Soteriology - Tumblr Posts
Easy Believism Versus Lordship Salvation
El Kittim
Essentially, the teaching of “easy-believism” (which proponents prefer to call “free grace,” or some similar term), asserts that the faith which saves is mere intellectual assent to the truths of the gospel, accompanied by an appeal to Christ for salvation. According to proponents of the “free grace” movement (i.e. “easy-believism”), it is not required of the one appealing for salvation that he be willing to submit to the Lordship of Christ or to stop sinning.
This shallow understanding of salvation and the gospel, known as "easy-believism," stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.
Question:
Can a person receive Jesus as his/her Savior without receiving Him as his/her Lord?
Easy believism says, yes.
Lordship salvation says, no.
What do you say?
First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology
By Author Eli Kittim
"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" (1 Peter 1.10-11 NIV).
BIBLE EXEGESIS
First, notice that the prophets (Gk. προφῆται) in the aforementioned passage are said to have the Spirit of Christ (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ) within them, thereby making it abundantly clear that they are prophets of the New Testament (NT), since there's no reference to the Spirit of Christ in the Old Testament (OT). That they were NT prophets is subsequently attested by verse 12 with its reference to the gospel:
"It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven."
Second, the notion that 1 Peter 1.10-11 is referring to NT as opposed to OT prophets is further established by way of the doctrine of salvation (Gk. σωτηρίας), which is said to come through the means of grace! This explicit type of Soteriology (namely, through grace; Gk. χάριτος) cannot be found anywhere in the OT.
Third, and most importantly, observe that "the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" were actually "PREDICTED" (Gk. προμαρτυρόμενον; i.e., testified beforehand) by "the Spirit of Christ" (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ; presumably a reference to the Holy Spirit) and communicated to the NT prophets so that they might record them for posterity's sake (cf. v. 12). Therefore, the passion of Christ was seemingly written in advance——or prophesied, if you will——according to this NT passage!
Here's Further Evidence that the Gospel of Christ is Promised Beforehand in the New Testament
In the undermentioned passage, notice that it was "the gospel concerning his Son" "which he [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures." This passage further demonstrates that these are NT prophets, since there's no reference to "the gospel (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον) of God . . . concerning his Son" in the OT:
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son" (Romans 1.1-3 NRSV).
Also, Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture” in 2 Pet. 3.16, while Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture” in 1 Tim. 5.18!
Theology Versus Chronology: A Soteriological View
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
John 7.39 Indicates that the Holy Spirit Was Unavailable Prior to Jesus’ Glorification. Is this Verse Giving Us a Chronological or a Theological Interpretation?
——-
Let’s use John 7.39 as a case study for this exegesis. It reads:
“Now he [Jesus] said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
——-
Question: When Was Christ Glorified? And Did Old Testament Believers Receive God’s Spirit Prior to Jesus’ Glorification?
The Greek word used for “glorified” is ἐδοξάσθη. But when was Christ glorified? Is it possible that he was glorified after his resurrection? No! It’s clear from the gospel narratives that in his postmortem appearances Jesus had not yet entered into his glory (e.g. Lk. 24.26).
Other passages have an eschatological twist, namely, the prophecy that we will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great glory (see Lk. 21:27).
Do believers have to wait till Judgement Day to see Christ coming in glory before they can receive the Spirit of regeneration? Certainly not! That would be too late, if that were the case.
According to most exegetical writers, Christ is actually glorified after his ascension, when he returns to Heaven for his coronation (see Dan. 7.13-14 and Rev. 5.6-14). But if John 7.39 suggests that Christ’s glory is the chronological cause of the outpouring of the Spirit, then how can the Bible talk about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with regard to Old Testament patriarchs such as David? Is it the case that no one had the Spirit of God prior to Jesus’ ascension and glorification? That cannot be! If in Psalm 51:11 King David prays to God, “Do not take Your Holy Spirit from me,” this would strongly suggest that he is already in possession of the Spirit of God! How then did David receive the Holy Spirit if it was not yet available until the glorification of Jesus? That’s one of the exegetical discrepancies we face if we interpret John 7.39, strictly speaking, from a chronological rather than a theological perspective!
——-
Christ’s Glory is Partially Exhibited Prior to his Death
There is another point. The Radiant Face of Moses (a messianic stand-in; see Exod. 34.29) reminds us of Jesus’ transfiguration prior to his death:
“There he [Jesus] was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light” (Mt. 17.2).
So Jesus’ face shone, which is a temporary type of glorification, since no other human being besides Moses has ever exhibited any such phenomenon in their physical outward appearance. Still, this remains a partial glory, not the full glorification that John 7.39 seems to be indicating.
——-
Jesus’ Glory Beheld in Advance
Here’s an interesting side note. In John 1.14, the apostles testify, “we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” But how exactly did they behold his glory if Jesus had not yet been glorified? I think we can find out by reading Second Peter 1.18-19, which says:
“We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.”
Wait. What? You mean to tell me that the-transfiguration-on-the-Mount narrative is a prophecy?? Yes, that’s what 2 Pet. 1.18-19 indicates!
Similarly, 1 Peter 1.10-11 suggests an eschatological soteriology that is also based on a prophecy: namely, the New Testament “testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory.” It reads:
“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours made careful search and inquiry, inquiring about the person or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory.”
——-
Christ’s “Great Glory” is Displayed in the End Times
Christ’s “great glory” is fully displayed during the parousia when he executes judgment (Mt. 24.29-31; 25.31-35). However, according to Romans 5.2, this hasn’t yet happened:
“Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”
——-
Conclusion
The answer is that John 7.39 is obviously giving us a theological rather than a chronological interpretation because it appears that the Holy Spirit was offered and fully available retroactively in both the Old and New Testaments •through faith• prior to Jesus’ glorification. The passage in John’s gospel (7.39) is simply trying to show the intimate connection between the reception of the Spirit and Jesus’ glorification. In other words, without Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, death, and resurrection (and ultimate glorification), there can be no salvation because the Spirit cannot be sent to reconcile humanity to God.
But if God already knows the future outcome and the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ——since he has been “declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done” (Isa. 46.10)——then believers in God can and do receive the Holy Spirit •retroactively• “through faith” (1 Pet. 1.3-5) based on the merits of the prophetic message revealed by God in Scripture! In fact, “this grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began” (2 Tim. 1.9)!
——-
Jesus’ Death: Sacrifice or Suicide?
By Writer Eli Kittim
——-
John 15.13:
“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
But how does one do that voluntarily?
Philosophically speaking, unless God’s Sovereignty somehow orchestrates the events leading up to the death of Jesus, how else could Christ offer his life voluntarily?
——-
Thus, are we talking about a Messianic Sacrifice or a Suicide in the New Testament? There have been numerous academic studies that have addressed this question. The Canonical Epistles exclaim:
“And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Eph. 5.2).
——-
So, the question arises: how exactly has Christ “given himself for us, [as] an offering and a sacrifice to God”?
Bear in mind that the term “sacrifice” has the meaning of a voluntary offering of a life. However, if other people planned and performed the execution of Jesus, then how is his atonement deemed a voluntary sacrifice?
——-
It seems to me that the only possible explanation for a voluntary sacrifice is Suicide: the laying down of one’s own life! In the New Testament gospels, Jesus himself implies that no one else actually kills him but rather that he offers (“takes”) his life voluntarily. Speaking about his life, he declares:
“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10.18)!
It can be paraphrased as follows: “no one takes my life from me; I take my own life.” Otherwise stated, if others had planned on killing Jesus through coercion, then that type of sacrifice would have occurred in an involuntary manner. Not to mention that others would have taken his life from him. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus foreknew it doesn’t necessarily make it voluntary, nor can it be described as an event that transpired according to his wishes. The fact that he was forced to drink the cup against his wishes demonstrates that even the foreknowledge of this event didn’t make his sacrifice voluntary! So what is it that allows him to lay down his life of his own accord?
——-
Remember the “Temptation of Christ,” which comprised three temptations? One is to gain the whole world and its kingdoms. The second is to satisfy his deepest wishes and desires. But in the third temptation (Lk 4.9-12) Satan tempts Jesus to commit suicide!
——-
If we consider the “typological” relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament, we can see, for example, that Samson may be seen as a “type” of Christ in being a sort of savior and superhuman figure (e.g. the “Annunciation” in Lk 1:26–38 is seemingly modelled on the announcement of Samson’s birth in Judg. 13). The last act of Samson comprises his noble death, one that is positively characterized by martyrdom and Suicide in the Old Testament! The biblical narrator seems to commend Samson’s suicide by emphasizing that God strengthened Samson to carry out this massacre: “So those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life” (Judg. 16.30)! This is a reference to the massacre in which Samson, in an act of revenge, pushed the two “pillars on which the house rested” (Judg. 16.29) on top of the Philistines and cried out: “Let me die with the Philistines” (v. 30). If Samson is a “type” of Christ, then we would expect something analogous taking place in the death of Christ, the “antitype”!
——-
Another “type” of “Messianic sacrifice” in the Old Testament occurs in Genesis 22, namely, the sacrifice of Isaac! If it had been carried out, it would have been tantamount to “shedding one’s own blood.” It would be akin to the act of killing one's self; aka suicide! In fact, Abraham is commended for attempting this act (Gen. 22.16-17), and then God mysteriously equates Abraham’s act with a “type” of global redemption:
“and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22.18).
Let’s not forget that the redemptive sacrifice of Issac is a “type” and a foreshadowing of Christ’s Atonement, that is to say, Christ’s voluntary sacrifice!
——-
The same motif of “shedding one’s own blood” is prevalent in the Old Testament, as, for example, in the killing of Abel by Cain (Genesis 4:1–16). And similar to other messianic stand-ins who have committed murder, such as Moses and David, Cain is also a Messianic-type figure on which God grants divine protection through a special “mark” (Gen. 4.15).
——-
So, these acts of “shedding one’s own blood”——as in the case of Cain killing his brother Abel and especially that of Abraham and Isaac in which Abraham is celebrated as a person of great faith in sacrificing his only son (Heb. 11.17-19)——seem to foreshadow the atoning death and voluntary sacrifice of the Messiah!
——-
Here’s another controversial example that seems to fit the bill. It begins in the Book of Zechariah the prophet:
“Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones” (Zech. 13.7).
But who is “the shepherd” in this verse referring to? Jesus claims that it is a reference to himself:
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn 10.11).
Let’s now take a look at the controversial verse in Mt. 26.31, which is based on Zech. 13.7:
“Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”
First, why would his followers be offended? Death, on behalf of one’s principles, at the hands of the state has always been viewed as a heroic and noble sacrifice since the death of Socrates! So, one wonders what the cause of the offense might be?
Second, whom does "I” refer to in Mt. 26.31? We already know that Jesus is the “shepherd” in question. So then, who “will smite the shepherd”? Some say God the father; others say, Jesus! If, in fact, this first person singular pronoun refers to Jesus, then according to one noted minister, Frederick K. C. Price, “That means he’s gonna kill himself” (i.e. commit suicide). In other words, the exegesis suggests that Jesus will smite himself!
——-
Given that there are no unnecessary words in the New Testament, and that they’re all there for a reason, the undercurrent of John’s gospel raises an important question: is Jesus going to kill himself?
“Then the Jews said, ‘Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come'?" (Jn 8.22).
The Original Greek text reads:
ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι · Μήτι ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν ὅτι λέγει · Ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν;
That’s a non sequitur. From a literary standpoint, the Jewish conclusion of a possible suicide does not logically follow the apparent context. How can suicide be inferred from Jesus’ statement: “Where I am going, you cannot come”? It cannot! Therefore, we have to assume that something else is going on in the text and that John is trying to give us a heads-up that a suicide might lay in store for him!
Certainly, the Greek phrase “ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν” means “to kill himself” (i.e. to commit suicide)!
——-
Conclusion
The fact that Jesus lays down his own life (Jn 15.13) as a voluntary offering and sacrifice, and given that no one else takes his life from him but that he himself lays it down of his own accord” (Jn 10.18), seems to indicate that his death is a result of his own volition rather than that of the traditional set of circumstances that we’re familiar with.
What is more, there are quite a number of references to suicidal or quasi-suicidal deaths in the Old Testament that are then carried forward into the New Testament where, for example, Jesus himself is actually tempted by Satan to commit suicide (Lk 4.9)!
And then we read in John’s penetrating and revealing gospel that the Jews were indeed wondering whether or not Jesus was “going to kill himself?” (8.22)! So, over and above the New Testament’s theological import, we might rightfully ask ourselves: is Jesus’ Death a Sacrifice or a Suicide?
——-
How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
What does the Bible say about salvation?
Romans 8.14 implies that if you’re not “led by the Spirit” you’re NOT a child of God. The phrase “led by the Spirit” implies an actual “existential experience” (cf. Mt. 4.1), not mere belief (i.e. an idea presumed, but not known):
“For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (Rom. 8.14).
Romans 8.9 makes it absolutely clear that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are not saved: https://biblehub.com/romans/8-9.htm
Jesus also makes it very clear in John 3.3 that you can not even see the kingdom of God, let alone be possessed by it, unless you are born again: https://biblehub.com/john/3-3.htm
That’s precisely why the Epistle to the Ephesians instructs us to put away the “old self” and to put on a new identity, namely, “the new self,” which is made in the image of God:
“You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (4.22-24 NRSV).
And, of course, we must “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3.18) and truly believe “that Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10.9), especially in the midst of this existential crisis!
*****
All these verses seem to indicate that the requirements for salvation involve considerable risk. Therefore, we must undergo some kind of personal existential experience (or a Dark night of the soul) in order for a transformation to take place. It is only in the midst of this mysterium tremendum, or existential dread, that salvation can take place. Thus, Philippians 2.12 poignantly says, “So work with fear and trembling to discover what it really means to be saved” (CEV): https://biblehub.com/philippians/2-12.htm
Ezekiel 36.26 drives home this spiritual idea of death and resurrection: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you” (cf. John 12.24)!
