Thursday, November 17, 2011
My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting: An Introduction
Our church just finished its Word of Truth Conference. However, I had read about a month ago that the Evangelical Theological Society would be having its annual meeting in San Francisco this year. When I heard about it, I was also hearing about one of the sessions for the conference that occurred tonight. I was there, sitting right in front of the participants, which were Albert Mohler and Kevin Bauder. Carl Trueman had a transportation issue, so he wasn't there. A guy read his paper, which was interesting, but hearing him in person would have been nice. Early next week---Sunday or Monday---I will be writing my honest and blunt impressions and analysis of this session and the whole ETS meeting itself. I think you'll find them interesting. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Faithless Fears That Help Sink Institutions
Before you read this post, I want to announce that the video from the Word of Truth, panel discussion, which occurred Sunday evening, November 13, is turning up online here. Enjoy. Now read the post.
Everyone right now is talking about Penn State and the Jerry Sandusky situation. The question comes: if Sandusky really did what is alleged, which many, if not most, are assuming, why didn't folks in the know at Penn State not do more about stopping it? As I rehearse that interrogative, the point is not to write about Penn State here and now. I want to get at an entirely different point, using the Penn State issue to do so. If Joe Paterno knew, what virtue or value would hold him or even others from exposing it and stopping it? Often it is that the damage of the revelation seems to be greater than the damage of the actual deed.
I'm talking about situational ethics, or what some might call hierarchicalism. The hierarchy is that Penn State as a whole, and the good that the university did and the football program might have done and would do, was greater than the good that exposing Sandusky would have done. The line of thinking might go like this: we can stop Sandusky or try to stop him and then hide what he did to help save the university and the program---we're against the evil, really do hate it, but hate the take-down of the institution even more. More people will be hurt by the exposure than would be hurt by not exposing. Why should tens of thousands suffer because of the deeds of one man? I'm not saying I know this is all there is to it, just that it is often how it goes. It might be the case here with Penn State, Paterno, and some of the administration. It makes sense that it would, since that is so typical.
So in the above case, the truth is "fudged" really in order to do the "greater good." That is a kind of hierarchicalism. It is not to justify Sandusky's actions or even not to make a statement about the heinousness of all of that. They are putting forth an effort to protect something by choosing whom they will allow to suffer for what they see as a higher value. I'm not arguing for this, by the way. I am presenting it to knock it down.
A few dozen times, the Bible tells us not to be afraid. The world does live in fear, that altogether may stem from the ultimate fear of death, Satan's number one tool. Perhaps all the fears of man unwind from man's terror over his own termination. Even if he wastes his life, he knows wasting it isn't good, so he writes his own narrative in which he isn't wasting it, even if he is. What man forgets is that everything ends with God. That is truly it.
I bring you to Scripture for a moment to see this. At the beginning of Luke 12, Jesus warns against the influence of hypocrisy (vv. 1-12). It's masterful teaching. Faking our way through---faking it till we make it---is one of the great temptations of life. We can blow everything by never being genuinely for God, just doing the labor to have people think we are for God. A man in v. 13, who hasn't been listening but merely waiting for Jesus to take a breath, asks a personal question about an inheritance issue with his brother. Jesus makes a point about covetousness and what life's really about, and then He illustrates it with a story about a man who had been a sudden, monumental success in his agricultural endeavors (vv. 16-21). In the story, the man has a bunch of plans to expand his operation, none of which include God. The one truth that he forgot was the most important one---he would die and face God.
God is the judge. He is also Sovereign. In the first twelve verses of Luke 12, Jesus speaks about not fearing man, but fearing God, Who will destroy both body and soul in Hell. But then He says, "Fear not," because Jesus cares more about men than He does many sparrows. So those who trust God, and really do fear Him, rather than man, do not need to fear. It's a paradox. Fear God and you won't need to or have to fear.
We don't trust God to go into damage control. We trust God by doing what He told us to do. There was something that needed to be done at Penn State, but people there, of course, weren't trusting God. They don't trust God. That's not how they view their lives or the world. Values can't survive on this earth without God, since nothing or no one is more valuable than God Himself. Since God is more valuable than anything, doing what He wants us to do will get us through those moment when we think doing right will bring more damage then it will good. Maybe in the short term, we could explain how that it would, but with God in the equation, we do what we should and leave it to God to sort through. In the end, the greater value exists in God. I believe hierarchicalism does work, but it is understanding that on the top of the hierarchy is God. He rules.
In churches and evangelical or fundamentalist organizations, bad things are done, and decisions are made on how to handle them based upon what will help preserve the institution. Maybe even the media is involved. The media swoops in to try to uncover what's happened in order to sell a news story. The media doesn't care about a church or a pastor or even the truth. Their sources may be bitter, disgruntled, and evil people with an axe to grind. They want to destroy the church or the organization. They may be exaggerating or telling lies. So what is the church or organization to do?
I think a church or organization can easily pull a Penn State, rationalizing that its enemies don't deserve the truth, and that whatever means necessary to protect the church or organization might be justified. The idea is that "we" can save the church or protect its leadership with an all-out defense. These are the faithless fears that help sink institutions.
God can and will save what He wishes. He is Sovereign. A church might participate in multiple sins and doctrinal and practical error. It results in casualties, maybe even what some might call collateral damages. God says confess, forsake, correct, repent, and I will heal and deliver. That's where true faith comes in. But the church or organization, its leadership, says faith is to circle the wagons and begin a campaign against the enemies and even its friends. It's friends are saying, "Confess, repent, forsake, trust God for deliverance." The church forsakes that counsel for something that looks more like what a defense lawyer will do to spring his guilty client.
Churches and organizations are already leaning on their own understanding for success. They call it "practical," but that's the wrong word. The right word is "pragmatic." "Practical" is when we practice what God told us to do, to follow Scriptural example. And the pragmatism is what got them in trouble in the first place. And so it is no wonder that again they will use pragmatism as a means of "rescuing" themselves from their own troubles. What is ironic is that it isn't going to work. That's right. It isn't even pragmatic. The rich man said he would pull down his barns and build greater. He had everything all planned, but He wasn't including God in the narrative. And God is in every single narrative. It is His story.
I mentioned the hypothetical reasoning of Penn State. What about these churches? 'We can't confess anything wrong, because it will be admitting that we are guilty of what our enemies are alleging, which is exaggerated and slanderous. And if someone is not offering full support, even questions what may have happened, they are now with our "enemies." God is a Mighty Warrior, so our fighting is like God.' Of course, God fights for Truth and Justice, not just to fight because He's some kind of Fighter, but the combative defense reminds them of how God operates at times, so the fighting must be correct.
Confession is not the cause for the enemies' rejoicing. Repentance is not the basis of an opponent's victory. Neither of those two is what make our enemies rejoice or prosper---the violation of God's Word did that.
As I write this essay, I'm not saying it is simple to react in a biblical way. It isn't. The skids of our flesh are well greased for self-defense. That's a push that seems natural. We should consider that our problems might be our own. We did something wrong that needs a scriptural response as a solution. Then trust God. Fear Him. And then rely on Him for protection.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Everyone right now is talking about Penn State and the Jerry Sandusky situation. The question comes: if Sandusky really did what is alleged, which many, if not most, are assuming, why didn't folks in the know at Penn State not do more about stopping it? As I rehearse that interrogative, the point is not to write about Penn State here and now. I want to get at an entirely different point, using the Penn State issue to do so. If Joe Paterno knew, what virtue or value would hold him or even others from exposing it and stopping it? Often it is that the damage of the revelation seems to be greater than the damage of the actual deed.
I'm talking about situational ethics, or what some might call hierarchicalism. The hierarchy is that Penn State as a whole, and the good that the university did and the football program might have done and would do, was greater than the good that exposing Sandusky would have done. The line of thinking might go like this: we can stop Sandusky or try to stop him and then hide what he did to help save the university and the program---we're against the evil, really do hate it, but hate the take-down of the institution even more. More people will be hurt by the exposure than would be hurt by not exposing. Why should tens of thousands suffer because of the deeds of one man? I'm not saying I know this is all there is to it, just that it is often how it goes. It might be the case here with Penn State, Paterno, and some of the administration. It makes sense that it would, since that is so typical.
So in the above case, the truth is "fudged" really in order to do the "greater good." That is a kind of hierarchicalism. It is not to justify Sandusky's actions or even not to make a statement about the heinousness of all of that. They are putting forth an effort to protect something by choosing whom they will allow to suffer for what they see as a higher value. I'm not arguing for this, by the way. I am presenting it to knock it down.
A few dozen times, the Bible tells us not to be afraid. The world does live in fear, that altogether may stem from the ultimate fear of death, Satan's number one tool. Perhaps all the fears of man unwind from man's terror over his own termination. Even if he wastes his life, he knows wasting it isn't good, so he writes his own narrative in which he isn't wasting it, even if he is. What man forgets is that everything ends with God. That is truly it.
