George Sayles Bishop, contributor to The Fundamentals (George S. Bishop, Chapter IV: The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves, in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey, vol. 2 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005], 80-96), defender of the inspiration and preservation of Scripture and opponent of higher criticism and secular lower criticism, and someone I cite in my papers on the history of the debate over the Hebrew vowel points and on the inspiration of the vowels, commented as follows on the Hebrew language and the Tetragrammaton in particular as connected to the incarnation of the Son of God:
[T]he Bible differs on its surface from every other book.
It speaks of a Trinity in the very roots of its verbs, ever one of which is, in the Hebrew, composed of 3 letters—tri-lateral.
It teaches man’s apostasy and restoration in the singular reversal of its text. The Hebrew is written and read from right to left: from God’s right hand where He doth work, is man’s departure. Then the Greek takes him up, a prodigal son at his remotest distance from God and brings him back from left to right—from death to life again.
Incarnation is in the Tetragrammaton [JHVH/YHWH]: that is the Hebrew letters of the word Jehovah, יְהוָֹה, written vertically from up to down give us the outlines of the human figure—God made flesh. This is the difference between Elohim, God in creation; and God in covenant anticipating incarnation.
Again: the Bible puts man’s true relations in the very conjugation of the Hebrew verb. In all occidental languages the verb is conjugated from the first person to the third—“I,” “Thou,” “He.” The Hebrew, in reversal of the human thought, is conjugated from the third down and back to the first: beginning with God, then my neighbor, then myself last—“He,” “Thou,” “I.” This is the Divine order: self-obliterating and beautiful. (George S. Bishop, The Doctrines of Grace [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1977], 8)
What do you think—is his comment just speculation, or is there something to it? God is the Author of language, after all, and it is reasonable to think that He would take the highest degree of care in His own name in the language, Hebrew, in which He originally revealed Himself. On the other hand, does He ever encourage us to draw conclusions like this in the plain statements He makes about how we are to learn of Him in His revelation? Do you agree with Bishop? Why or why not?
26 comments:
Brother Thomas, I believe the Bible clearly teaches its own perspicuity, and that to deny it is to impugn the love and integrity of God by suggesting that His messages are obscured. To accept this idea, I would therefore need to find something in Scripture that suggests we should be looking for this kind of thing. I haven't found anything like that yet. If it isn't there, then I would conclude that God didn't intend us to look for things like this.
Further to that. As you will no doubt know, I place a very high value on studying the actual words that God gave, the Hebrew and the Greek. But I also believe that God intended the Scriptures to be translated (Romans 16:26 stands out especially in regard to this). And I believe the Word of God to be a living expression of Him which lives on in translations so that any translation, to the extent to which it is an accurate translation of the God-given words, can be truly said to be inspired by God. I know you agree with me on this.
I would question, therefore, any "truths" like this one which can't possibly be translated into any other language. Obviously due to the limitations of translations there will be some languages in which it will be very difficult to translate all the truths of Scripture, but my view of inspiration makes me doubt any suggestions of truths which can only be seen in the Greek or Hebrew. I would expect real truths of Scripture to be translatable into most languages.
So theologically, I see some pretty significant barriers to this idea.
Dear Bro Gleason,
Perspecuity is indeed a crucial Biblical doctrine, and literal interpretation, a related crucial doctrine, is also very important. The best argument against Bishop is that his argument here violates these doctrines.
On the other hand, the truth--namely, that Jehovah became incarnate to redeem His people--is very easily translatable into other languages and is taught plainly in many passages of the Bible.
There are features of the Hebrew text, from word plays to acrostic psalms, that are not going to come across in other languages, even though God meant His Word to be translated. For example, the quote (with a few intermixed comments) I am going to reproduce below supports the fact that the climax of the creation week is the seventh day, based on the sevens all over the place in the account. The fact that God created the world in seven days to teach Israel to keep the Sabbath is nevertheless something one could get without these features specific to Hebrew. God can put beautiful literary features in the language in which He gives His Word that may not be translatable into every language that came from the judgment at Babel.
The most serious objection is whether God tells us anywhere to look for something like this.
