1. Most of the New Testament’s teaching about the Lord’s Supper is negative rather than positive. That is, most of the teaching of the NT tells us what not to do rather than what to do.

There really is very little teaching about the Lord’s Supper to begin with. The Synoptics mention the institution of the Supper (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20) in the context of Passover with John only mentioning the Passover meal and the dipping of the sop (John 13:21-30, in the context of the discussion about Jesus’ impending betrayal). These passages are descriptive, though Paul apparently saw them as prescriptive since he “hands them down” to the churches he establishes (see below).

There are a few passages in the Acts that mention the Lord’s Supper (assuming that the phrase “breaking (of) bread” in its various forms is a reference to the Lord’s Supper) such as Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7f. These verses are descriptive rather than prescriptive in that they explain what happened more than they tell us what we should do, but they do give us some idea of what the Supper was like in the Apostolic era and thus provide a guide for our understanding of how they viewed the Supper.

Paul may be referring to the Supper in 1 Cor. 10:16-17 and he most certainly is referring to it in v. 21. Here he does not prescribe how the Supper is to be observed but uses the observance of the Supper to illustrate the ethical implications of idolatry.

Paul talks at length about the Supper in 1 Cor. 11:17-34. This passage is the longest, and only, sustained passage in the entire New Testament with prescriptive about the Supper.

In vv. 17-22, Paul gives negative teaching (telling them what not to do) to correct the misbehavior related to the Supper’s observance in Corinth. In vv. 27-34, Paul draws out the implications of an improper practice of the Supper.

These two passages surround Paul’s teaching of the Supper in vv. 23-26 (using the words παρέλαβον and παρέδωκα, words used to refer to the handing down of sacred teachings or traditions). The prescriptive teaching in these verses does not differ substantially from what is stated descriptively in the Gospels.

This leads to a conclusion which serves as the second thesis.

2. There are really only six verses in the NT that provide positive teaching about the Supper, that is, telling us what to do in the Lord’s Supper.

These six verses are as follows: 1 Cor. 11:23-26, 28, 33. As stated above, the verses in the Gospels state the institution descriptively. Even if we count them as prescribing what is to occur, they do not differ substantially from what Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:23-26.

The other two verses, 1 Cor. 11:28, 33, are certainly relevant for the church today, but note that they come out of Paul’s teaching to correct specific abuses at the church in Corinth.

These verses are all we have. Everything else we may deduce from these passages and their context must fall into the category of “inference.” We may draw true and reasonable inferences from these passages (and the passages given above), but we cannot claim that such inferences are “what the Bible actually teaches.” We must be honest and admit that such conclusions are inferences rather than the clear teaching of Scripture.

3. Paul’s teaching 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 has been interpreted in isolation from its context for so long that the proper interpretation is often regarded with suspicion as if it is “new teaching.”

These verses, especially v. 28, which is the heart of this particular portion, are interpreted in an individualistic fashion (probably because of Paul’s shift from the plural to the singular in v. 27) and application is usually made to call people to confess their sins committed throughout the week so as to avoid being unworthy to take the Supper.

Several things in particular are wrong with this interpretation and application:

(1) Paul does not say that one who has not confessed his or her sins is unworthy to eat. He says that one must be careful to not to eat “in an unworthy manner” (KJV has the awkward “unworthily” as does the heading in UBS). No one is ever truly “worthy” of partaking of the Supper but it is designed precisely for those who are unworthy. Anyone worthy of the Supper would not need it or what it represents. There is no one who fits that description.

(2) This interpretation and application fails to take into account the context. The first word in v. 27 is ὥστε which indicates logical consequence and is often translated “therefore” (NKJV; NIV has “so then”) though Thiselton suggests “consequently.” This clearly connects the teachings in this portion to what Paul has stated previously. To interpret these verses outside of this context, then, is to miss what Paul is telling us about the Supper. This will also result in teaching that, while it may be true (e.g., we need to confess our sins) is not what Paul intended with regard to the Lord’s Supper.

(3) Thiselton makes a good case for the expression “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” meaning “being held accountable for the sin against Christ of claiming identification with him while using the celebration of the meal as an occasion for social enjoyment or status enhancement without regard to what sharing in what the Lord’s Supper proclaims.” (emphases in the original)^[1]

(4) The command to “examine oneself” (v. 28), then, provides the alternative to improperly taking the Supper in v. 27 and has reference to examining oneself to determine the genuineness of one’s motives for taking the Supper.

So while it is always appropriate for believers to examine their hearts with regard to indwelling sin, and while such self-examination is not wholly inappropriate in the context of the Lord’s Supper, this is not Paul’s purpose in calling for the self-examination with regard to the Lord’s Supper.

