ‘sign’ for believers (1 Cor. 14:22)—it is a clear demonstration that God is definitely at work in their midst, a ‘sign’ of God’s hand of blessing on the congregation. And since it will work for the conversion of unbelievers as well, Paul encourages this gift to be used when ‘unbelievers or outsiders enter’ (1 cor. 14:23)” (Grudem 1994:1056-1057)

It is Chris’s kind of Reformed tradition that is out of step with biblical Christianity and he has the audacity to want to relegate my support of the full-range of the gifts of the Spirit to a Catholic position. If it is, so be it, as it supports the Scriptures. It is Chris’s cessationist view that has convoluted biblical Christianity.

I’m the first to admit that some crazy things happen in Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity, but these Pentecostal extremes and the Reformed cessationist position both are aberrations of biblical Christianity in my understanding of the texts. See my article, “Double faults and not aces: Margaret Court“, for an expose of charismatic false teaching.

Chris had the audacity to state:

Your total surrender here of the protestant principle of authority to that of Rome vindicates a comment I made often before, that the charismatic movement is a return to the old religion of experiences and relics and ongoing mystical revelations and works earning heaven. Now you may not want to say this is the case, being somewhat still embedded in the contrary view, but in effect surrender of the principle of authority to the idea OF ONGOING revelation/tradition and man’s decision of what is revelation or not has placed your view squarely in the ‘counter-reformation’ perspective.[6]

This kind of cessationist comment cannot be supported biblically.

I highly recommend Wayne Grudem’s book, The Gift of Prophecy (1988, 2000).

References

Cornford, P 2008. The superiority of New Testament revelation. North Pine Presbyterian Church, Petrie (Brisbane), Qld., Australia. Available at: http://www.northpinepresbyterianchurch.org/downloads/articles/ntRevelation.pdf (Accessed 30 December 2011).

Grudem, W 1988. The Gift of Prophecy. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications (also 2001. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books).

Grudem, W 1994, Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

White, R F 1992. Richard Gaffin and Wayne Grudem on 1 Cor 13:10: A comparison of cessationist and noncessationist argumentation. In the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June, 35/2, 173-181, available at: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/35/35-2/JETS_35-2_173-181_White.pdf (Accessed 11 January 2012).

Notes:

[1] Cessationism is ‘the belief that the gifts of the Spirit described in the NT have ceased to be part of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the church today’ (The Scholars Corner, available at: http://scholarscorner.com/Critical/Cessation (Accessed 10 January 2012).

[2] Christian Fellowship Forum; Chris goes under the name of lrschrs. I’m ozspen. Chris’s post is in Contentious Brethren, Truth by what authority, #616, 21 December 2007, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=116946.616&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship (Accessed 11 January 2012). I have corrected Chris’s typographical errors.

[3] My comments are as ozepen, #622, ibid.

[4] lrschrs, ibid., #616.

[5] For a discussion of the comparison between cessationist and continuationist views on the gifts of the Spirit, see White (1992).

[6] lrschrs, ibid., #616.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 15 October 2015.

designBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-sma

Whytehouse Graphics

What’s the difference between soul and spirit?

Soul ProsperBeloved, I wish above all things that you may prosper and be in health, even as your soul prospers. 3 John 1:2 (image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

When somebody starts a discussion about, “What is the difference between body, soul and spirit?”[1], it’s interesting to see the developments. This person on an Internet Christian forum stated:

Understanding the body is simple, it is the physical entity by which we are in contact with the physical world.

The next two are a little more difficult to explain and have caused a lot of confusion, but because of some of the posts I have seen on this forum and the importance of the spirit, and a number of scriptures that cannot be properly understood without a proper understanding of the spirit, I felt it expedient to share what I learned a number of years ago regarding the spirit and soul.

The Greek and Hebrew words which are translated into English as the world “soul” come from words which literally mean “breath” in both languages. On the other hand, the word translated spirit from the Hebrew comes from a word that means “wind”, while the Greek word translated “spirit” comes form a word that means “a current of air” and it is derived from a word that means to breath hard, thus the spirit is an exaggerated breath and the part of man that is moved to action: thus the breath is labored.

The soul is simply the contemplative part of man and thus the breath is not labored, as no action is used to increase the intensity of the breath.

In English we say “he/she has a troubled soul”, or, “he/she has a vibrant spirit” and these are both very good analogizes of the soul and the spirit and how to distinguish between the two.[2]

I responded:

  • The words “soul” and “spirit” can be used interchangeably.

