Polytheism and philosophical absurdities By Jack Kettler
In this study, we will seek to understand polytheism. First, is it
biblical? Second, is it a coherent metaphysical philosophy? As in
previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, commentary
evidence and confessional support for the glorifying of God in how we
live.
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
Definitions from two sources:
Polytheism:
Polytheism is the belief that there are many gods. Breaking the word
down, “poly” comes from the Greek word for “many,” and “theism” from the
Greek word for “God.” Polytheism has perhaps been the dominant theistic
view in human history. The best-known example of polytheism in ancient
times is Greek/Roman mythology (Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Poseidon,
etc.). The clearest modern example of polytheism is Hinduism, which has
over 300 million gods. Although Hinduism is, in essence, pantheistic, it
does hold to beliefs in many gods. It is interesting to note that even
in polytheistic religions; one god usually reigns supreme over the other
gods, e.g., Zeus in Greek/Roman mythology and Brahman in Hinduism. *
Polytheism:
The teaching that there are many gods. In the Ancient Near East, the
nation of Israel was faced with the problem of the gods of other nations
creeping into the theology of Judaism and corrupting the true
revelation of God. Baal was the god of rain and exercised a powerful
influence over the religion of many pagan cultures and even into the
Jewish community. This is so because rain was essential to survival.
Rain meant the crops would grow, the animals would have water, and the
people would be able to eat. If there was no rain, death prevailed. Such
visible realities as rain, drought, crops, and death often carried the
spiritual character of the nation of Israel into spiritual adultery:
worshiping other gods. The Bible does recognize the existence of other
gods, but only as false. **
In contrast, Monotheism:
The
belief that there is only one God in all places at all times. There were
none before God and there will be none after Him. Monotheism is the
teaching of the Bible. **
Scripture teaching against polytheism:
“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill
and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver
out of my hand.” (Deuteronomy 32:39 ESV)
“For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.” (Psalm 96:5)
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
From the Pulpit Commentary on Deuteronomy 6:4:
Verses 4-25. – THE FIRST AND GREAT COMMANDMENT. “In the fear of Jehovah
all true obedience is rooted (vers. 2, 3); for this is the first and
most intimate fact in the relation of Israel and Jehovah (Deuteronomy
5:26). But where the supreme fear of Jehovah hinders men from allowing
self to preponderate in opposition to God, there will be no stopping at
this renunciation of self-will, though this comes first as the negative
form of the ten commandments also shows, but there will come to be a
coalescence of the human with the Divine will; and this is love, which
is the proper condition of obedience, as the ten commandments also
indicate (Deuteronomy 5:10)” (Baumgarten). Verse 4. – Hear, O Israel:
The Lord our God is one Lord. This is an affirmation not so much of the
moneity as of the unity and simplicity of Jehovah, the alone God. Though
Elohim (plu.), he is one. The speaker does not say, “Jehovah is alone
God,” but “Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah” (comp. for the force of
אֶחָד, Exodus 26:6, 11; Ezekiel 37:16-19). Among the heathen there were
many Baals and many Jupiters; and it was believed that the deity might
be divided and communicated to many. But the God of Israel, Jehovah, is
one, indivisible and incommunicable. He is the Absolute and the Infinite
One, who alone is to be worshipped, on whom all depend, and to whose
command all must yield obedience (cf. Zechariah 14:9). Not only to
polytheism, but to pantheism, and to the conception of a localized or
national deity, is this declaration of the unity of Jehovah opposed.
With these words the Jews begin their daily liturgy, morning and
evening; the sentence expresses the essence of their religious belief;
and so familiar is it to their thought and speech that, it is said, they
were often, during the persecution in Spain, betrayed to their enemies
by the involuntary utterance of it. (1)
Comments:
Sh’ma
Israel Yehovah Eloheinu Yehovah Echad. These words can be translated
into English as, “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah [Yhvh], our God [Elohim], is
one [echad] Jehovah [Yhvh].”
“I am he: before me there was no God
formed. Neither shall there be after me, I, even I, am LORD, and beside
me there is no Saviour.” (Isaiah 43:10)
“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:6)
From Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on Isaiah 44:6:
And I am the last – In Isaiah 41:4, this is expressed ‘with the last;’
in Revelation 1:8, ‘I am Alpha and Omega.’ The sense is, that God
existed before all things, and will exist forever.
And besides me
there is no God – This is repeatedly declared (Deuteronomy 4:35,
Deuteronomy 4:39; see the note at Isaiah 43:10-12). This great truth it
was God’s purpose to keep steadily before the minds of the Jews; and to
keep it in the world, and ultimately to diffuse it abroad among the
nations, was one of the leading reasons why he selected them as a
special people, and separated them from the rest of mankind. (2)
“Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any?” (Isaiah 44:8)
“And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth:
for there is one God; and there is none other but he.” (Mark 12:32)
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in
sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and
that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are
called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and
lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by him.” (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers says this about 1 Corinthians 8:5 regarding “gods many”:
(5) For though there be. . . .—This is an hypothetic argument. “Be” is
the emphatic word of the supposition. Even assuming that there do exist
those beings which are called “gods” (we have a right to make such a
supposition, for Deuteronomy 10:17, Psalm 105:2-3, speaks of “gods and
lords” of another kind), the difference between the heathen, “gods many”
and the “lords and gods” of whom the Old Testament speaks, is that the
former are deities, and the latter only a casual way of speaking of
angels and other spiritual subjects and servants of the one God. This is
brought out in the following verse. (3)
Comment:
1
Corinthians 8:5 is a favorite proof text in support of multiple gods by a
large Utah based religion. As seen, Ellicott’s comments refute this
idea.
“Who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god
or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God,
proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4 ESV)
Comment:
Paul explains in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 clarifies what he means in 1
Corinthians 8:5. The gods mentioned in Corinthians are false gods and
not gods at all.
The next passage from James has tremendous apologetic value in defense of monotheism.
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19)
Comments:
James says even the devils believe in one God. The devils are not
polytheists. What does this say about people advancing the idea of many
gods? The devils faith in one God is not saving faith, yet it is a true
confession much like the demons that would acknowledge Christ when he
cast them out of the possessed. See Luke 4:41. If you are advancing the
idea that other gods exist, woe is you, do you really want the devil’s
minions to be a witness against you?
Consider Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on James 2:19:
Thou believest that there is one God,…. These words are a
continuation of the address of the man that has works, to him that
boasts of his faith without them, observing to him, that one, and a main
article of his faith, is, that there is one God; which is to be
understood in the Christian sense, since both the person speaking, and
the person spoken to, were such as professed themselves Christians; so
that to believe there is one God, is not merely to give into this
article, in opposition to the polytheism of the Gentiles, or barely to
confess the God of Israel, as believed on by the Jews, but to believe
that there are three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, and that these
three are the one God; wherefore this article of faith includes
everything relating to God; as to God the Father, his being and
perfections, so to Christ, as God, and the Son of God, and the Messiah,
&c. and to the Holy Spirit; and to believe all this is right:
thou doest well; for that there is but one God, is to be proved by the
light of nature, and from the works of creation and providence, and has
been owned by the wisest of the Heathens themselves; and is established,
by divine revelation, in the books both of the Old and of the New
Testament; what has been received by the Jews, and is well known by
Christians, to whom it is set in the clearest light, and who are assured
of the truth of it: but then
the devils also believe; the Arabic
version reads, “the devils likewise so believe”; they believe the same
truth; they know and believe there is but one God, and not many; and
they know that the God of Israel is he; and that the Father, Son, and
Spirit, are the one God; they know and believe him to be the most high
God, whose servants the ministers of the Gospel are; and they know and
believe that Jesus is the Holy One of God, the Son of God, and the
Messiah, Acts 16:17.
And tremble; at the wrath of God, which they
now feel, and at the thought of future torments, which they expect,
Mark 5:7 and which is more than some men do; and yet these shall not be
saved, their damnation is certain and inevitable, 2 Peter 2:4 wherefore
it follows, that a bare historical faith will not profit, and cannot
save any; a man may have all faith of this kind, and be damned; and
therefore it is not to be boasted of, nor trusted to. (4)
Polytheism by systematic theologian Charles Hodge:
“As the word implies, Polytheism is the theory which assumes the
existence of many gods. Monotheism was the original religion of our
race. This is evident not only from the teachings of the Scriptures, but
also from the fact that the earliest historical form of religious
belief is monotheistic. There are monotheistic hymns in the Vedas, the
most ancient writings now extant, unless the Pentateuch be an exception.
The first departure from monotheism seems to have been nature worship.
As men lost the knowledge of God as creator, they were led to reverence
the physical elements with which they were in contact, whose power they
witnessed, and whose beneficent influence they constantly experienced.
Hence not only the sun, moon, and stars, the great representatives of
nature, but fire, air, and water, became the objects of popular worship.
We accordingly find that the Vedas consist largely of hymns addressed
to these natural elements.
These powers were personified, and
soon it came to be generally believed that a personal being presided
over each. And these imaginary beings were the objects of popular
worship.
While the mass of the people really believed in beings
that were “called gods” (1 Cor. 8:5), many of the more enlightened were
monotheists, and more were pantheists. The early introduction and wide
dissemination of pantheism are proved from the fact that it lies at the
foundation of Brahminism and Buddhism, the religions of the larger part
of the human race for thousands of years.
There can be little
doubt that when the Aryan tribes entered India, fifteen hundred or two
thousand years before Christ, pantheism was their established belief.
The unknown, and “unconditioned” infinite Being, reveals itself
according to the Hindu system, as Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva,—that is, as
Creator, Preserver, and Restorer. These were not persons, but modes of
manifestation. It was in this form that the idea of an endless process
of development of the infinite into the finite, and of the return of the
finite into the infinite, was expressed. It was from this pantheistic
principle that the endless polytheism of the Hindus naturally developed
itself; and this determined the character of their whole religion. As
all that is, is only a manifestation of God, everything remarkable, and
especially the appearance of any remarkable man, was regarded as an
“avatar,” or incarnation of God, in one or other of his modes of
manifestation, as Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva. And as evil is as actual as
good, the one is as much a manifestation, or, modus existendi, of the
infinite Being as the other. And hence there are evil gods as well as
good. In no part of the world has pantheism had such a field for
development as in India, and nowhere has it brought forth its legitimate
effects in such a portentous amount of evil. Nowhere has polytheism
been carried to such revolting extremes.
Among the Egyptians,
Greeks, and Romans polytheism assumed a form determined by the character
of the people. The Greeks rendered it bright, beautiful, and sensual;
the Romans were more decorous and sedate. Among barbarous nations it has
assumed forms much more simple, and in many cases more rational.
In the Bible the gods of the heathen are declared to be “vanity,” and
“nothing,” mere imaginary beings, without power either to hurt or to
save. (Jer. 2:28; Isa. 41:29; Isa. 13:17; Ps. 106:28.) They are also
represented as δαιμόνια (1 Cor. 10:20). This word may express either an
imaginary, or a real existence. The objects of heathen worship are
called gods, even when declared to be nonentities. So they may be called
“demons,” without intending to teach that they are “spirits.” As the
word, however, generally in the New Testament, does mean “evil spirits,”
it is perhaps better to take it in that sense when it refers to the
objects of heathen worship. This is not inconsistent with the doctrine
that the gods of the heathen are “vanities and lies.” They are not what
men take them to be. They have no divine power. Paul says of the heathen
before their conversion, “ἐδουλεύσατε το̂ις φυσει μή οὐ̂σι θεοι̂ς”
(Gal. 4:8). The prevalence and persistency of Polytheism show that it
must have a strong affinity with fallen human nature. Although, except
in pantheism, it has no philosophical basis, it constitutes a formidable
obstacle to the progress of true religion in the world.” (5)
Comments:
Polytheism not only includes the worship of other gods, it includes the
mere belief that multiple gods exist. Monotheism and polytheism are
irreconcilable.
Not only is polytheism unbiblical, its ethics and metaphysics lead to unanswerable absurdities:
1. Are the gods finite, infinite, corporeal or incorporeal?
2. Did the gods evolve? Have they always been?
3. Are they like men?
4. Are they like the Greek and Roman gods?
5. How do the gods communicate with men?
6. Are they omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent?
7. If the gods are not omniscient, are they surrounded by ultimate mystery and contingency?
8. Are all the gods associated with this planet?
9. Are the gods scattered throughout the cosmos and other planets?
10. Are there laws or a law structure in the universe?
11. If so, where did these laws come from?
12. Did the gods create these laws?
13. Is the law structure higher than the gods are?
14. If so, what are the implications?
15. Is the law structure god?
16. Do the gods ever get together and vote on what the standards for men should be or for their own standards?
17. Do they have some kind of debating forum?
18. If they are like men, how do they travel? A space ship?
19. Do the gods communicate with each other? If so, how? An intergalactic phone service?
20. How do the gods define things like good and evil?
21. Do the gods define it, or is a law structure above the gods the source for definitions?
22. Can concepts such as good and evil exist in raw matter? In other
words, do concepts like good and evil have to exist in a mind?
23. If concepts such as good and evil must exist in a mind, and many
gods exist in the universe, would not the definition of good and evil be
very subjective, since there are many minds?
24. Do all the gods in the universe interpret things in the same way?
25. How could you know?
26. If you pick a particular god to follow, how do you know that this god is interpreting ethical ideas properly?
27. How do you know evil is not good? Can the gods help explain this?
28. Will the gods ever defeat evil in the universe?
29. Why have not the gods defeated it yet?
30. Are there evil gods in the universe?
31. If so, could they destroy or defeat the good gods?
32. The terms evil and good are relative in a universe populated with multiple gods, since not all gods may agree.
33. Can the gods articulate a coherent theory of knowledge?
34. Are the gods’ empiricists, rationalists?
35. How do the gods solve the “one and many” problem?
36. Is a counsel of multiple authoritative infallible gods logically coherent? How so?
37. In the world of men, can anyone know anything with certainty about the gods?
38. Are promoters of polytheism engaging in speculation or pure guesswork when making any declaration about the gods?
39. Are assertions about the gods verified, empirically, rationally,
by a vote, just believe the assertions, a holy man from India knows,
listen to him or doing yoga (yoke with Brahmin) or mediate long enough
to learn the answers?
In closing:
In polytheistic systems,
there can be no certain standards. Ethics, logic and science would be
relative to the authority of each different god or a group of god’s
alliance. Polytheism cannot escape manifesting itself in multiple
contradictory definitions in regards to ultimate reality. In trying to
ascertain answers to the above questions, it is apparent that polytheism
is absurd and can say nothing with certainty in the area of science,
logic and ethics. Polytheism therefore is irrational.
In contrast, Christian Monotheism solves “The One and Many Problem”:
The “One and Many Problem” is another dilemma for polytheists. Is
reality ultimately one or many? If reality is ultimately one, this can
manifest itself as communism or a total state. If reality is ultimately
many, this can lead to political anarchy. Eastern polytheistic
philosophy contradictory comes down on the side of the many and at other
times the one manifesting itself as pantheistic monism. Polytheism has
never produced a system guaranteeing individual rights. Likewise,
Communism answered the question as noted in favor of the one or total
state and it likewise never produced any protection for property rights
or individual freedom.
The monotheistic Christian worldview, on
the other hand, has produced a balance of individual freedoms and a
basis for the state and church authority. This is accomplished because
of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian God is the ground and
explanation of all reality. God is one and yet more than one, with a
plurality of persons within the one God. Politically and religiously
this manifests itself by giving due authority to the state or church and
a proper place for individual rights and the basis for appealing abuses
of the state or church by the individual.
Why is the polytheist
unable to articulate a coherent theory of knowledge that can justify the
use of science, ethics and logic? The polytheist uses logic and talks
about ethics. They do so without justifying or demonstrating how their
worldview can account for these things. In other words, they beg the
question. In addition, mind you, when you point out this question
begging on their part, you will experience many ad hominem attacks,
which serve as a smoke screen to cover-up the bankruptcy of their
worldview. Moreover, the polytheist or any non-Christian steals from the
Christian worldview that can explain and justify the use of such things
to attack the Christian’s presuppositions. When informing the
polytheist of their theft, get ready for emotional responses or ad
hominem attacks.
Christians have a biblical foundation for
seeking knowledge and obtaining it. God-given revelation is objective.
Ungodly men reject biblical revelation; they suppress the truth that God
has revealed to them through creation (Romans 1:18). God has spoken in
the Scriptures, i.e., God’s special revelation to humanity concerning
what is required of them.
Greg L. Bahnsen explains the Christian’s worldview ability to talk intelligently like this:
In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian
apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the
impossibility of the contrary. When the perspective of God’s revelation
is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because
his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and
meaningful experience. To put it another way: the proof that
Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to
prove anything.
What the unbeliever needs is nothing less than a
radical change of mind – repentance (Acts 17:30). He needs to change his
fundamental worldview and submit to the revelation of God in order for
any knowledge or experience to make sense. He at the same time needs to
repent of his spiritual rebellion and sin against God. Because of the
condition of his heart, he cannot see the truth or know God in a saving
fashion. (6)
“Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary,
Deuteronomy, Vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing
Company reprint 1978), p.118.
2. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Isaiah, p.1049.
3. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, 1
Corinthians, vol. 2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 315.
4. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, James, 9
Volumes, Romans, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, pp. 39-40.
5. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing), p. 243-244.
6. Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready Directions for Defending the Faith, (Atlanta, Georgia, American Vision), p. 122.
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.”
(Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28,
29)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the
Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the
Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book
defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That
Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
Cessationism of 1st Century χαρίσματα (charismata) revelatory sign gifts by Jack Kettler
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
In this study, we will look at the teaching known as cessationism and
along with some related relevant topics. What does cessationism mean?
Does God still give revelation via interpretation of tongues, prophecy
and revelatory words of knowledge? If so, are these gifts normative for
the entire church age? Are revelations conveyed from these gifts on the
same level as the Bible? What exactly are tongues mentioned in the
Bible? Is there an angelic language to be used in prayer? These are a
few of the questions we will seek biblical answers for in this study.
As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures,
lexical evidence, commentary evidence and confessional support for the
purpose to glorify God in how we live. Glorify God always!
Cessationism:
“The view that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (healing, tongues,
prophetic revelations) ended with the apostolic age, and that while God
still does do miracles, he does not gift individuals with the miraculous
spiritual gifts.” *
Cessationism:
“The position within
Christianity that the Charismatic Spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues,
word of knowledge, word of wisdom, interpretation of tongues, etc.)
ceased with the closing of the Canon of scripture and/or the death of
the last apostle.” **
From Scripture regarding the cessation of the revelatory gifts:
“Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall
fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be
knowledge, it shall vanish away.” For we know in part, and we prophesy
in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in
part shall be done away.” (1 Corinthians 13:8-10)
The passage
says that something that is “in part” shall be done away with when “that
which is perfect is come.” What is the apostle referring to when he
says that something perfect is coming?
Theologian Gordon H. Clark comments on this:
There is one phase, not so far mentioned: “When the completion comes,”
or “when that which is perfect comes.” This raises the question:
completion of what? It could be the completion of the canon. Miracles
and tongues were for the purpose of guaranteeing the divine origin of
apostolic doctrine. They cease when the revelation was completed. Even
the word knowledge is better understood this way. Instead of comparing
present-day extensive study of the New Testament with Justin’s [Martyr]
painfully inadequate understanding of the Atonement, it would be better
to take knowledge as the apostolic process of revealing new knowledge.
This was completed when revelation ceased. (1)
Clark is right on
track when connecting the coming perfection with the completion of the
Scriptures. The tongues and prophecy of the apostolic era confirmed and
bore witness to the truthfulness of the apostolic message. Nevertheless,
tongues, prophecy, and revelatory knowledge were lacking when compared
with the completed written Scripture. The written Scriptures are far
superior to spoken words. The written Scripture stands strong and cannot
be overthrown.
Dr. Leonard Coppes also has relevant comments regarding this passage of Scripture:
This is a clear statement that when the knowledge given through the
apostles and prophets is complete, tongues and prophecy shall cease.
Tongues, prophecy, and knowledge (gnosis) constitute partial, incomplete
stages. Some may stumble over the idea that “knowledge” represents a
partial and incomplete (revelational) stage. But is rightly remarked
that Paul distinguishes between sophia and gnosis in I Cor. 12:8 All
three terms (tongues, prophecy, knowledge) involve divine disclosure of
verbal revelation and all three on that basis alone ceased when the
foundation (i.e., the perfect) came (10). Verse 11 speaks of the partial
as childlike (cf., 14:20) and the perfect as manly (the apostolic is
“manly,” too, cf., 14:20). Paul reflecting on those who are limited to
these childlike things describes this limitation as seeing in a mirror
darkly (12). When the perfect (the apostolic depositum) is come, full
knowledge is present. (2)
Coppes, like Clark, connects the coming
perfection with the completion of the Scriptural canon. Both scholars
make compelling exegetical arguments for their interpretation of the
Corinthian passage. More will be seen in this study about the closing of
the Scriptural canon and its implications.
The next passage of
Scripture cited refers to warning of coming judgment upon the people of
Israel from the book of Isaiah cited by Paul in his letter to the
Corinthians and has relevance to the issue at hand regarding revelatory
gifts and their cessation. There are two reasons for tongues and the
other revelatory gifts.
Consider the first reason for tongues:
“In the law it is written, with men of other tongues and other lips
will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear
me, saith the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 14:22)
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:22:
22. Thus from Isaiah it appears, reasons Paul, that “tongues” (unknown
and uninterpreted) are not a sign mainly intended for believers (though
at the conversion of Cornelius and the Gentiles with him, tongues were
vouchsafed to him and them to confirm their faith), but mainly to be a
condemnation to those, the majority, who, like Israel in Isaiah’s day,
reject the sign and the accompanying message. Compare “yet … will they
not hear Me” (1Co 14:21). “Sign” is often used for a condemnatory sign
(Eze 4:3, 4; Mt 12:39-42). Since they will not understand, they shall
not understand.
prophesying … not for them that believe not, but …
believe—that is, prophesying has no effect on them that are radically
and obstinately like Israel (Isa 28:11, 12), unbelievers, but on them
that are either in receptivity or in fact believers; it makes believers
of those not willfully unbelievers (1Co 14:24, 25; Ro 10:17), and
spiritually nourishes those that already believe. (3)
The
commentators are correct to note that tongues were for non-believers, in
this case, national Israel. It is noteworthy that the commentators make
the connection with Isaiah 28:11-12.
The purpose of tongues in Isaiah 28:11-12 that the apostle Paul quotes in Corinthians:
“For with stammering lips and another tongue [the Assyrian language],
He will speak to this people, to whom He said, ‘This is the rest with
which you may cause the weary to rest,’ and, ‘this is the refreshing,’
yet they would not hear.” (Isaiah 28:11-12)
Digging Deeper:
Strong’s Concordance 3956
lashon: tongue
Original Word: לָשׁוֹן
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: lashon
Phonetic Spelling: (law-shone’)
Short Definition: tongue
Comments:
These words were spoken by the prophet to the people of Judah as a
declaration that they were about to be judged by God for their rebellion
by the Assyrian army. Moses also mentioned the presence of “unknown
tongues” in his prophecy concerning the destruction of the nation of
Israel. The passage also has real significance for national Israel’s
rejection of Christ and subsequent judgment by the Romans in 70AD. God
raised up a foreign army, which spoke an unintelligible or foreign
tongue to bring judgment upon His rebellious people.
