Showing posts with label Christian Mind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Mind. Show all posts
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Co-Dependency is Not the Problem
The other afternoon Fanny and I were standing in the kitchen discussing the concept of "co-dependency." Now, it may be granted that certain folks find too much significance and comfort in a relationship with this or that person. However, I don't think a self-conscious, Christ-conscious Christian should use the popular psycho-babble term co-dependency to describe this situation.
Rather, we've had the correct diagnosis for centuries in Scripture; it is called idolatry. It is elevating another mere mortal to a deified status, and making them to bear the burden of trying to live as your God. We don't need some wacked Freudian analysis or Banduran social theory to explain this. The root of this problematic behavior is that a person isn't co-dependent on the right One; the idolatrous relationship isn’t co-dependency, it's rooted in a failure in being co-dependent on Christ.
However, popular psychology has vilified the concept of co-dependency. This "weakness" is the strength, the muscles and sinews, of the Church! Turning the concept of co-dependency into a "disorder," a "condition," or worse a "disease" (as though behavior is subject to pathology--pleeeez!), or any other term of derision was made easy by our culture's crass individualistic tendencies. Anyone who doesn't wish to be "an island to herself" is thought to be "co-dependent." So, the church is counter-cultural by default, in so far as she is heeding Christ's command to be "co-dependent" upon him and one another.
I don't think one would risk being impious to say that the Trinity is nothing short of the Ultimate Co-Dependency. No one Person could be what he is in isolation from the other two. In fact, most historic heresies have ultimately been instances of attempted theo-therapeutic philosophies, which have sought to "heal" God's co-dependency within himself.
St. Paul said, "Your life is hid with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3). If a person has a problem with being co-dependent, then, well...I suppose there are other religions out there.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The Consolation of Theology: Or Why We Need Scholar Priests
In my opinion, this is an incredible waste and a disturbingly shortsighted view of priestly ministry. We need priests and pastors with an academic background just as we need academics with the training and experience of priestly ministry. We are off in a dangerous place when we decide that some of those coming forward are too smart to be made priests.Continue reading Fr. Hendrickson’s on point perspective on the necessary wedding of rigorous scholarship and compassionate pastoral ministry, or academic pastors and pastoral academics, over at The Curate’s Desk.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Christ and Our Fears
In this post I would like to talk
briefly about a subject that I can confidently say belongs to each and every
one of us. So ubiquitous is this phenomenon
that I would argue not one person has ever existed, does now exist, or ever
will exist that does not share in this common human experience; and, that is, fear.
Fear is a universal aspect of our humanity. Not only is fear broad in the scope of its
captives, it is also intensely penetrating, often bringing our very souls into
incapacitating bondage.
WHAT IS IT WE FEAR?
What is it that we fear? This question
alone could force us into considerations that would take more posts than I care
to write. As of the last count,
professionals in the psychotherapeutic disciplines have identified some 530
distinct types of phobias![1] Of these 530 conditions, some are relatively
reasonable and common, while others are not.
For instance, one fear that I am sure a number of us feel at times is Pteromerhanophobia, that is, the fear of
flying.[2] So, although it is not a universal fear, it
is common, so do not feel alone if you suffer from it. Psychologists have diagnosed other more
peculiar manifestations of fear, such as, Geniophobia,[3]
fear of chins. One of the strangest, or
at least most ironic, is the sad case of Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia,[4]
the dreadful fear of long words.
Allow me to suggest to you that we
could touch, as with a needle, the finest points of what we might call
phobiology and never root out the true source of our primal fears. These 530 phobias are mere manifestations or
species, if you will, of a deeper, more basic problem.
WE NEED A PROPER
DIAGNOSIS
We need a proper diagnosis of our
fears. Moreover, we need a perspective
on this issue that transcends the problem itself. However, if everyone suffers from fear, it
would seem almost impossible to discover that perspective on the problem that
provides us with an objective and exhaustive accounting of the matter. Note, I said, almost impossible.
What if there was a person that experientially
understood but did not suffer from our malady?
If there was, that person could be truly objective in his analysis of
the problem. Additionally, what if that
person knew everything about the human condition? If there was such a person, they could
provide an exhaustive accounting of all the data as well. Further, what if this person wrote the
information of his analysis in a book?