In John 12:27, Jesus said, “Now is my soul (psuche) troubled”, while in a similar context in the next chapter he said, “Jesus was troubled in his spirit (pneuma) [John 13:21]” This hardly means that Jesus’ “life force” (breath) was troubled.

  • At death, the “soul” or “spirit” departs.

When Rachel died, the Bible records: “Her soul (nephesh) was departing [she had died]” (Gen. 35:18), but Eccl. 12:7 records that at death, “the spirit (ruach) returns to God who gave it.” This hardly means that one’s “life force” was returning to God.

  • A human being is said to consist of either “body and soul” or “body and spirit.”

In Matt. 10: 28, we read, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul (psuche). Rather fear him who can destroy both soul (psuche) and body in hell” (ESV). It seems clear from this verse that “soul” refers to the part of the person that lives beyond death. If the “soul” was only a “life force”, it could be killed. That’s not what Jesus said. His authoritative view was that the “soul” cannot be killed. It cannot die.

But when Paul wants to deliver an erring brother over to Satan, he said that it was “for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit (pneuma) may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5).

Therefore, in both OT and NT, “soul” and “spirit” can be used interchangeably.

So, what does “spirit” mean when applied to a human being, in the light of the above scriptural explanation? Most people, Christian and non-Christian, believe that there is an immaterial part to human beings, a soul / spirit that will live on when the “breath” or “life force” has left the body.

There are occasions in the Bible when “spirit” is used to refer to the breath of animals or human beings, but the above verses show that spirit / soul refers to the immaterial part of the human unity (body and soul/spirit) that goes to be with Christ and cannot be killed.

This soul can sin. This is implied from verses such as 1 Peter 1:22,

“Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart” (ESV).

Surely this does not refer to breath or life force!

Let’s get no more complicated than the simplicity of what the Bible states that the spirit/soul of a human being goes to God at death and it cannot be killed. Simply: the spirit/soul of a human being is the immaterial part of a person that survives death. [3]

Part of “2 know him’s” reply was:

Hey Oz, I see you are having trouble with my original post.
I know you have come to a conclusion that soul and spirit are the same, but I would like you to consider something written in Hebrews and try and understand what I am saying: before reposting.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit.

I have looked at your post and it seems you did not quite grasp what I was stating. When the spirit is troubled (normally through the soul: the intellect) you may or may not act, but it is the spirit that brings the action into effect and is the moving part of God and man. When the mind (soul) is engaged there is no movement to the body, as the soul is the intellectual part of a being.[4]

I’m calling on the help of Simon Kistemaker, an excellent exegete and commentator who affirms the authority of Scripture. In his commentary on the Book of Hebrews[5], he wrote of Hebrews 4:12c:

It penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart [NIV].

I do not think that the writer of Hebrews is teaching the doctrine that man consists of body, soul, and spirit (I Thess. 5:23). Of course, we can make a distinction between soul and spirit by saying that the soul relates to man’s physical existence; and the spirit, to God. But the author does not make distinctions in this verse. He speaks in terms of that which is not done and in a sense cannot be done.

Who is able to divide soul and spirit or joints and marrow? And what judge can know the thoughts and attitudes of the heart? The author uses symbolism to say that what man ordinarily does not divide, God’s Word separates thoroughly. Nothing remains untouched by Scripture, for it addresses every aspect of man’s life. The Word continues to divide the spiritual existence of man and even his physical being. All the recesses of body and soul—including the thoughts and attitudes—face the sharp edge of God’s dividing sword. Whereas man’s thoughts remain hidden from his neighbor’s probing eye, God’s Word uncovers them.

God’s Word is called a discerner of man’s thoughts and intentions. In the Psalter David says:

O LORD, you have searched me

And you know me.

You know when I sit and when I rise;

You perceive my thoughts from afar.

You discern my going out and my lying down;

You are familiar with all my ways. [Ps. 139:1-3]

And Jesus utters these words:

As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. [John 12:47-48]

The Lord with his Word exposes the motives hidden in a man’s heart. In his epistle the author stresses the act of God’s speaking to man. For instance, the introductory verses (Heb. 1;1-2) illustrate this fact clearly. And repeatedly, when quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, the writer uses this formula: God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit says (consult the many quotations, for example, in the first four chapters). The Word is not a written document of past centuries. It is alive and current; it is powerful and effective; and it is undivided and unchanged. Written in times and cultures from which we are far removed, the Word of God nevertheless touches man today. God addresses man in the totality of his existence, and man is unable to escape the impact of God’s Word.[6]

I have found this to be a much better summary of what this portion of Heb. 4:12c means as far as the meaning of “dividing soul and spirit” is concerned, than the one you have given. Soul and spirit cannot be divided, just as joints and marrow cannot be divided, and the thoughts and attitudes of the heart cannot be understood by human beings. But God’s Word separates thoroughly what human beings cannot separate.