Consider this earlier prophetic warning:
“The LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of
the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose [language] tongue
you will not understand.” (Deuteronomy 28:49)
Many of the modern translations use language instead of tongue. For example:
“The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end
of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language
[tongue]
you do not understand.” (Deuteronomy 28:49 ESV)
Comments:
This prophecy from Deuteronomy has fulfillment in regards to the Roman
invasion of Israel and destruction of the temple. The Deuteronomy
passage mentions “eagle.” This almost certainly refers to the emblem or
standard of the Roman army, the eagle. The passage probably has
significance to the earlier Assyrian and Babylonian judgments as well.
Tongues in the book of Acts did not just appear out of nowhere. The
understanding of tongues is rooted in Old Testament prophecy, namely,
Deuteronomy and Isaiah. The Greek word glossa has interpreted either
tongue or language.
The First purpose of tongues:
Tongues were a sign of judgment on the nation of Israel. The confusion
of tongues, at Babel and forward, has been a sign of judgment. When
Israel heard the tongues of the Assyrian invaders in the 8th Century
before Christ, it was a sign that judgment had come (Isaiah 28:11-12).
Paul quotes this verse in 1 Corinthians 14:22 in which he explains how
the New Testament gift of unintelligible languages (tongues) was a sign
to unbelieving Israel of impending judgment. It was the end of the Old
Covenant Age for Israel. When the judgment on Israel came in AD 70 with
the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the armies of Roman, the
nation was scattered, and the purpose of tongues foretold by Deuteronomy
and Isaiah was fulfilled.
The Second purpose of tongues:
The second purpose of tongues and their interpretation along with
prophecy and words of knowledge functioned to confirm the work of the
apostle’s words with power. These gifts were all revelatory or
revelations of God’s power and confirmation of His Will and Word.
The scriptural proof of this is seen in:
“And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with
them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” (Mark 16:20)
“God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with
divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own
will?” (Hebrews 2:4)
After the death of the apostles and the
closing of the canon of Scripture, the work of confirming the apostolic
message was no longer needed. The destruction of the temple and the
inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant people of God are also tied up
in the events of the end.
The Greek language helps in our understanding of tongues in the first century:
Digging deeper, Tongues from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:
Tongue (-s)
[A-1, Noun, G1100, glossa] is used of
(1) The tongues … like as of fire, which appeared at Pentecost;
(2) “The tongue,” as an organ of speech, e.g., Mark 7:33; Romans 3:13;
Romans 14:11; 1 Corinthians 14:9; Philippians 2:11; James 1:26; James
3:5-James 3:6, James 3:8; 1 Peter 3:10; 1 John 3:18; Revelation 16:10;
(3)
(a) “a language,” coupled with phule, “a tribe,” laos, “a people,”
ethnos, “a nation,” seven times in the Apocalypse, Revelation 5:9;
Revelation 7:9; Revelation 10:11; Revelation 11:9; Revelation 13:7;
Revelation 14:6; Revelation 17:15;
(b) “The supernatural gift of
speaking in another language without its having been learnt;” in Acts
2:4-Acts 2:13 the circumstances are recorded from the viewpoint of the
hearers; to those in whose language the utterances were made it appeared
as a supernatural phenomenon; to others, the stammering of drunkards;
what was uttered was not addressed primarily to the audience but
consisted in recounting “the mighty works of God;” cp. Acts 2:46; in 1
Cor., chapters 12 and 14, the use of the gift of “tongues” is mentioned
as exercised in the gatherings of local churches; 1 Corinthians 12:10
speaks of the gift in general terms, and couples with it that of “the
interpretation of tongues;” chap. 14 gives instruction concerning the
use of the gift, the paramount object being the edification of the
church; unless the “tongue” was interpreted the speaker would speak “not
unto men, but unto God,” 1 Corinthians 14:2; he would edify himself
alone, 1 Corinthians 14:4, unless he interpreted, 1 Corinthians 14:5, in
which case his interpretation would be of the same value as the
superior gift of prophesying, as he would edify the church, 1
Corinthians 14:4-6; he must pray that he may interpret, 1 Corinthians
14:13; if there were no interpreter, he must keep silence, 1 Corinthians
14:28, for all things were to be done “unto edifying,” 1 Corinthians
14:26. “If I come … speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you,”
says the Apostle (expressing the great object in all oral ministry),
“unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or
of prophesying, or of teaching?” (1 Corinthians 14:6). “Tongues” were
for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers, 1 Corinthians 14:22,
and especially to unbelieving Jews (See 1 Corinthians 14:21): cp. the
passages in the Acts.
There is no evidence of the continuance of
this gift after apostolic times nor indeed in the later times of the
Apostles themselves; this provides confirmation of the fulfillment in
this way of 1 Corinthians 13:8, that this gift would cease in the
churches, just as would “prophecies” and “knowledge” in the sense of
knowledge received by immediate supernatural power (cp. 1 Corinthians
14:6). The completion of the Holy Scriptures has provided the churches
with all that is necessary for individual and collective guidance,
instruction, and edification.
[A-2, Noun, G1258, dialektos]
“Language” (Eng., ‘dialect”), is rendered “tongue” in the AV of Acts
1:19; Acts 2:6, Acts 2:8; Acts 21:40; Acts 22:2; Acts 26:14. See
LANGUAGE.
[B-1, Adjective, G2804, heteroglossos]
Is
rendered “strange tongues” in 1 Corinthians 14:21, RV (heteros, “another
of a different sort,” See ANOTHER, and A, No. 1), AV, “other tongues.”
[C-1, Adverb, G1447, hebraisti]
(Or ebraisti, Westcott and Hort) denotes
(a) “In Hebrew,” Revelation 9:11, RV (AV, “in the Hebrew tongue”); so Revelation 16:16;
(b) In the Aramaic vernacular of Palestine, John 5:2, AV, “in the
Hebrew tongue” (RV, “in Hebrew”); in John 19:13, John 19:17, AV, “in the
Hebrew” (RV, “in Hebrew”); in John 19:20, AV and RV, “in Hebrew;” in
John 20:16, RV only, “in Hebrew (Rabboni).”
Note: Cp. Hellenisti, “in Greek,” John 19:20, RV; Acts 21:37, “Greek.” See also Rhomaisti, under LATIN. (4)
Comments:
As seen from Vine’s, the tongues as seen in Acts 2:6–8 were actual
languages. In denial of this, the modern day Charismatic and Pentecostal
movements assert that the understanding of tongues may be something
other than an understandable human language. They would say an angelic
language used for prayer.
People in this theological camp believe
that men can use angelic languages for private prayers and public
exhibitions and interpretations conveying unique revelatory words from
God. They cannot have it both ways. That would be equivocation – using
the same word to mean different things – a logical fallacy!
Charismatic proof texts passages for praying in non-human language tongues:
“Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what
we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh
intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans
8:26)
Consider Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Romans 8:26:
(26, 27) A second reason for the patience of the Christian under
suffering. The Spirit helps his weakness and joins in his prayers.
(26) Likewise.—While on the one hand the prospect of salvation sustains
him, so on the other hand the Divine Spirit interposes to aid him. The
one source of encouragement is human (his own human consciousness of the
certainty of salvation), the other is divine.
Infirmities.—The
correct reading is the singular, “infirmity.” Without this assistance,
we might be too weak to endure, but the Spirit helps and strengthens our
weakness by inspiring our prayers.
With groanings which cannot
be uttered.—When the Christian’s prayers are too deep and too intense
for words, when they are rather a sigh heaved from the heart than any
formal utterance, then we may know that they are prompted by the Spirit
Himself. It is He who is praying to God for us. (5)
Do Ellicott’s comments do justice to the text?
Comments:
Ellicott makes no mention of a man praying in an unknown angelic
language. First, it should be noted that the text says the Spirit prays,
not a man. Proponents of modern day tongue speakers read this into the
text something that is not there. Second, the text says the Spirit prays
for us with groanings, (stenagmos) not a man. Therefore, groanings
cannot be a man praying in an angelic language.
Digger deeper:
Strong’s Concordance 4726
stenagmos: a groaning
Original Word: στεναγμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: stenagmos
Phonetic Spelling: (sten-ag-mos’)
Short Definition: a groaning
Definition: a groaning, sighing.
Comments:
As seen, “The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings
which cannot be uttered” cannot possibly be a man praying in an angelic
language. These “groanings” are not audible whereas tongue speaking is.
Does this next passage validate an angelic prayer language?
“For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” (1 Corinthians 14:14)
From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on 1 Corinthians 14:14:
“For if I pray in an unknown tongue. In the Hebrew tongue, which the
greatest part of the Jewish doctors insisted (a) upon should be only
used in prayer; which notion might be borrowed from them, and now
greatly prevailed in the church at Corinth; and the custom was used by
such as had the gift of speaking that language, even though the body and
bulk of the people understood it not: my spirit prayeth; I pray with my
breath vocally; or else with affection and devotion, understanding what
I say myself, and so am edified; or rather with the gift of the Spirit
bestowed on me: but my understanding is unfruitful; that is, what I say
with understanding to myself is unprofitable to others, not being
understood by them.” Vid. Trigland. de Sect. Kar. c. 10. p. 172, 173.
(6)
Comments:
Gill makes no mention of an angelic prayer
language, but rather an unknown tongue. In this passage, Paul does not
say he prays in an unknown tongue instead; he says, “For if I pray in an
unknown tongue…but my understanding is unfruitful.” “For if” is a
hypothetical, not something the apostle says he does in personal
prayers. Besides, the apostle says if he did this, his understanding is
unfruitful. The apostle is not encouraging praying in an unfruitful
manner devoid of understanding.
A general command in Scripture is in the next three passages:
“What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the
understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with
the understanding also.” (1 Corinthians 14:15)
“For if these
things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be
barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2
Peter 1:8)
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.”
(2 Peter 3:18)
We are to grow in the knowledge of the Lord
Jesus Christ, not suspend our understanding. This is true even in
prayer. We should pray with understanding.
Consider another tongue speaking proof text:
“Though I speak with the tongues (glōssais plural) of men and of
angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a
tinkling cymbal.” (1 Corinthian 13:1)
The following scholar’s comments regarding the language of angels are pertinent:
“With respect to the words of angels which are recorded in the
Scriptures, nothing can be plainer, more direct, and, we may say, more
unimpassioned. They seem to say with the utmost conceivable plainness
what they have been commissioned to say, and nothing more. No words are
less the words of ecstasy than theirs.” (7)
Comments:
Where does the Bible speak of angels having their own language that
doubles as a prayer language for men? Is the mention of tongues in the
book Acts and the book of Corinthians an example of different tongues
for men and angels? There is no reason to believe that the tongues
mentioned are anything other than language, characterized by the rules
of grammar and syntax. Tongue speaking in Acts (glōssais the tongue, a
language) refers to known languages (maybe not to all the hearers). One
can argue that the languages that are spoken in the Corinthians
(glōssais) passage are as well. If not, you are equivocating on the use
of language without necessary contextual justification.
There is
no biblical basis in 1 Corinthians 13:1 for the idea that there is a
heavenly, prayer language. This assumption is read into the text. Even
if you grant that angels speak in a pure form of Hebrew not understood
by man, this hardly supports the idea of a non-human heavenly prayer
language. Assumptions like this are pure conjecture. Furthermore, when
Paul makes the contrast and speaks of the “tongues of men and of
angels,” he is using hyperbole. Hyperbole is an exaggerated statement or
claims not meant to be taken literally. The apostle is saying that,
notwithstanding however brilliant one could be, using his own language,
or a foreign language, or perhaps within the speculative speech of
angels, it is worthless without love.
Angels always spoke in human language in the Bible when speaking to men:
Scripture provides many examples of angels speaking to men. They
communicated in languages that were understandable by those spoken to in
the Bible. The burden of proof is on those who claim who claim angels
spoke in non-human languages. The phrase “the tongues of angels” offers
no proof that angelic language is different from human language or that
there is any justification for some form of non-human language for
prayer. All you can ascertain is that the angelic language was unknown.
Said another way, trying to determine what the language may have been
used is sheer guesswork. The speaking of tongues in modern day churches
has no connection to actual language. It is gibberish with no connection
to the rules of grammar and syntax.
Linguists can study
languages and discern syntax and grammar structure. Messages from
tongue-speaking churches show no relationship to anything resembling
language. If they do, it would have to be ascertained if the person
speaking was bi-lingual or multi-lingual. Trying to track down dates and
locations of real foreign languages being spoken is more than
problematic. Most stories of real languages seem to be nothing more than
the parroting of unverified stories. Examples of linguist scrutiny*
Biblical Scholar D. A. Carson correctly observes:
“Modern tongues are lexically uncommunicative and the few instances of
reported modern xenoglossia [speaking foreign languages] are so poorly
attested that no weight can be laid on them” (8)
University of Toronto linguistics professor William Samarin concurs:
“Glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of
sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or
less haphazardly. The speaker controls the rhythm, volume, speed and
inflection of his speech so that the sounds emerge as pseudolanguage—in
the form of words and sentences. Glossolalia is language-like because
the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of
superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language.”
(9)
What we do know is that the study of history shows that
tongues ceased after the death of the apostles. The leading Church
fathers such as Chrysostom (Eastern Church), and Augustine (Western
Church) believed that tongues was a revelatory confirmatory sign gift
only for the apostolic era.
It was not until the Azusa Street
Revival, 1906-1915, founded and led by William J. Seymour in Los
Angeles, California, which resulted in the spread of what was allegedly a
new manifestation of the apostolic sign gifts of the first century.
Seymour immersed himself in radical Holiness theology, which taught a
post-conversion second blessing or the entire sanctification experience
that resulted in complete holiness or sinless perfection this side of
heaven, which is heretical. If tongues confirmed the apostolic message,
Seymour’s tongues movement did nothing of the sort. God did speak
through ordinary people in biblical times, these were prophets, but they
had good theology.
Extra questions:
If the revelatory
apostolic gifts such as tongues and prophecy were normative for all time
in the Church, how can the absence of these gifts be explained after
the first century? Was the Church apostate or spiritually dull-hearted
two thousand years? Was the true Church lost as the Mormons claim? Those
who would advance something like this cannot prove it biblically. An
alleged apostasy cannot be because Jesus said, “the gates of hell would
not prevail against His Church” in Matthew 16:18.
The nations of
Christendom, while not perfect, transformed nations and civilizations
for the better over the centuries in fulfillment of Christ’s words.
What about the prophecy for the book of Joel? Does this predict a last
day’s reappearance of the apostolic revelatory sign gifts of the first
century?
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour
out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see
visions.” (Joel 2:28)
Is this a prophecy for the first century or a futuristic prophecy?
From Matthew Poole’s Commentary Joel 2:28:
It shall come to pass, most certainly this shall be done, afterward; in
the latter days, after the return out of Babylonish captivity, after
the various troubles and salvations by which they may know that I am the
Lord, their God in the midst of them, when those wondrous works shall
be seconded by the most wonderful of all, the sending the Messiah, in
his day and under his kingdom.
I will pour out my Spirit; in
large abundant measures will I give my Holy Spirit, which the Messiah
exalted shall send, John 16:7; in extraordinary power and gifts in the
apostles and first preachers of the gospel, and in ordinary measure and
graces to all believers, Ephesians 4:8-11.
Upon all flesh; before
these gifts were confined to a few people, to one particular nation, to
a very small people; but now they shall be enlarged to all nations,
Acts 2:33 10:45, to all that believe, all that are regenerate.
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy: this was in part fulfilled
according to the letter in the first days of the gospel; but this
promise is rather of a comparative meaning, thus, By pouring out of the
Holy Spirit on your sons and your daughters, they shall have as clear
and full knowledge of the deep mysteries of God’s law as prophets
beforetime had. The law and prophets were till John, and during this
time the gifts of the Spirit were given in lesser measures, and of all
men the prophets had greatest measures of the Spirit; but in these days,
the least in the kingdom of God is greater than John.
Your old
men shall dream dreams; no difference of age, to old men who had been
long blind in the things of God the mysteries of grace shall be
revealed, and these shall know as certainly and clearly as if God had
extraordinarily revealed himself to them by dreams sent of God upon
them.
Your young men shall see visions; many young men shall be
as eminent in knowledge as if the things known were communicated by
vision. In a word, all knowledge of God and his will shall abound among
all ranks, sexes, and ages in the Messiah’s days, and not only equal,
but surpass, all that formerly was by prophecy dreams, or visions. (10)
Comments:
Poole establishes that the prophecy in Joel found its fulfillment in the book of Acts.
What are the implications for ongoing apostolic revelatory gifts?
If these revelatory apostolic gifts are still in operation, the canon
of Scripture is still open. If so, does this mean that the expanding
oral tradition of the Roman Church and the printed minutes from the
Mormon General Conference meetings and the Mormon Ensign Magazine where
the Mormon prophet speaks should be added to the book of Acts or an
ongoing addendum to the Bible? An addendum would be like the old
encyclopedias that had a yearly update edition. How exactly would this
work out for the Bible? Should there be Roman Catholic, Charismatic and
Mormon addendums?
Additional Problems for modern day tongues speakers:
Some have argued that tongues and words of knowledge and prophecy are
personal or private revelations and therefore not the same as a biblical
revelation in the Bible, a sort of two-tier system of revelation.
Experience in tongue speaking churches shows this is not the case. If
tongues are expressed publically, the congregants normally and hopefully
wait for an interpretation. Sometimes someone will speak what is
supposed to be the interpretation. At other times in the church service,
someone will speak prophecies or words of knowledge. This very practice
is not private but public.
How are these alleged spoken words
to be evaluated? Does the congregation vote on it? On the other hand,
should the hearers accept message or words at face value? Most of the
time the expressions of interpretation and prophecies are general
scripture like-sounding words. Also, how is it determined if the
individuals giving this supposed spirit inspired messages are not just
showboating or letting their feelings and emotions get the better of
them? Can spiritual pride lead to certain individuals to grandstand?
Most people want to be seen as spiritual, and some want to be seen as
more spiritual than others.
As said, from experience, most of
what is said in these alleged words are general exhortations or general
words of encouragement that sound like a simplified version of
Elizabethan English. No doubt, some of the readers of this article have
heard of examples of alleged tongue-speaking where someone would say for
example that tongue-speaking was in the Hungarian language. As
previously noted, trying to track down when and where this happened is
always problematic. When pressed, no one seems to know where and when.
Why listen to unverifiable words when we can read the Bible?
Consider this next passage:
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that
ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the
day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” (2 Peter 1:19)
Peter says we have “a more sure word of prophecy.” The Word of God is
surer than anything else is especially unsubstantiated prophecies. Read
Psalm 119.
A Conclusion:
The only time in a church service
you can be sure you are hearing the Word of God, is when you hear the
Scriptures read. Pastors with concerns to be biblically faithful always
pray that God will give a blessing to their preaching and guard the
words that come from their mouth. A Sermon from the pastor is not the
infallible word of God. Many times a pastor will pray, “Let the words of
my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in your sight, O
Lord, my strength, and my redeemer. Amen.” (Psalm 19:14)
If the
first-century revelations of God via, prophecy, interpretation of
tongues and words of knowledge were still in practice today, the
conclusion would be that the canon of Scripture is still open. This
would mean that we need more than just the Bible. In other words, the
Bible is not yet complete, because revelation is still ongoing. Some may
want to dance around this conclusion. It, however, is inescapable.
Furthermore, those arguing for on-going first century revelatory gifts
are inadvertently giving support for Roman Catholicism’s argument for
the concept of on-going oral traditions that are purported to be on
equal footing with Scripture. The Roman Catholics are more consistent in
their argument of a secondary source of revelation than the advocates
of the on-going first century revelatory gifts are. If the first-century
revelatory gifts are still in operation, how are they fundamentally
different from the oral traditions of the Roman Church?
A Time-tested principle of Scripture:
“These were nobler than those in Thessalonica, in that they received
the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily,
whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
“But test everything; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 ESV)
Why be satisfied with vague or general biblical sounding words; we need the pure Word of God.
General biblical sounding words or phrases that are interpretation of
tongues, congregational prophecies, words of knowledge cannot be used
for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness. Why?
Because if they can, then these new words are admitted to be on par with
Scripture. This conclusion is inescapable and proves the problematic
nature of these new words that are supposedly from God. Also, if these
so-called revelations are on par with the Bible, the sufficiency of
Scripture cannot be maintained.
Sufficiency of scripture:
“The principle that the words of scripture contain everything we need to
know from God in order for us to be saved and to be perfectly obedient
to him.” *
Sufficiency of scripture:
“The doctrine of the
sufficiency of Scripture is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith.
To say the Scriptures are sufficient means that the Bible is all we need
to equip us for a life of faith and service. It provides a clear
demonstration of God’s intention to restore the broken relationship
between Himself and humanity through His Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior
through the gift of faith. No other writings are necessary for this good
news to be understood, nor are any other writings required to equip us
for a life of faith.” ***
“All scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)
The Concluding Argument:
The most potent argument for cessationism of first-century revelatory gifts is the closing of the canon of Scripture:
The Scriptures are complete; divine revelation has ceased. In fact, the
ceasing of divine revelation can be seen right in the texts of
Scripture. The ending of divine revelation is the closing of the
Scriptural canon. Today, there are only two forms of revelation, general
(creation) and special (biblical). See this writer’s The Importance and
Necessity of Special Revelation.
The Closing of the Canon:
Consider Daniel 9:24 and its importance for the subject of the closing of the canon:
“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make
reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”
(Daniel 9:24)
Comments:
The terminus or completion of this
prophecy is in the first century. Verses in Daniel 9:25-27 make it
clear that when the seventy-week period begins, this week will continue
uninterrupted until the seventy-week period is over or complete.
Christ’s death and resurrection made an end of the sins of His people.
He accomplished reconciliation for His people. Christ’s people have
experienced everlasting righteousness because we are clothed in Christ’s
righteousness, which is everlasting. The phrase “and to seal up the
vision and prophecy” sets forth the closing of the canon of Scripture.
E. J. Young in The Geneva Daniel Commentary makes the following
observations concerning “vision” and prophecy” in the Old Testament:
Vision was a technical name for revelation given to the OT prophets
(cf. Isa, 1:1, Amos 1:1, etc.) The prophet was the one through whom this
vision was revealed to the people. The two words, vision and prophet,
therefore, serve to designate the prophetic revelation of the OT
period…. When Christ came, there was no further need of prophetic
revelation in the OT sense. (11)
Why, because Christ is the final revelation:
God “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath
appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” (Hebrews
1:2)
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers is in agreement with E. J. Young on Daniel 9:24:
To Seal Up.—σϕραγίσαι, Theod.; συντελεσθῆναι, LXX.; impleatur, Jer.;
the impression of the translators being that all visions and prophecies
were to receive their complete fulfilment in the course of these seventy
weeks. It appears, however, to be more agreeable to the context to
suppose that the prophet is speaking of the absolute cessation of all
prophecy. (Comp. 1Corinthians 13:8.) (12)
All seventy weeks were
fulfilled in the first century contrary to Dispensationalism that is
still waiting for the seventieth week to be fulfilled at some time in
the future. If Young and Ellicott are correct about the seventieth week,
the implications for what the dispensationalists are arguing for is
enormous and wrong. This would mean the canon of Scripture is still open
for the last two thousand years a position that is indefensible.