If that were so, nothing could be more helpful. I have a great encouragement for all of us
fearers today, there is such a Person, his name is Jesus; and, there is such a
book, the Bible. Best of all, the Bible
has much to say, regarding our problem of fear.
GOING TO THE SOURCE
If we go to this source, then, we
discover that between the Old and New Testaments, the Bible mentions the
reality of fear some 581 times,[5]
which outdoes the vexation of the number of phobias we suffer, which, again, is
530. And since we are on the topic of
frequencies, do you know what the number one most frequent command in all of
Scripture is? It isn’t “Don’t sin!” It isn’t “Be good!” The correct answer may surprise you. The most frequent command in the Bible is…”Do
not be afraid”…”Fear not”…”Do not be anxious.”[6]
The irony is, of the thousands of commands in the Bible, this one is the very
hardest to keep, as our experience cries out in testimony.
THE REAL PROBLEM
I propose that the biblical data on
the subject of fear may be divided into two classes, which are, ordinary fears
and ultimate fears. Ordinary fears are
those that haunt us in our daily experiences.
Jesus aptly summarizes this class of fear in Matthew 6:25. “Do not be anxious,” he commands us. Regarding what? “…about your life, what you will eat or what
you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on” (ESV). These are the ordinary fears surrounding the
basics of life. Ultimate fears are of
another sort. What we are calling
ultimate fear, psychologists call thanatophobia,
which is—in our more honest moments—the horrific prospect and dread of our
own death.[7]
The Bible also speaks into this sort of fear.
The Psalmist expresses this for us, in 55:4, “My heart is in anguish
within me; the terrors of death have fallen upon me.”
THE SOLUTION
The biblical data dealing with
fear, therefore, falls into one of two classes: ordinary fears and ultimate
fears. The Bible talks a lot about the
problem of fear, but does it offer the solution? Yes.
Additionally, I argue that it offers the only real solution for
humanity’s greatest problem.
We may begin to move towards that
answer in the following remark of Jesus.
Speaking to a ruler of the synagogue, who was facing the death of his
daughter, Jesus said, “Do not fear, only believe” (Mark 5:36). In this
statement, Jesus is setting believing trust in opposition to our fear. The solution to our fear, therefore, is our
trusting in the promises of God. God’s
promises have two classes also, each of which speaks directly to our two
classes of fear. The promises of God’s
gracious providence answer our
ordinary fears, while God’s promises of redemption
in Christ answer our ultimate fears.
What is the providence of God? Providence is the beneficent outworking of
God’s sovereignty, whereby all events are directed and disposed to bring about
those purposes of glory and good for which the universe was made…Providence
thus encompasses both natural and personal events, setting them alike within
the purposes of God.[8]
Jesus, while teaching his disciples on
what grounds they could avoid fear and anxiety, appeals to the reality of
trusting in God’s fatherly providence for them, saying, “Are not five sparrows
sold for two pennies? And not one of
them is forgotten before God. Why, even
the hairs of your head are all numbered.
Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Luke 12:6—7). The solution to our ordinary fears, those
which haunt us in our everyday experience, therefore, is simply trusting God’s
fatherly care for us, through his providential sovereignty.
Likewise, a heart fully set on
believing and trusting in the promise of God’s redemption set forth in his Son,
Jesus Christ, is the final answer to our ultimate fears. Hebrews 2:14—15 says, “Since therefore the
children share in flesh and blood, [Jesus] himself likewise partook of the same
things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death,
that is, the devil, and deliver all those
who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” Death is our first and final fear and enemy,
and in Christ’s cross-work and resurrection is doomed to be destroyed (1
Corinthians 15:26; Revelation 21:4).
Those who trust and belong to Christ can rest on the promise that he is sovereign
over their death (Revelation 1:18). For
those who will trust Christ, “God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and
love and self-control” (2 Timothy 1:7), and it is the perfect love of God in
Christ that casts out our ultimate fears (1 John 4:18).
[1]
Fredd Culbertson, Retrieved from http://phobialist.com/phobia_faqs.html. Accessed on December 4, 2010.
[2]
Fredd Culbertson, Retrieved from http://phobialist.com/.