Instead, this self-examination must involve an understanding of what the Supper means to help one avoid taking the Supper for purposes other than proclaiming its meaning not only with regard to Christ himself, but with regard to the rest of the body.

When we compare much teaching about the Lord’s Supper to Paul’s emphases, it is not hard to see that much of it focuses on things that Paul did not focus on.

4. Consequently, much of the teaching (historic and current) about the Lord’s Supper maintains different emphases than Paul’s teaching.

Much of the teaching regarding the Lord’s Supper has to do with issues such as who may properly partake of the Supper, what are the proper elements of the Supper (leavened vs. unleavened bread, wine vs. grape juice), and matters of personal holiness and confession of sin (the latter based on 1 Cor. 11:28).

Having been raised in church, I have been present at many Lord’s Supper services. I have heard many sermons on these various passages though, sadly, oftentimes the Supper is simply presented at the end of the Sunday evening service (or in the hour before it) and then usually without preamble or explanation.

Whenever these texts are preached, there is often more eisegesis based on tradition than actual exegesis going on. Most of the time 1 Cor. 11:27-32 is referenced or preached totally out of context (see above) and little attention is given to the necessity for unity in the church and the importance of approaching the table in humility which are the very things that Paul emphasizes.

5. Any attempt to justify number 4 (above) based on the last sentence of 1 Cor. 11:34 is an argument from silence at best and eisegesis at worst.

Not much needs to be said about this. Too many times I have heard teachers and preachers justify their own emphases by claiming that what they emphasize must be what Paul was going to say to them when he returned to Corinth. Such conclusions are dangerously presumptuous. If indeed Scripture is sufficient (as most conservative Christians profess), then one need not add to it in order to be healthy spiritually nor do churches need to draw the boundaries larger or smaller than the Scriptures do.

When, however, one forces such beliefs on other through legislation, personal attacks, or bullying, one is doing what is commonly termed “shoving your religion down my throat.” Simply holding to a point of view or practicing one’s belief does not constitute and should be interpreted as “shoving religion down another’s throat.”

The political and societal agendas pushed by many religious people are also held and promoted by non-religious people (e.g., the sanctity of human life, the freedom to live and worship without government intervention and coercion, etc.) and may often reflect nothing more than a desire for the society and mores of bygone eras and previous generations. Thus, seeking to see these views reflected in law and in culture does not necessarily involve forcing others to hold to their religious beliefs.

The agendas of atheism and secularism, however, are almost always driven by their religious views. They are also almost always in the minority. So when atheists and secularists, who are sometimes as militant as some religious groups and more militant than many religious groups, promote their political agendas, they are in effect “shoving their religion down people’s throats” as much as any militant religious group.

 Statement on the Trinity
by Michael R. Jones

God is one essence in three persons. Though the word “Trinity” is not used in Scripture, the concept is present. The Scripture reveals that God is one (Exod. 15:11; Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29-30; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; James 2:19) in substance or essence, that is, in what makes him what he is as uniquely God. The Scriptures also show evidence that there is a plurality in the Godhead. The God of Israel is frequently referred to in the plural (Gen. 1:27; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8) and the name and idea of God are applied in several places to more than person (Isa. 48:16; 63:7-14; and Isa. 61:1, cf. Luke 4:18ff).

The NT refers to the Father as God (Matt. 6:24-34; 27:46; Rom. 1:7; Gal. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:2) though Jesus Christ claims to be deity (John 5:17-18 and John 10:29-30) and he is referred to in divine terms by Paul in Phil. 2:6 and in Col. 1:15 and 2:9. Hebrews 1:3 refers to Jesus Christ saying that he is the “exact representation of his [God’s] nature. John 1:18 and Titus 2:13 also explicitly refer to Jesus as “God.” The titles of God are applied to Jesus Christ, such as “Lord” and “Lord of Glory” in 1 Cor. 2:8 and Rev. 1:17-18 also affirms this. Many OT passages referring to God are applied to Jesus Christ such as Isaiah 6 (John 12:41), Ps. 2:7 (Acts 13:33), and Psalm 110, which is the most oft-quoted OT passage in the NT. Jesus is also receives worship without rebuking those who offered it (Matt. 15, 28; John 9).

The NT affirms that the Holy Spirit is God by referring to him as such (Acts 5; 2 Cor. 3:17-18), by attributing the words of the OT spoken by God to the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25-27; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17), by ascribing to the Holy Spirit the attributes of God (e.g., eternality in Heb 9:14; truth in 1 John 5:7), by attributing to the Holy Spirit the Works of God such as the power of regeneration (John 3:5-8), the sanctifying of believers (1 Pet. 1:2), inspiring people to write God’s Word (2 Pet. 1:21), and even raising Christ form the dead (Rom. 8:11).