——-
We must first die to our ego before we can reach out for God in faith
The language of the New Testament thus implies that we have to go out of ourselves in order to find God, as Thomas Merton used to say. For example, 2 Corinthians 5:13 suggests that Paul (and by implication each and every apostle) had lost his identity to gain Christ’s (cf. Gal. 2.20):
εἴτε γὰρ ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ ·
Translation: “If we are out of our mind, it is for God” (BSB): https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/5-13.htm
So the question arises: Why is a *Mad-Mind* mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:13, and what exactly is Paul trying to teach us about the process or the goal of Salvation?
Astoundingly, we find the exact same theme reiterated in Mark 3.21 where Jesus himself is said to be “out of his mind” (which may be an allusion to the biblical narrative known as the “Temptation of Christ” in which after being baptized Jesus was led by the Spirit into the Judaean Desert to be tempted by Satan): https://biblehub.com/mark/3-21.htm
The soteriological point of that existential experience is that Jesus must lose his identity so as to enter into the divine union with God. I’m by no means suggesting “Adoptionism,” the notion that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism. No! Not at all! All I’m saying is that Jesus becomes one of us by taking on human nature (and all the suffering that it entails) so that he, too, like us, is confined to the same spiritual process and requirement of transcending the “self.” As Søren Kierkegaard once wrote, “to have faith is precisely to lose one’s mind so as to win God” (The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening)!
Similarly, John of the Cross, the celebrated 16th century mystic, says that during “the night of sense” a spirit of dizziness overtakes the spiritual faculties of an individual. This energy overwhelms the mind and causes it to lose its identity. That’s probably what Isaiah 19.14 is all about: https://biblehub.com/isaiah/19-14.htm
Do you recall Acts 2.15 in which Peter had to explain to the crowd that “Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, “ but rather filled with the Holy Spirit?
A contemplative exegesis of Psalm 107.27-30 suggests this mystical journey through the Dark night of the soul:
“they reeled and staggered like drunkards, and were at their wits' end. Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he brought them out from their distress; he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed. Then they were glad because they had quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven.”
This is reminiscent of the path of the mania of love (or the madness sent from the gods) by which we arrive at divine knowledge, as exemplified in Plato’s works: Phaedrus and Symposium. Evagrios the Solitary (aka Evagrios Pontikos), a mystical monk from Pontus (ca. 345-399 ce), says something similar about the prayer of stillness, “which by virtue of the most intense love transports to the noetic realm the intellect that longs for wisdom” (The Philokalia: The Complete Text; Compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. Trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Kallistos Ware. Vol. 1. [London: Faber, 1983], p. 62).
*****
The Beatitudes must be understood in the same exact context. They’re not a political manifesto that calls for social reform, nor are they about the materially poor or the physically hungry. Matthew 5.3 reads: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Notice that Matthew doesn’t say that they are poor in the sense that they lack sufficient money, but rather that they’re “poor in spirit,” as are those who enter the dark night of the soul! Similarly, the text unambiguously says: “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Mt. 5.6), not for food and drink! It would appear then that the Beatitudes are a guide to inner transformation or regeneration, what it means to be “born from above” (3.3) in the Johannine gospel. Only those who are poor in spirit (not in money), who have emptied themselves and have become as nothing can be blessed, meek, righteous, merciful, pure in heart, peaceful, and loving! Why? Because only those can be “born from above” and “be called children of God” (Mt. 5.9) and receive “the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5.10). Only those are worthy of salvation! No one else. That’s the point!
——-
How then is the Dark night of the soul (which makes us poor in spirit) depicted in Scripture?
One illustration might come from Isaiah 6.5:
“Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”
Elsewhere, Isaiah 50.10 reads:
“Who among you fears the Lord and obeys the voice of his servant, who walks in darkness and has no light, yet trusts in the name of the Lord and relies upon his God?”
*****
It’s quite clear from Exodus 20.21 that we can only approach God in darkness:
“Then the people stood at a distance, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.”
——-
So if this is in fact the cost of salvation, how do we obtain it?
Well, first we have to “estimate the cost”:
“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?” (Lk. 14.28).
If you reply to this question in the affirmative, then the next question is a practical one, namely, how do we proceed?
Answer: Not through discursive thinking but rather through meditation. That’s because God can only be found in silence. Thought is a distraction. One form of Western contemplation that goes back to the desert fathers of Egypt is what is known as *Centering Prayer.* This is a popular Christian meditation that places a strong emphasis on interior silence. In a very advanced stage it leads to inner transformation and union with Christ! In other words, it leads to authentic salvation! And the litmus test of that experience is that you fall madly in love with Jesus Christ!
*****
Allegorically speaking, Matthew 6.6 alludes to this prayer of stillness when it says:
“But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
The Hebrew Bible also says: “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46.10; 62.5)!
——-
Conclusion
Salvation is not an act of the will or the intellect. Rather, it’s a transformation of the mind: a rebirth! This, then, is the noblest path to salvation, the symbolic road to Emmaus that leads to resurrection, regeneration, and new life! But regeneration and rebirth from above (Jn 3.3-6) require much suffering (Heb. 12.6), pain (Acts 14.22), fear (Phil. 2.12), as well as deep and profound changes to the personality (Acts 2.1-4, 15; 9.20-22). That’s why in 2 Corinthians 12.9 God doesn’t say “my power is made perfect in weakness,” but rather “my power is accomplished in illness.” Most, if not all, Bible versions translate the Greek word ἀσθενείᾳ as “weakness.” But ἀσθενείᾳ really means “illness.” In other words, God’s power is manifested and accomplished in us when we become ill: that is, mentally ill! This, more accurate, translation should really change our understanding of soteriology & inform us about the process of salvation itself❗️
——-
What Does Galatians 4.4 Mean When it Says that Jesus is “Born Under The Law”?
By Author Eli Kittim
Kittim’s Futurist Eschatology
As you may know, my unique view is that Jesus has not yet come to earth and that he’ll make his first appearance “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b KJV) or in the “last days” (Heb. 1.2) or “at the final point of time" (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB)! So, before attempting to expound on what being “born under the law” means, let me briefly explain how Gal. 4.4 closely ties into my unique futurist view. I will briefly refer to my interpretation of Gal. 4.4 so that you can understand the basis of my hermeneutic, but will not delve into it at length.
Interpreting the Implicit by the
Explicit
We won’t be able to mine the depths of Scripture if we don’t allow the Bible to tell us what something means. We are accustomed to imposing our own presuppositions on the text (called “eisegesis”). That’s why the best interpretation is no interpretation at all! For example, since there is a verbal agreement between Gal. 4.4 and Eph. 1.9-10 with respect to the phrase, “the fullness of time,” we should allow the more explicit passage in Ephesians to interpret and define the more implicit one in Galatians. Ephesians 1.9-10 (NASB) reads thusly:
“He [God] made known to us the mystery of
His will, according to His kind intention
which He purposed in Him with a view to an
administration suitable to the fullness of the
times, that is, the summing up of all things
in Christ, things in the heavens and things
on the earth.”
In this case, the key word that gives us the meaning of “the fullness of time” in Ephesians 1.10 is the Greek term ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι (“summing up”). It means “completion,” “end,” “summary” (see Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], p. 106)! The didactic or exegetical principle is as follows: if this *time-period* or *timeline* in Ephesians refers to the final consummation and the conclusion of all things or the *summing-up* (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ, both in the heavens and on the earth, then the same exact phrase in Galatians 4.4, given that it refers to the same temporal context, must have an identical meaning. And, if that’s the case, then the phrase should refer to the consummation of the ages, not to 2,000 years ago! Therefore, we have erred linguistically by attributing this eschatological expression to the time of antiquity! We have thereby misinterpreted the Greek text.
Is the Law Still Applicable in
Modern Times?
Now that we understand Galatians 4.4 as a reference to future eschatology, the question arises: how can Gal. 4.4 be a reference to modern times? In other words, how is the “law” still applicable in our day and age? More specifically, how do we interpret Gal. 4.4 when it says that God’s Son is “born under the law”? It’s a very good question. And it was asked by a member of the Eli of Kittim Bible Exegesis Group on Facebook.
Here’s the answer. The first thing to realize is that Galatians 4.4 is in fact referring to the Mosaic Law and depicts Christ’s birth as if it takes place under the law (ὑπὸ νόμον). The use of this often repeated term (νόμον) in the Bible ensures us that Gal. 4.4 is not referring to the natural law. It’s also important to understand that the Mosaic Law, including the 10 commandments, was not only intended for the Jews, it was meant to be the standard of morality for the entire human race. And we would be judged by it accordingly until the arrival of grace in Christ Jesus. So why are we told that Jesus is “born under the law”? The next verse tells us why:
“in order to redeem those who were under
the law, so that we might receive adoption
as children (v. 5).”
Has the Law Been Abolished or
Not?
Now, the Greek term νόμον is exclusively referring to the Moral Law (not the ceremonial or civic law). So, the Law was given to instruct us as to what is good and evil. However, according to the New Testament, only the *death* of Jesus can *abolish* the Law. [1] Nothing else. Therefore, if Jesus has not yet died, the law remains in effect. And if in fact Jesus has not yet died, then he will be born under the law in the fullness of time. Paul tells us that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was “abolished” (Gk. katargeo, which means “discarded” or “nullified”) by the *death* of Jesus (Eph. 2.14-15). However, the past tense “was” may be an English mistranslation because the temporal value of this verse hangs on the Greek verb καταργήσας, which does not necessarily refer to past history. But even with regard to translations that presuppose the past-tense “was” as the correct translation of καταργήσας (perhaps due to the past-tense ποιήσας [having made] from the previous verse [v. 14]), nevertheless the *time-of-the-action* still seems to be in a transhistorical context. I’ve mentioned numerous times that Stanley E. Porter, a top Hellenistic Greek linguist, assures us that “temporal values (past, present, future) are not established in Greek by use of the verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone” (see Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament [2nd edn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], p. 25)! In other words, past tenses do not necessarily imply past events. Isaiah 53 is a perfect example. Despite all of the past tenses, it is obviously a prophecy that Isaiah is writing about, at least from a Christian hermeneutical standpoint! So, returning to our main topic, according to Paul, only the death of Jesus can truly abolish the Law!
Paul’s Christ is Not Yet
Remember that in other places Paul suggests that the evidence for Jesus’ ransom is still future:
“Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be
testified in due time” (1 Tim. 2.6).
In 1 Cor. 15.8 (NRSV) Paul declares that Christ appeared to him “as to one untimely born,” that is, as if Paul were born before the time of Christ. And in Romans 5.6 the grammatical structure of the sentence appears in a transhistorical context and doesn’t necessarily warrant a reference to history. Paul employs the word ἔτι which implies not yet. So when Paul says that Christ “died” (απέθανεν), his death is in this transhistorical context! This is further confirmed by Paul’s use of the phrase κατά καιρόν, which means “at the right time” (cf. 1 Tim. 2.6), or at “the appropriate time,” in the sense that Christ died at some unspecified time of human history:
Ἔτι γὰρ ⸃ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι
κατά καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν (Rom.
5.6)!
Translation (NASB):
“For while we were still helpless, at the right
time Christ died for the ungodly.”
Similarly, Luke 17.30 also suggests that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed!
Only Jesus’ Death Can Abolish the
Law
Technically speaking, even the New Covenant (New Testament) is not ratified until the *death* of Jesus:
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood,
which is poured out for you” (Luke 22.20).
Hebrews 9.16-17 suggests that without the death of the testator the will (i.e., “testament”) is not yet in effect.
Hebrews 8:13 reads:
“When He said, ‘A new
covenant,’ He has made the
first obsolete. But whatever is
becoming obsolete and
growing old is ready to
disappear.”
We’re also told that the condemnation of the Law (the charges brought forth against us) would be nullified or cancelled as a legal code by Christ’s *death* (cf. Col. 2.13-14).
Galatians 3:23 reads:
“But before faith came, we were kept in
custody under the law, being shut up to
the faith which was later to be revealed.”
Galatians 3:24 explains:
“Therefore the Law has become our tutor
to lead us to Christ, that we may be
justified by faith.”
Thus, Galatians 3:25 declares:
“But now that faith has come, we are no
longer under a tutor [Law].”
Conclusion
It’s absolutely clear from the New Testament that without the *death* of Christ the Law is still in effect, as well as the charges levelled against humanity by its moral code. In other words, if Christ hasn’t died, then those who are reborn in Christ are retroactively *saved-by-faith-in-the-promises-of-God* but are not fully and literally saved yet. That’s why the Holy Spirit is given to regenerated human beings as a deposit, not as a full payment or reward:
“[He] set his seal of ownership on us, and
put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit,
guaranteeing what is to come (2 Cor. 1.22
NIV).”
Nevertheless Paul seemingly says that he believes that Christ is able to protect what he has “entrusted to Him until that day” when he fulfills it and presumably *dies* for him:
“For this reason I also suffer these things,
but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I
have believed and I am convinced that He
is able to guard what I have entrusted to
Him until that day” (2 Tim. 1.12 NASB).
And when is that day? It is the day of Christ’s sacrifice and atoning death that transpires in “the fullness of time” (Gal 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10)! This eschatological motif is present throughout the New Testament: from Rev. 12.5 to Rev. 19.10 to Rev. 22.7 to 1 Jn 2.28, we constantly find the theme that Christ will appear “once at the consummation of the ages” to *die* for sin (Heb. 9.26b NASB), which is also confirmed in Eph. 1.10 and Gal. 4.4!
Therefore, if Jesus hasn’t died yet, we are all still under the Law. And thus if he appears “once for all at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b NRSV), then he, too, is “born under the law.”
Footnotes
[1] In using the term “abolish” I
don’t mean the eradication of
the moral standard completely.
