Poorhouse Dad

Jesus's Name Is God Name

2021-12-05T16:30:00.002-08:00

"If Jesus was not the Archangel Michael in heaven, what was his name there?"

The question starts with an assumption that Jesus had a name in heaven. This is called “begging the question,” meaning that the assumption has not been shown to be true. (The term is almost always misused by people who mean “demands the question.”) Before asking what Jesus’s name was, one should first ask whether Jesus had or even needed a name.

This may sound like I start out on a tangent, but if you read patiently, you’ll see that it stays directly on topic.

Our names serve to distinguish us from one another. When a Being is unique in type, He does not need a name to distinguish Him from other, similar beings. So, since there is exactly one God, God does not need a name. 

Also consider that having been named implies that a previous being must have created you and, thus, had the right to give you a name. Since no previous god created God, no being had the authority to name Him. So in heaven (more properly, in eternity), God was not given a name.

Instead of a formal name, God has assumed many titular names that tell us about Him. Examples include El (God), Adonai (Lord), YHWH* (I AM or I AM THAT I AM), and most interestingly, Elohim (Gods). Elohim is interesting because, although it is plural, it takes a singular verb. It hints about God’s nature in the very first chapter of the Bible.

(The pronunciation of YHWH was forgotten around 200 BC; Jehovah is an anglicized version of a Spanish version of the Latin version of the Greek version of the vowels from Adonai added to the consonants YHWH.)

Angels are created beings. Jesus / Christ / Messiah is the Creator.

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3, NASB 1995

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:16, NASB 1995

John clearly states that Christ created the universe. Colossians repeats that and specifically includes all personal beings, which includes angels. If Christ created the angels, then Christ cannot be a mere angel.

There’s a word for the Creator of all things: God.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6 ESV

But of the Son [Jesus] He [God] says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. Hebrews 1:8 ESV

Many models of the nature of God exist. Only one such model resolves all the Bible’s claims. Physics and cosmology tell us that when God created the universe, He created even time and space. They’re facets of the universe. 

The triune version of the Trinity fits with science. God, being timeless, used His creative power to exist in, experience, and interact with His creation, and with each other, as three temporal Persons. Each Person, or center of consciousness, is fully God, having the same essence in eternity, yet having a separate consciousness in time. 

The three Persons voluntarily took on distinct roles: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (People often make a category error, confusing difference due to a hierarchy with difference in nature, but the inference does not hold up logically. Role does not necessitate a difference in nature because three co-equals can assume a hierarchy in order to create order among the roles that they assume, as well as to exemplify messages about love, authority, and obedience to their creatures.)

In the Father-role, God remains unseen in heaven. 

Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. John 6:4, NASB 1995

In the Son-role, God represents and explains the Father to us. 

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten* God who is in the bosom** of the Father, He has explained Him. John 1:18, NASB 1995

(* Translators are divided about whether monogenes, “only-begotten,” means literally only-begotten (a male counterpart to only-born) or is an idiom that meant unique, one-and-only as a result of having taken on a human body. Both descriptors lead to the same conclusion.

** “In the bosom” was a word-picture of one person resting his head on another’s chest, indicating platonic or familial trust and intimacy.)

In the Son-role, God added a human nature to HIs divine essence, and we call that earthly representation, Jesus of Nazareth. Yet the Son represents the Father because he has the same nature in every dimension.

Who [Jesus], being the radiance of His [the Father’s] glory and the exact expression of His substance, and upholding all things [Creation] by the power of His word…. Hebrews 1:3, Berean Literal Bible

So Jesus is the Creator who spoke the universe into existence and upholds it; and whose essence is exactly the same as the Father’s essence. In fact, since there exists exactly one God, they have the same essence. The theological word for this is “consubstantiality.” Thus, although there has been, is, and ever will be exactly one God, God chose to enter His creation three simultaneous times as three consciousnesses or personal Spirits.

(I have not addressed the Holy Spirit in this because the question is specifically about the Son. I don’t think He minds.)

Other models of the Trinity, such as 

three Gods (a common false accusation from Muslims)
an angelic Jesus (Jehovah Witnesses)
a child-god (“Mormons” or Latter Day Saints)
a costume-changing God (Modalists or Oneness Pentecostals)
a human Jesus (Unitarians and “Progressive Christians”)
God plus little or developing gods (Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Word-Faith Pentecostals)

create numerous contradictions in the Bible. Only the triune model (one timeless God as three temporal Persons) reconciles all the biblical evidence.

Additional reason: If it is logical to ask the heavenly formal name of God the Son, then it is also logical to ask the heavenly formal name of God the Father and of God the Holy Spirit. If asking the heavenly formal name of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit is not logical, then neither is it logical to expect God the Son to have a heavenly formal name. 

Although God has, for our sake, distinguished Himself from imaginary gods by taking on various descriptive, titular names, He has no need for a formal name in heaven.

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please give credit where credit is due.

Atheism's Dishonest Redefinition of Faith

2021-09-26T12:45:00.001-07:00

Atheism's Dishonest Redefinition of Faith

Atheist popularizers dishonestly conflated faith with blind faith to support their dishonest argument that materialism has evidence while no religion has evidence.

It's human nature to get frustrated, even angry, when people use dishonest arguments to argue against your position. Atheists always irritate me by using a dishonest definition of faith to score rhetorical, but illogical, points. Most do so in ignorance, so I have to practice some self-control when responding. If I point out the dishonesty of the rhetoric, I have to emphasize that I'm accusing the originators of the trick of dishonesty, not them.

Faith is not necessarily decided in the absence of evidence. That definition was popularized over the couple of decades by promoters of Atheism such as Dawkins and Boghosian. Those pop-science writers equivocated by conflating faith with blind faith.

Faith, honestly defined, is active trust in the absence of absolute proof. I use the redundancy in “absolute proof” for emphasis. Blind faith is a subset; classifying all faith as meeting the definition of blind faith and then relegating faith to religion, to the exclusion of other matters, especially science, was deceptive rhetoric on the part of the popularizers.

Belief overlaps faith because it is a decision about a claim. The difference is that faith is active. Faith influences decisions, whereas belief can be active or passive. That is, one can accept a claim “in theory” without letting it influence decisions.

(Grammatically, believe is a transitive verb: one believes a claim. Sometimes, the believed claim is implied. In contrast, faith is a noun that labels an active belief.)

Can anthropogenic climate change be proven? No. Can the claim be believed? Yes. Can one put faith in it? Yes. Is there sufficient evidence (e.g., long-term history or evidence that politically- or career-motivated managers in the science industry fudge the numbers) to create reasonable doubt? Also yes.

Since issues such as climate change depend on evidence in the absence of proof, believe and faith are perfectly applicable terms in the realm of science. Technically, they lie outside the rules of the process of science, but they certainly apply to scientists, the public, and the policies and cancel culture that rely on scientific issues and evidence. One can honestly conclude, based on observation, that fearmongering over climate-change crosses into religious (or at least ideological) zeal.

To say that faith applies to religion and not to science is to mislead — and on the part of Atheists who popularized the bad definition, to use such rhetoric is to deceive.

Repentance, Calvinism and Works

2021-08-27T18:36:00.001-07:00

I love Wretched Radio. I never miss an episode. Today, Todd took a stand that requires a response. It is a fundamental issue.

Repentance, Misdefined, Is Works

Todd Friel, Ray Comfort, and John MacArthur conflate repentance and reform. In today's podcast, Todd defended including repentance in the gospel. That is fine until they explain repentance as turning away from or ceasing from sins. Todd's reasoned today that repenting is "not works" because not doing something cannot be works. This is a flawed definition and an illogical excuse.

Before continuing, I want to point out that, in the Witness Wednesday episodes, Todd asserts his definition of repentance only a minority of the time, and when he does, he does not camp on it.

Repentance versus Reform

John the Baptist clearly distinguished between repentance and the fruits of repentance. He challenged people who claimed to have a change of mind and heart toward sin, yet failed to demonstrate that change in their actions. Our word for fruits of repentance is 'reform'.

The tight causal relationship between repentance and reform makes it easy to conflate them. However, 'metanoia', the change of mind and heart called repentance, is a cause. Reform is an effect and evidence of repentance's sincerity.

Moreover, the natural man cannot reform without God's enabling work of regeneration. So, while repentance is involved in the process of salvation, and genuine repentance motivates reform, reform cannot be part of that process.

Restraint, an Element of Works

To justify turning from sin as a requirement of the gospel, Todd quoted Ray's explanation that not doing something cannot be a work. Thus, they admit that they define repentance as including reform.

Just as there are sins of commission and sins of omission, there are works of commission and works of restraint. "Not doing something," therefore, is indeed "works."

Ray and Todd frequently make use of the Ten Commandments. Five, and arguably six, of the ten are Thou-shalt-not's. What is obedience to those commandments if not works of restraint? If obeying the Ten Commandments is "works," then refraining from sins as part of "repentance" is an offering of righteousness to God in exchange for salvation.

Arminians say you must refrain from certain sins to maintain salvation. Calvinists say you must refrain from sins to enter salvation. It's like the extremes of both have wrapped around the back and met each other.

Calvinist Repentance

From a Calvinist's perspective, the natural man's spirit is dead, inanimate, nonfunctional, dead-dead. God must regenerate him, that is, must animate his spirit before he can have faith. Therefore, if God has already saved a man, then all of what God commands of Christians becomes presentable in the gospel. Under Calvinism, faith plus works is a result of salvation, not a cause, so commanding good works or restraint from sin is orthodox... under Calvinism.

But if commanding works is applicable to the convert, who has already been saved so that he can believe, then why would Todd defend preaching repentance-reform? Why must he deny that his definition of repentance is works? His agreement that it would be heretical to preach works refutes his belief in Calvinism.

A Moderate Calvinist View

A Moderate Calvinist sees problems with the Calvinist definition of spiritual death. How can a dead spirit be accountable for things it was not even conscious of, aware of, and in power over? How can a dead spirit suffer in Hades? How can a dead spirit go to Hades without regeneration that is reserved for Christians?

A Moderate Calvinist also sees a contradiction between the Calvinist order of salvation processes and the explicit New Testament teaching that God uses faith as the means through which He works the grace of salvation.

A Moderate Calvinist would define spiritual death as analogous to physical death, which is separation of the spirit from the body. Spiritual death is separation from God with an accompanying cognitive disability with respect to spiritual things, resulting from bondage to sin. The "dead" spirit, then, has awareness and influence over decisions and can be held accountable for sins. The order of salvation would be a bracing or healing of the cognitive disability and a conviction of sin, followed by receiving the gift of faith, followed by salvation by grace through faith.

In other words, since spiritually dead means separation from God and not dead-dead, God does not need to regenerate the spirit before granting the gift of faith. Commanding the unsaved to perform works, then, mixes grace with wages and faith with works, leaving the "convert" unconverted.

Only God (Christ) versus Only God (Father)

2021-08-23T15:17:00.000-07:00

Answering a question on Quora:

Why does the ESV contradict itself in John 1:18 versus John 17:3 (John, contradiction, Christology, Trinity, ESV, hermeneutics)?

