In a follow up on the preceding posts regarding the relationship of faith to regeneration (rebirth), I wish not only to state that the Scriptures make these two things concurrent but make them mutually dependent. We can think of lots of examples in nature and logic that demonstrate mutual dependency. In other words, one cannot exist without the other.
There is no order, logical or chronological, insisted on, in Scripture, as regards faith and birth. Arguing over whether faith causes rebirth or rebirth causes faith is not crucial. What is crucial is the fact that both are the result of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is a waste of time to argue over whether faith precede repentance, or vise versa. What is important is the fact that faith and repentance are mutually dependent things. They have a mutual cause in the Holy Spirit. So likewise it is a waste of time to argue over whether regeneration precede faith, or vise versa.
So, in conclusion, I think it best to say that faith and regeneration are mutually dependent.
Jun 30, 2012
Jun 29, 2012
Faith is Begotten
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5: 4)
What is it that is "begotten" or "born" of God? Certainly it is scriptural to say that a person is begotten. Jesus said to Nicodemus - "YOU must be born again." (John 3: 7) John said - "WHO were born of God." (John 1: 13)
This does not include the "whole man," as some old Hardshells contended. The body and flesh are not renewed and transformed. The soul, heart, or spirit is what is reborn and regenerated in conversion. The body or whole man is not renewed till the resurrection of the just. "If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness." (Rom. 8: 10 NASV)
Life is begotten when a new person is begotten. Thus quickening and resurrection may be called a begetting, a genesis of being. Existence comes with life too. This is signified in the Greek word gennao.
According to John, not only is life and new existence begotten, but so is faith in Christ. He says faith that is "begotten" of God will be victorious; And, he gives this as the very reason why faith overcomes. It is because it is divinely begotten. Thus, to be spiritually born of God is to be a new person in heart, to have spiritual life, to have faith in Christ. There is no such character who is born again but not in possession of spiritual life and faith.
That faith is begotten may also be gathered from Paul's testimony.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Gal. 5: 22-23)
The Greek word for "fruit" is karpos and is sometimes used in reference to birth as when speaking of the "fruit of the womb." It denotes offspring. Thus, not only is faith begotten when a person is begotten, but so also are the other characteristics enumerated.
Wrote Peter:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3)
Peter says that hope is begotten in the Christian heart when he is begotten. Thus, the three leading Christian characteristic possessions, faith, hope, and love, are begotten in new birth.
I do not think any of this, however, offers any support for those Calvinists who affirm that sinners are born again before faith. We have as much reason to affirm that we are born again before we are spiritually alive as to affirm that we are born again before we believe.
It seems to me that the Bible writers often present faith as the means by which the new creature is brought into existence. They did not see this as contradictory to their affirmations that faith was begotten, and neither should we.
Paul taught that there are "things that accompany salvation." (Heb. 6: 9) One cannot divorce faith, hope, and love from this salvation experience.
We come to Christ (believe) in order to have spiritual life. (John 5: 40). By believing we have life through his name. (John 20: 31) We believe to be saved, sanctified, justified, and sealed.
I agree with Pendleton on the ordo salutis. A case for each side may be made. Some scripture seems to put faith as a prior condition to regeneration, and some scripture seems to put faith after it.
If Scripture states the relationship of faith to regeneration in no definite and absolute order, and uses both orders in its language, then
1. We should not insist on a definite order
2. Insist that faith and regeneration are concurrent, each depending on each
What is it that is "begotten" or "born" of God? Certainly it is scriptural to say that a person is begotten. Jesus said to Nicodemus - "YOU must be born again." (John 3: 7) John said - "WHO were born of God." (John 1: 13)
This does not include the "whole man," as some old Hardshells contended. The body and flesh are not renewed and transformed. The soul, heart, or spirit is what is reborn and regenerated in conversion. The body or whole man is not renewed till the resurrection of the just. "If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness." (Rom. 8: 10 NASV)
Life is begotten when a new person is begotten. Thus quickening and resurrection may be called a begetting, a genesis of being. Existence comes with life too. This is signified in the Greek word gennao.
According to John, not only is life and new existence begotten, but so is faith in Christ. He says faith that is "begotten" of God will be victorious; And, he gives this as the very reason why faith overcomes. It is because it is divinely begotten. Thus, to be spiritually born of God is to be a new person in heart, to have spiritual life, to have faith in Christ. There is no such character who is born again but not in possession of spiritual life and faith.
That faith is begotten may also be gathered from Paul's testimony.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Gal. 5: 22-23)
The Greek word for "fruit" is karpos and is sometimes used in reference to birth as when speaking of the "fruit of the womb." It denotes offspring. Thus, not only is faith begotten when a person is begotten, but so also are the other characteristics enumerated.
Wrote Peter:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3)
Peter says that hope is begotten in the Christian heart when he is begotten. Thus, the three leading Christian characteristic possessions, faith, hope, and love, are begotten in new birth.
I do not think any of this, however, offers any support for those Calvinists who affirm that sinners are born again before faith. We have as much reason to affirm that we are born again before we are spiritually alive as to affirm that we are born again before we believe.
It seems to me that the Bible writers often present faith as the means by which the new creature is brought into existence. They did not see this as contradictory to their affirmations that faith was begotten, and neither should we.
Paul taught that there are "things that accompany salvation." (Heb. 6: 9) One cannot divorce faith, hope, and love from this salvation experience.
We come to Christ (believe) in order to have spiritual life. (John 5: 40). By believing we have life through his name. (John 20: 31) We believe to be saved, sanctified, justified, and sealed.
I agree with Pendleton on the ordo salutis. A case for each side may be made. Some scripture seems to put faith as a prior condition to regeneration, and some scripture seems to put faith after it.
If Scripture states the relationship of faith to regeneration in no definite and absolute order, and uses both orders in its language, then
1. We should not insist on a definite order
2. Insist that faith and regeneration are concurrent, each depending on each
Lumpkins on Brantly
Peter Lumpkins, a Southern Baptist who opposes Calvinism, has cited W. T. Brantly Sr. to show that Brantly was one early leader of Southern Baptists who did not believe in effectual calling or irresistible grace. (see here)
I left a comment which has not yet been approved by Lumpkins to be published. That comment pointed to these words of Brantly from the same citation given by Lumpkins.
Brantly said:
"That the Holy Spirit does exert a greater influence upon some minds than upon others within the pale of the same visible administration of means; and that this greater influence must account for the conversion of some, whilst others remain unconverted, is what I fully believe."
Why has Lumpkins declined to publish my comment and observation? I cited this and said that it appeared, from this part of the citation, that Brantly did not accept the Arminian explanation of things.
I left a comment which has not yet been approved by Lumpkins to be published. That comment pointed to these words of Brantly from the same citation given by Lumpkins.
Brantly said:
"That the Holy Spirit does exert a greater influence upon some minds than upon others within the pale of the same visible administration of means; and that this greater influence must account for the conversion of some, whilst others remain unconverted, is what I fully believe."
Why has Lumpkins declined to publish my comment and observation? I cited this and said that it appeared, from this part of the citation, that Brantly did not accept the Arminian explanation of things.
Jun 28, 2012
Effectual Conviction?
Arminians greatly object to the doctrine of effectual calling (or "irresistible grace") because they think that this amounts to coercion, to forcing a man to be saved against his will. Sometimes the equivocation is simply stated as though the equating of calling with coercion is enough to dispute it. But, such an argument assumes that all coercion is evil and unethical. But, all compulsion is not so. Jesus himself said that sinners are to be "compelled." (Luke 14: 23) It matters not that the kind of "compelling" be special, of a certain kind, as done with words only, in overthrowing the supposition that all coercion is unethical. Parents daily compel their children. Generals daily compel soldiers.
To compel is to force. Thus, when Arminians decry the idea of conversion being "forced," they are decrying sinners being "compelled." But, Jesus said - "compel (or force) them to come." Further, Paul says - "For the love of Christ constraineth us." (II Cor. 5: 14)
I once heard an Arminian preacher condemning effectual calling by grabbing his shirt collar and pulling it and saying - "God does not grab and pull us like this." But, I thought to myself - "does he not believe that the shepherd's crook is designed to do this very thing?" Does the shepherd not coerce and force the sheep back into the safety of the fold? Would a parent not force a child to save the child?
I once heard another Arminian preacher saying that God was like a magnet and sinners were like nails. The magnet was "drawing" and pulling, exerting force against force, on sinners. But, said he, some sinners have hardened their hearts so that they have become like big railroad spikes, while other sinners, those who have not been sinners long, are like small tacks, and therefore easier for God to "draw" and pull to himself. So, though God was drawing all, some men's resistance is greater than the power pulling them, and this is the reason why they are not effectually drawn. The Calvininst sees the problem with the Arminian's making the magnet too small and insufficient in power.
Is the magnet "forcing" the thing it draws? Who can deny it? Who can deny that the thing being drawn is resisting by the force of its weight? Who can deny that the thing drawn will be effectually drawn if enough force is exerted by the magnet?
Some Arminians, seeing the "force" of the argument from the word "draw" (John 6: 44; 12: 32), how it denotes a dragging, or compelling, resort to saying - "but it may not always mean that." They never deny that it is a forcing or compelling when the word is used for "drawing" water or fish, but they insist that when it is used of the drawing power of love, then it does not mean to compel or force.