I bring you to Scripture for a moment to see this. At the beginning of Luke 12, Jesus warns against the influence of hypocrisy (vv. 1-12). It's masterful teaching. Faking our way through---faking it till we make it---is one of the great temptations of life. We can blow everything by never being genuinely for God, just doing the labor to have people think we are for God. A man in v. 13, who hasn't been listening but merely waiting for Jesus to take a breath, asks a personal question about an inheritance issue with his brother. Jesus makes a point about covetousness and what life's really about, and then He illustrates it with a story about a man who had been a sudden, monumental success in his agricultural endeavors (vv. 16-21). In the story, the man has a bunch of plans to expand his operation, none of which include God. The one truth that he forgot was the most important one---he would die and face God.
God is the judge. He is also Sovereign. In the first twelve verses of Luke 12, Jesus speaks about not fearing man, but fearing God, Who will destroy both body and soul in Hell. But then He says, "Fear not," because Jesus cares more about men than He does many sparrows. So those who trust God, and really do fear Him, rather than man, do not need to fear. It's a paradox. Fear God and you won't need to or have to fear.
We don't trust God to go into damage control. We trust God by doing what He told us to do. There was something that needed to be done at Penn State, but people there, of course, weren't trusting God. They don't trust God. That's not how they view their lives or the world. Values can't survive on this earth without God, since nothing or no one is more valuable than God Himself. Since God is more valuable than anything, doing what He wants us to do will get us through those moment when we think doing right will bring more damage then it will good. Maybe in the short term, we could explain how that it would, but with God in the equation, we do what we should and leave it to God to sort through. In the end, the greater value exists in God. I believe hierarchicalism does work, but it is understanding that on the top of the hierarchy is God. He rules.
In churches and evangelical or fundamentalist organizations, bad things are done, and decisions are made on how to handle them based upon what will help preserve the institution. Maybe even the media is involved. The media swoops in to try to uncover what's happened in order to sell a news story. The media doesn't care about a church or a pastor or even the truth. Their sources may be bitter, disgruntled, and evil people with an axe to grind. They want to destroy the church or the organization. They may be exaggerating or telling lies. So what is the church or organization to do?
I think a church or organization can easily pull a Penn State, rationalizing that its enemies don't deserve the truth, and that whatever means necessary to protect the church or organization might be justified. The idea is that "we" can save the church or protect its leadership with an all-out defense. These are the faithless fears that help sink institutions.
God can and will save what He wishes. He is Sovereign. A church might participate in multiple sins and doctrinal and practical error. It results in casualties, maybe even what some might call collateral damages. God says confess, forsake, correct, repent, and I will heal and deliver. That's where true faith comes in. But the church or organization, its leadership, says faith is to circle the wagons and begin a campaign against the enemies and even its friends. It's friends are saying, "Confess, repent, forsake, trust God for deliverance." The church forsakes that counsel for something that looks more like what a defense lawyer will do to spring his guilty client.
Churches and organizations are already leaning on their own understanding for success. They call it "practical," but that's the wrong word. The right word is "pragmatic." "Practical" is when we practice what God told us to do, to follow Scriptural example. And the pragmatism is what got them in trouble in the first place. And so it is no wonder that again they will use pragmatism as a means of "rescuing" themselves from their own troubles. What is ironic is that it isn't going to work. That's right. It isn't even pragmatic. The rich man said he would pull down his barns and build greater. He had everything all planned, but He wasn't including God in the narrative. And God is in every single narrative. It is His story.
I mentioned the hypothetical reasoning of Penn State. What about these churches? 'We can't confess anything wrong, because it will be admitting that we are guilty of what our enemies are alleging, which is exaggerated and slanderous. And if someone is not offering full support, even questions what may have happened, they are now with our "enemies." God is a Mighty Warrior, so our fighting is like God.' Of course, God fights for Truth and Justice, not just to fight because He's some kind of Fighter, but the combative defense reminds them of how God operates at times, so the fighting must be correct.
Confession is not the cause for the enemies' rejoicing. Repentance is not the basis of an opponent's victory. Neither of those two is what make our enemies rejoice or prosper---the violation of God's Word did that.
As I write this essay, I'm not saying it is simple to react in a biblical way. It isn't. The skids of our flesh are well greased for self-defense. That's a push that seems natural. We should consider that our problems might be our own. We did something wrong that needs a scriptural response as a solution. Then trust God. Fear Him. And then rely on Him for protection.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Spirit Baptism--the Historic Baptist view, part 6
Spirit Baptism in the Gospels, part 3:
Baptism "with" the Holy Ghost, not "in" the Holy Ghost
The
translation of the Authorized Version that Christ “shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 3:11, etc.) is superior in its
particular context to a rendering of baptisei en Pneumati Hagio as “he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost.”
A comparison of the gospel texts on Spirit baptism indicate that both
the simple dative and the dative with en specify the same category of
usage in the text. For example, in
Luke 3:16 the dative hudati parallels
en Pneumati kai puri. Acts 1:5 likewise
parallels John’s baptism hudati with baptism en Pneumati
Hagio. Note also the simple dative puri in Matthew 3:12, Luke 3:17. The simple datives are best
taken as examples of a “dative of means/instrument [by, by means of, with] . .
. [where] the dative substantive is used to indicate the means or instrument by
which the verbal action is accomplished.
This is a very common use of the dative, embracing as it does one of the
root ideas of the dative case (viz., instrumentality) . . . before the noun in
the dative, [one should] supply the words by means of, or simply with.”[i] While the instrumental dative is very
common, there is a great “scarcity of . . . usage [for the] . . . locative of
place without a preposition . . . [so that the grammarian] Blass indeed remarks
that the ‘local dative’ does not occur in the N. T.”[ii] If there are few simple datives representing
a dative or locative of place in New Testament Greek, or perhaps none at all,
but the instrumental idea for the dative form without a preposition is very
common, the presumption that the baptisms in Matthew 3 and the parallel
passages are “with” water, “with” the Holy Ghost, and “with” fire, rather than
“in” these three, is very strong.
Similarly, en Pneumati
constitutes a use of en with the dative indicating
instrument or means.[iii] Thus, in Spirit baptism “Christ is the
agent . . . and the Holy Spirit is the means . . . that the Lord uses to
baptize . . . Pneumati Hagio clearly
indicates means in Mark 1:8 (as in several other passages dealing with
Spirit-baptism).”[iv] Furthermore, en pneumati regularly possesses the sense of means or instrumentality
in the LXX—the locative idea of sphere is significantly less common.[v] Indeed, the locative sense is not
clearly present in any passage in the Greek Old Testament where en pneumati refers to the Holy Spirit.[vi] The related en puri (cf. Matthew 3:11, baptisei en Pneumati Hagio kai puri) also very frequently possesses the sense of
instrumentality or means in the LXX.[vii] However, such metaphorical language for
Spirit baptism does not exclude any locative sense in Spirit baptism, nor does
Christ’s pouring out the Holy Ghost from heaven, which resulted in Spirit
baptism, exclude the Spirit’s “fill[ing] all the house where [the 120 in the
church] were sitting” (Acts 2:2) and thus immersing the church in His
overwhelmingly powerful presence.[viii] Nevertheless, syntax and context
demonstrate that the rendering of the Authorized Version and of English Bibles
back to Tyndale[ix] is correct
in affirming that Christ performs Holy Ghost baptism with the Spirit.
Note that this complete study, with all it parts and with additional material not reproduced on this blog in this series, is available by clicking here.
[ii] Pg.
521, A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research, Nashville, TN:
Broadman Press, 1934.
[iii] Cf.
pgs. 372ff. of Wallace, Greek Grammar, and BDAG definition #5 for e˙n as a
“marker introducing means or instrument, with, a construction that begins w. Homer [and with] . . . wide currency in [the New Testament and
early Christian] lit[erature].”
Note that in Revelation 17:14, a verse listed in BDAG under definition
#5, the destruction of a city by an army is said to be by “burn[ing the city]
with fire” (katakau/sousin e˙n puri÷), a usage very similar to the instrumental e˙n with puri÷ for burning cities in Baruch 1:2; 1 Esdras 1:52; 1 Maccabees 5:5.
[iv] Pg.
374, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics,
Wallace. Wallace thought that
“perhaps” the preposition indicated sphere as well, but it definitely signified
means. He thus translated the
passages as “with,” not “in” the Holy Spirit. It should be noted that the affirmation that baptism “with”
the Holy Ghost is the correct translation does not exclude the idea that the
Spirit is indeed the medium of Christ’s baptism with the third member of the
Trinity, as water is the medium in the ordinance of believer’s immersion. Rather, the rendering with simply emphasizes the substance in which the baptism
takes place; that is, the
substance employed in baptism is water, the Spirit, or fire. This fact does not in any way change
the fact that a baptism is by
definition an immersion, since baptidzo signifies immersion without the aid of any preposition.
[v] It
is, however, still present, e. g.
Ecclesiastes 7:9: Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger will
rest in the bosom of fools. mh\ speu/shØß e˙n pneu/mati÷ sou touv qumouvsqai o¢ti
qumo\ß e˙n ko/lpwˆ aÓfro/nwn aÓnapau/setai.