This is a marvellous message. We cannot get away from the glaring penetration of God’s Word.

My son, Paul, has studied the Hebrew language of the Old Testament. I asked him for his understanding of nephesh. This is what he wrote:

The Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) Hebrew and English Lexicon provides the following information about the Hebrew word, nephesh:

Its base meaning is “soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, appetite, emotion, and passion”, giving the sub-meanings:

1. that which breathes, the breathing substance or being (= psuche, anima), the soul, the inner being of man (noting Deut 12.23 as a reference for this meaning);

2. a living being; by God’s breathing into the nostrils, Gn 2.7; by implication of animals also Gn 2.19;

3. a. A living being whose life resides in the blood (also noting Dt 12.23);

b. a serious attack upon the life is an attack upon this inner living being;

c. used for life itself, of animals and man;

4. as the essential of man, stands for the man himself

a. paraphrase for personal pronoun, esp. in poetry and ornate discourse;

b. reflexive (self);

c. person of man, individual;

5. seat of the appetites: hunger, thirst, appetite in general;

6. seat of emotions and passions: desire, sorrow and distress, joy, love, alienation, hatred, revenge, other emotions and feelings;

7. used occasionally for mental acts;

8. for acts of the will is dubious (Gn 23.8, 2Ki 9.15);

9. character is still more dubious (Hb 2.4).

I am convinced that soul and spirit are used biblically for the unseen portion of a human being.

  1. The Scripture refers to the soul (nephesh in Hebrew; psuche in Greek) as distinct from the body in passages such as Gen. 35:18, “And as her [Rachel’s] soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin” (ESV). So, the soul leaves the body at death.
  2. I Thess 5:23, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
  3. Revelation 6:9, “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.” So here the souls are separated from the bodies in heaven.

The word “soul” means “life” and refers to the principle of life in a human being. It gives life to the body and is sometimes used to refer to a dead body as in Lev. 19:28; 21:1; 23:4 as I might refer to my departed loved one as “the poor soul.”

Theologian Norman Geisler rightly states that “the primary meaning of soul can most often be captured best by translating it as person, which usually is embodied but is sometimes disembodied” (Systematic Theology, vol. 3, BethanyHouse Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2004, p. 47).

The word spirit (Greek, pneuma; Hebrew, ruach) almost always refers to the immaterial part of a human being and is sometimes used interchangeably with soul in many verses (cf. Luke 1:46). The body without the soul is dead (James 2:26) but at death, Jesus “bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30).

So your statement that “man does not have a ‘soul'” is patently false.

The word “soul” can mean “life” and refers to the principle of life in a human being. It gives life to the body and is sometimes used to refer to a dead body as in Lev. 19:28; 21:1; 23:4 as I might refer to my departed loved one as “the poor soul.”

So a statement that “man does not have a ‘soul'”, as the above exposition demonstrates, is false.

I have had Jehovah’s Witnesses say to me, “Man does not have a soul, but man is a soul”. The JWs who knock on our doors carry a book, Reasoning from the Scriptures[8]. I have a copy of this book as one JW who was in discussion with me left my home very suddenly when he did not like what I was saying and left this book behind. In this Q&A for Witnesses it gives this definition of “soul”:

In the Bible, “soul” is translated from the Hebrew ne’phesh and the Greek psykhe’.[9] Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys…. What does the Bible say that helps us to understand what the soul is? Gen. 2:7: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of the dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and man came to be a living soul.” (Notice that this does not say that man was given a soul but that he became a soul, a living person.[10]

Notes:

[1] It is in the “Christian Apologetics” directory of Christian Forums, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7616830/ (Accessed 24 December 2011). The original poster is ‘2 know him’. My responses are as OzSpen.

[2] Ibid., #1.

[3] Ibid., #2.

[4] Ibid., #3.

[5] 1984. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, pp. i-441, in William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews.

[6] Ibid., pp. 117-118.

[8] Reasoning from the Scriptures 1985. Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, International Bible Students’ Association.

