Continuing to Fight the War on Error
January 5th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
The following is adapted from John’s upcoming book, The Truth War (Spring, 2007).
What is truth? We began with that question, and my earnest hope is that the answer would be clear: Truth is not any individual’s opinion or imagination. Truth is what God decrees. And He has given us an infallible source of saving truth in His revealed Word.
For the true Christian, this should not be a complex issue. God’s Word is what all pastors and church leaders are commanded to proclaim, in season and out of season—when it is well received and even when it is not (2 Timothy 4:2). It is what every Christian is commanded to read, study, meditate on, and divide rightly. It is what we are called and commissioned by Christ to teach and proclaim to the uttermost parts of the earth.
Is there mystery even in the truth God has revealed? Of course. “ ‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the LORD” (Isaiah 55:8). In 1 Corinthians 2:16, Paul paraphrased Isaiah 40:13–14: “Who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?”
But then Paul immediately added this: “We have the mind of Christ.” Christ has graciously given us enough truth and enough understanding to equip us for every good deed—including the work of earnestly contending for the faith against deceivers who try to twist the truth of the gospel. Although we cannot know the mind of God exhaustively, we certainly can know it sufficiently to be warriors for the cause of truth against the lies of the kingdom of darkness.
And we are commanded to participate in that battle. God Himself sounded the call to battle when His Spirit moved Jude to write his short epistle and it permanently entered the canon of Scripture. This is not a duty any faithful Christian can shirk. Earthly life for the faithful Christian can never be a perpetual state of ease and peace. That’s why the New Testament includes so many descriptions of the Christian life as nonstop warfare: Ephesians 6:11-18; 2 Timothy 2:1-4; 2 Timothy 4:7; 2 Corinthians 6:7; 10:3-5; 1 Thessalonians 5:8. Those unwilling to join the fight against untruth and false religion are no true friends of Christ.
The handful of vignettes from church history we have examined together in this book are only a brief introduction to how the Truth War has been fought over the past two millennia. Look at any period of church history and you will discover this significant fact: Whenever the people of God have sought peace with the world or made alliances with false religions, it has meant a period of serious spiritual decline, even to the point where at times the truth seemed almost to be in total eclipse. But whenever Christians have contended earnestly for the faith, the church has grown and the cause of truth has prospered. May it be so in our time.
In other words, the Truth War is a good fight (1 Timothy 6:12). So let’s wage good warfare (1 Timothy 1:18)—for the honor of Christ and the glory of God.
Very edifying. The body of Christ needs to hear these words.
There is a spiritual war going on, and it’s against wickednesses that will do all they can to hinder the Word of God going forth. From distorting it, to even removing it from the pulpits, which is what is happening.
The Bible may well be on the way out. Now that’s very frightening indeed.
But the Lord will prevail. He has sworn that He will. He will always have a remnant. And His truth will conquer in the end.
Thanks for writing this book. I pray that it would find it’s way into the hands of many, many pastors. Amen.
[…] You can read MacArthur’s post here. […]
Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes, and amen!
Truth is what God decrees. And we ARE TO BE WARRIORS!!!!
I was recently fired from a local SBC Bible college for being too vocal in my opposition to the Emergent. So I know how little most churchies care to fight for truth. Most are cowards.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
We must contend earnestly for the faith (Jude et al), and confront apostacy to be sure. If there were no explicit knowable truth to defend, it would not be commanded of us to do so.
As we discern error and confront untruth, let us be prayerful and judicious, careful to avoid becoming prideful(Matt. 23:23-29 straining gnats but swallowing camels)or “quarrelsome” (2Tim.2:24-26) which are counterproductive to our ministering.
Too true and yet so many asked that question and then just gone ahead and washed their hands of the matter.
Josh
“…the word of God is not bound.”
–2 Timothy 2:9
Rev. MacArthur writes: “We have the mind of Christ.” Christ has graciously given us enough truth and enough understanding to equip us for every good deed—including the work of earnestly contending for the faith against deceivers who try to twist the truth of the gospel. Although we cannot know the mind of God exhaustively, we certainly can know it sufficiently to be warriors for the cause of truth against the lies of the kingdom of darkness.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I draw the following conclusions from this paragraph in the context of recent posts.
1) For Rev. MacArthur, Brian McLaren and the EC are typical representatives of the deceivers who speak the lies of the kingdom of darkness.
2) Having the mind of Christ is not the same as having the mind of God. The mind of Christ gives us “sufficient” truth and understanding, but not the exhaustive knowledge that the mind of God would afford.
I understand Rev. MacArthur’s evaluation of his fellow clergymen.
I am in complete accord with Rev. MacArthur’s understanding of the mind of Christ. Christ emptied himself of the divine attributes (Philippians 2:7). Jesus the Messiah was not omniscient.
Whyte…
You have to be careful how you state that last paragraph, in my humble opinion. It seems as though Christ, when on this earth only, at times didn’t know everything…that is why Luke can say that He was growing in knowledge and stature. But then it also says that in John 2:24,25 that Christ knew all men so He didn’t entrust Himself to them. Christ also said many times…”it isn’t my hour” seemingly showing a divine knowledge of when He was to be taken to the cross. Matthew 9:4 also said that Jesus “knew their thoughts” when speaking to the Pharisees.
So Christ, on earth, definitely “learned” but also had divine omniscience at times as well.
I wouldn’t cast it off so easy…and maybe that wasn’t your point, so sorry if it wasn’t…that Christ wasn’t omniscient.
Seth, thanks for the reply. Years ago when I was studying Philippians 2, I became terrified.
Verse 7 says that Christ “emptied” himself. I looked at all the ways that word, kenosis, had been translated. “Laid aside,” “hid,” all sorts of words. I also looked up the good Greek words Paul could have used if he had meant “laid aside” or “hid,” etc.
Kenosis means emptied.
In my GARB church, Jesus’ omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence had been stressed as proof of his deity. When I discovered that Jesus had emptied himself of those things, I was terrified that I had become a heretic.
In the years that followed, I discovered that many believers believed in what I had stumbled across, the “kenosis theory.” (You can google that.)
It took a while for me to discover how it was that Jesus remained God without those so-called divine attributes.
Whyte…so you don’t believe that Christ had any omniscience? Or omnipotence?
The above verses that I sited seem to state just the opposite.
In the kenosis, notice that it does state that Christ, “took the form of a bondservant” just as He existed in the “form of God” This didn’t take away His deity it just added the humanity part of the God/Man.
Again…look down a few verses…as I am not going to try and refute your view of emptying…even though I disagree and feel as though it really means “put aside”
Verse 8 says, “being found in appearance as a man” which in the Greek means “everything on the outside, was man like” but on the inside or the things “unseen” would be His Deity.
I am not stressing this like a gnostic would, but am just at this point showing that Christ, while on earth, did not completely rid Himself of His deity.
Absolutely, Christ remained fully God while on earth. I simply believe that he emptied himself of the so-called divine attributes.
Hebrews 2:17 says “he had to be made like his brothers in every way.” He lived his life in the power of the Holy Spirit, just as we do. He was baptized in the Holy Spirit when his cousin John baptized him.
Jesus was truly our example because he lived his life with the same resources as we do. He performed his miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, just as Paul and the others did. He had the gift of knowledge, just as his junior brothers do.
Jesus remained God while on earth, he just didn’t have omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.
But I agree with you in part: Jesus did not rid himself of his deity AT ALL!
Food for thought:
http://studywell.org/articles/jesusemptiedhimself.htm
Interesting link, Joyce. Thanks for introducing it to the discussion.
Let me put his paragraph six here:
“The idea that Jesus emptied Himself of attributes and characteristics is completely foreign to Paul’s argument. He points to Jesus as our example of self-humiliation. If Jesus emptied out of Himself a bunch of attributes, then how can we follow this example? We can’t divest ourselves of our human nature any more than He could divest His divine nature. The line of reasoning that Paul uses to say that we should be selfless becomes meaningless through such an interpretation. It is an attitude that he is teaching.”
There are a lot of directions to go in from here, but let me take in one direction.
Doy Moyer writes, “If Jesus emptied out of Himself a bunch of attributes, then how can we follow this example?”
I happen to believe that Christ *did* empty himself of “a bunch of stuff”: his omniscience, his omnipotence, and his omnipresence. That Jesus was not omnipresent few will dispute, unless one argues on the basis of the phrase “Spirit of Christ,” and say that even in the incarnation, Jesus was everywhere.
Having the attitude of Christ, given my understanding, means that we will not seek things like 1) omniscience, 2) omnipotence, and 3) omnipresence.
Many ministries seek a version of all three.
1) “If only we knew the demographics of our audience better.” “If only I knew the answers to all their possible objections.” “If only I knew the Bible better.”