In short, the attributes of God and the works of God are attributed to the Father, to the Son, and to the Spirit. These three: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one (Jesus is one with the Father, John 10:30, and the Son is one with the Spirit, Rom. 8:9-10, and the Spirit is the Lord, 2 Cor.3:17) though each is distinct from the others. Matthew 3 records the baptism of Jesus when the Son is baptized, the Father speaks, and the Spirit descends out of heaven. John 14-15 records Jesus’ teaching about his departure and the subsequent sending of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, which implies that they are distinct.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not mean that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have one-third of God’s essence. God’s essence is indivisible and each person possesses the fullness of the essence of God (Col. 2:9). The three persons of the Godhead are distinct persons (centers of consciousness with the power to will to choose and to act) but one God with the same essence. This is what is meant by the statement “Trinity in unity”: God has only one essence in which each Person, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shares, but each Person is distinguishable from the others.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not merely three different manifestations of God (as in modalism) though each person does play a distinct role in the outworking of God’s purpose (the economic Trinity).

The Son was not created. If the Son shares in the essence of God, then he, too, must be eternal as God is eternal. The Spirit is not merely a force but a person and “the Christ” is not merely a power or influence that was placed upon the man Jesus.

The doctrine of the Trinity is important not only to be orthodox in one’s Christian belief and doctrine but also to relate to God properly and to enjoy his blessings and benefits. Since the three members of the Godhead share the same essence they have the same goals, honor the same promises, and accomplish the same works, the believer may rest in full assurance that they will accomplish our salvation, make good on those promises, continue to dwell with us teaching us divine truth and work together to receive us into glory and into the new heavens and the new earth.

Schaff says that this was probably the Sirmian Creed of 351. ^[1] Much like certain teachers of our own day who have gotten much press in the blogosphere of late, the Sirmian Creed did not formally embrace the heretical teachings of Arianism, but at the same time fell short of affirming what the church had affirmed as orthodoxy at the Council of Nicea.

The Lord said, that ‘there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, so that they shall deceive many’ (Matt. 24:24). Accordingly the devil has come, speaking by each and saying, ‘I am Christ, and the truth is with me;’ and he has made them, one and all, to be liars like himself [cf. John 8:44]. And strange it is, that while all heresies are at variance with one another concerning the mischievous inventions which each has framed, they are united together only by the common purpose of lying. For they have one and the same father that has sown in them all the seeds, of falsehood.

Wherefore the faithful Christian and true disciple of the Gospel, having grace to discern spiritual things, and having built the house of his faith upon a rock, stands continually firm and secure from their deceits.

But the simple person, as I said before, that is not thoroughly grounded in knowledge, such an one, considering only the words that are spoken and not perceiving their meaning, is immediately drawn away by their wiles.

Wherefore it is good and needful for us to pray that we may receive the gift of discerning spirits [cf. 1 John 4:1], so that every one may know, according to the precept of John, whom he ought to reject, and whom to receive as friends and of the same faith.

Athanasius, “To the Bishops of Egypt,” 1:4 from A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume IV: St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 225.

Note that the emphasis is mine.

What Modalism Is, Why It’s Wrong, and Why It’s Dangerous

If there is one thing we’ve learned over the two millennia of church history it is that heresies never die, they just come back dressed differently. Recently there was a controversy over an evangelical leader, James MacDonald inviting a known modalist, T. D. Jakes, to speak in an evangelical forum and even referring to Jakes as a “brother.” Jakes’ modalism is well-documented by those who know him and he was ordained and still pastors in a modalist denomination (so it isn’t just a “rumor” or “gossip”).

Trevin Wax live-blogged The Elephant Room (hereafter TER, the forum in which Jakes sat down with MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, et al), and many were waiting for clarity from Jakes on the issue and hoping that Jakes would announce that he has renounced modalism. I have yet to see a transcript of the debate but Wax has some copious notes on the discussion with some direct quotes and based on his account, I have yet to see where Jakes has changed his view except that he has begun to adopt a moderate amount of Trinitarian language.

Jakes statement, as reported by Wax, goes as follows:

When asked by Driscoll:

But within that, for you, Bishop Jakes, the issue is one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God existing eternally in three persons? What is your understanding now? Which one?”

Jakes replies:

I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe “manifestations” as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. For God was manifest in the flesh. Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh. Maybe it’s semantics, but Paul says this. Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think it’s important to realize there are distinctives between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. I’m with you. I have been with you. There are many people within and outside denominations labeled Oneness that would be okay with this. We are taught in society that when we disagree with someone in a movement, we leave. But I still have associations with people in Onenness movements. We need to humble both sides and say, “We are trying to describe a God we love.” Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when it’s through a glass darkly? None of our books on the Godhead will be on sale in heaven.