But, who can deny that when "attraction" is superior to resistance, even in the case of "falling in love," a compelling has taken place? How many spouses have exclaimed of this experience - "I found him/her irresistibile"?
Is God not able to successfully "woo" a heart? Does he lack the necessary attraction? Does he lack knowledge of what the object of his attraction will find irresistible? By the Arminian scheme God lacks the power and wisdom to win a heart that he is determined to win.
Arminians often speak of how conviction of sin is that preparation of heart that precedes faith and salvation, and rightly so. But, I have never heard one of them affirm that the experience of conviction may not be effectual and irresistible. Does God ask the sinner for his permission to bring him under conviction of sin? Does he not do this without such permission? Further, can the sinner resist being convicted? Can he say, "God has convicted me, but I will stop him"?
As God works powerfully, and sometimes irresistibly, in convicting of sin, so he does in also convicting of righteousness and judgment. (John 16: 8)
To compel is to force. Thus, when Arminians decry the idea of conversion being "forced," they are decrying sinners being "compelled." But, Jesus said - "compel (or force) them to come." Further, Paul says - "For the love of Christ constraineth us." (II Cor. 5: 14)
I once heard an Arminian preacher condemning effectual calling by grabbing his shirt collar and pulling it and saying - "God does not grab and pull us like this." But, I thought to myself - "does he not believe that the shepherd's crook is designed to do this very thing?" Does the shepherd not coerce and force the sheep back into the safety of the fold? Would a parent not force a child to save the child?
I once heard another Arminian preacher saying that God was like a magnet and sinners were like nails. The magnet was "drawing" and pulling, exerting force against force, on sinners. But, said he, some sinners have hardened their hearts so that they have become like big railroad spikes, while other sinners, those who have not been sinners long, are like small tacks, and therefore easier for God to "draw" and pull to himself. So, though God was drawing all, some men's resistance is greater than the power pulling them, and this is the reason why they are not effectually drawn. The Calvininst sees the problem with the Arminian's making the magnet too small and insufficient in power.
Is the magnet "forcing" the thing it draws? Who can deny it? Who can deny that the thing being drawn is resisting by the force of its weight? Who can deny that the thing drawn will be effectually drawn if enough force is exerted by the magnet?
Some Arminians, seeing the "force" of the argument from the word "draw" (John 6: 44; 12: 32), how it denotes a dragging, or compelling, resort to saying - "but it may not always mean that." They never deny that it is a forcing or compelling when the word is used for "drawing" water or fish, but they insist that when it is used of the drawing power of love, then it does not mean to compel or force.
But, who can deny that when "attraction" is superior to resistance, even in the case of "falling in love," a compelling has taken place? How many spouses have exclaimed of this experience - "I found him/her irresistibile"?
Is God not able to successfully "woo" a heart? Does he lack the necessary attraction? Does he lack knowledge of what the object of his attraction will find irresistible? By the Arminian scheme God lacks the power and wisdom to win a heart that he is determined to win.
Arminians often speak of how conviction of sin is that preparation of heart that precedes faith and salvation, and rightly so. But, I have never heard one of them affirm that the experience of conviction may not be effectual and irresistible. Does God ask the sinner for his permission to bring him under conviction of sin? Does he not do this without such permission? Further, can the sinner resist being convicted? Can he say, "God has convicted me, but I will stop him"?
As God works powerfully, and sometimes irresistibly, in convicting of sin, so he does in also convicting of righteousness and judgment. (John 16: 8)
Jun 14, 2012
Edwards on becoming a Castaway
--- "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I Cor. 9: 24-27)
On these verses the great Calvinist Jonathan Edwards wrote (emphasis mine): (see here)
"First, we ought to follow the good example that the apostle Paul has set us in his seeking the good of his own soul. First. We should follow him in his earnestness in seeking his own salvation. He was not careless and indifferent in this matter...He resolved, if it could by any means be possible, that he would attain to the resurrection of the dead..."
"Secondly. The apostle did not only thus earnestly seek salvation before his conversion and hope, but afterwards also. What he says in the 3rd chapter of Philippians of his suffering the loss of all things, that he might be found in Christ, and its being the one thing that he did to seek salvation; and also what he says of his so running as not in vain, but as resolving to win the prize of salvation, and keeping under his body that he might not be a castaway; were long after his conviction, and after he had renounced all hope of his own good estate by nature. If being a convinced sinner excuses a man from seeking salvation any more, or makes it reasonable that he should cease his earnest care and labour for it, certainly the apostle might have been excused, when he had not only already attained true grace, but such eminent degrees of it. The apostle, as eminent as he was, did not say within himself, “I am converted, and so am sure of salvation. Christ has promised it me; why need I labour any more to secure it? Yea, I am not only converted, but I have obtained great degrees of grace.” But still he is violent after salvation. He did not keep looking back on the extraordinary discoveries he enjoyed at his first conversion, and the past great experience he had had from time to time. He did not content himself with the thought, that he possessed the most wonderful testimonies of God’s favour, and of the love of Christ, already, that ever any enjoyed, even to his being caught up to the third heavens; but he forgot the things that were behind..."
"Thirdly. The apostle did not only diligently seek heaven after he knew he was converted, but was earnestly cautious lest he should be damned; as appears by the passage already cited. 1 Cor ix. 27. “But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when I have preached to others, 1 myself should be a castaway.” Here you see the apostle is very careful lest he should be a castaway, and denies his carnal appetites, and mortifies his flesh, for that reason. He did not say, “I am safe, I am sure I shall never be lost; why need I take any further care respecting it?” Many think because they suppose themselves converted, and so safe, that they have nothing to do with the awful threatenings of God’s word, and those terrible denunciations of damnation that are contained in it. When they hear them, they hear them as things which belong only to others, and not at all to themselves, as though there were no application of what is revealed in the Scripture respecting hell, to the godly. And therefore, when they hear awakening sermons about the awful things that God has threatened to the wicked, they do not hear them for themselves, but only for others. But it was not thus with this holy apostle, who certainly was as safe from hell, and as far from a damnable state, as any of us. He looked upon himself as still nearly concerned in God’s threatenings of eternal damnation, notwithstanding all his hope, and all his eminent holiness, and therefore gave great diligence, that he might avoid eternal damnation. For he considered that eternal misery was as certainly connected with a wicked life as ever it was, and that it was absolutely necessary that he should still keep under his body, and bring it into subjection, in order that he might not be damned; because indulging the lusts of the body and being damned were more surely connected together. The apostle knew that this conditional proposition was true concerning him, as ever it was. “If I live wickedly, or do not live in a way of universal obedience to God’s commands, I shall certainly be a castaway.” This is evident, because the apostle mentions a proposition of this nature concerning himself in that very chapter where he says, he kept under his body lest he should be a castaway.1 Cor. ix. 16. “For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of, for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.” What necessity was there upon the apostle to preach the gospel, though God had commanded him, for he was already converted, and was safe; and if he had neglected to preach the gospel, how could he have perished after he was converted? But yet this conditional proposition was still true; if he did not live a life of obedience to God, woe would be to him; woe to him, if he did not preach the gospel. The connexion still held. It is impossible a man should go any where else than to hell in a way of disobedience to God. And therefore he deemed it necessary for him to preach the gospel on that account, and on the same account he deemed it necessary to keep under his body, lest he should be a castaway."
It is not "Arminianism" to affirm that only those who persevere in grace and holiness will be finally saved. Biblical "Calvinism," as Edwards shows, also teaches the same. The difference is that the Arminian sees "apostasy" as the loss of actual salvation, while the Calvinist sees apostasy as proof of hypocrisy. Perseverance is proof of election and calling. Where there is no perseverance, there has been no effectual calling.
Further, Edwards shows that the Scriptures teach that salvation is both unconditional and conditional, in different senses. Meeting the conditions of salvation results from God's unconditional decree, as the oldest Calvinists after the Reformation taught. For "who makes you to differ from another?" (I Cor. 4: 7) Since it is all of God, God gets all the glory and praise.
On these verses the great Calvinist Jonathan Edwards wrote (emphasis mine): (see here)
"First, we ought to follow the good example that the apostle Paul has set us in his seeking the good of his own soul. First. We should follow him in his earnestness in seeking his own salvation. He was not careless and indifferent in this matter...He resolved, if it could by any means be possible, that he would attain to the resurrection of the dead..."
"Secondly. The apostle did not only thus earnestly seek salvation before his conversion and hope, but afterwards also. What he says in the 3rd chapter of Philippians of his suffering the loss of all things, that he might be found in Christ, and its being the one thing that he did to seek salvation; and also what he says of his so running as not in vain, but as resolving to win the prize of salvation, and keeping under his body that he might not be a castaway; were long after his conviction, and after he had renounced all hope of his own good estate by nature. If being a convinced sinner excuses a man from seeking salvation any more, or makes it reasonable that he should cease his earnest care and labour for it, certainly the apostle might have been excused, when he had not only already attained true grace, but such eminent degrees of it. The apostle, as eminent as he was, did not say within himself, “I am converted, and so am sure of salvation. Christ has promised it me; why need I labour any more to secure it? Yea, I am not only converted, but I have obtained great degrees of grace.” But still he is violent after salvation. He did not keep looking back on the extraordinary discoveries he enjoyed at his first conversion, and the past great experience he had had from time to time. He did not content himself with the thought, that he possessed the most wonderful testimonies of God’s favour, and of the love of Christ, already, that ever any enjoyed, even to his being caught up to the third heavens; but he forgot the things that were behind..."