[vi] 1
Chronicles 28:12: And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of the LORD, and of all
the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the
treasuries of the dedicated things: kai« to\ para¿deigma o§ ei•cen e˙n pneu/mati aujtouv tw◊n aujlw◊n oi¶kou
kuri÷ou kai« pa¿ntwn tw◊n pastofori÷wn tw◊n ku/klwˆ tw◊n ei˙ß ta»ß aÓpoqh/kaß
oi¶kou kuri÷ou kai« tw◊n aÓpoqhkw◊n tw◊n agi÷wn.
Nehemiah 9:30: Yet thou didst bear long with them many
years, and didst testify to them by thy Spirit by the hand of thy prophets: but they hearkened not;
so thou gavest them into the hand of the nations of the land. kai« eiºlkusaß e˙p∆ aujtou\ß e¶th polla» kai« e˙pemartu/rw aujtoi√ß e˙n pneu/mati÷ sou e˙n ceiri« profhtw◊n sou kai« oujk hjnwti÷santo kai«
e¶dwkaß aujtou\ß e˙n ceiri« law◊n thvß ghvß.
Isaiah 4:4: When the Lord shall have
washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood
of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. o¢ti e˙kplunei√ ku/rioß
to\n rJu/pon tw◊n ui˚w◊n kai« tw◊n qugate÷rwn Siwn kai« to\ ai–ma e˙kkaqariei√
e˙k me÷sou aujtw◊n e˙n pneu/mati kri÷sewß kai« pneu/mati kau/sewß.
Ezekiel 11:24: And the Spirit took me up,
and brought me to the land of the Chaldeans, to the captivity, in a vision by
the Spirit of God: and I
went up after the vision which I saw. kai« aÓne÷labe÷n me pneuvma kai« h¡gage÷n me
ei˙ß ghvn Caldai÷wn ei˙ß th\n ai˙cmalwsi÷an e˙n oJra¿sei e˙n pneu/mati qeouv kai« aÓne÷bhn
aÓpo\ thvß oJra¿sewß h∞ß ei•don.
Ezekiel 37:1: And the hand of the Lord
came upon me, and the Lord brought me forth by the Spirit, and set me in the midst of the plain,
and it was full of human bones. kai« e˙ge÷neto e˙p∆ e˙me« cei«r kuri÷ou kai«
e˙xh/gage÷n me e˙n pneu/mati ku/rioß kai« e¶qhke÷n me e˙n me÷swˆ touv
pedi÷ou kai« touvto h™n mesto\n ojste÷wn aÓnqrwpi÷nwn.
Micah 3:8: But truly I am full of power by
the spirit of the LORD, and of
judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel
his sin. e˙a»n mh\
e˙gw» e˙mplh/sw i˙scu\n e˙n pneu/mati kuri÷ou kai« kri÷matoß kai« dunastei÷aß touv aÓpaggei√lai
tw◊ˆ Iakwb aÓsebei÷aß aujtouv kai« tw◊ˆ Israhl amarti÷aß aujtouv.
Zechariah 1:6: But do ye receive my words and mine
ordinances, all that I command by my Spirit to my servants the prophets, who lived in the days of
your fathers; and they answered and said, As the Lord Almighty determined to do
to us, according to our ways, and according to our practices, so has he done to
us. plh\n
tou\ß lo/gouß mou kai« ta» no/mima¿ mou de÷cesqe o¢sa e˙gw» e˙nte÷llomai e˙n
pneu/mati÷ mou toi√ß dou/loiß mou toi√ß profh/taiß oi≠ katela¿bosan tou\ß
pate÷raß uJmw◊n kai« aÓpekri÷qhsan kai« ei•pan kaqw»ß parate÷taktai ku/rioß
pantokra¿twr touv poihvsai kata» ta»ß oJdou\ß uJmw◊n kai« kata» ta»
e˙pithdeu/mata uJmw◊n ou¢twß e˙poi÷hsen uJmi√n.
Zechariah 4:6: And he answered and spoke to me,
saying, This is the word of the Lord to Zorobabel, saying, not by mighty power,
nor by strength, but by my Spirit,
saith the Lord Almighty. kai«
aÓpekri÷qh kai« ei•pen pro/ß me le÷gwn ou∞toß oJ lo/goß kuri÷ou pro\ß Zorobabel
le÷gwn oujk e˙n duna¿mei mega¿lhØ oujde« e˙n i˙scu/i aÓll∆ h· e˙n pneu/mati÷ mou le÷gei ku/rioß pantokra¿twr.
Zechariah 7:12: And they made their heart disobedient,
so as not to hearken to my law, and the words which the Lord Almighty sent
forth by his Spirit by the former
prophets: so there was great wrath from the Lord Almighty. kai« th\n kardi÷an
aujtw◊n e¶taxan aÓpeiqhv touv mh\ ei˙sakou/ein touv no/mou mou kai« tou\ß
lo/gouß ou§ß e˙xape÷steilen ku/rioß pantokra¿twr e˙n pneu/mati aujtouv e˙n cersi«n
tw◊n profhtw◊n tw◊n e¶mprosqen kai« e˙ge÷neto ojrgh\ mega¿lh para» kuri÷ou
pantokra¿toroß.
(Note: English renderings above come either from the
1851 translation of the LXX by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton or from the KJV. Note
also Solomon 17:37 in the Apocrypha, kai« oujk aÓsqenh/sei e˙n tai√ß hJme÷raiß aujtouv
e˙pi« qew◊ˆ aujtouv o¢ti oJ qeo\ß kateirga¿sato aujto\n dunato\n e˙n
pneu/mati aJgi÷wˆ kai« sofo\n e˙n boulhvØ sune÷sewß meta» i˙scu/oß kai«
dikaiosu/nhß).
[vii] Three
examples out of the 110 verses with the phrase are:
Numbers 31:10: And they burnt with fire all their
cities in the places of their habitation and they burnt their villages with
fire. kai« pa¿saß ta»ß po/leiß aujtw◊n ta»ß e˙n tai√ß
oi˙ki÷aiß aujtw◊n kai« ta»ß e˙pau/leiß aujtw◊n e˙ne÷prhsan e˙n puri÷.
Judges 9:52: And Abimelech drew near to the tower, and
they besieged it; and Abimelech drew near to the door of the tower to burn it with
fire. kai« h™lqen Abimelec eºwß touv pu/rgou kai«
e˙xepole÷mhsan aujto/n kai« h¡ggisen Abimelec eºwß thvß qu/raß touv pu/rgou
e˙mprhvsai aujto\n e˙n puri÷.
1 Kings 16:18: And it came to pass, when Zimri saw
that the city was taken, that he went into the palace of the king’s house, and
burnt the king’s house over him with fire, and died. kai«
e˙genh/qh wß ei•den Zambri o¢ti prokatei÷lhmptai aujtouv hJ po/liß kai«
ei˙sporeu/etai ei˙ß a‡ntron touv oi¶kou touv basile÷wß kai« e˙nepu/risen e˙p∆
aujto\n to\n oi•kon touv basile÷wß e˙n puri« kai« aÓpe÷qanen.
The complete list of references is: Exodus 12:10;
19:18; 32:20; 34:13; Leviticus 4:12; 6:23; 7:17, 19; 8:32; 13:52, 55, 57;
16:27; 19:6; 20:14; Numbers 31:10, 23; Deuteronomy 1:33; 9:21; 12:31; 13:17;
18:10; Joshua 7:15; 8:19, 28; 11:6, 9, 11; 16:10; Judges 1:8; 9:49, 52; 12:1;
14:15; 15:6; 20:48; 1 Samuel 30:1, 3, 14; 2 Samuel 14:30-31; 23:7; 1 Kings
16:18; 18:24, 36-37; 2 Kings 8:12; 16:3; 17:17, 31; 21:6; 23:10; 1 Chronicles
14:12; 21:26; 2 Chronicles 33:6; 35:13; 36:19; Nehemiah 1:3; 2:3; Psalm 45:10;
73:7; 139:11; Amos 4:10; 7:4; Micah 1:7; Nahum 2:4; Habakkuk 2:13; Zephaniah
1:18; 3:8; Zechariah 9:4; Isaiah 10:17; 44:16, 19; Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 21:10;
28:32; 30:18; 36:22; 39:29; 41:2, 22; 44:8, 10; 45:17-18; 50:13; 52:13; Ezekiel
5:2, 4; 21:36-37; 22:21, 31; 36:5; 38:19; 1 Esdras 1:52; 1 Maccabees 1:56; 5:5,
35, 44; 11:61; 16:10; 4 Maccabees 9:22; 18:12 Sirach 2:5; 8:10; 45:19; Solomon
12:4; Baruch 1:2.
[viii] Commenting
on the connection of the fact that baptidzo signifies immersion and the baptism of the Spirit, B. H. Carroll wrote:
The baptism in the Spirit was a figurative
baptism. I mean the word baptism
is used in a figurative and not in a literal sense. . . . If I immerse one in a
creek or baptistery, that is a literal baptism; but if I see a friend of mine in distress, in deep anxiety,
groaning, sighing, weeping, full of pain, no ease, no peace, no hope, I say he
is baptized in suffering. That is
figurative. Just as the Lord Jesus
Christ said, ‘I have a baptism to be baptized in, and now am I straitened till
it be accomplished[!]’ I have suffering to pass through so deep and
overwhelming that you may compare the suffering to an immersion in
suffering. That is a figurative
use of the word. If one dip
another in a tank of oil, that is a literal baptism, a literal use of the
word. But if it be one whose notes
of hand are all over the community, whose property is all mortgaged, who has no
realty that is not already encumbered, I say that man is baptized in debt, that
is a figurative use of the word.