This is typical of the rest of the discussion and throughout Jakes seemed to be hedging to me. Earlier Jakes talked about “persons” but then here claimed he didn’t like the word “persons” and went on to defend the term “manifestation,” a term that is both loaded and telling from someone entrenched in modalism. It doesn’t matter whether you like the word or not, that is the accepted term used for centuries to describe the Godhead. No other term is going to necessarily be better because we’re discussing the infinite God. When a Trinitarian says they don’t like the word “person” that’s one thing, but if you’re supposedly moving away from modalism this is not the best way to discuss your move toward orthodox Trinitarianism.

I agree with Jakes that Paul uses the word “manifestation” (I mean, it’s in Scripture, after all) but remember that Paul used the word before the baggage of modalism was loaded onto that word. I’m not saying Paul would have used a different word, but I am saying that you can’t condone a modalist reading of that term simply because it is found in Paul.

Jakes also slyly indicates that none of us can be sure because “Who can understand God?”  before calling for humility. The early church fathers faced this same issue which is why they stuck with words like “begotten” to describe how the Son comes from the Father: they were reluctant to say things about God that would reduce him to human categories or imply that we can fathom the nature of God. But what was revealed in Scripture they were not afraid to say clearly and distinctly using agreed-upon terms. This is another statement that a person makes when he’s trying to hedge and avoid speaking out clearly on a position.

Jakes also muddies the waters by talking about falling out and hating and throwing names. No one is doing that at all. We are seeking clear precise language to define what the Scriptures teach about the nature of God. Since when is someone hating simply by trying to nail down a definition. Jakes also says that there is “very little difference,” though I wonder if someone like Athanasius would think it’s just a “little difference.”

The line about our books being sold in heaven is gold on its own but in the midst of controversy, it seems like the kind of thing someone says to dismiss their critics without answering them.

If Jakes really has renounced modalism he should just say so. If he is struggling with this view and making a move toward orthodox Trinitarianism, he should just say so. What he shouldn’t do is hem and haw and bandy words about and point the finger back at critics, no matter how ungracious they might have been.

I can believe Jakes when he says that he is on the outs with people in the Oneness tradition and we all know that he is greeted with suspicion by many orthodox evangelicals. But being on the outs with both sides is usually what happens when one sits on the fence. All this may very well mean that Jakes is making the move toward orthodox Trinitarianism, but I don’t see anything in his nebulous statements from TER that lead me to believe he has jumped off the fence onto one side or the other. I hope and pray he does and then makes a clear statement to that effect. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

And we haven’t even touched his word-faith teachings. But that’s for another day.

UPDATE: See Kevin DeYoung’s post Seven Thoughts on the Elephant Room and T.D. Jakes. DeYoung is a member of the Gospel Coalition and he addresses every point I think should be addressed about this issue (including a few I didn’t touch on).

The idea that you will be able at all times to balance work and life is a false idea brought about by impractical idealism. The old saw that “family comes first” is simply not true. This is not the case in the secular world and it is (or should be) no less true for ministry. (Why should we serve Christ as his people any less than we would serve the man for a paycheck?) For example, sometimes a secular worker has to say no to family things when the deadline for a big project looms, or an order for a major client has to be completed. During those times, family does not come first, the job does. Other times, family concerns outweigh job issues no matter how pressing the job concerns are. If your child is having surgery, it doesn’t matter what is due, the company will have to get along without you. To make a rule that “Family always comes first” is unrealistic and leads to resentment, unnecessary guilt, and a failure to realize our potential in the Lord’s service.

Kent and Barbara Hughes address this same issue in their book Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome where they point out that we have warned young ministers about the danger of sacrificing their families to the point that now many will not sacrifice anything![1]

We fail to take into account the words of Jesus when he said that if we love father or mother more than him we are not worthy of him. In these words, Jesus does not call us to an either-or, love Jesus or love our families, but to a both-and. The point of Jesus’ words is that we must love Jesus so much that our love for others, even our families will look like hatred by comparison.

The view that we should be able to apply a blanket “family comes first” rule across the board comes from a false sense of entitlement.[2] For example, small-business owners, executives, salespeople often know that they must sometimes work outside set times. Why should people in ministry be any different? We must not develop the idea that we deserve not to work when we don’t want to simply because we are in ministry. If anything, we should hold ourselves and be held to a higher standard.

If ministry really is a calling and if you have been called, your desire to minister to those whom the Lord has given into your care will outweigh the other concerns when appropriate. Sometimes the day off has to accommodate ministry issues. Sometimes those whom you shepherd will need you at inconvenient times. Sometimes holidays and family days will be spent caring for those whom God has given you. You cannot begrudge them your service because it is a scheduled day off or a holiday or some other inconvenient time.