A Conclusion:
Since there is no fundamental difference between Old and New Testament
revelation, and the source of the revelation is identical, there is no
reason to doubt that all giving of new revelation ceased in the first
century. The canon of Scripture is closed. Whatever the claims are for
the alleged ongoing interpretation of tongues, modern-day prophecies,
words of knowledge, they are not genuine new revelations from God.
At best as some argue there are second or third, tier revelations. If
the canon is open, no argument can be made not to add these lesser
revelations to an addendum of the Bible. The Mormons have already gone
there; others are hesitant to get on board with something like this.
Nevertheless, this proves to be a glaring inconsistency for those
arguing for a continuation of the first century revelatory gifts.
What does the Scripture say about adding an addendum or extra books to the Bible?
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord
your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)
The very
practice of listening to revelations that are admittedly to be of a
secondary nature when compared to the written Scripture is diminishing
and giving preeminence to unverifiable words in a church gathering over
the written Word of God.
“For I testify unto every man that
heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add
unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written
in this book.” (Revelation 22:18)
Are charismatic revelations on
the same level as the Bible? If pinned down, the modern day
tongue-speaker would probably say no. If the charismatic revelatory
gifts are imparting new revelation, then this is a dangerous move away
from the authority of Scripture. In many cases, the charismatic is
unwittingly accepting an authority other than the Bible, namely the new
revelation. We are not talking about the personal conviction of the Word
by the Holy Spirit. The operation of the Spirit in a believer’s life is
inseparable from the written Word of God.
Prone to Errors:
Many followers of the tongue-speaking movement pay lip service to the
principle of Sola Scriptura, (the Bible alone). This biblical principle
of Sola Scriptura is undermined when so-called spiritual experiences
influence the interpretation of the Scriptures. In light of this flawed
hermeneutic, namely, letting the alleged spiritual experience (tongues
speaking, words of knowledge, and prophecy) influence an understanding
of the Scripture, it is not surprising that sound doctrine gives way to
interpretations of Scripture that are influenced by these self-same
experiences. The judicious reader sees the circular reasoning that
plagues this approach.
Since the tongue-speaker has either
allegedly witnessed or spoken in tongues, the Bible is interpreted in
such a fashion as to support the charismatic interpretations of the
Bible. Thus, the charismatic assumes this must be what the Bible teaches
since they have witnessed or experienced it. This is nothing more than a
dangerous subjectivist circle of interpretation. The role of Scripture
and experience are reversed, experience gaining the upper hand in this
system. The fruit of this, has led to practices contrary to the Bible.
Tongues, interpretation of tongues, personal prophecies, and personal
words of knowledge are subjective. Why should we seek after subjective
individual words when we have the clear Word of God?
“All
scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
(2 Timothy 3:16)
“For whatsoever things were written aforetime
were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of
the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)
A Question:
A Mormon can be asked if the Book of Mormon has added anything to the
Bible or took anything away from the Bible. The answer was always no, to
which the reply would be, why do we need the book? The same question
can be asked of those promoting new revelations whether second or third
tier or not.
“Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20)
What does prophecy mean from Matthew Poole’s Commentary on 2 Peter 1:20:
Knowing this first; either, principally and above other things, as
being most worthy to be known; or, knowing this as the first principle
of faith, or the first thing to be believed.
That no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation: the Greek word here used may be rendered, either:
1. As our translators do, interpretation, or explication; and then the
meaning is, not that private men are not to interpret the Scripture,
only refer all to the church; but that no man nor company of men, no
church nor public officers, are to interpret the Scripture of their own
heads, according to their own minds, so as to make their private sense
be the sense of the Scripture, but to seek the understanding of it from
God, who shows them the meaning of the word in the word itself, (the
more obscure places being expounded by the more clear), and by his
Spirit leads believers, in their searching the Scripture, into the
understanding of his mind in it: God himself being the author of the
word, as 2 Peter 1:21, is the best interpreter of it. Or:
2.
Mission or dismission; a metaphor taken from races, where they that ran
were let loose from the stage where the race began, that they might run
their course. The prophets in the Old Testament are said to run, as
being God’s messengers, Jeremiah 23:21, and God is said to send them,
Ezekiel 13:6, 7. And then this doth not immediately concern the
interpretation of the Scripture, but the first revelation of it, spoken
of in the next verse; and the question is not: Who hath authority to
interpret the Scripture now written? But: What authority the penmen had
to write it? And consequently, what respect is due to it? And why
believers are so carefully to take heed to it? And then the meaning is,
that it is the first principle of our faith, that the Scripture is not
of human invention, but Divine inspiration; that the prophets wrote not
their own private sense in it, but the mind of God; and at his command,
not their own pleasure. (13)
Comments:
If Poole is correct
that Peter has Scripture in mind when mentions no private
interpretation, then private revelations are also ruled out. In the
Puritan writings, it was common for them to place revelation (scripture)
under the heading of prophecy. See “A Quest for Godliness” by J. I.
Packer.
Additionally, the doctrine of the sufficiency of
Scripture is an essential belief of the Christian faith. The
self-evident testimony of the Scriptures is that they are sufficient.
The Scriptures are completely adequate to meet the needs of the
believer. This teaching is all over the face of the Scriptures. The
believer can have confidence in the Scriptures. God’s Words are
described as “pure,” “perfect,” “a light,” and “eternal.” This
conclusion is one that can be drawn from or deduced from the Scriptures
by good and necessary consequence.
Anyone promoting the idea of
ongoing revelation is dangerously close to if not an outright denial of
the sufficiency of Scripture along with giving aid and comfort to the
Roman Catholic attacks upon Sola Scriptura. If the revelatory gifts in
the first century bore witness to the word of the apostles, what do
these supposed gifts bear witness to today? Do the modern day tongue
speaking practices have any effect on doctrinal purity? Roman Catholic
tongue-speakers stay within the Roman Church and continue to love the
Mass and charismatic tongue-speakers, many who hold doctrinal heresies
such as Pelagianism, continue in soteriological errors. Whatever these
purported gifts do, it does not appear to lead to doctrinal clarity!
John Owen’s inescapable dilemma:
“Once the Scriptures were written, and the prophetic and
apostolic witness to Christ was complete, no need remained for
private revelations of new truths, and Owen did not believe that any
were given. He opposed the ‘enthusiasm’ of those who, like the Quakers,
put their trust in supposed revelations given apart from, and going
beyond, the word. In a Latin work Owen calls the Quakers fanatici,
‘fanatics’, for their attitude. He is quick to deploy against them the
old dilemma that if their ‘private revelations’ agree with Scripture,
they are needless, and if they disagree, they are false.” (14)
This dilemma is logistically inescapable and should be used today. Scripture is Paramount!
One of the greatest American theologians, Benjamin B. Warfield on the Cessation of the Charismata:
There is, of course, a deeper principle recognizable here, of which the
actual attachment of the charismata of the Apostolic Church to the
mission of the Apostles is but an illustration. This deeper principle
may be reached by us through the perception, more broadly, of the
inseparable connection of miracles with revelation, as its mark and
credential; or, more narrowly, of the summing up of all revelation,
finally, in Jesus Christ. Miracles do not appear on the page of
Scripture vagrantly, here, there, and elsewhere indifferently, without
assignable reason. They belong to revelation periods, and appear only
when God is speaking to His people through accredited messengers,
declaring His gracious purposes. Their abundant display in the Apostolic
Church is the mark of the richness of the Apostolic age in revelation;
and when this revelation period closed, the period of miracle-working
had passed by also, as a mere matter of course. It might, indeed, be a
priori conceivable that God should deal with men atomistically, and
reveal Himself and His will to each individual, throughout the whole
course of history, in the penetralium of his own consciousness. This is
the mystic’s dream. It has not, however, been God’s way. He has chosen
rather to deal with the race in its entirety, and to give to this race
His complete revelation of Himself in an organic whole. And when this
historic process of organic revelation had reached its completeness, and
when the whole knowledge of God designed for the saving health of the
world had been incorporated into the living body of the world’s
thought—there remained, of course, no further revelation to be made, and
there has been accordingly no further revelation made. God the Holy
Spirit has made it His subsequent work, not to introduce new and
unneeded revelations into the world, but to diffuse this one complete
revelation through the world and to bring mankind into the saving
knowledge of it. (15)
In closing, consider how the Word of God Instructs Us:
“Let my cry come near before thee, O LORD: give me understanding according to thy word.” (Psalm 119:169)
Who would argue that “according to thy word” should be interpreted to
include personal revelations or unverifiable utterances in a church
meeting?
The Westminster Confession of Faith and cessationism 1.1:
Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence
do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave
men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of
God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it
pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal
himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards,
for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more
sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of
the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same
wholly unto writing: which maketh the holy Scripture to be most
necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people
being now ceased.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1991), pp. 212-213.
2. Leonard J. Coppes, Whatever Happened to Biblical Tongues?
(Chattanooga, Tennessee: Pilgrim Publishing Company, 1977), pp. 59-60.
3. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1219.
4. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,
(Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), pp. 1154-1155.
5. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers,
Romans, vol. 2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 238.
6. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 1
Corinthians, 9 Volumes, Romans, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011,
p. 323.
7. M. F. Sadler, The First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, (London, England, George Bell and Sons 1906), p. 217.
8. D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14,
9. (Grand Rapids, Michiagn Baker Academic), p. 84.
10. (Cited from Joe Nickell, Looking for a Miracle, (New York, Prometheus Books), p. 108.)
11. Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Joel,
vol. 2, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), pp.
893-894.
12. E. J. Young, Daniel, (Oxford: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988), p. 200.
13. Charles John Ellicot, A Bible Commentary for English Readers,
Daniel, vol. 5, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 387.
14. Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, 2
Peter, vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985),
p. 921.
15. J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness, (Westchester, Illinois, Crossway Books 1990), p. 86.
16. Benjamin B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles, (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918), pp. 25-26.
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.”
(Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28,
29)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the
Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the
Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. He served as an ordained ruling elder in
the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He worked in and retired from a
fortune five hundred company in corporate America after forty years. He
runs two blogs sites and is the author of the book defending the
Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a
Hat. Available at: http://www.thereligionthatstartedinahat.com/
Does the Christian have a coherent theory of knowledge? Asked another way, can Christians make sense out of the world? Does the Christian worldview have a basis to determine right and wrong? This article is a challenge to the atheistic worldview. Can the atheistic worldview explain its starting point and defend it? Where does the Christian worldview start? The Christian worldview starts with an axiom.
Gordon H. Clark: The Axiom of Scripture:
“Every philosophic or theological system must begin somewhere, for if it did not begin it could not continue. But a beginning cannot be preceded by anything else, or it would not be the beginning. Therefore every system must be based on presuppositions (Require as a precondition of possibility or coherence. Tacitly assume to be the case) or axioms (An accepted statement or proposition regarded as being self-evidently true). They may be Spinoza’s axioms; they may be Locke’s sensory starting point, or whatever. Every system must therefore be presuppositional.
The first principle cannot be demonstrated because there is nothing prior from which to deduce it. Call it presuppositionalism, call it fideism, names do not matter. But I know no better presupposition than “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs.
If the axioms of other secularists are not nonsense, they are nonetheless axioms. Every system must start somewhere, and it cannot have started before it starts. A naturalist might amend the Logical Positivists’ principle and make it say that all knowledge is derived from sensation. This is not nonsense, but it is still an empirically unverifiable axiom. If it is not self-contradictory, it is at least without empirical justification. Other arguments against empiricism need not be given here: The point is that no system can deduce its axioms.
The inference is this: No one can consistently object to Christianity being based on an indemonstrable axiom. If the secularists exercise their privilege of basing their theorems on axioms, then so may Christians. If the former refuse to accept our axioms, then they can have no logical objection to our rejecting theirs. Accordingly, we reject the very basis of atheism, Logical Positivism, and, in general, empiricism. Our axiom shall be that God has spoken. More completely, God has spoken in the Bible. More precisely, what the Bible says, God has spoken.” (1)
“Logically the infallibility of the Bible is not a theorem to be deduced from some prior axiom. The infallibility of the Bible is the axiom from which several doctrines are themselves deduced as theorems. Every religion and every philosophy must be based on some first principle. And since a first principle is first, it cannot be “proved” or “demonstrated” on the basis of anything prior. As the catechism question, quoted above, says, “The Word of God is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify Him.”
The inference is this: No one can consistently object to Christianity being based on an indemonstrable axiom. If the secularists exercise their privilege of basing their theorems on axioms, then so may Christians. If the former refuse to accept our axioms, then they can have no logical objection to our rejecting theirs. Accordingly, we reject the very basis of atheism, Logical Positivism, and, in general, empiricism. Our axiom shall be that God has spoken. More completely, God has spoken in the Bible. More precisely, what the Bible says, God has spoken.” (2)
Scripturalism, the following is a paraphrase or summation of the Christian’s starting principle by Gordon H. Clark:
Scripturalism (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles, in the Christian case, the Bible).
From this principle, the presuppositional argument for God’s existence and its implications stated, and atheism challenged:
“The Bible contains the Christian’s starting principles or presuppositions. God speaks to us in the Scriptures (special revelation) with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. The Christian worldview has the necessary preconditions to talk intelligently and give justification for the use of logic, science, and morality. Consequently, the strength of the Christian worldview is seen by the impossibility of the contrary. The impossibility of the contrary can be asserted because as of this day, no non-Christian anywhere has shown how their worldview can account for the use of science, logic, and intelligently talk about ethics. Begging the question is the typical response by the atheist to their worldview’s failure and this begging the question is a logical fallacy. We are not saying the atheist does not use logic or talk about right and wrong. We are saying the atheist cannot account for these things within his system.
Note: Begging the question is a fallacy of assumption because it directly presumes the conclusion, which is the question in the first place. For example, “Killing people is wrong, (premise) so the death penalty is wrong.” Begging the question is known as circular reasoning because the conclusion is seen at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an unending circle, never achieving anything of substance. The atheist system assumes it can account for logic and ethics without ever providing substantiation. One must accept the premise to be true for the claim to be true.
Why the atheist cannot find God:
The Christian says if an individual starts with a non-Christian syllogism or presupposition, the individual will never arrive at a Christian conclusion. As Clark noted above, every system or belief has a starting point. Starting with a non-Christian premise reminds us of “…of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them” (Romans 1:18-19). The atheist in his suppression of the truth refuses to start with the testimony of Scripture or natural revelation, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalms 19:1). All non-believing presuppositions ultimately lead to complete skepticism or the philosophy of no-nothing-ism.
Furthermore, because of this ultimate skepticism, the atheist cannot live consistently with the result of where his worldview takes him. That is why many atheists still talk about morality, science, and logic. They are inconsistent. From their starting premise, nothing can be proven. As stated, a materialistic worldview or atheism cannot justify or account for science, logic, or morality, since matter is silent! A rock cannot tell the atheist the difference between right and wrong. Likewise, the moon, which is a big rock, cannot tell the difference between what is right, and what is wrong. Atheistic materialism has nothing to say about science, logic, and ethics reliably. The matter making up the universe is silent. God is not silent. Closing this paragraph with a quote by William Provine, Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences at Cornell University, “There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.” “No ultimate foundation for ethics, no meaning to life,” says Provine. With assertions like this, the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism is exposed.
Atheists refuse to acknowledge how their system works:
Atheists generally refuse to acknowledge that they have presuppositions and that presuppositions govern interpretations of the world. In short, the Christian’s presupposition is God’s revelation in the Bible is our authority and standard of interpretation. The atheist’s presupposition is the man himself is the authority and standard of interpretation. This clash or antithesis of worldviews happened in the beginning, Genesis 3:5, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” The consequence of Adam’s disobedience is that Adam’s descendants in their rebellion will seek to be the interpreters of reality and reject God’s interpretation. Now that the fallen race of man is acting like God, he appeals to his authority in his attempt to answer the demands of speaking intelligently about science, morality, and logic. It is the authority of the infinite versus the authority of the finite. The atheist may not like this conclusion; until he comes up with epistemological solutions, he should remain silent like a rock.
Pressing the antithesis:
In addition to numerous philosophical problems regarding atheists and other non-Christian interpretations of the world, it should be clear that matter or material has nothing to say within the framework of non-believing philosophy. What could it say? Within this framework, material or matter is ultimately an accident and therefore meaningless. In addition to this problem, all men have a priori commitments, which are at work and from which truth or falsity is deduced. The question is not do men have a priori commitments, but what are they? The non-believer has suppressed and substituted God’s revealed truth for his interpretation of the world. When dealing with ethics in particular atheism cannot speak intelligently. The atheist has to borrow from and assume Christian definitions when talking about evil and good. To quote Nietzshe: “When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self-evident… Christianity is a system.” When rejecting the Christian system, “Everything is permitted” – Friedrich Nietzsche. According to Nietzsche, if “everything is permitted,” good and evil are meaningless terms. Nietzsche was a consistent atheist.
In essence, the atheist has erected a closed system. His system is closed to God. He does not allow God to speak. Since the atheist rejects the Creator, he has nothing within his closed system that he allows to speak with moral certainty. As long as fallen man excludes God from his system, he cannot know anything with certainty. The atheist thought has no basis for absolutes. An atheist has plenty of arbitrary social conventions. If there are no absolutes, there can be no meaning attached to anything since everything could be said to be true and not true at the same time, which is unacceptable irrational nonsense. As noted earlier by Aldous Huxley: “It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one’s life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than ‘try to be a little kinder.’” An example of a failed atheistic attempt at determining morality for society is pragmatic majoritarianism, i.e., the majority makes right. This system does not work out so well for the minorities, like the Jews in Nazi Germany.
Unanswerable questions for the atheist:
John Locke is known as the originator of the epistemological theory known as empiricism, which postulates the mind at birth is a blank tablet (tabula rasa) and then assimilates knowledge through sensations. This theory could be called the “blank mind theory” of knowledge. The details of how this theory works out with the mind receiving, interpreting, and retaining these sensations are lacking, to say the least.
For example, can atheistic empiricism provide a basis for certainty? It cannot. For example, empiricism historically argues that knowledge comes through sensations in the following order: (a) sensations, (b) perceptions, (c) memory images, (d) and the development of abstract ideas. In this system of interpretation, perceptions are inferences from sensations. How does the atheistic empiricist know valid from invalid inferences?
Can atheistic rationalism (reason alone) provide answers to big questions of life? Does the atheist have the necessary preconditions to interpret reality? The Christian says God is a necessary precondition for interpretation. The atheist says no. From a Christian worldview, it can be explained why life has a purpose. Can the atheist explain why life is purposeful? To remember an earlier quote: “There is no splendor, no vastness, anywhere, only triviality for a moment, and then nothing” – Bertrand Russell. This assertion by Russell is an example of a bankrupt worldview. Dostoevsky countered this idea of Russell by saying: “I don’t understand how, up to now, an atheist could know there is no God and not kill himself at once” – Fyodor Dostoevsky.
Pressing the antithesis further:
We can ask the atheist, what is the origin of laws of logic? Are the laws of logic interpreted in the same way universally? If not, why not? The laws of logic within the framework of non-belief are nothing more than a philosophical construct, which ends up collapsing into irrationality and inconsistency. Thus, the atheistic rational man has no rationale for his rationalism. The assertion that God is not silent is the solution to obtaining knowledge. God has spoken through the Scriptures to all of mankind. As Christians, we have a foundation for knowledge; it is revelational. God-given revelation is objective. Atheists reject this revelation; they suppress the truth that God has revealed to them through creation (Romans 1:18). God has spoken in the Scriptures, God’s special revelation to all men concerning what is required of him, and thus, we have a rationale for ethics. To repeat two quotes from David Silverman, “There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own actions….” In addition, “The hard answer is it is a matter of opinion.” David Silverman is an American secular advocate who served as president of American Atheists. According to Silverman, we are left with opinions. Different opinions are not solutions.
Again, we can ask the atheist and all non-Christians, what standard for interpretation is being used; identify your worldview and its basis for predication. Predication is attaching a predicate to a subject; hence, making an assertion. Van Til says, “Only the Christian worldview makes predication possible.” The atheist needs to demonstrate how his worldview can accomplish this.
For the atheist, there is ultimately only irrationalism:
Thus, the atheistic man has only matter, unintelligible or debatable explanations for sensations (sense perception), or his finite, fallible reason. An unclear debatable sensation is one reason for the bankruptcy of atheistic, materialistic humanism. The Christian has a rational basis for knowledge; it is the Biblical revelation. The Christian allows God to speak through creation and Scripture. The non-Christian will not allow room for the God of the Bible to speak in their system. As said, their system is closed to God’s revelation. The atheist insists on being the ultimate interpreter of reality, God is excluded. The Christian system is not closed like the atheist’s system. The Bible tells us about general and special revelation and man’s requirement to submit to a God-given interpretation of all things. It is because we have God’s revelation that an intelligent conversation on these matters can be carried on. How can a finite man who does not even know how many atoms are in an orange speak intelligently when asserting, absolutely and omnisciently, there is no God? These same people talk about the universe coming into existence from a big bang out of nothing. Was there a spark before the explosion of nothing? How did this spark happen? How does nothing explode? A big explosion sounds like the primitive view of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is illogical nonsense. In contrast to the atheist’s hypothetical speculation, the Christian has a God-given rational case for knowledge.
Philosophically, atheism vacillates between two positions of knowing and not knowing. These two opposite poles of allegiance constitute a never-ending dilemma, thus revealing the futility of non-Christian epistemology. Despite this, the atheist presses on irrationally. To illustrate, for example, some atheists claim absolutely that there are no absolutes, a self-refuting contradiction. The philosophy of non-belief contradicts itself when it claims not to know (uncertainty, agnosticism) and to know (certainty, atheism). Both atheism and agnosticism are two sides of the same coin. Thus, the non-believer is left with contradictory uncertainty and certainty, which are manifestations of his epistemological inability to derive meaningful intelligibility from an ultimate irrational meaningless universe.
The Christian Solution to knowledge:
As Christians, we have a coherent theory of knowledge. God has spoken. God speaking through revelation is certain: God speaks to us in the Scriptures with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. Language has the same meaning for God and man. Because of this, presuppositionalists argue that Christianity is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. The atheist position of the contrary has never been articulated successfully. See the great debate between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein at Davis University in California in 1985.* Atheistic epistemology has different theories, but no universal certainty and cannot escape skepticism better explained as no-nothing-ism. The non-Christian philosophers will argue on and on, never reaching an agreement. The following picture illustrates the atheist and other non-believers dilemma. The following picture illustrates the atheist’s impossible escape to nowhere.
Water man climbing to nowhere
In light of the Christian axiom, Scripturalism, (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles, in the Christian case, the Bible) we can put forth the Transcendental Argument:
1. God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).
2. People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities, which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute God.