All of these are based on the assumption that more knowledge is the answer to ministry. Christ indeed had all knowledge, but emptied himself of it. He demonstrated that perfect ministry did not rely on vast amounts of knowledge. He accepted human limitations.
2) “If only I had the power to make this happen.” “If only I had the power to keep this from happening.” “If only I had the power to simply stop sinning once and for all.”
All of these are based on the assumption that more power is the answer to ministry. Again, Christ emptied himself of power, and became reliant on the Holy Spirit, just as we do. He had access to power, the same power we have access to. But he accepted human limitations.
3) “If only I could have a TV and radio ministry, then I could reach not thousands, millions of people with the gospel.” “If only I could get published, then I could reach thousands more than I am now.” “If only I could speak at conferences to get my message out, think of all the people I could reach.”
All of these are based on the assumption that being as many places as possible is the key to ministry. Again, Christ *was* everywhere before the incarnation. But his ministry was restricted to the tiny little backwater of Palestine. But he accepted human limitations.
According to kenosis, we can hardly pursue the very thing Christ emptied himself of, thinking that increased knowledge, increased power, and increased influence are key to ministry.
Yes, knowledge, power, and influence are good and acceptable things in our Christian lives. I guess I have to say it: where do you draw the line?
I have to repeat the passage from Hebrews: “He was made like his brothers in every way.”
If I have to do something that is way beyond normal human power, like perform a miracle, I don’t have a secret “God button” in my utility belt to push for the divine power to heal. I would have to rely on the Holy Spirit.
As a youth I talked with people about the fact that it was possible for human beings to perform miracles today, just like Jesus did.
They replied, “Well of course Jesus could do it, he was God.”
If Jesus really is our example, then he had to have the same human limitations as we do, or else he cannot genuinely be our example.
But he did, nevertheless, remain fully God during his sojourn on earth.
Sorry Joyce, one more comment!
Moyer wrote, “We can’t divest ourselves of our human nature any more than He could divest His divine nature.”
Technically, it could be Moyer is totally wrong here. I believe that crucifying the old self, counting ourselves dead to sin, taking up our cross and following Christ — these are all ways of characterizing “divesting ourselves of our human nature.”
Dear Whyte, hesitating to be perceived as desiring to teach the gentlemen, may it be shared as these eyes see…
for Jesus to “be” God He would have to retain the attributes of God of omnipotence, omnipresence, omnisience while emptying Himself of availing their use(yet He laid down His life on the cross, confirming that He was omnipotent). In a similar way, we deal with the flesh. It remains with us until we are absent from the earthsuit of flesh where sin dwells…but we can choose to yield otherwise.
Points 1-3 you share above aren’t perceived by me as those folks necessarily desiring to be as God concerning attributes(can’t judge their heart motive as it is what only God can judge perfectly)…rather the comments are sensed as hearts for the lost in that they know Who they are not yet yearn as Paul(in that He desired all Israel to come to Christ). Considering that Paul wanted to be perfectly with the Lord yet wanted to remain on earth for the benefit of others. From God enlightening us with understanding Paul knew God paramountly was responsible for all aspects of salvation because of our spending time in the Word…well, likewise, shouldn’t we hold off judging folks possibly unrighteously when we haven’t been privy to spend more time with them to better know them?
Have you children? As a mother I have had thoughts cross my mind of my shortcomings AND God being sovereign in and through my life and the lives of others(and circumstances He orchestrates) with them. That doesn’t mean there is a desire by me to be Him…just that love desires the best for others even as we can’t fully understand what God deems best may be in our lack of perfect foreknowledge. “Wishing” and “if only” comments, though they may involve God dealing with aspects of our own sin, simply confirm our sense of need of Him as He lets us sense need of others for Him.
Would you deem it best to agree that there is disagreement here concerning “Jesus emptying Himself”(and obviously on other articles)…and that God would have us all be driven to study to rightly divide the Word in times such as this? A type of our caring deeply for each other yet being still and knowing He is God and Truth…Truth He will reveal to His children in His perfect way and timing?
Dear Joyce,
I understand your reticence to be perceived as desiring to teach men, but I’ll consider you to be a prophetess after the example of Philip’s seven daughters who prophesied, prophesying being to speak the words of God to a situation.
Attempting to “weigh carefully what is said,” you seem to urge amity, personal study (and personal convictions), and love in your concluding paragraph. I believe that is a good word from the Lord.
Joyce, I invite your insight here. What is your impression of the phrase, “contending for the faith”?
Or is your word meant specifically for me, that I should agree to disagree, and that others should continue “contending for the faith”?
My question does not concern an issue of fairness, but of spiritual direction.
“A type of our caring deeply for each other yet being still and knowing He is God and Truth…Truth He will reveal to His children in His perfect way and timing?”
I respect your modesty, and I am not attempting to elicit and sort of boasting or self-aggrandizement from you in this following question.
Do you see yourself as becoming more competent as a minister of the covenant of the Spirit, as opposed to the covenant of the written code? This is important to me, since I feel, and see myself as, habitually tied to the written code, the Scriptures.
I would appreciate any insight you have for me, Joyce.
I was studying 1 Timothy 6:3-5. The thought that I had was this.
If men like, Mclaren, Warren..etc (I name these 2 since they are spoken of so often in thses posts.)
have such an impact on people the questions that have to be asked are:
Are they teaching and unconsenting to wholesome words?
Even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ?
The doctrine which accords with godliness?
Are they proud?
Do they know nothing but are obsessed with disputes and arguments over words?
Are they envious?
Do they cause strife?
Do they ascribe evil motives to others?
Do they use evil or abusive language that consists of of evil suspicions?
Do they produce unity or discord?
Are they destitute of truth?
Do they suppose that “godliness” is great gain?
If God took away their ministry and they fell into obscurity…….would they still serve Him?
More than anything else…Do they seek to bring God glory?…..No matter the cost?
Friends, I have a prayer request. Let those who submit to the Lord in humility and prayer pray for those people who seek controversy, who desire to quarrel over words and meanings, and the fruit of such actions such as dissension, envy, slander, and evil suspicions.
There are those individuals who come and use interaction with these articles as a pretense to be contentious at all times, at all points, and with all people, unless those people conform to that individual’s peculiar understandings.
It would appear to my sinful, depraved, and selfish eyes that they enjoy being a voice of opposition, yet eagerly claiming a humble way.
Because of this, I am afraid we all might get sidetracked of the simplicity and clarity found in scripture. Let us pray for those individuals. Their interaction does not appear to be for learning or honest disagreement but because they enjoy disagreeing and “shaking things Up”. Far cry from the New Testament when we could speak the truth to someone and they would humbly be corrected, or simply move along.
Because I have been guilty of these things myself, I stand corrected and encourage my fellow brethren to correct me when I am wrong. I depend on it, because at times I am blind to my own wicked desires for contention based not on truth, but on my own pride and wisdom, I need the brethren to remind me of the Lord and his sufferings.
Disagreement is healthy, and we should always be charitable. Forsaking truth for total agreement is never Godly or wise, nor is forsaking truth for disagreement. Disagreement wherein the objective is to uncover the truth is a good thing.
This brings us to Unity. I like how David F. Wells described biblical unity. Referring to Ephesians 4:4-6 and Paul’s declaration to the church that there is one lord, faith, body, spirit, baptism, and God, Dr. Wells writes,
“The unity of the of the people of God is as secure as the trinity. The church’s responsibility, therefore, is not to create unity, as the ecumenical movement proposed, but to preserve the unity that God himself has already created in Christ. What militates against this unity is immaturity in doctrinal understanding (Eph. 4:14) and immaturity in moral behavior (Eph. 4:25-32)”
-(Wells, David F. “Above All Earthly Pow’rs” page 296)
Sorry for the long post. Let us pray for those who desire to be a trumpet. Perhaps they should get thier own blogsite?
Dr. Macarthur, enjoying your series. Thanks!
Steven,
Good thoughts. And great quote from Wells.
To Joyce Burrows,
You said, “for Jesus to ‘be’ God He would have to retain the attributes of God of omnipotence, omnipresence, omnisience while emptying Himself of availing their use(yet He laid down His life on the cross, confirming that He was omnipotent).”
GREAT thinking and good theology.
You go, Girl!
Phil Perkins.
Wythe, “contending for the faith” for me involves being quieted when disagreement can be likened to a tennis match…a continual beating of the ball back and forth in what each person views differently. It is believed that being quieted by the Lord(as the Shepherd so often does with His sheep) lets individuals be minded Who is responsible for illuminating and working of Truth with hearts, mine and others included. In zeal for what is individually seen on a matter, we(meaning all that need the Lord) can share points ad nauseum and be thought of by others as beating a ball like beating a horse near death. Been there and done that and am learning, sometimes slower at times than others, how important it is not to do so with what is precious to God.