"Thirdly. The apostle did not only diligently seek heaven after he knew he was converted, but was earnestly cautious lest he should be damned; as appears by the passage already cited. 1 Cor ix. 27. “But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when I have preached to others, 1 myself should be a castaway.” Here you see the apostle is very careful lest he should be a castaway, and denies his carnal appetites, and mortifies his flesh, for that reason. He did not say, “I am safe, I am sure I shall never be lost; why need I take any further care respecting it?” Many think because they suppose themselves converted, and so safe, that they have nothing to do with the awful threatenings of God’s word, and those terrible denunciations of damnation that are contained in it. When they hear them, they hear them as things which belong only to others, and not at all to themselves, as though there were no application of what is revealed in the Scripture respecting hell, to the godly. And therefore, when they hear awakening sermons about the awful things that God has threatened to the wicked, they do not hear them for themselves, but only for others. But it was not thus with this holy apostle, who certainly was as safe from hell, and as far from a damnable state, as any of us. He looked upon himself as still nearly concerned in God’s threatenings of eternal damnation, notwithstanding all his hope, and all his eminent holiness, and therefore gave great diligence, that he might avoid eternal damnation. For he considered that eternal misery was as certainly connected with a wicked life as ever it was, and that it was absolutely necessary that he should still keep under his body, and bring it into subjection, in order that he might not be damned; because indulging the lusts of the body and being damned were more surely connected together. The apostle knew that this conditional proposition was true concerning him, as ever it was. “If I live wickedly, or do not live in a way of universal obedience to God’s commands, I shall certainly be a castaway.” This is evident, because the apostle mentions a proposition of this nature concerning himself in that very chapter where he says, he kept under his body lest he should be a castaway.1 Cor. ix. 16. “For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of, for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.” What necessity was there upon the apostle to preach the gospel, though God had commanded him, for he was already converted, and was safe; and if he had neglected to preach the gospel, how could he have perished after he was converted? But yet this conditional proposition was still true; if he did not live a life of obedience to God, woe would be to him; woe to him, if he did not preach the gospel. The connexion still held. It is impossible a man should go any where else than to hell in a way of disobedience to God. And therefore he deemed it necessary for him to preach the gospel on that account, and on the same account he deemed it necessary to keep under his body, lest he should be a castaway."
It is not "Arminianism" to affirm that only those who persevere in grace and holiness will be finally saved. Biblical "Calvinism," as Edwards shows, also teaches the same. The difference is that the Arminian sees "apostasy" as the loss of actual salvation, while the Calvinist sees apostasy as proof of hypocrisy. Perseverance is proof of election and calling. Where there is no perseverance, there has been no effectual calling.
Further, Edwards shows that the Scriptures teach that salvation is both unconditional and conditional, in different senses. Meeting the conditions of salvation results from God's unconditional decree, as the oldest Calvinists after the Reformation taught. For "who makes you to differ from another?" (I Cor. 4: 7) Since it is all of God, God gets all the glory and praise.
Apr 27, 2012
Four Soils Parable & OSAS
In the parable of the four soils, as given in the synoptic Gospels, Jesus categorizes all hearers of the Gospel with four different kinds of soil.
The wayside ground hearer of the word is one who hears the word but does not believe it, and is not saved by it. The Bible is full of examples of these kinds of hearers. Every example of someone hearing the Gospel and rejecting it is an example of this kind of Gospel hearer.
The shallow ground hearer is one who hears the word and initially receives it, even with temporary joy, but later, when the heat of persecution and trial come, he falls away. Again, the New Testament is full of examples of this type. All those apostates who initially profess faith in the Gospel and then depart from it, and die in that state, are examples of this kind of hearer.
The thorny ground hearer is one who hears the word and also initially receives it, but later does not produce lasting fruit, does not persevere. And, again, the New Testament is full of examples of this type. All those like Demus, who go back into the world, and do not continue in fruit bearing, are examples of this kind of hearer.
The good ground hearer is one who, unlike the others, receives the word and brings forth fruit with patience (endurance or perseverence). Again, the New Testament is full of examples of this kind of hearer.
There is no disagreement that the wayside ground hearer was never saved. There is likewise no disagreement that the good ground hearer was saved and never lost his salvation. Thus, the debate focuses on the shallow ground and thorny ground hearers. And, the question debated is this - "were these hearers ever truly saved and converted?"
If it can be proved that the two cases of apostasy, typified in the shallow and thorny ground hearers, were never truly saved, and that all cases of apostasy in the New Testament fit one of these two kinds, then the proof of apostasy for those truly saved is overthrown.
How can we be sure that the wayside and thorny ground hearers were never truly saved?
First, because the shallow and thorny ground hearers receive the word with the wrong kind of heart (soil). The only heart (soil) that is "good" and "honest" is the good ground hearer. This in itself proves that those represented by the shallow and thorny ground hearers were never truly saved, unless one wants to affirm that people can be saved who receive the word with a heart that is not good and honest. Who will affirm that? The only hearer of the four who were truly saved by hearing and believing the word are those who are good ground hearers and none of them apostasize. They all bring forth fruit with perseverence. Those who teach that people can lose salvation must show how good ground hearers can fail to persevere and lose salvation. But, this they cannot do. All who receive the word with a good and honest heart persevere in fruit bearing and therefore none are lost.
All the supposed examples of professing Christians falling away are examples of shallow and thorny ground hearers, and none are examples of good ground hearers.
The wayside ground hearer of the word is one who hears the word but does not believe it, and is not saved by it. The Bible is full of examples of these kinds of hearers. Every example of someone hearing the Gospel and rejecting it is an example of this kind of Gospel hearer.
The shallow ground hearer is one who hears the word and initially receives it, even with temporary joy, but later, when the heat of persecution and trial come, he falls away. Again, the New Testament is full of examples of this type. All those apostates who initially profess faith in the Gospel and then depart from it, and die in that state, are examples of this kind of hearer.
The thorny ground hearer is one who hears the word and also initially receives it, but later does not produce lasting fruit, does not persevere. And, again, the New Testament is full of examples of this type. All those like Demus, who go back into the world, and do not continue in fruit bearing, are examples of this kind of hearer.
The good ground hearer is one who, unlike the others, receives the word and brings forth fruit with patience (endurance or perseverence). Again, the New Testament is full of examples of this kind of hearer.
There is no disagreement that the wayside ground hearer was never saved. There is likewise no disagreement that the good ground hearer was saved and never lost his salvation. Thus, the debate focuses on the shallow ground and thorny ground hearers. And, the question debated is this - "were these hearers ever truly saved and converted?"
If it can be proved that the two cases of apostasy, typified in the shallow and thorny ground hearers, were never truly saved, and that all cases of apostasy in the New Testament fit one of these two kinds, then the proof of apostasy for those truly saved is overthrown.
How can we be sure that the wayside and thorny ground hearers were never truly saved?
First, because the shallow and thorny ground hearers receive the word with the wrong kind of heart (soil). The only heart (soil) that is "good" and "honest" is the good ground hearer. This in itself proves that those represented by the shallow and thorny ground hearers were never truly saved, unless one wants to affirm that people can be saved who receive the word with a heart that is not good and honest. Who will affirm that? The only hearer of the four who were truly saved by hearing and believing the word are those who are good ground hearers and none of them apostasize. They all bring forth fruit with perseverence. Those who teach that people can lose salvation must show how good ground hearers can fail to persevere and lose salvation. But, this they cannot do. All who receive the word with a good and honest heart persevere in fruit bearing and therefore none are lost.
All the supposed examples of professing Christians falling away are examples of shallow and thorny ground hearers, and none are examples of good ground hearers.
John 10 & Eternal Security
I read with interest this morning an article at Arminian Perspectives titled - "Does Jesus Teach Unconditional Eternal Security in John 10:27-29?" (see here) in which the author sought to prove that these verses do not teach eternal security for the believer in Jesus.
The writer makes the standard Arminian rebuttal by affirming that the security of the believer is conditional, rather than unconditional. In other words, the believing and following of the sheep are the conditions of remaining saved. The argument was then made that true believers and disciples may cease to be believers and disciples and thus not be finally saved.
But, the writer failed to observe that the believing and following are not what make men sheep, but are what prove them to be so. Believing and following are what sheep do because they are sheep, and not in order that they may become sheep.
Besides, the "giving" of eternal life occurs when one becomes a believer and disciple. It is not something that is given after death or at the day of judgment. If I am a believer and disciple now, then Christ assures me that I have eternal life. If one has eternal life, then certainly he has what cannot be lost. If one could lose it, then it could hardly be called eternal life. If Christ meant to convey the idea of a salvation and eternal life that was conditional, then he certainly would have not called it "eternal" life. A life that is lost, or a life that dies, cannot be called eternal life.
Further, Jesus did not say - "some of my sheep continually hear my word and follow me," but "my sheep," all of them. Thus, if all the sheep hear and follow, then how could it be said that some of them lost their eternal life?
The idea of the passage is that once eternal life has been given, then it cannot be lost. If eternal life can be lost once it has been given, then what guarantee is there that one will not be lost even after they have entered heaven?
Not only is the idea conveyed that no person can pluck them out of the Father's hand, but so can no thing do so. This is what Paul taught in the end of Romans chapter 8 when he said that nothing will be able to separate the sheep from the love of Christ.
Does not being in the hand of God protect from any and all danger? Including sin and apostasy?