3. Therefore, God exists. If He didn’t, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver.
“The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality.” – Greg Bahnsen
“…in the present day not a few are found, who deny the being of a God, yet, whether they will or not, they occasionally feel the truth which they are desirous not to know. We do not read of any man who broke out into more unbridled and audacious contempt of the Deity than C. Caligula, and yet none showed greater dread when any indication of divine wrath was manifested. Thus, however unwilling, he shook with terror before the God whom he professedly studied to condemn. You may every day see the same thing happening to his modern imitators. The most audacious despiser of God is most easily disturbed, trembling at the sound of a falling leaf. How so, unless in vindication of the divine majesty, which smites their consciences the more strongly the more they endeavor to flee from it. They all, indeed, look out for hiding-places where they may conceal themselves from the presence of the Lord, and again efface it from their mind; but after all their efforts, they remain caught within the net. Though the conviction may occasionally seem to vanish for a moment, it immediately returns, and rushes in with new impetuosity, so that any interval of relief from the gnawing of conscience is not unlike the slumber of the intoxicated or the insane, who have no quiet rest in sleep, but are continually haunted with dire horrific dreams. Even the wicked themselves, therefore, are an example of the fact that some idea of God always exists in every human mind.” – John Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion
“The statement that ‘God is dead’ comes from Nietzsche and has recently been trumpeted abroad by some German and American theologians. But the good Lord has not died of this; He who dwells in the heaven laughs at them.” – Karl Barth
“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” (1Corinthians 15:1-4 ESV)
Notes:
1. Gordon H. Clark, In Defense of Theology, (Fenton, Michigan, Mott Media, Inc. Publishers, 1984), pp. 31-33.
2. Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe? (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed 1985), pg. 18.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, and the author of
nineteen books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About
Muhammad. His latest book is The History of Jihad.
Mr. Spencer
has directed seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States
Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College,
the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force
(JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and
the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and
terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the
German Foreign Ministry. He is a consultant with the Center for Security
Policy and vice president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative.
What others are saying about Robert Spencer:
“Robert Spencer is one of my heroes. He has once again produced an
invaluable and much-needed book. Want to read the truth about Islam?
Read this book. It depicts the terrible fate of the hundreds of millions
of men, women, and children who, from the 7th century until today, were
massacred or enslaved by Islam. It is a fate that awaits us all if we
are not vigilant.” – Geert Wilders, member of Parliament in the
Netherlands and leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV)
“Spencer argues, in brief, ‘There has always been, with virtually no
interruption, jihad.’ Painstakingly, he documents in this important
study how aggressive war on behalf of Islam has, for fourteen centuries
and still now, befouled Muslim life. He hopes his study will awaken
potential victims of jihad, but will they–will we–listen to his
warning? Much hangs in the balance.” – Daniel Pipes, president, Middle
East Forum and author of Slave Soldiers and Islam: The Genesis of a
Military System
“Jihad is not mere terrorism. Ironic as it may
seem, that is Western wishful thinking. From its inception, as Robert
Spencer incontestably illustrates, jihad has been the outward,
aggressive expression of a conquest ideology. The History of Jihad: From
Muhammad to ISIS is as relentless in relating unvarnished truth as is
the phenomenon it tracks in seeking domination–and never being
satisfied with less, however long it takes. Those who care to preserve
Western rationalism, civil liberties, and free societies must confront
this history, and its implications, with eyes opened.” – Andrew C.
McCarthy, bestselling author, former federal prosecutor, and National
Review contributing editor
Important definitions:
Allah: One God (Allah in Arabic).
Caliph: (khalif,) the Caliph is a political-religious leader of the Muslim community.
Dhimmitude: The state of subjection and oppression of non-Muslims under
Islamic rule. Enslavement or servitude of the non-Muslims then becomes a
whole outlook on life and way of dealing with things.
Jihad: Commonly translated as Holy War, the defense of Islam against its enemies.
Kafir One who does not believe in Allah, or in the content of the Qur’an, or in the prophetic status of Muhammad.
Qur’an: The sacred text of Islam.
Taqiyya: not showing their faith openly by means of pretense, dissimulation, or concealment, is a special type of lying.
My thoughts on Spencer and this new book:
Mr. Spencer continues to distinguish himself as a champion of religious
and civil liberties. This latest book, The History of Jihad is the
first of its kind. The fake media and feckless politicians and
ecumenical leaders who continue to promote the “religion of peace”
canard are shown “To have no clothes,” paraphrasing “The emperor has no
clothes.”
Never before has the wealth of information in this book
been placed into one volume. Historically, Islam has been relentless in
ongoing military campaigns. Spencer accounts how modern-day slavery and
dhimmitude are dark realities of Islamic conquest. Spencer chronicles
the1400 years of bloodshed, murder, rape, pillaging, and slavery done in
the name of Islam since its inception. It cannot be disputed after
reading Spencer’s book, that the history of Islam is the history of
jihad. This is true if Islam in operating under an empire like that of
the Ottoman Turks or an individual jihadist.
When a Muslim
jihadist screaming “Allahu Akbar” runs over people on the streets or
stabs them to death like Theo Van Gogh, in Holland, they are doing what
Islam has always done. The acts of terrorism are what Muhammad taught.
For example, Muhammad commanded in Quran 8:12 – “I will cast terror into
the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads
and strike off every fingertip of them.” References from the Quran and
quotes from historical documents in Spencer’s book prove this beyond
doubt.
In conclusion after reading Spencer’s book my thoughts are:
“Islam is a religious, political, genocidal ideology characterized by
centuries of Jihadist warfare and brutal oppressive totalitarianism of
those enslaved. This 7th Century malevolent ideology provides cover for
unfathomable discrimination against non-Muslims, sadistic torture and
unthinkable misogyny, even encouraging the rape of non-Muslim women and
slavery that is practiced and sanctioned to this present day as
witnessed by ISIS.”
“The religion of the New World Order is
Islam. The selection of Islam as the religion of the New World Order
explains the West’s forced suicidal surrender to Islam and the
relentless attacks upon anyone who dares to speak the truth about Islam,
its history of violence and subjugation and supremacy over non-Muslims.
The violent Mohammedans will be used to intimidate and suppress free
speech, lectures, media interviews, and assemblies and terrorize people
into submission.”
Islamophobia is a recently made up term, which
can be defined as someone who has an irrational hatred and fear of
Islam. This charge when made against Mr. Spencer is slanderous.
“…tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali
“People that tell you Islam is a religion of peace are only announcing their ignorance.” – Brigitte Gabriel
In ending this review, those who have given in to political correctness
and are willing to surrender Western freedoms brought to you by the
Judeo/Christian world view, I will end with Mr. Spencer’s words: “And
so, in closing, I have to say: Shame on you.”
Mr. Kettler has
previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum.
He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr.
Kettler is the author of the book The Religion That Started in a Hat.
Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
In this study, we will look at the biblical teaching regarding what the
Bible calls regeneration. What does this mean? As in previous studies,
we will look at definitions, scriptures, lexical evidence, commentary
evidence and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how
we live. Glorify God always!
Regeneration
“An act of God
whereby a soul, previously dead to him, experiences a spiritual
resurrection into a new sphere of life, in which he is alive to God….”;
an inner work of the Spirit in which new spiritual life is implanted so
that a person’s whole nature is changed and he or she can respond to God
in faith. Also called new birth, rebirth, spiritual birth, being born
again or quickening.” *
Regeneration
“The act of God
whereby He renews the spiritual condition of a sinner. It is a spiritual
change brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit so that the person
then possesses new life, eternal life. Regeneration is a change in our
moral and spiritual nature where justification is a change in our
relationship with God. Also, sanctification is the work of God in us to
make us more like Jesus. Regeneration is the beginning of that change.
It means to be born again.” **
From Scripture:
“And the
LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to
love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that
thou mayest live.’ (Deuteronomy 30:6)
“A new heart also will I
give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you and heart of
flesh.” (Ezekiel 36:26)
“And I will give them and heart to know
me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their
God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.” (Jeremiah
24:7)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God.” (John 3:3)
“Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be
the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with
the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy
tables of the heart.” (2Corinthians 3:3)
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” (Ephesians 2:1)
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)
“For this is the covenant that I will
make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will
put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will
be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” (Hebrews 8:10)
“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days,
saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds
will I write them.” (Hebrews 10:16)
In regeneration, a spiritual
new birth takes place. In the Scriptural words and phrases below are
various descriptions of the new birth seen in the passages above:
“Born again” or (born from above) John 3:3;
“And you hath he quickened” (made alive) Ephesians 2:1;
“The washing of regeneration” Titus 3:5;
“I will put into their hearts; written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God” 2 Corinthians;
“I will give them a heart to know me” Jeremiah 24:7;
“God will circumcise thine heart, a new spirit will I put within you” Deuteronomy 30:6;
God is the One who regenerates the sinner. John 3:3 informs us that a
man must be born again. The other passages listed above describe how a
man is born again by the action of God. The Holy Spirit gives life. The
verb tenses in the above passages that have been underlined are action
verbs on God’s part. For example, “I will,” “And you hath he quickened,”
“God will.”
Some descriptions of what happens in regeneration:
1. Spiritually reborn
2. New birth resulting in a new nature
3. Heart of stone changed to heart of flesh
4. Circumcision of the heart
5. Rebirth of the old nature, to a new spiritual nature
6. The reborn are restored to a relationship with God
7. Renewed to life, characterized by faith in Christ
8. The act of God causing an inward resurrection from sin to a new life in Christ
Regeneration from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:
Regeneration
[1, G3824, palingenesia]
“new birth” (palin, “again,” genesis, “birth”), is used of “spiritual
regeneration,” Titus 3:5, involving the communication of a new life, the
two operating powers to produce which are “the word of truth,” James
1:18; 1 Peter 1:23, and the Holy Spirit, John 3:5-John 3:6; the loutron,
“the laver, the washing,” is explained in Ephesians 5:26,”having
cleansed it by the washing (loutron) of water with the word.”
The
new birth and “regeneration” do not represent successive stages in
spiritual experience; they refer to the same event but view it in
different aspects. The new birth stresses the communication of spiritual
life in contrast to antecedent spiritual death; “regeneration” stresses
the inception of a new state of things in contrast with the old; hence
the connection of the use of the word with its application to Israel, in
Matthew 19:28. Some regard the kai in Titus 3:5 as epexegetic, “even;”
but, as Scripture marks two distinct yet associated operating powers,
there is not sufficient ground for this interpretation. See under EVEN.
In Matthew 19:28 the word is used, in the Lord’s discourse, in the
wider sense, of the “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21, RV), when,
as a result of the second advent of Christ, Jehovah “sets His King upon
His holy hill of Zion” (Psalms 2:6), and Israel, now in apostasy, is
restored to its destined status, in the recognition and under the benign
sovereignty of its Messiah. Thereby will be accomplished the
deliverance of the world from the power and deception of Satan and from
the despotic and anti-Christian rulers of the nations. This restitution
will not in the coming millennial age be universally a return to the
pristine condition of Edenic innocence previous to the Fall, but it will
fulfill the establishment of God’s covenant with Abraham concerning his
descendants, a veritable rebirth of the nation, involving the peace and
prosperity of the Gentiles. That the worldwide subjection to the
authority of Christ will not mean the entire banishment of evil is clear
from Revelation 20:7-Revelation 20:8. Only in the new heavens and
earth, “wherein dwelleth righteousness,” will sin and evil be entirely
absent. (1)
An excellent informative article on Regeneration by J.I.Packer:
Regeneration is the spiritual change wrought in the heart of man by the
Holy Spirit in which his/her inherently sinful nature is changed so
that he/she can respond to God in Faith, and live in accordance with His
Will (Matt. 19:28; John 3:3,5,7; Titus 3:5). It extends to the whole
nature of man, altering his governing disposition, illuminating his
mind, freeing his will, and renewing his nature.
Regeneration, or
new birth, is an inner re-creating of fallen human nature by the
gracious sovereign action of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5-8). The Bible
conceives salvation as the redemptive renewal of man on the basis of a
restored relationship with God in Christ, and presents it as involving
“a radical and complete transformation wrought in the soul (Rom. 12:2;
Eph. 4:23) by God the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5; Eph. 4:24), by virtue of
which we become ‘new men’ (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), no longer conformed to
this world (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9), but in knowledge and
holiness of the truth created after the image of God (Eph. 4:24; Col.
3:10; Rom. 12:2)” (B. B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies,
351). Regeneration is the “birth” by which this work of new creation is
begun, as sanctification is the “growth” whereby it continues (I Pet.
2:2; II Pet. 3:18). Regeneration in Christ changes the disposition from
lawless, Godless self-seeking (Rom. 3:9-18; 8:7) which dominates man in
Adam into one of trust and love, of repentance for past rebelliousness
and unbelief, and loving compliance with God’s law henceforth. It
enlightens the blinded mind to discern spiritual realities (I Cor.
2:14-15; II Cor. 4:6; Col. 3:10), and liberates and energizes the
enslaved will for free obedience to God (Rom. 6:14, 17-22; Phil. 2:13).
The use of the figure of new birth to describe this change emphasizes
two facts about it. The first is its decisiveness. The regenerate man
has forever ceased to be the man he was; his old life is over and a new
life has begun; he is a new creature in Christ, buried with him out of
reach of condemnation and raised with him into a new life of
righteousness (see Rom. 6:3-11; II Cor. 5:17; Col. 3:9-11). The second
fact emphasized is the monergism of regeneration. Infants do not induce,
or cooperate in, their own procreation and birth; no more can those who
are “dead in trespasses and sins” prompt the quickening operation of
God’s Spirit within them (see Eph. 2:1-10). Spiritual vivification is a
free, and to man mysterious, exercise of divine power (John 3:8), not
explicable in terms of the combination or cultivation of existing human
resources (John 3:6), not caused or induced by any human efforts (John
1:12-13) or merits (Titus 3:3-7), and not, therefore, to be equated
with, or attributed to, any of the experiences, decisions, and acts to
which it gives rise and by which it may be known to have taken place.
Biblical Presentation
The noun “regeneration” (palingenesia) occurs only twice. In Matt.
19:28 it denotes the eschatological “restoration of all things” (Acts
3:21) under the Messiah for which Israel was waiting. This echo of
Jewish usage points to the larger scheme of cosmic renewal within which
that of individuals finds its place. In Titus 3:5, the word refers to
the renewing of the individual. Elsewhere, the thought of regeneration
is differently expressed.
In OT prophecies regeneration is
depicted as the work of God renovating, circumcising, and softening
Israelite hearts, writing his laws upon them, and thereby causing their
owners to know, love, and obey him as never before (Deut. 30:6; Jer.
31:31-34; 32:39-40; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:25-27). It is a sovereign work of
purification from sin’s defilement (Ezek. 36:25; cf. Ps. 51:10),
wrought by the personal energy of God’s creative out breathing the
personal energy of God’s creative out breathing (“spirit”: Ezek. 36:27;
39:29). Jeremiah declares that such renovation on a national scale will
introduce and signal God’s new messianic administration of his covenant
with his people (Jer. 31:31; 32:40).
In the NT the thought of
regeneration is more fully individualized, and in John’s Gospel and
First Epistle the figure of new birth, “from above” (anothen: John 3:3,
7, Moffatt), “of water and the Spirit” (i.e., through a purificatory
operation of God’s Spirit: see Ezek. 36:25-27; John 3:5; cf. 3:8), or
simply “of God” (John 1:13, nine times in I John), is integral to the
presentation of personal salvation. The verb gennao (which means both
“beget” and “bear”) is used in these passages in the aorist or perfect
tense to denote the once-for-all divine work whereby the sinner, who
before was only “flesh,” and as such, whether he knew it or not, utterly
incompetent in spiritual matters (John 3:3-7), is made “spirit” (John
3:6), i.e., is enabled and caused to receive and respond to the saving
revelation of God in Christ. In the Gospel, Christ assures Nicodemus
that there are no spiritual activities, no seeing or entering God’s
kingdom, because no faith in himself, without regeneration (John
3:1ff.); and John declares in the prologue that only the regenerate
receive Christ and enter into the privileges of God’s children (John
1:12-13). Conversely, in the Epistle John insists that there is no
regeneration that does not issue in spiritual activities. The regenerate
do righteousness (I John 2:29) and do not live a life of sin (3:9;
5:18: the present tense indicates habitual law-keeping, not absolute
sinlessness, cf. 1:8-10); they love Christians (4:7), believe rightly in
Christ, and experience faith’s victory over the world (5:4). Any, who
do otherwise, whatever they claim, are still unregenerate children of
the devil (3:6-10).
Paul specifies the Christological dimensions
of regeneration by presenting it as (1) a life giving co-resurrection
with Christ (Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13; cf. I Pet. 1:3); (2) a work of new
creation in Christ (II Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10; Gal. 6:15). Peter and James
make the further point that God “begets anew” (anagennao: I Pet. 1:23)
and “brings to birth” (apokyeo: James 1:18) by means of the gospel. It
is under the impact of the word that God renews the heart, so evoking
faith (Acts 16:14-15).
Historical Discussion
The fathers
did not formulate the concept of regeneration precisely. They equated
it, broadly speaking, with baptismal grace, which to them meant
primarily (to Pelagius, exclusively) remission of sins. Augustine
realized, and vindicated against Pelagianism, the necessity for
prevenient grace to make a man trust and love God, but he did not
precisely equate this grace with regeneration. The Reformers reaffirmed
the substance of Augustine’s doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed
theology still maintains it. Calvin used the term “regeneration” to
cover man’s whole subjective renewal, including conversion and
sanctification. Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated
regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration
(hence the systematic mistranslation of epistrepho, “turn,” as a
passive, “be converted,” in the AV); later Reformed theology has defined
regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the “seed” from which
faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual
calling. Arminianism constructed the doctrine of regeneration
synergistically, making man’s renewal dependent on his prior cooperation
with grace; liberalism constructed it naturalistically, identifying
regeneration with a moral change or a religious experience.
The
fathers lost the biblical understanding of the sacraments as signs to
stir up faith and seals to confirm believers in possession of the
blessings signified, and so came to regard baptism as conveying the
regeneration which it signified (Titus 3:5) ex opere operato to those
who did not obstruct it’s working. Since infants could not do this, all
baptized infants were accordingly held to be regenerated. This view has
persisted in all the non-Reformed churches of Christendom, and among
sacramentalists within Protestantism.
Regeneration Advanced Information
Scripture terms by which this work of God is designated:
Creating – Eph. 4:24
Begetting – 1Jo 4:7
Quickening – Joh 5:21 Eph. 2:5
Calling out of darkness into marvellous light – 1Pe 2:9
The subjects of it are to be alive from the dead – Ro 6:13
To be new creatures – 2Co 5:17
To be born again, or anew – Joh 3:3, 7
To be God’s workmanship – Eph. 2:10
Proof that there is such a thing as is commonly called regeneration.
The Scriptures declare that such a change is necessary – 2Co 5:17 Ga 6:15
The change is described – Eph. 2:5 4:23 Jas 1:18 1Pe 1:23
It is necessary for the most moral as well as the most profligate – 1Co 15:10 Ga 1:13-16
That this change is not a mere reformation is proved by its being referred to the Holy Spirit. – Tit 3:5
In the comparison of man’s state in grace with his state by nature. – Ro 6:13 8:6-10 Eph. 5:8
In the experience of all Christians and the testimony of their lives.
Proofs that believers are subjects of supernatural or spiritual illumination.
This is necessary. – Joh 16:3 1Co 2:14 2Co 3:14 4:3
The Scriptures expressly affirm it. – Ps 19:7, 8 43:3, 4 Joh 17:3
1Co 2:12, 13 2Co 4:6 Eph. 1:18 Philippians 1:19 Col 3:10 1Jo 4:7 5:20
The first effect of regeneration is to open the eyes of our
understanding to the excellency of divine truth. The second effect the
going forth of the renewed affections toward that excellency perceived.
Proof of the absolute necessity of regeneration
The Scriptures assert it. – Joh 3:3 Ro 8:6, 7 Eph. 2:10 4:21-24
It is proved from the nature of man as a sinner – Ro 7:18 8:7-9 1Co 2:14 Eph. 2:1
Also from the nature of heaven – Isa 35:8 52:1 Mt 5:8 13:41 Heb. 12:14 Re 21:27
The restoration of holiness is the grand end of the whole plan of salvation. – Ro 8:28, 29 Eph. 1:4 5:5, 26, 27
Bibliography
J. Orr, “Regeneration,” HDB; J. Denney, HDCG; B. B. Warfield, Biblical
and Theological Studies; systematic theologies of C. Hodge, III, 1-40,
and L. Berkhof, IV, 465-79; A. Ringwald et al., NIDNTT, I, 176ff.; F.
Buchsel et al., TDNT, I, 665ff.; B. Citron, The New Birth. (2)
Regeneration an Act of God by systematic theologian, Charles Hodge:
1. Regeneration is an act of God. It is not simply referred to Him as
its giver, and, in that sense, its author, as He is the giver of faith
and of repentance. It is not an act which, by argument and persuasion,
or by moral power, He induces the sinner to perform. But it is an act of
which He is the agent. It is God who regenerates. The soul is
regenerated. In this sense the soul is passive in regeneration, which
(subjectively considered) is a change wrought in us, and not an act
performed by us.
Regeneration an Act of God’s Power
2.
Regeneration is not only an act of God, but also an act of his almighty
power. Agreeably to the express declarations of the Scriptures, it is so
presented in the Symbols of the Protestant churches. If an act of
omnipotence, it is certainly efficacious, for nothing can resist
almighty power. The Lutherans indeed deny this. But the more orthodox of
them mean simply that the sinner can keep himself aloof from the means
through which, or, rather, in connection with which it pleases God to
exercise his power. He can absent himself from the preaching of the
Word, and the use of the sacraments. Or he may voluntarily place himself
in such an inward posture of resistance as determines God not to exert
his power in his regeneration. The assertion that regeneration is an act
of God’s omnipotence, is, and is intended to be, a denial that it is an
act of moral suasion. It is an affirmation that it is “physical” in the
old sense of that word, as opposed to moral; and that it is immediate,
as opposed to mediate, or through or by the truth. When either in
Scripture or in theological writings, the word regeneration is taken in a
wide sense as including conversion or the voluntary turning of the soul
to God, then indeed it is said to be by the Word. The restoration of
sight to the blind by the command of Christ was an act of omnipotence.
It was immediate. Nothing in the way of instrumentary or secondary
coöperating influence intervened between the divine volition and the
effect. But all exercises of the restored faculty were through and by
the light. And without light sight is impossible. Raising Lazarus from
the dead was an act of omnipotence. Nothing intervened between the
volition and the effect. The act of quickening was the act of God. In
that matter, Lazarus was passive. But in all the acts of the restored
vitality, he was active and free. According to the evangelical system it
is in this sense that regeneration is the act of God’s almighty power.
Nothing intervenes between his volition that the soul, spiritually dead,
should live, and the desired effect. But in all that belongs to the
consciousness; all that precedes or follows the imparting of this new
life, the soul is active and is influenced by the truth acting according
to the laws of our mental constitution. (3)
In closing:
The Westminster Catechism, under the headings of redemption and effectual calling covers, regeneration.
Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 29 on redemption/regeneration:
Q: How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A: We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the
effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit. (1.)
(1.)
John 1:12-13. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which
were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of God.
John 3:5-6. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I
say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God. . . That which is born of the
flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Titus 3:5-6. Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but
according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus
Christ our Saviour.