He is overwhelmed in debt.
Now
when John the Baptist says, ‘I baptize you in water,’ that is a literal baptism,
‘but Jesus will baptize you in the Holy Ghost,’ that is a figurative use of the
word. The Holy Ghost is not a
liquid element, but you may use the word figuratively; when they are in the house, and the
sound that indicates His presence fills that house, and they themselves are
filled with the Spirit, permeated throughout by the indwelling Spirit of God,
figuratively you say that is a baptism in the Holy Ghost. That figurative use of the word is one
of the commonest known to the Greek classics. I could cite you a hundred instances of it. So that the baptism in water, that is
the literal; the other, that is
the figurative. And because the
literal is a burial, a sinking out of sight, so an overwhelming influence may
figuratively be said to be a baptism in that influence.” (pgs. 42-43, The
Three Baptisms, B. H. Carroll, elec. acc. in the AGES Christian Library Series, Vol. 11,
B. H. Carroll Collection. Rio, WI: 2006).
Some
paedobaptists argue that baptidzo
can signify pouring because the
Spirit’s being poured out is allegedly a synonym with Spirit baptism, thus
equating pouring and baptism. This
argument has severe problems. If
the Holy Ghost’s being “poured out” or “shed forth” on men (e˙kce÷w, Acts
2:17-18, 33; 10:45) demonstrates that baptidzo means pour,
then the references, in association with the baptism of the Holy Ghost, to the
Spirit “coming upon” (e˙pe÷rcomai, Acts
1:8) people, “falling” on them (e˙pipi÷ptw, Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15-17), “coming” upon them (e¶rcomai. . . e˙pi÷, 19:6), and being “received” (lamba¿nw, Acts 10:47; 19:2) by them would prove that baptidzo also means come upon, fall, receive, and come—the
word would be a veritable nose of wax which could be twisted any which way at
will, and would mean so much that it meant nothing at all. The Scriptural distinction in
prepositions, where the Spirit falls “upon” (e˙pi÷) and is
poured “out” (e˙k) while baptism/immersion is en (e˙n) water and the Spirit, but
one is never “baptized out” or “baptized upon,” for example, would also be
neglected. Finally, the Spirit’s
being poured out from heaven is synonymous with His being sent by the ascended
Christ after He sat down at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; John
15:26; 16:7). The Spirit’s being
poured out or sent from heaven had, as its result on earth, the church’s receiving
the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
That is, the result of the heavenly sending or pouring out was the
earthly baptism or immersion. The
baptism is not a synonym of the sending or pouring, but a consequence of
it. To attempt to invalidate the
simple fact of the Greek language that baptidzo means immerse, and never pour or sprinkle, by confusing the terms that are employed in
association with Spirit baptism, is entirely invalid. For conclusive evidence that to baptize means to immerse, see pgs. 386-444, “Christian Baptism,” in Principles and Practices
for Baptist Churches, Edward T.
Hiscox (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, orig. pub. 1894); pgs. 18-167, Baptism in
its Mode and Subjects, Alexander
Carson, (5th rev. ed., Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist
Publication Society, 1860; elec. acc. http://books.google.com).
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Word of Truth 2011 Audio
Hello again reader.
The Word of Truth 2011 Audio for the Conference is going up for your download and listening convenience and challenge as soon as possible. Those sermons will be uploaded here until the panel discussion is complete on Sunday evening.
The Word of Truth 2011 Audio for the Conference is going up for your download and listening convenience and challenge as soon as possible. Those sermons will be uploaded here until the panel discussion is complete on Sunday evening.
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Questions About Ecclesiastical Separation
Hello Reader.
This Wednesday to Sunday we are holding our third annual Word of Truth Conference. Tonight we started with preaching from Pastor Bobby Mitchell of Mid-Coast Baptist Church of Brunswick, Maine. We have sessions on Thursday through Saturday mornings and preaching on Thursday and Friday nights and then Sunday morning.
On Sunday evening we have our panel discussion. These first three years the conference has been on the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation. The panel discussion involves the pastors answering questions. Do you have questions you would like to ask about ecclesiastical separation? I'm going to open up this blog for readers to present questions they would like to have answered. If you have a particular question you would like to hear answered, ask it in the comment section along with your name and the city you are from. The panel at this year's Word of Truth conference will answer questions that you submit.
The panel discussion will be available afterwards in both audio and video, so you might hear your question and your name on the audio and video of the panel discussion.
This Wednesday to Sunday we are holding our third annual Word of Truth Conference. Tonight we started with preaching from Pastor Bobby Mitchell of Mid-Coast Baptist Church of Brunswick, Maine. We have sessions on Thursday through Saturday mornings and preaching on Thursday and Friday nights and then Sunday morning.
On Sunday evening we have our panel discussion. These first three years the conference has been on the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation. The panel discussion involves the pastors answering questions. Do you have questions you would like to ask about ecclesiastical separation? I'm going to open up this blog for readers to present questions they would like to have answered. If you have a particular question you would like to hear answered, ask it in the comment section along with your name and the city you are from. The panel at this year's Word of Truth conference will answer questions that you submit.
The panel discussion will be available afterwards in both audio and video, so you might hear your question and your name on the audio and video of the panel discussion.
Monday, November 07, 2011
Does Uncertainty Come from Certainty?
In an exchange a few years ago, Phil Johnson, executive director of Grace to You, told me this:
Of course, an irony that should not be lost is Phil's regular certainty that he is right. And in this case, he is certain again...about uncertainty. I'm actually happy that Phil can be so certain. I would be very happy if his certainty did come from scriptural arguments, but in my forays into Phil's world, that hasn't always been necessary for him.
I found myself again thinking about this observation. Does the uncertainty of today, especially as represented in postmodernism, actually stem in some considerable way, from certainty?
The answer to that question is where I say that I wish Phil's certainty here could have come from something from the Bible. I can't think of one verse or example in the Bible that says that unbelief or uncertainty comes from certainty. I can't even think of one place in the Bible where uncertainty is exalted or admired.
Phil also used Peter's comments about Paul's eschatalogical writings at the end of 2 Peter 3 (verse 16):
The verse does not say that we are uncertain about what Paul wrote. It says something just the opposite actually. Peter found some of what Paul wrote "hard to be understood." Come on, we've got to be honest about this kind of thing. It doesn't say Paul's writings can't be understood---just hard to be understood. And the last part of the verse assumes or implies that one could be certain about what Paul wrote. The "unlearned and unstable" wrest those scriptures. How could anyone know if they had "wrested" Paul's writings unless someone could be certain about what Paul wrote? And what is ironic here (again) is that Phil Johnson is wresting Peter's writings here to support his erring view of certainty.
Scripture does say that we can't know everything with absolute certainty. A few passages come immediately to mind. First, 1 Corinthians 13:2. Paul uses hyperbole to say that we can't understand all mysteries and all knowledge. Second, Job 9:10. God has ways that are past finding out. But none of those verses are promoting uncertainty. We can be certain about what we can be certain about, but certainty itself is never said to be the cause of uncertainty.
What does cause uncertainty, according to the Bible, is uncertainty. And we see this right at the beginning of the Bible. Eve was certain she would die if she ate of the tree. Satan planted uncertainty. And, voila, Eve became uncertain herself. That's how it actually works. Doubt begets doubt. Faithlessness begets faithlessness.
I'm reminded of the doubt of the ten spies who came back from the land and discouraged the entire nation from obeying God. Later in Numbers 32, Moses was concerned about a replay event, in which the Reubenites would bring their spirit of non-participation to the rest of Israel. And that sin of non-participation was the sin that Moses said would for sure be found out. Another irony. Be sure, be certain, your sin will find you out. The certainty of Moses could spread to the Reubenites and cause certainty, not uncertainty. It was the uncertainty of the Reubenites that would cause uncertainty.
Evangelicals in the fellowship of Phil Johnson cause the uncertain-esqueness of the postmoderns. The postmoderns are encouraged in their uncertainty even as the evangelicals are not sure. They've just taken it to a further, probably more consistent level. If you can't be sure what the Words of Scripture are, which Phil Johnson isn't, then how can you be sure about the interpretation and application of the Bible? The Words are the greater to the lesser of the interpretation and application. And that's just an example, a big one, but one of the examples.
Evangelicalism is wrought with uncertainty about Bible application. Phil Johnson is concerned about the uncertainty of the postmodern emergents with their confusion about what foul language is. Phil knows. He also knows that gambling is wrong. They don't know though. Phil's chagrined. But there are many areas where Christians were certain in the past, where they are now uncertain, and this was encouraged by evangelicalism and then taken to an all new low with postmodernism.