The question is a non sequitur. It presumes, without evidence or specificity, that there is a contradiction. There is, in fact, no contradiction.

The first verse is a declarative sentence in the author’s voice:

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. John 1:18 (ESV)

The second verse quotes a prayer by Jesus:

And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 (ESV)

(The links take you to a page that lists over two dozen translations of the verses. Versions based on the five-century old Received Text, or Byzantine family of ancient manuscripts, have variations of “only-begotten Son” or “one-and-only Son.” The other versions, which include the ESV, are based on the oldest manuscripts, or Critical Text, which have variations on “only-begotten God” or “one-and-only God.”)

Most of the concepts in the two verses do not overlap. The parts that seem to conflict upon a superficial reading are the description of Jesus as the only God in 1:18 and the description of the Father as the only true God in 17:3.

To answer the question, one must understand the translation in 1:18 and how early Christians solved the paradox of three Persons or Personalities being identified as God, yet there eternally being a grand total of exactly one God.

The Quoran educated at the Theocratic Ministry School (i.e., the Watchtower, more commonly know as the Jehovah’s Witnesses) claims falsely that “The ESV dropped (Only Begotten). If you look the verse up in the Interlinear you will see that they dropped those (key) words.” This claim reflects a shocking lack of understanding of Koine Greek, or even of observing what the interlinear text shows.

The meanings of English words change over time; the same is true for Greek. According to qualified Koine Greek scholars, there’s uncertainty over whether monogenes, “onlybegotten,” had come to mean “unique” or “one and only” during the first century. Majority opinion had leaned toward “one and only” for a while, but opinion is swinging back toward “only-begotten.” In my opinion, “only-begotten” makes more sense in the context, but we should accept and live with the uncertainty.

“Only God” in the ESV, then, is an acceptable translation of monogenēs Theos (although it might suffer from under-emphasis of Christ’s uniqueness). The Watchtower-educated Quoran’s claim that the ESV dropped monogenēs is false.

Readers who resist the misdirection of attention toward monogenēs will notice that the verse calls Jesus, Theos, “God.” So, again, the Watchtower-educated Quoran’s claim that “Clearly because Jesus is not God” contradicts the text.

It’s tempting to go on a tangent showing how a triune God is the only solution to many scriptural claims that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, yet there is exactly one God. It is sufficient in this context to state that, if the Creator of space-time could use His creative power to exist in space-time as God the Father and God the Son, then “clearly” it is presumptuous to say “Clearly because Jesus is not God.”

So, while there is exactly one Creator, God, recognizing that God could exist within space-time as multiple centers of consciousness or “Persons” allows us to reconcile John 1:18 and 17:3.

“Only God” in 1:18 abbreviates a larger concept born out by reading the entirety of the book, or even the first three verses of the same chapter. The abbreviation has obviously caused confusion because, for a shallow reading, Christ cannot be the “only God” and the Father being the “only true God.” That’s why immediate, book, and New Testament levels of context and digging deeper into the language underlying the translation matter.

One more detail from the larger context is needed. The Author of the New Testament anticipated Modalism and ruled it out. Modalism asserts that the one God is one Person who changes modes (roles and costumes) to give the appearance of being three Persons. For that reason, it uses three titles of God: God (the Father), Lord (Christ the Son), and Spirit (the Holy Spirit).

Thus, depending on context, “only true God” can refer either to the eternal, One-as-Three God or to the temporal Person called the Father. And monogenes Theos (only God, one-and-only God, or only-begotten God) refers specifically to the Person who added a human nature to His spirit nature.

When you understand how the writer meant the language, there is no contradiction, even if the ESV is less verbose than it needs to be to prevent confusion by people who take snippets of scripture out of context.

Tongues of Angels? Probably Not

2021-08-14T11:58:00.000-07:00

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Part 2

Futility of Spiritual Gifts Without Love

Tongues of Angels? Not Likely.

If I speak in the languages of men and of angels,

but have not love, I am only banging brass or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,

and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains,
but have not love, I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor

and surrender my body that I may boast,but have not love, I gain nothing.

Pentecostal Claim: Languages of Angels

Pentecostals and their child movements, Charismatism, Word of Faith, and New Apostolic Reformation claim that the Holy Spirit still grants the spiritual gift of speaking in the languages of men and angels. They see glossolalia at several points in the book of Acts and extrapolate it to today without regard to other events in church history. Then they add their experience and interpret the rest of scripture in accordance with their experience.

Former Pentecostal pastor George Gardner told of how, when he was a ministry student, a Hebrew friend stood in chapel and recited Mary Had a Little Lamb in Yiddish. Another student with the gift of interpretation went into a long translation of the Holy Spirit’s message: The students were spending too much time in volleyball and other recreational activities and not enough time in their studies and ministries. That gave Gardner his first hint that Tongues, or at least Interpretations, was not always genuine.

My wife’s uncle, by birth a Ukrainian Jew and a survivor of the Nazi concentration camps, had a similar story about visiting a Pentecostal church and reciting the 23rd Psalm in Ukrainian. The “interpretation” had nothing to do with the Psalm.

I’ve heard stories, so nth-hand as to be rumors, about people who were understood by immigrants. Sounds like Navajo or Sounds like German. But is "sounds like" authoritative? The one story I’ve heard that sounded credible came from a Pentecostal co-worker. This man was a certified super genius. He understood the low priority that 1 Corinthians 14 assigns to the gift of tongues, so he attended a cessationist Baptist church for teaching that was better than in any of the local Pentecostal churches.

While visiting another church, he was invited to give a message, which he gave in English. Afterwards, two ladies came to him. One explained that she heard his message in English, but the other, who had recently immigrated, spoke no English, and had heard the entire message in her native language. Due to being isolated by language, hearing the message in her own language had been a blessing that brought her to tears. Although my coworker spoke in tongues, the “tongues” in this case, was not in the mouth of the speaker, but in the ears of a listener. And it was not a spiritual gift, but a one-off miracle.

Since Pentecostals have not shown that they speak in human foreign languages, by process of elimination, they conclude, they speak in a heavenly, angelic language. But scriptural evidence for such a claim is extremely weak.

Scripture Does Not Support Tongues of Angels

The chapter reads as very poetic, so one should expect metaphor and hyperbole. Verses 1 through 3 all pose hypothetical situations. Verse 3 describes extreme actions, and verse 2 describes attributes never held by any mere human. Considering this trio of verses as a unit should lead a reasonable person to accepting that the language of verse 1 is hyperbolic, as well. That is, the phrase that suggests glossolalia might include speaking in angelic language may be hypothetical to strengthen the following clause:

but have not love, I am only banging brass or a clanging cymbal.

The warning in Verse 1 weighs against Pentecostals speaking in the languages of angels in two ways. First, speaking in the languages of angels is like banging brass and clanging cymbals because it conveys no information. Angelic communications with humans have, without exception, conveyed messages. Angels do perform tasks such as making war, but even the Greek word translated angel means messenger. Tongues may be exciting, but it imparts no long-term blessing. By its nature, speaking in an unintelligible, supposedly angelic language violates the test of love and the goal of members of the church edifying each other.

Second, speaking in the languages of angels, without love, is no better than the sounds of a brass pot falling to the pavement or cymbals clanging in a Hellenist or Roman temple. The allusion to pagan religious practices links back to verses 2 and 3 of chapter 12. Pagans spoke in nonsensical tongues amid much chanting and rhythmic noise (such as from symbols) that was used to work up the worshipers into an ecstatic state of altered consciousness -- the same formula as the worked-up anticipation, long music services, shallow, repetitive lyrics, and trance-inducing songs in Pentecostal churches.

The Pagans were not alone. To their company, we can add adherents of the heresies of Sacramentalism (Orthodox and Roman Catholic, and many Protestant denominations -- especially Pentecostals), Mariolatry (Roman Catholics), and Modalism (Oneness Pentecostals). In the 1800s, glossolalia was frequently practiced by Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Glossolalia is also practiced by shamans and certain branches of Hinduism.

Around 2010, Justin Brierly, on the British Unbelievable? radio show and podcast, interviewed an Atheist who de-converted from Pentecostalism and still occasionally spoke in tongues just for fun. According to Pentecostals, abandoning his salvation canceled the blessings of being God’s son, forgiveness of sins, and the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit. So either the Holy Spirit failed to remove the gift of tongues along with the gift of salvation, and continued to manifest Himself through the ability, or the gift was a learned psychological phenomenon.

The glossolalia of the pagans calls into question that of Christians. If the practice is a learned, altered state for pagans, it can be a learned, psychological phenomenon for Christians. If it results from demonic control for pagans, it can result from demonic control of false brethren among us. Some argue that it results from demonic control of genuine Christians, too; but I'm not convinced that it is possible for a demon to go beyond making suggestions to one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. Rumors of legitimate glossolalia have, in fact, been countered by missionary accounts of demonic blasphemy through glossolalia. Although, without recordings and authoritative interpretation, neither type of account presents credible evidence, one must admit that the accounts cancel out each other.

A Pentecostal might point to 2 Corinthians 12:4 as evidence of angelic, non-human languages. Paul said he knew a certain man, probably himself, who was caught up to heaven where he heard inexpressible words. The term, inexpressible (arreta) meant not that the words were difficult to pronounce, but rather that they were too holy to be permitted. Indeed, the term is followed by that are not permitted for a man to utter.

The word permitted (exon) means exactly that: permitted or lawful. It is used over 30 times in the New Testament to refer to permission. So the sense is not that the words in the vision were an unpronounceable foreign language, but that they were too holy to be spoken without negative consequences. The verse does not support the existence of angelic languages.

The “name” of God provides us with three examples of forbidden holy words. Some Christians consider even the title G_d too holy to even spell out. This echoes how the pronunciation of YHWH was lost. After the return of Judah from exile, the priests decided that God’s name was too holy to speak. As a result, the pronunciation was forgotten between 400 and 200 BC because written Hebrew had no vowels. Soon after, to make the name pronounceable during readings in synagogues, they added the vowels from Adonai, Lord, to the consonants, YHWH, I AM. Transliterating YaHoWaH from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, and finally to English, gave us Jehovah. At the same time, Bible translators replaced most occurrences of Jehovah with the LORD (in all capital letters). It was assumed that any literate person would understand the meaning.

Consideration of genre, tone, and history undercut the belief that verse 1 promotes the idea that glossolalia comprises an angelic language. 2 Corinthians 12:4 is not even relevant. One avenue remains: Does the study of angels support a literal reading of the phrase, tongues... of angels in 1 Corinthians 13:1?

Angelology Does Not Support Tongues of Angels

Evidence that one or more angelic languages exists in physically expressible form is extremely weak. Logic weighs overwhelmingly against it. Assuming that tongues is a language of angels crosses into presumption. Translating spirit communication into audible form would involve human languages, and such translation would violate known historic precedent.