Rather, I mean to abolish the
law as a soteriological means;
as a way to salvation, as well as
a means of condemnation.
The Fullness of Time Theology: A Critique of Covenant And Dispensational Theology
By Author Eli Kittim
My Agreements and Disagreements with both Camps
One has to be au courant with Biblical Hermeneutics to evaluate various facets of Christian theology. I would like to stress at the outset that I’m not a proponent of either covenant or dispensational theology. I do accept certain aspects of both theologies while rejecting others.
I’m not a reformed theologian but I do agree that the Old Testament (OT) is essentially Christocentric (not Jewishcentric) and that the New Testament (NT) is not talking about two peoples (the church and the Jews) but rather one: the elect (cf. Eph. 2.19-20), which is to say the Biblical metanarrative of the OT is not about a race but about a person: the Messiah! Some pastors, like John Hagee, have gone so far as to say that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved by their own covenants. The dispensational view is therefore unbiblical because it creates 2 people of God: the Jews and the church. Part of the problem is their reliance on denotative meanings and a literal interpretation of Scripture. In my view, the church doesn’t replace Israel. The church is Israel (cf. Rom. 9.8; Gal. 3.29; 6.16). It’s always been about the elect in Christ. If in fact there are 2 peoples with 2 sets of standards (law & grace) by which they’re saved, then that would invalidate Christ’s atonement, as would the rebuilding of the third temple, which would necessitate the reinstituting of animal sacrifices.
The Dispensation of the Fullness of Time
As a framework for biblical interpretation, dispensationalism is often described as a series of ages or different periods in history. This interpretative framework defines each distinctive time period as a dispensation or an administration of an age. But the only temporal dispensation I find in the NT is that of the fullness of time. Ephesians 1.9-10 reads:
γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος
αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν
προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ
πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,
ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν
τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ
τῆς γῆς · ἐν αὐτῷ.
Translation (NRSV):
“he has made known to us the mystery of his
will, according to his good pleasure that he
set forth in Christ, as a plan [οἰκονομίαν] for
the fullness of time, to gather up all things
in him, things in heaven and things on
earth.”
In short; the designation “the fullness of time” (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) refers to the period of time (οἰκονομίαν; dispensation) when all things, both in in the heavens and upon the earth, will conclude in Christ. The Greek word ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι means to “sum up” (see G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], pp. 1094-95).
So, according to Eph. 1.10, it’s “a plan [dispensation] for the fullness of time,” which will culminate “at the end of the age” (cf. Gal. 4.4; Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Heb. 9.26b)! Surprisingly, neither covenant theology nor dispensational theology refer to this Biblical dispensation. Similarly, in Acts 3.19-21, Peter is addressing a crowd and astoundingly refers to Christ’s coming in the context of futurist eschatology. He refers to “the Messiah appointed for you” as the προκεχειρισμένον (i.e. appointed beforehand) Christ “Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.” Peter says:
“Repent therefore, and turn to God so that
your sins may be wiped out, so that times of
refreshing may come from the presence of
the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah
appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must
remain in heaven until the time of universal
restoration that God announced long ago
through his holy prophets.”
Thus, the key Biblical dispensation or plan of God is the one pertaining to the fullness of time (i.e. at the end of the age) when all his plans will be fulfilled.
Grace Has Always Existed
Ephesians 3.1-9 explains that God’s plan was always to turn the entire world into Israel (i.e. a holy people, not a race):
“This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner
for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles
—for surely you have already heard of the
commission [οἰκονομίαν; dispensation] of
God’s grace that was given me for you, and
how the mystery was made known to me by
revelation [ἀποκάλυψιν], as I wrote above in
a few words, a reading of which will enable
you to perceive my understanding of the
mystery of Christ. In former generations this
mystery was not made known to
humankind, as it has now been revealed to
his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:
that is, the Gentiles have become fellow
heirs, members of the same body, and
sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus
through the gospel. Of this gospel I have
become a servant according to the gift of
God’s grace that was given me by the
working of his power. Although I am the very
least of all the saints, this grace was given
to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of
the boundless riches of Christ, and to make
everyone see what is the plan [οἰκονομία;
dispensation] of the mystery hidden for
ages in God who created all things.”
In other words, it was part of God’s plan from the outset to call the entire world Israel! The dispensation or plan of God was to reveal the mystery that the Gentiles also form part of the chosen people of God. However, before we can demonstrate this point, we first need to show how grace was always available, even from the time of the Pentateuch (the Torah).
I should note, parenthetically, that there’s a theological confusion pertaining to God’s dispensation of grace with regard to soteriology. Many Biblical thinkers mistakenly assume that God’s grace is not offered to humanity until the *timing* of the atonement, or the cross, if you will. The age prior to that is often viewed as a time that precedes the age of grace. But that is an incorrect position which presumes that our salvation cannot precede the timing of Christ’s sacrifice (see my article: Theology Versus Chronology https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611676639545393152/theology-versus-chronology-a-soteriological-view).
One could reasonably argue that grace was always available “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2.23) and was even explicitly mentioned in the writings of the law and the prophets. Deut. 30.6 is a case in point. The undermentioned verse from the Torah doesn’t appeal to works but to grace:
“circumcise your heart and the heart of your
descendants, so that you will love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all
your soul, in order that you may live.”
Ezekiel 36:26 is very similar. Here, once again, the OT is not referring to Works but to Grace. The text reads:
“I will give you a new heart and put a new
spirit in you; I will remove from you your
heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.”
Jeremiah 31.33 (cf. 24.7; 32.39-40) is along similar lines:
“I will put my law within them, and I will write
it on their hearts.”
In a comparable manner, Ezekiel 18.31 (cf. 11.19) says:
“Cast away from you all the transgressions
that you have committed against me, and
get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!
Why will you die, O house of Israel?”
But if this covenant with Israel is a covenant of Grace (cf. Jer. 31.33; Heb. 8.10), then who is Israel? Answer: the elect; the chosen people; those who are in Christ. If that was always God’s plan or οἰκονομίαν, to which all things in the OT pointed, then Grace was always available and did not suddenly come into play during NT times.
Therefore, there are not two people of God but only one: those who are in Christ. At the end of the age, Christ will not judge the world like a shepherd separating three types of people: the elect, the reprobates, and the Jews. Rather, he will separate “the sheep from the goats” (Mt. 25.32). In other words, there are only two categories: you are either in Christ or out of Christ!
What is more, Pastors do Christianity a disservice when erroneously stating that the Jews will be saved after the rapture. No they will not! The gates will be shut after the church leaves the earth. Matthew 25.10-12:
“and the door was shut. Later the other
bridesmaids came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord,
open to us.' But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I
do not know you.' “
That’s what the Parable of the Ten Virgins signifies. The 10 virgins represent the church that is waiting for the Bridegroom, who is Jesus (Mt. 9.15), to take her away in the rapture——“for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready” (Rev. 19.7).
That is what the parable of the 10 virgins means. To teach that Jews will be saved after the rapture is a false and dangerous teaching that is jeopardizing people’s lives.
Just because the Jews misinterpreted their Scriptures doesn’t mean that grace wasn’t available or that God didn’t refer to their regeneration-through-the-spirit in the OT. Therefore, to arbitrarily superimpose different dispensational ages and read them back into the text is as dangerous as it is reprehensible.
So, Grace was always present from the very beginning. But it was not fully understood until the NT era. But that doesn’t mean that it was not alluded to or explicitly referenced in the OT. It certainly was, as I have demonstrated.
What Does the term Israel Mean?
The term Israel can refer to many things. It can mean the promise land (Palestine); it can signify the former northern kingdom; it can refer to the purported historical person known as Jacob; it can be a reference to the 12 tribes; it can refer to God’s chosen people (of which a subset would be God’s people of the OT & NT); Israel can refer to Jews; it could mean the modern nation that’s located in the Middle East; it can also refer to anyone who is of the Abrahamic covenant; that is, the descendants of Abraham (both figuratively and literally) can be called Israel; the religion itself can be called Israel (i.e. those who worship Yahweh); the people of God in today’s generation (aka the church) can also be called Israel; and so on and so forth. Thus, to interpret this term exclusively as “the Jews” is to ignore all the nuances of meaning that the text provides. Using the analogy of Scripture, we allow Paul to give us an exact definition of what it means to be a "Jew" within the NT context. Apparently, the biblical term Jew does not denote a race but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. In Romans 2.28-29, Paul writes:
“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,
nor is circumcision that which is outward in
the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one
inwardly; and circumcision is that which is
of the heart.”
To further explore the significance of this passage, read William Barclay, a world-renowned NT scholar, and his commentaries in the book, The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975, p. 47). What is more, 1 Pet 2.9 uses OT language, related to Israel, to describe the elect in Christ:
“But you are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his
own possession, that you may proclaim the
excellencies of him who called you out of
darkness into his marvelous light.”
Who Are the Heirs of the OT Promises of God?
In the Book of Romans, Paul does not explicitly deny the notion that the concept of grace existed in OT writings. Since this was foreshadowed but not fully explained in the OT——with the exception of some soteriological allusions in certain passages, such as Isaiah 53.3-8 and Zechariah 12.9-10, for instance——Paul takes it upon himself to expound the merits of Grace vis-à-vis the messianic atonement in his letter to the Romans.
Even Covenant theologians find this so-called new manifestation of grace rather disturbing. According to them, there is only one covenant of grace that has been operating uniformly in each and every age. Thus, when Paul discusses “the commission of God's grace that was given” to him (Eph. 3.2), he’s referring to a “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψιν) in Eph. 3.3-7:
“the mystery was made known to me by
revelation, as I wrote above in a few words,
a reading of which will enable you to
perceive my understanding of the mystery
of Christ. In former generations this mystery
was not made known to humankind, as it
has now been revealed to his holy apostles
and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the
Gentiles have become fellow heirs,
members of the same body, and sharers in
the promise in Christ Jesus through the
gospel. Of this gospel I have become a
servant according to the gift of God's grace
that was given me by the working of his
power.”
What is this secret that “in former generations” was unknown? Ephesians 3.6 asserts that “the Gentiles have become fellow heirs”:
συνκληρονόμα [joint-heirs] καὶ [and]
σύσσωμα [a joint-body] καὶ [and]
συμμέτοχα [joint-partakers] τῆς [of
the] ἐπαγγελίας [promises] ἐν [in] Χριστῷ
[Christ] Ἰησοῦ [Jesus].
This means that the Israelites are not the sole inheritors of the OT promises of God. The Gentiles are co-inheritors. That is, they are identical with or equivalent to the people of Israel. In other words, they are like Israel in every conceivable way with regard to their divine relationship and position. In short, they share equal rights and status with Israel as the chosen people of God, the elect, so that they and Israel have become one and the same! This means that the OT passages regarding Israel, or the chosen people of God, necessarily allude to them, given that they figure prominently in the economy of God’s plan. However, in the end, it is those that are in Christ that are truly chosen (whether Jew or Gentile), not simply the literal Israelites. As descendants, Jews cannot appeal to their tradition for salvation, as if to say “We have Abraham as our father” (Mt. 3.9), because race alone will not save them (cf. Rom. 2.28-29).
The Fallacies of Dispensationalism
What is more, the arbitrary dispensations that refer to the age of innocence or the age of conscience have always been uniformly present in the development of human beings. They are not ages of time but rather stages of human development. A child is innocent until he/she reaches the age of reason or conscience after which they can make moral choices and decisions. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of humankind. It is the tale of temptation during the age of innocence in the life of every human being. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a connotative representation of those dual proclivities latent within the unconscious mind. There is no literal Cherubim wielding a flaming sword, or a literal garden, nor is there a tree of life planted somewhere on the earth which can make one live forever (i.e. the so-called fountain of youth). This is metaphorical language. To turn allegory into biography and call it the age of innocence or the age of conscience is a literal misrepresentation of Scripture.
Moreover, dispensationalists hypothesize the coming of a Millennial Kingdom, which seems to be a representation of the *timing* pertaining to the end of the age rather than a literal thousand year reign on earth (See my article, The Fallacies of Millennialism: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/634098142546198528/the-fallacies-of-millennialism).
Conclusion
The only Biblical dispensation that can be rigorously defended is that of *the fullness of time,* which refers to *the end of the age,* when “all things” will conclude in Christ (Eph. 1.9-10)! Moreover, as I have shown from the law and the prophets, grace has always been operative since the dawn of recorded history (cf. e.g. Gen. 3.15, 21). What is more, based on a *revelation* that was disclosed by Paul——the Christocentric content of which has always been part of God’s plan——the elect in Christ are the true heirs of the OT promises of God and, therefore, the true Israel. Finally, both covenant and dispensational theology have failed to grasp the Biblical metanarrative, whose central dispensation unfolds at the end of days (Dan. 12.13; Mt. 24.3; 1 Cor. 10.11), when all the inhabitants of the earth will witness “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.13; Rev. 1.1), the tribulation, the rapture, and the final consummation!
Which Church is the True Church of Jesus Christ?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
The Decline of Christianity
Christianity has become a speculative art. It has created over 38,000 denominations as well as thousands of seminaries and Christian universities all over the world in an effort to promote its speculative and largely anthropomorphic doctrines. What’s more, academic faculties have hitherto bestowed higher degrees to qualified graduates who are deemed “knowledgeable” in doctrinal and pastoral matters. And so the theological baton has been passed from teacher to student seemingly ad infinitum.
In the seminary or the academy everyone has an opinion, and so there are, naturally, a wide variety of viewpoints and many different schools of thought. However, there can only be one truth, if it exists at all. So, which view is correct in any given case? Well, we’re living in the post-modern era of relativism, so take your pick. Both Christian methodology and epistemology are equally informed by currents in academia (i.e. interdisciplinary studies), so much so that doctrinal issues are beginning to reflect the modern culture more and more, from liberation theology and feminist theology, to even queer theology and trans-gendered theology.