As to your last question(your kindness appreciated, God is good), God calls His betrothed to worship in Spirit and in Truth. Truth is the Word(Person and the Person expressed), the Word is God, God is Spirit. I do not see the Law being abolished but rather fulfilled in Christ and Christ living in and through believers as they yield in obedience to the Word. It isn’t an either or thing, one aspect being elevated over another…there is harmony and balance in all being relevant and embraced. He simply asks us to be like Mary sitting at His feet to hear Him speaking amidst the Martha voices.
Hope this has been helpful to you and a blessing to the Lord and those reading.
Phil,
Your encouragement is appreciated; God is good! He has graciously caused me to love Him.
:-)
Steven, the wisdom shared is well received and appreciated.
“Although we cannot know the mind of God exhaustively, we certainly can know it sufficiently to be warriors for the cause of truth against the lies of the kingdom of darkness.”
And this should be the quote of the month, for the new year.
Excellent words, and I’m very much looking forward to reading this book.
So am I Carla. Thanks to you all for posting your comments and thoughts here. Thanks to you Pastor John for feeding your interent flock!
“We haven’t witnessed to someone who is going to hell according to our theology but we’ve talked about some trivia to them. Whisper in my ear that satan has moved you up. he says you’re getting to be dangerous to his kingdom. He says you’re spoiling his plans, thwarting his purposes, you’re pulling down strongholds. We’re not pulling things out, we’re building pretty little churches and little rooms for peole to sit around in. If Jesus came back He wouldn’t cleanse the temple….he’d cleanse the pulpit.”
~Leonard Ravenhill
Keep fighitng the good fight…eternal souls are at stake!
Whyte,
What exactly is a GARB church?
The GARBC is the General Association of General Baptist Churches, a fairly small denomination formed sometime prior to 1936 in a break with the Northern Baptists.
I attended two GARB churches as an adolescent: Castlemont Baptist Church in Oakland, CA, and Aurora Drive Baptist Church in San Leandro, CA. The two churches merged at some point while I was gone from the area, with the Castlemont church closing its doors.
I have interesting memories from both churches. At Castlemont Baptist during a Sunday evening sermon the pastor preached from Revelation. I realized that there was no no real difference between me and a murderer or “the worst sinner.”
The only difference was that I had found socially acceptable ways to express my selfishness and sin, whereas the murderer had not.
At Aurora Drive Baptist Church, I remember talking with one of the older ladies about the pastor’s sermons, which were so vehement and “take-it-or-leave-it.”
Her reply was very helpful. “Not everyone believes everything the pastor preaches.”
What a relief that was!
I recently had an opportunity to visit two GARBC missionary families in Japan. It was a healing experience for me. I found them to be really good people, and I appreciated the work they were doing.
I told one of the men about my experience at Aurora Drive, and how the pastor had recommended that I go to Hyles-Anderson College. He was flabbergasted. His reply was basically, “No wonder you reacted so badly!”
Here I was in a strict fundamentalist church, and the pastor was under the sway of a total-submission-to-the-pastor college!
Oh well!
Thanks, Joyce.
Your post resonates for me fully. I’ve postponed a quick reply. (Quick replies are not always good replies.)
I’m mulling over what you said about “being quieted” when a discussion has been a tennis match. I understand how a pause in the discussion can be good, which is how I interpret you placing “being quieted” in the category of “contending for the faith.”
My Scriptural examples include an awful lot of people who did not “withdraw from the field of battle.” Nearly all the “heroes of the faith.”
But that really isn’t what it means for the average person to be a servant of all.
(pause)
I told my wife today that I wasn’t a theological thinker. I have a definite theology developed from the Scriptures, but I don’t have a lot of use for the traditional theological categories and debates.
Of course she knew that already.
Eddie, that’s “General Association of REGULAR Baptist Churches,” not General Baptist Churches.
Sorry.
Thanks Whyte, I appreciate the you taking the time to respond and explain.
Eddie
Whyte:
I don’t fully agree with your kenosis theory, but you made some good observations with our desires to have Jesus’ omni’s. I’ll definitely file those away for the next time I come to Phil. 2.
Back to one of my original concerns that drew me into discussions with you. You wrote:…I feel, and see myself as, habitually tied to the written code, the Scriptures.
This, in a nutshell, summarizes where we are different. I do not want to be free of the Scriptures. Their words are my life in the way that Jesus meant when he quoted Deut. in Matt. 4:4.
Scott, you’re probably right about this difference.
I would simply qualify this, for the sake of anyone who might be reading this: it’s not altogether accurate to say that my desire is to be free from the Scriptures.
My desire is to become, as described in the Scripture, a competent minister of the New Covenant of the Spirit, not of the written code. This is (and you’re familiar with this from previous discussions) based primarily (but not exclusively) on Jeremiah 31:31-34 and II Corinthians 3:6.
I see the difference between us as totally legitimate, and possibly not as large as it seems. Different people have different tasks and ministries from the Lord based on their gifts and callings. Each person will find different varieties of insight and encouragement from Scripture based on personality differences, differing strengths and weakness, etc.
Bon apetit!
Hi Whyte,
It is agreed that the heroes of the faith didn’t withdraw from the battle field, so to speak, in their being in the world but not of the world…but they were to know when to move on and let God be God as shared in Matthew 10. There is wisdom in being quieted when unity isn’t “happening” with those professing the Lord, too.
Yet…there is to be unity between believers and it begins and unfolds with the understanding that there is only one interpretation of Scripture that we are to receive and believe with the Holy Spirit teaching what is said and meant before we make application for walking after the Spirit in the Spirit(it isn’t to be different because of personality differences, differing strengths and weaknesses, etc.). Obviously He teaches similar to peeling layers of an onion but there will still be agreement with individual layers when handled rightly.
Understand that the kitchen is drawing me so(as in general an aspect of the homefront may) replies may oft be later than sooner. Little is sensed needed added to this discussion by me(you might agree); I’m thankful God had us talk, though.
May God be blessed.
I was originally going to say this in an earlier post, but I think it fits better here.
I suppose everything depends on what we consider “truth.” I have no problem affirming with whatever certainty a finite human can muster that Jesus Christ IS truth. But I guess that’s where I end it; that’s the long and the short of it. Truth is a Person, and if I am moving closer to Truth, that is a good thing. As this happens, many things that I once held as truth fade away. To give you some examples in the theological realm, things that I held as provisional truths that have faded: “You must speak in tongues to be filled with the Holy Spirit,” or “War and patriotism are Christian duties.”
There. Now that wasn’t so bad, was it? I’m sure you agree with me on at least one of those matters! So while lowercase-t “truth” sustains us for the moment, only Jesus our Truth is an eternal energy. Honestly, I think that “propositional truth” alarmists need to pick another issue. Why not fight poverty with Gospel concern instead of fighting your sisters and brothers in Christ?
I’ll try to follow my own advice.
It baffles me how people who proclaim to love the Bible, who claim that it is infallible, who calim that it is the word of God, can take it so unseriously. If you really take the Bible seriously, then you have the courage to admit that 1.) It was written over a period of centuries, by different authors, from different cultures, in different places. 2.) we do not have one copy of the bible that we could claim to be inerrant. In fact, (and I have the academic credentials to claim this), of all the various greek manuscripts for New Testament books that we know of there are not 2 that are exactly alike. NOt even 2. So which bible is infalible, what words are infalible, which translation? It does us no good to say that the orignal versions were infallible because we do not have them! Emergening Christians have enough faith in Jesus, Not the Bible, to take an honest look at these types of questions. To put it harshly, some so called evangelical Christians are guilty of idolatry in regards to the bible. Jesus Christ, not scripture, is our standard for faith and life. His life, not scripture, is without fault. If you take the Bible seriously, then look at it honestly.
Dan, the general reply to your points are all articles of faith with no Scriptural support.
One typical, ungrounded assertion (and I’m sure you’re familiar with it) is the faith article which says the Scriptures are inerrant in the original manuscripts.
Another such assertion is that there is sufficient accuracy to adequately and clearly represent the essential doctrines of Christianity.
I agree with your statement that “It does us no good to say that the orignal versions were infallible because we do not have them.”
But that leaves me with an abiding question which I have only answered for myself tentatively. If no inerrant or infallible manuscripts exist, and if there is no Scriptural support for an article of faith which asserts such, then:
Why do inerrantists and infallibilists feel compelled to argue for these positions so vociferously?
I believe it has to do with authority. Specifically, it seems essential to their mind-set and their understanding of ministry that an objective source of authority exists to bolster their confidence in their positions, that a source of authority OUTSIDE OF THEMSELVES exists as their foundation.
Jesus told the Pharisees, “The kingdom of God is within you,” or it could read, “among you,” in the sense of “between yourselves.” The kingdom of God is the area of God’s sovereign rule.
Jesus specifically tells us not to look over there, or over here, but that the kingdom of God is within us.