[9] The Greek is generally better transliterated as psuche?. That’s what I learned when I took my first class in introductory Greek with Larry Hurtado at Regent College, Vancouver BC, Canada, in 1975.

[10] Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 375.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 6 February 2016.

clip_image001

Queensland government passed civil homosexual union Bill

Marriage cover photo

(image courtesy Salt Shakers)

By Spencer D Gear

Why did the Qld Labor government allow a private members’ bill that promoted a lifestyle that has these deleterious consequences?

  • Up to 50% higher cancer rate of the anus;
  • 47% increase in HIV diagnoses;
  • More behavioural problems among children up to 5 years old.
  • Multiple other health problems.

The Queensland State Parliament passed this Bill on 1st December 2011. See, “Queensland civil unions bill passes“. The vote was passed, 47-40.

Voting for Andrew Fraser’s gay civil unions’ Bill in Qld meant that it supported the statistics above – based on the research evidence. This is what I wrote to several Queensland State politicians in late 2011. Let’s look as some of the evidence:

1. The USA Center for Disease Control & Prevention’s Weekly Morbidity & Mortality Report was reported in CBS News, 26 June 2008, and it does not give favourable medical information to support Andrew Fraser’s promotion of the homosexual lifestyle that will come with the affirming of homosexual civil unions in Qld.

As far as health issues are concerned, this is some of the evidence. Part of the following report shows that men who have sex with men account for 46% of the increase in HIV diagnoses. Is this what you want to inflict on Queenslanders? Here is part of a CBS News report in the USA:

HIV diagnoses in the U.S. are on the rise among men who have sex with men, especially among males aged 13-24.
That news comes from the CDC, which tracked HIV/AIDS diagnoses reported by 33 states from 2001 to 2006.
During that time, those states had 214,379 HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Men who have sex with men account for almost half – 46 percent – of those diagnoses.[1]

2. A study in the Netherlands (2002) found that “HIV incidence is increasing among homosexual attendees of an STD clinic. It is imperative to trace recently infected individuals, because they are highly infectious, and can thus play a key role in the spread of HIV” (Dukers et al 2002:F19). In an examination of “trends in HIV notifications and in other measures of HIV incidence in homosexual men in developed countries”, it was found that “there were increases in HIV notifications in homosexual men in almost all developed countries, starting in the late 1990s and continuing to 2006” (Grulich & Kaldor 2008:113).[2]

There is further evidence to demonstrate the danger of Andrew Fraser’s legislation: The big increase in HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men.

3. Medical researchers have known for many years that the homosexual lifestyle is accompanied by significant health risks. On example, from a biological point of view, is that the woman’s vagina was designed for sexual penetration. The anus and rectum were not. A 1982 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals was considerably higher than for heterosexuals; in some cases it was up to 50 times higher than the rate for heterosexuals.[3] Many other more recent studies have confirmed this trend.[4] The New England Journal of Medicine (1997) showed the “strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact”.[5]

Why? The lining of the anus is very much thinner than the much thicker lining of the vagina. The anus tears readily and thus makes that region of the anatomy more vulnerable to viruses and bacteria when there is sexual penetration. The human body was not designed for anal penetration. But the politically correct speak of Andrew Fraser, with his promotion of homosexual unions, seems to be hiding these medical consequences for the sake of political correctness.

3. What about the impact on young children who don’t have a mother and father?   Mother and father are important for a child’s up-bringing. This Millennium Cohort Study: Centre for Longitudinal Studies in the UK found that

“children in stable, married families were said to have fewer externalising problems at age 5 than virtually all of those with different family histories. The most marked differences were seen for children born into cohabiting families where parents had separated, and to solo mothers who had not married the natural father. These children were three times more likely than those in stable, married families to exhibit behavioural problems, judging by mothers’ reports”.[6]

4. For further information on the significant medical consequences of the gay lifestyle, see: “On the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle”, available at: http://home60515.com/4.html (Accessed 7 November 2011).

It is politically correct philosophy to support homosexuality, in spite of its promotion of a lifestyle that is deleterious to the health of Queenslanders with his promotion of gay civil unions.

Notes:

[1] “Troubling trend in HIV/AIDS diagnoses”, CBS News, 28 June 2008. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/health/webmd/main4213629.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody (Accessed 7 November 2011).

[2] Grulich, Andrew E and Kaldor, John M.2008. “Trends in HIV incidence in homosexual men in developed countries”, Sexual Health (CSIRO Publishing), 2008, 5, pp. 113-118, available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.169.6206&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed 7 November 2011).