Here is the quote, largely from Cassuto on Genesis:
The number seven occurs again and again in the structure of [Genesis 1:1-2:3].
(a). After the introductory verse (1:1), the section is divided into seven paragraphs, each of which appertains to one of the seven days. An obvious indication of this division is to be seen in the recurring sentence, And there was evening and there was morning, such-and-such a day. … The Masoretic text places an open paragraph [i.e. one that begins on a new line] after each of these verses.
(b–d). Each of the three nouns that occur in the first verse and express the basic concepts of the section, viz God [אֱלֹהִים Elōhīm] heavens [שָׁמַיִם šāmayim], earth [אֶרֶץ erets], are repeated in the section a given number of times that is a multiple of seven: thus the name of God occurs thirty-five times, that is, five times seven (by the way, the Divine Name, in one of its forms, occurs seventy times in the first four chapters); earth is found twenty-one times, that is, three times seven; similarly heavens (or firmament, רָקִיעַ rāqīa) appears twenty-one times.
(e). The ten utterances of God beginning with the words, and … said—are clearly divisible into two groups: the first group contains seven Divine fiats enjoining the creation of the creatures, to wit, ‛Let there be light’, ‘Let there be a firmament’, ‘Let the waters be gathered together’, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation’, ‘Let there be lights’, ‘Let the waters bring forth the moving creature, ‘Let the earth bring forth’; the second group comprises three pronouncements that emphasize God’s concern for man’s welfare (three being the number of emphasis), namely, ‘Let us make man,’ ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’ ‘Behold I have given unto you every plant yielding seed’. Thus we have here, too, a series of seven corresponding dicta.
(f). The terms light and day are found, in all, seven times in the first paragraph, and there are seven references to light in the fourth paragraph.
(g). Water is mentioned seven times in the course of paragraphs two and three.
(h). In the fifth and sixth paragraphs forms of the word חַיָּה chayyā [rendered ‘beasts’ or ‘living creature’] occur seven times.
(i). The expression it was good appears seven times (the seventh time—very good).
(j). The first verse has seven words.
(k). The second verse contains fourteen words—twice seven.
Rest of the quote:
(l). In the seventh paragraph, which deals with the seventh day, there occur the following three consecutive sentences (three for emphasis), each of which consists of seven words and contains in the middle the expression the seventh day. . . [In Genesis 2:2-3a the passage] consists of three consecutive, parallel lines, each of which contains seven words and is divided into two parts, the first part ending in every case, like a threefold refrain, with the words—the seventh day: . . .
And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made,
and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.
And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.
(m). The words in the seventh paragraph total thirty-five—five times seven.
So the seventh day is the ultimate climax of the creation account. God created the world in seven days to teach Israel to keep the Sabbath! Furthermore, the creation account also refers to the other Jewish holy days. In Genesis 1:14, the sun, moon, and stars were made for “seasons,” מ֣וֹעֲדִ֔ים, the term regularly used for the Jewish feasts and festivals (Exodus 13:10; 23:15; 27:21; 28:43; 29:4, 10). The heavenly bodies were not just to mark the seasons of summer and winter, spring and fall—and, for that matter, before the Flood there were very possibly not the kind of seasons we have now—but they were to mark the sacred seasons of Jehovah’s holy worship. So the heavenly bodies were created, not to be worshipped like the pagan nations around Israel worshipped them, but they were created to remind Israel of her sacred festivals, to remind her when the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, the Feast of Weeks, the Day of Atonement, and so on, were going to come. And the entire Divine creation itself was spread out over seven days to teach Israel about Jehovah, the Creator, and to lead them to keep the Sabbath to honor Him.
Genesis 2:3 binds together the unit of 1:1-2:3. The second verb, “and made,” comes to elucidate the particular sense in which the first, “created,” is to be understood. The verse specifies an act of creation that is also a ‘making,’ that is, a wondrous work implying the making of things that never existed before.
The closing verse corresponds to the introductory sentence of the section; in both 1:1 and 2:3 it is written: God created. But whereas the word בָּרָא bārā alludes to the first verse, “and made” לַעֲשׂוֹת laăśōth recalls all the ‘makings’ mentioned in the rest of the section. Just as the prologue announces at the outset the main subject-matter of the account that follows, so the epilogue looks back and epitomizes within the limits of one short sentence the content of the preceding narrative, reawakening in the heart of the reader, by means of this synthesis inherent in its words, the sentiments that were aroused within him in the course of his reading. It is a truly majestic conclusion, and climax, to the section.