What ever happened to the concept of one church, one body, one Lord, one spirit, one faith? (Eph. 4.4-6). Whatever happened to Paul’s appeal “that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose”? (1 Cor. 1.10 NRSV).
——-
A State of Theological Confusion
This state of affairs is primarily due to the fact that we have lost sight of who is a true Christian, and who is not. We can no longer differentiate between a nominal Christian and an authentic one. We don’t even know what constitutes a real Christian and what is the criteria for meeting that requirement. And we certainly don’t know who’s telling the truth. Fake news, false narratives, and the spread of misinformation have affected every aspect of Christianity. So, because we can’t tell the difference between what is true and what is false, we generally classify Christian doctrines into various levels based on their popularity. We decide which pastor to listen to according to their social status, academic degrees, reputation, experience, popularity, book sales, and the like. Or, we walk into a particular church simply because of how it makes us feel. These are not valid reasons for attending church, for following a particular denomination or pastor, or for assenting to their doctrines and believing in their creeds. That’s why modern Christianity has lost its direction and has gone so far astray that it no longer represents the teachings of Jesus Christ. It only represents human inventions, speculations, and secular academic endeavours. Sadly, modern Christianity doesn’t have a clue about the revelation of the New Testament (NT) or about its main object of study: Jesus Christ. Second Timothy 4.3-4 reads:
For the time is coming when people will not
put up with sound doctrine, but having
itching ears, they will accumulate for
themselves teachers to suit their own
desires, and will turn away from listening to
the truth and wander away to myths.
——-
True Christians Get their Information Directly from God
There are only a few regenerated people in this world who know the *truths* of the NT, and this is due to their intimate knowledge of, and personal relationship with, Jesus! These all share the exact same knowledge of Christ! For them, the truth does not vary. Their knowledge is identical without the slightest variation as to the basic truths of the faith. They are all one, united in one faith, under one spirit and one lord. How is that possible, you may ask? The information they receive does not come from seminaries or academic universities, or from books or distinguished scholars. No. It comes straight from the mouth of God (Deut. 8.3; cf. Mt. 4.4). How can that be, you ask?
In the Old Testament (OT), there is obviously a divine communication that is revealed between God and humankind, particularly when the prophets declare categorically what “the LORD says” (cf. Jer. 23.38; 1 Kgs 12.24; Ezek. 20.5; Amos 5.16). This OT divine communication is also promised to the NT believers who will be regenerated in the Spirit (Jn 16.13):
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will
guide you into all the truth; for he will not
speak on his own, but will speak whatever
he hears, and he will declare to you the
things that are to come [ερχόμενα].
So, the process of salvation, or regeneration, has everything to do with knowledge and truth! It is the dividing line or the threshold between authentic and false Christianity. And that makes all the difference in the world. People are confused about what salvation is. For instance, there are all sorts of scholarly debates between those who hold to “easy-believism” and those who adhere to lordship salvation. There are those who think they are saved, when they’re not. For example, pastors often tell people, who answer altar calls, that they have been reborn simply because they made a profession of faith. Joel Osteen is a case in point. Other folk think they can go on sinning because all they are required to do is to believe, according to their interpretation of Scripture. Steven Anderson, the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, is such an example. But God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14.33). And, unfortunately, most people don’t know what authentic salvation in Christ really is. If people have believed lies, then the truth will necessarily seem false to them. So they react negatively by portraying true salvation as if it were evil, unbiblical, untraditional, or even revolting. However, if you reject true salvation, your Christianity is as fake as you are. Your pseudo-religion is nothing more than a bad caricature of Christianity. Just listen to one of Paul Washer’s sermons. There is only one way for you to know the truth and become a part of the one true church of Jesus. And that is by understanding the *process* by which you can be saved!
Every church and every ministry teaches something different, and most of their teachings are completely foreign to the NT. It’s reminiscent of Paul’s stern warning to the church of Corinth (1 Cor. 1.12, 13) that began to split into various divisions or denominations:
each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I
belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’
or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been
divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or
were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Paul explicitly condemns this fragmentation of church doctrine and says it is not of God. Accordingly, 1 Timothy 4.1-3 is prophesying of what is to come:
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later
times some will renounce the faith by
paying attention to deceitful spirits and
teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy
of liars whose consciences are seared with
a hot iron. They forbid marriage and
demand abstinence from foods, which God
created to be received with thanksgiving by
those who believe and know the truth.
——-
A Soteriological Crisis
Why all the splinter groups and all the contradictory doctrines? Because we lost touch with spirituality. In other words, we lost touch with God. We can no longer hear him. We can no longer communicate with him. Why? Because we’re suffering from bibliolatry! The Bible is not an end in itself. It’s supposed to lead us to Christ. Yet we have become idolaters, Bible-worshipping Christians with no spirituality whatsoever, as if the Bible alone had the capacity to transform us into Christ. As if the Bible has replaced Christ. Hence the reason for Jesus’ caveat in Jn 5.39:
You search the scriptures because you think
that in them you have eternal life; and it is
they that testify on my behalf.
We’ve also created new doctrines and man-made traditions. The various doctrines became officially mandated during the successive councils of the church. Thus, all the denominations are in error. They exist without NT authority. Consider what Christ will say to the fake Christians on Judgment day (Mt. 7.21-23):
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only
the one who does the will of my Father in
heaven. On that day many will say to me,
‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your
name, and cast out demons in your name,
and do many deeds of power in your
name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never
knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'
But what exactly does it mean to do the will of Christ’s father? Does it depend on us, forcing our will to conform to his, through repetitive behavioural acts? No. It means to surrender your will to God so that you can say with Paul, “it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2.20). Then, divine obedience becomes natural and automatic. But, unfortunately, that’s not what we’ve been told by the religious authorities. We’ve been taught to think that we’re Christians on our way to heaven. In other words, there’ll be upright people——people who even claim to believe in Jesus——that will be lost on the day of judgment! But what is the soteriological standard against which all other theories are measured? Notice the criterion that God uses: “I never knew you.” So, we must try to explain, then, how it is that God “knows us.” Answer: if we surrender our life to him, he will know us personally and intimately in a deep, unitive, and mystical sense. In short, he will permanently become an integral part of our lives (Jn 14.23):
Those who love me will keep my word, and
my Father will love them, and we will come
to them and make our home with them.
But how can you make this happen? How can you become a part of the true church? Some say by “obedience,” while others claim you only need to “believe.” But they are both wrong because both of these Pelagian premises are based on you saving yourself through personal works. In this scenario, Jesus becomes utterly irrelevant. So, that’s not it. The answer is, you have to be transformed! Notice in the undermentioned passage that Jesus inflicts “vengeance on those who do not know God” and who, therefore, disobey him. The text prophesies the final consummation (2 Thess. 1.7, 8),
when the Lord Jesus is revealed from
heaven with his mighty angels in flaming
fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do
not know God and on those who do not
obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
Most churches claim that all you have to do to be saved involves rote learning and habitual religious exercises. For example, the Church of Christ says that you have to obey the Gospel by hearing, Believing, Repenting, Confessing, and being baptised. And then you’ll be saved. How wonderful. How convenient. How painless. All man-made, all based on one’s own efforts, and the greatest thing of all, no spirituality is necessary, and there’s no need for a change of heart or a radical renewing of the mind (Rom. 12.2). By the way, when Paul speaks of baptism, he’s not referring to the immersion in water but to a painful baptism into Christ’s death that regenerates the believer “in newness of life” during the dark night of the soul (cf. Acts 19.5-6). He says in Rom. 6.3, 4:
Do you not know that all of us who have
been baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death? Therefore we have
been buried with him by baptism into death,
so that, . . . we too might walk in newness of
life.
So, congregants are being deceived into thinking that they are saved, when they are not! Church leaders will typically quote a few out-of-context verses about belief in Christ and his resurrection, and, if you meet these criteria, they’ll tell you that you’re good to go. You’re saved. This is downright nonsense! How pathetic has been the fall of so many people who were not properly trained or educated on the nature of salvation within the Christian faith. No wonder so many of them have left the faith and have turned to atheism, profoundly disillusioned with the form of Christianity that could neither solve their problems nor offer any meaning in the face of today’s postmodern world.
——-
You Will Know the Truth, and the Truth Will Make You Free (John 8.32)
As Paul reminds us, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rom. 8.9). So, how do we do our part in order to allow this transformation to take place and to invite the Spirit into our lives? There are many methods. However, one of the most effective means of doing so is by way of “stillness,” which is traditionally known as a prayer of silence! From a phenomenological perspective, this Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” requires a transcendent existential experience. This involves a deep meditation in which the mind leaves all knowledge behind and passes into a state of transcendent *unknowing* where the “intuition of naked truths” is “conveyed to the understanding” (John of the Cross. “Ascent of Mount Carmel.” Trans. E. Allison Peers. [Liguori: Triumph, 1991], p. 182). The point is that we’re not going to get there by discursive thinking but rather by “being,” in the existential sense!
Thus, being obedient is not enough. Being morally upright or having good intentions is not enough. Being a descendant of Abraham is not enough. Salvation is not based on a biological birth, but on a birth from above. In short, we must be born again (Jn 3.3):
Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the
kingdom of God without being born from
above.
See my article: How Are We Saved? https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/624396009262415872/how-are-we-saved-is-it-simply-by-belief-alone-or
How Do We Know What We Know?
By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim
A posteriori Vs A priori Knowledge
Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony.
Postmodern epistemology is generally skeptical of “a posteriori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from observed phenomena (i.e. empirical knowledge). Because this knowledge gradually changes and evolves over time, its so-called “facts” also change and are not therefore necessarily true. This would imply that scientific knowledge is not necessarily true and is therefore incapable of informing us about reality as it truly is!
The only necessary “truths” appear to be contained in what is known as “a priori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions. Since the time of Immanuel Kant this knowledge has been understood as being acquired independently of any particular experiences. Thus, logical and mathematical propositions fall under this category.
If you think about it, science cannot prove the existence of the external world independently of our perceptions or faculties. Kant was one of the first thinkers to suggest the idea of the philosophical gaze turned inward upon the self rather than focused on the external world per se. Rather than concentrating on observed phenomena, he zoomed in on the observer himself. Since then we have sought to find out what constitutes “necessary truth,” as well as its justification. In short, we have become skeptical of reality and have seriously questioned whether our perceptions of it can be trusted or not.
The Phenomenological Perspective of Experience
Along comes Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938), a German philosopher, who founded the school of Phenomenology, which studies the structures of experience and consciousness. Consciousness at the most fundamental level is simply the awareness of existence, both internal and external. In other words, phenomenology is primarily concerned with how consciousness perceives and relates to phenomena. A phenomenon is defined as an observable event. This is in contrast to a “noumenon,” which, according to Kant, cannot be directly observed. Thus, Husserl is interested in understanding not the external world as it really is but rather how an individual experiences or perceives it subjectively. Husserl influenced many notable 20th century thinkers, such as Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Emmanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, and many others!
What is more, Husserl acknowledged a type of gnosis that is far greater than any knowledge derived from the empirical world of the senses. He called it “authentic intuition,” denoting its capacity to grasp the essence of being (Manfred Frank. What is Neostructuralism? Trans. Sabine Wilke and Richard Gray. [Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1989], pp. 411-412)! Since “testimony” is acceptable as a source of knowledge in epistemology, the multiple and independent attestations of the born-again experience can be employed as potential sources of knowledge for a justified true belief in the Platonic sense. Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, would acknowledge its validity, given that the born-again experience (Jn 3.3) cannot be proven empirically but experienced existentially! The great mystics Rumi, Kabir, and John of the Cross would certainly concur with that statement. This is analogous to what Karl Jaspers, the German-Swiss psychiatrist and philosopher, calls a leap of faith, which is a belief in something outside the confines of reason.
From an interdisciplinary perspective, psychological testing can further confirm the existence of radical changes in the personality as a result of such experiences, not unlike those depicted in the Bible. For example, a murderer named Saul was said to be changed into a lover named Paul. Such cases abound in the “conversion-experience” literature. It seems to be a case where a new identity has replaced an older one (cf. Eph. 4.22-24). In the language of psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, it is the difference between the False self (i.e. pseudo self) and the True self (i.e. authentic self)! Thus, there are many indicators which suggest that the born-again experience is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge (cf. Eph. 2.5).
Why Then Are There Differences Between Various Belief Systems?
The contradictory doctrinal statements of various religious traditions do not invalidate the authenticity of the existential experience precisely because they do not accurately represent the born-again experience itself, but rather the afterthoughts that follow it. Human reason tries to make sense of its experiences, thereby leading to theological diversity. However, at the point of the “mysterium tremendum” itself the experience is ubiquitous. In other words, whether one is reared in a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist culture is irrelevant because the authentic mystical experience will be the same. The person will primarily experience a new birth, a profound sense of peace, as well as an all - encompassing love. The attempt to categorize it within a specific cultural and spiritual milieu is a secondary process. As Hegel once wrote:
“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only
with the falling of the dusk.”
In other words, only after the experience is gone does philosophy arrive to try to understand it. In our case, theology arrives too late. It’s the same with the doctrinal variations of the different spiritual traditions!
The Absolute Being of philosophy (i.e. God) is often said to instill revelation upon humankind. There are various theological schools, such as pantheism, deism, theism, and the like, but most historians would agree that the various holy books are testaments of God’s alleged revelations (e.g. the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Quran, New Testament). However, the degree of revelation varies. It is important to note what Paul reveals in 1 Cor. 12.11:
“All these are the work of one and the same
Spirit, and he distributes them to each one,
just as he determines.”
In other words, not all get an equal share of the spiritual pie. Not all receive an equal portion of the truth. Each one gets a small amount of it. Some get more, others less. Thus, some know more, some less. This, then, explains the differences that exist between various belief systems without necessarily refuting their undergirding existential experiences per se! Put differently, they all believe in God, but which God is a question pertaining to different levels and degrees of revelation. So, given that belief systems are disseminated later, after the fact, doctrinal differences are irrelevant in refuting the initial born-again experience as a whole.