The uncertainty of evangelicals is the Mack Truck that opened up the path for postmodernism. Uncertainty is what causes uncertainty. I'm certain of it.
Virtually everything is clear and certain in your mind. The pomos' pathological uncertainty is in part a reaction to the unwarranted hubris of the rigid fundamentalist perspective you represent, and vice versa.
Of course, an irony that should not be lost is Phil's regular certainty that he is right. And in this case, he is certain again...about uncertainty. I'm actually happy that Phil can be so certain. I would be very happy if his certainty did come from scriptural arguments, but in my forays into Phil's world, that hasn't always been necessary for him.
I found myself again thinking about this observation. Does the uncertainty of today, especially as represented in postmodernism, actually stem in some considerable way, from certainty?
The answer to that question is where I say that I wish Phil's certainty here could have come from something from the Bible. I can't think of one verse or example in the Bible that says that unbelief or uncertainty comes from certainty. I can't even think of one place in the Bible where uncertainty is exalted or admired.
Phil also used Peter's comments about Paul's eschatalogical writings at the end of 2 Peter 3 (verse 16):
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
The verse does not say that we are uncertain about what Paul wrote. It says something just the opposite actually. Peter found some of what Paul wrote "hard to be understood." Come on, we've got to be honest about this kind of thing. It doesn't say Paul's writings can't be understood---just hard to be understood. And the last part of the verse assumes or implies that one could be certain about what Paul wrote. The "unlearned and unstable" wrest those scriptures. How could anyone know if they had "wrested" Paul's writings unless someone could be certain about what Paul wrote? And what is ironic here (again) is that Phil Johnson is wresting Peter's writings here to support his erring view of certainty.
Scripture does say that we can't know everything with absolute certainty. A few passages come immediately to mind. First, 1 Corinthians 13:2. Paul uses hyperbole to say that we can't understand all mysteries and all knowledge. Second, Job 9:10. God has ways that are past finding out. But none of those verses are promoting uncertainty. We can be certain about what we can be certain about, but certainty itself is never said to be the cause of uncertainty.
What does cause uncertainty, according to the Bible, is uncertainty. And we see this right at the beginning of the Bible. Eve was certain she would die if she ate of the tree. Satan planted uncertainty. And, voila, Eve became uncertain herself. That's how it actually works. Doubt begets doubt. Faithlessness begets faithlessness.
I'm reminded of the doubt of the ten spies who came back from the land and discouraged the entire nation from obeying God. Later in Numbers 32, Moses was concerned about a replay event, in which the Reubenites would bring their spirit of non-participation to the rest of Israel. And that sin of non-participation was the sin that Moses said would for sure be found out. Another irony. Be sure, be certain, your sin will find you out. The certainty of Moses could spread to the Reubenites and cause certainty, not uncertainty. It was the uncertainty of the Reubenites that would cause uncertainty.
Evangelicals in the fellowship of Phil Johnson cause the uncertain-esqueness of the postmoderns. The postmoderns are encouraged in their uncertainty even as the evangelicals are not sure. They've just taken it to a further, probably more consistent level. If you can't be sure what the Words of Scripture are, which Phil Johnson isn't, then how can you be sure about the interpretation and application of the Bible? The Words are the greater to the lesser of the interpretation and application. And that's just an example, a big one, but one of the examples.
Evangelicalism is wrought with uncertainty about Bible application. Phil Johnson is concerned about the uncertainty of the postmodern emergents with their confusion about what foul language is. Phil knows. He also knows that gambling is wrong. They don't know though. Phil's chagrined. But there are many areas where Christians were certain in the past, where they are now uncertain, and this was encouraged by evangelicalism and then taken to an all new low with postmodernism.
The uncertainty of evangelicals is the Mack Truck that opened up the path for postmodernism. Uncertainty is what causes uncertainty. I'm certain of it.
Friday, November 04, 2011
Spirit Baptism--the Historic Baptist View, part 5
Spirit Baptism in the Gospels, part 2--Fire Baptism
While
one who believes that the baptism with fire of Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16
refers to the damnation of the unconverted in hell—a position that should not
be easily dismissed from the connection of the word “fire” in Matthew 3:11 to
that in 3:12[1]—can still
agree with the conclusions made in other parts of this series concerning the connection between Spirit
baptism and the church, the position that baptism with fire is synonymous with
Spirit baptism deserves serious consideration and should be considered correct
for a number of reasons. First,
the reader of the gospels could very easily conclude that they were
synonymous. One who simply reads
“I indeed baptize you with water . . . but . . . he shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matthew
3:11; ego men baptidzo humas en hudati . . . de . . . autos humas baptisei en Pneumati Hagio kai puri; cf. Luke 3:16) could
very easily think that the same “you” receives both the Spirit and fire,
namely, the “you” that receives water baptism, and that baptism Pneumati
Hagio kai puri, as both “Spirit” and
“fire” follow a single en in connection
with the single verb “baptize,” refer to the same event.[2] Furthermore, the men/de clause confirms the association of the several instances
of “you” in the verse. Second,
Acts 1:5 refers back to Luke 3:16.
Why would not the entire action of the verse, the Spirit and fire
baptism, happen at the same time?
Third, in Acts 2:3-4, the baptism with the Spirit and the appearance of
“fire” on the heads of those Spirit-baptized happens at the same moment. Would
not Theophilus, reading Luke-Acts, recall Luke 3:16 and think that this was the
baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire?
Fourth, the gospel accounts in Mark 1:8 and John 1:33 both record only
baptism with the Spirit; fire is
not mentioned. This suggests that
there is one baptism with the Spirit and fire, since neither Mark nor John
believed the reader needed to hear about the other, as if simply mentioning
Spirit baptism covered both things.[3] Fifth, in Acts, only a record of Spirit
baptism as a fulfillment of John’s preaching is recalled from the gospels (Acts
1:5; Luke 3:16) and recorded (Acts 2), suggesting that baptism with the Spirit
and fire was a single event predicted by John. Sixth, the parallel between Spirit baptism’s validation of
the church and the coming of the shekinah
on the Old Testament tabernacle and temple[4]
supports the unity of the two baptisms.
Seventh, while one who believes baptism with fire is eternal torment
affirms that one either receives Spirit baptism or fire baptism, the disciples
in Acts never told anyone that, since they did not receive Spirit baptism, they
were going to get fire baptism.
Eighth, while Spirit baptism was a one time event, the lost who die are
cast into hell moment by moment, day by day, so the baptism with fire would
seem to not be a one time event, but something daily repeated, indeed,
something that is going on continually worldwide. The two would then not be very parallel. One who wished to extenuate this
difficulty might argue that the baptism with fire refers to the postmillennial
future after the Great White Throne judgment, when all the lost in Hades are
cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). In that case, while all the lost, throughout the entire Old
Testament and into the Millennium, get cast into the lake of fire and thus
allegedly receive fire baptism, only the tiny fraction of church age saints
connected with the events in Acts receive Spirit baptism, thus making the two
baptisms most discontinuous. John
the Baptist also did not prophesy that all the lost would receive the baptism
of fire—at the very least, people in the Old Testament dispensation are not
referred to in his preaching. A
fulfillment of fire baptism in the eternal torment of all the lost of all ages
thus makes the alleged fulfillment strikingly different than the
prediction. Ninth, no passage
states that the eternal state of the lost is a fulfillment of the baptism of
fire—the conclusion is an implication drawn from what are not foolproof
premises. Last, maintaining that
fire baptism is synonymous with Spirit baptism, on the historic Baptist view
elucidated below, makes both Spirit and fire baptism, like literal immersion in
water, ecclesiological, not soteriological events. Christ gathered His church
from those who had received the baptism of John, and it is the church that
received the baptism with the Spirit in Acts 2. John made “ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lu
1:17) by bringing them to salvation and then baptizing them, so they could be
part of the congregation Christ was gathering (John 3:29), which the Savior
later authenticated by baptizing His assembly with His Spirit. Affirming that fire baptism is
damnation in hell moves this latter baptism from the realm of ecclesiology to
that of soteriology and eschatology.
As literal baptism is not a means of receiving salvation, no
metaphorical reference to baptism in the New Testament is ever clearly
soteriological. The cumulative
weight of the reasons above lead to the conclusion that, while the position
that the baptism with fire is the eternal damnation of the lost deserves
serious consideration, the position that the baptism with the Spirit and fire
is a single event should be preferred.
part 4
Note that this complete study, with all it parts and with additional material not reproduced on this blog in this series, is available by clicking here.
[1]
It
should be noted in relation to this argument, the strongest one for connecting
fire baptism and eternal damnation, that the fact that the Lord Jesus will do
what is stated in v. 11, and will also do what is stated in v. 12, do not make
the two synonymous. Verse twelve
refers to the eschatological gathering of the saints to glory and the related damnation
of the lost. Spirit baptism does
not denote anything in v. 12. Nor
does fire baptism, on either on the synonymous or the eternal torment view,
have anything to do with the eschatological gathering of the saints as wheat
into the garner at harvest time.