@KJB1611
Who is Cassuto and does he believe in dispensational theology?
What this interestingly reminds me of is the numerology that went into qabalah. Especially the bit about having three lines in a row. That idea is almost straight from that system. Joesph Dan wrote this in his book, titled 'The Christian Kabbalah: Jewish Mystical books and their Christian interpreters':
"A large section in the first half of [Reuchlin's De arte cabalistica] is dedicated to the analysis of the Hebrew divine names, mainly the Tetragrammaton and the holy name of the 'seventy-two letters.' ... This name is derived from three consecutive verses in Exodus 14:19-21, each of which includes, in Hebrew, exactly seventy-two letters. ... This is achieved by writing the seventy-two letters of the first in a line, and below that the letters of the second verse in an inverse order, beginning with the last letter in it. Below these two rows the third verse is written, in the usual order. The name is derived from reading these three rows downwards; thus the first element is composed of the first letter of the first verse, the last letter of the second verse and the first letter of the third verse. ... The name therefore, includes actually two hundred and sixteen letters, in seventy-two groups of three letter each. Reuchlin, following his kabbalistic sources, describes this practice in detail... Instead of the straight narrative, this esoteric rearrangement of the letters produces seventy-two groups of three letters which are completely deprived of any semantic message. Seen in this way, the biblical narrative is but a thin cover of mysterious structures which have no communicative meaning."
This system, which if you do your homework carefully you will find is a branch of gnosticism inspired by many in that stream of thought. Later, this found its way into the Talmud or "Oral Law" codified in the early middle ages, which purports itself to be much older than this, despite the clear gnostic influences present. So, accordingly, I wouldn't get mixed up in it.
Еllіоt R. Wоlfsоn, one academic, wrote this:
"...the wicked are Christian exegetes who are viewed as literalists in the sense that they look at and accept only the narrative of the Hebrew Scripture... They however, do not consider the body underneath the external garment, for they explicitly reject the biblical laws as interpreted in the Rabbinic tradition." [emphasis added]
Yа'аkоv Bеаslеy wrote this:
"Sefer Yochsin wrote (quoting from R. Zemach ben Platoi Gaon), 'Hold back your children from higayon - from studying the Bible, for it leads to heresies.' ... Rashi explained the danger differently; due to its attractiveness, Bible study distracts a person from serious Gemara study. The Mishnah states (Shabbat 115a) that 'We do not read from the Writings, since it leads to the nullification of the Beit Midrash.' ... 'it is better for them to hear [the sermons] than to read from the Writings.' "
Also, if you want to know the reason why the sabbath day and Creation were given in seven days, you can just read Exodus 20:11.
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the comment. While carefully studying the Hebrew text of Genesis, which is what Cassuto did, is very different from forbidding people to study the Bible so they can study the Gemara, we certainly want to be careful, so thanks for the warning.
Cassuto was a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He is now dead, so, I trust, he is a dispensationalist. He was not one when he wrote his commentary on Genesis.
Hi Thomas,
I found it interesting that you quoted someone or multiple persons who might have beliefs that line up with that whole school of thought, so I thought I would ask. People with that idea are sometimes quite hard to pin down on the subject. They tend rather to weave in these ideas in a way that's not immediately apparent. There's no need to get defensive, I know these are not your views but theirs. What I did not expect was to hear a response that people can convert their views in the afterlife, but I will leave that for the sake of charity. Hebrews 9:27.
But anyways, it is for this reason, I usually just ask someone upfront who is more familiar with their work, such as in this case you who provided the quotes, to tell me if they are dispensational theologians or not. It may take a significant amount of time for me to pin them down on the subject by searching through their work. Even then, you might not always agree with my conclusions about whether they are or not based on this research, so, this is the better bet.
Hopefully that makes sense.