Whose responsibility is it to keep the sheep? The sheep or the shepherd? If it is the responsibility and duty of the shepherd to protect the sheep, and to secure them, then any destruction of the sheep would be the blame of the shepherd. When a believer asks the Lord to save him from his sins, and the Lord agrees to do so, then he will certainly be saved or else the fault is with the Lord. This is one reason why Paul said:
"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1: 6)
The shepherd of the sheep has a "rod" and a shepherd's "staff." (Psa. 23: 4) The staff has a crook for the purpose of pulling the sheep back when they begin to go astray. I suggest that Jesus effectively uses his staff to prevent the sheep from leaving the fold and being destroyed by wolves.
The writer makes the standard Arminian rebuttal by affirming that the security of the believer is conditional, rather than unconditional. In other words, the believing and following of the sheep are the conditions of remaining saved. The argument was then made that true believers and disciples may cease to be believers and disciples and thus not be finally saved.
But, the writer failed to observe that the believing and following are not what make men sheep, but are what prove them to be so. Believing and following are what sheep do because they are sheep, and not in order that they may become sheep.
Besides, the "giving" of eternal life occurs when one becomes a believer and disciple. It is not something that is given after death or at the day of judgment. If I am a believer and disciple now, then Christ assures me that I have eternal life. If one has eternal life, then certainly he has what cannot be lost. If one could lose it, then it could hardly be called eternal life. If Christ meant to convey the idea of a salvation and eternal life that was conditional, then he certainly would have not called it "eternal" life. A life that is lost, or a life that dies, cannot be called eternal life.
Further, Jesus did not say - "some of my sheep continually hear my word and follow me," but "my sheep," all of them. Thus, if all the sheep hear and follow, then how could it be said that some of them lost their eternal life?
The idea of the passage is that once eternal life has been given, then it cannot be lost. If eternal life can be lost once it has been given, then what guarantee is there that one will not be lost even after they have entered heaven?
Not only is the idea conveyed that no person can pluck them out of the Father's hand, but so can no thing do so. This is what Paul taught in the end of Romans chapter 8 when he said that nothing will be able to separate the sheep from the love of Christ.
Does not being in the hand of God protect from any and all danger? Including sin and apostasy?
Whose responsibility is it to keep the sheep? The sheep or the shepherd? If it is the responsibility and duty of the shepherd to protect the sheep, and to secure them, then any destruction of the sheep would be the blame of the shepherd. When a believer asks the Lord to save him from his sins, and the Lord agrees to do so, then he will certainly be saved or else the fault is with the Lord. This is one reason why Paul said:
"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1: 6)
The shepherd of the sheep has a "rod" and a shepherd's "staff." (Psa. 23: 4) The staff has a crook for the purpose of pulling the sheep back when they begin to go astray. I suggest that Jesus effectively uses his staff to prevent the sheep from leaving the fold and being destroyed by wolves.
Apr 22, 2012
Angels or the Trinity?
Was Elohim addressing angels when he said - "let us make man in our image, after our likeness"? (Gen. 1: 26) Deniers of the Trinity (or of any plurality in God) argue one of three ways on this passage. Some deniers of the Trinity assert that angels were addressed by Elohim. Some assert that Jesus Christ was addressed, but that he is not addressed as God but as the highest and first of all created beings. Some assert that the use of the plural pronouns are instances of the "royal we."
We have already seen how the plural of majesty argument is totally untenable and was no doubt an invention by certain Unitarian Jews to "explain away" the uses of the plural pronouns. Dr. Gill gave sound reasons for rejecting both the Unitarian interpretation (that says that angels are addressed) as well as of the majestic plural interpretation. Further evidence was also later given to explode the majestic plural thesis.
We do agree with the Arians who affirm that Christ and the Father are denoted by the pronouns "us" and "our." However, we do not believe that the Word/Son of God is a creature.
The view that affirms that angels are included in the plural pronouns 1) makes the angels into joint creators with Elohim and 2) makes man to have been made in the image of both angels and Elohim. Who can believe it? Is it not a biased interpretation? Is it not eisegesis rather than exegesis?
Since Elohim is plural and literally means "gods" (there are no capitals in the Hebrew), it is the most natural interpretation to see the plural pronouns "us" and "our" as referring to the persons united in the Elohim.
All revelation since Elohim originally spoke in the creation of man only enlarges upon the nature of Elohim. Later revelation fully demonstrates that Elohim is the Father, the Word (Son), and the Spirit.
Sometimes singular verbs and modifiers are used with Elohim, and this is to show us the oneness of Elohim. There are not two Elohim, but one Elohim. All the heathen Elohim are not real. On the other hand, plural verbs and modifiers are also sometimes used with Elohim, and this in order to show us the plurality of Elohim. There are distinct persons composing Elohim. Elohim is a Tri-Unity, or Trinity. He is a plural one. Elohim has more than one face, more than one persona, more than one person. The Trinitarian accepts both formulas and reconciles them. God is three persons, but one divine being.
Just as we use the singular verb "is" and also the plural verb "are" when referring to the United States, so do the scriptures use both singular and plural verbs when referring to Elohim. Historians say that most people, prior to the Civil War, said "the United States are," but that after the Civil War most people said "the United States is." Both are correct. When the singular verb is used, the focus is on the unity of the United States. When the plural verb is used, the focus is on the plurality.
The assertion that Elohim uses the plural pronouns "us" and "our" as royalty uses the plural "we," in reference to their singular persons, has already been shown to be invalid, and that it was invented by strict Unitarian Jews and apostate Judaism against such Trinitarian proofs.
It is granted that these divine plurals are couched within a larger number of singular pronouns. But the question must be asked - Why are such plurals used only here and there, in a few cases, if it is the normative rule to use the "royal we"? But even in the use of the plural "we" by royalty and editors, there is reason for doing so, as we have seen. Neither the king nor editors speak only for themselves, but for those for whom they speak.
Obviously, the plural pronouns refer to more than one person. All the attempts to deny this most basic rule of grammar by the Unitarians have proven to be futile. Further, these plural pronouns are used by Elohim personally and also by the narrator Moses.
The words "let us" are deliberative of counsel. Elohim does not say "let me." It is not one person talking to himself but one person talking to other persons. It is the Elohim talking and consulting with themselves.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion..." (Gen. 1: 26)
The two hortative expressions—“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” and “let them have dominion,” show that the persons denominated by the plural pronouns will be both the creators of man, and the grantors of authority to man. Those denominated by the plural pronouns are the creators and sovereigns of man. They are his benefactors.
Further, those addressed are not called upon to be passive observers but to be active governing participants in the creation and destiny of man.
Further, there is every reason to believe that those denoted by the plural pronouns are all equals, and that what is to be done is to be done jointly.
That these words denote deliberation and decree is self evident.
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Gen. 3: 22-24)
In these words Yahweh Elohim is still addressing the same persons who are included in the divine "us" and "our" of Genesis 1: 26. "And the LORD God said," that is, said to himself, to the "us" and the "our." It is a continuation of the divine deliberations begun in Genesis 1: 26. The words in Genesis 1: 26 were uttered before man's creation, but the words above were uttered after man's transgression and fall. It is obvious that Elohim's deliberations and decrees involve not only the creation of man but his government, judgement, and destiny.
The Elohim counsel agreed first to 1) create man in their own likeness and 2) to give man his authority and dominion. After the fall of man, this counsel, deliberation, and agreement by Elohim concerned the judgment of man for his sin and rebellion. It is not scriptural to think that Elohim has been in constant counsel and eternal deliberations with angels about the fate of man and the world.
"Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?" (Isa. 40: 12, 13)
Obviously Lord God did not take counsel with the angels but with himself alone. The "us" and the "our" of Elohim cannot therefore include any created being, but refers to the divine being alone. Angels, though they dwell in heaven, being a part of the "host of heaven," they are never called heaven's "counsellors." God does not counsel with angels and men, nor any created beings, but only declares his counsel to them. Let us notice these passages relative to the counsel of God.
"Also by watering he wearieth the thick cloud: he scattereth his bright cloud: And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth." (Job 37: 11, 12)
"The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations." (Psa. 33: 11)
"There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand." (Prov. 19: 21)
"And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of the LORD of hosts, which he hath determined against it." (Isa. 9: 17)
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isa. 46: 10)
"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." (Acts 2: 23)
"For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." (Acts 4: 28)
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." (Eph. 1: 11)
"...the immutability of his counsel..." (Heb. 6: 17)
Obviously the "counsel of the Lord" refer to God's self deliberation and to the decrees which issue forth from such counsel. This counsel concerns "all things," especially of God's purpose in redemption through Christ. Nowhere is this divine counsel ascribed to angels. Notice these rhetorical questions and the answers they imply.
"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?" (Rom. 11:34)
"For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it?" (Jer. 23: 18)
But, if the view is correct that says Elohim is addressing angels in Genesis 1-3, then one would answer that the angels counseled the Lord and knew his mind. They "stood in the counsel of the LORD," and they "heard his word."
But, the only one who can be called a "counsellor" of Elohim is the Son of God, for the prophet says that Jesus Christ is named "Counsellor" (Isa. 9: 6). He is not only so to men, but also so to the Father and Holy Spirit. Certainly the Father took counsel with his Son and Spirit.