In native form, Angels, being spirits, lack physical bodies. When they have communicated with humans on earth, they have taken physical form to create soundwaves in air and have used human languages. In visions, human witnesses always heard angelic speech in their own human languages. Since human witnesses receive a gift of spiritual sight that enables the visions, it would make sense that they also receive a gift of interpretation. But that would be speculation, and it does not establish that angels have a unique language that can be expressed as “tongues.”

A related point is that, since spirits lack organs such as tongues, resonant nasal cavities, and vocal cords, and do not live in a physical, sound-conducting atmosphere, their medium of communication would more likely be analogous to what we would consider telepathic. Telepathy would likely communicate thoughts directly without need for verbal protocols. Translating thoughts through a gift of tongues would require adding layers of grammatical, syntactical, and phonemic protocols defined by the natural human language of the speaker.

The result of encoding angelic thoughts with human language protocols would be expression in human language. It would be easiest to use the language of the speaker. However, it would also be possible to use a human language unknown to the speaker, as happened at Pentecost. But would use of a foreign language be likely? The speech in foreign languages at Pentecost had an audience: people who understood those languages. The purpose of speech is to be understood, so if nobody is there to receive the message, use of a foreign language serves no purpose.

If tongues is used for prayer by the Holy Spirit and the audience is God the Father, human language would not be needed. Like angels, God is Spirit. This returns us to the fact that language, and even sound, would be redundant. Since the Father and the Spirit know each other’s minds, glossolalia is again redundant. Indeed, the Holy Spirit prays within each Christian (Romans 8::26-27) with wordless silence and is perfectly understood by God. So glossolalia as an additional form of prayer is redundant in three ways.

If angels have at least one language, God must have a language. Since God and angels communicate, they would probably share a single language. Being perfectly obedient to God, they would have no need to hide communication from God, so only one language is needed. The language would be labeled as belonging to the greater owner, so why would it be called the language of angels and not the language of God or of the Spirit? If angels had a separate language, why would the Holy Spirit translate His thoughts into an angelic language when speaking directly to the Father?

Why, without love, is speaking in the tongues of angels worthless? Love (agape) focuses outward. Loving speech conveys information that benefits the hearer. Unloving speech selfishly focuses on edifying ego at the expense of others’ time. God does not need to reward it; They have already rewarded themselves, who speak in tongues that do not inform, correct, or encourage others.

Futility of Spiritual Gifts Without Love

2021-08-10T01:26:00.000-07:00

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Part 1

Futility of Spiritual Gifts Without Love

If I speak in the languages of men and of angels,

but have not love,
I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy

and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,
and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains,
but have not love,
I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor

and exult in the surrender of my body,
but have not love,
I gain nothing.

(Berean Study Bible)

This passage introduces “the most excellent way” from which the Corinthians had deviated. While it seems self-explanatory, it has a surprising quantity of material to unpack.

Chapter 12’s lists were just a warm-up for Paul’s poetry in chapter 13. Paul begins the chapter with three stanzas comprising a repeated thought in Hebrew poetic form. I strongly recommend reading the linked article about parallelism in Hebrew poetry and prose. Much meaning will pop out the next time you read the Old Testament.

Each stanza is an example of antithetical parallelism: The first line states a positive, whereas the second line counters with a negative. The repetition of the idea means Paul is emphatic about the message. He establishes that the lesson is an absolute truth.

Paul states several things that, on their own, seem good. The opening stanza makes it clear that it is not a tangent; it directly addresses the Corinthian-Pentecostal error. As he often does, Paul states a principle before giving the reason. Since the phrases that follow give context to the opening statement, I’m going to save for last my notes on the opening statement.

Prophesying and discerning the depths of all mysteries and knowledge

This refers to exercising spiritual gifts of prophecy, knowledge, and wisdom. Since discerning all knowledge would make one omniscient, Only God is omniscient. The situation, then, is purely hypothetical. It’s presence in no way implies that “prophesying and discerning the depths of all mysteries and knowledge” is humanly possible.

Having absolute faith so as to move mountains

This refers to persistence in belief and trust, especially, in prayer. Again, having absolute, mountain-moving faith would be an attribute of God. The situation is hypothetical and not humanly possible.

Giving all possessions [to the poor]

This act would be possible. The verb literally means to feed morsels of food, or in modern English idiom, to spoon-feed, and by extension, to personally, carefully distribute. The word translated possessions means those things under one's ownership, so it might have a meaning even broader than physical possessions. The Greek text does not include the phrase “to the poor.” Personally, carefully giving away everything under one’s ownership would be no great work if the recipients had no need of it, so the phrase may reasonably be inferred. The 1769 edition of the KJV italicized it.

Surrendering my body that I may burn / that I may glory

Some Greek tests and English translations read I may burn while others read I may glory. The focus is on bodily self-sacrifice. There is one letter difference between the Greek words meaning I may burn (kauthesomai) and I may boast (kauxesomai). (“Th” is the single Greek letter theta.)

According to the commentaries, Rome did not begin burning Christians for at least another decade after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. However, many commentary writers point out that Paul could have had in mind the three young men thrown into the furnace in Daniel or the tortures described in some apocryphal books. Another possibility could have been a current-events reference described in Vincent’s Word Studies (see previous link). About that time, a man from India had burned himself to death in Athens to achieve immortality through the merit of self-sacrifice. However, since he performed the deed on himself, it doesn’t quite fit with “giving himself over.”

The contrast between the motive for giving oneself over and the motive of love for others, stated at the end of the sentence, weighs in favor of “that I may boast”

Fanatical people have long sought death in order to redeem themselves, and the ego can drive a man to stubbornly accept a death sentence rather than recant and admit to having been wrong. I may boast seems to have the better evidence in ancient manuscripts. It says more about human nature, and specifying what would happen to one’s body (burning) adds little besides drama to the sentence. Either way, the sense of the conditional clause is, “If I give myself over in self-sacrifice for personal benefit....”

Speaking in the languages of men and of angels

The issue of speaking in the languages of men and of angels faces two issues in this passage:

Are the Corinthians practicing the gift correctly? (Part 1)
Since Pentecostals make the claim, do languages of angels exist? (Part 2)

Chapters 12-14, as a whole -- as do both epistles to the Corinthians -- corrects. That a correction is made implies that an error needs correction. Chapter 12 corrects unawareness of God’s sovereignty in consignment of roles and spiritual gifts in the church. Chapter 12 also corrects disunity caused by unlovingly elevating or denigrating different gifts. Chapter 14 corrects disorder and abuse of gifts caused by using gifts in an unloving manner. When Paul inserts an entire chapter about motive in the middle of a discussion, we can have confidence that the Corinthians had the wrong motives.

In four situations mentioned immediately after verse 1 -- two abilities and two actions -- Paul says the lack of a loving motive renders the ability or action worthless. The results, “I am nothing” or “I am a nobody” and “I am profited nothing,” mean that the gifts have neither elevated the possessor nor benefited the actor.

Mere possession of the ultimate insight and faith serves no purpose if not lovingly used for the benefit of others. As 4:7 says, What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? The whole of chapter 12 teaches that God gives gifts for the church, not for our own sake. Mere possession does not mean you’re big stuff, it means you’re still nothing, a nobody, until you use the gift properly and with the right motives.

Similarly, mere action to sacrifice one’s possessions or to sacrifice your body brings no reward if not lovingly done for the benefit of others. Self-sacrifice for the sake of self-sacrifice or to acquire boasting rights is a meaningless loss. It is a futile discarding of a member of the body of Christ with accompanying opportunity cost.

Now bring this awareness to verse 1. “If I speak in the languages of men and of angels, but have not love (agape), I am only a ringing gong (literally, more like a clanging brass pot) or a clanging cymbal.” Verses 4-7 define this love as outward facing, concerned with the benefit of others. A loving speaker always addresses his audience. He adjusts his vocabulary, grammar, cultural references, and message to the needs and culture of his audience. More importantly, he designs his message for their benefit. Without this loving, audience-sensitive composition and delivery of a message, the speaker makes meaningless noise.

The clanging of brass or cymbals may excite the senses, but they convey no useful information; they do nothing beneficial for the hearers. Such is the effect of tongues practiced without love. They may produce excitement, but they give no actual benefit to the hearers because the speaker produces noise without consideration for the audience.

Chapter 13 has begun with three implied questions.

Verse 1: If the speaker does not consider the audience and strive for their benefit, then whose benefit is he or she seeking at their expense?

Verse 2: If the tongues-speaker is not motivated by love, then has the gift actually elevated him or her... or does the speaker remain a nobody?

Verse 3: If tongues do not serve the purpose of outward-directed, beneficial love, is the benefit loving, or is it selfish? And if the benefit is selfish, is it its own reward that excludes a heavenly reward?

Binding Yourself to Salvation with Jello Cords

2021-08-02T10:37:00.000-07:00

Binding Yourself to Salvation with Jello Cords

Imagine a chain binding you to your salvation.

The Strong Chain

One gospel has one link in it: God's grace through faith. This link is infinitely stronger than titanium; it will never fail.

The Weakest Possible Chain

Another gospel, commonly found among "Christian" churches, has two links. The first link is, again, God's grace through faith. Some churches in this group primarily preach about the first link, so, whether or not members later become convinced that there's a second link, they are kept secure by that first, titanium link.

The second link, however, is human merit. This link requires completing the earning of salvation by doing good, avoiding certain evils, or perseverance through character and will-power. In other words, the second link is works and wages.

This other gospel puts the two links together, the titanium link of God's grace with the mercurious link of human merit. If your conversion depended on the first link alone, you are secure. If your "gospel" required both, your religion has already caused you to stumble, for the second link has no power to save nor to keep. It is time to repent of this false gospel of self-righteousness and trust God alone.

Stop Desiring an Inferior Spiritual Gift

2021-07-31T00:57:00.000-07:00

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 12:27-31

Stop Desiring an Inferior Spiritual Gift

Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, and those with gifts of healing, helping, administration, and various tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way. (Berean Study Bible)

Context: 1 Corinthians 12

Paul begins this section by reminding us that all Christians are, collectively, the unified body of Christ, and individually, specialized members of it.

In verse 28, “God has appointed” reminds us of the Father’s authority as architect, the Son’s authority as agent, and the Holy Spirit’s authority empowering the members with spiritual gifts.

Here, Paul lists some offices or functions among the called-out (ekklesia, translated “church”). I’ve distributed the verb to make the structure more clear:

In the church, God indeed

First has appointed apostles
Second has appointed prophets
Third has appointed teachers
Then has appointed miracles
Then has appointed gifts of healing
Has appointed helping
Has appointed administrating
Has appointed various languages

Comparing this list with other lists in Romans and Ephesians, we know that it is a sample list. For example, it omits the role of martyr that required a spiritual gift of faith, the role of patron that required a gift of giving, and the role of guardian of doctrine and practice that required a gift of discerning of spirits.

The verb is the same verb used in verse 18. It is also used in Acts 12:4, where Herod sovereignly “placed” Peter in prison. Whatever your role, the Father designed it into the church; the Father appointed you to or placed you in that role; and the Holy Spirit determined and gave you the spiritual gifts that empower you in that role.