I think it is important to confirm that the methodology provided by the quote in your main article has a striking similarity and perhaps therefore inspiration to the above much older quote provided by me in the first post. They both rearrange the letters in various vertical and horizontal arrangements: even using three rows in the examples in question, such as specifically under point (l) of your second quotation. It is for this reason that we might pay close attention to the other conclusions drawn by that school of thought.
One such common conclusion is the adherence to the "Oral Law," called the Babylonian Talmud, first codified around 499 AD, including derogatory references toward the Lord Jesus. It also has references to ideas from Manichaeanism. From this it is also possible to investigate into later books (such as i.e. the Zohar in AD 1291, or the Yoreh De'ah in 1300) produced by the same stream of thought. Whereby, students are taught how to rearrange the words or letters of the written Law in order to come to the "rabbinical interpretation" which is deemed by them to be correct. Notice the emphasis on rabbis and the de-emphasis entirely on all aspects of Christ.
Such as his commandment in Matthew 23:8, "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren."
So, how about George Sayles Bishop. Was he a dispensationalist?
I would be willing to bet based on the quote you provided he either was, or if he was before the time of Darby, he might have been a precursor to it under one of the schools of kabbalism. Any thoughts on this? Thanks for the reply.
Dear Andrew,
Thanks for writing.
After people are dead they recognize a lot of right doctrine, even if sadly, they are in hell, Luke 16. Satan is a dispensationalist, and there are no atheists, agnostics, Muslims, evolutionists, Mary-worshippers, etc. in hell.
You are right that what Bishop says sounds allegorical. That is why I am not saying he is right.
Bishop was a fundamentalist, KJV-only Anglican who wrote in the Fundamentals. I do not know what his eschatology was. Anglicanism certainly does not tend toward dispensationalism, but, then again, Scofield was Episcopalian, and there are not exactly lots of fundamentalist KJVO Anglicans around today, either.
What if what he wrote is more like the acrostics and other word plays that certainly are in the beautiful literature which the OT is?
Hi Thomas,
George Sayles Bishop, from what I have gathered, was in the United States and lived from 1836 to 1917. It appears he was an active author from 1880 to 1912.
Darby's translation meanwhile, came out in 1890, although his oldest revision of just the New Testament, was in 1867. The year 1867 would have been around the same time that he spent some years propagating his teachings in the United States and Canada.
We could at least say that Bishop was contemporary with Scofield as well, then - but, based on the timeframe, may very likely have been not significantly or at all influenced by this latter founder of the belief. However, we see from your quote that Bishop did engage in some of this type of analysis, interestingly. Whatever the amount of overlap between their theologies, and whether coincidental or causative (or, having an older cause in common), especially, would be hard to speculate now. But, in its own way, I point out, it bears here a certain similarity to the esotericists of earlier times.
We also see a greater further development of this train of thought today in the quite crudely unbiblical "dual covenant" and "Hebrew roots" schools of thought today. I firmly believe this is animated by the same spirit of antichrist altogether. Why? Because we are not to hold "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."
In other words, this is a branch of Gnosticism that I would rather not get mixed up in – As we know, have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. So then, a branch of Gnosticism is actually what that is. This is despite whatever else it claims for itself.
"After people are dead they recognize a lot of right doctrine, even if sadly, they are in hell, Luke 16. Satan is a dispensationalist, and there are no atheists, agnostics, Muslims, evolutionists, Mary-worshippers, etc. in hell."
I would hold my reservations on this subject, lest I fall. And as I like to say from the Psalms, 'keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins, let them not have dominion over me.' With that having been said, I would like to ask if what you mean by this statement is that Satan is a dispensationalist and is right to hold such doctrine because you believe it is true and correct? Have I gathered that according to its proper intent from this comment section? Or have I misunderstood the real intent behind any of these statements?
I certainly won't hold you to your statements or anything of the sort if that is not what you really mean here. Your input is appreciated. And your article and replies are valued and interesting. So, thank you.
I am not sure about other acrostics and word-plays. I believe that they might be of some incidental interest, perhaps.
-Andrew
Yes, Satan holds to true doctrine like monotheism, dispensationalism, etc., James 2. It does him no good, of course.
Well, if someone thinks that James 2:19 gives them that, then that is eisegesis.