Thus, an affirmation that the judgment of v. 12 defines fire baptism as
eschatological damnation must explain why the entry of believers into glory is
not Spirit baptism, and thus why v. 12 defines the fire baptism of v. 11 but
does not define the Spirit baptism of the same verse.
See pg. 236, Christology of the Old Testament, E. W. Hengstenberg, trans.
James Martin, vol. 4, 2nd ed.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1858 (elec. acc. http://books.google.com),
for an argument in favor of fire baptism as hell based on the analogy of
Malachi 3:2.
[2]
In
the words of Henry Alford on Matthew 3:11, “To
separate off pneu/mati aJgi÷wˆ as
belonging to one set of persons, and puri÷ as belonging to another, when both are united by uJma◊ß, is in the last degree harsh, besides
introducing confusion into the whole.
The members of comparison in this verse are strictly parallel to one another:
the baptism by water . . . and the baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire” (Alford’s
Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Henry Alford, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1980 (reprint of 1874
ed.). Similarly, the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Frank E. Gaebelien; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990)
notes on Matthew 3:11, “Many see this as a double baptism, one in the Holy
Spirit for the righteous and one in fire for the unrepentant (cf: the wheat and
chaff in v.12). Fire (Mal 4:1) destroys and consumes. There are good reasons,
however, for taking ‘fire’ as a purifying agent along with the Holy Spirit. The
people John is addressing are being baptized by him; presumably they have
repented. More important the preposition en (‘with’) is not repeated before fire: the one preposition
governs both ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘fire,’ and this normally suggests a unified
concept, Spirit-fire or the like. . . . Fire often has a purifying, not
destructive, connotation in the OT (e.g., Isa 1:25; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2-3).
John’s water baptism relates to repentance; but the one whose way he is preparing
will administer a Spirit-fire baptism that will purify and refine.” James D. G. Dunn writes, “There are not
two baptisms envisaged, one with Spirit and one with fire, only one baptism in
Spirit-and-fire. Second, the two
baptisms . . . are to be administered to the same people — uJma◊ß” (pg. 11, Baptism in the Holy Spirit).
One notes further that when a verb or verbal is
associated with e˙n followed by two
prepositional objects, as in the aujto\ß uJma◊ß bapti÷sei e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ
kai« puri÷ of Matthew 3:11, the two
objects are in the NT either universally or close to universally temporally
simultaneous. For example, in John
4:24’s tou\ß
proskunouvntaß aujto/n, e˙n pneu/mati kai« aÓlhqei÷aˆ dei√ proskunei√n, worship in both spirit and truth takes
place at the same time. In Matthew
4:16’s toi√ß
kaqhme÷noiß e˙n cw¿raˆ kai« skiaˆ◊ qana¿tou, the people sat in both the region and shadow of death at the
same time. In Luke 4:36, e˙n e˙xousi÷aˆ kai«
duna¿mei e˙pita¿ssei toi√ß aÓkaqa¿rtoiß pneu/masi, Christ commanded the unclean spirits with
both authority and power at the same moment. The syntax of Matthew 3:11 is thus in favor of the view that
the baptism of the Spirit and of fire takes place at the same time—the day of
Pentecost in Acts 2. To make the
baptism of the Spirit a Pentecostal phenomenon and the baptism of fire a much
later act of casting the lost into the lake of fire does not suit the syntax
nearly as well. There is no way
that one can make Christ’s baptism with the Spirit happen at the same time as
the judgment of the lost in hell.
Compare the syntax of Matthew 3:11 to Matthew 4:16; Luke 4:36; 7:25; John 4:24; Acts 2:46; Ephesians 1:8;
4:24; 6:4, 18; Colossians 1:9; 2:18, 23; 1 Thessalonians 4:4; 2 Thessalonians
2:13, 17; 3:8; 1 Timothy 2:2, 7; 2 Timothy 1:13; 4:2; 2 Peter 3:11; Revelation
18:16.
The natural association in Matthew 3:11 explains the
presence of the view that the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire refers to
the single event of Pentecost in the patristic period. “Moreover, Christ is said to baptize with
fire: because in the form of flaming tongues He poured forth on His holy
disciples the grace of the Spirit: as the Lord Himself says, John truly
baptized with water: but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with
fire, not many days hence” (John of
Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV:9).
Lampe mentions texts where Origin, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus
Confessor, and Didymus of Alexandria interpret as identical the baptism of the
Spirit and fire (ba¿ptisma, IX, Patristic
Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W.
Lampe). Of course, this is not the only view found in the
significant doctrinal and practical diversity of extant patristic writers. Basil, On the Spirit, 15:36, refers the baptism of fire to the
eschatological judgment of believers, alluding to 1 Corinthians 3:13, a view
also expressed as a possibility by John of Damascus following the quotation
from IV:9 of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith above.
Unfortunately, this patristic view of fire baptism as eschatological
instead of Pentecostal may be a reference to the developing doctrine of
purgatory; compare Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 39:19.
Taking a different view, Eusebius, following Origen, refers to martyrdom
as baptism by fire (Church History,
6:4:3; cf. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), Volume
2, Ante-Nicene Christianity,
2:27). While a comprehensive
analysis of all extant patristic literature was not undertaken, neither the
works represented in the Church Fathers: Translations of The Writings of the
Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed.
Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson, nor in A Select Library of the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, series I & II, (elec. acc. Accordance
Bible Software; orig. elec. text in
the Christian Classics Ethereal Library) give any evidence for the view that fire baptism was reserved for
those who did not receive Spirit baptism, and thus that the baptism of fire was
specifically the damnation of the lost, nor does Lampe indicate the existence
of such a view in the patristic period (cf. ba¿ptisma, IX, Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. Lampe).
As the view that the baptism of fire and of the Holy
Ghost took place at Pentecost is extant in the patristic period, so in the
medieval period Anabaptists affirmed that just as water baptism “can pertain to
none but the intelligent and believing,” so “the baptism of fire and the Holy
Ghost . . . was administered to the apostles by God Himself from heaven, [and]
this did not at all relate to infants, seeing that all who were thus baptized,
spake with tongues and magnified God. Acts 2:3, 4” (pg. 234, The Martyr’s
Mirror, Thieleman J. Van Braght. 2nd
Eng. ed. Scottdale, PA: Herald
Press, 1999).
[3]
Of
course, this must not be taken to imply that John the Baptist did not truly say
the actual words in the different gospels, but rather that the NT writers,
under inspiration, did not record the “and fire” phrase.
[4]
As
explicated in later posts on Spirit baptism in Acts.
Consider
also the related comments of John Owen, commenting on the descent of the Spirit
on Christ in the form of a dove, and on His coming upon the church at
Pentecost:
The shape [of the Spirit] that appeared was that of a
dove, but the substance itself, I judge, was of a fiery nature, an ethereal
substance, shaped into the form or resemblance of a dove. It had the shape of a
dove, but not the appearance of feathers, colors, or the like. This also
rendered the appearance the more visible, conspicuous, heavenly, and glorious.
And the Holy Ghost is often compared to fire, because he was of old typified or
represented thereby; for on the first solemn offering of sacrifices there came
fire from the Lord for the kindling of them. Hence Theodotion of old rendered hOÎwh◊y, Genesis 4:4, “The LORD had respect unto Abel, and to
his offering,” by ‘Enepu/risen
oJ qeo/ß, “God fired the offering of
Abel;” sent down fire that kindled his sacrifice as a token of his acceptance.
However, it is certain that at the first erection of
the altar in the wilderness, upon the first sacrifices, “fire came out from
before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fat;
which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces,”
Leviticus 9:24. And the fire kindled hereby was to be perpetuated on the altar,
so that none was ever to be used in sacrifice but what was traduced from it.
For a neglect of this intimation of the mind of God were Nadab and Abihu
consumed, Leviticus 10:1, 2. So was it also upon the dedication of the altar in
the temple of Solomon: “Fire came down from heaven and consumed the
burnt-offering and the sacrifices,” 2 Chronicles 7:1; and a fire thence kindled
was always kept burning on the altar. And in like manner God bare testimony to the
ministry of Elijah, 1 Kings 18:38, 39. God by all these signified that no
sacrifices were accepted with him where faith was not kindled in the heart of
the offerer by the Holy Ghost, represented by the fire that kindled the
sacrifices on the altar. And in answer hereunto is our Lord Jesus Christ said
to offer himself “through the eternal Spirit,” Hebrews 9:14. It was,
therefore, most probably a fiery appearance [of the dove] that was made. And in
the next bodily shape which he assumed it is expressly said that it was fiery:
Acts 2:3, “There appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire;” which was
the visible token of the coming of the Holy Ghost upon them. And he chose,
then, that figure of tongues to denote the assistance which, by the miraculous
gift of speaking with divers tongues, together with wisdom and utterance, he
furnished them withal for the publication of the gospel. And thus, also, the
Lord Christ is said to “baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Matthew
3:11. Not two things are intended, but the latter words, “and with fire,” are
added e˙xhghtikwvß, and the expression is e˚n dia\ duoivn,
— with the Holy Ghost, who is a spiritual, divine, eternal fire. So God
absolutely is said to be a “consuming fire,” Hebrews 12:29, Deuteronomy 4:24.