[3] Council on Scientific Affairs, “Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States,” Journal of the American Medical Association, May 1, 1996, p. 1355.

[4] See: M. Frisch, “On the etiology of anal squamous carcinoma,” Dan Med Bull, Aug. 2002, 49(3), pp. 194-209; M. Frisch and others, “Cancer in a population-based cohort of men and women in registered homosexual partnerships,” Am J Epidemiol, June 1, 2003, 157(11), pp. 966-72; D. Knight, “Health care screening for men who have sex with men,” Am Fam Physician, May 1, 2004, 69(9), pp. 2149-56; S. Goldstone, “Anal dysplasia in men who have sex with men,” AIDS Read, May-June 1999, 9(3), pp. 204-8 and 220; Reinhard Hopfl and others, “High prevalence of high risk human papillomavirus-capsid antibodies in human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive men: a serological study,” BMC Infect Dis, April 30, 2003, 3(1), p. 6; R.J. Biggar and M. Melbye, “Marital status in relation to Kaposi’s sarcoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and anal cancer in the pre-AIDS era,” J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol, Feb. 1, 1996, 11(2), pp. 178-82; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, “Age-related prevalence of anal cancer precursors in homosexual men: the EXPLORE study,” J Natl Cancer Inst, June 15, 2005, 97(12), pp. 896-905; R. Dunleavey, “The role of viruses and sexual transmission in anal cancer,” Nurs Times, March 1-7, 2005, 101(9), pp. 38-41; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, “Age-Specific prevalence of anal human papillomavirus infection in HIV-negative sexually active men who have sex with men: the EXPLORE study,” J Infect Dis, Dec. 15, 2004, 190(12), pp. 2070-6; J.R. Daling and others, “Human papillomavirus, smoking, and sexual practices in the etiology of anal cancer,” Cancer, July 15, 2004, 101(2), pp. 270-80; and A. Kreuter and others, “Screening and therapy of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) and anal carcinoma in patients with HIV-infection,” Dtsch Med Wochenschr, Sept. 19, 2003, 128(38), pp. 1957-62 (cited in note 1, “On the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle”, available at: http://home60515.com/4.html [Accessed 7 November 2011]).

[5] Cited in, “On the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle”, ibid.

[6] Kiernan, Kathleen & Mensah, Fiona n.d. Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London. Available at: http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/downloads/01_briefing_web%284%29.pdf (Accessed 7 November 2011). This research was conducted in the early 21st century, with the first survey of families and 19,000 children conducted in 2001-2002 (p. 1 of this report).

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 4 June 2016.

Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22

 

At Christmas do we celebrate the birth of God?

Sydney StAndrewCathedral.JPG

(St Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney. Courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

I’m an orthodox evangelical believer. I watched the Christmas Eve service 2011 which the Dean of the Cathedral, Phillip Jensen, led from St. Andrews Cathedral, Sydney, telecast on ABC1 TV in Australia. It was a magnificent Christ-centred service led by Phillip. I know that his church is a member of the evangelical Anglican diocese of Sydney and he has been  an orthodox stalwart in the midst of an Anglican church in Australia that has become theologically liberal in many states.

What is happening to the liberal Anglicans in Australia? See: “Anglican Synod 2004: Are liberal Anglicanism’s days numbered?“; “Church needs new vision, says Jensen[1]”; and “The Anglican Debacle: Roots and Patterns“.

The Sydney Anglicans news’ release about this event stated:

For the first time in many years, ABC Television is screening an evangelical service on Christmas Eve [2011]. St Andrew’s Cathedral has been chosen to host the annual carols telecast on ABC television at 6pm on the night before Christmas.

The National broadcast on ABC 1 will feature Dean Phillip Jensen and the Cathedral choir, along with guest musicians and orchestra. The Dean said “This broadcast provides a great opportunity to express the message of the birth of our Lord in a genuinely modern and Australian fashion”.[2]

However, one phrase caught my attention, and he said it several times in the telecast, as he spoke about Christmas celebrating “the birth of God”. Could this kind of language give the wrong impression? He has a brief article online that is titled, “Celebrate the Birth of God” (published 2 December 2005). In it he talks about Christmas as a time to “celebrate the coming of the Lord Jesus, who is God in the flesh” and “give thanks to God for the great privilege of celebrating the birth of our Mighty God in this way”.