Conclusion
The epistemology of existentialism and phenomenology presents “experience” as a potential source of knowledge. Since testimony is considered to be a possible source of knowledge that could justify a belief, the multitudinous number of born-again testimonies down through the ages would present a case for the legitimacy of the existential experience! According to phenomenology, this knowledge may actually surpass that of science given its capacity to grasp the essence of being!
Is John MacArthur a Christian?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
——-
MacArthur is a Reformed Protestant and a
strong proponent of expository preaching.
He has been acknowledged by Christianity
Today as one of the most influential
preachers of his time and was a frequent
guest on Larry King Live as a representative
of an evangelical Christian perspective.
— Wikipedia
——-
Is Religious Experience Unchristian?
John MacArthur typically uses exaggerated caricatures of New Testament (NT) teachings to mock and ridicule *religious existential experiences.* But isn’t religious experience the foundation of our salvation, according to the NT? Romans 8.9 (NLT) says, “remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.” So how do you get the Spirit of Christ to live in you if not through an experience? Is it based on wishful thinking? Jesus says in Jn 3.3: “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” But how is someone “born again”? Through a profession of faith? Absolutely not! Jesus clearly emphasizes that no one will be accepted into the kingdom of heaven simply on that basis alone. Much to their horror, those who thought they were saved will be utterly perplexed, confused, and disappointed! They will appeal and say: “Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name.” (Mt. 7.22). But Christ will ultimately reject them and say: “I never knew you” (Mt. 7.23).
So, how is one born again if not through some kind of an experience? And how does one develop a relationship with Christ if not through an experience? Jesus simply becomes an imaginary partner or a wishful thought or daydream? Is that what the NT teaches? And how do we get a new identity, according to Eph. 4.22-24? By reading the Bible? MacArthur clearly contradicts Scripture by implying that Christian salvation is not based on any “experience” at all. Yet, in Philippians 2.12 (NASB) Paul exhorts:
work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling.
Fear and trembling do not occur except in unusual circumstances that involve “experiences” of existential dread! And, according to Paul, these experiences are essential to working out one’s salvation. Yet with regard to religious experience, MacArthur says the exact opposite. In a YouTube video, he exclaims:
it’s nothing but sheer imagination, at best;
and, at worst, you are courting demons. . . .
And some people, sad to say, it’s not
enough to believe in Christ, they pursue the
paranormal, the supernatural, the mystical,
the intuitive, and they make things happen
in the mind that aren’t happening, and they
open themselves to things that do happen
from demonic sources. It’s a frightening
thing to think about.
So demonic sources can make things happen, but God can’t? In other words, he suggests that demons can make things happen in this realm, whereas God is powerless and can’t possibly compete with them. Then he added:
Why is it that people pursue that? I’ll tell you
why. Because somewhere in their theology
they have bought into the fact that it’s not
enough to have Christ. And they’re into all
these experience with angels, and so
forth.
——-
Should We Reject the Supernatural?
The problem with John MacArthur is that he doesn’t explain the process by which we “have Christ” in the first place. How exactly do we have Christ if not through an experience? He went on to say,
that’s not great faith that brings those
supernatural experiences; that’s doubt
looking for proof that fantasizes those
experiences.
So, according to John MacArthur, the supernatural signs and wonders of the NT, including the supernatural miracles of Jesus, do not involve great faith——contradicting what Jesus himself taught (Mt. 14.31)——but are rather fantasies that don’t really exist! How then does his epistemology differ from that of Liberal theology? Isn’t it one and the same? He’s basically saying that the supernatural dimension does not exist. It’s a fantasy world of imagination, at best, or the realm of the demonic world, at worst. Really? Isn’t that what the Pharisees accused Jesus of, namely, of casting out demons because “He gets his power from Satan, the prince of demons”? (Mt. 12.24 NLT).
In fact, in trying to downplay and discredit visions and experiences, he will even pit Paul against Paul! He employs Paul as a mouthpiece to denigrate visions and revelations. Yet, according to Galatians 1.11-12, everything that Paul knows about Christ is EXCLUSIVELY through visions and revelations (cf. 2 Cor. 12.1-4). Besides, didn’t John of Patmos see visions and revelations that he later encoded in the Book of Revelation? Are we to conclude that he, too, was just imagining things that are not real and do not exist? Was Paul’s vision of Christ (Acts 9.3-5) equally false and imaginary? And this man is lauded and respected as a credible pastor-teacher? Listen to some of his comments that were directed to his congregation:
Now, there’s no higher plane. There is no
surpassing experience. There’s no deeper
life.
If we didn’t know who uttered these words we would easily ascribe them to a positive atheist like Michael Shermer or Richard Dawkins. Astoundingly, they were uttered by John MacArthur. This is downright false. This man has drifted away from Christianity. His epistemological position is extremely dangerous. He’s putting peoples’ salvation on the line. By contrast, here’s Jesus’ promise to those who love him (Jn 14.21):
I will love them and reveal [ἐμφανίσω]
myself to each of them.
MacArthur then diverts his listeners’ attention by attacking a straw man. He creates a false dichotomy and makes it appear as if this debate is about Christ versus experiences. Either Christ is sufficient or else you choose experiences. But that’s a red herring. On the contrary, Jesus demands regeneration, and Paul exhorts believers to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Rom. 12.2 NASB), not by simply reading the Bible and pretending to have an imaginary relationship with Jesus. How is Christ sufficient? Simply through reading a Book? That’s preposterous! In fact, the one thing that God wants us to do is to *experience* him. That’s the whole Bible in a nutshell!
(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/e0fETODHsoM)
——-
Is the Experience of the Holy Spirit Nonsensical?
In another video, he claims that spiritual formation——in which people seek inside themselves——is “just a lot of bunk.” He says:
digging deep in to find your spiritual core
and your spiritual center . . . is nonsense.
In other words, he’s contradicting the Word of God. Acts 2.1-4 (NLT) reads:
On the day of Pentecost all the believers
were meeting together in one place.
Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven
like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and
it filled the house where they were sitting.
Then, what looked like flames or tongues of
fire appeared and settled on each of them.
And everyone present was filled with the
Holy Spirit and began speaking in other
languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this
ability.
——-
MacArthur’s Deism
Then he goes on to explain his own theology and soteriology, which are diametrically opposed to those of the NT. He says without flinching:
The assumption is that spiritual truth is
somewhere inside of you. And that is not
true. Spiritual truth is outside of you. It is
external to you. It is in a Book outside of
you. It is not in you. . . . You can go sit on a
rock in the middle of nowhere and think,
and you will find in you no source of divine
revelation whatsoever. Because divine
revelation is external to you. It’s external to
every human being. It’s in a book that God
wrote. And when you put the book down
and start looking into your own brain all
you’re gonna do is be led down a black
hole.
This is a deist understanding of God as a transcendent Being, wholly independent of the material universe, who is not accessible to creatures and does not personally interact with them. So, the NT teaching that the Holy Spirit “will be in you” (ἐν ὑμῖν)——in Jn 14.17, 23 (cf. Rom. 8.9), or “that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who lives in you [ἐν ὑμῖν]” (1 Cor. 6.19)——is false? (cf. Titus 3.5; 1 Jn 2.27). This is the exact opposite of what Lk 17.21 says, namely, that the kingdom of God is within you (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν)! So, “truth” (who is Jesus; Jn 14.6) is never inside (immanent) but always outside of every believer? Of course not! In Rev. 3.20, Jesus declares the exact opposite:
Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you
hear my voice and open the door, I will
come in [εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν].
According to MacArthur, it seems that a personal relationship with Jesus is equivalent to just reading about him in a book. So, there’s no truth outside the Bible, no experiential relationship to God, no real spiritual insight, no miracles, no supernatural world, no signs & wonders, no changes in the personality, no religious experiences, no Holy Spirit, nothing whatsoever. This is a form of deism, pure and simple: God does not intervene in the affairs of men except through a book. Not only does this view contradict Scripture, it is patently ridiculous and utterly absurd! To hear a supposed Bible teacher——who holds the attention of millions worldwide on a daily basis——saying these things is absolutely shocking, if not shameful.
——-
If Being Born Again Is Not an Experience, Is It a form of Rote Learning?
MacArthur continued:
That’s what happens when you start
trying to poke around inside of yourself for
spiritual truth when it’s all contained in
one book, and that book is external to you.
And the spiritual truth resides in that
book, if you never lived or if you never had
a thought. It’s the external truth that we
must understand, cuz there’s nothing
inside, until that truth gets in our minds.
So, he seems to suggest that “truth” gets into our minds not through the experience of regeneration but only by constant reading and repetition. In other words, he reduces Jesus’ and Paul’s spirituality to *rote learning.* So, When Paul says “put on the new self” (Eph. 4.24 NASB) or the new identity, does he mean that our personalities will radically change as we master the Biblical literature through repetition and memorization or through some sort of intellectual assent? If that were so, Christianity would be nothing more than B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism!
——-
BIBLE IDOLATRY
John MacArthur’s message seems to be that nothing happens inside of us experientially. God only speaks today through the Bible. He has made of the Bible an idol. And he has also broken the first Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Yet he worships the Bible (aka bibliolatry)! Jesus, however, poignantly rebukes such people in John 5.39 (NLT):
You search the Scriptures because you
think they give you eternal life. But the
Scriptures point to me!
In short, according to MacArthur, the Bible has replaced God. God can no longer speak apart from or outside the Bible. Scripture also trumps Jesus. His spiritual relationship to human beings is not direct; it is indirect via the Bible. Put differently, we no longer believe in Jesus or God as realities or entities, which exist outside the Bible, with the ability to communicate and transform our lives. No! They interact with us only in and through the Bible. Therefore, we only believe in the literary “word” of God: *the Bible!* These divine beings only exist inside the Bible and not apart from it. That’s what John MacArthur seems to be saying. He’s in love with a book, not the author of that book. Outside of that book, he doesn’t seem to “know” its author. He only meets him via that book! By contrast, 1 Corinthians 4.20 (KJV) says: “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” This is what the Protestant reformation of sola scriptura has produced. But this epistemology is completely bogus, as if God is incapable of speaking to us outside the Bible. As Jesus observes: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Mt. 15:8)!
——-
Conclusion
For John MacArthur, belief, not experience, is the key. Therefore, we don’t need to “experience” or “know” Jesus intimately or personally. The old saying: “Taste and see that the LORD is good” (Psalm 34:8) need not apply. In this strange and demonically twisted scenario, the Bible is Lord!
This is the hallmark of a false teacher. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the NT or with Christ’s command to love God above and beyond everything else, including books (Mk 12.30). It is not sanctioned by the Scriptures. And it is neither according to God’s word nor his will. It is a form of secularism: quasi-deism coupled with liberal theology. It is a counterfeit Christianity! This view is far removed from Christian teaching. It was quite laughable to witness.
If we sum up his theology, and take it to its logical conclusion, it’s as if God & Jesus are simply *literary characters* in the Bible whose powers and abilities are confined and subject to the authors’ discretion. Accordingly, we don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus; we have a personal relationship with the Bible! We don’t know God apart from the Bible. That’s MacArthur’s basic message, namely, that Christianity is not a “spiritual” but rather a “literary” religion! He reduces Apocalyptic Christianity to literature! His rejection of religious experience, and of the operations of the Holy Spirit, is analogous to paganism!
He contradicts both himself and the Bible by stating that mystical, supernatural experiences do not exist. Yet the Bible is filled with them: think of Isaiah, Daniel, Paul, John, and Jesus!
So, his teaching involves not only an unwarranted epistemology——in which real, living, divine persons become reduced to literary characters——but also a self-contradictory exegesis wherein he refutes the very teaching he espouses, namely, the supernatural world of the Bible!
My question is simply this: does John MacArthur represent authentic Christianity?
And, judging from his own statements, the answer is a resounding no!
(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/mTEm9NI17Do)
——-
A Response to Jon Bloom’s “Can I Follow My New Heart?”
By Biblical Researcher, Psychologist, & Award-Winning Author, Eli Kittim
In an article entitled “Can I Follow My New Heart?” (published July 1, 2021), which was posted on John Piper’s desiringGod website, Jon Bloom, staff writer of https://www.desiringgod.org/ writes:
When Christians are born again, we enter
into a lifelong internal war where ‘the
desires of the flesh are against the Spirit,
and the desires of the Spirit are against the
flesh, for these are opposed to each other,
to keep you from doing the things you want
to do’ (Galatians 5:17).
That is incorrect, inaccurate, and misleading. When Paul talks about the war within, between the flesh and the Spirit, he is referring to a *pre-regenerative* rather than a “post-regenerative” state of mind. This battle or war between the flesh and the Spirit is waged BEFORE “Christians are born again,” NOT after! After “Christians are born again” this battle ENDS! The War within ends, provided an *authentic-regeneration* has taken place (not simply a fake “rebirth” based on a profession of faith or an altar call) in which we have died to our selves in order to receive a new identity (Ephesians 4:22-24). There is no more internal struggle. Sin no longer reigns within. God is now on the throne of your heart and, instead of war, there is peace. Instead of bitterness and anger there is love and self-acceptance. Sin has not been completely eradicated. It’s still there. But it no longer dominates your mind and heart. So, the notion that we enter a battle or a war AFTER we are reborn is completely false. On the contrary, that’s when the battle, in a certain sense, ends for us and tranquility ensues.
Jon Bloom misinterprets both the authorial intent of the Biblical authors as well as the concept of authentic rebirth. He mistakenly employs certain Biblical quotes to suggest that they are referring to a condition AFTER rebirth, when in fact they are referring to a carnal mind PRIOR to regeneration. Thus, he misreads the following verses out-of-context:
their ‘passions are at war within’ them
(James 4:1). Peter warns his readers (and
us), ‘Do not be conformed to the passions
of your former ignorance’ (1 Peter 1:14).