This is not to say that you never say no to opportunities. Sometimes it is entirely right and appropriate to refuse to use your personal day or a holiday for ministry. If you set clear expectations with your people such as announcing what days of the week you are unavailable and provide ways for people to contact you in emergencies, you can get closer to the ideal ministry-life balance that we desire.

Some people simply want to waste your time, learn who those people are and train them or ignore them. But don’t turn away people who earnestly need your help during a difficult time simply because it is your day off or it is a holiday. Use such occasions to teach your children and family about the joy of serving the Lord and the fulfillment that comes from ministering even during difficult times. You will also serve as a model for your congregation which will, in turn, encourage them to serve sacrificially.

Knowing where to draw the line is difficult and you won’t always get it right, but if you err on the side of sacrifice and loving people the way Jesus loves, then you will get it right more often than not.

The word “philosophy” means “love of wisdom” which means a “philosopher” is a “lover of wisdom.” While some think it refers to people who drone on endlessly about things that no one else cares much about, such an attitude is a reflection upon how vapid and superficial society is. Philosophers are people who have spent much time thinking about questions that relate to the meaning of life, something to which many people fail to give a second thought. To many, life is simply something to be lived, not contemplated, and those people miss out on the true joy of life because they do not stop to consider whether their life is lived to the fullest. Instead, they simply follow the crowd and live the way everyone else in society says that they should and live for what society says they should live for. Philosophers, however, and I do believe that anyone can be a philosopher, seek to go deeper than mere existence and ask questions that relate to the whys and wherefores of life.

Consider the questions that philosophers seek to answer: What does it mean to exist, to be? Do I exist as a body and a mind, or am I just the product of material substances interacting? What freedom do I have in the choices that I make? Are my choices free, predetermined, or both in that I have freedom to choose only within certain parameters? Am I mortal or immortal and what happens to the immaterial part of my being, assuming there is one, when I die? Is there a God and why should I believe or not believe in God, a god, or gods? How do I know what is right and what is wrong and on what basis do I make such decisions and judgments? What is really real? Is it only what I experience with my senses or what I can think with my mind? Or is it both, or neither? How can I even know anything to begin with? Am I born with some knowledge and then acquire more, or does knowledge exist with me, only needing training to be brought out and refined? How do I gain knowledge? Is reason, experience, or some other-worldly source the guide and touchstone for what is true and not true? What am I to enjoy with my sense and is it right or wrong to enjoy anything? What is art? What is my basis for determining what is art and what is not? Is history part of a patter? If so, who controls it, does it have a purpose, or does it flow along at the mercy of kings, nations, and nature? When do I conform to the law and when should I choose not to conform? Who has the right to dictate standard for morality and life?

Philosophers don’t necessarily think that they will find all the answers to these questions, they may only find part of the answer and they may not be satisfied with, or even like, the conclusions they reach, but in thinking and reaching even a partial conclusion, they have gone further toward understanding life than most people do, who fail to think or contemplate at all. Philosophers are committed to finding the truth with regard to these questions and issues and believe that in finding answers life will have meaning. This separates them from many who choose (because it is a choice) not to think beyond their next meal, their next paycheck, or next week’s television specials. To the philosopher, such a life, a life without meaning, is merely existence; life is not being truly lived. Philosophers search for truth and then that truth guides them in living their life and they have confidence that they are living a life of substance and meaning.

In light of this, I have to confess that I, too, am a philosopher, as are most people who ask meaningful questions about life. I have long pondered the meaning to many of these questions. As a child I remember standing in the mirror many times looking at myself square in the eye and thinking, “I am me.” Then, of course, I had to wonder what that means. Who is “me”? I have always been looking for true truth, or as my son puts it, what is “really real.” In the third grade I wanted to know who figured out the times tables and why they work out the way they do. In algebra class, while everyone else was asking about easier ways to factor polynomials, I was wondering, not how it works, but why it works. And I still puzzle over how we can truly know if it works everywhere in the universe and while I think I know the answer, it still fascinates me. In English class I wanted to know why words and sounds have meaning and why are they so powerful or so weak. Why do some words move me when others don’t? And of course, in church, I had many, many questions, that my fundamentalist brethren just couldn’t answer sufficiently. I was deemed, strange, weird, and sometimes, heretical, and once I was told that I needed to be saved so the Holy Spirit could straighten me right up. When others were afraid to question, I was not. I believed then as I do now, that the truth will stand up to scrutiny and if it does not, then it doesn’t deserve to be called “truth.”