And as in these words, “He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire,”
there is a prospect unto what came to pass afterward, when the apostles
received the Holy Ghost with a visible pledge of fiery tongues, so there seems
to be a retrospect, by way of allusion unto what is recorded, Isaiah 6:6, 7; for
a living or “fiery coal from the altar,” where the fire represented the Holy
Ghost, or his work and grace, having touched the lips of his prophet, his sin
was taken away, both as to the guilt and filth of it. And this is the work of
the Holy Ghost, who not only sanctifieth us, but, by ingenerating faith in us,
and the application of the promise unto us, is the cause and means of our
justification also, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:4-7, whereby our sins on both
accounts are taken away. So also his efficacy in other places is compared unto
fire and burning: Isaiah 4:4, 5, “When the Lord shall have washed away the
filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem
from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.”
He is compared both to fire and water, with respect unto the same cleansing
virtue in both. So also Malachi 3:2. Hence, as this is expressed by “the Holy
Ghost and fire” in two evangelists, Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16; so in the other
two there is mention only of the “Holy Ghost,” Mark 1:8, John 1:33, the same
thing being intended (pgs. 98-100,
Pneumatologia: A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, elec. acc. Christian Library Series vol. 9, John Owen
Collection. Rio, WI: AGES Digital
Software, 2005).
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Explaining the Role of the Holy Spirit in the Perfect Preservation Doctrine or Sacred Text Position So that Anyone Really, Really Will Understand It
The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 reads:
The same document reads:
Some are talking or writing like they don't get this position. I want to be nice here and believe that, so I'm going to believe it. What the believers, post printing press and pre-enlightenment, have written is then also expanded upon, explained, and reiterated in document after document for hundreds of years. This is not something that is being made up as it goes along. Richard Muller evinces this in his outstanding and comprehensive Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, volume 3. And he is just reporting. It doesn't matter what his personal opinion is on this---he's a historian. He's telling us that this is Christian thinking for hundreds of years. There was no other way of thinking. Something today different than that thinking is the new way of thinking.
Within the above historic position, what is the role of the Holy Spirit? I want this to be clear. I want people really to be able to get this. Certain statements I have read recently reveal people are not getting it. It could be because we haven't been clear enough. Let's have that be the truth about it. And so here we go.
The Holy Spirit and the Doctrine
There is "one Spirit" (Ephesians 2:18; 4:4). That one Spirit, the Holy Spirit, Third Member of the Trinity, of the Godhead, knows what every Word of Scripture is (1 Corinthians 2:9-16; 2 Peter 1:19-21). He has known it, does know it, and will always know it, because He is God, is Omniscient, and is the Author of Scripture.
We also have the understanding that the Holy Spirit knows every and all true doctrine. He knows what Scripture teaches. He knows what God meant when He inspired it, because He is God. So we would expect that people who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, believers or Christians, could also know what it teaches, since the Holy Spirit is their teacher (1 Corinthians 2:13; 1 John 2:27). I say "could," because believers will disagree on what Scripture teaches. However, if there is only one teaching among believers on a particular doctrine, we should take that doctrine into strong consideration that it is the truth. We should consider that the one particular doctrine believed by all Christians is the true doctrine. We should not consider to be true a doctrine that which no Christian believes. The only other possibility is that these professing believers are in fact apostates masquerading as believers. This unanimity of Christians on a position is a statement from the Holy Spirit. A position that would divide from that position must be heresy based on the most conservative understanding of that word.
If all Christians represent the only written position on a doctrine from the time of Christ for even 1700 years, at least our bias should be toward that position. If there were to be a new position to overturn it, the way one would expect Christians to see that accomplished would be through some dedicated, serious exegesis of Scripture. Genuine Christians would see that the particular doctrine was not in fact taught in the Bible and would show work done in the way of examining the passages that have taught that doctrine. If every Christian believed that doctrine, these Christians with the new exegesis would be showing that all of those Christians had apostatized on that doctrine or position. The Bible does not have two meanings. The former meaning would be exposed as a fraud and the new meaning would be revealed as the original position of the apostles. Christians would celebrate this return from apostasy and to God be the glory!
What we would be asking from those who reject this old doctrine is to show the above. Show the way the old, wrong position was changed, and how that serious exegesis triumphed. That's how we would deal with any doctrine in a faithful, God-honoring way. If they cannot do this, then please believe the position established by common faith among those indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Of course, for this total apostasy of a doctrine to be true, we would also need to believe that there is the possibility of a total apostasy of a doctrine. Does Scripture teach that a particular doctrine could disappear for several centuries and then be picked up later by genuine saints? That would also need to be established from the Bible. I haven't read this total apostasy of a particular doctrine position, and I believe it can also be refuted from Scripture.
I have heard two arguments against the above, and I am doing my best here. First, the literature says that this historic position didn't originate until the 16th century. This is the position of Daniel Wallace. It is a kind of bow shot of which I'm not sure the meaning. There are some that also call the position of justification by faith a doctrine originated in the 16th century. We can struggle finding much written at all before the printing press. We should pay attention to what we find after that invention. Second, "I don't understand exactly what they were saying---they did know there were textual variants, didn't they?" Attempting to be kind, I can't really call that an argument, but it is still commonly relied upon in this debate.
The Holy Spirit and the Canonicity of Words or Books
As you read the writings by Christians post printing press and pre-enlightenment, you can understand how they had such certainty that they possessed every Word preserved equal to what was originally inspired. I've recently read the following statement and ones like it regarding this position.
The old doctrine is not being overturned by this kind of statement, just muddled or clouded. No one has said that the recognition of the very Words of Scripture have come through something akin to a Charismatic-like voice from the Holy Spirit. There is also no claim that it was some "special group of believers" with this "special knack." I think someone could agree that this is a very demeaning way of representing this. It wasn't a special group, post printing press and pre-enlightenment, but all believers. The arguments for the Christian recognition of Words are parallel with the arguments for the Christian recognition of Books. Why do we know there are 66 Books? No verse says there will be 66. On the canonicity issue, you read statements like the following:
The Gallican Confession (1559) reads:
How these statements read about the recognition of genuine believers on the Books of Scripture is the same way that statements read about the very Words of Scripture. They make these points in application of at least John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth."
Some are asking for someone to describe how this takes place. And if it can't be explained, that is, the exact way it took place, the implication is that this viewpoint, which happens to be only view that Christians took, can then be rejected. I describe it as divinely enabled recognition. And the Books and the Words that were recognized were the ones agreed upon. One could say, "the one received," which is Scriptural language.
The Books that believers received are the ones they copied. They settled on what those canonical Books were. They also settled on what the canonical Words were. They expected the doctrine they believed to come to pass in the Bible that they possessed. They were not swayed by the existence of textual variants. They were led by their theological presuppositions. This was acting by faith, which pleases God.
Believers taught only the one doctrine of perfect preservation. Believers settled. They expected to settle. That fit with, was compatible with, mirrored the doctrine they believed. This was the Holy Spirit testifying. They assumed the Holy Spirit was guiding them. There is science to this, the queen of sciences, theology. The Holy Spirit witnessed through believers. It was not a believer witnessing, but the indwelling Holy Spirit actually the One witnessing. The agreement was the Holy Spirit making His position known. That's how they thought. That's what they believed happened. It fits with Scripture.
The above is a far cry from the idea that we'll never know, we will never have it settled, but we will keep trying through a combination of archaeological digs, cataloguing, and assessing through scientific theories to reach only a degree of probability. The above believers' theology buttressed everything about their position and their conclusion on this. The modern theory says that it must not. Both positions cannot be correct.
I know that some have argued, what about a new witness of the Holy Spirit to modern believers in which the Holy Spirit is telling them that eclecticism is what is true? I read these recently:
That is not an already established position, so it would be brand new. It was also contradict the old view. It would say that all those people were wrong (see the overturning of old, established doctrine above). It would also say that the Bible has changed, and the Holy Spirit has authored these changes. The people involved in the changes say that they don't want theological presuppositions to have anything to do with what they are doing, so this position would also say that God is using these men something like He used the Babylonians to chastise Israel. They are unknowing tools in God's hand. They are saying this doesn't have anything to do with the Holy Spirit. Again, this is a new bibliological position. I'm attempting to keep my mind open to it, waiting to be shown the rich history and the thorough exegesis behind it. Nothing has been shown as yet, or the biblical reasons why it should undo the longtime position of God's people. Often times when someone says that God is saying something new like this, we reject it out of hand because God isn't going to bring in something new at this point. Orthodox believers have tended toward rejecting those types of positions.
Conclusion
I've really wanted to explain just this above point. I'm not going to get into the application, because I think we first have to be able to agree that we get the above. If we can't get this, then we aren't going to understand the application of it and how it fleshed itself out in history. I like looking at the history too, but do we at least get the doctrine? Their doctrine of perfect preservation or of a sacred text was Christian doctrine. We should see that as the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was an internal witness within all genuine believers, so that they would recognize what His Words were. They believed that they did.
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
The same document reads:
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.