The adverbs first, second, third, and then could mean either sequence or rank. We can rule out chronological sequence because in Acts, we read of the spiritual gift of languages before we read of miracles, healing, helping, or administrating. So the structure of the sentence places languages at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Note the irony that Pentecostals place “tongues” at the top of both sequence in a Christian’s life and at the top of the hierarchy as an indicator of salvation, whereas scripture places it last in importance and assigns it to only select members of the body.

Paul poses a series of rhetorical questions. That is, the pattern establishes that the answer to each is “no.”

Are all apostles? No.
Are all prophets? No.
Are all teachers? No.
Do all work miracles? No.
Do all have gifts of healing? No.
Do all speak in tongues? No.
Do all interpret? No.

In fact, the wording in the Greek is even less rhetorical. It reads literally, Not all apostles? Not all prophets? Not all teachers? Not all miracles? Not all have gifts of healing? Not all in tongues speak? Not all interpret?

The questions plainly establish for the nth time in this chapter that God does not assign any role, nor does the Holy Spirit consign any gift, to all members of the body. It is simply not God's plan to do so. The distribution of roles and gifts is not a matter of piety, pleading, or sacraments, but of God’s sovereign plan for the body of Christ. Any church or doctrine that imposes on all Christians a need for a particular gift such as “tongues” or even evangelism reflects either a disregard for scripture or an untrained method of interpretation that produces corrupt doctrines.

Paul told the Corinthians to eagerly desire the greater gifts. Individually and as a body, they had desired the least of gifts, "tongues" (or an imitation thereof), and had to be reminded to desire that the greater gifts be exercised in the body.

Paul explains more about why tongues is a lesser gift and why the greater gifts should be exercised in the following chapters. Don’t skip over chapter 13. It bears directly on this issue. It reveals “the most excellent way” that the Corinthians had failed to follow in all their toleration of sin, personality cults, inequity, and misdirected “ministry.”

Unity Reflects in Care and Empathy

2021-07-29T17:22:00.000-07:00

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 12:18-26

Unity Reflects in Care and Empathy

Context: 1 Corinthianss 12

But in fact, God has arranged the members of the body, every one of them, according to His design. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you.” Nor can the head say to the feet, “I do not need you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts we consider less honorable, we treat with greater honor. And our unpresentable parts are treated with special modesty, whereas our presentable parts have no such need. But God has composed the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its members should have mutual concern for one another. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. (Berean Study Bible)

This selection from 1 Corinthians repeats and expands on the message of the last passage. Applying the metaphors may be difficult due to differences between first century Greco-Judaic and modern western mindsets. Verse 18, discussed in the previous post, is repeated here because it overlaps and provides continuity between verses 19-26 to verses 12-7 and because its meaning connects to that of verse 24.

Whereas the Greek verb in verse 18 focuses on how God places the members in the body, the verb in verse 24 focuses on how God combines the members into a single, united organism. Together, the verbs assert God’s authority and wisdom in the design of the church and in His placement of its members. That is, God has a design for the church and has already specially selected you for a unique role.

To place the members in the body of Christ means to assign the roles of the individuals and, referring to earlier in the chapter, to consign spiritual gifts in accordance with members’ individually assigned roles. Therefore, to lust after another member’s spiritual gift is to ignore one’s own role, question God’s authority, and second-guess the Holy Spirit’s wisdom.

This passage repeats the idea that one-gift-for-all violates the wisdom of God’s design. If all members had the same role and accompanying spiritual gift, the body would comprise a monstrosity incapable of functioning as a whole, unable to fulfill God’s purposes, and unfit for the members who comprise it.

No member of the body of Christ has a right to denigrate the role or gifting of another member.

To denigrate or ignore roles or gifts considered “lesser” by fleshly standards, or to elevate roles or gifts already considered “greater,” is to cause division within the body of Christ. That constitutes rejection of God’s plan and rebellion against God.

Denigrating some roles or gifts, as well as inordinately elevating others, runs counter to the unity and mutual care that God intended.

The passage divides body members among three criteria:

Strength or durability versus weakness or vulnerability (arms, feet versus brain, lungs, heart)*
Honorable versus less honorable (face, hands versus torso)*
Tasteful versus less presentable (head versus private parts)*

(*The examples in parentheses are not defined in the scriptures; they are inferred from commentaries on the passage).

The illustration in verses 22-23 states that we give the weak and vulnerable members of our bodies greater protection because they perform valuable functions; we give greater honor to less-honorable members and render tasteful the less-presentable parts by how we adorn them. Thus, our care for our bodies elevates the status of the weak, the less honorable, and the less presentable parts.

Likewise, in the church, we should elevate the weak, less honorable, and less presentable members. For example, those with greater knowledge and wisdom should edify and guard those with less opportunity or aptitude for learning and discernment; and we should elevate those who serve the church in roles that are indispensable yet considered hidden, unglamorous, and “menial” by the world.

When we realize that certain roles considered hidden, unglamorous, and “menial” by the world actually fulfil indispensable service to the body of Christ, we value others regardless of their roles and value the roles and gifts we already have.

When the strong honor and edify the weak and less visible, the weaker and less visible members perform their roles with greater vigor and faithfulness, and the whole body is edified.

God has already given greater honor to the less honorable members of the body.

Since God has already given greater honor to the less honorable members of the body, failing to acknowledge that honor demeans what God has done.

It is not necessary to actively reject the weaker, less honorable, or less presentable members of the body. The same can be accomplished through inordinate elevation of people, roles, and spiritual gifts that are already strong, honored, or presentable.

When we value the roles and gifts we already have, we cease from wasting time trying to acquire or exercise gifts that the Holy Spirit has not consigned to us.

The success of the church is measured not by the fame or reward of its stronger, more visible members, but by the edification and fulfillment of the whole. Since the weaker, less honorable, and less presentable members make up the vast majority of the church, their edification and fulfillment comprises the primary metric.

The sorrows and joys of each member are the sorrows and joys of the whole and of every other member.

If we value others, their roles, and their spiritual gifts, and if we recognize the unity of Christ’s body, we should empathize with their sorrows and joys, their losses and triumphs.

The mutual empathy (emotion) and care (action) of the unified body ties in to chapter 13.

Diversity By Sovereign Design

2021-07-27T19:51:00.000-07:00

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 12:14-18

Diversity By Sovereign Design

For the body does not consist of one part, but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact, God has arranged the members of the body, every one of them, according to His design. (Berean Study Bible)

Context: 1 Corinthians 12

The collective body of all believers, while a unitary whole, has diverse members.

Differing parts depicts differing roles and, by extension, differing spiritual gifts to empower fulfillment of those roles. No part does all functions, and no ability is assigned to every part.

Lacking a certain spiritual gift does not make you any less a part of the body. The Pentecostal teaching that you must speak in tongues to be a full member of Christ’s body creates a schism between babblers and non-babblers.

When every member has the same role and accompanying gift, other roles go unfulfilled. If other roles go unfulfilled, then needs within the body go unmet.

Obsessive interest in a single gift constitutes a failure to love the body.

Paul comes close to mocking the Corinthians. Imagine a going to someone’s door, and when it opens, you find yourself facing a 200-pound, 5’8” eyeball or ear. You would say, that poor person! He’s deformed! He’s a monster. Think of all the things he cannot do for himself.”

Now imagine an eyeball marrying an ear; but after the honeymoon, the eyeball decides, “You are not an eyeball. Why did I marry you? I have no need of you.” (A lot of husbands and wives think that way.) The one who is not an eye can hear, but the eye denigrates the ear because it cannot see. Imagine how this hurts the ear. It pleads and begs God to make it an eyeball, but because God does not obey the requests, it gives up and leaves. So the body has lost its ability to hear, and the ear has lost having a body. That is how God sees the church that requires a single gift of all its members, whether that gift is evangelism, or giving, or tongues, or any other ability.

God designs the body with differing functions performed by different members of the body.

God designed the body.

God arranges every believer within the body -- according to His design.

Pentecostalism, or any teaching that encourages every believer to seek a single gift, unintentionally denigrates God’s design, God’s assignment of the members.

When we all travail in prayer to obtain a particular gift, we imply dissatisfaction with the roles that God has specially selected us to play and denigrate the gifts He has given us so that we could fulfill that role.

When we focus on a spiritual gift contrary to God’s design for us and the Spirit’s gifting to us, we become distracted from other matters such as learning, sanctification, and development of the gifts already given to us by the Holy Spirit. Even if the gift is a good thing, we miss ignore the best things that God has designed for us.

Obsessive interest in a single spiritual gift constitutes a failure to love God’s plan, to love Christ’s church, to love ourselves.

Travailing in prayer to acquire a role or spiritual gift not consigned to us constitutes correcting God's plan for us and His church, as well as correcting the Holy Spirit. This unintentionally insults God and elevates our desires above His ability and authority.

Obsessive desire for any church role or spiritual gift unintentionally insults the Architect of the body. It becomes idolatry.

Unity of the Christian Church

2021-07-22T16:35:00.000-07:00

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 12:12-13

Unity of the Christian Church...

...the Body of Christ, the Aggregate of All Genuine Christians

Context: 1 Corinthians 12

“The body is a unit, though it is composed of many parts. And although its parts are many, they all form one body. So it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink.” (Berean Study Bible)

The body of Christ, which is the aggregate of all believers, is a single organism.

The unity of the body of Christ crosses boundaries between regions, eras, denominations, roles, races, economic statuses, and personalities.

The members of one body benefit when the whole benefits. Therefore, the individual benefits from creating benefits for the whole and for other members.

The whole and the member suffer when other members suffer.

To maximize benefit to the body and to oneself, the individual should contribute to competition or conflict within the body if and only if the activity will benefit other members or the whole.

There is exactly one Holy Spirit.

All members of the body partake of the same Holy Spirit.

God immerses all members of the body into the single, united body of Christ.

Baptism in the Spirit is the same process that baptizes members into the body of Christ.

If God has not baptized a person in the Spirit, then that person is neither baptized into the body of Christ nor a member of the “all” who are. Pentecostals err when they allow that a person can be a member of the body of Christ but not baptized in the Spirit.

In biblical terminology, the Body of Christ has two meanings.

The biological body of Christ died on the Cross and was raised to everlasting life.
The body of Christ is the aggregate of all genuine believers.

The Literal Body of Christ

2021-07-22T16:00:00.000-07:00

Biblogic Series: Tangent:

The Literal Body of Christ

Attention Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans:

Context: 1 Corinthians 15

The biological body of Christ was raised imperishable or incorruptible (1 Corinthians 15:42) and immortal (1 Corinthians 15:53-54).

That which is imperishable cannot perish, and that which is immortal cannot die.

Since Christ's post-resurrection body is imperishable and immortal, it can neither die again nor continue in death.

If the Eucharist becomes dead or dying flesh, it cannot be the body of Christ continuing or repeating death.