Westminster Larger Catechism on effectual calling/regeneration:
Q. 67: What is effectual calling?
A. 67: Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace,
whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from
nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time,
invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly
enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their
wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made
willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace
the grace offered and conveyed therein.
“Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,
(Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 939.
2. J. I. Packer, Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, “Regeneration,” (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House), pp. 924-926.
3. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans), pp. 31-32).
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.”
(Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28,
29)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the
Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the
Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. He served as an ordained ruling elder in
the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He worked in and retired from a
fortune five hundred company in corporate America after forty years. He
runs two blogs sites and is the author of the book defending the
Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a
Hat. Available at: http://www.thereligionthatstartedinahat.com/
Filioque, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
By Jack Kettler
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
In this study, we will look at the biblical teaching regarding what
theologians call the “filioque.” What does this mean? As in previous
studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, lexical evidence,
commentary evidence and confessional support for the purpose to glorify
God in how we live. Glorify God always!
Filioque:
“Latin
for “and from the Son, ” a term referring to a clause inserted into the
Nicene Creed to indicate that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the
Father only but also from the Son. The controversy that arose over this
doctrinal point contributed to the split between the Eastern and Western
churches in A. D. 1054.” *
Filioque:
“The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from both the Father and the Son.” **
From Scripture:
“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed
me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the
brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of
the prison to them that are bound.” (Isaiah 61:1)
In Isaiah, we
see the continuing possession of the Spirit in this Messianic prophecy.
Also, consider how the Spirit is without measure upon Christ as seen in
John 3:34. Moreover, God anointed Him (Christ) with the Holy Spirit and
with power as seen in (Acts 10:38). Also, ponder, “But if I cast out
devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you”
(Matthew 12:28).
Jesus’ exercising the power of healing and
casting out demons is proof that the Spirit does things at Christ’s
command. Because of this possession and anointing of the Spirit “without
measure,” it follows that Christ can send the Spirit to His disciples.
In the next passage of Scripture, this conclusion is unequivocal.
“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he
shall testify of me.” (John 15:26)
Christ says that He will send
the “Comforter,” (“whom I will send unto you”) therefore, the latter
part of the passage, which says the Spirit proceedeth from the Father,
does not preclude the procession or sending of the Spirit from the Son.
This is because of what Christ has said in the first part of the passage
about His sending of the Spirit. The first and last part of the passage
does not contradict but in fact, supplement our understanding of the
sending of the Spirit.
In the next passage of Scripture, the conclusion regarding Christ sending the Spirit is undisputable.
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go
away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if
I depart, I will send him unto you.” (John 16:7)
This passage likewise does not preclude the Father sending the Spirit. The Father and Son are in unity.
“You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the
Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of
Christ does not belong to him.” (Romans 8:9 ESV)
Charles Hodge’s Commentary on Romans 8:9:
Romans 8:9 — that he does to the first person of the Trinity. This was
one of the points of controversy between the Greek and Latin Churches;
the latter insisting on inserting in that clause of the Creed which
speaks of the procession of the Holy Ghost, the words “filioque,” (and
from the Son.) For this, the gratitude of all Christians is due to the
Latin Church, as it vindicates the full equality of the Son with the
Father. No clearer assertion and no higher exhibition of the Godhead of
the Son can be conceived. (1)
What Hodge says is correct about
“the full equality of the Son with the Father.” If this were not so,
there would be subordinationism within the Triune God. Implicit within
subordinationism is the idea that the Son is inferior to the Father.
The next two passages also speak of the Spirit of Christ. What does this mean?
“For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer,
and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:19)
These two passages do not preclude the phrase the Spirit of the Father.
“The Spirit of Jesus Christ” as Hodge has said earlier does “vindicates
the full equality of the Son with the Father.”
“Searching what
or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did
signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the
glory that should follow.” (1 Peter 1:11)
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on 1 Peter 1:11:
11. what—Greek, “In reference to what, or what manner of time.” What
expresses the time absolutely: what was to be the era of Messiah’s
coming; what manner of time; what events and features should
characterize the time of His coming. The “or” implies that some of the
prophets, if they could not as individuals discover the exact time,
searched into its characteristic features and events. The Greek for
“time” is the season, the epoch, the fit time in God’s purposes.
Spirit of Christ … in them—(Ac 16:7, in oldest manuscripts, “the Spirit
of Jesus”; Re 19:10). So Justin Martyr says, “Jesus was He who appeared
and communed with Moses, Abraham, and the other patriarchs.” “Clement of
Alexandria calls Him “the Prophet of prophets, and Lord of all the
prophetical spirit.”
did signify—“did give intimation.”
of—Greek, “the sufferers (appointed) unto Christ,” or foretold in regard
to Christ. “Christ,” the anointed Mediator, whose sufferings are the
price of our “salvation” (1Pe 1:9, 10), and who is the channel of “the
grace that should come unto you.”
the glory—Greek, “glories,”
namely, of His resurrection, of His ascension, of His judgment and
coming kingdom, the necessary consequence of the sufferings.
that
should follow—Greek, “after these (sufferings),” 1Pe 3:18-22; 5:1.
Since “the Spirit of Christ” is the Spirit of God, Christ is God. It is
only because the Son of God was to become our Christ that He manifested
Himself and the Father through Him in the Old Testament, and by the Holy
Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father and Himself, spake in the
prophets. (2)
In these two passages, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown demonstrates the proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and Himself (Jesus).
Revelation 22:1 provides more evidence of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and Son:
“And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal,
proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.” (Revelation 22:1)
There is a double procession out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
This conclusion is inescapable. The following comments by Henry make
this clear.
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on Revelation 22:1:
22:1-5 All streams of earthly comfort are muddy; but these are clear,
and refreshing. They give life, and preserve life, to those who drink of
them, and thus they will flow for evermore. These point to the
quickening and sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit, as given to
sinners through Christ. The Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and
the Son, applies this salvation to our souls by his new-creating love
and power. The trees of life are fed by the pure waters of the river
that comes from the throne of God. The presence of God in heaven is the
health and happiness of the saints. This tree was an emblem of Christ
and of all the blessings of his salvation; and the leaves for the
healing of the nations, mean that his favor and presence supply all good
to the inhabitants of that blessed world. The devil has no power there;
he cannot draw the saints from serving God, nor can he disturb them in
the service of God. God and the Lamb are here spoken of as one. Service
there shall be not only freedom, but also honour and dominion. There
will be no night; no affliction or dejection, no pause in service or
enjoyment: no diversions or pleasures or man’s inventing will there be
wanted. How different all this from gross and merely human views of
heavenly happiness, even those which refer to pleasures of the mind! (3)
The next article is one of the finest examinations of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son!
Christianity 101 The Theology of the Ancient Creeds Part 6: The Procession of the Spirit:
By Greg Uttinger
April 01, 2003
Introduction
The Western form of the Nicene Creed differs from the Eastern in what
it says about the Holy Spirit. The Eastern form, following that adopted
at Constantinople, says that the Holy Ghost “proceedeth from the
Father.” The Western form of the Creed adds the words, “and the Son” —
in Latin, the single word Filioque. The Western Church confesses a
double procession of the Holy Spirit, a procession from the Father and
the Son. (1) The Eastern Church regards this as heresy.
The
Filioque clause originated in Spain in the 6th Century. The Council of
Toledo (589), in denouncing Arianism, issued twenty-three anathemas and,
at the same time, inserted the Filioque into the Latin text of the
Nicene Creed. (2) From Spain, use of the Filioque passed into Gaul.
Charlemagne asked Pope Leo III to sanction the Filioque. Leo judged the
doctrine orthodox, but objected to altering the ecumenical Creed.
Nonetheless, use of the Filioque continued to spread in the West and
eventually won approval in Rome.
In the middle of the 11th
Century, the Filioque became a major point of contention between the
East and West. The Eastern Church complained that the West had added the
Filioque illegally — that is, without an ecumenical council (30 — and
that the doctrine itself was fundamentally wrong and dangerous. This
remains the position of the Eastern Church to this day.
The Testimony of the Fathers
The doctrine of the double procession was no novelty when the Council
of Toledo used it in its attack on Arianism. Consider the testimony of
these ancient writers, two of whom actually hailed from the East (4)
St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403) wrote in his Ankyrotos:
The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit
breathes from the Father and the Son; and neither is the Son created nor
is the Spirit created.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, the enemy of Nestorianism, wrote in his Thesaurus (c. 424):
Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to
God, and He actually proceeds from Father and Son, it is abundantly
clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding
from it.
St. Hilary of Potiers (356-359) in his De Trinitate said
the Holy Spirit “is of the Father and the Son, His Sources.” Pope St.
Damasus I in the Acts of the Council of Rome (382) declared:
The
Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or the Spirit of the Son only,
but He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For it is written, “If
anyone loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him” (1 John
2:15); and again it is written: “If anyone, however, does not have the
Spirit of Christ, he is none of His” (Romans 8:9).
And Pope St. Leo I (d. 461) said (Sermon 75:30):
The Son is the Only-begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the
Spirit of the Father and of the Son, not as any creature, which also is
of the Father and of the Son, but as living and having power with both,
and eternally subsisting of that which is the Father and the Son.
But it was St. Augustine of Hippo who did the most to develop the
doctrine of the double procession. “St. Augustine taught that the Holy
Spirit is the bond of love that exists between the Father and the Son.”
(5) In On the Trinity (400-416) he wrote:
[ With the Father and the Son] the Holy Spirit, too, exists in this same unit of substance and equality. For whether He be the unity of the Father and the Son, or Their holiness, or Their love, or Their unity because He is Their love, or Their love because He is Their holiness, it is clear that He is not one of the Two, since it is by Him that the Two are joined, by Him that the Begotten is loved by the Begetter, and in turn loves Him who begot Him (XI, 5:7).
And yet it is not without reason that in this
Trinity only the Word of God is called Son, only the Gift of God the
Holy Spirit, and only He of whom the Word is begotten and from Whom
principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have
added the term “principally” because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed
also from the Son. But this too the Father gave the Son, not as if the
Son did not already exist and have it, but because whatever the Father
gives the Son, He gives by begetting. He so begot Him, then, that the
Gift might proceed jointly from Him, and so that the Holy Spirit would
be the Spirit of both (XV, 17:29).
According to Scripture
The central verse in this whole debate is John 15:26:
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he
shall testify of me.
The Council of Constantinople lifted the
phrase “proceedeth from the Father” directly from Scripture and placed
it in the Creed. The Spirit’s precise relationship to the Son was not a
pressing question at the time, and the Council did not speak to it one
way or the other. Yet the Eastern Church argues from the silence of the
text and of the Creed: since both say “from the Father” and no more, it
is wrong, the East insists, to add more. This is not necessarily true,
however. “From the Father” need not exclude “and from the Son” if there
is other Scriptural evidence to support the clause.
We read in
Matthew of one angel at the tomb on Easter Day, and this does not
contradict Luke’s statement that there were two angels. We read in Mark
10 and Luke 18 of a blind beggar healed by Jesus on the outskirts of
Jericho, and this does not contradict the statement in Matthew that
there were two blind beggars healed. Similarly, it is clear that the
saying of Jesus, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, does not
contradict the statement that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son. (6)
Though Scripture does not say explicitly that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, it does say what amounts to the same thing.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go
away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if
I depart, I will send him unto you (John 17:7).
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost (John 20:22).
Jesus promised that He Himself would send the Spirit. After His
resurrection, He bestowed the Spirit upon His disciples with a breath,
His own breath. The Eastern Church argues that this was merely a sign or
sacrament; yet God reveals Himself in His works as He is in truth. The
sending or breathing or procession in time presupposes and reveals the
procession from eternity. (7)
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father (Gal. 4:6).
If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit (or Breath) of the Son, then He must
be breathed (spirated) by the Son. And the word is Son, not Christ or
Jesus: the reference is to the ontological Trinity, to something within
the Godhead, and not to the Mediator’s sending the Spirit at Pentecost.
The Son breathes the Spirit from eternity, and therefore He has breathed
or sent Him in time.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is
come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will
shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of
mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are
mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shew it unto you
(John 16:13-15).
That which the Spirit has, He has “from the Son no less than from the Father.”
…and as the Son is said to be from the Father because he does not speak
of himself, but of the Father (from whom he receives all things), so
the Spirit ought to be said to be and to proceed from the Son because he
hears and speaks from him. (8)
There is more. If the Spirit does
not proceed from the Son, we have some serious theological problems.
First, we lose intimate fellowship that is the Trinity. For the Holy
Spirit has no immediate relationship to the Son. The Father’s Breath has
no destination, nor is that Breath ever returned to Him. “It is only if
the Spirit proceeds from both that the inter-communion of the persons
of the Trinity is eternally complete.” (9)
Second, we have no way
to distinguish the Son and the Spirit within the Godhead. We cannot
even say that the Son is the second Person of the Trinity and the Holy
Spirit is the third. After all, isn’t it true that a man’s spirit is
closer to that man than is his son? And yet the normal language of
Scripture and the order of historical revelation give us Father, then
Son, and then Spirit.
If We Abandon the Filioque…
Ideas
have consequences. Ideas about God have profound consequences,
especially given enough time. The Filioque is not a minor matter, and
whether the Church accepts or rejects it will have extensive and
long-term cultural effects. The Dutch theologians and those influenced
by their writings seem to have clearer understanding of this than, say,
those in the Presbyterian tradition. For example, Herman Bavinck writes:
The three persons [in the Eastern perspective] are not viewed as three
relations within the one essence, the self-unfoldment of the Godhead,
but the Father is viewed as the One who imparts his being to the Son and
to the Spirit. As a result, the Son and the Spirit are so coördinated
that both in the same manner have their “originating cause” in the
Father. In both the Father reveals himself. The Son causes us to know
God: the Spirit causes us to delight in him. The Son does not reveal the
Father in and through the Spirit, neither does the Spirit lead us to
the Father through the Son. The two are more or less independent of each
other; each leads to the Father in his own peculiar way. Thus,
orthodoxy and mysticism, mind and will, are placed in antithetic
relation to one another. And this peculiar relation between orthodoxy
and mysticism characterizes the religious attitude prevailing in the
Eastern Church. Doctrine and life are separated: doctrine is for the
mind only: it is a fit object of theological speculation. Next to it and
apart from it there is another fountain of life, namely the mysticism
of the Spirit. This fountain does not have knowledge as its source but
has its own distinct origin and nourishes the heart. Thus, a false
relation is established between mind and heart: ideas and emotions are
separated, and the link that should bind the two in ethical union is
lacking. (10)
Edwin Palmer summarizes Kuyper’s analysis:
Moreover, as Abraham Kuyper has incisively pointed out, a denial of the
filioque leads to an unhealthy mysticism. It tends to isolate the work
of the Holy Spirit in our lives from the work of Jesus. Redemption by
Christ is put in the background, while the sanctifying work of the
Spirit is brought to the fore. The emphasis is more and more on the work
of the Spirit in our lives, which tends to lead to an independence from
Christ, the church, and the Bible. Sanctification can loom larger than
justification, the subjective communion with the Spirit larger than the
objective church life, and illumination by the Spirit larger than the
Word. Kuyper believes that this has actually been the case to some
extent in the Eastern Church, as a result of the denial that the Spirit
proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. (11)
The Spirit
comes to glorify the Son (John 16:14). If we detach the work of the
Spirit from the blood of Christ and the word of God, we distort
Christianity in a most frightful manner, and any mysticism we create
will be more akin to Eastern pantheism than to anything in the Bible —
excepting, perhaps, the idolatry of ancient Israel. (12)
Jim
Jordan, writing on the Second Commandment, has connected Eastern
Orthodoxy’s rejection of the Filioque with its use of icons.
God
meets man in language, in personal discourse. Music may glorify that
conversation — and it should do so in worship — but God does not meet
man in music. Nor does He meet man in visual art of any sort. He meets
man in the Word of God, in language; and because God in incorporeal, He
meets man in language alone.
Another way to put this is that God
meets man only through the Son of God, the Word. The Spirit is the
glory, the music, the visual display of God; but God does not meet man
through the Spirit. By insisting that icons are a separate channel of
non-verbal communication with God and the saints, the Orthodox separate
the Spirit from the Son. Understandably, they deny that the Spirit
proceeds from the Son. Biblical religion, however, insists that the work
of the Spirit is to enable us to understand the Word of the Son, not to
be a separate way of approaching God. God’s “No!” [in the 2nd
Commandment] is a rejection of any attempt on the part of man to
approach God apart from His Son. (13)
There are other
implications we need to consider. For if the Spirit comes to do the work
of the Father, we must expect to find Him most clearly revealed, not in
the Church, but in creation. “If the Spirit is understood as proceeding
from the Father alone, it is then natural to think that Spirit reflects
the spiritual energy of the created world.” Grace then takes a back
seat to Nature.
Subordinationism gave primacy to nature, and
hence to the natural ability of man. As a result, man becomes in effect
his own savior, and grace is cooperating grace, not prevenient. If the
Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father, then the Holy Ghost, in a
system, which accords primacy to nature, becomes absorbed into nature.
(15)
Theologically, rejection of the Filioque opens the door to
Pelagianism, man’s ability to save himself; politically, it leads
directly to statism. “The sure voice of God was therefore the natural
voice, the state.” (16) Eastern Orthodox nations are no strangers to
totalitarianism and imperialism.
The filioque is vitally
connected with the advance of the Western church towards a strong
anthropology (in connection with the doctrine of sin and grace), while
the Eastern stopped in a weak Pelagian and synergistic view, crude and
undeveloped. The procession only de Patre per Filium would put the
church at arm’s length, so to speak, from God; that is, beyond Christ,
off at an extreme, or at one side of the kingdom of divine life, rather
than in the center and bosom of that kingdom, where all things are hers.
The filioque put the church, which is the temple and organ of the Holy
Ghost in the work of redemption, rather between the Father and the Son,
partaking of their own fellowship, according to the great intercessory
prayer of Christ Himself. It places the church in the meeting point, or
the living circuit of the interplay, of grace and nature, of the divine
and the human; thus giving scope for s strong doctrine of both nature
and grace, and to a strong doctrine also of the church itself. (17)
The Filioque means that the work of the Father and the work of the Son
coincide in the operation of the Holy Spirit. Grace is not deification,
but the redemption and restoration of God’s creation. The Church, as the
temple of the Holy Ghost, lies at the very heart of this process and in
the center of the covenant love that exists within the Triune God.
Summary and Conclusion
In 1984 ABC correspondent George Bailey, writing for a secular
audience, traced the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United
States of America, the modern incarnations of East and West, to the
Filioque. He pointed to “the mystagogical, or spiritual, turning inward
of the Greek Orthodox faith,” which he connected with “the withdrawn
spirituality of the Russian orthodox tradition.” This he contrasted with
“the dynamic involvement in worldly affairs characteristic of
Catholicism and, to an even greater extent, of Protestantism (the lay
minister in a business suit).”(18) Bailey may have exaggerated cause and
effect, but at least he saw something of the theological and creedal
roots of the greatest political conflict of the 20th Century. Not many
Western theologians were as astute.
The mysticism, cultural
stagnation, and imperialism typical of Eastern Orthodox nations are
logical consequences of rejecting the Filioque. Sovereign grace and
political liberty are logical consequences of embracing it. And yet few
Western writers have devoted more than a page or two to the Filioque.
This is sad. Eastern Orthodox theologians at least understand that the
issue is important, and they are quick to contend for the sanctity of
their position. (19) It is time for Western theologians to show a like
zeal in defending their own theological inheritance.
Notes
1. William G. T. Shedd, one of the few American theologians to write at
length on this issue, summarizes the doctrine with these words:
Again, the Spirit, though spirated by the Father and the Son, yet
proceeds not from the Father and Son as persons but from the Divine
essence. His procession is from one, namely, the essence; while his
spiration is by two, namely, two persons. The Father and the Son are not
two essences, and therefore do not spirate the Spirit from two
essences. Yet they are two persons, and as two persons having one
numerical essence spirate from it the third form or mode of the essence —
the Holy Spirit: their two personal acts of spiration concurring in one
single procession of the Spirit. There are two spirations, because the
Father and the Son are two persons; but there is only one resulting
procession.—Dogmatic Theology, 2nd ed., vol. I (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1980), 290.
2. An earlier council at Toledo (447) had
already declared: “If anyone does not believe that the Holy Ghost
proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and is coeternal with and like
unto the Father and the Son, let him be anathema.” The 3rd Anathema, in
Rousas J. Rushdoony, Foundations of Social Order (N. p.: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972), 120.
3. Protestants have not
worried much about this point, and I will leave the argument to others.
Whether the Filioque is biblical or not is logically a distinct issue.
4. The quotations that follow have been collected by James Kiefer in Creeds, “The Filioque,” 5-7, available at ( http://www.thefathershouse.org/creed/filioque.html). This is a remarkable web site, the more so since it is sponsored by the International Pentecostal Holiness Church.
5. Ibid., 8. Keifer writes: “From all eternity, independently of any
created being, God is the Lover, the Loved, and the Love itself. And the
bond of unity and love that exists between the Father and the Son
proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
6. Ibid., 2.
7.
Turretin, III, xxxi, v, 309. Cf. Palmer, The Person and Ministry of the
Holy Spirit, The Traditional Calvinistic Perspective (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1974), 16.
8. Turretin, 309.
9. Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (N. p.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974), 226.
10. Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 317.
11. Palmer, 18.
12. The golden calves, both Aaron’s and Jeroboam’s, were supposed to
represent and serve as means of contact to Jehovah (cf. Ex. 32:4; 1
Kings 12:28).
13. James Jordan, Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 59, September 1998.
17. Yeoman, quoted by Rushdoony, 123. Unfortunately, Rushdoony
mistakenly traces this quote through Schaff. If anyone knows where the
quote actually comes from, please e-mail me the reference.
18. George Bailey, Armageddon in Prime Time (New York: Avon Books, 1984), 37-38.
19. Most web articles on the Filioque are Eastern Orthodox. (4)
Greg Uttinger teaches theology, history, and literature at Cornerstone
Christian School in Roseville, California. He lives nearby in Sacramento
County with his wife, Kate, and their three children. For one of the
best theological websites, go to https://chalcedon.edu/
The Athanasian Creed and the filioque, see number 22:
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that
he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole
and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
2. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
3. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance
4. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.
5. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
6. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.
7. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate.
8. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
9. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
10. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
11. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
12. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;
13. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
14. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
15. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
16. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
17. And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.
18. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord;
19. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.
20. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
21. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
22. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
23. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
24. And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.
25. But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.
26. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
27. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
28. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he
also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
29. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
30. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds;
and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.
31. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
32. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
33. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
34. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.
35. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
36. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
37. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
38. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;
39. From thence, He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
40. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
41. And shall give account of their own works.
42. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
This creed is named after Athanasius (A.D. 293-373), the defender of
orthodoxy against Arian attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity.