Paul describes this internal experience of
warring passions as ‘wretched’ (Romans
7:24).
Finally, the fact that he’s been totally misreading and distorting the Biblical authors becomes apparent. He writes:
And he [Paul] admonishes the Colossian
Christians (and us) with strong language:
‘Put to death therefore what is earthly in
you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion,
evil desire, and covetousness, which is
idolatry’ (Colossians 3:5). Why did these
apostles feel the need to speak this way to
regenerated people? Because the hearts of
these regenerated people were not yet fully
free from the influence of their flesh, their
old selves.
Why would Paul say “put to death” all these vices to regenerated Christians who have already done just that and have died to sin? And if reborn, recreated Christians are “not yet fully free from the influence of their flesh” (i.e. “their old selves”), then that implies that Christ either lied or was confused when he said “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32 NIV). No! It is Jon Bloom himself who is confused because in spite of what he writes, he nevertheless seems to acknowledge that after rebirth sin no longer dominates. He writes:
Paul lays the theological foundation of our
understanding by explaining ‘that our old
self was crucified with [Christ] in order that
[our] body of sin might be brought to
nothing, so that we would no longer be
enslaved to sin’ (Romans 6:6). Our new
selves were ‘raised with Christ’ (Colossians
3:1) so that ‘we too might walk in newness
of life’ (Romans 6:4). Therefore, we ‘must
consider [ourselves] dead to sin and alive to
God in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 6:11).
In sharp contrast to Jon Bloom’s overall message, Paul declares a radical change that has ALREADY occurred in the personality as a result of the *NEW BIRTH,* as well as a new way of being that is no longer dominated by sin or the carnal mind (Romans 8:1-2 ESV):
There is therefore now no condemnation for
those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of
the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ
Jesus from the law of sin and death.
I therefore take issue with the notion of *regeneration* as an “internal war” between the flesh and the Spirit in which we “are not yet fully free.”
For a comparative reading, see the undermentioned link:
“Can I Follow My New Heart?” (Article by Jon Bloom, Staff writer, desiringGod website): https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/can-i-follow-my-new-heart?fbclid=IwAR0SjG4T6TVZN8TVuB0Sjt-10zS5UnRy05rxjPd00YiVWcixmVCR6dm3EW0
——-
Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists
By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim
——-
Calvinism Has Confused God's Foreknowledge With His Sovereignty
Dr. R.C. Sproul once said:
There is no maverick molecule if God is
sovereign.
That is to say, if God cannot control the smallest things we know of in the universe, such as the subatomic particles known as “quarks,” then we cannot trust him to keep His promises. But just because God set the universe in motion doesn’t mean that every detail therein is held ipso facto to be caused by him. God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will. This is not a contradiction (see Compatibilism aka Soft determinism). It seems that Calvinism has confused God’s foreknowledge with his sovereignty.
Calvinists often use Bible verses out-of-context to support the idea that God is partial: that he plays favorites with human beings. They often quote Exodus 33.19b (ESV):
I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,
and will show mercy on whom I will show
mercy.
But the only thing that this verse is saying is that God’s grace is beyond human understanding, not that God is partial and biased (cf. Rom. 11.33-34). By contrast, the parable of the vineyard workers (Mt 20.1–16) promotes equality between many different classes of people. One interpretation of this parable would be that late converts to Christianity earn equal rewards along with early converts, and there need be no jealousy among the latter. This can be understood on many different levels. For example, one could view the early laborers as Jews who may resent the Gentile newcomers for being treated as equals by God. Some seem to get more rewards, others less, depending on many factors unbeknownst to us. But the point of the parable is that God is fair. No one gets cheated. However, in Calvinism, God is not fair. He does as he pleases. He creates evil and chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. This view is more in line with the capricious gods of Greek mythology than with the immutable God of the Bible.
That’s why Calvinism speaks of limited atonement. Christ’s atoning death is not for everyone, but only for a select few. You cannot look an atheist in the eye and tell them that Christ died for you. You’d be lying because, according to Calvinism, he may not have died for them. So the story goes...
But that’s a gross misinterpretation. Romans 8.29-30 doesn’t say that at all. It’s NOT saying that God used his powers indiscriminately to influence Individuals in some cases, but not in others. Nor does it follow that God played favorites and decided at the outset that some will be saved, and others not (tough luck, as it were). Not at all. All it says is that God can *foresee* the future!
God doesn’t CAUSE everything to happen as it does, but he does SEE what will happen. So, insofar as God was able to “see” who would eventually submit to his will (and who would not), one could say that God “foreknew” him. In Romans 8.29, the Greek term προέγνω comes from the word προγινώσκω (proginóskó), which means “to know beforehand” or to “foreknow.” It doesn’t imply determinism, the notion that all events in history, including those of human action, are predetermined by extraneous causes, and that people have no say in the matter, and are therefore not responsible for their actions. It simply means to know beforehand. That’s all. Case in point, Isaiah, Daniel, and John the Revelator saw the future; but they didn’t cause it.
God would never have predestined some people to be eternally lost and some to be eternally saved. That would not be just. Similarly, Romans 8.29-30 is only referring to those individuals whom God “foreknew” (προέγνω) that would meet the conditions of his covenant, those are the same he predestined (προώρισεν), called (ἐκάλεσεν), justified (ἐδικαίωσεν), and glorified (ἐδόξασεν)! Otherwise, how could God have possibly predestined those who he foresaw that would NOT meet the conditions of his covenant?
The Greek term προώρισεν (proōrisen; predestined) is derived from the word προορίζω (proorizó), which means “to predetermine” or “foreordain.” In other words, those whom God could *foresee* in the future as being faithful, those same individuals he pre-approved to be conformed to the image of his son. So, by “predestination” God simply means that he’s “declaring the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46.9-10 NASB). It’s not as if God was the direct cause of their decision or free choice. He simply foresaw those who had already chosen to be conformed to the image of his son of their own accord. Notice that in Rom. 8.29 (Berean Literal Bible), the text says that BECAUSE God foreknew them, he predestined them. This means that the *foresight* came first. Since God could see the outcome, he “foreknew” who would be lost and who would be saved:
because those whom He foreknew, He also
predestined to be conformed to the image
of His Son.
——-
Does John Piper represent Biblical Christianity?
Theologian and pastor John Piper cites Acts 4.27-28 (ESV) to prove his point that God determines everything that happens:
for truly in this city there were gathered
together against your holy servant Jesus,
whom you anointed, both Herod and
Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and
the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your
hand and your plan had predestined to take
place.
Piper says, when you understand the complete sovereignty of God, that is to say, how he is behind everything, that he is implicated in every aspect of existence, you’ll go crazy. Why? This occurs, I suspect, because the person you thought was your best friend turns out to be your worst enemy. How can you trust him? Piper says,
He [God] governed the most wicked thing
that ever happened in the world, the
crucifixion of my savior.
Piper says that there is no randomness in the universe, and that God is behind the Tsunamis and everything else that occurs on our planet. That would imply that God is behind the earthquakes, the hurricanes, the train wrecks, the airplane crashes, the massacres, the terrorist attacks, the racist attacks, the rapes, the violent riots, the Holocaust, the Third Reich, the Manson murders, the serial killings, cannibalism, the world wars, the abortions, the beheadings, the heinous crimes, the shootings, beatings, & stabbings of the elderly, and the filicides and genocides of history. God’s behind it all. And if you contemplate this idea, it will drive you mad, says John Piper. So, in order to stay sane, he suggests that we focus on the Cross. We have to believe that God nevertheless loves us and that he was behind the murder of Jesus for our salvation. This will keep us safe from harm; from going mad, that is. Really?
In other words, God’s dictatorist regime or tyrannical authority works much like the Mafia, a secret organization or crime syndicate which controls everything from the street corner thugs to the highest levels of government. God is like a mafia boss who puts out a contract to “whack” somebody but, instead of killing him himself and taking the blame, he orders an underboss (Satan) to do his dirty work. In other words, he hires accomplices to kill people on his behalf because he’s such a coward that he doesn’t want to take the responsibility and do it himself, or to be seen as evil, yet he’s the real cause of everything, good and evil. A literal or fundamentalist interpretation of the Old Testament will no doubt lead to that conclusion (cf. Isa. 45.7). This is also the god of the Gnostics, the inferior creator-god (or demiurge) that was revealed through Hebrew scripture, who was responsible for all instances of falsehood and evil in the world!
But is this a sincere, honorable, and reliable person whom you could trust? Or is this a vile, dishonest, and despicable person who pretends to be something he is not? Does this god deserve our worship? Is he not a liar? Is this a truly loving, Holy God, or is he rather a cruel, deceitful, and merciless beast that hides behind a veneer of righteousness, much like the mafia bosses and the corrupt heads of state?
Then, after depicting a gruesome picture of a cold blooded killer-God who would order a hit on women and innocent children (cf. 1 Sam. 15.3), Piper cites Isa. 53.10:
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him
[christ] with pain.
He concludes:
Therefore the worst sin that was ever
committed was ordained by God.
Piper exclaims, “The answer is yes, he controls everything, and he does it for his glory and our good.” This is the God of Calvinism, fashioned from the pit of hell itself, which depicts God’s rule as a deep state or a totalitarian government, “A celestial North Korea,” in the words of the critic Christopher Hitchens.
What ever happened to the attribute of omnibenevolence, the doctrine that God is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1; 135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18)? Isaiah 65.16 calls him “the God of truth” (cf. Jn 17.17), while Titus 1.1-2 asserts that God “never lies.” Psalm 92.15 (NIV) declares:
The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and
there is no wickedness in him.
So, there seems to be a theological confusion in Calvinism about what God does and doesn’t do. Predestination is based on foreknowledge, not on the impulsive whims of a capricious deity. To “cause” is one thing; to “foreknow” is quite another.
At a deeper, philosophical level we’re talking about the problem of evil: who’s responsible for all the suffering and evil in the world? Piper would say, God is. Blame it on God. I would say that this teaching not only contradicts the Bible but also the attributes of God. If hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41), and if God is held accountable for orchestrating everything, then the devil cannot be held morally responsible for all his crimes against humanity. Besides, doesn’t scripture say that Christ “went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil”? (Acts 10.38 ESV). Yet, according to Calvinism, God not only creates evil but is himself ipso facto evil! Thus, neither John Piper nor Calvinism represent Biblical Christianity! Rather, this is an aberration, a contradiction, a false doctrine. 1 Timothy 4.1 (CEV) warns:
God's Spirit clearly says that in the last
days many people will turn from their faith.
They will be fooled by evil spirits and by
teachings that come from demons.
In the following video, a question was posed to Calvinist pastor John Piper:
Has God predetermined every detail in the
universe, including sin?
To which Piper replied:
YES!
Therefore, in Calvinism,
God has become Satan!
Is Free Grace Theology Biblical?
By Award-Winning Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,
he is none of his.
(Romans 8.9 KJV)
——-
Sola fide
Sola fide (meaning “faith alone”) is a theological doctrine which holds that believers are justified by faith alone. Originally, the purpose of this doctrine was to distinguish the Protestants from the Catholic & Orthodox Churches that relied on sacraments (such as the Sacrament of Penance, aka Confession) and “works” for salvation. By contrast, Sola fide maintained that it is on the basis of faith alone that believers are justified (pardoned) and saved.
However, the original doctrine of Sola fide (faith alone) didn’t mean to imply that nothing happened to the believer existentially, psychologically, or supernaturally *after* they were saved. On the contrary, many reformers emphatically stressed that *regeneration* should produce verifiable evidence of the spiritual life. As 2 Pet. 1.10 warns (cf. 2 Cor. 13.5), make sure your faith is real:
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give
diligence to make your calling and election
sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never
fall.
The evidence of conversion is a believer’s *new self* in Christ (his new identity cf. Gal. 2.20; Eph. 4.24), with proof of ongoing fruit in their life. Many people mistakenly think they are converted or born again but they show no evidence of a personality change (a recreation) nor any fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace). Alas, despite what they say publicly, they have not been converted; they have not been reborn! Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “Sudden Conversions Are Very Often False.”
The reformers knew the importance of John 3.7: “Ye must be born again.” This Biblical concept doesn’t refer to the time when, during a crusade, you decided to make a spiritual commitment to Christ, or to the time when you made a sincere profession of faith during an altar call at a Jimmy Swaggart rally, or when you decided to give your life to Jesus, in your living room one night, while watching Billy Graham or Joel Osteen. This “decision” is characterized under the category of “works” (since you decided the outcome by yourself), and it has absolutely nothing to do with Biblical regeneration or with God. Why? Because God had nothing to do with it, nor is there any evidence of a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in your life. That’s why 2 Corinthians 5.17 declares:
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a
new creature: old things are passed away;
behold, all things are become new.
Unfortunately, the sinner’s prayer doesn’t save anyone. It doesn’t change your carnal nature into a new creature. Your sin nature remains the same and dominates your mind and heart. So how, then, are you saved? A saved person is dominated by God, not by his passions.
That’s why the reformers spoke of irresistible grace (monergism). Regardless of whether we agree with it or not, the point is that this soteriological doctrine teaches that God’s grace is effectually applied to the believer in order to save them, and that God overcomes their resistance and *changes* them from *within.* In other words, a transformation takes place on the inside. It’s not just faith alone. If they cannot deny it or resist it, then that means that God’s grace has a direct cause-effect influence in their lives. That’s why scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit (Matthew 3.11): “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16.16)!
——-
Free Grace Theology
Free Grace (aka Easy-believism) is a Christian soteriological position which holds that anyone can be saved and receive eternal life simply by believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). The only condition for receiving the grace of eternal life is *faith.* Nothing else is required. In fact, one is not even required to stop sinning. They have completely removed Sola fide (faith alone) from its original Biblical and soteriological context, thereby isolating and distorting it to mean something entirely different.