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?...But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Heb. 1: 5, 13)
These verses make argument from silence. God has never addressed angels in such a manner, is the premise of the argument of the Apostle. God never addressed angels as his "only begotten Son" and never invited them to sit with him in counsel. That place at the right hand of God, the place of a co-ruling counsellor, is reserved for the second person of the Trinity, not for angels. Borrowing the language of the Apostle, we may well ask the Modalists - "where did God ever say to the angels, join me in counsel, creation, and sovereignty"? Surely the angelic view of the plural pronouns of the Genesis creation story, if it were valid, could find supporting evidence in the rest of Scripture that shows that angels are joint creators and counsellors with Yahweh Elohim.
From the rest of Scripture we see that the only activity of the angels at the time of creation was to sing praise at the wonders of God, not join Him in His creative work. (Job 38: 7) Where do the Scriptures represent God addressing the angels as “us” and “our”? Where do they say, “let us” do this or that divine work? To which of the angels said he at any time - "let us create"?
Genesis 1:27 – “So God (Elohim) created man in his own image...”
Genesis 9: 6 - "in the image of God (Elohim) made he man."
This is said by the narrator Moses. Had Moses believed that the "us" and the "our" included angels, then he surely would have said so here. He would have written - "so God and the angels created man in their own image." "His own image" excludes angels.
There is also no mention in these passages of an image that is common to God and angels that served as the prototype for man. If angels were co-creators with God, then surely Moses would have said - "So Elohim and the angels made man in their own image." The angels are positively excluded from being part of the "us" and "our" of Elohim. Notice the singular pronoun "his" and "he." If the angels were included, "they" would have been used. We have the same in these words of the Apostle - "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Col. 3: 10)
In the Genesis narrative it is clear that it is an attribute of God to "know good and evil."
"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (Elohim), knowing good and evil...And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." (Gen. 3: 5, 22)
"You shall be as Elohim." The Serpent did not tempt Eve with her becoming an angel and with her acquiring the attributes of an angel. LORD God says - "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." Obviously the temptation involved lust for being what only God is, to possess wisdom and knowledge that only God has.
Further, there is no mention of angels in the narrative except after the fall when Elohim placed Cherubim (plural for angelic beings) at the entrance to Eden and the Tree of Life. Thus, to read angels into the story and make them part of the divine "us" and "our" is not derived from the narrative itself. And, when angels (Cherubim) are finally mentioned, it is in the context of LORD God ordering them, not consulting with them.
"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Gen. 3: 24)
If LORD God acted in concert with angels, then surely the angels would have also been involved in evicting man from Eden and would have been involved in the placing of the Cherubim and flaming sword. But, notice that God works alone and angels are the servants of God, not his partners in government. They are doing his bidding, not counseling him in his bidding.
In fact, if we view the decrees of Elohim as eternal decrees, as we ought, then there were in fact no angels in existence when Elohim ordained and decreed. Dr. Gill says that the words "and the LORD God said" may be interpreted as "now the LORD God had said." Certainly he said the words prior to man's creation, for he says "let us make man."
It is true that angels were made prior to man, according to Scripture. But, when did God first make such a decision? Was if after the creation of angels but before the creation of man? At a specific point in time, or was it not in eternity, when there was no creature? But, to so view the decree and judgment of God is detrimental to the angelic view of the divine pronouns. If God said "let us make man" before there were any angels, then angels obviously cannot be part of the "us" and the "our."
Of course, there are other passages where Elohim speaks in the plural.
"And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." (Gen. 11: 5-9)
To whom was Yahweh speaking when the text says "and the LORD said"? To whom is he declaring the affairs of earth? To whom does he exhort to "behold" and "go to" and "let us go down"? Is he addressing angels? Are they his counsellors? Again, the whole scene is one of divine deliberation and counsel. Is God deliberating with himself, in the plurality of his persons, or with his angelic creatures? The whole of the divine imperatives may be summed up as - "let us go down and change history." It is reasonable that the same "us" that created man is the same "us" who now are seen active in the affairs of man.
Further, the text says "so the LORD scattered them." But, if the angels were part of the "us," then the text would say "so the LORD and the angels scattered them." It was the "us" who "confounded their language" but it was "the LORD" (Yahweh - singular) who "scattered them." Obviously "the Lord" is the "us." Thus, God is one in the three persons. God is a tri-unity, or Trinity. The Scripture teaches us to believe in the unity of the plurality and in the plurality of the unity.
The text says "let us confound their language...the LORD did there confound the language." Clearly "the LORD" is the same as the Elohim, or the "us" of creation and providence.
"Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me." (Isa. 6: 8)
From the New Testament we discover that both Son and Spirit were here with the Father and thus the proper use again of Deity saying "us" and "our."
Further, as we have already seen, the "watchers" and "holy ones" of Daniel chapter four refer to the Deity.
It is true that the word "maker" and "creator" are sometimes used in the plural in Scripture (Job 35:10; Ps. 149:2; Eccl. 12:1; Isa.. 54:5), but this is not because angels are such, but because Elohim is one God in three persons.
Consider further what is involved in affirming that God is addressing angels when he speaks in the Genesis creation and says "let us create man."
First, knowledge of what "man" is must first be possessed. When God says "let us create man" it is acknowledged that those addressed know what the noun "man" denotes. If God were addressing the angels, then such language implies that they know something about the blueprint, as it were, for such a creation called "man." Without such prior knowledge, those addressed would naturally think - "man? What is a man?" Thus, if angels were addressed, it can only be supposed that Elohim had previously consulted with them about what to create and why. Also, why would God call upon the angels to create man if they did not have Godlike knowledge of the effects of such a creative work? Also, why would God be calling upon angels to share the responsibility for creating man?
Further, the words "let us create man" involves saying "let us give man life," "let us give man being and immortality," "let us give man soul and spirit," "let us give man holiness and righteousness," "let us decide man's fortunes and destiny," "let us provide for his redemption," etc. Whoever creates man takes credit and responsibility for man, and such can never be reckoned to angels.
Further, God is said to have "made man a little lower than the angels." (Psa. 8: 5; Heb. 2: 7, 9) Is God consulting and deciding with angels to make man a little lower than they? I find that untenable.
Is it not true, according to the angelic view, that God could not have said, at the creation of the angels, "let us make angels...?"
Did God make angels in his own image and likeness? The Scriptures do not specifically say, although there is no objection to affirming so. But, even if angels are created in the image of God, why would he not use the same original image of himself, in the creation of men, as he did in the creation of angels? Obviously, in the creating of angels in the image of God, no other being other than God was the original. Why would the creation of man not be after the same manner?
Further, men are never said, in Scripture, to be made in the image and likeness of angels. If the angels were intended by the plural creative pronouns "us" and "our," then surely there would be other Scripture that would also say so. But, uniformly, the Scripture says that men are made in the image of God, and of him alone.
In conclusion we can positively say:
1. Scripture does not ascribe creation to angels but only to Deity.
2. Scripture never affirms that men are made in the image and likeness of angels.
3. Scripture never affirms that God takes counsel from angels.
We have already seen how the plural of majesty argument is totally untenable and was no doubt an invention by certain Unitarian Jews to "explain away" the uses of the plural pronouns. Dr. Gill gave sound reasons for rejecting both the Unitarian interpretation (that says that angels are addressed) as well as of the majestic plural interpretation. Further evidence was also later given to explode the majestic plural thesis.
We do agree with the Arians who affirm that Christ and the Father are denoted by the pronouns "us" and "our." However, we do not believe that the Word/Son of God is a creature.
The view that affirms that angels are included in the plural pronouns 1) makes the angels into joint creators with Elohim and 2) makes man to have been made in the image of both angels and Elohim. Who can believe it? Is it not a biased interpretation? Is it not eisegesis rather than exegesis?
Since Elohim is plural and literally means "gods" (there are no capitals in the Hebrew), it is the most natural interpretation to see the plural pronouns "us" and "our" as referring to the persons united in the Elohim.
All revelation since Elohim originally spoke in the creation of man only enlarges upon the nature of Elohim. Later revelation fully demonstrates that Elohim is the Father, the Word (Son), and the Spirit.
Sometimes singular verbs and modifiers are used with Elohim, and this is to show us the oneness of Elohim. There are not two Elohim, but one Elohim. All the heathen Elohim are not real. On the other hand, plural verbs and modifiers are also sometimes used with Elohim, and this in order to show us the plurality of Elohim. There are distinct persons composing Elohim. Elohim is a Tri-Unity, or Trinity. He is a plural one. Elohim has more than one face, more than one persona, more than one person. The Trinitarian accepts both formulas and reconciles them. God is three persons, but one divine being.
Just as we use the singular verb "is" and also the plural verb "are" when referring to the United States, so do the scriptures use both singular and plural verbs when referring to Elohim. Historians say that most people, prior to the Civil War, said "the United States are," but that after the Civil War most people said "the United States is." Both are correct. When the singular verb is used, the focus is on the unity of the United States. When the plural verb is used, the focus is on the plurality.
The assertion that Elohim uses the plural pronouns "us" and "our" as royalty uses the plural "we," in reference to their singular persons, has already been shown to be invalid, and that it was invented by strict Unitarian Jews and apostate Judaism against such Trinitarian proofs.
It is granted that these divine plurals are couched within a larger number of singular pronouns. But the question must be asked - Why are such plurals used only here and there, in a few cases, if it is the normative rule to use the "royal we"? But even in the use of the plural "we" by royalty and editors, there is reason for doing so, as we have seen. Neither the king nor editors speak only for themselves, but for those for whom they speak.