Protestant Reformed Churches in America Official Website on the Ecumenical Creeds:
A creed expresses what the church believes to be the truth of Sacred
Scripture. An ecumenical creed expresses certain fundamental truths of
Scripture which are held by most Christian churches throughout the
world. Three of these ecumenical creeds—the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene
Creed, and Athanasian Creed—are cited in Article 9 of the Belgic
Confession as statements of truth which “we do willingly receive.” These
ancient creeds express basic truths regarding the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity over against various errors, which surfaced in the early history
of the New Testament church. To these three the Protestant Reformed
Churches have added the Creed of Chalcedon (AD. 451), which sums the
truth of the Person and Natures of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even though
this creed is not mentioned by name in the Reformed confessions, it is
included because the doctrine set forth in it is clearly embodied in
Article 19 of the Belgic Confession.
“The Symbolum Quicunque
[Athanasian Creed] is a remarkably clear and precise summary of the
doctrinal decisions of the first four ecumenical Councils (from A.D. 325
to A.D. 451), and the Augustinian speculations on the Trinity and the
Incarnation. Its brief sentences are artistically arranged and
rhythmically expressed. It is a musical creed or dogmatic psalm. The
first part (ver. 3–28) sets forth the orthodox doctrine of the Holy
Trinity, not in the less definite Athanasian or
Niceno-Constantinopolitan, but in its strictest Augustinian form, to the
exclusion of every kind of subordination of essence…The second part
(ver. 29–44) contains a succinct statement of the orthodox doctrine
concerning the person of Christ, as settled by the general Councils of
Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451, and in this respect it is a valuable
supplement to the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. It asserts that Christ
had a rational soul (νοῦς, πνεῦμα), in opposition to the Apollinarian
heresy, which limited the extent of his humanity to a mere body with an
animal soul inhabited by the divine Logos. It also teaches the proper
relation between the divine and human nature of Christ, and excludes the
Nestorian and Eutychian or Monophysite heresies, in essential agreement
with the Chalcedonian Symbol. (5)
In Closing:
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go
away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if
I depart, I will send him unto you.” (John 16:7) Who can dispute that
Jesus sends the Holy Spirit?
“Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Charles Hodge, Commentary on Romans, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company), p. 258.
2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1467.
3. Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary, Revelation, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p.2126.
5. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1878), 1.37, 39.
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.”
(Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28,
29)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the
Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the
Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. He served as an ordained ruling elder in
the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He worked in and retired from a
fortune five hundred company in corporate America after forty years. He
runs two blogs sites and is the author of the book defending the
Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a
Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
Baptism for the Dead, what does it mean? by Jack Kettler
Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith
against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available
at: http://www.thereligionthatstartedinahat.com/
“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead
rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1Corinthians
15:29)
It has been a common interpretation of this passage to
believe Paul is referring to a heretical group practicing baptism for
dead people by proxy.
This passage is a favorite Mormon
proof-text for one of their unique doctrines. Mormons are generally
proud to point out that they still practice baptism for the dead, where
Christendom has abandoned this Old Testament practice. In Mormonism,
baptism by water is a necessary ordinance for salvation. Baptisms for
the dead can only be performed in Mormon temples. Baptism for the dead
in Mormon temples supposedly gives those who have died without embracing
Christ the opportunity to do so after death.
How do we understand 1Corinthians 15:29? In addition, to whom is Paul referring in this passage of Scripture?
The Bible teaches that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture.
Using this scriptural approach, there is an Old Testament text to which
Paul is referencing in 1Corinthians 15:29. When Paul talks about “they,”
he is referring to the Old Testament practice in Numbers 19:11-22. This
part of the law taught that an Israelite who touched a dead body became
unclean and consequently unable to approach the Lord resulting in being
cut off from covenant community. Contact with a dead body by an
Israelite polluted him. In redemptive history, such contact served to
demonstrate that the individual was under the biblical condemnation of
death, the result of sin. No one but Jesus because of His sinless
perfection, could come into contact with death and not be contaminated.
Only Christ is able to vanquish the power of uncleanness and death.
How do we understand this baptism and its mode? An accurate
understanding of baptism is crucial for a proper understanding of the
passage.
As a necessary excursus, in Hebrews 9:10 we read:
[ceremonies and offerings]
“which stood only in meats and drinks, and
divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time
of reformation.” The writer of Hebrews is discussing how the ceremonies
of the Old Testament pointed to the finished work of Christ. In Hebrews
9:10, the writer says that those Old Testament ordinances applied until
the time of the New Covenant. Among those extraneous regulations of the
Old Covenant, note how the writer refers to “divers washings.” In the
Greek, this passage mentioning “divers washings” is accurately
translated “various baptisms.” In addition to these First-Century Jewish
“washings,” i.e. baptisms, there were Old Covenant baptisms.
Were these ceremonial baptisms done by immersion? The “washings”
referenced in Hebrews cannot be understood as immersions because of
availability of water considerations. The Jews would not immerse
furniture; “and, coming from the market-place, if they do not baptize
themselves, they do not eat; and many other things there are that they
received to hold, baptisms of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and
couches” (Mark 7:4). If we understand that baptism can be done by
sprinkling or pouring, then we find a satisfactory interpretation of
Hebrews 9:10; Mark 7:4 and the Old Testament text to which Paul is
referring to in Numbers 19 This sprinkling in Numbers 19:13 is
equivalent to the washings, or “baptismois” (baptisms) in Hebrews 9:10
and is, therefore, a baptism..
Paul is revealing to us that the
Israelite who had been contaminated by contact with the dead was not
only unable to approach the Lord’s tabernacle in Numbers 19:13, he in
fact, would also be cut off from Israel because of his defilement. What
was the Old Testament solution for this contamination resulting from
defilement in touching a dead body? The remedy found in the law was that
the unclean individual must be sprinkled or baptized with the water of
purification on the third day, as is seen in verses 13 and 17.
The unclean person would not be cleansed until the seventh day, as is seen in verse 19.
A Holy God could never have sin in His presence. The certainty of death
exhibits that we are all spiritual rebels, debased and unclean in the
sight of the Lord. Paul’s assertion in 1Corinthians 15:29 affirms that
the water of purification in Numbers 19 is a ceremonially cleansing,
which in reality is accomplished by Christ’s resurrection.
By
following the prescription of the law (the water of purification in
Numbers 19), the power of death was broken. The unclean person could be
made clean and able to approach the Lord and be restored to the covenant
people. The water of purification in Numbers 19 was a shadow or type,
like the blood of bulls and goats that in reality could never uproot or
take away sin (Hebrews 10:4). The water of purification in Numbers 19
also could never truly cleanse the pollution caused by sin. It was a
type or shadow, which finds fulfillment in Christ’s atoning death and
resurrection.
The teaching of Paul in 1Corinthians 15:29 now
becomes clear; “they,” or the Jewish practice based upon the law of God
in Numbers 19, foreshadowed the resurrection of Christ. Today it would
be wrong for Christians to practice the law of Numbers 19, and that is
why Paul says “they” in Corinthians rather than “we.” This Old Testament
Jewish practice foreshadowed Christ’s resurrection. To continue this
Old Testament practice today would be to reproach the finished work of
Christ by going back to a type or shadow of weak and beggarly elements
(Galatians 4:9).
Paul, in 1Corinthians 15:29 sets forth a
splendid picture of the resurrection foreshadowed in Numbers 19. Paul
was not referring to the practice of some unknown heretical group for
proof of the resurrection; he was referring the Old Testament Jewish
practice in Numbers 19, an incredible foreshadowing of Christ’s atoning
death and resurrection. When the apostle in 1Corinthians 15:29 says,
“Else what shall they do” he is referring to the Jews, the Old Testament
covenant people of God.
The interpretation argued for in this
article is not only consistent with types and shadows finding
fulfillment in Christ, but it also does not depend on the purely
speculative and unsatisfactory explanation of Paul referring to some
unknown heretical practice in defending a vital doctrine of the
Christian Faith; namely, the resurrection of Christ. It refers to the
Old Covenant Jewish practice now fulfilled in Christ.
An
additional line of argumentation for this understanding of 1Corinthians
15:29 comes from contextual evidence within the book of 1Corinthians
where Paul quotes the Old Testament in the book. In fact, Paul quotes
the Old Testament in 1Corinthians 33 times.
To give a few examples:
1Corinthians 1:19 Paul quotes Isaiah 29:14 1Corinthians 1:31 Paul quotes Jeremiah 9:23- 24 1Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes Isaiah 64:3 1Corinthians 5:13 Paul quotes Deuteronomy 13:5 1Corinthians 6:16, Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 1Corinthians 10:7 Paul quotes Exodus 32:6 1Corinthians 10:1-11 Paul is mentioning what happened to Israel in the wilderness 1Corinthians 14:21 Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 1Corinthians 14:21 – Isaiah 28:11-12 1Corinthians 15:3 – Isaiah 53:8-10 1Corinthians 15:4 – Psalms 16:10 1Corinthians 15:25 – Psalms 110:1 1Corinthians 15:27 Paul quotes Psalm 8:6 1Corinthians 15:32 Paul quotes Isaiah 22:13 1Corinthians 15:45 Paul quotes Genesis 2:7 1Corinthians 15:55 Paul quotes Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14
Are we really to believe after Paul’s quotes from the Old Testament in
1Corinthians to prove his points that in 15:29 he inconsistently breaks
his background context and refers to a practice by an unknown group of
people engaged in a heretical practice? Especially after verse 27, in
which Paul is quoting Psalm 8:6. Then in verse 32, Paul is quoting
Isaiah 22:13. Paul quotes the Old Testament eight times in chapter 15.
Contextually, it makes no sense for Paul right in between verse 27 and
32 to refer to a heretical practice by an unidentified group to defend
the resurrection, a cardinal doctrine of the faith.
Contextually, we can add to the list:
1Corinthians 15:29 where Paul is referring to the Jewish practice in Numbers 19:13; 17; 19 regarding ceremonial baptisms.
I first heard of the connection between Corinthians and Numbers years ago from Rev. Steven M. Schlei from Loveland, CO.
What about the preposition “huper” in the translation of 1Corinthians 15:29?
In 1Corinthians 15:29, we find Greek preposition huper, which is
translated in English as “for.” What will those do who are baptized for
the dead and if the dead are not raised at all, why then are they
baptized for them? Normally, huper means “for the benefit of,” or “on
behalf of.”
This is why translators and commentators have always
believed the passage in 1Corinthians 15:29 must be some vicarious
baptism that some unknown esoteric aberrational group was practicing.
Can huper be translated differently?
In the New Testament, huper appears 160 times. Of these, huper is used a
majority of times with words in the genitive case. Of particular
interest for us is the text in question where it is translated “for” in 1
Corinthians 15:29, but it is also translated as “concerning” in Romans
9:27 and “because” in Philippians 1:7.
Consider what Joel R. White has written in his article titled: Baptized On Account Of The Dead:
“As for the preposition υπέρ, it is to be understood in its causal
sense and is best translated “because of” or, more precisely, “on
account of.” Standard grammars and lexicons give ample evidence for this
usage in the NT usage in usage in the NT 63
63 See, in addition
to BAGD, H. Riesenfeld, “υπέρ,” TDNT, 8.514; J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of
New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: Clark, 1963) 270-71; H. E. Dana and
Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York:
Macmillan, 1927) 111. Υπέρ has an unambiguously causal sense when it
describes the grounds for giving thanks or offering praise (Rom 15:9;
1Cor 10:30; Eph. 1:16; 5:20). It also seems to have a causal sense in
many of the instances in which it is linked to suffering (Acts 5:41;
9:16; 15:26; 21:13; 2Cor 12:10; Eph. 3:13; 2Thess. 1:5). In Phil 1:29
this is undoubtedly so, for there we have two instances of υπέρ, the
first, υπέρ Χριστού, giving the cause or ground of the Philippians’
suffering; the second, υπέρ αυτού, stating its purpose. Additionally, a
causal sense is possible, if not likely, in Rom 1:5; 15:8; 2Cor 12:8;”
(1)
James R. Rogers, in his article on Baptism for the Dead writes:
“Nevertheless, this is not the only way to take huper. Indeed, the
Scriptures also use the word to mean “on account of” or “because of.”
For example, huper appears in Romans 15:9, “the Gentiles…glorify God for
His mercy.” Quite obviously Gentiles do not give glory to God for the
benefit of mercy—mercy does not benefit from the glory we give God.
Rather, we glorify God on account of or because of His mercy. So, too,
in 1Corinthians 15:3, Paul writes that “Christ died for our sins.” Now,
Christ did not die for the benefit of our sins. Rather, he died on
account of or because of our sins. This use of huper occurs often (see,
e.g., 2Cor. 12:8, Eph. 5:20, Heb. 5:1, 7:27, Acts 5:41, 15:26, and
21:13). I also consulted several of the best Greek lexicons, and
pestered a couple of Greek scholars. All held that this is a permissible
reading of the word. If so, then 1Corinthians 15:29 can be properly
translated or read as the following:
Otherwise, what will those
do who are baptized because of the dead? If the dead are not raised at
all, why then are they baptized because of the dead?” (2)
If
White and Rogers are correct in their examples of the alternative
translation and usage of huper, then the above interpretation holds up.
Significantly, A.T. Robertson M.A. D.D., L.I.D., regarding υπέρ notes:
“A more general idea is that of ‘about’ or ‘concerning.’ Here υπέρ
encroaches on the province of περί. Cf. 2Cor. 8:23, υπέρ Τίτου, 2Th. 2:1
ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου. Perhaps 1Cor. 15:29 comes in here also.
Moulton1 finds commercial accounts in the papyri, scores of them with
ὑπὲρ in the sense of ‘to.'” (3)
In the Greek English Lexicon Of
The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, we see other
uses of ὑπὲρ under the heading:
“d. because of to denote moving
cause or the reason because of, for the sake of… and under f. about,
concerning (about equivalent to περί).” (4)
In conclusion, as
noted, the Greek preposition translated “for” in 1Corinthians 15:29 is
huper. It is possible to say that Paul is not writing about being
baptized “in the place of,” or “on behalf of,” or “for” a dead person at
all, as has been seen by the contrary evidence in how huper may be
translated.
Since this is possible, then according to the context
of 1Corinthians 15:29, huper could be translated “because of” or “on
account of.” If huper can mean this, then the 1Corinthians 15:29 text
can be properly translated: “Else what shall they do which are baptized
because of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then
baptized because of the dead?” or, “Else what shall they do which are
baptized on account of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are
they then baptized on account of the dead?”
In light of the above
and considerations that follow, based on exceptions to a general
grammatical rule involving the Greek preposition huper, we could
translate Paul in 1Corinthians 15:29 to be saying: “else what do they,
the Jews, mean by ceremonially washing or baptizing because of the dead?
If the dead are not raised, why do the Jews ceremonially wash or
baptize on account of the dead?”
In light of the different usage
and the adaptability of the preposition “huper”, its use in
1Corinthians, 15:29 is by no means restricted to the translation
conveying the idea of only proxy baptisms. In the matter of 1Corinthians
15:29 we must let Scripture interpret Scripture. The connection between
1Corinthians 15:29 and Numbers 19:11-22 is the most convincing
interpretation.
To quote Joel R. White again in regards to 1Corinthians 15:29:
“Students of this passage have struggled to make sense of this curious
reference, offering an astonishing number of diverse interpretations. In
the past thirty years, however, interest in the subject has fallen off
as scholars reached an impasse concerning its meaning. There has been
only a trickle of new ideas, and curtailing close to a consensus on the
proper interpretation has emerged. This has led to an exegetical
agnosticism on the part of many scholars.” (5)
This conclusion
of “exegetical agnosticism” is certainly unsatisfying for the Christian
apologist. The solution argued for in the above article has the benefit
of using Scripture as the best interpreter of Scripture. Moreover, it
does not rip verse 29 out of context from verses 27, and 32 where Paul
is quoting the Old Testament. The hesitancy of some to agree with this
interpretation may be because of a prior commitment to a particular mode
of baptism.
Have any theologians in church history seen the connection of 1Coringthians 15:29 and Numbers 19:11-13?
Consider the leading 19th Century Southern Presbyterian theologian,
Robert L. Dabney, and the connection between 1Corinthians 15:29 and
Numbers 19:11-13:
Baptism for the Dead by Robert L. Dabney:
“The instructive and almost exhaustive treatise of Dr. Beattie upon 1
Cor. 15:29 suggests still another explanation which readers may compare
with those recited by him. I first heard this from that devout, learned
and judicious exegete, Rev. J. B. Ramsey, D. D., of Lynchburg, Va. He
advocated it, not claiming originality for it. This explanation supposes
that the holy apostle refers here to the Mosaic law of Num. 19:11-13,
which required the Hebrew who had shared in the shrouding and burial of a
human corpse to undergo a ceremonial uncleanness of seven days, and to
deliver himself from it by two sprinklings with the water of
purification containing the ashes of the burned heifer. This view is
sustained by the following reasons:
I. We know from Mark 7:4, and
Heb. 9:10 (“As the washing [baptisms] of cups and pots, brazen vessels
and of tables.” “And divers washings [baptisms] and carnal ordinances”),
that both the evangelist and the Apostle Paul called the water
purifications of the Mosaic law by the name of baptisms. Thus it is made
perfectly clear that if the apostle designed in 1Cor. 15:29 to refer to
this purification of people recently engaged in a burial, he would use
the word baptize.
II. This purification must have been well
known, not only to all Jews and Jewish Christians, but to most gentile
Christians in Corinth; because the converts from the Gentiles made in
the apostles’ days in a place like Corinth were chiefly from such pagans
as were somewhat acquainted with the resident Jews and their synagogue
worship. This explanation then has this great advantage, that it
supposes the apostle to cite for argument (as is his wont everywhere) a
familiar and biblical instance, rather than any usage rare, or partial
or heretical, and so unknown to his readers and lacking in authority
with them.
III. This view follows faithfully the exact syntax of
the sentence. The apostle puts the verb in the present tense: “Which are
baptized for the dead.” For we suppose this law for purifying persons
recently engaged in a burial was actually observed not only by Jews, but
by Jewish Christians, and properly, at the time this epistle was
written. We must remember that while the apostle firmly prohibited the
imposition of the Mosaic ritual law upon gentile Christians according to
the apostolic decree in Acts 15, he continued to observe it himself. He
caused Timothy to be circumcised, while he sternly refused to impose
circumcision upon gentile converts. He was at Jerusalem going through a
Nazarite purification and preparing to keep the Jewish Passover, when he
was captured by the Romans. His view of the substitution of the New
Testament cultus in place of the Mosaic ritual seems to have been this:
That, on the one hand, this ritual was no longer to be exacted of any
Christian, Jew or Gentile, as necessary to righteousness, and that such
exaction was a forfeiture of justification by grace; but on the other
hand, it was proper and allowable for Jewish Christians to continue the
observance of their fathers, such as the seventh day Sabbath, and the
scriptural Mosaic ritual (not the mere rabbinical traditions) so long as
the Temple was standing, provided their pious affections and
associations inclined them to these observances.
IV. Dr. Ramsey’s
explanation is faithful to the idiomatic usage of the Greek words in
the text. He correctly supposes that the apostle’s term, “baptized,”
describes a religious water purification by sprinkling, founded on
biblical authority; and here, perhaps, is the reason why expositors with
immersionist tendencies have been blind to this very natural
explanation; their minds refused to see a true baptism in a sprinkling,
where the Apostle Paul saw it so plainly. Then, Dr. Ramsey uses the word
“the dead” (nekron) in its most common, strict meaning of dead men; and
that in the plural; not in the singular, as of the one corpse of Jesus.
He also employs the preposition “for” (huper) in a fairly grammatical
sense for its regimen of the genitive case; “on account of the dead.”
V. Lastly, the meaning thus obtained for the apostle’s instance coheres
well with the line of his logic. If there be no resurrection what shall
they do who receive this purification by water and the ashes of the
heifer from the ceremonial uncleanness incurred on account of the
corpses of their dead brethren and neighbors which they have aided to
shroud and bury? If there be no resurrection, would there be any sense
or reason in this scriptural requirement of a baptism? Wherein would
these human corpses differ from the bodies of goats, sheep, and
bullocks, dressed for food, without ceremonial uncleanness? Had Moses,
inspired of God, not believed in the resurrection, he would not have
ordained such a baptism as necessarily following the funeral of a human
being. His doctrine is, that the guilt of sin is what pollutes a human
being, the soul spiritually, and even the material body ceremonially;
that bodily death is the beginning of the divine penalty for that guilt:
that hence where that penalty strikes it makes its victim a polluted
thing {herein). Hence even the man who touches it is vicariously
polluted, as he would not be by the handling of any other material clod,
and so needs purification. For all this points directly to man’s
immortality, with its future rewards and punishments; and these
affecting not only the spirit but the body which is for a time laid away
in the tomb, to be again reanimated and either to share the continued
penalty of sin, or, through faith to be cleansed from it by the blood of
Christ, and thus made to re-enter the New Jerusalem.” (6)
Robert Lewis Dabney (1829–1898) was one of the greatest Protestant theologians of the 19th century. A Southern Presbyterian, he was a teacher, statesman, writer, and social critic, as well as theologian, and taught at Union Seminary in Richmond, Virginia. In the American Civil War, he once served as Chief of Staff to the Confederate general “Stonewall” Jackson. His work, especially his Systematic Theology, has been highly regarded by scholars from Benjamin Warfield to Karl Barth.
James W. Dale in his Judaic Baptism comments extensively a passage from the book Sirach, which is not found in the Protestant Bible. Dale’s book on Judaic Baptism surveys Judaic literature to help in the understanding of βαπτίζω. It is interesting that the passage from Sirach is very similar to 1Corinthian 15:29 on “Baptism for the Dead.” Sirach says “Baptism from the Dead.”
Dale when commenting on the Sirach passage and 1Corinthians 15:29 says:
Being baptized from a dead body, and touching it again, what is he benefited by his cleansing? The phraseology of this passage differs, materially, from the preceding. It is, in itself considered, much less definite. The word βαπτίζω never declares the performance of any definite act, and not being limited to physical results, it cannot, alone, declare any definite result. The phrase βαπτιζόμενος άπό νεχροΰ cannot, without knowledge derived from other sources, convey any definite and complete idea. This is proved from the insuperable difficulty attending the interpretation of the phrase, βαπτιζόμενοι όπερ τών νεχρών (1Cor. 15:28) (sp) [29]. The phrase not being self-explanatory, and the context not clearly indicating the bearing designed by the Apostle, and the possible interpretations being legion, no exposition has been given, or perhaps, can be given, which will command assent. The verbal resemblance to the passage before us is striking, and it is within the range of possibility, that both refer to the same thing…” (8)
Fentiman, Travis – Baptism for the Dead: Sermon Notes on 1Corinthians, 15:29 is another modern day theologian who sees the connection between the Corinthians passage and Numbers 19:
“Rev. Fentiman in his sermon gives an overview on the subject of the ‘baptism for the dead’ (1Cor. 15:29) and argues that it refers to the purification washing for touching dead bodies in Num. 19, which the Jews (rightly) held to be a picture of the Resurrection.” (9)
Other interpreters that took this view were Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669), Salomon Van Till (1643-1713), James B. Ramsay (1814-71), Heinrich Ewald (1803-75) and R.L. Dabney (1820-98). Fentiman in his sermon discusses the other views on the Corinthian passage.
An updated reference on Salomon Van Til (1643-1713) and Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) and “Baptism for the dead:”
Rev. Fentiman notes:
“Van Til, Salomon – On 1Cor. 15:29 in Commentary of Solomon van Til on the Four Epistles of Paul, even 1Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians… (Amsterdam, 1726), p. 101.”