Andrew,
James 2 shows that someone can be orthodox in his belief and not have saving faith. There is more than an intellectual aspect to it. Do you think that Satan does not know true doctrine, that he's confused about what the truth is? That isn't being given as the main reason that people turn away from the faith. It's because of willful rebellion. Where is Thomas wrong? How is it eisegesis? What is he reading into the text that you don't think should be there? What's the point of your just calling it eisegesis without explanation?
What is my point of calling it eisegesis?
Because I never want to hear from that tradition again, period.
Now, what do some read into the text here? Sure, I will provide an explanation for myself. The fact that there are false spirits that believe there is one God: is accurate. There are deceiving spirits that teach those things: Where do false religions like Islam and Judaism come from. This is not a coincidence. But they do not believe in a Triune God.
It is reading into the text to assume this means all correct doctrine is believed, or confessed, taught, obeyed, held, or maintained by devils. What about 1 John 4:2-3. Or, what about 2 Corinthians 6:14-16. It is also blatantly reading into the text that such traditions as earlier reproved, are part of true doctrine in the first place according to this place in Scripture. He only mentions monotheism, not dispensations. Which is correct, but a broken clock is right twice per day. So, that is two counts of eisegesis, the second being outrageous, because no mention of dispensations is present here.
I do not claim to know things that are too high for me. However, this much I can say. "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
And also, "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath".
Do you understand ? There may be false spirits that accept, believe and teach that there is one God. This does not mean that they accept, believe and teach every true doctrine. So likewise a broken clock can be right twice on a given day, but still be broken. So likewise, they, and their followers, still yet obey not the truth, nor do they believe the Son (in the sense that John gave: Jn. 3:36). One might ask, how do I know this? Well, were it otherwise, then those false traditions would be abandoned.
This also does not mean, on the second count, that whatever the reader thinks is true doctrine, James also automatically does. And thus can be cited in support of it as here, no matter whatever strange doctrine it may be. If I have been unclear in some way, then by all means let me know.
Andrew,
That was better. You explained yourself, rather than just throwing out that accusation. Now the ball is in Brother Ross's court for him to explain why he believes that Satan right this moment is a dispensationalist, using James 2:19 and maybe some others.
I may chime in too, but I think that I should let Thomas write, since it is his post.
I think the point of James 2 is absolutely that the devils are orthodox in all their doctrine, not just that they are monotheistic. The latter position would not be convicting to the people who don't have works but say they have faith in the context. Furthermore, to say that the devils don't believe in the Trinity when they went around crying out that Jesus was the Son of God, or that they don't believe in dispensationalism when Satan is ready to put someone forth as the Antichrist for the Tribulation, and so on, is very unreasonable. So the fallen angels forgot who the true God was whom they worshipped before their fall?The passages Andrew cited in 1 John and Corinthians say nothing about the devils not knowing what the truth is. They don't want people to know what the truth is.
Thanks.
"Now the ball is in Brother Ross's court for him to explain why he believes that Satan right this moment is a dispensationalist, using James 2:19 and maybe some others."
Well, we'll be waiting a long time, because it is not possible. I am also sure that, if anyone could, they may have just done it to start with. Anyways, that does not bother me at all or anything like that, it is normal to see; just so you know, I'm not complaining. I got the answer to my question. So I wouldn't go on giving explanations forever without even being asked or presented with any myself. You can see how that behavior leads to going in endless circles. All due respect paid to both of you. The ball isn't really in anyone's court now. I'm not expecting it to go anywhere, I was just trying not to leave you hanging after you signalled that you were done with the conversation.
You know though, this brings me back to the original point. Who is Cassuto, and do you consider him to believe in dispensational theology in his actual writings? if not directly him, do you consider his tradition, according to your definition of all this, to believe in it? I really wanted to know what your exact take on this is, because I was just wondering, since you posted such an interesting quotation.
We've still got that eisegesis accusation hanging out there. That's a serious charge and one, I think, that Thomas would own if he was convinced of it. Compared to other doctrines, there isn't as much Satanology or angelology in scripture.