All of this is of the utmost importance to me because I cannot live without knowing that the way I am living is in line with what is truthful. That is, I must live a life with meaning. If there is a God to whom I must give an account, then that must certainly govern my behavior. But if there is not, or if he really doesn’t care, then my life will be lived differently and my focus may be on different things. The search for meaning in life must begin with a search for truth or life is lived haphazardly and one will simply flitter through life with no purpose and, consequently, no meaning. Thus the search for truth and the meaning that is related to the truth I discover is at the heart of philosophy and, I think, at the heart of the Christian journey. Many of the questions in the list above speak to this search. I have also wondered whether what I do has meaning or value in life or, after I became a Christian, beyond this life. The other questions in the list above fall under this scope. To me, what life is and what’s real about it (truth) and how it is to be lived in light of that reality and truth (meaning) is necessary to live a life that is truly satisfying.

Being raised as a fundamentalist Christian, I was taught to shun philosophy. “Most of those guys are lost, and a lot of them are homosexual” I was told (I have since discovered that some of them were and are, but not a lot of them and certainly not most of them). Many of them have committed quite a bit of thought, not to mention ink and paper, to the questions listed above that are so meaningful to life. And many of them, even the pagans, have come up with answers that sound startlingly like truths revealed by God in Scripture. If indeed all truth is God’s truth, which it is, then a Christian should embrace truth wherever it is found. (This notion of “All truth is God’s truth” is tricky and is often used to justify many things that it shouldn’t, but as I have stated it, it is true. All truth must be God’s truth because it is impossible to conceive of a world in which something could be true yet contrary to God’s truth. Consider that if a truth were contrary to God’s truth you would have a logical contradiction which means that one or the other is impossible. It is inconceivable that God would create a world in which it would be possible for something to be true and false at the same time in the same way; that would be a violation of the very laws of logic that God himself has created and by which he himself operates.)

What then should be Christianity’s relationship to philosophy? On the one hand, and this should not even have to be said, Christianity must not accept every answer to these questions given by pagan philosophers wholesale. While someone may speak to these issues and provide answers to these questions, this does not mean that they are right. One will sometimes find propositions expressed as truth that do not agree with what special revelation puts forth as truth. Although these propositions may be expressed as “truths,” that alone does not make them true; it takes more than simply expressing something as true in order to make it true. In fact, the “truths” of pagan philosophers will sometimes contradict each other. Every supposed “truth” must be measured against the reality that God has created or revealed.

On the other hand, Christianity should not be afraid to examine the propositions and conclusions of the philosophers, however pagan they be, and accept as truth those things that are found to be true. Christianity also should not shun philosophical terminology or method in their search for truth and meaning.

Christianity, instead of fearing philosophy, must embrace it with the stated appropriate cautions. Christianity must understand that everyone is, or can be, a philosopher if they think about these questions and seek answers to them and must also concede that all of these questions are answered, or at least touched on by the Scriptures. Instead of warning their children against going to college and against reading non-Christian writers, Christians should teach their children the truth of God’s revelation and then teach them how to interact with information coming from non-Christian sources. They should also teach them how to evaluate, analyze, and critique what they are being told, what they read, etc. This important because they must have a sound and solid Christian worldview to be able to stand their ground and not be “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming” to borrow Paul’s thoughts in Eph. 4 or as he says in 2 Cor. 10:5, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Note the number of times that the words, “thinking,” “thought,” “reasoning,” “mind” and other related words occur in the NT, particularly in Paul’s writings. Clearly Paul understands that the real battle for Christians will be one where the mind and our thoughts are a key to winning one to and for Christ. Real Christian discipleship involves taking our Christian journey to the next level, not just spiritually, but intellectually as well. Only then can we love God with all our minds as well as with all our heart, soul and strength (Matt. 22:37-38).

Instead of isolating ourselves and surrendering the right to interact with the world and to assess what others put forth as truth, Christianity in general and Christians in particular should be on the offensive to understand what others are saying, to interact with it, and to embrace it if indeed it is true and consistent with Christian revelation. Christianity (and Christians) claims to have, to know, and to live by the truth of God. So we should not be fearful of what a bunch of dead pagans have to say.

Update: Here’s an excellent post saying much the same thing (though probably more profoundly) over at an apologetics blog, Thomistic Bent.

This is not to say that dispensationalism (notice I use the lower case “d”) necessarily has all the answers, because it doesn’t. The system needs much development (even though I am intrigued by the work of the “progressive dispensationalists” in applying a “salvation-history” framework (which, consequently, is what many of my generation do) is doing much to make dispensationalism what it ought to be as a system. It is interesting that many of the conclusions reached by British theologians (such as Dunn and Wright) who have no prior theological commitments in this regard with regard to the future of Israel and Jewish-Gentile identity are very similar to the conclusions reached by dispensationalism despite serious flaws in the older dispensational model.