“Van Til (1643-1713) was a Dutch theologian and professor at Dort and Leiden in the reformed tradition, though he also was a transitional figure, having Enlightenment influences.”
Johannes Cocceius:
“Regarding Cocceius, I had seen him referenced for this view in some of the secondary literature, that is, numerous commentaries on the passage that I looked at in preparation for the sermon.
It is in his Works, vol. 5, Commentary on Corinthians, in location, p. 340, section 162, right column, towards the bottom, beginning with the words, ‘Debebat autem‘.
He explicitly cites Num. 19:11 in section 158, second paragraph, about 2/3 the way down.
He discusses 1Cor. 15:29 from sections 158-174.” At this point, the Cocceius quote is the earliest connection between Numbers 19:11 and 1Corinthians 15:29 found to date.
Johannes Cocceius (d. 1669) on 1 Cor 15:29 and
Baptism for the Dead: An Annotated Translation
by
Francis X. Gumerlock
Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) was a Dutch theologian known for his explanation of federal theology, also as covenant theology. His comments on 1 Cor 15:29—Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?— and baptism for the dead are part of a larger commentary on 1 Corinthians written in Latin. His commentary on this verse (15:29) comprises sections 158-163.
The purpose of this paper is to translate and explain Cocceius’s comments on this difficult passage, especially his relating the baptism in this passage to the Mosaic law of ritual cleansing for contact with the dead found in Numbers 19.
What Baptism for the Dead is Not
Baptism for the Dead is not a Proxy Baptism
Cocceius begins (Section 158) and ends (Section 163) his commentary on 1 Cor 15:29 telling what baptism for the dead is not. According to Sections 158, Cocceius rejects that idea that the baptism mentioned in this verse was a “proxy” baptism, that is, a rite performed on a living person which has a positive effect on a person who has already died. Here Cocceius mentions that Tertullian in the early third century said that the Marcionites had performed baptism for the dead, but Cocceius believes that the Marcionites, rather than continuing a biblical practice, probably used 1 Cor 15:29 as an impetus for doing such. Cocceius also had read in Hugo Grotius (d. 1645) that in later patristic times some Christians performed baptism on a dead relative or gave the Eucharist to a dead person. It is well known that such practices were denounced by church authorities. The apostle Paul, according to Cocceius, was not referring to either the Marcionite baptism for the dead or baptism of the dead by some early Christians. His commentary reads:
“158. We will not refer to the many ways this verse has been explained by some. Tertullian mentions that Marcionites underwent baptism for the dead. This is not able to furnish for the Apostle an argument for proving the resurrection of the dead. These [Marcionites] seem rather to have undertaken the occasion of doing it from this verse. There were also those who baptized the dead and gave them the Eucharist. See Grotius.”
Baptism for the Dead Does Not Establish That the Souls of the Dead are in Purgatory and Can Be Helped by Offerings from the Living
Cocceius also stated in Section 163 that Roman Catholics in his time were using 1 Cor 15:29 to show that the living have a duty to make offerings for the dead, to free them from the punishments of Purgatory. A Catholic named Crellius, he says, compares 1 Cor 15:29 with 2 Macc 12:42-45, to show that sacrifices were offered by Jews for the sins of the dead. Cocceius’s response is that in the Maccabees passage, the sacrifice was not necessarily for the sins of those who had died. Judas collected money from people, which was sent to Jerusalem. The sacrifice may have been not for the sins of the dead, but on behalf of those from whom he had collected money. Cocceius also said that the author of Maccabees may have mistakenly believed that the offering was for the sins of the dead, when it was not; and Cocceius questions the learning of the author of Maccabees saying that he was not unpolished in telling fables, as one can see from reading 2 Macc 1-2 about hidden fire. Finally, Cocceius says, even if one admits that the Jews made a sacrifice for the sins of the dead, Jewish opinions were not the test of Christian dogma. Furthermore, from this passage the Catholic view is not established, that souls of the dead are in Purgatory and can be freed from its punishments through sacrifices offered by the living. Section 163 reads:
“163. The popes, who from this passage want to elicit a duty for the dead, do nothing to free them from the punishments of Purgatory. For, here it is speaking about that which is for testifying to the hope of the resurrection of the dead. Crellius here compares 2 Macc 12:42-45.
On the passage 2 Macc 12:42-45. The action of Judas and the judgment of the writer must be considered. Judas collected, from various individuals, money which he sent to Jerusalem so that a sacrifice might be offered for sin, surely so that the sin committed might be fully remitted. It is not necessary to interpret this as if he wanted a sacrifice to be offered for the dead, but for those very ones from whom he had collected money….
The judgment of the writer who is either Jason Cyrenaeus or his secretary (2 Macc 2:24). This man was conscious himself that he was of little eloquence and learning (2 Macc 15:39) and he was not unpolished in telling other fables, as appears from the first and second chapter and where he speaks about hidden fire.
Therefore [it may be that] he judges that Judas prayed for the dead and offered sacrifice for the dead…If we admit all these things, nevertheless it is not able to be concluded, nor has it been established from this writer, that the souls of the dead were in Purgatory and with a sacrifice offered for sins, they were able to be freed from there. Finally, Jewish opinions are not the test of Christian dogma.”
What Baptism for the Dead Is
In Section 158, Cocceius introduces two views of what the Apostle means by “baptism for the dead” in 1 Cor 15:19. The first is the ordinary Christian sacrament of baptism. Cocceius believes that whatever the Apostle was referring to, it was not some abhorrent practice, but a baptism that was instituted by God.
Baptism for the Dead is Nothing Other than Christian Baptism
Cocceius continues in Section 158 writing:
“However, it is not able to be doubted that whatever the Apostle chose to speak of, it was because it was suitable for his discourse and presented an argument for the resurrection. No external baptism is able to be used as an argument for the resurrection of the dead except one which was instituted by God as a sacrament. And truly our baptism, with which we are baptized and we wash away sins, is a sacrament of resurrection. For, it signifies also that our bodies had been cleansed with clean water (Heb 10:22). But why is our baptism called “baptism for the dead,” unless perhaps you interpret it as pointing at our death, [the death of] we who are baptized. It is as if he were saying, ‘What will they do, who are baptized, who are going to die?’”
Baptism for the Dead as Ritual Cleansing after Contact with a Dead Person Mentioned in Numbers 19
A second view of Cocceius, on which he writes from the end of Section 158 through Section 162, is that the Apostle is referring to the ritual washing of Numbers 19. By contact with a dead person, a Jewish person became ritually unclean and was excluded from the assembly and house of God. To become clean again, the person underwent a washing on the third day and seventh day, after which he was allowed access to the assembly and house of God.
In Section 158, Cocceius continues: “In the Old Testament God gave various baptisms (Heb 9:10), but none for the dead. But he did give a baptism because of the dead. See Numbers 19:11 and Ecclesiasticus 34:30.”
Cocceius then shows that the Greek and Hebrew words for “for” sometimes in the Scriptures mean “because of.” He says that this is the case in Phil 2:13; Rom 15:8-9; and Isa 60:7. Cocceius also said that a French writer named Cornelius Bonaventura Bertramus mentioned the same, and showed this from Numbers 5:2: “Everyone who is unclean because of a dead person…” and Numbers 6:11 “…and make atonement for him concerning his sin because of the dead person.” Thus, interpreting 1 Cor 15:29 in light of this, he continues:
“159. Therefore, these, who are baptized according to the institution of God because of contact with the dead, or because they were found to be in the same room with a dead person, what will they do (1 Cor 15:29), if there is not resurrection of the dead, or if God will not at some time be all in all (1 Cor 15:28)? Will they not be ashamed and be making use of a laughable gesture and setting themselves up to be ridiculed?”
“160. And so this ceremony signifies either this or nothing. If it signifies nothing, it is not an institution of a wise God. But it is an institution of a wise God, and it is suitable for signifying the resurrection of the dead.”
In Section 161, Cocceius says that he disagrees with Bertramus who viewed the ritual of cleansing in Numbers 19 as one for someone who had been made unclean by burying the dead. Cocceius contends that it was for simply contact with the dead, if one happened to be in the same room or tent with a person who died. He writes:
“161. However, I do not see here what Bertramus saw, namely, a unique labor and annoyance commanded by God for those who were burying the dead, to show what was the hope of the resurrection of the dead. For, God was not commanding something about the care and labor of burying the dead. Rather, the one who had touched the dead and had been together in a tent or a room in which there was a dead person is declared unclean, and he wanted him by a certain rite to be cleansed through washing.”
In Section 162, Cocceius shows through typology how the ritual of cleansing in Numbers 19 typified the redemptive work of Christ. He continues:
“162. Moreover, it is very easy to obtain the meaning of this cleansing if we consider how one determines for himself purity and impurity in the law. Those who were impure were not to touch sacred things, were not to taste sacred foods, and were not to come into a holy place. And all these things were symbols of communion with God and of heavenly joys. Therefore, when a living person who was in a place where a dead person was, is declared unclean, what else could it signify other than:
When one man dies, the whole nature of sin is to be blamed as worthy of death.
This sin is not yet remitted or expiated. For, why would they be said to be unclean if sin was remitted? Where there is remission, there is no longer remembrance of it (Heb 10:2,3,18)
A guilty person is to be given expiation. For, this signified absolution.
They, in whom sins have been remitted, have communion with God, approach him, and are happy before God.
That happiness one has is in the body. Indeed, all these things are done in the body. Not only was the person cleansed, but his body also. That which is an impediment to approaching God—the guilt of sin and the law of sin and death—is in the body. In the body a person receives the symbol of remission of sins and removal of all those things which are an impediment and through which a person is less enjoyable to God. In the body he is admitted to all the sacraments of divine communion. For, the inner tabernacle was a symbol of heaven. Into it a priest entered, through which [something] was signified. Through the priest [was signified] that the way to heaven was open to us…
After death. For, one who is washed because of touching a dead person is considered as one who is dead. Why would he, who is considered as one dead, want himself to be cleansed so he may return to the house of God, if resurrection is not given?
Every baptism signifies death and life from death. For, water does not only show something pure and something have a use for cleansing, but also that something is dying.
And it is rather clear that in such water, the quality was shown of cleansing those, who by the touching of the dead were unclean. And it signified communion in the death of Christ, and also communion in his resurrection. For, a red heifer was sacrificed (Num 19:2). For, what else does this signify than that those who are in the communion of sin and death, and thus excluded from the house of God, have justification and life through communion in the death of another? And truly the red heifer is a very real type of the Savior. A heifer was burned, so that is might be understood that he [i.e.Christ] did not come for domination but to serve (Cf. Luke 22:27)….Red because he should become sin (Cf. 2 Cor 5:21) and a curse (Cf. Gal 3:13). Unblemished because in him there should be no stain or spot (Cf. 1 Pet 1:19). No violence in his hand, no lying in his mouth (Isa 53:9). [In the heifer there was] not any defect, not lame, no distortion, no blindness, no deafness, or anything similar.
Which was not brought under the yoke (Num 19:2) because also he [i.e. Christ] should be undefiled and separated from sinners (Heb 7:26).
Therefore, it was burned outside the camp (Num 19:3) as also Christ died outside the camp (Cf. Heb 13:13). He was rejected by the builders (Cf. Matt 21:42) that we may…leave behind that earthly sanctuary and altar, which was stained with the blood of animals.
It was sacrificed and burned wholly. For, it was necessary that his [Christ’s] blood be shed, and that wholly by the fire of love, and that he be consumed by zeal for the house of God (Cf. Ps 69:10). There is nothing in him, which is a stranger from our sanctification. He is wholly ours, since also the heifer was burned wholly, as if wholly sprinkled when its ashes are sprinkled.
With the heifer was burned a branch of cedar and hyssop and a scarlet colored string (Num 19:6).
The branch of cedar, of an oily and fragrant tree, signifies the flesh…[and] the Branch in which is the Spirit of the Lord (Cf. Isa 11:1-2).
Hyssop, a vile species.
Scarlet-colored string again is able to signify the imputation of sin (Cf. Isa 1:18).
The ashes were kept in a clean place outside the camp (Num 19:9), so that is may be understood that cleansing is to be sought from a place in which righteousness dwells, and not on earth and in the earthly city or in a sanctuary made by hand (Cf. Heb 9:11, 24).
For this reason Christ, after he had made purification of sins, sat down at the right hand of Majesty on high (Heb 1:3).”
Now Cocceius, near the end of his explanation, focuses on how the ritual of cleansing from contamination with a dead body, mentioned in Numbers 19, typified the resurrection; and hence, why the Apostle chose to use this “baptism for the dead” or rather “baptism because of the dead” in his argument for the resurrection. He explains:
“Moreover, one who was contaminated because of a dead person was to be sprinkled on the third day, and on the seventh, so that he might be clean (Num 19:12, 19). Surely a person, while living his time in the world, ought to be cleansed and sprinkled, so that in the end, in the resurrection of the dead and on the day of eternal rest, he may be clean. One who, while living in this life of ours will have been sprinkled, on the last day will be found clean among the clean. One who will not be cleansed at this time, will not be clean in the end. Or, rather, one who will have communion with him who rose on the third day, will be clean on the last day.
One who was sprinkled as if on the third day, in the resurrection of Christ at that time, is as if he will be renewed in our resurrection when we enter the rest of God.
He was sprinkled. 1. Living water mixed with ashes…2. Through hyssop, that is, through the very one who died for us. For he is the same who is the Redeemer and the Regenerator and the Justifier.
That water is called…the water of separation (Num 19:9)…Indeed, those who had separated from the people of God because of sin, as if from the assembly of the righteous from life and the face of God, having been cleansed through this water, received the privilege of drawing near, that is, through the sprinkling of the blood of Christ which comes by baptizing a sinful person through the one Spirit into the one body of Christ (Cf. 1 Cor 12:13), and having been raised on the third day, they received the hope of life from the dead to glory and to joy in the house of God.”
1.Joel R. White Baptized On Account Of The Dead: The Meaning Of 1
Corinthians 15:29 In Its Context. Biblische Ausbildung am Ort, Vienna,
Austria Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) 116/3 (1997) 487- 499.
2. Biblical Horizons Newsletter No. 76: Baptism for the Dead by James R. Rogers http: //www.biblicalhorizons. com/biblical-horizons/no-76-baptism-for-the-dead/
3. A.T. Robertson M.A. D.D., L.I.D., A Grammar Of The Greek New
Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, (Broadman Press,
Nashville, Tennessee), p. 632.
4. Walter Bauer, Greek English
Lexicon Of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (The
University of Chicago Press, Printed in the United States of American)
p. 839.
5. Joel R. White Baptized On Account Of The Dead: The
Meaning Of 1 Corinthians 15:29 In Its Context. Biblische Ausbildung am
Ort, Vienna, Austria Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) 116/3 (1997)
487- 499.
6. Robert L. Dabney Baptism for the Dead by (Appeared in the Christian Observer, February 3, 1897; vol. 84:5), pg. 10.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report
and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO,
RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the
Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a
Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For more research see:
G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson Editors Commentary on the New Testament
Use of the Old Testament, 1 Corinthians by Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S.
Rosner, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 695-752
Paul’s Use of The Old Testament in 1Corinthians by Davide Verlingieri online PDF
James W. Dale Vol. 1-4; Classic Baptism; Judaic baptism; Johannic
Baptism; Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism Presbyterian &
Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey
Adiaphora, a Study in Liberty and its Boundaries by Jack Kettler
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
In this study, we will look at the biblical teaching regarding what is
called “adiaphora.” What does this mean? As in previous studies, we will
look at definitions, scriptures, lexical evidence, commentary evidence
and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how we live.
Glorify God always!
Adiaphora:
“Actions or beliefs which
are neither commanded nor forbidden in scripture, and thus left to the
liberty of the conscience; issues of theology or morals to which
scripture does not speak definitively.”*
Adiaphora:
“Teachings and practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden in
scripture. An example might be whether or not to use a sound-board in a
church, to meet in a tent or a building, to have two or more services or
simply one on the day of worship.” **
From Wikipedia:
In
Pyrrhonism, “adiaphora” indicates things, which cannot be logically
differentiated. Unlike in Stoicism, the term has no specific connection
to morality. In Stoicism, “adiaphora” indicates actions that morality
neither mandates nor forbids. In the context of Stoicism, “adiaphora” is
usually translated as “indifferents.”
When considering the above
definitions, one might ask, how could there be disagreements on such
seemingly trivial matters. Simply said, adiaphora it could be said is
not majoring in minors. Unfortunately, what is obvious to some is not
oblivious to others. When considering that a man has fallen sinful
nature, majoring in minors can quickly become the norm when approaching
seemingly matters of indifference.
From Scripture:
“But
meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the
better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by
any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are
weak. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a
stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast
knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of
him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered
to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for
whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound
their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my
brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I
make my brother to offend.” (1 Corinthians 8:8-13)
When looking
at Scriptural evidence on the topic of adiaphora, you find 1 Corinthians
8:8-13 frequently referenced. The following commentary evidence will
look at the issues involved. Paramount, to this to this issue will be
the very real danger of causing a weaker believer to stumble, and at the
same time in preserving real Christian liberty. This side of heaven,
majoring in minors can become the cause of disagreements among brothers,
and even leading to church conflicts. What is considered adiaphora to
one may not be to another. This is why there are conflicts and offenses.
The following commentary evidence is not a digression or going off
topic; it is directly related to differences among brothers to seeming
indifferent matters.
With that said, the commentators will set
explain how the apostle Paul instructs believers on how to not offend
their brethren in matters of dispute.
The New Testament Commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:9-13:
4. Sin
8: 9–13
9. But beware that this right of yours not become a hindrance to those who are weak.
With an adversative, Paul indicates that although he agrees with the
general sentiment of the quotation (v. 8), he rejects the context in
which it is used. In preceding verses (vv. 1–2), he had told the
Corinthians that knowledge and love must go hand in hand. Knowledge by
itself results in arrogance, but when it is accompanied by love, it
edifies. And Paul, discovering an absence of love in the conduct of some
Corinthians (compare Rom. 14:15), now registers a pastoral objection.
Paul detects a dangerous attitude that will undermine the unity of the
church. He commands the readers to beware of their own conduct. He
drafts the phrase this right of yours, in which the pronoun this
reflects a trace of his dislike for the apparent haughtiness of some
Corinthians (see Luke 15:30). Moreover, this is the second time the word
weak occurs in this chapter (see v. 7). If this expression comes not
from Paul but from these spiritually strong Corinthians, a measure of
arrogance seems obvious. They aggressively claim for themselves the
right to Christian liberty.
However, just as knowledge without
love produces pride, so freedom without love generates arrogance. The
Corinthians have the right to assert their freedom to eat food, for Paul
himself teaches that “no food is unclean in itself” (Rom. 14:14). Yet
Christian liberty must always be observed in the context of love for
one’s neighbor in general and the spiritually weak brother or sister in
particular.
The right that a Christian legitimately exercises
should never become a hindrance to a fellow believer. Paul uses the word
stumbling block to describe a specific obstacle a Christian can place
on someone’s pathway. And the hindrance here is eating sacrificial meat,
which was an offense to others in the church.
The freedom which a
Christian enjoys must always be asserted in the context of serving one
another in love (Gal. 5:13). His attitude should not be a hindrance to
the weaker members of the church. Paul is not saying that those who are
weak take offense but rather that those who are strong give offense. The
members who promote their right to be free are exerting undue pressure
on those whose conscience restricts them from eating certain kinds of
meat. Paul, therefore, alerts the freedom-loving Corinthians to
demonstrate love by not offending their fellow church members.
10. For if someone sees you who have knowledge dining in an idol’s
temple, will not the conscience of someone who is weak be emboldened so
that he will eat food offered to idols?
We make these observations:
a. Dining. Taking a situation from daily life, Paul envisions the
possibility of a spiritually strong Corinthian who sits and eats in the
temple of an idol. This believer might be asked to come to a celebration
held in one of the many dining rooms of the temple. There the meat of
an animal sacrificed to an idol would be consumed. He could reason that
the idol was nothing more than a piece of hewn stone and the meat was
ordinary food. His faith in God remained strong. Further, he would
refuse to break bonds of family or friendship. He would feel obligated
to attend a feast to which he was invited and would consider the meal an
occasion for fellowship with relatives and friends. Because of his firm
knowledge of the Christian faith, he would not see any harm in his
presence at a festive meal in a temple dining room.
Although Paul
provides an illustration by using the singular you, his intention is to
portray the reality of a common occurrence. The possibility is not
unreal that Erastus, for example, who was the city’s director of public
works in Corinth (Rom. 16:23) and a member of the local church, might
attend such functions.
Maintaining Christian liberty, Paul does
not reprove a person who eats in a temple dining room. He correctly
observes that a spiritually strong believer is not worshiping an idol
but only enjoying the company of family and friends. By contrast, in a
later passage (10:19–20) Paul comments on idolatry and there delineates
the sin of worshiping an idol. Now he calls attention not to the eating
in a dining room but to the effect this action may have on a weaker
brother. This action has the potential of leading a weaker brother into
idolatry.
b. Conscience. The weak brother is probably not a Jew,
for a Jew would not think of entering a temple to eat meat that was
sacrificed to an idol. Instead, the weak brother is likely a Gentile who
recently converted to Christianity, whose spiritual knowledge is
limited, and whose conscience is weak. Paul now asks the strong
Christian a question that probably conveys a touch of irony: “Does the
act of eating in a temple embolden the conscience of the weaker
brother?”
By his conduct, the one who is strong is leading the
weak one; but the fact is that he leads his brother astray. If a
spiritually weak person enters the dining room and eats, his conscience
is defiled instead of strengthened (see v. 7). Hence, not the weak
brother but his weak conscience is emboldened. The inner voice of his
conscience no longer keeps him in check. At the beginning of his
discussion of this subject, Paul noted that knowledge leads to pride and
love leads to edification (v. 1). Paul now reiterates the same thought
in different words. Conduct without love and consideration can be
disastrous, especially for the spiritually weak who follow the example
of the strong person to lead the way. The full responsibility for the
spiritual health of the brother rests on the shoulders of the person who
has knowledge. His inconsiderate conduct constitutes a sin against
Christ.
11. For the weak brother for whom Christ died is destroyed by your knowledge.
When the weak brother eats sacrificial meat in a pagan temple, he
associates his act with idol worship. His confidence is destroyed
because of his qualms of conscience. Instead of being built up he is
torn down. Paul looks at the consequences of the conduct of the
knowledgeable brother who intentionally overrides the objections that
the weak brother raises. Paul knows that the insensitive conduct of the
brother with knowledge destroys “the weak brother for whom Christ died.”
What the apostle is saying in this verse concerns the spiritual life of
the weak Christians. Here is a threefold explanation of Paul’s point of
view:
First, with the word order, Paul makes every word count in
this text; he stresses especially the verbs to destroy and to die.
These two verbs are key words. In this sentence, the verb to destroy is
in the present tense to indicate that the action already is occurring.
The weaker brother “is being destroyed.” With the present tense, he
conveys progressive action but not the thought that the weak brother
“has been lost.”
Next, the immediate context (v. 12) features the
verb to injure, wound in the present tense. This verb is a synonym Paul
uses to explain the meaning of “to destroy.”