If the communion bread does not become the dying or dead flesh of Christ, it can only symbolize the body of Christ.

If your priest cannot turn communion bread into the flesh of Christ, what other superpowers has he been faking?

If you worship (synonym: venerate) something that is not God as though it were God, technically, that’s called idolatry.

Holy Spirit: Uniquely-gifting Person of God

2021-07-21T14:22:00.000-07:00

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 12:8-11

Did you read the verses and the context carefully?

Subtitle: The Holy Spirit: Intelligent, Volitional, Selective

Do you think having the same gift as the crowd makes you special? If you belong to Christ, you may underestimate just how unique and special you are.

Charismata: Spiritual Gifts

Verses 8-10 form a pattern. To one is given one gift. To another is given another gift. To another is given another gift. To another is given another gift. Et cetera. Based on these verses in isolation, nobody receives every gift.

Look again at the pattern in verses 8-10. None of the clauses indicate that any gift is given to everybody. Just the opposite. Based on these statements in isolation, each person receives a different gift. If there were ten million gifts and ten million members of the body of Christ, each member would receive a different gift.

Based on a study of all the spiritual gifts, we know that there is a limited number of spiritual gifts. If everybody receives at least one spiritual gift (verses 4-7), then the Holy Spirit may consign a particular gift to multiple members of the body. This is confirmed by, for example, many people speaking in foreign languages at Pentecost and the existence of multiple prophets in apostolic times.

Comparing verses 8-10 to Romans 12, we know that this passage contains a partial list of spiritual gifts. They include:

A message of wisdom
A message of knowledge
Faith
Gifts of healing
Energizings of power (miracles)
Prophecy
Distinguishing between spirits
Kinds of tongues
Interpretation of tongues.

Verses 8-11 indicate that the Holy Spirit is the source of all spiritual gifts.

In verses 4-6, notice the parallelism between “same Spirit,” “same Lord,” and “same God [the Father). The repetition of “same Spirit” and “one Spirit” in chapter 12 implies a need, in Corinth’s pagan, polytheistic culture, to prevent or correct a belief that different spirits would give different spiritual gifts. This stresses two conclusions:

The same, singular Holy Spirit gives all spiritual gifts.
There is exactly one Holy Spirit.

Verse 11 summarizes the idea, exemplified in verses 8-10, of diversity in how the Holy Spirit distributes the gifts. The verb ‘diairoun’, “dividing” or “apportioning,” is a word picture that depicts dividing something and distributing the pieces.

The adjective ‘idia’ in verse 11 is the root word of ‘idiot.’ According to George E. Gardiner, author of The Corinthian Catastrophe (Kregel Press, 1985), to be ‘idia’ was originally complimentary. It meant you didn’t follow the herd; you were your own, unique individual. It was later that, in English, ‘idiot’ came to mean uniquely lacking in intelligence or wisdom. In verse 11, the adjective is usually translated as an adverb, “uniquely.” It means “uniquely one’s own.” Since, in the Greek, it modifies the noun translated “to each,” the phrase contrasts against a conformist, one-size-fits-all mentality. It stresses that each member’s gifts are specially selected for that member. This reinforces the message in verses 8-10 that no gift is given to all, and no member has all gifts.

Verse 11 ends with the verb ‘boulomai,’ “as He [the Holy Spirit] wills.” HELPS Word-studies says the word “is a strong term that underlines the predetermined (and determined) intention driving the planning....” It contrasts against another verb that focuses on desiring or wishing for a given outcome. In other words, the Holy Spirit plans and resolutely determines which gifts He divides among the members of the body.

If the Holy Spirit wills, resolutely determines, my gifting, does asking for different gifting indicate rebellion against God’s will and authority?

If the Holy Spirit divides the spiritual gifts among the members of the body in accordance with a plan that He resolutely determines, then could asking for a gift that the Holy Spirit has not consigned to you imply that the Holy Spirit failed to plan for the gifts you would need?
Would that, in turn, imply a defect in God’s church architecture, which was the roadmap that the Holy Spirit used to choose your gifts?
Wouldn’t such errors imply a misalignment between the service that Christ performs through the members of the body and the determinations of the Father and the Spirit?
What would that then imply a failure of omniscience and a division between the Son and the Father and Spirit?
If the Father has designed the body and assigned your role, and the Spirit has determined what gifts to give you in accordance with the Father’s design, does asking for an additional gift imply ingratitude and rejection of God’s plan?
Does it imply that you think you see inadequacy in God’s planning and the Holy Spirit’s provision?
Since you think you see a defect in the Father’s design and the Holy Spirit’s determination, have you not elevated your wisdom above God’s?

Pneumatology: The Study of the Holy Spirit

Since the Holy Spirit determines the distribution of spiritual gifts in accordance with God's design of the body and assignment of its members to roles in the body, the Holy Spirit exercises intelligence.

Since the Holy Spirit determines to distribute spiritual gifts as He wills, He is volitional.

If the Holy Spirit is intelligent and volitional, the Holy Spirit must be a Person. An impersonal force would distribute gifts indiscriminately.

Since there's no evidence that God delegates planning and decision-making to angels, the Holy Spirit must be divine.

Holy Spirit's Gifts, Common Good, and Authenticity

2021-07-21T13:44:00.000-07:00

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 12:7

Verse 7

Chapter 12

The Spirit manifests Himself through spiritual gifts given to all believers. 1 Corinthians 12:7

Only a minority of believers experience an alleged “second blessing” whereby they receive spiritual gifts.

If the consignment of spiritual gifts were a second blessing conferred on only some, then the second blessing and the gifts it conveys would not be given to all believers.
This would contradict the Holy Spirit’s words in the scriptures.
Consigning spiritual gifts to all believers would require consignment at the time of conversion.
If the Spirit speaks truth through the scriptures, then the Spirit must consign spiritual gifts at the time of conversion.

The manifestation of the Spirit through spiritual gifts serves the common good of the body of Christ.

“Common good” implies that exercising spiritual gifts serves multiple members, not just the person exercising a gift.
Privately exercising a gift to “edify” oneself does not serve the common good.
Therefore, private exercise abuses the gift by violating its purpose.
Privacy merely emphasizes that that particular usage does not edify others. Therefore, anybody exercising a spiritual gift for their own edification abuses the gift.
One apparent exception might be gifts required for teaching, exhortation, and encouragement to build oneself up in knowledge. However, the end goal of such an exercise is -- obviously! -- to prepare oneself for teaching, exhortation, and encouragement. Knowledge for its own sake puffs up the ego and leads to injuring fellow believers (1 Corinthians 8:1). So it holds that exercising a spiritual gift for one's own edification is a selfish abuse of the gift.

Any imitation of a spiritual gift attempts to imitate the Holy Spirit, Himself.

Any counterfeit manifestation of the Holy Spirit would constitute "bearing false witness" about God.
Any counterfeit manifestation of the Holy Spirit that conveys error (for example, an unbiblical teaching or a prophecy that goes unfulfilled) assigns the error to the Spirit.
Assigning error to God the Holy Spirit through counterfeit manifestations is a form of blasphemy.
Counterfeit prophecies in the Holy Spirit's name render the speaker a blasphemer and a false prophet. Due to the blasphemy and the damage done by misleading hearers, the sin of counterfeiting this gift of the Spirit was dealt with very severely in the Mosaic Law.

Unity of Trinity in Consigning Spiritual Gifts

2021-07-21T12:50:00.003-07:00

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 12:4-6

(Hint: When scripture mentions God in proximity to mentions of the Son or Spirit, it means the Father.)

(Hint 2: You might want to read the verses, read the whole chapter, and then read the verses again, before reading the rest of this post.)

God the Father determines various activities of the church and composes the body, like Beethoven with a gazillion-piece orchestra, only infinitely better. (See also verses 11, 18, and 24) (or is it 25?)

Activities of the Father are carried out by services of the Son in members (believers) of His body (the small-c church). Think of a corporation with different divisions working on different projects or operations in different markets, and each employee working on a facet of the business.

The Holy Spirit assigns spiritual gifts that correspond to and empower the services to be performed by each believer.

If spiritual gifts are consigned only in accordance with the Father's design* and the Son's services, then:

Spiritual gifts must vary from believer to believer.
If no believer is involved in all services, then the Spirit will not consign all gifts to any believer.
If not all believers are involved in a particular service, then the Spirit will not consign any gift to all believers.
If not all believers receive a particular gift, then that gift cannot be a confirmation that a believer is saved.
If each believer has an assigned service to fulfill some activity of the body, then every believer will be enabled by at least one gift.

(* This does not deny the possibility that the Holy Spirit would consign a gift in response to a request, provided that the motive for the request aligns with criteria in chapter 13. The motives for such requests usually don't.)

If some activities of the body are needed in one place but not in another, then the services and gifts will vary accordingly.

If some activities of the body are needed at one time but not at another, then the services and gifts will vary over time.

If services and gifts vary by place or over time, then the offices will also vary.

If manifestations of the Spirit are given for the common good, then the exercise of any spiritual gift should benefit the whole church, not just the one with the gift. 1 Corinthians 12:7.

If the Spirit gives to one, one gift, to another, another gift, and to another, yet another gift (etc.), then nobody receives all gifts, and no gift is given to all. 1 Corinthians 12:8-10

If the Spirit individually consigns gifts, then we should view the gifts we have as special, like a gift that was personally chosen and crafted, just for you. 1 Corinthians 12:11

If the Spirit individually determines your gift, then demanding a different gift implies questioning the sufficiency of your gift for your life as well as the Spirit’s wisdom and authority. 1 Corinthians 12:11

If the Spirit individually determines your gift based on the place in the body to which the Father assigned you, then demanding a different gift implies questioning the Father’s design, wisdom, and authority. 1 Corinthians 12:7, 11, 18, 25

Venerating Mary Undermines Worshiping God

2021-05-06T16:32:00.000-07:00

Answering a question on Quora:

How does our veneration of Mary and the saints relate to our worship of God?

According to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of WORSHIP

1: to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power
2: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion

Definition of VENERATE

1: to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
2: to honor (an icon, a relic, etc.) with a ritual act of devotion

As you can see, both worship and veneration involve reverence, respect, honor, and devotion. The only difference is the object of veneration or devotion. So they’re the same thing; people just use one word for God and a different word for saints such as Mary.

In other words, an institution plays word games when it says, “We don’t worship Mary or saints, we venerate them.”

The Catholic institution claims Mary is a “co-mediatrix” and “co-redemptrix” with God the Son, placing her on the same level, with regard to mediation and redemption, with the infinite God the Son. To be precise, although the Roman Catholic Church does not officially endorse such teachings, it allows them, and large segments of the institution actively defend and promote them.

On the other hand, the Bible says, “For there is one God, one mediator also between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all…” (1 Timothy 2:5.) Christ plus Mary = 2, not 1. So, logically, if there is one Mediator, God the Son, then depending on another mediator takes away from the reverence, respect, honor, and devotion due to the One.