In light of this, I urge you to thoughtfully consider Dr. Paul Martin Henebury’s list of forty reasons why the New Testament does not necessarily have priority over the Old in biblical interpretation. (Links are at the end of this post.)

Here are some I think are very important to consider:

1. Neither Testament instructs us to reinterpret the OT by the NT. Hence, we venture into uncertain waters when we allow this.

2. It would mean no one could correctly interpret the OT until they had the NT. In many cases this deficit would last for a good three centuries after the first coming of Jesus Christ.

3. It forces the NT into saying things it never explicitly says (e.g. that the Church is “the New Israel” or the seventh day Sabbath is now the first day “Christian Sabbath.”)

4. It forces the OT into saying things it really does not mean (e.g. Ezekiel 43:1-7, 10-12).

5. It would require the Lord Jesus to have used a brand new set of hermeneutical rules in, e.g., Lk. 24:44; rules not accessible until the arrival of the entire NT. These would have to include rules for each “genre”, which would not have been apparent to anyone interpreting the OT on its own terms.

6. If the OT cannot be interpreted without the NT then what it says on its own account cannot be trusted, as it could well be a “type” to be reinterpreted by the NT.

12. If the Author of the OT does not mean what He appears to say, but is in reality speaking in types and shadows which He will apparently reveal later, what assurance is there that He is not still speaking in types and shadows in the NT? Especially is this problem intensified because many places in the NT are said to be types and shadows still (e.g. the Temple in 2 Thess. 2 and Rev. 11).

13. It imposes a “unity” on the Bible which is symbolic and metaphorical only. Hence taking the Bible in a normal, plain-sense (the sense scholars advocating this view take for granted their readers will adopt with them, which we would identify as “literal”) would destroy any unity between the Testaments.

14. However, a high degree of unity can be achieved by linking together the OT and NT literature in a plain-sense, even though every question the interpreter may have will not be answered. Hence, this position that the NT must reinterpret the OT ignores or rejects the fact that, taken literally (in the sense defined above) the OT makes good sense.

16. Thus, no unbeliever could be accused of unbelief so long as they only possessed the OT, since the apparatus for belief (the NT) was not within their grasp.

17. This all makes mincemeat of any claim for the perspicuity of Scripture. At the very least it makes this an attribute possessed only by the NT.

18. Thus, the OT is deprived of its own hermeneutical integrity. This would render warnings such as that found in Proverbs 30:5-6 pointless.

20. In consequence of the above the status of the OT as “Word of God” would be logically inferior to the status of the NT. The result is that the NT (which refers to the OT as the “Word of God”) is more inspired than the OT, producing the unwelcome outcome of two levels of inspiration.

21. It devalues the OT as its own witness to God and His Plans. For example, if the promises given to ethnic Israel of land, throne, temple, etc. are somehow “fulfilled” in Jesus and the Church what was the point of speaking about them so pointedly? Cramming everything into Christ not only destroys the clarity and unity of Scripture in the ways already mentioned, it reduces the biblical covenants down to the debated promise of Genesis 3:15. The [true] expansion seen in the covenants (with all their categorical statements) is deflated into a single soundbite of “the Promised Seed-Redeemer has now come and all is fulfilled in Him.” This casts aspersions on God as a communicator and as a covenant-Maker, since there was absolutely no need for God to say many of the things He said in the OT, let alone bind himself by oaths to fulfill them (a la Jer. 31 & 33).

23. It effectively shoves aside the hermeneutical import of the inspired intertextual usage of an earlier OT text by later OT writers (e.g. earlier covenants cited in Psa. 89:33-37; 105:6-12; 106:30-31: 132:11-12; Jer. 33:17-18, 20-22, 25-26; Ezek. 37:14, 21-26). God is always taken at face value (e.g. 2 Ki. 1:3-4, 16-17; 5:10, 14; Dan. 9:2, 13). This sets up an expectation that covenant commitments will find “fulfillment” in expected ways, certainly not in completely unforeseeable ones.

24. It forces clear descriptive language into an unnecessary semantic mold (e.g. Ezek. 40-48; Zech. 14). A classic example being Ezekiel’s Temple in Ezek. 40ff. is not a physical temple even though a physical temple is clearly described.

29. A God who would “expand” His promises in such an unanticipated way could never be trusted not to “transform” His promises to us in the Gospel. Thus, there might be a difference between the Gospel message as we preach it (relying on the face value language of the NT) and God’s real intentions when He eventually “fulfills” the promises in the Gospel. Since it is thought that He did so in the past, it is conceivable that He might do so again in the future. Perhaps the promises to the Church will be “fulfilled” in totally unexpected ways with a people other than the Church?