And last, the
parallel passage in Romans 14:15 and its context shed light on the
present verse. “If your brother is distressed because of what you eat,
you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your
brother for whom Christ died.” If Christ paid the supreme sacrifice by
dying for this weak brother, then the least a strong brother can do is
to demonstrate neighborly love to fellow Christians by not eating
certain foods. The intent of this verse is to depict the contrast
between the death of Christ and the callousness of the strong
Corinthians.
Two additional observations on this passage. First,
Paul is not teaching that a strong Christian can cause a spiritually
weak brother to perish, for he writes “brother” instead of “sinner” or
“man.” He implies that Christ continues to protect this person from harm
and will enable him to stand (Rom. 14:4). In brief, loving this brother
so much that he died for him, Christ will also make him withstand
temptation. Second, some translators introduce the helping verb could ()
or would () to convey the probability of experiencing ruin but not the
actuality of being lost eternally. The weak brother is stunted in his
spiritual growth by the lack of love from fellow Christians.
Nonetheless, Christ has redeemed and sanctified him (1:2) and regards
him as his brother (compare Heb. 2:10–11).
Paul no longer speaks
in generalities but addresses the strong Corinthians personally. He
writes, “your knowledge,” and calls attention to the loveless attitude
of these Corinthians who are puffed up by knowledge (v. 1). Also, the
use of the personal pronoun you seems to reveal that the current problem
involved a number of people. By contrasting Christ’s death—as an
illustration of the greatest love imaginable—with the loveless knowledge
of some Corinthians, Paul encourages his readers to express their love
to the weaker members of the church.
12. Thus you sin against Christ by sinning against your brothers and by wounding their weak conscience.
Conclusively, the apostle comes to the heart of the matter. He writes
the verb to sin twice in the same sentence. In the Greek, he accentuates
this word by having the form sinning near the beginning of the sentence
and the form sin at the very end.
13. Therefore if food causes
my brother to stumble into sin, I will never eat meat again that I may
not cause my brother to stumble.
The conclusion to this part of
the discussion is that Paul himself will provide leadership in the
Corinthian church even while he is physically absent. If the spiritually
strong Christians fail in their responsibility to strengthen the weak,
Paul will set the example. This verse is a conditional sentence that
expresses reality and certainty. The readers can be assured that Paul
indeed will do that which he is telling them.
Paul writes the
general word food instead of the term sacrificial meat, which was at the
center of the discussion (see vv. 1, 4, 7, 10). The matter of eating
food should not become a stumbling block to anyone in the church. Paul
himself scolded both Peter and Barnabas for their refusal to eat with
Gentile Christians in Antioch (Gal. 2:11–14). He and his associates
delivered the letter of the Jerusalem Council to the Gentile Christians
(Acts 15:29). Jewish Christians even refused to buy meat in a local
Gentile market for fear of eating food that had been offered to an idol.
They fully kept the law of Moses (compare Acts 21:20). Gentile
Christians, too, were careful in dining with Gentile friends.
For
the sake of his Christian brother, Paul says, “I will never eat meat
again that I may not cause my brother to stumble.” In the next chapter
of this epistle, he states unequivocally that “to those who are weak I
became weak to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that
at least I might save some” (9:22). Paul was willing to forego eating
certain foods so that he might advance the cause of Christ, the spread
of the gospel, and the growth of the church.
Did Paul suggest
that every Christian should become a vegetarian? No, not at all. But
Paul is willing to go to any extreme to avoid hurting the conscience of
anyone for whom Christ died. And if that extreme means not to eat meat
for some time, Paul readily adapts. He submits even his Christian
liberty to the principle of love. What he is asking every believer to do
is to show genuine Christian love to fulfill the summary of the
Decalogue: to love God with heart, mind and soul, and to love one’s
neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:37–39). Indeed, Augustine expresses a
comment to this effect: “As long as you love God and your neighbor, you
may do whatever you wish and you will not fall into sin.”
Additional Note on 8:10
The Jerusalem Council stipulated that Gentile Christians were to
abstain from food sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:29). But in Corinth, Paul
allowed Christians to enter a temple and participate in feasts held in
one of its dining rooms. Paul’s consent in this chapter appears to be
contradictory, especially because he forbade the eating of sacrificial
meat in 10:14–22.
Is Paul lax in the one chapter (8:10) and
strict in the other (10:18–22)? Hardly. What Paul is trying to do is
walk the thin line between allowing Christian liberty and strengthening
the consciences of the weak. To put it differently, in chapter 8 Paul
addresses the strong but in chapter 10 the weak.
Sacrificial meat
in itself is not harmful. If Christians should attend a feast where
this meat was served, they were free to partake provided they did not
hurt the conscience of weaker Christians. But whenever the eating of
meat was directly associated with idolatry, Paul condemned this practice
(10:7, 14). When a Christian became a participant in idolatry (10:18,
20), he would forge a spiritual association with an idol and thus become
an idolater. Whenever Gentiles were worshiping an idol, a Christian
should have nothing to do with them. He ought to know that God is a
jealous God (Exod. 20:4; Deut. 5:8). In the words of James, “You
adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is
hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world
becomes an enemy of God” (James 4:4).
Practical Considerations in 8:12
In today’s world, sin is taken lightly. Often it is considered
something amusing, especially when it relates to sexual immorality. When
the news media mention sexual escapades of prominent people, the
expression used is not “sin” but rather “character weakness.” Indeed,
the thinking seems to be that the term sin should not be applied to
anyone because it might damage a person’s reputation. Although the
consequence of sin is evident, people like to pretend that there is
nothing wrong.
In many parts of the world, sin is an
embarrassment for the offender when his deed becomes common knowledge.
Disgrace can be removed by a restorative action of presenting the
offended party an appropriate gift. If the offense remains undetected,
the guilty person continues to act as though nothing has happened.
In the Greco-Roman world of Paul’s day, sin was a matter of
frustration. Sin was compared to an archer who misses the mark and thus
experiences failure. Sin, therefore, was a lack of skill that continual
training could overcome. It was not something that was taken seriously.
The Scriptures, however, teach that sin is a personal affront to God
and a transgression of the laws he has established. Sin is stepping over
the legal boundaries within which we should live and work. Sin is an
insult to God because we choose no longer to serve him but an idol. And
idolatry is nothing but spiritual adultery. God loves his people like a
bridegroom loves his bride. Instead of loving him as our spouse, we turn
to idols and commit adultery.
Sin can be forgiven only through
the shedding of blood—in the Old Testament era the blood of animals
foreshadowed that of Christ. In the New Testament era, the sinner is
cleansed through Christ’s blood shed at Golgotha. As the writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews aptly puts it: “and without the shedding of blood
there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22). (1)
“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” (Romans 14:1)
From Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on Romans 14:1:
“14:1-6 Differences of opinion prevailed even among the immediate
followers of Christ and their disciples. Nor did St. Paul attempt to end
them. Compelled assent to any doctrine, or conformity to outward
observances without being convinced, would be hypocritical and of no
avail. Attempts for producing absolute oneness of mind among Christians
would be useless. Let not Christian fellowship be disturbed with strifes
of words. It will be good for us to ask ourselves, when tempted to
disdain and blame our brethren; has not God owned them? And if he has,
dare I disown them? Let not the Christian who uses his liberty, despise
his weak brother as ignorant and superstitious. Let not the scrupulous
believer find fault with his brother, for God accepted him, without
regarding the distinctions of meats. We usurp the place of God, when we
take upon us thus to judge the thoughts and intentions of others, which
are out of our view. The case as to the observance of days was much the
same. Those who knew that all these things were done away by Christ’s
coming, took no notice of the festivals of the Jews. But it is not
enough that our consciences consent to what we do; it is necessary that
it be certified from the word of God. Take heed of acting against a
doubting conscience. We are all apt to make our own views the standard
of truth, to deem things certain which to others appear doubtful. Thus
Christians often despise or condemn each other, about doubtful matters
of no moment. A thankful regard to God, the Author and Giver of all our
mercies, sanctifies and sweetens them.” (2)
“For the kingdom of
God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to
God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which
make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat
destroys not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil
for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh,
nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is
offended, or is made weak.” (Romans 14:17-21)
From the Pulpit Commentary on Romans 14:19-21:
Verses 19-21. – Let us therefore follow after the things that make for
(literally, the things of) peace, and the things wherewith one may edify
another (literally, the things of the edification of one another). For
meat’s sake destroy not the work of God. “Destroy,” or rather, overthrow
– the word is κατάλυε, not ἀππόλλυε as in ver. 15 – is connected in
thought with the edification, or building up (οἰκοδομήν) before spoken
cf. “The work of God” is that of his grace in the weak Christian’s soul,
growing, it may be, to full assurance of faith (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:9,”
ye are God’s building”). Upset not the rising structure, which is God’s
own, as ye may do by putting a stumbling-block in the weak brother’s
way. All things indeed are pure (i.e. in themselves all God’s gifts
given for man’s service are so); but it is evil to that man who eateth
with offence (i.e. if the eating be to himself a stumbling-block. The
idea is the same as in ver. 14). It is good (καλὸν, not of indispensable
obligation, but a right and noble thing to do) neither to eat flesh,
nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is
offended, or is made weak. The concluding words in italics are of
doubtful authority: they are not required for the sense. For St. Paul’s
expression of his own readiness to deny himself lawful things, if he
might so avoid offence to weak brethren, cf. 1 Corinthians 8:13. (3)
From the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 20:
II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the
doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to
his Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship.
Comments in closing:
To summarize, adiaphora, is understood as an unsettled or disputable
topic or subjects that deal with non-essentials. To illustrate, these
type of issues would fall under secular categories of going to movies,
music performances, sporting events, amusement parks, reading adventure
stories, vacation traveling or not going. Many have experienced
arguments about not going to movies for example because there are bad
movies.
A weaker brother may see my liberty and then go to a bad
movie. Implicit in this reasoning would be not to cause a weaker brother
to stumble as a result of my liberty. The issue is, are all movies bad?
How is it the stronger brother’s fault if the weaker brother goes to a
bad movie, he could have gone to a good movie too? Banning the going to
movies is not a solution to the weaker brother’s sin. This type of
argument has been applied to the other examples above. There are bad
sports, bad music, and bad literature. By using a fallacious
non-sequitur argument, it could be said since there are bad things; we
should abstain from all manner of things. This type of thinking leads to
a monkish life.
However, it is very real that exercising your
liberty may cause your brother to stumble. This is a real concern. We
should never pressure a weaker brother to conform to our standards of
Christian liberty. However, there is also the phenomena known as the
tyranny of the weaker brother. I get together with a group of brothers
for a cigar night. Also, various beverages are brought to the event.
Some brothers who do not smoke or drink. They enjoy the spiritual
fellowship and no one is pressured to participate in any liberty other
brothers enjoy. The spiritual fellowship and bonding among men of the
church are remarkable.
How do we sort all of these issues out,
not offending the weaker brother, and yet maintain Christian liberty of
conscience? The best statement on how to proceed with disputable
matters can be found in the following quotation from the Westminster
Confession of Faith. Scripture is where we go for answers and what may
be deduced by good and necessary consequence.
In theology,
adiaphora would involve the time the Sunday service starts, how many
times communion is celebrated, should there be a mid-week service. Can a
church service be held in a storefront or a park? Beside, in the area
of theology, there are areas of seemingly irresolvable disputes that are
not essential for salvation, such as eschatology.
For example,
there are differing views regarding the interpretation of the book of
Revelation. Four common views are the historicist (a method of
interpretation which associates biblical prophecies with actual
historical events), preterist (past fulfillment), futurist (future
fulfillment), and the idealist (called the spiritual, allegorical, or
non-literal approach) views. The book of Revelation belongs to a class
of literature called “apocalyptic.”
The Bible uses many literary
forms. For example, it uses genera’s such as; law, historical narrative,
wisdom, poetical, gospel, didactic letters, or epistles, predictive,
and apocalyptic literature. In addition, there are differences in
millennial views, such as Pre-Millennial A-Millennial Post-Millennial
and a subset of Pre-Millennialism is Dispensational Pre-Millennialism.
To some eschatology would be considered under the area of adiaphora, to
others it would not.
How do we sort out and resolve the
disagreements? The instruction from the confessional standard is a good
rule of thumb where it says, “common to human actions and societies,
which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence,
according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be
observed.” Christian prudence and charity are called for in the area of
adiaphora.
The Westminster Confession of Faith: Good & Necessary Consequence Chapter 1.6:
vi. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His
own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down
in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from
Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new
revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we
acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary
for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the
word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of
God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and
societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian
prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always
to be observed.
“Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, 1 Corinthians,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1993), pp. 269-278.
2. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, Romans, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p.1815.
3. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary,
Romans, Vol. 18, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company
reprint 1978), p.411.
“To God, only wise, be glory through
Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the
promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)
Mr. Kettler has previously
published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his
wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. He served as an
ordained ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He worked in
and retired from a fortune five hundred company in corporate America
after forty years. He runs two blogs sites and is the author of the book
defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That
Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
A magic rock, a hat, Joseph Smith and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon
I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear.*
David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, Missouri: 1887) p. 12.
Ordo Salutis, a Study in Salvation by Jack Kettler
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
In this study, we will look at the biblical teaching regarding what
theologians call the “ordo salutis.” What does this mean? As in previous
studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, lexical evidence,
commentary evidence and confessional support for the purpose to glorify
God in how we live. Glorify God always!
Ordo salutis:
“An
ordered list intended to describe the logical order of the saving
benefits of Christ’s work which are given to those who are being saved
in order to show the relationships between those benefits in the saved
person’s experience of them; literally, the order of salvation.”*
Ordo salutis:
“Latin for “order of salvation.” Theologically it is the order of
decrees by God in bringing about the salvation of individuals. In the
Reformed camp, the ordo solutis Isaiah 1:1-31) election, 2)
predestination, 3) calling, 4) regeneration, 5) faith, 6) repentance, 7)
justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. In the Arminian
camp, the ordo solutis Isaiah 1:1-31) calling, 2) faith, 3) repentance,
4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification. ”
**
From Scripture:
“And we know that all things work
together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called
according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be
the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate,
them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and
whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to
these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? ” (Romans
8:28-31)
From Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on Romans 8:28-31:
“8:28-31 That is good for the saints which does their souls good. Every
providence tends to the spiritual good of those that love God; in
breaking them off from sin, bringing them nearer to God, weaning them
from the world, and fitting them for heaven. When the saints act out of
character, corrections will be employed to bring them back again. And
here is the order of the causes of our salvation, a golden chain, one
which cannot be broken. 1. Whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. All that God
designed for glory and happiness as the end, he decreed to grace and
holiness as the way. The whole human race deserved destruction; but for
reasons not perfectly known to us, God determined to recover some by
regeneration and the power of his grace. He predestinated, or before
decreed, that they should be conformed to the image of his Son. In this
life they are in part renewed, and walk in his steps. 2. Whom he did
predestinate, them he also called. It is an effectual call, from self
and earth to God, and Christ, and heaven, as our end; from sin and
vanity to grace and holiness, as our way. This is the gospel call. The
love of God, ruling in the hearts of those who once were enemies to him,
proves that they have been called according to his purpose. 3. Whom he
called, them he also justified. None are thus justified but those that
are effectually called. Those who stand out against the gospel call,
abide under guilt and wrath. 4. Whom he justified, them he also
glorified. The power of corruption being broken in effectual calling,
and the guilt of sin removed in justification, nothing can come between
that soul and glory. This encourages our faith and hope; for, as for
God, his way, his work, is perfect. The apostle speaks as one amazed,
and swallowed up in admiration, wondering at the height and depth, and
length and breadth, of the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge. The
more we know of other things, the less we wonder; but the further we are
led into gospel mysteries, the more we are affected by them. While God
is for us, and we keep in his love, we may with holy boldness defy all
the powers of darkness.” (1)
From Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on Romans 8:30:
“Moreover … – In this verse, in order to show to Christians the true
consolation to be derived from the fact that they are predestinated, the
apostle states the connection between that predestination and their
certain salvation. The one implied the other.
Whom he did predestinate – All whom he did predestinate.
Them he also called – Called by his Spirit to become Christians. He
called, not merely by an external invitation, but in such a way as that,
they in fact were justified. This cannot refer simply to an external
call of the gospel, since those who are here said to be called are said
also to be justified and glorified. The meaning is, that there is a
certain connection between the predestination and the call, which will
be manifested in due time. The connection is so certain that the one
infallibly secures the other.
He justified – See the note at
Romans 3:24. Not that he justified them from eternity, for this was not
true; and if it were, it would also follow that he glorified them from
eternity, which would be an absurdity. It means that there is a regular
sequence of events – the predestination precedes and secures the
calling; and the calling precedes and secures the justification. The one
is connected in the purpose of God with the other; and the one, in
fact, does not take place without the other. The purpose was in
eternity. The calling and justifying in time.
Them he also
glorified – This refers probably to heaven. It means that there is a
connection between justification and glory. The one does not exist
without the other in its own proper time; as the calling does not
subsist without the act of justification. This proves, therefore, the
doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. There is a connection
infallible and ever existing between the predestination and the final
salvation. They who are subjects of the one are partakers of the other.
That this is the sense is clear,
(1) Because it is the natural and obvious meaning of the passage.
(2) Because this only would meet the design of the argument of the apostle. For how would it be a source of consolation to say to them that whom God foreknew he predestinated, and whom he predestinated he called, and whom he called he justified, and whom he justified “might fall away and be lost forever?” (2)
Picture From the Monergism website on Ordo Salutis:
The “Ordo salutis” is a Latin term, which means “the order of
salvation”. It speaks of a way of organizing all the events of
redemption in the consecutive order that they show up in an individual’s
life (as revealed in the bible) when he is joined to Christ by the Holy
Spirit. Keep in mind we must never separate the benefits (regeneration,
justification, sanctification) from the Benefactor (Jesus Christ). The
entire process (election, redemption, regeneration, etc.) is the work of
God in Christ and is by grace alone.
All the benefits of
redemption such as conversion (faith & repentance), justification,
sanctification and perseverance presuppose a renewed heart (the
existence of spiritual life) which believes. The work of applying God’s
grace is a unitary process given to the elect simultaneously in Christ.
This is instantaneous, but there is definitely a causal order
(regeneration giving rise to all the rest). Though these benefits cannot
be separated, it is helpful to distinguish them. Therefore, instead of
imposing a chronological order we should view these as a unitary work of
God to bring us into union with Christ. We must always keep in mind
that the orders expressed in the following articles occur together or
happen simultaneously like heat and fire. All aspects of the work of God
continue together throughout the life of a Christian.
Jesus
Christ is the source of all redemptive blessings, including
regeneration, justification, sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30). Election is
the superstructure of our ordo salutis (a blueprint, so to speak, of
what God intends to do for elect sinners in time), but not itself the
application of redemption. Regeneration, the work of the Holy Spirit,
which brings us into a living union with Christ, has a causal priority
over the other aspects of the process of salvation.
· God opens our eyes, we see.
· God circumcises/ unplugs our ears, we hear.
· Jesus calls a dead and buried Lazarus out of the grave, he comes; (Ephesians 2:5)
· In the same way, the Holy Spirit applies regeneration,
(opening our spiritual eyes and renewing our affections), immediately
and infallibly resulting in faith. (John 6:63, 65)
Historically
in the Church, there has been disagreement about the order of salvation,
especially between those in the Reformed and Arminian camps. The
following two perspectives of God’s order in carrying out His redemptive
work reveals the stark contrast between these two main historic views.
Keep in mind that both viewpoints are based on the redemptive work,
which Christ accomplished for His people in history:
In the
Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election/predestination (in
Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6)
conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8)
sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)
In the
Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3)
repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7)
glorification.
Notice the crucial difference in the orders of
regeneration and faith. While the Reformed position believes spiritual
life is a prerequisite for the existence of the other aspects of
salvation, the Arminians believe that fallen, natural man retains the
moral capacity to receive or reject the gospel of his own power. Even
with the help of grace, he still must find it within himself to believe
or reject Christ. This has broad implications and raises questions like
why does one man believe and not another? You might also notice that,
according to Arminians, election is dependent on faith, not the other
way around. This is no small matter …understanding the biblical order,
while keeping in mind its unitary process, is crucial and has a
profound impact on how one views God, the gospel, and the Bible as a
whole.
But how can regeneration (life) come before justification?
Some might ask. This is because causes and effects usually happen at
the same time. God creates the world and it exists. It did not hesitate 5
seconds but sprung into existence the same moment he called it into
existence. When a pool ball hits another, they touch at the same time,
but only ONE is the cause of the other moving. Likewise, God breathes
new life into us and we breathe. God opens our eyes and we see, He gives
us a new heart and we believe. No time delay takes place. They occur
simultaneously, but one actually CAUSES the other. Faith is the fruit of
grace and as such, we can only ascribe all glory to God. (3)
Picture from the monergism web site
The Unbreakable Golden Chain of Salvation According to the Westminster Confession of Faith:
III.6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the
eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means
thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are
redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his
Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and
kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation.
VIII.1. It
pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord
Jesus, his only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man,
the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of his church, the
Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom he did from all
eternity give a people, to be his seed, and to be by him in time
redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.
X.1. All
those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is
pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his
Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are
by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ ….
XI.1.
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by
infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by
accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything
wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone ….
XII.1. All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for his
only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption …,
are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him, as by a
father: yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption; and
inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation.
XIII.1.
They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new
heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really
and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection,
by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them ….
XVII.1. They, whom
God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by
his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of
grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be
eternally saved.
XVII.2. This perseverance of the saints depends
not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of
election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the
Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ,
the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the
nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the
certainty and infallibility thereof.
Comments in closing:
We see in Romans 8:28-30, the “golden chain” of salvation. In this
passage, there is a point-by-point sequence where Paul declares the
indissoluble order of how God saves us. Paul makes it clear that our
salvation from beginning to end is the work of a sovereign God. Hence,
this “golden chain” is unbreakable because of God’s grace that can never
fail His elect people!
Consequently, the biblical understanding
of ordo salutis allows us to see clearly that God is the author of our
salvation from beginning to end. God graciously enables and causes
sinners to believe, to repent, to become Disciples of Christ, and
finally to be gloried. This theology prevents the sinner from trying to
take any credit for his salvation. God deserves all the glory
Notable Quotes:
“We are initially united with Christ in regeneration.” “We appropriate
and continue to live out of this union through faith.” Third, “We are
justified in union with Christ. “Fourth, “We are sanctified through
union with Christ. “Fifth, “We persevere in the life of faith in union
with Christ. “Finally, “We shall be eternally glorified with Christ.” –
Anthony Hoekema
“Regeneration, faith, conversion, renewal, and
the like, often [in the Bible] do not point to successive steps in the
way of salvation but rather summarize in a single word the entire change
which takes place in a man.” – Herman Bavinck
“Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, Romans, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p.1800.
2. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Romans, p.2205.
3. Monergism website on Ordo Salutis
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.”
(Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28,
29)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the
Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the
Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. He served as an ordained ruling elder in
the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He worked in and retired from a
fortune five hundred company in corporate America after forty years. He
runs two blogs sites and is the author of the book defending the
Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a
Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
The Religion That Started in a Hat 