I don’t know why, with Jesus’ teaching on this being so clear that so many of our leaders insist on placing the source of God’s sovereignty outside ourselves. The source of God’s sovereignty is GOD HIMSELF, and the kingdom of God is within us by virtue of GOD’S PRESENCE WITHIN US.
[Yes, yes, I know. His teaching is recorded within the written code, within the Scriptures. I have never denied the value of the Bible.]
I believe there are (at least) two reasons for their strict faith in the inerrancy and/or infallibility of the Bible.
First, anything outside a concrete document feels unreliable, messy, subjective, and fuzzy to them. This, despite the fact that we are created in God’s image, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and exist in Union with God.
Second, they are not willing to let the doctrine of Total Depravity be qualified or informed by statements by God Incarnate to the contrary.
I could be wrong about this all, but it seems to me that putting one’s theology above the words of God Incarnate is a dangerous business.
Joyce,
You said, “Yet…there is to be unity between believers and it begins and unfolds with the understanding that there is only one interpretation of Scripture that we are to receive and believe with the Holy Spirit…”
Good again. It is also good to note that that understanding of Scripture may not come to us until we are with Him. But there is ONLY ONE TRUTH.
I hope you are active in discipling ladies in your church and keep the men honest, too. You think biblically. We NEED THAT.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Mike Morrell,
You said, “Truth is a Person, and if I am moving closer to Truth, that is a good thing.”
Are you sure that “Truth is a Person” is a truth?
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Well, I will continue to show you that courtesy. Just, please, send me your answer. I would really like to share your thoughts with my readers.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Hi Phil (and all)–I resonate with what Dan and Whyte are sharing here.
You ask, am I “sure” that “truth is a Person” is true? This reminds me of epistemological games I played my freshman year of high school! The most I can do is reiterate: I affirm with “whatever certainty a finite human can muster that Jesus Christ IS truth.” Beyond that I can go no further. And it is a presupposition; we all make them.
If you’re looking for some kind of absolutized, unassailable vantage point to possess Perfect Certitude tm, I suggest that you might have to be God. : ) But don’t Reformed folk affirm that we are limited, partial creations? I know I do. So for whatever limited, circumstantial (and–by faith–divinely ordered) reasons, I choose Christ as my Center…because Christ chose me.
I agree with some above commentators that I see no reason to denigrate Scripture by placing my confidence in Christ alone. But if I can’t honestly say Jesus is Truth from some sort of unassailable omniscient vantage point, do you really want me (or your readers) to place that kind of confidence in a book? I prefer to stick to Scripture’s self-confession that it is profitable for learning. All the accretions added in modernity are conditional.
Whyte,
Hey there, I’m Justin. I have read what you said and it intrigues me very much. I don’t agree with you, but it still interests me. I’m sorry, but I haven’t read all of the posts you’ve made, only the first couple of ones. The reason I say this is because I want to ask you a few questions, but if you’ve already answered them, just say so and I’ll find them.
I would first like to know how God can be God without His attributes. God is holy, just, righteous, upright, all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, sovereign, merciful, loving, and gracious. Take away any one of these attributes, and God should cease to be God.
Next, you say that Jesus wasn’t omnipotent. If this is true, then I believe that Jesus couldn’t have raised Lazarus from the dead, for to do so would require the powers of God Almighty. Now, you can say, “Well, the Disciples weren’t omnipotent, but they raised the dead to life.” And I agree, they did. However, they used God’s power, not their own. And since Jesus is God, He wouldn’t be using God’s power, He’d be using His own power, correct?
You also believe that Jesus wasn’t omnipresent. In the sense of His humanness, this is true. But, because Jesus is also God, He is everywhere at all times. Would you agree?
Hopefully I do not sound interigative, I am only trying to understand your position.
Mike Morrell,
Then you simply are not a believer. (And you should be honest about that when you enter a conversation like this.) To be a Christian, you must be certain of the gospel. Jesus and the apostles were certain enough to die for it.
As to epistemological “games,” you cannot simply brush off such a contradiction by calling it a game when someone notices the fallacy. It lies at the base of your world view and it is self contradictory. This is Logic 101.
If “Truth is a Person” is true, then it cannot be a proposition because a proposition is not a person or part of a person. However, it is a proposition. You should know–you proposed it.
Sorry, this is a glaring contradiction. Ignoring it is not a logical option any more than A. J. Ayer could honestly ignore the fallacy that was foundational to his attempt to suppress the truth. (Ayer chose to ignore it.)
As to putting confidence in a book, Christians put confidence in the Scripture for a simple reason, if it is truly God’s Word, it is reliable. If it is not reliable, then it is not God’s Word. And one need not be God to believe that. I do and I’m not.
Do you still believe that panentheism is biblical?
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Mike Morrell,
One more quick question: Since, in your schema, we cannot believe anything with certainty other than “Jesus is the Truth,” just what good is Jesus, since we cannot believe anything He says. (With certainty.)
Wondering,
Phil Perkins.
Hi Justin,
There’s a lot I can write about kenosis. What I want to do is present a simple outline, bulleted items.
I. GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND THE BIBLE: SYNCRETISM AND THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
1. The Bible does NOT say there are anything like essential attributes. This is non-Biblical language.
2. The Early Church Fathers introduced ideas like “essential attributes,” “moral attributes,” omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence into descriptions of God.
3. The Early Church Fathers were well-educated in Greek rhetoric and philosophy, sometimes referred to as “Greek Speculative Philosophy.”
4. The Early Church Fathers labored to integrate Greek philosophy with the Bible.
5. Thus, the Early Church Fathers were Syncretists.
6. Syncretists attempt to combine non-Christian ideas with Christian ideas.
7. The Syncretistic Early Church Fathers went to the Bible looking for evidence that would support Speculative Greek Philosophy of people like Plato and Aristotle, and they felt they had successfully combined Greek philosophy and Christianity.
8. Thus, there is no Biblical support for asserting that this or that “attribute” is *essential* for God to be God. This is especially important to remember in the controversial topic of the Incarnation, where God becomes a man.
II. SCRIPTURE, KENOSIS, AND “HOW CHRIST IS GOD”
1. The word “kenosis” in Phillipians 2:7 literally means “emptied.” That means that he emptied himself of the so-called “essential attributes” of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.
2. In their attempts to explain the Incarnation of God in human form, to assert that Jesus was truly God and truly Man, theologians resort to MANY non-Biblical ideas and concepts. They can dig for proof of these non-Biblical ideas, but the solution is much simpler.
3. Theologians resort to complicated discussions of the dual nature of Christ (human and divine), discussions of hypostases and essence, and debated whether the human and divine natures were totally separate, or totally mixed, or sequential–all sorts of stuff.
4. Hebrews 2:17 says, “For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way.”
5. I am finite, Jesus was finite. I am limited, Jesus was limited.
6. I walk in dependence on the Holy Spirit, Jesus walked in dependence on the Holy Spirit. “As soon as Jesus was baptized . . . heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.” (Matthew 3:16) “Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert.” (Matthew 4:1)
7. Jesus was not omnipresent. He was limited to a human body. This is the easiest of the “three omni’s” to dismiss.
8. Jesus was not omniscient. The baby Jesus did not know my social security number.
9. Jesus was not omnipotent when he performed miracles or commanded the waves or raised the dead. We perform miracles, we command mountains to be moved, we raise the dead. How? In the power of the Holy Spirit.
III. SO HOW WAS JESUS GOD IF HE WAS NOT OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT, AND OMNIPRESENT?
1. “God is love.” (I John 4:16) Jesus is the perfect expression, the perfect embodiment, of God’s nature as Love. This is how the Son of God remained deity during the incarnation, when he was finite like his brothers, after he emptied himself of his so-called “essential attributes.”
2. Through kenosis and the Incarnation, God was telling us, in concrete form, that the most important godly quality we need to be concerned with is Love.
3. Holy and set apart? Yes, but set apart for love, set apart to love, to lay down our lives for one another. If we are set apart for love, by definition we are set apart for God, because “God is love.”
4. The Bible says “God is love.” The Bible does NOT say, “God is power” (omnipotence). It does NOT say, “God is knowledge” (omniscience). What the Bible says is, “God is love.”
Justin, there is a lot more I could write, but I’ll leave it at this for now.
Truth is a Person? Truth is Jesus. Jesus is God. God is Word. Word is logos. Logos by definition is a Person and verbal expression of the Person.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=&chapter=&verse=&word=3056&show_strongs=yes&search_normal.x=33&search_normal.y=13
Scroll down to see usage of 3056 in verses. Speaks to me: a Person and what that Person says = Truth.
Phil, God graces with leading concerning Who He is, His attributes…and the need for Him in who and what His children aren’t. Isn’t He so very good in care of His sheep? I so desire He be blessed.