He seems to be trying to communicate that Jesus is both God and man, but does the language, “the birth of God” have potential problems? These are my questions:

  1. Is it misleading to speak of the birth of God when God the Son has always existed and has had no birth?
  2. Could it be better to say that the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, became flesh (a man) and we celebrate His birth at Christmas time?
  3. Many do not understand how a virgin could conceive and give birth to the Son of God as flesh, without the insemination of a male. Does the language of “the birth of God” convey orthodox theology, or is it meant to get the attention of secular people who celebrate Christmas for materialistic and holiday reasons?

The prophecy of Christ’s birth in Isaiah 9:6  states,  “For to us a child is BORN, to us a son is GIVEN” (ESV). For this one event of the incarnation, there are two distinct matters.

(1) A CHILD is born – this is the human Jesus, and

(2) A SON is given. The Son was not born; Jesus the Son was GIVEN. He was from eternity.

I am not sure that he made this distinction as he should have. I consider that he should have made it clear about the humanity of Jesus (a child is born) and the deity of Jesus (the eternal Son is given). God was not born on the first Christmas Day. God the Son has always existed as God and he became a human being on that first Christmas Day but there was no “birth of God” as such.

Paul the apostle is very clear about this in Romans 1:3-4:

concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh  and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord (ESV),

The eternal generation of the son is orthodox doctrine. Or, is he moving away from the teaching on the eternal generation of the Son. See, “The Eternal Generation of the Son: A Biblical Perspective”. The Nicene Creed states in part:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

The Scriptures state that the child was born at the first Christmas, but the Son was given. The eternal Son of God was not born at the first Christmas. He was from eternity the Son.

What about Galatians 4:4?

A person on Christian Forums objected to my view, stating that I “ignore Gal. 4:4”.[3]

Gal. 4:4 reads: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law (ESV).

There is nothing here to state or insinuate that the incarnation was “the birth of God”. What does Gal. 4:4 mean? The late Herman Ridderbos, professor of NT at Kampen Theological Seminary, Kampen, The Netherlands, wrote:

The word translated sent forth [exapostellw] comprises two thoughts: the going forth of the Son from a place at which He was before; and His being invested with divine authority. By this the profound and glorious significance of Christ’s coming in the world is indicated. He was the Son of the Father, who stood by His Father’s side already before the sending (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 8:9, Phil. 2:6, and Col. 1:15). The Sonship designates not merely an official but also an ontological relationship (cf. Phil. 2:6). The words, born of a woman, do not refer to the beginning of his existence as Son, but as the child of a woman. The expression serves to suggest the weak, the human, the condescending. The woman was not only the medium of His coming into the flesh, but from her He took all that belongs to the human [hence ek , not dia]. She was in the full sense His mother. That Paul in these words is also reflecting on the virgin birth is, as we see it, highly doubtful. For, as is evident from the absence of the article in the Greek, Paul is not putting the emphasis on His being born of Mary. Besides, the expression elsewhere is used to designate the human and nothing besides (cf. Job 14:1 and Matt. 11:11)”.[4]

Ridderbos is affirming what I have stated that the child was born of a woman but was the Son of the Father God before Jesus was sent into the world, becoming a human baby.

J. B. Lightfoot agrees, stating that “sent forth … assumes the pre-existence of the Son” and “born of woman” means “taking upon Himself our human nature (cf. Job 14:1, Matt 11:11). These passages show that the expression must not be taken as referring to the miraculous incarnation”.[5]

R. C. H. Lenski explained:

“His Son—out of a woman” pointedly omit mention of a human father. Why? Because this is God’s Son who is co-eternal with the Father. He became man by way of “a woman” alone. Incomprehensible? Absolutely so! A miracle in the highest degree? Beyond question![6]

It is not Lenski’s view that this refers to the pre-existence of Jesus, but he does state that when Gal. 4:4 stated that God “commissioned forth his Son”, the vivid verb is associated with the preposition, ek[7], and not the usual preposition, apo. “This means that the Son went out on his commission not only ‘from’ God but ‘out from’ God. John says that he was ‘with’ (pros) God (John 1:1) and was God and that he became flesh (v. 14)”.[8] Lenski does believe in the eternal pre-existence of the Son, but he does not believe it is taught in Gal. 4:4. However, he does believe that this Scripture refers to the virgin birth:

“The Son of God” is the second person of the Godhead; he “became out of a woman” in executing his mission. This is the Incarnation, the miraculous conception, the virgin birth. God’s Son became man, the God-man.