As infinite God the Son, Christ is omnipresent and omniscient. As such, He can be aware of thousands of simultaneous prayers spread across Earth’s surface (and perhaps a few in orbit). But how can any mere human possess that omnipresent awareness and multi-process thousands or millions of simultaneous voices?

One priest explained to me that people see God as stern and unsympathetic, so they turn to Mary to intercede with Christ. This implies that Mary is more loving and sympathetic than Christ, and therefore quicker to intercede for us. Put another way, Mary’s love and sympathy is greater than God’s, or God is inferior to Mary. Pause for a moment and re-read that.

The scriptures, on the other hand, says Jesus is our high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses, “One who has been tempted in all things as we are” (Hebrews 4:15), and is “able to save forever those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25). Closer to the hearts of those who become biblical Christians God’s way, “the [Holy] Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and… He intercedes for the saints (all believers) according to the will of God” (Romans 8:26–27).

So, rather than chanting mindlessly and praying to saints, we are commanded by God to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16). We do not know that saints in heaven hear us, let alone individually. However, we do know that the brother or sister we ask for prayer hears us, that Christ hears us, and that the Holy Spirit not only hears us, but also corrects our prayers. So, what does it say about our reverence, respect, honor, and devotion to God when we disobey the command to come directly to Him and instead give it to His creatures?

The Catholic institution says that Mary reigns with Christ in heaven. However, the scriptures say that Christ shares God’s own glory and sits on the right side of God’s throne (Hebrews 8:11, Hebrews 12:2), and the LORD (YHWH) says “I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images” (Isaiah 42:8). Can we say of Mary,

“Yours, LORD, is the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and on the earth; Yours is the dominion, LORD, and You exalt Yourself as head over all“ (1 Chronicles 29:11)?

If a Catholic usurped titles, roles, and attributes of the Pope, you could rightly call it irreverence, disrespect, dishonor, and disloyalty. And if I usurped a title, role, or attribute of God such as Mediator, Redeemer, or omnipresence, you could rightly call it irreverence, disrespect, dishonor, and disloyalty — in short, blasphemy.

So practices of “veneration” such as creating and servicing images of saints, praying to them, and taking time away from worshiping God not only minimizes worship of God, but actually insults Him.

(Dear Catholic: I don’t hate you. I want better for you. But that requires following the gospel, which Rome has severely distorted. Biblical grace is a “gift” to be received as a free, once-for-all gift direct from God. It is not something earned because anything earned is no longer a gift. Unfortunately, that’s out of scope here.)

Thirty Pieces of Silver

2021-05-01T23:39:00.000-07:00

Answering a question on Quora:

When was Jehovah valued at 30 silver pieces (Zechariah 11:12,13)?

(On Quora, Jehovah's (false) Witnesses have denied that Zechariah's prophecy had anything to do with Jesus and Judas. Incredible, considering that the gospel writers explicitly linked Judas's actions to the prophecy (e.g., Matthew 27:9, etc.)!

Zechariah 11 contains a marvelous passage that compresses messages applying to Zechariah’s day as well as to first-century Judea, Israel, and Messiah Jesus. The answer is that YHWH was valued twice at 30 pieces of silver; first, with Zechariah as His proxy, and later as the incarnate I AM, Jesus of Nazareth.

First we have to point out an ambiguity in verse 13’s translation. Some translators attribute to the LORD (in Hebrew, YHWH), within the quotation marks, “Throw it to the potter, this magnificent price at which they valued me.” So the LORD is saying that they valued Him at thirty pieces of silver.

Tangent: Thirty pieces was an insultingly low wage, so “magnificent” is actually sarcastic. Let that sink in: God used sarcasm when people earned it.

Other translators include only “Throw it to the potter,” so that the valuation applies to Zechariah. However, as God’s prophet, Zechariah represented God, so the price that the owners of the flocks placed on Zechariah’s prophetic and shepherding work also represented a price placed on God.

So, either way you place the quotation marks, the price was placed on YHWH.

Anyone blessed by the Holy Spirit with New Testament-based hindsight can see that the passage contains prophecies about Jesus of Nazareth, Judas.

YHWH translates as “I AM.” When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), He used Jewish terminology to claim to be YHWH in the flesh. The New Testament confirms the claim in numerous ways. For example, Jesus forgave sins (Matthew 9:2–8), which only God can do. Jesus claimed to share God’s glory, which YHWH said He will not share (Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11), and claimed to do so before God created the world (John 17:5). And God the Son created the universe (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16)), which God did Himself (Job 38:4, Jeremiah 10:12, Amos 4:13). Such claims leave anti-trinitarians with huge problems.

So when the priests paid Judas thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus, they put the bounty on YHWH that was prophesied by Zechariah (Matthew 26:15).

Those in denial about the scripture’s teachings about the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh are quick to skip over other prophetic language in Zechariah 11. For example:

Throughout the chapter, Zechariah performs the role of a shepherd who cares for the sheep, particularly the weak, diseased, and wounded. The antitype is Jesus, the Good Shepherd (John 10).
Verse 10 signifies the severing of God’s blessings on Judea and Israel after they refused to repent of murdering God the Son. This was a recurring them in Jesus’s teachings (for example, the parable of wicked tenants, Matthew 21:33–46), and it was fulfilled in waves starting with general Titus’s siege of Jerusalem in 67 AD.
Verse 13 parallels Judas throwing the thirty pieces of silver in the temple AND the priests using the money to buy the potter’s land in Judas’s name (Matthew 27:3–10).
Verse 14 signifies the division between Judea in the south and Israel in the north. In New Testament times, that corresponded roughly to the geographical boundaries separating Judea from Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, and Syro-Phoenicia. Today, much of the division remains, although Israel has taken back (more or less) Syro-Phoenicia and half of Galilee.

With so many details of Zechariah’s prophecy fulfilled in the gospels, saying that verses 12 and 13 have nothing to do with Jesus and Judas takes wishful thinking and bad teaching of an organization that qualifies under 1 John 4:3

[E]very spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and which is already in the world at this time.

Note:

Some may become distracted by an apparent contradiction between Matthew, who says the prophecy was made by Jeremiah, and the fact that it's written in Zechariah. A number of explanations have been proposed, including the possibility that Matthew simply had a brain fart. The most sensible to me is that Zechariah was part of the "Book of the Prophets." Jeremiah was the first book in the Book of the Prophets, so Jeremiah may have been a synecdoche, a name for the whole. Thus, Zechariah was a section of what was colloquially known as “Jeremiah.” If so, then the “contradiction” is resolved.
In Colossians 1, Jesus is said to be the firstborn over (not firstborn before) all creation and the firstborn from the dead. Firstborn does not always mean first one born. A number of examples can be cited in the Old Testament when later-born sons bore the title of firstborn. Rather, firstborn often means pre-eminent one, particularly when followed by the preposition over. This contrasts against firstborn from the dead, wherein Jesus actually was the first to resurrect with a glorified body; this, only figuratively, being a birth.

Water Baptism Can Prevent Salvation

2021-04-27T12:50:00.001-07:00

Answering a question on Quora:

Why is water baptism required for salvation from the wages of sin...?

Water baptism is not required for salvation. It is a new believer’s first act of obedience to God after having entered into salvation.

“Baptism” has two meanings. When reading about “baptism” in the Bible, always ask yourself which kind is meant.

The “baptism” that saves is done silently by the Holy Spirit. The water ceremony symbolizes part of it, namely, the death to self called “repentance” and our spiritual regeneration (more on this, below). Baptism by the Spirit also makes believers members of the universal church with unique roles and giftedness to aid in the functioning of the body of believers. See 1 Corinthians 12:4–11 and especially verses 12–13. Also see Romans 12.

The obvious meaning is the ceremony of being dunked in water. By going down into the water, we identify with Christ’s death, and it represents that we died to self during the process of conversion. By coming up out of the water, we identify with Christ’s resurrection, and it represents the new, regenerated life of our spirits in Christ. Read the first paragraph of Romans chapter 6. (You will notice that pouring, sprinkling, and dabbing do not fulfill the symbolism. Even the Roman Catholic Church baptized by immersion for over 1,200 years.)

1 Peter 3:21 is often cited as evidence that water baptism saves. However, the verse says baptism is “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” In other words, it is about obeying God to gain assurance that our faith is sincere.

Many churches claim that baptism places people into God’s New Covenant, so it is analogous to the Old Testament ceremony of circumcision. That ignores that the Old Covenant was between God and a nation (not individuals), whereas the New Covenant is directly between God and individuals. The New Testament not only does not support the claim; it actually contradicts the claim. See Ephesians 2:8–9.

Paul’s epistle to the Galatians dealt with an early church heresy that added ceremonies to faith as requirements for salvation. The specific ceremony was circumcision, but I’m sure you can see the principle without having it spelled out. Paul used terms such as “foolish” and “bewitched” (chapter 3) to describe those who fell for the heresy. In fact, the term “fallen from grace” refers not to losing salvation (the pop definition); rather it refers to those who add ceremonies to simple faith as requirements for salvation (chapter 5).

Peter did advise the Jews who had just murdered Christ to repent and be baptized. However, the salvation of gentiles in Acts 10:44–48 shows that salvation and Spiritual baptism precede water baptism.

Baptism to be saved puts the cart before the horse. It tries to makes the result into a cause. It tries to make our meritorious work of going through a ceremony into a way to earn a gift. Can you see the contradiction in “earning a gift?” And if someone has tried to earn a gift that is acquired through faith alone, have they really received the gift?

I was “baptized” (dabbed) in a mainline church as a child. It did me no good. Many others who were “baptized” became atheists, joined heretical churches, or joined cults. What did me good was hearing a corrected, biblical gospel when I was mature enough to grasp it. Then I got baptized God’s way.

We don’t get baptized to acquire salvation; we get baptized to assure ourselves and tell the world that God has already saved us.

Judge Jesus: "Full of Himself?

2021-04-17T13:01:00.000-07:00

Answering a question on Quora:

Why is Jesus so full of himself that he would condemn good loving peaceful people to an eternity in a burning lake of fire that doesn't worship him as a god?

First off, you’re not really “full of yourself” if you really are “all that.” Jesus is “all that.” If you understood the unimaginable precision of the constants of physics required to keep the universe from collapsing or exploding, you’d be just beginning to understand the greatness of God the Son. If you understood the virtual impossibility of the chain of events beginning with the formation of the right types of amino acids all having the same geometries, forming the right proteins, forming the right components that enable self-replication of RNA and DNA, and the half-gigabyte of quaternary-encoded information that enables the duplication of that environment (as well as itself) in even the simplest hypothetical biological organism, you would be just beginning to grasp how great God the Son is. He is “all that.” He is all that by nature, He is all that by virtue of being your Creator, and He is all that by virtue of the price He paid to secure your potential redemption.

Second, if you grasped the utter perfection and holiness of God the Son, you would never pretend that there’s such a thing as “good” people, This error normally results from judging people relative to ourselves or from judging ourselves relative to other imperfect people, rather than judging relative to God’s standard. What, you think your “good” outweighs your bad? Do you really think you can pay off your debts with what you already owe to your Creator? What, you think you’re perfect? You’ve never done anything wrong? Now who’s full of himself?!