By contrast, *Lordship Salvation* requires obedience to Christ. And this is the actual teaching of Scripture! The free Grace movement apparently forgot Jesus’ teaching which states: “repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1.15). Grace is free, but it’s not cheap. Christ says in Mt 16.24:
If any man will come after me, let him deny
himself, and take up his cross, and follow
me.
Here are Jesus’ own words in John 14.15:
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Besides, how can *mere belief* ALONE be sufficient for *salvation* if the demons believe just as much? (James 2.19):
Thou believest that there is one God; thou
doest well: the devils also believe, and
tremble.
In fact, 1 John 2.3-4 would call proponents of Free Grace “liars”:
And hereby we do know that we know him
[Christ], if we keep his commandments. He
that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his
commandments, is a liar, and the truth is
not in him.
And yet, *free grace theology* is constantly mocking Lordship Salvation, calling it evil and unbiblical. Therefore, we should take heed of Isaiah’s (5.20) stern warning:
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good
evil; that put darkness for light, and light for
darkness.
In this paper, I’m only talking about the *regenerated* or *born-again believer,* and what their salvation consists of. I’m trying to demonstrate that a rebirth entails a new identity, a new creation, and a constant outflow of the fruit of the spirit. Just to be clear, Christian salvation is not based on the *works* of the law. Obeying the commandments of Moses doesn’t save anyone. We are not saved because we obey; we obey because we are saved! Nor is salvation an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity (see Wayne Grudem’s “Free Grace” Theology). You don’t simply look at the facts, weigh the evidence, and conclude that Jesus must be the Messiah. Salvation is NOT an intellectual exercise. Rather, it’s an experience! In Paul’s “Participationist” model of salvation, we don’t merely stand afar off and believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ. No! Rather, we *participate* “in Christ.” We share in his baptism (Rom. 6.3), death (Gal. 2.20), and resurrection (Rom. 6.8). Psalm 34.8 says:
O taste and see that the LORD is good.
—
The Genesis Flood Narrative & Biblical Exegesis
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Biblical Flood: Universal or Local?
Proponents of flood geology hold to a literal
reading of Genesis 6–9 and view its
passages as historically accurate; they use
the Bible's internal chronology to place the
Genesis flood and the story of Noah's Ark
within the last five thousand years.
Scientific analysis has refuted the key
tenets of flood geology. Flood geology
contradicts the scientific consensus in
geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics,
paleontology, biology, anthropology, and
archaeology. Modern geology, its sub-
disciplines and other scientific disciplines
utilize the scientific method. In contrast,
flood geology does not adhere to the
scientific method, making it a
pseudoscience. — Wikipedia
According to Bible scholarship, Noah is not a historical figure. And we also know that the legendary flood story of the Bible was inspired by an earlier epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia, namely, “The Epic of Gilgamesh." Moreover, if we zero in on the mythical details of Noah’s Ark, the story has all the earmarks of a legendary narrative.
The Bible is an ancient eastern text that uses hyperbolic language, parables, and paradox as forms of poetic literary expression, akin to what we today would call “theology.” In the absence of satellites or global networks of communication, any catastrophic events in the ancient world that were similar to our modern-day natural disasters——such as the 2004 tsunami that killed 228 thousand people off the coast of Indonesia, or Hurricane Katrina, one of the most destructive hurricanes in US history——would have been blown out of proportion and seen as global phenomena. This would explain the sundry flood myths and stories that have come down to us from ancient times. And, according to Wikipedia:
no confirmable physical proof of the Ark
has ever been found. No scientific evidence
has been found that Noah's Ark existed as
it is described in the Bible. More
significantly, there is also no evidence of a
global flood, and most scientists agree that
such a ship and natural disaster would both
be impossible. Some researchers believe
that a real (though localized) flood event in
the Middle East could potentially have
inspired the oral and later written
narratives; a Persian Gulf flood, or a Black
Sea deluge 7500 years ago has been
proposed as such a historical candidate.
Bible Exegesis: Literal versus Allegorical Interpretation
My primary task, here, is not to weigh in on the findings of science as to whether or not a historical flood took place but rather to offer an exegetical interpretation that is consistent with the Biblical data. Taking the Bible literally——as a standard method of interpretation——can lead to some unrealistic and outrageous conclusions. For example, in Mark 9.50 (ESV), Jesus says:
Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its
saltiness, how will you make it salty again?
Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace
with one another.
Question: is Jesus literally commanding his disciples to carry salt with them at all times? In other words, is Jesus talking about “salt” (Gk. ἅλας) per se in a literal sense——the mineral composed primarily of sodium chloride——or is he employing the term “salt” as a metaphor to mean that his disciples should *preserve* their righteousness in this life of decay?
Obviously, Jesus is using the term “salt” as a metaphor for preserving godliness in the midst of a perishing world. This proof-text shows that there are many instances in the Bible where a literal rendering is completely unwarranted.
The Judgment of the Flood: There’s No Judgment Where There’s No Law
If one re-examines the flood story, one would quickly see that it doesn’t square well with history, science, or even the theology of the Bible. For example, Paul says in Romans that human beings became aware of sin only when the law was given to forbid it. But there is no judgment where there is no law. Romans 5.13 says:
for sin indeed was in the world before the
law was given, but sin is not counted where
there is no law.
So, my question is, if the law was given after Noah’s epoch, and if there was no law during Noah’s time, how could “sin … [be] counted [or charged against anyone’s account] where there is no law.”?
How, then, could God “judge” the world during the Pre-Mosaic law period? It would appear to be a contradiction in terms.
What is more, if we know, in hindsight, that no one is “saved” by simply following the law (Galatians 2.16) or by sacrificing animals (Hebrews 10.1-4), how could people possibly be “saved” by entering a boat or an ark? It doesn’t make any theological sense at all. But it does have all the earmarks of a mythical story.
The Flood as Apocalyptic Judgment
There’s no scientific evidence for a world-wide flood (Noah’s flood). Moreover, the Book of Revelation predicts all sorts of future catastrophic events and natural disasters that will occur on earth, where every island and mountain will be moved from its place, coupled with earthquakes, tsunamis, meteors, etc. The frequency & intensification of these climactic events is referred to as the “birth pangs” of the end times. In fact, it will be the worst period in the history of the earth! Matthew 24.21 puts it thusly:
For then there will be great tribulation,
such as has not been from the beginning of
the world until now, no, and never will be.
And since it is possible that Old Testament allegories may be precursors of future events, so the flood account may be alluding to an apocalyptic judgment. For example, if we examine and compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon *Egypt* with the final judgments in the Book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place: see e.g. Locusts: Exod. 10.1–20 (cf. Rev. 9.3); Thunderstorm of hail and fire: Exod. 9.13–35 (cf. Rev. 16.21); Pestilence: Exod. 9.1-7 (cf. Rev 6.8); Water to Blood: Exod. 7.14–24 (cf. Rev. 8.9; 16.3-4); Frogs: Exod. 7.25–8.15 (cf. Rev. 16.13); Boils or Sores: Exod. 9.8–12 (cf. Rev. 16.2); Darkness for three days: Exod. 10.21–29 (cf. Rev. 16.10). Apparently, the darkness lasts 3 symbolic days because that’s how long the “great tribulation” will last, namely, three and a half years (cf. Dan. 7.25; 9.27; 12.7; Rev. 11.2-3; 12.6, 14; 13.5). All these “plagues” are seemingly associated with the Day of the Lord (Mt. 24.29):
Immediately after the suffering of those
days the sun will be darkened, and the
moon will not give its light; the stars will fall
from heaven, and the powers of heaven will
be shaken.
In the same way, the Old Testament flood narrative may be representing a type of **judgment** that is actually repeated in the New Testament as if taking place in the end-times (cf. Luke 17.26-30): “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man” (Luke 17.26)! In the Olivet prophecy, Mt. 24.39 calls the flood “a cataclysm” (κατακλυσμὸς) or a catastrophic event. And as 1 Pet. 3.20-21 explains, Noah’s flood is a “type” of the endtimes, and we are the “antitype” (ἀντίτυπον). As a matter of fact, in reference to the end-times destruction of Jerusalem, Dan. 9.26 says “Its end shall come with a flood.” In other words, there will be utter destruction and devastation, the likes of which the world has never seen before (Gen. 6.13; Dan. 12.1; Mt. 24.21).
Creation in 6 literal 24-hour days?
In Genesis 1.5, we are told that “there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” By comparison, Genesis 1.8 says “there was evening and there was morning, the second day.” What is puzzling, however, is that God made the moon & the sun on the 4th day (Genesis 1.14-19). How do you explain that?
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that a literal 24-hour day model is inexplicable and does not seem to be part of the authorial intent. How could you possibly have mornings and evenings (or 24-hour “days”) if the sun & moon were formed on day 4? Obviously, they are not meant to be literal 24-hour days (see e.g. Gen. 2.4 in which the Hebrew word “yom,” meaning “day,” refers to the entirety of creation history). The creation days are therefore symbolic or figurative in nature.
Part of the internal evidence is that there are *allegorical interpretations* that are applied to scripture from within the text, such as 2 Peter 3.8, which reminds us of the following Biblical axiom:
But do not forget this one thing, dear
friends: With the Lord a day is like a
thousand years, and a thousand years are
like a day.
Similarly, Paul instructs us to interpret certain parts of the Bible **allegorically.** For example, Paul interprets for us certain Old Testament passages **allegorically,** not literally! Paul says in Galatians 4.22-26:
For it is written that Abraham had two sons,
one by a slave woman and one by a free
woman. But the son of the slave was born
according to the flesh, while the son of the
free woman was born through promise. Now
this may be interpreted allegorically: these
women are two covenants. One is from
Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery;
she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in
Arabia; she corresponds to the present
Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her
children. But the Jerusalem above is free,
and she is our mother.
So, as you can see, there are not necessarily 6 literal days of creation, or 6,000 years in earth’s history, or a global flood, nor are there any talking donkeys holding press conferences and doing podcasts, there’s no evil that is caused by eating fruits, there are no trees of immortality on earth, no human angels wielding futuristic laser guns, and there are certainly no mythological beasts with seven heads walking around on park avenue in Manhattan. Proper Biblical exegesis must be applied.
But it’s equally important to emphasize that this allegorical approach to scriptural interpretation in no way diminishes the reliability of the Bible, its inerrancy, its divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3.16-17), or its truth values! The reason for that will be explained in the next two sections.
Biblical Genres Require Different Methods of Interpretation
The Bible has many different genres, such as prophecy, poetry, wisdom, parable, apocalyptic, narrative, and history. It is obviously inappropriate to interpret poetry or parable in the same way that we would interpret history because that would ultimately lead to logical absurdities. Alas, the history of Biblical interpretation is riddled with exegetes who have erroneously tried to force **parables and metaphors** into a **literal interpretation,** which of course cannot be done without creating ridiculous effects that you only encounter in sci-fi films. This view creates logical absurdities, such as talking serpents and talking donkeys, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like. For example, the “beasts” in the Book of Daniel, chapters 2, 7, and 8, are interpreted by scripture as being symbolic of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Similarly, the so-called “locusts” and “scorpions” in the Book of Revelation, chapter 9, seemingly allude to modern-day warfare. No one in their right mind would dare say that the beasts of Daniel or those of Revelation are **literal beasts.** Not only does this eisegesis defy the actual interpretation that is given by scripture itself, but it also leads to complete and utter nonsense.
Just as Ancient Philosophical Inquiry Was Discussed Through the Language of Poetry, So too Theological Truth Was Expounded Poetically in Sacred Scripture
It’s important to stress that a refutation of the historical flood narrative is not equivalent to a refutation of the “truths” of the Bible. The scriptural “truth values” work on many different levels. Truth can be presented in poetic form without necessarily compromising its validity.
For example, Lucretius’ only known work is a philosophical *poem* that is translated into English as “On the Nature of Things,” in which he examines Epicurean physics through the abundant use of poetic and metaphorical language. Similarly, the single known work by the Greek philosopher Parmenides——the father of metaphysics and western philosophy——is a *poem* “On Nature” which includes the very first sustained argument in philosophical history concerning the nature of reality in “the way of truth."
What is of immense interest to me is that both of these ancient philosophers explored their “scientific” and philosophical “truths” through the richly metaphorical language of *poetry*. So, why can’t the ancient books of the Bible do the same? Is modern science and literary criticism correct in dismissing biblical “truths” on historical grounds simply because of their richly poetic or metaphorical language? Perhaps our modern methodologies can be informed by the ancient writings of Lucretius and Parmenides!
Can People Be Saved After the Resurrection & the Rapture?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The pretribulational view teaches that there will be many who will be saved during the great tribulation, AFTER the Resurrection & the Rapture take place (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17). Is this possible, or does it contradict scripture? Just like the parable of the 10 virgins suggests, when the doors of salvation are finally slammed shut, no one else could be saved. It’s all over. No one can go in or out. The rapture is that end point. Once the church leaves, it’s game over! And even if the tribulation saints could be saved, where would they go? How would they be *rescued* by God, given that the rapture was that final ticket out of here?
Let’s not forget that there are certain contemporaneous events that have to occur during the resurrection and the rapture, just prior to the departure of the church. For instance, scripture affirms that Christ will radically transform God’s elect so that they will resemble his glorious appearance (Phil. 3.21). What is more, 1 Cor. 15.52-53 reveals that the elect will attain a glorious immortality, during the resurrection/rapture process, so that they will never ever die again! That’s when Christ will finally grant God’s elect his “exceeding great and precious promises” so that they can become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1.4). But these divinely transformative events can only occur *once for all* during the resurrection & the rapture. So the question arises, if these momentous events take place once for all, and the elect eventually partake of the divine nature and are raptured out of here, how then can these glorious transformations reoccur over and over again in the absence of Christ, the Spirit, and the Church?