The phrase that begins with ek denotes more than the separation from the womb, it includes the entire human nature of the Son as this was derived from his human mother. The word genomenon is exactly the proper word to express this thought, even the tense is very accurate. The Son’s going out from God on his mission is seen in his becoming man. He did not cease to be the Son of God when he became man. He did not drop his deity, which is an impossible thought. He remained what he was and added what he had not had, namely a human nature, derived out of a woman, a human mother. He became the God-man.[9]

I have been warned not to be another Nestorius

Since I see that Christmas celebrates the birth of the humanity of Jesus, the God-man, some have written to me warning that my view could sound like the false teaching of Nestorius. Most Christians would not know of Nestorius and his teaching.

The Nestorian controversy came to a head at the Council of Ephesus in 431. This Nestorian website gives a summary of the Christological controversies surrounding the teaching of Nestorius:

1. Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople in 428. He came from the Antioch school and was taught theology there by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He opposed a relatively new theological and devotional slogan Theotokos – affirming that Mary was the “God-bearer” or “Mother of God.” Nestorius was concerned with the thought that God might be seen to have had a new beginning of some kind, or that he suffered or died. None of these things could happen to the infinite God. Therefore, instead of a God-man, he taught that there was the Logos and the “man who was assumed.” He favored the term “Christ-bearer” (Christotokos) as a summary of Mary’s role, or perhaps that she should be called both “God-bearer” and “Man-bearer” to emphasize Christ’s dual natures. He was accused of teaching a double personality of Christ. Two natures, and two persons. He denied the charge, but the term Nestorianism has always been linked with such a teaching.

2. He was an adherent of the Antiochene “school” and he wished to emphasize a distinction between Christ as man and Christ as God.

a. He did not deny that Christ was God.

b. He said, however, that people should not call Mary thetokos, the “mother of God,” because she was only the mother of the human aspect of Christ.

c. Great opposition developed against Nestorius’ teaching and his opponents charged that he taught “two sons” and that he “divided the invisible.”

d. Nestorius denied the charge, but the term Nestorianism has always been linked with such a teaching.

e. The leader of the opposition to Nestorius was Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, a man who was one of the most ruthless and uncontrolled of the major early bishops.

The possible danger in my discussing the birth of the humanity of Jesus at Christmas, which is true, and rejecting anything to do with the birth of God (as the eternal God cannot be born), is that when I speak of the God-man Jesus, that I try to attribute some of Jesus’ actions to his humanity and some to his divinity. That is not what I’m saying or teaching, but I want to make it clear that God cannot be born, either as ‘Mary the mother of God’, or the celebration of ‘the birth of God’ (Phil Jensen) at Christmas.

Conclusion

The language that “God was born” at Christmas does not provide biblical warrant. God, the Son, the second person of the Trinity, has existed eternally. At that first Christmas, the Son obtained his humanity through being born to a virgin. This inaugurated the God-man nature of Jesus, but the Son never ceased being God from eternity. That the first Christmas celebrates the “birth of God” in Jesus, is false theologically. It was the “fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4) at which God the Son became the God-man.

I would like to understand why Phillip Jensen is defining the incarnation as meaning the “birth of God” in his Christmas Eve service, 24 December 2011, at St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney, and telecast on Australian ABC1 television. I have emailed him to get his views, with much of the information above. To date, I have not received a reply.

Appendix A

I had a further discussion on this topic with a person on Christian Fellowship Forum.[10] My engagement went like this:

Jesus did not always exist. The divine person who became Jesus always existed. Do we disagree?[11]

Jesus, the Son, who is also called “the Word”, always existed and continues to exist as God. We know this from…

John 1:1-2 states:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV).

But this same Word (Jesus) entered our humanity, although he is God and existed in the beginning with God, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14 ESV).

But it was the humanity of the eternal Son of the Father that began in Mary’s womb. The divine person of the Son always was, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Maybe we do agree after all. Were you just in a disagreeable mood when you wrote?[12]

I’m never in a disagreeable mood when I come on this forum, but I agree with the statement that you made in this quote, except the disagreeable stuff. Please remember that I wrote to you to state that Mary as the mother of God[13], was not a biblical doctrine.

Who was born? A person. Who was that person? The eternal Son of the Father. God. God was born.[14]

False! God cannot be born. That’s an oxymoron. God is from eternity and is always eternally God so there can be no “birth of God” or “God was born”.