Third, the unholiness of man and the holiness of God’s presence cannot coexist. The unholiness of a human would defile and insult an utterly righteous and holy God, and the glory of God would be unbearable to an unholy, unregenerated human. Neither could stand the other! Hell is not a problem, but rather, a solution.

Fourth, saying that not worshiping Christ as God sends people to hell is like saying one link in a chain suspends the load. It’s a flawed focus on a single symptom. God provided a means of redemption and regeneration. He offers it as a gift. Refusing that gift is the ultimate sin; it is a sin against oneself. But nobody goes to hell for that sin alone; it is merely one among many.

Hell was created for Lucifer and the angels who followed him in rebellion against God. We are born as citizens of Lucifer’s kingdom, and we all ratify that with by breaking God’s commandments. God’s gift can regenerate us so we gain citizenship in God’s kingdom. If we are so full of ourselves that we fail to receive that gift, we have only ourselves to blame.

Fear of hell is not a wrong reason to receive the gift and then worship God. But there is a better reason. God is good. In fact He is the ultimate standard of goodness. He not only gave us life, but also, at His own expense, created the means for our forgiveness, redemption, and regeneration. He balanced justice and love by paying a price that would have destroyed any mere human. In His kindness, He freely offers that to each of us.

When we rebel against physical laws, we pay a price. The price of rebelling against gravity by walking off a cliff is paid when you hit the bottom. You have only yourself to blame. Likewise, there is a moral law. If we fail to receive the gift of redemption, we will hit the bottom in hell. And how much more accountable will be those who actively reject the gift.

You can reframe the consequences to shift the blame to the One who enforces the law. You may rage against Him for all eternity. But in all honesty, you will have only yourself to blame.

Benevolent Hell

2021-03-27T16:03:00.002-07:00

Answering a question on Quora:

Is there anything benevolent about hell, no, right?

Yes, wrong.

First, consider the question’s two non sequiturs.

A. Taken literally, the question assigns moral significance to hell. However, hell is merely a place. In itself, it is neutral. Saying, “no, right?” is like saying that the law of gravity is evil because a tourist stood too close to the edge of a waterfall. Any moral significance derives not from the existence of hell, but from how it is used. In other words, whether it is benevolent or not depends on whether it is used justly or unjustly.

B. Whether hell is used at all by a human is like the tourist and the waterfall. The tourist can use the trail to walk away, and the human can use the Way God provided to walk away from a sentence of hell. The Way (John 14:6) is available to all. An intellectually honest person will realize that any fault, any lack of benevolence, must be assigned on the basis of the answer to this question: If there is a lack of benevolence, who is responsible, the One who provides the way of escape, or the one who decides to ignore the law of justice?

Ignoring the non sequiturs, consider the question itself.

Violating God’s laws insults infinite God and disrespects His plans for us to have relationship with Him. Would God be benevolent to Himself if He ignored such insult and allowed unredeemed sinners to defile His presence?

Let’s take an extreme case: When Hitler’s Dr. Joseph Mengele dissected people alive, would it have been benevolent to Mengele’s victims if God ignored justice?

Now let’s take the case of people who use their judgment about hell as a rationalization for refusing God’s gift of redemption. In essence, they refuse to be rescued from a sentence of punishment for their sins. (Rejecting God and His gift is merely one sin out of many.) They refuse the post-mortem transformation that would allow them to enjoy God’s presence. Would it be benevolent to force them to endure the “unapproachable light” in which God dwells (1 Timothy 6:16)?

Hell was created not for us, but for the devil and the demons. By tempting Adam to revoke his citizenship in heaven, the devil trapped all of us in his own kingdom. He triggered all the suffering and death in history, including the suffering of any human cast into hell. If God did not prepare a hell in which to punish the devil, would God be benevolent to the human race?

My conclusion is that hell is, indeed, benevolent. But by itself, it is a half-truth.

God prepared a way to resolve the tension between justice and love. He provided Himself a sacrifice sufficient to redeem us from our sins and rescue us from the consequences of justice. God the Son paid the price at His own expense. This leads to a final question that returns us to the first question: If God debased the price He paid to rescue us from hell and thus demeaned Himself, would He be benevolent to Himself?

Jesus: Only Way to God the Father

2021-03-27T15:51:00.000-07:00

Answering a question on Quora:

Where in the Bible does it say the only way to the Father is through the Son?

New Testament

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Acts 4:12

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.

Note that approaching the Father requires “being saved.” This means that God must do what we cannot: redeem, regenerate, justify, and sanctify. Since the Son provided the means of redemption, it is not too much to ask that we acknowledge that the Son is whom He is and receive the gift as a free gift.

Old Testament

Psalm 2:11–12

Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

Additional Evidence

The relationship between the Son and the Father is defined explicitly in the New Testament. Old Testament clues are there, but relevant passages are better interpreted in hindsight, that is, in light of the New Testament.

The first clue is in the opening lines of the Bible, where God says, let us make…. People who deny that the one God used creative power over space-time to experience it as three Persons frequently explain away “us” as a “royal we.” However, the literal interpretation is reinforced by the plural, “Gods,” in In the beginning Gods created the the heavens and the Earth. And the unity of the plural Gods is reinforced by the singular number of made. The best interpretation is that one God exists in space-time as three Persons in communication with each other.

Another clue, less clear in the Old Testament, is that, while God remains in heaven and unseen by any human, He also walked the earth in the appearance of a human. This can be traced from the Garden of Eden, through Abraham’s entertainment of strangers, to God’s revelation of Himself to Moses. The earthly liaison, so to speak, gave Himself a descriptive name, I AM — as contrasted with all other gods, who are not. He chose this name for our sakes but does not actually need one. No previous god existed with the authority to name Him, and no other god exists from whom He needs to be distinguished.

(The Hebrew word translated I AM and the LORD is YHWH. Note that the word has no vowels and the pronunciation was lost a few centuries before Jesus was born. Anybody who makes a big show about its pronunciation “knows” more than what the facts establish.)

To prevent desecration of God’s “name,” translators began a tradition of translating YHWH as the LORD (in capital letters). This is the God whom all Jews and Christians aspire to know.

In the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth reveals Himself to be YHWH, the I AM (John 8:58), the Word who was God, who was in the beginning with God, and through whom all created things were created (John 1:1–3, Colossians 1:16–17). In this light, passages such as Isaiah 9:6 make sense:

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

If you aspire to know the Lord, that is, God or God the Father, you aspire to know the Son. If you know the Son, you know the Father as well (John 14:7–11), but you cannot know the Father if you reject that the Son is who He says He is (John 8:9).

God Shoulda Created an All-Good Universe

2021-03-23T21:03:00.000-07:00

An Absurd Atheist Remedy for the Problem of Evil

Many atheists argue that, if God has foreknowledge, He should have created a universe in which evil would not exist. The argument has multiple non sequiturs.

Evil is not a thing that "exists." As darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good and therefore the rejection of God.
The argument assumes that preventing His rejection (i.e., creating a vacuum that constitutes “evil”) would have been better than what He did create.
Using the word “better” makes a moral judgment based on either the atheist's mere personal preferences, which have no authority, or a standard the atheist rejects, God's goodness. So the atheist has no foundation on which to say one thing would be "better" than another.
The argument assumes that no higher purpose exists that justifies God's allowance of His rejection. For example, it ignores that, in an all-good-always universe, love, mercy, and grace would be meaningless, and no creature would, by nature, be worthwhile for God to have a relationship with.

In an all-good-always universe, only one option exists: God's perfect will. Any other choice would be non-compliance and, therefore, evil. If non-compliance with the perfect were an option, evil would happen. But if evil cannot happen, only one option exists. Thus, choice would be non-existent. Love, mercy, grace, and any other good would be meaningless because they would be forced. In fact, love, mercy, and grace would not exist because they would not be needed.

The argument assumes that temporary material existence, not an everlasting spiritual existence that takes into account things done during material existence, is the correct courtroom in which to judge God’s plans.

The argument is often accompanied by a claim that God created imperfection or evil. That is like saying that if I build a house and my client rejects me by vandalizing the house, I made a vandalized house. Like the main argument, it’s logically absurd.

Astounding Magnitude of Adam's "Little" Sin

2021-03-12T00:47:00.001-08:00

Do you think the choice by Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a minor thing?

On the surface, their offenses consisted of disobeying God by lusting for and then seizing something forbidden -- a mere piece of fruit.

First, that violates "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal. That's three of the Ten Commandments right off the bat. But we can go a bit deeper.

Hebrew use of "to know" means to personally, intimately experience something; for example, Adam knew his wife, and she bore a son. So to know evil is to know it experientially: that is, to commit evil. Thus, choosing knowledge of good and evil means choosing to participate in evil.

Someone has asked, what's wrong with wanting to be like God? You should bear in mind, first, that it was the serpent who suggested that knowledge of good and evil would make them like God. Be careful whom you choose as a source! But was the desired result really to be like God?

While God understood evil and had performed the good and just act of punishing evil when He put down Lucifer's rebellion, God, being all-good, did not "know" (participate in) evil. The serpent lied: Having the knowledge of good and evil would not have made them like God.

Had they wanted to be like God, with no other context, it might not have mattered. But that is NOT all it was.

Believing the serpent's claim that they would not die, rather than God's warning that they would, effectively called God a liar, which is bearing false witness.
Believing God wanted to keep knowledge to Himself calls Him selfish, which is bearing false witness against the One who is Truth and Love.
Doing so constituted violation of the commandment to love God.
Setting up the serpent and themselves as superior arbiters of truth constituted idolatry.
Rebelling against God's authority constituted taking His name in vain (i.e., treating it as worthless).
Desiring what belonged to God alone constituted the first act of covetousness.
Taking the fruit (it does not say it was an apple) was stealing.
Dishonoring their Creator was a variation on failing to honor one's parents.
The sin brought about their spiritual death and made physical death inevitable. It passed their deaths down to billions of descendants. That is, at best, manslaughter; and at worst, mass murder.

And I haven't even gone into the even weightier secondary consequences, namely the Fall of all creation, its effects, and the cost imposed on God to redeem us from that Fall.

Please explain how taking the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil could be NOT a big deal!

One more thing. Adam and Eve could have gone to the Tree of Life before God pronounced judgment. But they didn't have the faith to do so. Most of the world follows that same pattern. A metaphorical Tree of Life is available to all in the cross of Christ. Tragically, only a few turn to Him before it is too late.

God's Commandments Don't Change; Their Jurisdiction Does

2021-03-11T15:45:00.000-08:00

Answering a question on Quora:

Do God’s commandments change?

The quick answer is no. However, you need to define which commandments. If you mean the Ten Commandments and hundreds of other commandments given through Moses (the “Mosaic Law”), then they had limited jurisdiction, and their proper usage is not what most people think.

Which commandments?