Joyce,
I am not saying that “Jesus is Truth” is not true in the biblical sense as intended by the Jesus when He said so. I am taking issue with Mike Morrell’s stance that truth is only a person, and not binding statements made by God to men.
In other words, “Truth is a Person” is often used by folks like Leonard Sweet to excuse themselves from the propositional truths of Scripture.
However, there is much to be put together and skillfully separated in a correct balance between “Truth is a Person” and “Truth is what that Person has communicated.” AND I would like you to enlighten me if you can. (This is thick stuff.) (Or maybe I’m just thick.)
MacArthur’s definition of truth is “what God decrees,” and that is a great definition–one I have held for years. In fact, I recently attempted a biblical epistemology. Read it if you like and give me your feedback–or have your pastor do so. It is at http://dontadddontsubtract.blogspot.com/2006/04/theology-of-truth-information-and-love.html, and is only a sketchy outline.
Joyce, what do you do with “I am the Good Shepherd?” Do you deal with that differently? Why or why not?
I want to be as biblical in my thinking AS POSSIBLE!!!!!
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Joyce,
I want to give you something hermeneutical to consider that might profit you. Namely, there is a difference between the literal, normal definition of any word and it jargonistic use. For instance, “ekklesia” means “assembly.” It can refer to a legislature, committee, or religious assembly. In the VII, it was used jargonisticly to refer to the Old Covenant assembly of Israel. In the NT eventually it was used to refer to the assembly of believers in Christ, but at times it was used in the OT sense as well–in Hebrews for example.
I bring this up because of your definitions of “logos” and “truth.” I think it would be profitable for you to consider that your definitions there are limited to certain, special NT uses.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Dr. MacArthur and Phil, I was so thrilled this morning when I went to Oneplace.com and found than you had a 1 hour discussion on the EC following Grace To You…I have e-mailed this to everyone and implored them to listen. Please consider airing this on radio. Almost everything we have been learning about the EC this past year you encapsulated very articulately and succinctly in 1 hourl…Thanks for naming names, for guarding the truth, for defending the truth. Many Christians do not know what is going on, nor the magnitude of the infiltration of the PDLM/ECM movements deconstructing and destroying the Church…
Sometimes, even when we are reading comments here, we get the feeling that some don’t really know or understand the seriousness of the movements..Probably, because they are in the bubble of a sound church or sound seminary. We reserve when we use the term Emergent Church or PDL, because the response is “I never heard of that,” “it would never happen here.” They look at us like we are out of our minds, and that this is happening remotely, and is just too extreme to come into everyday, on the corner churches…Sometimes it is frustrating. I have to confess for about 2 years I did not want to hear about or listen to John MacArthur, I sat in the seat of mockers and gave them an ear to at least consider the ‘other side.’ Then one day the Pastor of the Church we went to, walked across the platform, crossed himself like a Catholic and said he had been to hear Brian McLaren speak on the Emerging Church…That was Nov. 2005. We came right home and googled Brian McLaren and the emerging church..We have not stopped, along with several others, researching, studying, gathering facts since that day. But, our Sunday School teacher began to be bold and speak out, and use MacArthur commentaries, and say, he is my favorite radio preacher, I would go to his church..We were astounded, this is an armenian church, they did 40 days of purpose…Then the Lord showed us that He was going to bring us back to our roots, to sound theololgy and healthy doctrine. The Lord providentially brought us into the same circles of like-minded believers who had wound up at that church for different reasons. I guess we are gluttons for punishment, we are ready to get back to the hard truths..Psalm 1
http://oneplace.com/ministries/Grace_to_You/
Hi Phil…am a tad bit homefront involved today but will read your posts better later and think on them before replying beyond this.
Let me briefly share that I am guilty of missing out knowing names oft mentioned here(like Leonard Sweet); is that a good thing?
When I say Truth is a Person(capitalized because of referencing God only) and what that Person communicates is also truth…I believe that to be true Biblically in that the Word is God and Truth and every word God inspired and penned through men that were His can only flow as being absolutely true. Possibly it was just a matter of clarification on my part if we disagreed?
Joyce,
That helps. I know you are good student of the Bible. It shows, so don’t take anything personally, at all.
For my part, this is thick wading. Anything that will enlighten me, I will take, too. It is important for me to get it right since it is now being used as a tool of the Emergent heresy.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Whyte,
After looking at your last comment, I have to say it is really inaccurate on a lot of levels. I don’t have time to go into everything but here are just two examples:
First, you said, “The Bible does NOT say there are anything like essential attributes.” If you could name anything that had no essential attributes, it would have the essential attribute of having no essential attributes. Of course, this is nonsense.
All things have essential attributes–even a chair. A chair must be designed to hold me off the floor when I place my weight on it, rump first. That is one of it’s essential attributes-or one of the things that make it a chair. And it is a biblical concept applied to God. In Romans we read that we are without excuse, “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” The previous verse should be a warning to your soul, Whyte. Together they say, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.”
Second, you said, “The Bible says “God is love.” The Bible does NOT say, “God is power” (omnipotence). It does NOT say, “God is knowledge” (omniscience). What the Bible says is, “God is love.”
Wrong. The Bible says God is love. However, it says God is truth many more times. The concept “God is love” occurs twice in I John 4. In the next chapter we read the Spirit is truth. In the gospel of John we read that Jesus is the truth, the way, and the life. In John 1:1 we read Jesus is the Word of God. There are four example of the Bible describing God as knowledge, Whyte.
To expand my warning to you, you are suppressing the truth about God. That will bring God’s wrath to you personally. I beg you to consider and repent.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Hi Phil,
Happy to be back…obviously in God’s perfect timing.
Would it be a proper thought that we agree the longer a person is a believer and studying the Bible, the more God shows us there is of Him to see/learn in the written Word?
Yes, there is understanding of what you have shared concerning the word translated “assembly”. It is similar to my saying trunk and asking what the first thing is a person has come to mind. There can be varied answers(such as human anatomy, swimwear, car, storage, tree, …elephant) but when I am sharing the word in a sentence, the meaning I intend to convey will be understood by considering where it lives…the context while taking into consideration the aspects such as historical, grammatical, and literal(and figurative). Such is how the inductive Bible study method goes, something I’m better getting a handle on utilizing as time passes. That in itself is really thick wading(Kay Arthur authored a book, probably other named authors, too… and monergism.com has links to a site online under the heading of Bible Study).
This is how this gal’s mind handles balancing Truth as God, a Person, and that Person’s verbal expression. Does not God say that all Scripture is given by inspiration of Him? Yet we see wording of the leaning “Paul to” or “James to” or other seeming authorship wording. It isn’t that God is stamping approval on a person being inspired to write all that they understood in their own strength…in fact the Bible indicates that those penning didn’t necessarily understand(Daniel 12:8-9 and 1 Peter 1:10-12 for examples). In other words, the Bible isn’t saying that truth is proceeding from Daniel or Peter or Paul in and of themselves but that God Who is Truth dictated every word they penned yet breathed through them being similar to musical instruments that retained the properties of the instrument(yet an act of breath…of the Spirit of God moving) in sharing perspectives they also experienced(explains to me what some say are contradictions in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). God orchestrated every word, some that science and history and archeology has confirmed to be true yet some still to be proven…in God’s perfect time just as He makes all things beautiful. So when the Bible says mentions “paths of the seas” in Psalm 8, it can be trusted as being truth even before being proven as being true by Matthew Maury(in the 1800’s) or being personally understood in fullness by me studying the reality. Those that say there is some truth in the Bible but it is tainted have nothing but themselves to base their belief and living upon. If one part is tainted and not settled forever in Heaven and preserved as God promised, then it is ALL up for private interpretation and scrutiny. It isn’t. Trust God. The God Who is Truth and can only express Truth. Helpful to you? In homeschooling our oldest son, two books came across our path that caused me to dig and examine and evaluate what they shared in light of what God says. Bible Doctrines for Today, Book 1 & 2 by A Beka Book, Pensacola Christian College. If you happen upon them(might be one book revised now, though) used on eBay or elsewhere, see what you think!
“I am the good Shepherd.” being handled by me. The first thing that God speaks to my heart/mind is “I am”. Jesus is saying He is God. He also says this in the word good…as only God says is perfectly good and says good and does good, testified of Him in the creation story and onward. Shepherd…Psalm 23. Good Shepherd verses wolves in sheep’s clothing that people without Him as the Shepherd hearing His voice and following Him…follow. Have you ever read about sheep and shepherds and Psalm 23(W. Phillip Keller is an author of one read by me that was in a trilogy beyond title recall http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/102-3005386-0712132?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=W.%20Phillip%20Phillip%20Keller ). I’ve never read or had the the Psalm brought to mind without thinking about a shepherd and sheep and their reliance on the shepherd. Just as we so need the Shepherd.