What does that mean? That God had a physical biological body for the first time at His conception. That at His birth, God the eternal Son of the Father breathed air, got hungry, felt His own mother’s warmth, slept, and grew physically. Who was born? The eternal Son of the Father? Was He true God?[15]

At the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity, the Son, became the God-man. It was the virgin conception of the humanity of Jesus. It was NOT the birth of God.

<<Your statement implies that Mary was only the mother of the biological body of Jesus. >>

And that was what she was. She was NOT the mother of God – NOT the mother of divinity. Then you state:

She was the mother who enabled Jesus to become the God-man and NOT the mother of God.[16]

I agree with this statement, but Mary is the mother of the humanity of Jesus. I’m indeed pleased that you admit that the RCC doctrine of Mary being the mother of God is false as you state that Mary was “NOT the mother of God”.

The only orthodox teaching is that Jesus was, from the moment of conception, fully man and fully God. Now maybe you don’t believe that. But if you do, then the person born on the first Christmas day was God the Son, and Mary was the mother of God the Son. Who else would she be the mother of? A plain human person? Or a mere human nature devoid of personhood?[17]

I agree with and practise the orthodoxy you stated that Jesus was from the moment of conception, fully God and became fully man. He is the God-man. But that does not make Mary the mother of God. She was the mother of Jesus, the human being. I have never ever suggested that Jesus, the human being was devoid of personhood. That’s your invention against me.

You might not give a hoot about all that old stuff.[18]

That is rubbish! I spend a lot of time in studying historical theology. That’s why I’m having this discussion with you. If I didn’t give a hoot about the theology of the past, I would not have started this thread.

Here’s an instance where Calvin has it all over you. In agreement with Zwingli and Luther, he held that Mary was the mother of God. It’s in the Heidelberg Confession as well as the Augsburg Confession.[19]

Richard supporting the Reformers. The day of miracles is not over! You know that there are issues with Calvin that I have opposed on this Forum, but since some Reformers believed that Mary was the “mother of God”, I have to disagree on biblical grounds. She was the mother of the full personhood, the humanity of Jesus.

You need to think clearly and regain your heritage. I’m not trying to start a feud here, but I do think you have a knee-jerk opposition to the idea of Mary being the mother of God. It could be overcome with some calm consideration.[20]

This is your over-reaction. It is no knee-jerk reaction by me, but a considered post about the content of the God-man Christology.

We celebrate the birth of God, the incarnation, when God from before all ages became man and dwelt among us, Emanuel. We remember that God became a human being in time, with a real human mother, and that from His conception in Mary’s womb he was a unified being with both a human and a divine nature. No, we are not talking about the genesis of God, who has no beginning and has no end. Some people will never understand that, and I can’t help them.[21]

I agree with this statement.

Notes:

[1] This Jensen is Peter Jensen, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, and brother to Phillip Jensen.

[2] Russell Powell, 11 December 2011, “Cathedral Christmas screening on ABCTV, available at: http://sydneyanglicans.net/news/stories/cathedral-christmas-screening-on-abctv (Accessed 26 December 2011).

[3] Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘The birth of God’ (a thread I started at OzSpen), ebia #10, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7618703/ (Accessed 26 December 2011).

[4] Herman N. Ridderbos 1953. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (The New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., pp. 155-156.

[5] J. B. Lightfoot 1865 (Zondervan printing 1976). The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 168.

[6] R. C. H. Lenski 1937, 1961. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, p. 200.

[7] I have translated the Greek characters that Lenski used throughout these passages I have quoted from him.

[8] Lenski, p. 198.

[9] Ibid., p. 199.

[10] He was Richard, Christian Fellowship Forum, Contentious Brethren, “The Birth of God”, #7. My response, ozspen, is #12. available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=2&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=120946 (Accessed 27 December 2011).

[11] Richard.

[12] Ibid.

[13] I had written to Richard in #5 and stated:

Jesus was God from eternity. His humanity began when he was conceived in Mary’s womb. The God-man began at that conception, but Christmas being the birth of God contradicts the Nicene Creed.
As for Mary being the mother of God, I consider that is as erroneous as saying that Christmas celebrates the birth of God. Mary was the human mother of Jesus’ humanity. She was not the mother of divinity. She was the mother who enabled Jesus to become the God-man and NOT the mother of God.

[14] Richard #7.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

 

Copyright (c) 2012 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at Date: 13 October 2015.

clip_image001