Obviously, the plural pronouns refer to more than one person. All the attempts to deny this most basic rule of grammar by the Unitarians have proven to be futile. Further, these plural pronouns are used by Elohim personally and also by the narrator Moses.
The words "let us" are deliberative of counsel. Elohim does not say "let me." It is not one person talking to himself but one person talking to other persons. It is the Elohim talking and consulting with themselves.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion..." (Gen. 1: 26)
The two hortative expressions—“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” and “let them have dominion,” show that the persons denominated by the plural pronouns will be both the creators of man, and the grantors of authority to man. Those denominated by the plural pronouns are the creators and sovereigns of man. They are his benefactors.
Further, those addressed are not called upon to be passive observers but to be active governing participants in the creation and destiny of man.
Further, there is every reason to believe that those denoted by the plural pronouns are all equals, and that what is to be done is to be done jointly.
That these words denote deliberation and decree is self evident.
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Gen. 3: 22-24)
In these words Yahweh Elohim is still addressing the same persons who are included in the divine "us" and "our" of Genesis 1: 26. "And the LORD God said," that is, said to himself, to the "us" and the "our." It is a continuation of the divine deliberations begun in Genesis 1: 26. The words in Genesis 1: 26 were uttered before man's creation, but the words above were uttered after man's transgression and fall. It is obvious that Elohim's deliberations and decrees involve not only the creation of man but his government, judgement, and destiny.
The Elohim counsel agreed first to 1) create man in their own likeness and 2) to give man his authority and dominion. After the fall of man, this counsel, deliberation, and agreement by Elohim concerned the judgment of man for his sin and rebellion. It is not scriptural to think that Elohim has been in constant counsel and eternal deliberations with angels about the fate of man and the world.
"Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?" (Isa. 40: 12, 13)
Obviously Lord God did not take counsel with the angels but with himself alone. The "us" and the "our" of Elohim cannot therefore include any created being, but refers to the divine being alone. Angels, though they dwell in heaven, being a part of the "host of heaven," they are never called heaven's "counsellors." God does not counsel with angels and men, nor any created beings, but only declares his counsel to them. Let us notice these passages relative to the counsel of God.
"Also by watering he wearieth the thick cloud: he scattereth his bright cloud: And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth." (Job 37: 11, 12)
"The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations." (Psa. 33: 11)
"There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand." (Prov. 19: 21)
"And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of the LORD of hosts, which he hath determined against it." (Isa. 9: 17)
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isa. 46: 10)
"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." (Acts 2: 23)
"For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." (Acts 4: 28)
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." (Eph. 1: 11)
"...the immutability of his counsel..." (Heb. 6: 17)
Obviously the "counsel of the Lord" refer to God's self deliberation and to the decrees which issue forth from such counsel. This counsel concerns "all things," especially of God's purpose in redemption through Christ. Nowhere is this divine counsel ascribed to angels. Notice these rhetorical questions and the answers they imply.
"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?" (Rom. 11:34)
"For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it?" (Jer. 23: 18)
But, if the view is correct that says Elohim is addressing angels in Genesis 1-3, then one would answer that the angels counseled the Lord and knew his mind. They "stood in the counsel of the LORD," and they "heard his word."
But, the only one who can be called a "counsellor" of Elohim is the Son of God, for the prophet says that Jesus Christ is named "Counsellor" (Isa. 9: 6). He is not only so to men, but also so to the Father and Holy Spirit. Certainly the Father took counsel with his Son and Spirit.
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?...But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Heb. 1: 5, 13)
These verses make argument from silence. God has never addressed angels in such a manner, is the premise of the argument of the Apostle. God never addressed angels as his "only begotten Son" and never invited them to sit with him in counsel. That place at the right hand of God, the place of a co-ruling counsellor, is reserved for the second person of the Trinity, not for angels. Borrowing the language of the Apostle, we may well ask the Modalists - "where did God ever say to the angels, join me in counsel, creation, and sovereignty"? Surely the angelic view of the plural pronouns of the Genesis creation story, if it were valid, could find supporting evidence in the rest of Scripture that shows that angels are joint creators and counsellors with Yahweh Elohim.
From the rest of Scripture we see that the only activity of the angels at the time of creation was to sing praise at the wonders of God, not join Him in His creative work. (Job 38: 7) Where do the Scriptures represent God addressing the angels as “us” and “our”? Where do they say, “let us” do this or that divine work? To which of the angels said he at any time - "let us create"?
Genesis 1:27 – “So God (Elohim) created man in his own image...”
Genesis 9: 6 - "in the image of God (Elohim) made he man."
This is said by the narrator Moses. Had Moses believed that the "us" and the "our" included angels, then he surely would have said so here. He would have written - "so God and the angels created man in their own image." "His own image" excludes angels.
There is also no mention in these passages of an image that is common to God and angels that served as the prototype for man. If angels were co-creators with God, then surely Moses would have said - "So Elohim and the angels made man in their own image." The angels are positively excluded from being part of the "us" and "our" of Elohim. Notice the singular pronoun "his" and "he." If the angels were included, "they" would have been used. We have the same in these words of the Apostle - "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Col. 3: 10)
In the Genesis narrative it is clear that it is an attribute of God to "know good and evil."
"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (Elohim), knowing good and evil...And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." (Gen. 3: 5, 22)
"You shall be as Elohim." The Serpent did not tempt Eve with her becoming an angel and with her acquiring the attributes of an angel. LORD God says - "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." Obviously the temptation involved lust for being what only God is, to possess wisdom and knowledge that only God has.
Further, there is no mention of angels in the narrative except after the fall when Elohim placed Cherubim (plural for angelic beings) at the entrance to Eden and the Tree of Life. Thus, to read angels into the story and make them part of the divine "us" and "our" is not derived from the narrative itself. And, when angels (Cherubim) are finally mentioned, it is in the context of LORD God ordering them, not consulting with them.
"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Gen. 3: 24)
If LORD God acted in concert with angels, then surely the angels would have also been involved in evicting man from Eden and would have been involved in the placing of the Cherubim and flaming sword. But, notice that God works alone and angels are the servants of God, not his partners in government. They are doing his bidding, not counseling him in his bidding.
In fact, if we view the decrees of Elohim as eternal decrees, as we ought, then there were in fact no angels in existence when Elohim ordained and decreed. Dr. Gill says that the words "and the LORD God said" may be interpreted as "now the LORD God had said." Certainly he said the words prior to man's creation, for he says "let us make man."
It is true that angels were made prior to man, according to Scripture. But, when did God first make such a decision? Was if after the creation of angels but before the creation of man? At a specific point in time, or was it not in eternity, when there was no creature? But, to so view the decree and judgment of God is detrimental to the angelic view of the divine pronouns. If God said "let us make man" before there were any angels, then angels obviously cannot be part of the "us" and the "our."
Of course, there are other passages where Elohim speaks in the plural.
"And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." (Gen. 11: 5-9)
To whom was Yahweh speaking when the text says "and the LORD said"? To whom is he declaring the affairs of earth? To whom does he exhort to "behold" and "go to" and "let us go down"? Is he addressing angels? Are they his counsellors? Again, the whole scene is one of divine deliberation and counsel. Is God deliberating with himself, in the plurality of his persons, or with his angelic creatures? The whole of the divine imperatives may be summed up as - "let us go down and change history." It is reasonable that the same "us" that created man is the same "us" who now are seen active in the affairs of man.
Further, the text says "so the LORD scattered them." But, if the angels were part of the "us," then the text would say "so the LORD and the angels scattered them." It was the "us" who "confounded their language" but it was "the LORD" (Yahweh - singular) who "scattered them." Obviously "the Lord" is the "us." Thus, God is one in the three persons. God is a tri-unity, or Trinity. The Scripture teaches us to believe in the unity of the plurality and in the plurality of the unity.
The text says "let us confound their language...the LORD did there confound the language." Clearly "the LORD" is the same as the Elohim, or the "us" of creation and providence.
"Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me." (Isa. 6: 8)
From the New Testament we discover that both Son and Spirit were here with the Father and thus the proper use again of Deity saying "us" and "our."
Further, as we have already seen, the "watchers" and "holy ones" of Daniel chapter four refer to the Deity.
It is true that the word "maker" and "creator" are sometimes used in the plural in Scripture (Job 35:10; Ps. 149:2; Eccl. 12:1; Isa.. 54:5), but this is not because angels are such, but because Elohim is one God in three persons.
Consider further what is involved in affirming that God is addressing angels when he speaks in the Genesis creation and says "let us create man."
First, knowledge of what "man" is must first be possessed. When God says "let us create man" it is acknowledged that those addressed know what the noun "man" denotes. If God were addressing the angels, then such language implies that they know something about the blueprint, as it were, for such a creation called "man." Without such prior knowledge, those addressed would naturally think - "man? What is a man?" Thus, if angels were addressed, it can only be supposed that Elohim had previously consulted with them about what to create and why. Also, why would God call upon the angels to create man if they did not have Godlike knowledge of the effects of such a creative work? Also, why would God be calling upon angels to share the responsibility for creating man?
Further, the words "let us create man" involves saying "let us give man life," "let us give man being and immortality," "let us give man soul and spirit," "let us give man holiness and righteousness," "let us decide man's fortunes and destiny," "let us provide for his redemption," etc. Whoever creates man takes credit and responsibility for man, and such can never be reckoned to angels.