Haven’t had a chance to read the link you shared(for those that find it clicks to a dead page, remove the comma at the end in the address bar and reclick) but will do so, hopefully over the weekend. Can I say that a past article of John MacArthur posted here about women working outside the home resounds applicable to me even with aspects of stepping outside the home via the internet. I’m a bit slowed because of resolving physical issues so can be slowed even with reading and responding where God has me be online(so please don’t take my silence in posting as avoidance purposeful…there is an apt to having slowness in tasks on the homefront and time slips away accordingly).
I, too, have been given the desire by God to be sound Biblically and am so thankful to be His workmanship. He wants me to evaluate what is said by His children and others as being under the scrutiny of what He says and means rather than the other way around. That is preferred even with what I share. God is good.
Because of Jesus,
:-)
Joyce,
Thanks for your hard work. What I am trying to figure out right now is this question:
When Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” was it figurative or was there a literal element to it? This is a hard question since, if He is literally the Truth, He is also literally the Life, because of the sentence structure. When He said he is the Good Shepherd, it is figurative.
If He is literally the Truth, then that Truth must be something in addition to the truth that we are to believe, because the Bible requires belief in many things, not just Jesus apart from the rest of reality–that is a mystic vision that does not square biblical thought at all.
Do read that epistemological article. It is heavy and you may have questions, since it is not yet fleshed out or footnoted. Take special care to understand why the idea of distinctions is so important to knowledge all the way from sensory perception itself to cognition to theology and morality. The concept of the necessity of differences being the essence of information/knowledge/truth specifically and thoroughly demolishes the Eastern idea of oneness.
Trying to thread a needle,
Phil Perkins.
Joyce,
Just a quick thought: Since you are into seeing the subtle instances of the Bible indicating the deity of Christ, look at the introduction of Revelation. It’s awesome.
Revelation is a prophecy, right? Most biblical prophecies (all but Jonah, I believe) begin with an introduction that mentions the god (God) giving the prophecy, the seer or prophet, and the message. Revelation has an intro that introduces Christ as both the human prophet receiving the message from God and the god (God) giving the message to the human prophet (John.)
It’s a gem I had never noticed until a student mentioned it to me last semester.
Thought you’d enjoy meditating on that sometime. You probably already knew it, though. Ha.
Leonard Sweet–Not knowing him is no loss, but to fill you in, he is the guy that popularized the idea “Truth is a Person.” The reason Emergents like that idea is to get freedom from the stated truths of Scripture. Go back and read the Mike Morrell comments to which I responded and you will see the fruit of that idea and why it’s popular. All I have to do is get closer to Jesus, not get baptized, mortify sin in my life, or dump my lover. Just get closer to Jesus. Horrible stuff.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.—Will pray for your physical condition.
Phil,
Thank you for your concerns for my soul.
The Bible does indeed say that “the Spirit is the truth,” just as Jesus said, “I am the truth.” These are straightforward statements. I don’t think there are figurative “elements” in these statements.
Nice illustration, the chair thing. Didn’t the Greek speculative philosopher Plato use the same chair to illustrate his concept of heavenly ideals? My philosophy is a bit dated, but I do recall the phrase “Platonic Idealism.”
You have left my understanding of kenosis untouched. Correct me if I am wrong, but were you implying that believing in kenosis is suppressing the truth about God? The rhetorical technique would be called “Guilt by association”–associating the self-emptying of the Lord with one who allegedly “suppresses the truth about God”?
Jesus is God. If Jesus did in fact empty himself of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, then kenosis as I understand it is true.
To suppress the truth about kenosis would be suppressing the truth about God.
I stand by my statements.
Jesus was not everywhere in the universe.
The baby Jesus did not know my social security number.
Jesus “had to be made like his brothers in every way.” He performed his miracles, commanded the waves, and raised the dead through the Holy Spirit, just as we walk in dependence on the Spirit.
We perform miracles, we command mountains to be moved, we raise the dead in the power of the Holy Spirit, with the authority given to us by virtue of our relationship with God.
It is enough for a student to be like his Master.
Hi Phil and all,
I’m afraid I have to leave our ontological discussion for the moment–this blog post is cooling and I’ll bet we can go ’round for ours without seeing eye to eye. I’ll close my comments on the matter by saying that a.) My understanding of Truth being Jesus comes from the Scriptures and the teachings of a fellow named Gene Edwards years back (though I do love Len’s book Out of the Question and Into the Mystery), and b.) I consider myself bound by God’s communications to me and my faith community, as truths that emanate from Truth. I try to live my life daily practicing God’s presence, and this ofttimes causes me to lose certainty over things that I believed in my past–please be clear: the uncertainty is over myself, not God. For more further exploration of the idolatry of mentally graven images, this see the writings of Pete Rollins, especially his landmark tome How (Not) to Speak of God.
As far as what you’ve dubbed “Biblical Panentheism”–I almost completely forgot about that conversation. I had to chuckle as I Googled my name and the term to refresh my memory, to find that you’ve practically made me famous, what with your mention of my ‘teaching’ in open letters and all! Thanks.
To respond to your question, I virtually never think of myself as a “biblical panentheism;” I do not promote this or any other “ism” really. If you want some food for thought, though, consider this: Monotheism is not in Scripture; it is a way some of us have found it helpful to wrestle with YHWH’s self-disclosure. Panentheism is another way wrestling with the Mystery: God transcends creation, certainly, but is inextricably linked with it. I would think that you’d welcome this as a vigorous alternative to Deism and functional atheism; its a way of putting language to the reality of Colossians 3:1 and Ephesians 1:23, in anticipation of 1 Corinthians 15 when faith will be sight.
To explore this further, I’d suggest reading the mystics of the Christian tradition; for a contemporary voice who is keenly aware of the pitfalls of extremes, carefully read Jim Fowler’s website (and free e-books) found on the “Christ In You” site linked therein.
Phil…let me ask you a question as I’m trying to wrap my brain around what you are saying(and what a tiny eye in the needle, btw!).
Did Jesus say He is…the Truth or did He say He has the Truth, as if it is separate? I see it as a package thing, He is Truth and expresses Truth, but not sure I can label that literal and figurative both or either. I can’t receive the Spirit and be placed in Christ without understanding anything about Him separate from what He says…the written Word, can I? hmmmm, 2 questions.
There are religions that claim to know God but they say there are many hubs on the wheel and the hub they embrace as the way and life certainly isn’t Jesus and what He says being the Door. Thick wading.
The Revelation thought…without reading the text have recall as the Revelation of Jesus Christ God gave Him and John was privileged to be shown. Someone shown me, too…it happened to be the first book of the Bible taught by a pastor soon after the Lord saved me and took me from under teaching of error(it was a reformed denomination yet taught infant baptism and subsequent later confirmation and communion=salvation) and to be married and fellowship where my husband did with other believers. You and I are still on the same level in this sense…the Spirit teaches us both and the timing of when is perfect.
Must think on this more as I am recalling in the gospels with Jesus going to prepare a place in the Father’s mansion and coming for the Bride. According to Jewish wedding custom this references, the Father decrees when the room is finished and the son goes for his betrothed. So Jesus is the Word and God because three are one but there is a distinction with Truth expressed through Jesus as Truth flowing from the Father? 3 questions. You may share what you believe and I’ll remain open to the Lord leading me. Want to see what He wants me to embrace. My brain hurts.
:-)
It is an attitude that he is teaching.
This is key to this section of Philippians.
I’ve long been irritated with how often I have heard Phil 2 quoted and heard people stop with verse 5. That’s stopping too soon, telling people to mimic Christ’s attitude but not following up with what that attitude is. With the kenosis discussion, I feel like I’m seeing the other end of the stick - coming in too late. Verse 7 starts with ‘but’, which means you can’t completely understand it without paying attention to what comes before. Verses 5-7 is one sentence, but we tend to skip over the middle of it. What is it about verse 6 that we tend to skip over it?
Verse 6 is key to the attitude Paul is teaching: Christ “didn’t regard equality with God as something to be grasped”. I can’t hear that without tying it to Mt 20:25-28 and parallel passages: The Gentiles lord it over their subjects, but among you leaders will be servants. Jesus didn’t regard equality with God as something to be hung on to, but how easily do we regard the perqs and honors of our own positions as something to hang on to for dear life?
Hi Phil,
Your manufactured quote went thusly:
“All I have to do is get closer to Jesus, not get baptized, mortify sin in my life, or dump my lover. Just get closer to Jesus.”
Then you commented:
“Horrible stuff.”
No one here has expressed the sentiment represented in your quote. Someone may believe it, but here it is a straw man.
But I really want to know if you mean to say this:
“Get closer to Jesus. Horrible stuff.”
Isn’t it dangerous to portray getting closer to Jesus as horrible stuff? I do value information *about* Jesus.
Can you make a positive statement about “getting closer to Jesus?” I know the value you place on doctrine, but is there anything at all to be said about a “personal relationship with Jesus” that is positive? that treats “knowing Christ” as a positive experience, and not as “horrible stuff”?