This demonstrates the fallacy of pretribulationism because it falsely maintains that people will continue to be saved even after the resurrection and the rapture. Really? And even if they could be saved, where would they go? The church has already left. How would they be rescued after the church has permanently left? Once again, it shows that pretribulationism is based on fallacious reasoning!
And how could the tribulation saints escape God’s wrath? If they die, how would they be resurrected again, given that the one and only resurrection of the dead already happened? Remember that there’s only one general resurrection of the dead in which both the saved and the damned will be raised together (Daniel 12.2). So, if the rapture already took place and the tribulation saints can no longer be resurrected, how could they escape God’s judgments? How would God rescue them? They would simply be forced to stay here on earth in the midst of unbridled terror? Would God allow his precious elect to remain here on earth during the zombie apocalypse, while his wrath was being poured out in judgment, and while all the rest of the elect were enjoying heavenly bliss?
So, if the tribulation saints could neither be resurrected nor raptured, what would be God’s rescue plan for them? In other words, *after* the resurrection & the rapture had taken place, what could the tribulation saints do here on earth? Would their task be to ride out the storm of God’s wrath during the day of the Lord? It’s reminiscent of Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, “No Exit.” It demonstrates the faulty reasoning and unscriptural position of the pretrib rapture view!
Conclusion
Mt. 24.29-31 says that the “gathering” of the Son of Man’s elect (i.e. ‘the rapture’) occurs AFTER the Great Tribulation (Gk. *μετὰ* τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων). The clincher, the passage that settles the matter conclusively is Rev. 20.4-6. This passage tells us that those who were killed during the Great Tribulation took part in the first resurrection. However, given that the rapture is contemporaneous with the first resurrection (1 Thess. 4.16-17), and since those who took part in the first resurrection came out of the Great Tribulation, it means that the rapture must also take place *AFTER* the great tribulation. Hence, if this is the first resurrection that takes place AFTER the great tribulation, then there can’t possibly be an earlier one, as the pretrib doctrine assumes. Any way you look at it, the pretrib position doesn’t make any scriptural sense at all.
The reason people will continue to be saved during the great ordeal is because the *rapture* will take place at the *end* of the tribulation period, so that all God's elect will leave together as one church. Once the resurrection & the rapture take place (posttrib), it’s game over. No one else can be saved, or be resurrected, or go to heaven! Once again, these robust and cogent arguments prove that the pretrib position is completely bogus and misinformed.
——-
For further details, see my short essay:
Three Questions On the Rapture: Is it Pre-Trib or Post-Trib? Is it Secret or Not? And is it Imminent?
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/628794727776632832/three-questions-on-the-rapture-is-it-pre-trib-or
——-
Easy believism
By Eli Kittim 🎓
Before the reward there must be labor.
You plant before you harvest. You sow in
tears before you reap joy. ~Ralph Ransom
Christians typically debate over the nature of the godhead (e.g. modalism vs. the trinity), the best English Bible translation (KJV only vs. Critical edition), the rapture (pre vs post-tribulation), and many other different doctrines that are peripheral to soteriology. However, the topic that we’re about to discuss is a salvation-issue of the utmost importance.
Easy believism holds that only belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. Nothing else is required in order to be saved. Proponents of this view teach that no commitment to Christian discipleship or spiritual formation is required. In other words, no efforts whatsoever are necessary on the part of the believer in order to be saved. It is certainly very appealing, particularly to those who are lazy and who dislike efforts and commitments. Plus it allows you to indulge your carnal desires to your heart’s content!
There are only two categories in the spiritual life: the “saved” and the “unsaved”; the “saint” and the “sinner.” By that I mean the Christian and the nonChristian. That is to say, the person who has been born-again in a Holy Spirit experience versus the person who has not yet been regenerated. The topic of “easy believism” only concerns those people who have not yet experienced a rebirth. It refers to those people who are interested in salvation and want to know what they have to do to attain it. By contrast, those who have been reborn have received the Holy Spirit and are already saved!
Just because Jesus is said to die for our sins doesn’t mean that we should continue to practice sin, whether it be pedophilia, adultery, murder, or the like. The idea of making an effort to align our behavior with God’s will doesn’t mean that we are saving ourselves or that we reject Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. It is true that only Jesus can regenerate us. It is a gift of God. But those who are not yet regenerated need to purify themselves in order to receive God’s gift of salvation. Just like the farmer ploughs the field, prepares the soil for planting, and then plants the seeds and waits for the harvest, we, too, must prepare the soil of our heart in order to receive the harvest of God’s gift. It takes much time and effort. Not that rebirth itself has anything to do with us, but the preparation towards it definitely does. Once we receive it, God then does all the work inside us through his Holy Spirit!
Scriptural verses should be read in **canonical context,** not in isolation. The notion that we must do certain things (beyond just believing) is quite obvious throughout scripture. For example, Jesus says I know about your “deeds and your labor and perseverance” (Rev. 2.2), but you need to “repent, and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and I will remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent” (Rev. 2.5)! Notice that Jesus doesn’t say “continue to sin because you will be saved as long as you believe in my death, burial, and resurrection.” No! Jesus doesn’t say “sit back, relax, and do nothing because I will take care of all the details.” Rather, he says:
To the one who overcomes, I will grant to
eat from the tree of life, which is in the
Paradise of God (Rev. 2.7).
This is a theme that runs throughout the Bible. We have to struggle against sin so as to overcome. According to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, to overcome means to “defeat (an opponent); prevail.” We do not defeat anyone or anything if we don’t exert any effort at all. In Revelation 3.3, Christ commands the believers to stay alert and vigilant and to repent:
remember what you have received and
heard; and keep it, and repent. Then if you
are not alert, I will come like a thief, and you
will not know at what hour I will come to
you.
Proponents of easy believism claim that *repentance* and *avoidance of sin* are practices based on “works” and are, therefore, not required. Yet 1 John 1.6 declares:
If we say that we have fellowship with Him
and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do
not practice the truth.
Similarly, 1 John 3.4 says:
Everyone who practices sin also practices
lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
In 1 Timothy 6.11-12, Paul addressed the believers and issued a categorical imperative to actively flee from sin. He pronounced a solemn exhortation:
flee from these things, you man of God,
and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith,
love, perseverance, and gentleness. Fight
the good fight of faith; take hold of the
eternal life to which you were called, and for
which you made the good confession in the
presence of many witnesses.
Paul is urging us to actively flee from sin and to practice righteousness. Just like Jesus, Paul is not telling us to do nothing except believe. On the contrary, he’s urging us to fervently fight against evil thoughts, against sinful emotions & desires, and against temptations to disobey God. If no efforts were required, then why would Paul say that we must fight and struggle against sin, against falsehood, and against everything that opposes the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10.5)? In Ephesians 6.10-14, Paul writes:
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the
strength of His might. Put on the full armor
of God, so that you will be able to stand firm
against the schemes of the devil. For our
struggle is not against flesh and blood, but
against the rulers, against the powers,
against the world forces of this darkness,
against the spiritual forces of wickedness in
the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the
full armor of God, so that you will be able to
resist on the evil day, and having done
everything, to stand firm. Stand firm
therefore, having belted your waist with
truth, and having put on the breastplate of
righteousness.
In 1 Corinthians 6.18, Paul’s caveat to “Flee sexual immorality” explicitly contradicts the doctrine of easy believism. So does John 8.11 where Jesus says “go, and do not sin again." Same with Ephesians 4.26: “Be angry but do not sin.” Are these verses teaching that only belief is necessary? In Romans 6.13, Paul issues a command: “do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness.” These proof-texts, therefore, expose the horrific errors of easy believism!
Paul never says “it doesn’t matter if you keep sinning as long as you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Paul never says “don’t worry if you’re having an adulterous relationship with someone’s wife, or if you keep robbing people’s homes, or if you keep molesting little children, as long as you believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ.” That’s like saying that the head of the mafia may have already killed many people——and may kill many more in the foreseeable future——but he’s actually *saved* because he believes that Jesus is the Christ. How crazy is that? In other words, Free Grace theology holds that “carnal Christians” and “unbelieving Christians” who even denounce their faith will, nevertheless, be saved. Obviously, there’s something seriously flawed with the doctrine of easy believism!
This is a perversion of the gospel. In fact, Romans 8.5-8 says that “those who live according to the flesh” are not believers. Salvation is a gift. No one is denying that. But the goal is to take up our cross daily and die to ourselves so as to become more Christ-like (Mt. 16.24). Without preparation and discipleship we are not heading towards Christ. Therefore, easy believism is a false teaching that deceives and misleads people by offering them a fake salvation that does not save! In fact, Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society have gone so far as to say that it’s not even a requirement (for salvation) to believe that Jesus is God, or that he died for sin, or that he was bodily resurrected at some point in human history!
Easy believism is a perversion of the Bible (see Mt. 7.14; Acts 2.1-4, 15; Rom. 6.3; 8.9; 2 Cor. 5.13; Eph. 4.22-24; Gal. 2.20; Rev. 3.20)! Bottom line, unless you’ve had an *existential experience* of rebirth (Jn 3.3), you’re not saved. If you think salvation is so easy that all you have to do is simply name it and claim it, then you’re only having an imaginary relationship with Jesus. Paul demonstrates that there’s far more to salvation than easy believism. He exclaims:
Work out your salvation with fear and
trembling (Phil. 2.12).
Eli Kittim Reddit
Is the Authority of Scripture Biblical?
Eli Kittim
I have a high view of Scripture. But my authority is a Person, not a Book. My authority is God himself, as he reveals to me his will and purpose through spiritual communications. It’s one thing to say that the Bible is “authoritative,” in the sense that it’s reliable and truthful. But it’s quite another thing to say that it’s our highest authority. I think people mistakenly conflate the authority of Scripture with Cessationism, the Calvinist doctrine that spiritual gifts and prophecy ceased with the Apostolic Age. They often cite Jude 1:3 for support. But all that verse says is that “the faith” was revealed to us at some point in human history. It doesn’t say that the Godhead went out of business, took a Sabbatical, or died and left a will. The phrase—“the faith delivered once for all to God's people”—can be disambiguated by examining the context. The other passage cessationists love to quote is 1 Cor. 13:9-10. But all it says is that “we know in part and prophesy in part” because “when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with.” But not before the complete comes. That’s the key! It doesn’t say that prophecy has ceased. That would be a misinterpretation. Besides, Acts 2:17 says that people in the end times will prophesy and see visions.
Many people are confusing Scripture’s inspiration, revelation, truthfulness, and inerrancy with the concept of “authority,” which the Oxford languages dictionary defines as “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.” In short, our highest authority is not the Church, tradition, councils, committees, or even the Bible itself. Our highest authority is Jesus Christ! In Matt. 28:18 (NASB), Christ says:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to Me”
Where does 2 Tim. 3:14–16 mention the authority of Scripture? It says that “the sacred writings … are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” In other words, Scripture gives us wisdom and leads us to salvation which can only be found in Christ Jesus. The fact that Scripture is “inspired” doesn’t mean it represents the final authority. 2 Tim. 3:14–16 reads:
“continue in the things you have learned
and become convinced of, knowing from
whom you have learned them, and that
from childhood you have known the sacred
writings which are able to give you the
wisdom that leads to salvation through faith
which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is
inspired by God and beneficial for teaching,
for rebuke, for correction, for training in
righteousness.”
The fact that Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) doesn’t mean that the Bible has the final say in all matters. The Spirit that inspired the Bible is the ultimate authority on all matters, not the Bible. Scripture itself does not claim to have all authority. Jesus does.
Moreover, the concept of the Sufficiency of Scripture implies that Scripture itself is all we need to interpret Scripture. But Scripture can be interpreted in 30,000 different ways. Just look at all the Protestant denominations that split due to interpretative differences. Thus, Scripture is neither sufficient to interpret itself, nor is it the final authority. Without the Holy Spirit to illuminate us, we will inevitably misinterpret it (Jn 16:13)!
Where does 2 Pet. 1:20–21 mention the authority of Scripture?
“But know this first of all, that no prophecy
of Scripture becomes a matter of
someone’s own interpretation, for no
prophecy was ever made by an act of
human will, but men moved by the Holy
Spirit spoke from God.”
All it says is that prophecy and its interpretation should be revealed by the Holy Spirit, not interpreted by human beings. If anything, it demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture!
The fact that the Bible contains the Word of God doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the final authority, or that it’s sufficient in and of itself, so that we don’t need anything else. If the Bible is entirely “sufficient” and adequate for all purposes, we wouldn’t need to be reborn. All we would need to do is read our Bibles. But Scripture cannot save anyone. Jesus does. The Spirit is what we need. We can be saved by the Spirit without the Bible. But we can’t be saved by the Bible without the Spirit.
The Bible does not attest to its own authority. Revelation of the Word does not mean ultimate Authority. The fact that God’s Word is true (Jn 17:17) doesn’t mean that the Bible is the highest authority in our lives. As Christ said, it is the Spirit that perfects us, not the Scriptures (Jn 16:13). Luke 24:49 reads:
“But remain … until you have been clothed
with power from on high”
John 3:5 says categorically and unequivocally:
“unless someone is born of … the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
Likewise, Romans 8:9 puts it thusly:
“But if anyone does not have the Spirit of
Christ, he does not belong to Him.”
In John 5:39-40, Jesus demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture by saying the following:
“You examine the Scriptures because you
think that in them you have eternal life; and
it is those very Scriptures that testify about
Me; and yet you are unwilling to come to Me
so that you may have life.”
When Jesus says that all will be accomplished according to his Word (Matt. 5:18), he’s talking about prophecy, not the authority of Scripture. I’m not suggesting that Scripture errs or is contradictory. Absolutely not! But let’s not confuse the issues. The fact that the Bible contains the Word of God doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s our final authority, or that it’s entirely sufficient. That would be equivalent to Bibliolatry. The Bible is not a paper Pope. Truth and trustworthiness is one thing. Authority is another.