Further, God is said to have "made man a little lower than the angels." (Psa. 8: 5; Heb. 2: 7, 9) Is God consulting and deciding with angels to make man a little lower than they? I find that untenable.
Is it not true, according to the angelic view, that God could not have said, at the creation of the angels, "let us make angels...?"
Did God make angels in his own image and likeness? The Scriptures do not specifically say, although there is no objection to affirming so. But, even if angels are created in the image of God, why would he not use the same original image of himself, in the creation of men, as he did in the creation of angels? Obviously, in the creating of angels in the image of God, no other being other than God was the original. Why would the creation of man not be after the same manner?
Further, men are never said, in Scripture, to be made in the image and likeness of angels. If the angels were intended by the plural creative pronouns "us" and "our," then surely there would be other Scripture that would also say so. But, uniformly, the Scripture says that men are made in the image of God, and of him alone.
In conclusion we can positively say:
1. Scripture does not ascribe creation to angels but only to Deity.
2. Scripture never affirms that men are made in the image and likeness of angels.
3. Scripture never affirms that God takes counsel from angels.
Apr 18, 2012
The Malak Yahweh
It is very clearly shown in the New Testament that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is a person distinct from the person of the Father and Spirit, and who is himself God. It has been shown how God is a united one, a composite unity, having one nature or divine essence or substance. The three persons are "one" in every quality or attribute of divinity. Though distinct persons, yet are they one in mind, heart, will, and understanding. The kind of oneness that exists between the three persons of the Godhead is explained by Christ to be a composite oneness.
Jesus prayed that believers all become "one," exactly as Jesus and his Father are "one." (John 17) Obviously being "one" does not mean being one person. The oneness of believers, in their personal relations, reflects the oneness of the Trinity in their internal personal relations.
Though more clearly seen in the New Testament, yet the distinct personhood of each member of "haElohim" is visible in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament Christ was known as the Word and Wisdom of God. He was also known as the "מַלְאָךְ יהוה" (mal'ak YHWH), "the messenger of Yahweh," or "the angel of the LORD", and he is mentioned 65 times and always in the singular number.
In studying the OT texts that reveal this sublime character it will be discovered how the Malak Yahweh is both seen as distinct from Yahweh and yet as Yahweh himself. This was shown by the previous posting by Dr. Gill who proved such from Scripture. These OT scriptures show that the Messiah would be the incarnation of the MalaK Yahweh, the "Angel of Yahweh's Presence," and the "Angel of the Covenant."
The OT revelation about the Malak Yahweh is detrimental to the Modalist view that the Son of God is the same person as the Father. The Malak Yahweh was God (Yahweh) but he was also a distinct person from Yahweh the Father. Both Testaments show that the Father and Son are both God and yet distinct persons. They are "one" but it is a united one. The Hebrew word for "one" in the Shema ("hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one Lord") is "echad," not "yachid," and denotes a united one. It is the same Hebrew word for "one" (echad) as used in the OT for two persons getting married and becoming "one."
The OT Appearances of Malak Yahweh
The Angel of the Lord appears to Abraham
The Angel of the Lord appears to Jacob
The Angel of the Lord appears to Hagar
The Angel of the Lord appears to Moses
The Angel of the Lord appears to Israel
The Angel of the Lord appears to Baalim
The Angel of the Lord appears to Joshua
The Angel of the Lord appears to Gideon
The Angel of the Lord appears to Manoah and wife
The Angel of the Lord appears to Elijah
The Angel of the Lord appears to David
The Angel of the Lord appears to Zechariah
In an Internet treatise title "Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament," by Anthony Rogers (see here), a five part series, Rogers shows clearly that the Malak Yahweh is the Logos, or Son of God, in his main pre-incarnate theophany or Christophany. He clearly shows that the Malak Yahweh is distinct from Yahweh the Father and yet is himself Yahweh (the Son or Word).
Part One in the series concludes with these points, points which he fully proves. I recommend all who are interested in this topic to read the entire work.
"Conclusion (Part I emphasis mine - SG)
At this point we can arrive at the following conclusions about the Angel of Yahweh:
1. The word Malak does not rule out His deity, for the word could just as well refer to a divine messenger as it can to one of the heavenly host (or even to a human messenger).
2. The phrase “the Angel of Yahweh” refers to a distinct and specific being and not to angels in general. The Angel of Yahweh exists in a class all of His own, i.e. He is unique.
3. The Angel of Yahweh spans the entire Old Testament period as seen in His appearances to Hagar, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Balaam, Joshua, Gideon, Manoah, Elijah, David and Zechariah.
4. The Angel of Yahweh is the central figure of the Old Testament, not only because He is frequently mentioned, but because of the role He plays in the lives of the patriarchs and the nation of Israel.
5. The Angel of Yahweh has many exalted titles, such as “the Angel of His presence”, “the Angel of Great Counsel”, “the Angel of the Covenant”, and “Wonderful”.
6. The Angel of Yahweh on various occasions, only a modicum of which have been explicitly referred to up to this point, refers to Himself or is referred to by others as God.
7. The Angel is likely the one in view every time a theophany occurs."
"Conclusion (Part II)
The pointed testimony of Hagar, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon and other Biblical figures, along with the inspired say-so of the Biblical authors and the self-testimony of the Angel, are more than sufficient to prove that the Bible teaches the Angel’s divine identity in no uncertain terms. If they are not sufficient to this end, then one must wonder how it would be possible to communicate such an idea at all. Of course the very fact that everyone understands what the present thesis aims to prove, namely that the Angel of Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is proof positive that people are engaging in cognitive dissonance if and when they refuse to acknowledge what the Biblical authors mean when they say the same thing."
Rogers concludes Part IIIa with a citation.
"After citing the Talmud and numerous rabbinic authorities on the fact that Yahweh is the proper name of God, and that the name applies to Him alone, M’Caul concludes thusly:
…when we combine the admissions of opponents with the plain words of Scripture, there can be no doubt of these two things, first, that the name Jehovah is the peculiar name of God; and, secondly, that God has claimed it for himself, because it has reference to that substance and essence peculiar to himself. Why, then, is it communicated to the angel of the Lord? There can be but one answer: because He partakes of that substance and essence which makes the communication of the name suitable; or, in other words, because the Angel of the Lord is very God. And this conclusion is confirmed."
In Part IIIb Rogers records:
"Objections Considered"
"In response to the above, two main objections have often been put forward by an assortment of unitarians: 1) the Malak Yahweh sometimes speaks of God in the third person and therefore cannot be God; and 2) according to the “principle of agency”, in certain situations one person can speak in the name or authority of another, i.e. a person who is sent can speak as if he is the one who sent him."
"Second, even if a distinction is intended on such occasions, as it will be shown in some passages (especially later ones) that it certainly is, in light of the Angel calling Himself God as well as being called God by others (both those within the narrative and the prophetic authors of those narratives), and speaking in the first person as well as the third person, then what we have here is evidence both for identifying the Angel as God and distinguishing Him from God, which is just to say, evidence for personal distinction within the Godhead, the very thing some people assume in advance cannot be found in the Old Testament. From the Christian perspective, neither aspect of the way the Angel speaks presents any difficulty. No theological artifice, construct or string of conjectures is necessary to make it harmonize with what the rest of the Bible teaches or Christians believe."
"As for the second objection, i.e. representatives can also speak in the first person, it also fails to present any serious challenge to the true deity of the Angel. We have already seen many significant reasons why the Angel of Yahweh cannot be reduced to the status of a non-divine representative of God, such as the fact that no mere representative would call Himself Yahweh or be called such by others, a fact that is true of the Malak Yahweh who does not shrink from making such claims and never eschews such positive attributions of deity to Himself, and He never identifies Himself to anyone as a mere representative. Furthermore, the Angel who declares Himself to be God, even Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the nation of Israel, speaks in the first person with such regularity that it is difficult to conceive of this as a normal way for a mere creature or representative to speak."
Conclusion
"There are many more reasons why the Angel’s declared divinity and first person speech cannot be written off on the basis of a “principle of agency”, as some call it, including, as we will see in the next installment, the fact that He is ascribed divine attributes, performs divine works, exercises divine prerogatives, as well as commands, is given, and receives divine worship, none of which can be said of a mere representative."
Rogers then concludes Part IIIb with these words - "To be continued..." We look forward to the future installments!
Jesus prayed that believers all become "one," exactly as Jesus and his Father are "one." (John 17) Obviously being "one" does not mean being one person. The oneness of believers, in their personal relations, reflects the oneness of the Trinity in their internal personal relations.
Though more clearly seen in the New Testament, yet the distinct personhood of each member of "haElohim" is visible in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament Christ was known as the Word and Wisdom of God. He was also known as the "מַלְאָךְ יהוה" (mal'ak YHWH), "the messenger of Yahweh," or "the angel of the LORD", and he is mentioned 65 times and always in the singular number.
In studying the OT texts that reveal this sublime character it will be discovered how the Malak Yahweh is both seen as distinct from Yahweh and yet as Yahweh himself. This was shown by the previous posting by Dr. Gill who proved such from Scripture. These OT scriptures show that the Messiah would be the incarnation of the MalaK Yahweh, the "Angel of Yahweh's Presence," and the "Angel of the Covenant."