Satan, of course is a dispensationalist. He's seen every dispensation so far, and he was intimately involved in them. Just for discussion's sake, I'll use Scofield's dispensational labels. Satan saw the discontinuity between innocence and conscience and between conscience and human government. He saw the continuity of the descendants of the line of Seth, the seed of the woman.
Just because Satan wants others to believe wrong doesn't mean that he doesn't believe right. He knew the will of the Father was that Jesus not turn stones to bread, so he tested Jesus to turn stones to bread. He knew that the will of the Father was not for Jesus to throw Himself from the pinnacle of the temple, so he tested Jesus to throw Himself from the pinnacle of the temple. It's like with Adam in Garden. Adam was not deceived. He ate of the tree, but not because he was fooled in his doctrine.
I don't know how important this doctrine is. Thomas was not eisegeting though.
Dear Andrew,
I think I already answered your questions in my comments above.
Cassuto's commentary on Genesis is not dispensationalist, as far as I know. I have not read it in its entirety. I would be surprised if it was.
In James 2 the point is not "Just don't be a monotheist only--believe lots of other good doctrines. The devil is only a monotheist." The Shema represented a whole belief system anyway. The point is "if you believe all orthodox doctrine but don't have any works, you don't have saving faith."
I have actually only heard anti-Lordship people attempt to get out of James 2 by saying that James is only talking about the allegedly monotheistic devil, and the point is that you need to believe other things as well to be saved, but can still be saved even if there are never any works. I am not saying you believe that position, Andrew, but that is at least where I have seen it come from.
Hi Kent,
Yes you're right. But so am I. This is a question of definitions.
In the James 2-related offshoot to this discussion, of course to be oriented within the Biblical concept of dispensations is a basic thing to grasp especially if you are a first hand witness. My question for TDR here was specific to his definition of what the term, dispensational theology means, which may very well be hyperdispensational. That's why I ask the question if you think they are, so that I know what you consider it to be under your definition. But your definition may or may not be the Biblical one.
So, the question again becomes whether these terms are being used Biblically or not. What one thinks the right definition is vice what it truly is.
So then, when one makes the statement that the Devil holds a doctrine, and we have not yet defined well what that is, it makes the issue in question a bit unclear:
If you mean to say that the Devil holds this false doctrine, and teaches it as a way to deceive people, then that would indeed(!) be one thing to prove.
But if you mean to say he holds a true doctrine, which is true by implication because of James 2 alone, and also that that passage also proves that he holds all true doctrines as well, that becomes much more impossible task in this case. Because that's not what the passage says, certainly not exegetically.
But also, there is a question of definitions there. Because what do you mean by "believes" or "holds." Do you mean it in the John 3:36b, Romans 2:8, Acts 19:9 sense? Or do you mean it in a more modern, purely theoretical or intellectual nonbiblical sense? I'm using the Biblical definition, but I cannot responsibly assume all are.
See my comment here on Romans 10:9 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2020/09/could-someone-be-saved-when-they.html
Some, there, may think that true confession, in the sense of the Bible can be reduced to the act of vocal chords, but I do not agree.
Dear Thomas,
"Cassuto's commentary on Genesis is not dispensationalist, as far as I know."
Ok, so I will take it that as far as you know, you do not think any of his writing is. That's fair enough.
I think you should assume that Thomas isn't saying that Satan is a true worshiper of God. He meant it like James 2 explains it, which isn't saving faith. Satan has demon faith. That's not eisegesis. Just ask him what he means by "believe in," if you don't know.
James 2:19 refers to intellectual assent, not saving faith, as the sense of "believe." This is a sense found sometimes in Scripture (e. g., John 2:23-25, right before 3:1ff.)
Thanks.
Yes, I have heard this before. If you find some places where the aorist ("unbounded") tense is used, that it becomes possible to suggest that in a selected number of places where that tense is used, what you suggest is so. I do not see how that affects James 2:19 however, which is not in that tense.