God has given more than one set of commandments:

Commands to Adam and Eve to tend the Garden, name the animals, have children, and abstain from eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Commands to Noah to build an ark and take shelter in it.
Commands to Pharaoh to free Israel.
Commands to Moses to follow certain instructions to deliver, feed, and water Israel.
Commands to love God, love your neighbor, worship God alone, and abstain from certain generic sins (the “Ten Commandments”).
Hundreds of specific civil and personal commands in support of the Ten Commandments, taken together as “the Mosaic Law.”
A command to believe in Jesus of Nazareth for redemption instead of trusting self-righteousness.
A command for followers of Jesus to love one another.

By “God’s commandments,” most people mean the Ten Commandments and may mean the Mosaic Law.

Different Jurisdictions, Different Commandments

The Mosaic Law (or “The Law”) was given to ancient, pre-Messianic Israel. The Law was not given to gentiles (non-Hebrews), and it does not apply to followers of the Anointed One (Hebrew: Messiah; Greek: Christ), Jesus of Nazareth.

Not every commandment applies to everybody. For example, a commandment to a priestly descendant of Aaron to sprinkle the blood of a sacrifice on things in the Temple’s Holy of Holies obviously would not apply to a jeweler from the tribe of Benjamin.

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law [Judaism], so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.

Jesus used this technique many times. For example, who loves God with all their heart, from birth to death? Who has never broken the commandments against adultery, murder, and coveting in their hearts?

Following the Ten Commandments is profitable, but not for redemption. Redemption comes only through trusting God’s gift through Christ.

Thus, we have the commandment, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.

The New Testament is emphatic.

Knowing that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

The change in jurisdiction happened because, as others have answered, Christ fulfilled the Law. The Law is also called a Covenant. Today, we would use the word contract. A contract becomes ineffective when either of two conditions happen:

One party fails to fulfill its obligations. Then the penalties become effective. At a national level, this happened when Israel rejected her Messiah and God destroyed national Israel, including its Temple, in 67–70 AD. At an individual level, it happens to every Hebrew who rejects Messiah Jesus.
The obligations of the Law have been fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled God’s side of the Law by fulfilling the prophecies and the symbols (especially the sacrifices).

From a religious angle, the Law itself did not change. However, the applicability of the Law changed. Hebrews 7 explains that when the priesthood changes, a new law replaces the old Law. This is like when the United States of America formed and its Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, and the states had to rewrite the laws that they had when they were nations and, before that, colonies.

Under the Mosaic Law, a change in priesthood occurred. The Priesthood was given to Aaron, of the tribe of Levi, and to his descendants. Correspondingly, a change in the law occurred when God gave the Mosaic Law. In the same way, when God made Jesus a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, God gave a new Law. The new Law was not mere written commandments, but it was the Spirit of the law, written upon the hearts of those who entrust their redemption to Christ.

"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Underlying this, the Mosaic Law cannot save, but rather presents a mirror to show us our condemnation. For, Cursed is every man that continues not in all the words of this law to do them…. In contrast, the “Perfect Law of Love and Liberty” written on the hearts of those who bend their knee to Messiah Jesus shows how God has already delivered them from condemnation. God makes believers a kingdom of priests, Jesus being the High Priest; and with that, applies a new, better Law.

The Lawful Use of the Law

Some may object that Mosaic commandments were repeated in the New Testament. This is true, but it does not contradict anything written here. Two jurisdictions can have the same laws. Florida and Arizona both have laws against murder, but a Floridian would not refrain from murder because it's Arizona's law. The fact that Arizona has a law against murder does not mean that the Floridian is under Arizona law. Similarly, the fact that the New Testament condemns murder does not mean that Christians are under the Mosaic Law.

It is a common mistake to apply commandments given to ancient Israel to people living under the New Testament’s Perfect Law of Love and Liberty. For example, many insist on resting on the Sabbath (which is Saturday). Others say that baptism replaces circumcision, and people must be baptized to go to heaven. They focus on human merit instead of on the merit of Christ’s sacrifice.

The Mosaic Law still has applicability. People who think they will be good enough to go to heaven have to face that Law. In evangelism, it may be necessary to review the Law so people test themselves. Jesus did that often. Notice that the closer you look at any commandment, the more detail you see. Here’s a sample, using just four of the Ten Commandments:

Have you honored your father and mother? Have you always obeyed them? This includes not just doing what you were told. Honoring goes beyond obedience. It includes obeying without delay, eye-rolling, sarcasm, or resentment. It means actually respecting them in your heart.
Perhaps you don’t think you’ve committed adultery. But if you have had sex before marriage, you have. In fact, since God is Spirit and we have spirits, what we do in our thoughts are just as real to God as our physical actions are. So if you have looked at someone with sexual desire, you have broken this commandment.
You may not think you are a thief. But have you downloaded music or ‘borrowed” a cable TV connection that you should have paid for? Have you taken anything from work without returning it? Have you found something that belonged to someone else and not even tried to find the owner? Or have you even thought about taking something that was not yours?
You probably have not killed anyone. But Jesus said that if you even hated somebody without just cause, you committed murder in your heart. And if you have even called someone a fool or empty-headed, you are dangerously close to that line.

If you have kept the Ten Commandments from the heart all your life, congratulations! You are as perfect as God! I’m being sarcastic, of course.

In evangelism, Christians want to share the good news that God offers forgiveness as a gift on the basis that Christ acted as our proxy on the cross. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

But people who think they are righteous do not realize that they need that redemption. So the “lawful use of the Law” today is to use it as a mirror so people will turn from (a) justifying their sins or (b) self righteousness, and turn to trust alone in Christ alone.

What remains to believers is to Love God, our neighbors, and our spiritual brothers and sisters. The Perfect Law of Love and Liberty fulfills the spirit of all commandments. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Believers don’t keep this commandment to redeem themselves, but rather, because God has already redeemed them.

Why Christians Don't Use "Jehovah" As Often

2021-03-09T20:21:00.000-08:00

Answering a question on Quora:

Why do you rarely hear Christians who are non-Jehovah's Witnesses, referring to God as Jehovah God (or rarely even Just Jehovah) like the Jehovah's Witnesses do?

The Watchtower (the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organization) teaches that God has a personal name, and it is Jehovah. It teaches that knowing and using God’s name is critical to being able to worship Him.

Many Christians (non-Jehovah’s Witnesses) do use the name Jehovah, but much less for several reasons. If you want a short answer, skip to the end; but if you want to learn the reasons behind the answer, keep reading.

A more complex doctrine of God requires more terms.

The Bible gives evidence that Persons called the Father, the Son (Jesus, Christ, Messiah, the Lord, the Son of Man), and the Holy Spirit are God — and yet, there is but one God. Modalists such as Oneness Pentecostals try to solve this apparent paradox by saying that God switches between personas. However, this creates problems such as when the Son and the Father speak to each other and when scriptures say the Father subjects all things to the Son except Himself. Latter Day Saints (“Mormons”) say Jesus was, like all angels, demons, and humans, a spirit-child of God the Father who will become a god of his own world on Judgment Day. This, like the Modalist god, violates the scriptures’ teaching that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. The Jewish faith denies the evidence that Jesus was divine, and many deny that He even existed. The Watchtower accepts that Jesus existed, but teaches that He was an angel, a small-g god who became Jesus of Nazareth and then became an exalted angel (again, see Hebrews 13:8).

Christians resolve the paradox by supposing that the Creator of the universe – meaning that God created not only matter and energy, but also space-time – can do anything He wishes, so long as it is good and not a logical impossibility. From the scriptures’ claims, they conclude that God used creative power to function in and experience space-time as three Persons. This Tri-unity (one God as three Persons) is a solution, not a problem. It bypasses many problems that Bible-recognizing religions face when they reject the Trinity.

As a result, to Christians, God has a more complex identity. They can speak of God in general as God, the Almighty, the Creator, etc.; or they might speak of a specific person, namely, the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. (Note that God is “Lord,” regardless of which Person you speak of; but for the sake of communication, the scriptures often distinguish the Father from the Son by calling the Father, God, and calling Christ, Lord.)

Jehovah is not God's name.

Another reason Christians do not use the term Jehovah very often is that it is not actually God’s name! God does not need a name. There are no other real gods from whom to distinguish Him. Also, no god preceded and created Him, so nobody had the authority to name Him. On the other hand, God does take many descriptive titles and names, not for His own sake, but for ours.

The name "Jehovah" started when the Israelites were enslaved in a land with many so-called gods. (You will see, a few paragraphs later, why I put "Jehovah" in scare quotes.) When God was commissioning Moses to lead the Israelites, Moses asked whom he should say was sending him. God responded, “say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" This was a functional name chosen by God, not for His own sake, but for Israel’s. He is the I AM, as contrasted with all the other gods, who ARE NOT.

Jehovah is an incorrect pronunciation

The Hebrew word translated I AM is YHWH. Note that ancient Hebrew writing had no vowels. It had only consonants.

During the 400 years before Christ, the Jews had a revival of respect for God. They became so obsessed with rules that they would not dare to pronounce YHWH. Instead, when speaking, such as when reading scriptures aloud, they substituted the name Adonai, which means Lord. Consequently, they forgot how YHWH was pronounced! By the time of Christ, it had become common practice to combine the vowels from Adonai with the consonants YHWH, which produced Yahowah or Yahweh.

Now, transliterate Yahowah to Greek, transliterate that to Latin, and transliterate that to English, and you get Jehovah. So Jehovah is, at best, a twisted pronunciation of a word whose pronunciation was lost over 2,000 years ago.

Jehovah is an obsolete transliteration

In 1611, the Authorized Version (King James Version or KJV) used the word Jehovah in some places (and LORD, in all caps, in most places) to translate YHWH. Many readers of the KJV use the word Jehovah as a name for God. But many others simply use God or Lord, and the spread of modern Bible translations that do not use the word Jehovah reinforces that trend.

Within and outside Christianity there are movements such as Hebrew Roots that make a big deal about pronouncing YHWH and Jesus with original Hebrew pronunciations. This sounds cool and may make a person feel that he has special knowledge or special reverence for God, but biblical Christians do not think there is magical power in words and pronunciations. The power is in the meaning they convey, and God is omni-lingual.

Jehovah is Jesus

There’s yet another reason Christians use the word Jehovah less often. John chapter 1 teaches that Jesus is the Word, meaning that He is the expressive member of the Tri-unity. Jesus Himself said, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” In other words, it was God the Son, before he took on the bodily form we call Jesus, who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush. So, in a monumental irony, the term that the Watchtower uses to label God actually refers to the Person whose deity they deny!

Summary

Christians use the word Jehovah less than Jehovah’s Witnesses do because the Jehovah's Witnesses inflate its usage and misuse it. Christians use it even less than they used to because laymen (as contrasted with clergy) are growing in awareness that it is a descriptive label rather than a personal name, it is a bad transliteration of a word whose pronunciation has been forgotten, it is not a general label for God, it is an incorrect label for God the Father, and Christians reject the idea that words and pronunciations have intrinsic power. God is just as good a "name" for the Creator as any other.