The OT revelation about the Malak Yahweh is detrimental to the Modalist view that the Son of God is the same person as the Father. The Malak Yahweh was God (Yahweh) but he was also a distinct person from Yahweh the Father. Both Testaments show that the Father and Son are both God and yet distinct persons. They are "one" but it is a united one. The Hebrew word for "one" in the Shema ("hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one Lord") is "echad," not "yachid," and denotes a united one. It is the same Hebrew word for "one" (echad) as used in the OT for two persons getting married and becoming "one."
The OT Appearances of Malak Yahweh
The Angel of the Lord appears to Abraham
The Angel of the Lord appears to Jacob
The Angel of the Lord appears to Hagar
The Angel of the Lord appears to Moses
The Angel of the Lord appears to Israel
The Angel of the Lord appears to Baalim
The Angel of the Lord appears to Joshua
The Angel of the Lord appears to Gideon
The Angel of the Lord appears to Manoah and wife
The Angel of the Lord appears to Elijah
The Angel of the Lord appears to David
The Angel of the Lord appears to Zechariah
In an Internet treatise title "Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament," by Anthony Rogers (see here), a five part series, Rogers shows clearly that the Malak Yahweh is the Logos, or Son of God, in his main pre-incarnate theophany or Christophany. He clearly shows that the Malak Yahweh is distinct from Yahweh the Father and yet is himself Yahweh (the Son or Word).
Part One in the series concludes with these points, points which he fully proves. I recommend all who are interested in this topic to read the entire work.
"Conclusion (Part I emphasis mine - SG)
At this point we can arrive at the following conclusions about the Angel of Yahweh:
1. The word Malak does not rule out His deity, for the word could just as well refer to a divine messenger as it can to one of the heavenly host (or even to a human messenger).
2. The phrase “the Angel of Yahweh” refers to a distinct and specific being and not to angels in general. The Angel of Yahweh exists in a class all of His own, i.e. He is unique.
3. The Angel of Yahweh spans the entire Old Testament period as seen in His appearances to Hagar, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Balaam, Joshua, Gideon, Manoah, Elijah, David and Zechariah.
4. The Angel of Yahweh is the central figure of the Old Testament, not only because He is frequently mentioned, but because of the role He plays in the lives of the patriarchs and the nation of Israel.
5. The Angel of Yahweh has many exalted titles, such as “the Angel of His presence”, “the Angel of Great Counsel”, “the Angel of the Covenant”, and “Wonderful”.
6. The Angel of Yahweh on various occasions, only a modicum of which have been explicitly referred to up to this point, refers to Himself or is referred to by others as God.
7. The Angel is likely the one in view every time a theophany occurs."
"Conclusion (Part II)
The pointed testimony of Hagar, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon and other Biblical figures, along with the inspired say-so of the Biblical authors and the self-testimony of the Angel, are more than sufficient to prove that the Bible teaches the Angel’s divine identity in no uncertain terms. If they are not sufficient to this end, then one must wonder how it would be possible to communicate such an idea at all. Of course the very fact that everyone understands what the present thesis aims to prove, namely that the Angel of Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is proof positive that people are engaging in cognitive dissonance if and when they refuse to acknowledge what the Biblical authors mean when they say the same thing."
Rogers concludes Part IIIa with a citation.
"After citing the Talmud and numerous rabbinic authorities on the fact that Yahweh is the proper name of God, and that the name applies to Him alone, M’Caul concludes thusly:
…when we combine the admissions of opponents with the plain words of Scripture, there can be no doubt of these two things, first, that the name Jehovah is the peculiar name of God; and, secondly, that God has claimed it for himself, because it has reference to that substance and essence peculiar to himself. Why, then, is it communicated to the angel of the Lord? There can be but one answer: because He partakes of that substance and essence which makes the communication of the name suitable; or, in other words, because the Angel of the Lord is very God. And this conclusion is confirmed."
In Part IIIb Rogers records:
"Objections Considered"
"In response to the above, two main objections have often been put forward by an assortment of unitarians: 1) the Malak Yahweh sometimes speaks of God in the third person and therefore cannot be God; and 2) according to the “principle of agency”, in certain situations one person can speak in the name or authority of another, i.e. a person who is sent can speak as if he is the one who sent him."
"Second, even if a distinction is intended on such occasions, as it will be shown in some passages (especially later ones) that it certainly is, in light of the Angel calling Himself God as well as being called God by others (both those within the narrative and the prophetic authors of those narratives), and speaking in the first person as well as the third person, then what we have here is evidence both for identifying the Angel as God and distinguishing Him from God, which is just to say, evidence for personal distinction within the Godhead, the very thing some people assume in advance cannot be found in the Old Testament. From the Christian perspective, neither aspect of the way the Angel speaks presents any difficulty. No theological artifice, construct or string of conjectures is necessary to make it harmonize with what the rest of the Bible teaches or Christians believe."
"As for the second objection, i.e. representatives can also speak in the first person, it also fails to present any serious challenge to the true deity of the Angel. We have already seen many significant reasons why the Angel of Yahweh cannot be reduced to the status of a non-divine representative of God, such as the fact that no mere representative would call Himself Yahweh or be called such by others, a fact that is true of the Malak Yahweh who does not shrink from making such claims and never eschews such positive attributions of deity to Himself, and He never identifies Himself to anyone as a mere representative. Furthermore, the Angel who declares Himself to be God, even Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the nation of Israel, speaks in the first person with such regularity that it is difficult to conceive of this as a normal way for a mere creature or representative to speak."
Conclusion
"There are many more reasons why the Angel’s declared divinity and first person speech cannot be written off on the basis of a “principle of agency”, as some call it, including, as we will see in the next installment, the fact that He is ascribed divine attributes, performs divine works, exercises divine prerogatives, as well as commands, is given, and receives divine worship, none of which can be said of a mere representative."
Rogers then concludes Part IIIb with these words - "To be continued..." We look forward to the future installments!
Which is the Greater Sin?
Jesus spoke of the sin of Judas as being "the greater sin" when compared with the sin of Pilate. (John 19: 11)
In the debate over the nature of God and whether he is one or three persons, and over the person of Christ, whether he is God, and equal with God, each side in the debate tends to pronounce anathemas on the other sides. Unitarians condemn to Hell Trinitarians, and Trinitarians condemn Unitarians to Hell. Arians and Sebellians say that Trinitarians are guilty of polytheism and idolatry. Trinitarians say that non-Trinitarians are dishonoring God and are guilty of blasphemy.
Let us, with these thoughts in mind, consider these words of Jesus:
"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." (John 5: 22, 23)
If Trinitarians give the same glory to "the Son" as they do to "the Father," how can they be condemned? Is it not the teaching of all non-Trinitarians that "the Son" does not deserve the same glory, praise, adoration, and worship as does "God the Father"? When Christ was born the Father addressed the angels and said - "And let all the angels of God worship him (the Son)." (Heb. 1: 6) Worship him how? to what degree? Less than one worships "the Father"? If so, does this not violate Jesus' words about honoring him equally with that of his Father? Further, Jesus said that this was the will of "the Father," that all men should honor and worship "the Son" as they do him. So, Trinitarians are only doing what Jesus commanded. So, where is the sin? It seems to me that the "greater sin" comes from failing to give the same honor, glory, and worship to "the Son" as that which is given to "the Father."
Anti-Trinitarians, such as Anthony Buzzard, will say that they do "worship" Jesus, but not as they worship the Father. They say the kind of "worship" that they give to Christ is that which men, in scripture, have given to other men, to kings and lords. But, their error is clear. Jesus did not say that men should honor and worship him as they do other great created beings, but as they do the Father/Creator. Jesus said - "you shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve." (Matt. 4: 10) If Jesus were not God, the Father would not say to angels and men - "worship and serve him."
In the debate over the nature of God and whether he is one or three persons, and over the person of Christ, whether he is God, and equal with God, each side in the debate tends to pronounce anathemas on the other sides. Unitarians condemn to Hell Trinitarians, and Trinitarians condemn Unitarians to Hell. Arians and Sebellians say that Trinitarians are guilty of polytheism and idolatry. Trinitarians say that non-Trinitarians are dishonoring God and are guilty of blasphemy.
Let us, with these thoughts in mind, consider these words of Jesus:
"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." (John 5: 22, 23)
If Trinitarians give the same glory to "the Son" as they do to "the Father," how can they be condemned? Is it not the teaching of all non-Trinitarians that "the Son" does not deserve the same glory, praise, adoration, and worship as does "God the Father"? When Christ was born the Father addressed the angels and said - "And let all the angels of God worship him (the Son)." (Heb. 1: 6) Worship him how? to what degree? Less than one worships "the Father"? If so, does this not violate Jesus' words about honoring him equally with that of his Father? Further, Jesus said that this was the will of "the Father," that all men should honor and worship "the Son" as they do him. So, Trinitarians are only doing what Jesus commanded. So, where is the sin? It seems to me that the "greater sin" comes from failing to give the same honor, glory, and worship to "the Son" as that which is given to "the Father."
Anti-Trinitarians, such as Anthony Buzzard, will say that they do "worship" Jesus, but not as they worship the Father. They say the kind of "worship" that they give to Christ is that which men, in scripture, have given to other men, to kings and lords. But, their error is clear. Jesus did not say that men should honor and worship him as they do other great created beings, but as they do the Father/Creator. Jesus said - "you shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve." (Matt. 4: 10) If Jesus were not God, the Father would not say to angels and men - "worship and serve him."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)