"I have actually only heard anti-Lordship people attempt to get out of James 2 by saying that James is only talking about the allegedly monotheistic devil"
First of all, the word used in the verse in question is nominative plural. It accordingly says devils, plural. What I said to start with above, was that there was false spirits that teach said doctrines, and people in false religions are merely following along with those teachings. Included among them are such things as unitarianistic monotheism. The false spirits (we learn) really do believe in it. Accordingly, they teach it to others. But as Paul notes in 2 Corinthians 6:14-16, what concord hath Christ with belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
One might answer, just because everyone believes some right things does not mean they have believed the Son as it says in his Word. Everything can be explained without the modern abstraction of the word belief. Liars believe in gravity. They drink water. That does not make those things wrong anymore than it makes them right. So as the apostle John says, "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. ... He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."
Notice what it is that one must believe in order to have all of those things happen. There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Does this mean people rampantly using the modern abstraction of "believe" are not a problem? No. The Bible refutes it simply by never using it in that way. And you are right that this is one of the best passages for addressing the subject, as well as Matthew 5:16, Matthew 7:16-20, 1 Cor. 4:1-2, 1 Jn. 2:19, 2 Pt. 2:2. But it is not by introducing alternative definitions of the word for believe. Well, they can do it, but it is not exegetical.
"but can still be saved even if there are never any works."
Addressed in Philippians 1:6, Philippians 2:12-13, 1 Corinthians 15:10 and 1 John 2:19.
Oh, I see that a new post (marked 11:07 AM for me) has now appeared several comments above with some additional remarks. Let us have a look at those.
"The latter position would not be convicting to the people who don't have works but say they have faith in the context."
To argue this you must first assume that, in the first place, there are people who are saved and yet do no works. That is the problem with that statement. Those who are unsaved but claim to be will be made manifest. This is what this helps us understand.
"Furthermore, to say that the devils don't believe in the Trinity when they went around crying out that Jesus was the Son of God"
They are an unreliable witness. Later, the scribes and Pharisees used this to accuse them of secretly working together, leading to the "house divided" prophecy.
As far as lying spirits claiming Jesus is the Son of God: there are many which say that but are denying his divinity, and mean it thusly, such as Arians or JWs. How do we explain them? Do you now think that, the mere fact of someone saying what those unclean spirits said, already proves to us that they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the most high God and the Lord God who is and was and is to come? Let us know if you think that alone now proves they believe that. Would you also apply that logic to anyone else under any other circumstance? Do we now accept as saved anyone who repeats those words? That is not what James tells us. [cont'd]
"or that they don't believe in dispensationalism"
Like I said, that is a problem of definitions. If you mean the Biblical doctrine regarding dispensations, see my post before where I agreed already with Pastor Brandenburg.
But if you mean the unbiblical doctrine of hyperdispensationalism, then do you mean they believe that false doctrine? If so, then I agree there are unclean spirits spreading that false doctrine which they truly believe. But them believing a false doctrine does not imply they believe every true doctrine (which is the whole crux of the disagreement ever since this passage was first brought up), nor does the passage in James 2 ever imply that. It says they believe that there is one God. Similar to how Islam and Judaism promote this idea. It is a lie though not according to the truth. They deny Jesus Christ, see 1 John 4:2-3, 1 John 5:10-12.
"The passages Andrew cited in 1 John and Corinthians say nothing about the devils not knowing what the truth is."
Paul in Romans said that the ungodly "hold the truth in unrighteousness" and that "they did not like to retain God in their knowledge." So they have no excuse; but rather choose to remain in ignorance. Even when it could have been otherwise.
"I have actually only heard anti-Lordship people attempt to get out of James 2 by saying..."
For what it's worth, Nicoll in 1897, Barnes in the 1830s and Bengel in 1742 all gave the same sense, among others in their commentaries.
I am still not sure how we got off on this subject. I think this all started when Thomas brought up Satan into the discussion as a substitute for Cassuto, interestingly enough.
"Satan has demon faith. That's not eisegesis."
Look, I make mistakes. We all make mistakes. That's okay, but we should be more careful when investigating these inspired scripture passages. The reason I say it is, you never know what kind of weirdness can come from eisegesis, even from the most mundane of intentions.
Dear Andrew,
Greetings! My ability to comment for the next two weeks may be very limited. I am not going to be able to continue the discussion right now. You are certainly right that in many things we fail all. I'm glad you don't like eisegesis. I don't either. May Jehovah cause His face to shine upon you and give you peace.
Post a Comment