Joyce,
I think you’re right on the “packaged deal” idea. “He is light” would be a similar expression. Truth is both a Person and the decrees of that Person. One truth is personal, but the other is not——hhuuummmm. Oh boy. This may be over my head. Maybe we should call Cornelius van Til.
Read Rev. 1:1: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
Then read Micah 1:1: The word of the LORD which came to Micah of Moresheth in the days of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.
See the difference? In Micah, we read about the word given by Yahweh to Micah. In Revelation, we read about the revelation given by God to Jesus to John. The god always gives the message to the prophet. BUT in Rev. the god gives the message to the prophet (Jesus) Who then as the god gives the message to the prophet (John). Jesus plays both roles–the prophecy-receiving prophet and the prophecy-giving god. The God-man.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins. Ps–to Mike and Whyte, I don’t have time to answer tonight, but will tomorrow or Sunday–thanks for the interaction.
Dear Justin,
Many explanations have been offered as to what the kenosis passage means.
Some translators have gone so far as to introduce theological interpretations into their translations, instead of rendering the legitimate word, “emptied.” They offer as a translation a theologically biased phrasing which hides the literal meaning.
(Such theological transation practices are not uncommon, e.g. the New World Translation.)
Most translations give us the literal translation. Here is Philippians 2:7 in five literal translations: “but emptied himself” (NRSV), “Rather, he emptied himself” (NAB), “But he emptied himself” (NJB), “but instead became completely empty” (INT), “but did empty himself” (YLT), “but emptied himself” (NASB).
A) I am going to use three other translations. Each of these translations introduce a theological interpretation into the text which is not in the original. First is the King James version.
“But made himself of no reputation” (KJV).
There are numerous Greek words which mean “made” or “make”: ginomai, kathistemi, ktizo, procheirizomai, tithemi, prospoieomai.
Likewise, there are a number of Greek words which are translated as “reputation”: dokeo, echo entimon, timios.
If Paul had meant “made himself of no reputation” there are plenty of Greek words he could have used to have written precisely that.
B) The second translation I want to use also adds a common theological interpretation into the translation, the New Living Translation.
“He gave up his divine privileges” (NLT). The NASB has this footnote for “emptied”: “laid aside His privileges.”
There are roughly equivalent ways of expressing what is translated as “giving up” here. To put aside or lay aside: atheteo. To put away: athetesis.
Good words for “privilege” in English include “authority” and “right.” Yet we know that Jesus did not divest himself of authority (exousia), and, in fact, gave his followers that very exousia. So Christ did not lay aside or put away his authority.
C) The English Standard Version reads, “but made himself nothing.”
Again, there are a lot of Greek words available for “made” or “make”: ginomai, kathistemi, ktizo, procheirizomai, tithemi, prospoieomai.
And there are also plenty of Greek words which mean “nothing”: me, me ti, madeis, outhen, atheteo.
Some people say that what “kenosis” means is that he hid his so-called divine attributes, that he cloaked his glory.
There are, however, plenty of words used in the Greek Scripture which include “hide” or “hidden” among their meanings: apokrupto, kalupto, krupto, and egkrupto.
But Paul didn’t write, “He hid his divine attributes,” or “He cloaked his glory.” He did write that Christ “emptied himself.”
Paul could have written “he gave up his divine privileges,” but he didn’t. Paul could have written “But made himself of no reputation,” but he didn’t. He could have written “but made himself nothing,” but he didn’t.
God’s Eternal Son emptied himself.
Whyte and Justin,
Where did you learn your Greek, Whyte?
Justin, I don’t have time to go into anything right now, but Whyte’s Greek lesson is pretty bad. It sounds like he just went through a concordance. Will give a better answer later.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Yes, I went through a concordance–Young’s, actually. Very discerning of you. I’m not sure what is implied in your observation.
My point still stands. If Paul had meant what his non-kenotic interpreters want him to be saying, there were a lot better choices than the word “kenosis.” Or do you disagree?
BTW, I’m a graduate of Bible college, and have attended two seminaries without taking a degree.
Other than that, I’m just a common person using the same Bible helps available to anyone else.
If you want to dispute the applicability of any of the Greek words I offered, please feel free. I must say in advance that my Greek is pretty rusty, and you can probably do a good job of critiquing specific elements of my argument.
But my point still stands.
Whyte,
My point on the Greek thing is that you don’t know much about the language and you seem to be attempting to mislead Justin in three ways.
First, you talk in a way that would lead one to think you know Greek. You don’t. A first year student would have been more accurated just working of the top of his head. You included words that seldom, if ever, mean “make,” including intransitive verbs (”make” is always transitive) and you left out the most common Greek word for “make.” So I knew at once you were blowing smoke.
Second, your conclusions are not correct, but I’m not going to argue about that because you have more pressing issues to deal with. However, the use of Greek by someone who does not know much about the language is like me using my knowledge of quantum physics. It is just misleading and should not be done if honesty is a value of the speaker–or at least the speaker should acknowledge his source, instead pretending to have known the information for himself. Claiming that your information came from you, when you had to source the information is unacceptable, at best, plagiarism, at worst.
Third, when you quote Scripture and, especially, when you dig into the languages to justify a position, that implies that the Bible is authoritative in your mind. Yet, you have indicated that it is not. As such, using the linguistic details of a non-authoritative, flawed document (your opinion, not mine) is not a valid proof. This is logic 101. And a remedial course in honesty.
I will give a more full response to yourself and Mike Morrell later this afternoon after church.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
So, I am guilty of dishonest and plagiarism because…
I didn’t reference Young’s Concordance, the NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament and the miscellaneous Bibles I have on the desk around me?
That’s sad, Phil.
I see why you recognize McLaren’s “drive-by smears” so quickly.
Whyte,
Before we go any further, here are two questions I like to ask people:
1. Is there such a thing as a right answer?
2. Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think?
In Christ,
Phil Perkins. Ps–don’t be angry on the source citation issue. It’s just best to be forthright.
Angry? Hardly. I was amused.
I have two posts on the self-emptying of God’s eternal son. One deals with the syncretistic origin of the idea essential attributes. The other deals with theologically colored translations of the word kenosis.
That seems a sufficient amount of terrain to cover for now.
BTW, is Montana Bible College where you teach, Phil? I don’t want to be disrespectful. Are you used to being addressed as Professor Perkins? Or do you eschew that sort of formality?
Hi Phil,
I guess it was Yellowstone Baptist College where you were an adjunct instructor. Sorry things didn’t work out for you there.
I think I would have enjoyed it. So warm and intimate. The teacher/pupil ratio must have been terrific.
It sounded like they had a good discipleship program: “Each student’s participation in a discipleship small group provides nurture, encouragement and accountability necessary for spiritual growth.”
I read in your blog that you have decided to open your own school, the “Just The Bible Academy.”
I respect people who have the strength of their convictions, and are willing to accept the consequences for their actions.
When you challenge your future disciples, “If you want to take part in the fellowship of His suffering, join us,” I know that the stand you have taken has cost you something. But you know the old saying, one door closes, another opens.
Most of your invitations are excellent. As you could predict, however, I am concerned about a few of your invitations to your future disciples. These three trouble me in particular.
“If you know you’re a filthy sinner, join us.
“If you will take correction, join us.
“If you will give correction when it may end in your own disgrace, join us.”
James wrote that “The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by them that make peace.” (James 3:17-18 KJV)
That phrase, “easy to be entreated,” is also translated:
“open to reason”(RSV and NEB),
“approachable,” (Phillips),
“willing to yield” (NRSV & Goodspeed),
“open-minded” (REB),
“conciliatory” (Moffett),
“considerate” (NIV)
“ready to be convinced” (Knox).*
The last item I quoted above, “If you will give correction when it may end in your own disgrace, join us,” doesn’t sound congruent with the sentiment of James above.
It also doesn’t sound like Jesus’ invitation to *his* future disciples.
“Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11: 29-30 NIV)
No need to reply to this right away, if at all. We do have the kenosis passage to discuss.
_______________________________
* (I got these translations from “The Holy Bible: New International Version” (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1978), “The Complete Parallel Bible” (Oxford UP,1993), “The New Testament in Four Versions” (Christianity Today, 1963), and “The Word: The Bible From 26 Translations,” Mathis Publishers; Gulfport, MS; 1993; Curtis Vaughan, general editor.)
Whyte,
If giving correction is wrong, why do you do so? The entire book of James is a corrective to soft, undemanding, unrepenting religion. On the “filthy sinner” part, Paul admitted he was plagued by sin in multiple passages. In Romans 7 he spent some time on it. Don’t tell me you’re holier than Paul.
As to the school, I knew I would be fired when I wrote and published my Open Letter to Frank Page. I have been told I can oppose the Emergent privately and quietly. I have refused to do so. Cowardice is ungodliness.