Some are talking or writing like they don't get this position. I want to be nice here and believe that, so I'm going to believe it. What the believers, post printing press and pre-enlightenment, have written is then also expanded upon, explained, and reiterated in document after document for hundreds of years. This is not something that is being made up as it goes along. Richard Muller evinces this in his outstanding and comprehensive Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, volume 3. And he is just reporting. It doesn't matter what his personal opinion is on this---he's a historian. He's telling us that this is Christian thinking for hundreds of years. There was no other way of thinking. Something today different than that thinking is the new way of thinking.
Within the above historic position, what is the role of the Holy Spirit? I want this to be clear. I want people really to be able to get this. Certain statements I have read recently reveal people are not getting it. It could be because we haven't been clear enough. Let's have that be the truth about it. And so here we go.
The Holy Spirit and the Doctrine
There is "one Spirit" (Ephesians 2:18; 4:4). That one Spirit, the Holy Spirit, Third Member of the Trinity, of the Godhead, knows what every Word of Scripture is (1 Corinthians 2:9-16; 2 Peter 1:19-21). He has known it, does know it, and will always know it, because He is God, is Omniscient, and is the Author of Scripture.
We also have the understanding that the Holy Spirit knows every and all true doctrine. He knows what Scripture teaches. He knows what God meant when He inspired it, because He is God. So we would expect that people who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, believers or Christians, could also know what it teaches, since the Holy Spirit is their teacher (1 Corinthians 2:13; 1 John 2:27). I say "could," because believers will disagree on what Scripture teaches. However, if there is only one teaching among believers on a particular doctrine, we should take that doctrine into strong consideration that it is the truth. We should consider that the one particular doctrine believed by all Christians is the true doctrine. We should not consider to be true a doctrine that which no Christian believes. The only other possibility is that these professing believers are in fact apostates masquerading as believers. This unanimity of Christians on a position is a statement from the Holy Spirit. A position that would divide from that position must be heresy based on the most conservative understanding of that word.
If all Christians represent the only written position on a doctrine from the time of Christ for even 1700 years, at least our bias should be toward that position. If there were to be a new position to overturn it, the way one would expect Christians to see that accomplished would be through some dedicated, serious exegesis of Scripture. Genuine Christians would see that the particular doctrine was not in fact taught in the Bible and would show work done in the way of examining the passages that have taught that doctrine. If every Christian believed that doctrine, these Christians with the new exegesis would be showing that all of those Christians had apostatized on that doctrine or position. The Bible does not have two meanings. The former meaning would be exposed as a fraud and the new meaning would be revealed as the original position of the apostles. Christians would celebrate this return from apostasy and to God be the glory!
What we would be asking from those who reject this old doctrine is to show the above. Show the way the old, wrong position was changed, and how that serious exegesis triumphed. That's how we would deal with any doctrine in a faithful, God-honoring way. If they cannot do this, then please believe the position established by common faith among those indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Of course, for this total apostasy of a doctrine to be true, we would also need to believe that there is the possibility of a total apostasy of a doctrine. Does Scripture teach that a particular doctrine could disappear for several centuries and then be picked up later by genuine saints? That would also need to be established from the Bible. I haven't read this total apostasy of a particular doctrine position, and I believe it can also be refuted from Scripture.
I have heard two arguments against the above, and I am doing my best here. First, the literature says that this historic position didn't originate until the 16th century. This is the position of Daniel Wallace. It is a kind of bow shot of which I'm not sure the meaning. There are some that also call the position of justification by faith a doctrine originated in the 16th century. We can struggle finding much written at all before the printing press. We should pay attention to what we find after that invention. Second, "I don't understand exactly what they were saying---they did know there were textual variants, didn't they?" Attempting to be kind, I can't really call that an argument, but it is still commonly relied upon in this debate.
The Holy Spirit and the Canonicity of Words or Books
As you read the writings by Christians post printing press and pre-enlightenment, you can understand how they had such certainty that they possessed every Word preserved equal to what was originally inspired. I've recently read the following statement and ones like it regarding this position.
Supposedly the argument for TR/MT was that there is a special group of believers with a special knack for hearing from the Holy Spirit in the process of textual reconstruction.
The old doctrine is not being overturned by this kind of statement, just muddled or clouded. No one has said that the recognition of the very Words of Scripture have come through something akin to a Charismatic-like voice from the Holy Spirit. There is also no claim that it was some "special group of believers" with this "special knack." I think someone could agree that this is a very demeaning way of representing this. It wasn't a special group, post printing press and pre-enlightenment, but all believers. The arguments for the Christian recognition of Words are parallel with the arguments for the Christian recognition of Books. Why do we know there are 66 Books? No verse says there will be 66. On the canonicity issue, you read statements like the following:
[T]he books had the ring of self-vindicating authority.
People of every generation have inherently asked about each book of the Bible: Does it have the "ring of genuineness"? The testimony of the Spirit was important. In the Old Testament canon there were questions about Esther for a period of time because it does not contain the name of God. Many questioned Revelation in those early years because it did not have this "ring of genuineness."
Ultimately, as with the Old Testament, the books that became the New Testament impressed their readers as being different, special, and having the "ring of truth" about them. The Reformers sensed here a threat to the sola Scriptura principle. For them the authority of Scripture was not dependent on the Church. Rather it was self-authenticating and sealed to the hearts of God's people by the witness of the Holy Spirit. (However, this witness was generally appealed to more to affirm the overall authority of the Bible than to validate the specific contents of the canon. For this, appeal was made to God's overriding providence).
The Scripture is of divine origin, character and authority. It bears the marks of its divinity. It clearly evidences that it is of God, but man is unable to perceive this on his own and hence needs the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.
If we desire to provide in the best way for our consciences ... we ought to seek our conviction in a higher place than human reasons, judgments or conjectures, that is, in the secret testimony of the Spirit.
The Word will never gain credit in the hearts of men til it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the Spirit.
The Gallican Confession (1559) reads:
We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books.
How these statements read about the recognition of genuine believers on the Books of Scripture is the same way that statements read about the very Words of Scripture. They make these points in application of at least John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth."
Some are asking for someone to describe how this takes place. And if it can't be explained, that is, the exact way it took place, the implication is that this viewpoint, which happens to be only view that Christians took, can then be rejected. I describe it as divinely enabled recognition. And the Books and the Words that were recognized were the ones agreed upon. One could say, "the one received," which is Scriptural language.
The Books that believers received are the ones they copied. They settled on what those canonical Books were. They also settled on what the canonical Words were. They expected the doctrine they believed to come to pass in the Bible that they possessed. They were not swayed by the existence of textual variants. They were led by their theological presuppositions. This was acting by faith, which pleases God.
Believers taught only the one doctrine of perfect preservation. Believers settled. They expected to settle. That fit with, was compatible with, mirrored the doctrine they believed. This was the Holy Spirit testifying. They assumed the Holy Spirit was guiding them. There is science to this, the queen of sciences, theology. The Holy Spirit witnessed through believers. It was not a believer witnessing, but the indwelling Holy Spirit actually the One witnessing. The agreement was the Holy Spirit making His position known. That's how they thought. That's what they believed happened. It fits with Scripture.
The above is a far cry from the idea that we'll never know, we will never have it settled, but we will keep trying through a combination of archaeological digs, cataloguing, and assessing through scientific theories to reach only a degree of probability. The above believers' theology buttressed everything about their position and their conclusion on this. The modern theory says that it must not. Both positions cannot be correct.
I know that some have argued, what about a new witness of the Holy Spirit to modern believers in which the Holy Spirit is telling them that eclecticism is what is true? I read these recently:
Is the word of God present in the modern Greek texts? If you say No, then tell us why it is virtually identical in all respects to what you say is the Word of God. If you say yes, then why aren't the modern Greek texts are (sic) the result of the leading of the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit . . . guide[s] believers who are engaged in the work of eclectic textual reconstruction as they work through their process of evaluation.
That is not an already established position, so it would be brand new. It was also contradict the old view. It would say that all those people were wrong (see the overturning of old, established doctrine above). It would also say that the Bible has changed, and the Holy Spirit has authored these changes. The people involved in the changes say that they don't want theological presuppositions to have anything to do with what they are doing, so this position would also say that God is using these men something like He used the Babylonians to chastise Israel. They are unknowing tools in God's hand. They are saying this doesn't have anything to do with the Holy Spirit. Again, this is a new bibliological position. I'm attempting to keep my mind open to it, waiting to be shown the rich history and the thorough exegesis behind it. Nothing has been shown as yet, or the biblical reasons why it should undo the longtime position of God's people. Often times when someone says that God is saying something new like this, we reject it out of hand because God isn't going to bring in something new at this point. Orthodox believers have tended toward rejecting those types of positions.
Conclusion
I've really wanted to explain just this above point. I'm not going to get into the application, because I think we first have to be able to agree that we get the above. If we can't get this, then we aren't going to understand the application of it and how it fleshed itself out in history. I like looking at the history too, but do we at least get the doctrine? Their doctrine of perfect preservation or of a sacred text was Christian doctrine. We should see that as the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was an internal witness within all genuine believers, so that they would recognize what His Words were. They believed that they did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)