30. Exegetically it would entail taking passages in both Testaments literally and non-literally at the same time (e.g. Isa. 9:6-7; 49:6; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9; Lk. 1:31-33; Rev. 7).

31. Exegetically it would also impose structural discontinuities into prophetic books (e.g. God’s glory departs a literal temple by the east gate in Ezekiel 10, but apparently returns to a spiritual temple through a spiritual east gate in Ezekiel 43!).

32. In addition, it makes the Creator of language the greatest rambler in all literature. Why did God not just tell the prophet, “When the Messiah comes He will be the Temple and all those in Him will be called the Temple”? That would have saved thousands of misleading words at the end of Ezekiel.

36. It makes the unwarranted assumption that there can only be one people of God. Since the OT speaks of Israel and the nations (e.g. Zech. 14:16f.); Paul speaks of Israel and the Church (e.g. Rom. 11:25, 28; Gal. 6:16; 1 Cor. 10:32; cf. Acts 26:7), and the Book of Revelation speaks of Israel separated from the nations (Rev. 7), and those in New Jerusalem distinguished from “the kings of the earth” (Rev. 21:9-22:5), it seems precarious to place every saved person from all ages into the Church.

37. In reality what happens is the theological presuppositions of the interpreter which are read into the NT text and then back into the OT. There is a corresponding breakdown between what the biblical text says and what they are assumed to mean. Thus, it is the interpretation of the reader and not the wording of the biblical text which is often the authority for what the Bible is allowed to teach.

40. Finally, there is no critical awareness of much of the problems enumerated above because that awareness is provided by the OT texts and the specific wording of those texts, which, of course, are not allowed a voice on par with what the NT text is assumed to mean. Only verses which preserve the desired theological picture are allowed to mean what they say. Hence a vicious circle is created of the NT reinterpreting the Old. This is a hermeneutical circle which ought not to be presupposed.

The first twenty reasons

The final twenty reasons

For more about Dr. Reluctant read his brief bio.

Popout

What Modalism Is

Modalism is an ancient heresy that denies the Trinity by denying that God exists at all times in three distinct persons. While orthodoxy holds to the understanding that God is one in essence and three in person at all times, modalism teaches that God is one but appeared in three different forms of modes at different times. God was Father in the OT, Son during the earthly ministry, and now appears as Holy Spirit.

In ancient times this heresy was known as Sabellianism after its most well-known teacher. It is also sometimes referred to as modalistic monarchianism. While there are subtle differences between these three, for all practical purposes they are one and the same.

Today this heresy is held most notably by the television preacher T. D. Jakes and by the Christian singing group Philips, Craig, and Dean, all of whom are pastors in the United Pentecostal Denomination which is a “oneness Pentecostal” denomination.

Why Modalism is Wrong

Modalism is wrong is because it fails to account adequately for the biblical evidence. The Scriptures are clear that God is one (Deut. 6:4) but also affirms that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. In John 1:1-2 the Word (the Son) is said to be “with God.” This statement makes no sense if the Son is merely one mode by which the Father manifests himself. Likewise, passages such as 1 John 2:1, which claims that Jesus is our advocate before the Father, and Heb. 7:25, which claims that Jesus makes intercession for his own, make no sense in terms of the plain use of the language. Similarly the Holy Spirit intercedes for believers (Romans 8:27) and is said to have been sent from the Father (John 14:26) which presupposes that the Father and the holy Spirit are distinct persons. Likewise, the Son has said that he must depart for the Holy Spirit to come (John 16:7), which one supposes could imply that the Son must depart in order to return as the Holy Spirit except that the Son specifically says, “If I go, I will send him unto you” (John 16:7).

Why Modalism is Dangerous

Modalism is dangerous because it does not lead people to the God of the Bible. If we accept the ancient creeds as being accurate summaries of the Bible’s teaching about the person of God (and most Christian groups do; in fact, it is one thing that both Catholic and Protestant are in perfect agreement on), then modalism leads people to worship a god different than the God portrayed in Scripture.

Modalism is also dangerous because it allows people to affirm something that sounds like orthodoxy without being orthodoxy. But that’s like poison in your soup, you can’t just spit the bad part out; you have to pour out the whole bowl and start over. Saying, “I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (as Phillips, Craig, and Dean, do along with T. D. Jakes) is not the same as affirming God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, Three in One, as orthodox Christians affirm.

Further Reading:

The Doctrine of the Trinity: No Christianity Without It by Kevin DeYoung (this is an excellent brief overview of the Trinity!)

Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity: A Biblical Critique by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

Oneness Pentecostalism: An Analysis by Fred Sanders

The Phillips, Craig and Dean Controversy Revisited…Again by James White

A Profile of Oneness Pentecostalism