As to “things did not turn out,” Scripture says to come out from among them.
I am glad I have not been a coward. I was just thinking about that yesterday. I am not naturally bold, but God provides. There are still good people at the school, but my calling is discernment and confrontation against false teaching. All believers are called to discernment but Christian manhood is devalued today. Bravery and Christian soldiering are out. Sensitivity (read “timidity”) is in.
And while some of the cowardly and compromised among the assembly are angry and currently working the work of Satan, God is also at work. Many in the SBC are now being made aware of just how compromised our leadership is and the dangers of the Emergent. I have had the priviledge to be a part of that. (He wears scars and so will I.) A split is probably coming soon.
As to the kenosis passage, I have already told you I do not wish to argue about it. Here is my reason: You have not made yourself submissive to the Bible and you have made that abundantly clear. Your first step will be to repent and become a believer.
Speaking of that very issue, you still have not answered my two questions. These are foundational and both you and your readers need to know where you stand on these questions.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Mike Morrell,
In your argument for biblical panentheism, you said, “Monotheism is not in Scripture.”
Two problems. First, how do you know since (according to your own statements) all we can be certain of is that Jesus is Truth?
Second, you’re wrong. Monotheism is all over Scripture. Ex. 20:2-3–”I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me.” Ex. 3:14–”God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” The Shema–”Listen, Israel! Yahweh your (cp) God, Yahweh is One. And you will love Yahweh your (ms) God with all your heart and all your soul and all your uttermost.”
That is a very small sample. The Scripture both bans the making of other gods and derides the man that does so.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
My dear brother Phil, for whom Christ died,
My dear brother, I have never said that bringing a word of correction is wrong. Most of what I write to you is written out of concern for you.
Our life histories are very, very similar.
You got your Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Montana in 1975, 31 years ago.
For some reason, you were not satisfied with the career path that afforded you, and you went back to school. You earned your M Div from Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in 1987.
For some reason you did not “go into the ministry,” and ended up working in Billings as a welder and teaching in a small Baptist college (enrollment 51).
Because you stood against error wherever you see it, you are no longer teaching at Yellowstone Baptist College, and you are now pursuing your “dream,” the “Just the Bible Academy.”
Believe me, I know disappointment, and I know bitterness. That’s why I sensed disappointment and bitterness in you early on. After finding the Yellowstone college catalog, I see how similar our life paths have been.
Me? 51 y.o. B.A., Simpson College, Biblical Literature, 1977. M.A., San Diego State University, English, 1991.
Not working in the area of my education. No church planted. No book written. Near broke.
Phil, I live with disappointment, although I think I have dealt with most of my bitterness.
Please ask God if you need to deal with disappointment and bitterness.
I have continued this dialogue with you knowing that I am NOT casting my pearls before swine. You are my brother for whom Christ died.
Whyte,
Your Ouija board needs an adjustment. And this is off the subject.
You have two questions before you. I await.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS–I’ll get this moved over to Zits tonight, so we aren’t clogging up someone else’s blog.
I’m fine here, Phil.
But thanks for the invitation.
Okay, so what are your answers?
Is there such thing a right answer?
Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think?
In Christ,
Phil.
I was talking with my son-in-law this afternoon, about my friend from Billings, MT, and he said, “That’s Ruby Ridge country!”
When he took his grandson with home, I googled “Montana mindset” and found the quote below.
I have never seen what regional and cultural differences can do to color the Christian community’s discourse before! Thank God for insight, understanding, and wisdom.
_________________________________
“The cattleman’s ideal was to find a large isolated area with as few neighbors as possible. Little cooperative effort would be needed under such ideal conditions to produce or get his product to market He was, perforce, unsocial.
“He did not seek cooperation, but came to it when the presence of neighboring herds forced it upon him. Unlike the farmer, his financial rewards were greatest when his isolation was the most complete.
Cooperatives did not come in order to remedy the evils of isolation but to meet the problems created by the presence of too close neighbors. The frontier farmer cooperated because such action meant roads, rising land values and social amenities; the cattleman cooperated to preserve, as best he could, the conditions that were naturally his through isolation.
“The open range is dead but the psychology of that era seems to persist when people see immigrants largely as a threat, a hostile force, and overlook the benefits which go with larger population and closer neighbors. I have not been reciting the cultural poverty of Montana because I want you to hate me or because I advise you all to move away.
“My point, in case it has been lost, is that those presently here have more to gain than they have to lose from attracting more people or just admitting more people who are naturally attracted by the beauty of this lovely place.”
“As an occasional visitor I have been struck several times by the contrast between the great beauty and resources of Montana and the aimless, shiftless, restless demeanor of the young people loitering about and uninspired by these resources which I gather are beyond their grasp. This contrast set in to thinking. I hope it may do the same for you.”
Ernest Osgood, “The Day of the Cattleman,” p 115.
Some Montana folks seem to really resent “new people” with their “tainted big city ways” who prosper at the expense of “the poor locals.” “Makes a native Montana boy want to cry.” In my “Montana mindset” google I found this.
Posted October 14, 2005 04:43 PM
“Montana is what it is today because of the lack of people. When new people move in they bring their tainted big city ways. Just look at what has happened to the western side of the state like you mentioned. Real Estate values climbed so high that the locals couldn’t compete. But those rich California imports sure prospered at the hands of the poor locals.
“If you saw Bozeman in the early 70’s when I went to school down there you just wouldn’t believe a valley could change so much in a few years.
“Once what was lush green farmland is no selling for a million dollars an acre as commercial land. It takes a million dollars just to belong to a spiffy club up at Big Sky where they are destroying native forests to make big home for the rich and famous. A road building project through all that beautiful timber there right now is slated to last another seven years. It makes a native Montana boy want to cry.
“Montana is a better place because of the lack of people…. JMHO”
I’m a native Californian. Phil is from Montana.
This all makes much more sense to me now. I’ve known for a long time that we all read Scripture through cultural lenses, and we are attracted to certain theological systems based on our cultural values as well. It’s just been a long time since I’ve seen the resulting conflicts up close and personal.
Phil, hi, again!
There is a need to play catch up here along with admitting that the extended weekend with hubby off work didn’t find me making it to the read you offered. A sweet lady on a blog(Cherish the Home that developed from Be Not Conformed) talked about “best” versus “good”. I’m simply glad to be God’s workmanship and trust He’ll have me read the article when the time is right for me to digest it without homefront interruption. Hope you don’t take it personally.
:-)
Personally? Heavens, no. God bless. Just contact me through Zits if you want. I really want to take the time this weekend or next week to read and digest all these posts on the gifts, too. I don’t intend to comment, but to learn about the when question.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Great! The gifts and the KJV topics have my attention and, like you, there is a need to spend more time reading and reflecting on them. Really thankful for this place.
Ran across this message by John MacArthur today that touches on Jesus emptying Himself. Thought it worthy of sharing.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg50-16.htm
I just finish reading the Truth War and left a book review at Amazon.com. I must say that this is a well written book.
Though MacArthur has taken on some of the enemies of the Faith like McLaren and Rick Warren, he does so in a godly way. He allows the truth of God’s Word to speak to the issues.
His use of exegetical use of Jude is to be commended.
Where are all the warriors of truth? Are we letting the likes of McLaren and Warren go unchallenged? Are we allowing ourselves to be overwhelmed by this postmodern culture? The long fight for the truth is a good fight. So let us fight for the truth!
I can’t quite grasp this great theological preponderance. It seems to me a bit like, how many angels can sit on the head of a pin? But then again I’m not a theologin just a sincere follower of Christ that reads the bible and tries not to get overly worked up over the original text as opposed to the KJV. As far as my simple mind can understand the idea of Jesus as man and God, his knowledge and power came through the Holy Spirit working in and through him. I sure hope my answer has answered this very learned debate. And all the time I thought I was something because I could look up words in Hebrew and Greek in my Strongs’s Concordance. Thanks for the theology lessons. I’ll take some Alka-Seltzer and try to digest all I’ve taken in.
Truth–How about this Idea. Who is being drawn to Christ because of my lifestyle witness? Let’s try another idea out. Let’s see–Am I loving others like Christ loved me? Let me see if I really understand this debate! 1 Corinthians 13:13–”Faith, Hope, and Love–the greatest of these three are Love.
So I know that God is truth–I will follow Him and Him alone! It is not emergent, emerging, evangelical, or whatever other group you can name–none of them have a handle on truth–It is only in Christ that I can begin to get any kind of understanding on truth!
Truth is a person, namely Jesus Christ, and finally as I cool my anger–there are too many people who do not know Christ for us to concern ourselves with who is distorting what! Oh, yah God said he would sort all these matters out in the end–we are to just serve Him and Love Him and Love people as we ourselves have been Loved!
At best we all see as through a glass partially!