Accessed on December 4, 2010.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
In the OT, the verb yarā and the
related nouns mora’, yir’ah, chata, and
paced occur some 435 times. In the NT, phobeō,
the verb form, e.g., “to fear; not to fear” is found 93 times; phobos, the noun form (47x); and the
total occurrences of the root phob in
the NT is 146 times. See E. Ray
Clendenen, “Fear,” pp. 562—63 in Holman
Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville,
TN: Holman Bible Publishers. 2003),
562.
[6]
N. T. Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical
reflections on discipleship. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co.
1994), 65—66.
[7]
Author unknown. Retrieved from http://www.simplephobiasguide.com/fear-of-death-phobia.php. Accessed on December 4, 2010.
[8]
N. M. de S. Cameron, “Providence,” pp. 541—42 in New Dictionary of Theology. Sinclair
B. Ferguson and David F. Wright editors (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press. 1988), 541.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
A Biblical Worldview: Growing-up the Christian Mind
Eric Rauch has a fine article on “A Biblical Worldview” over at Christian Reader. With a block quote from Harry Blamires and the use of 1 Corinthians 3, it provides some sound judgments and has a hortatative appeal, stressing the maturation of the Christian’s thinking—thinking God’s thoughts after Him!
Monday, April 12, 2010
The Crucial Role of the Christian Mind in Sanctification
INTRODUCTION
The late Dr. Rufus M. Jones used to tell the story of the man who protested, “Whenever I go to church, I feel like unscrewing my head and placing it under the seat, because in a religious meeting I never have any use for anything above my collar button!”[i] The first clause of Dr. Jones’ statement is indicative of an attitude of an ever increasing number of Christians today. In the second clause, there is also the ring of truth. Few churches today give adequate attention to the development of the Christian mind and its role in the process of sanctification.
Most popular level Christian media, whether it be preaching, radio, books, or counseling, is all too often the case that only the will and/or the emotions of the Christian’s person are being treated. Moralistic messages challenge bad habits and beckon the believer to exercise a thrust of his volition, bring it into conformity with a list of do's and don’ts. In addition to this, due to the rising number of problems caused by emotional disorders, within and without the church, the Bible is wrenched in search of therapeutic solutions for recovering a healthy self-image and addressing felt needs. In spite of the best efforts to produce Christians that are morally reformed and emotionally sound, real Christ likeness and expressive spiritual maturity are sorely lacking in the church at large. Perhaps the number one reason for this is because little progress can be made in the process of sanctification without duly addressing the believer as a whole person, will, emotions, and mind.
Thesis and method
Therefore, the impetus of what follows will be spent demonstrating that the nurture and development of the Christian mind occupies a crucial place in the overall process of sanctification. This conclusion shall be supported by three premises. (1) Because the Fall has epistemological roots, sin pervades the whole person, including the mind. Thus groundwork must first be laid so to correctly establish the problem of the fallen mind. (2) The solution to all sin, and intellectual sin in particular, is regeneration and saving faith in the Lord Jesus. Therefore, there is a definitive beginning in the sanctification of the mind, a noetic regeneration. Finally, (3) two NT texts will be examined to show that the mind is to be in the fore of genuine sanctification. Thus, concluding that the role of the mind in sanctification is a crucial element in the Christian’s overall spiritual growth and holiness.
THE PROBLEM
The Fall and its epistemological roots
The one act of rebellion against the Creator, which brought about all other moral aberration, sin, and death, is rooted Adam and Eve’s intellectual anarchy. The act of eating the forbidden fruit was simply the expression or ratification of sinful reasoning; the head sin preceded the hand sin. In God’s good creation, man was not left without certain epistemological strictures. The ultimate reference point in his creature’s reasoning was to be no less than God’s supernatural, verbal revelation, namely his command forbidding man’s use of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and its entailments (Gen 2:16—17). Hence, Satan was wise enough to set forth his case in a manner which would address man’s entire person, with a concentrated aim at his mind.
Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve was framed with more or less subtle epistemological challenges. The question posed by Satan in Gen 3:1—“Did God actually say...”—was just enough to cast a cloud of uncertainty in Eve’s mind concerning the perspicuity of God’s declarative right rule over them, his creatures. This first shot at the rationality of Eve’s certainty, concerning her knowledge of God’s moral demands, was the starting point of a rapid descent down the slippery slope of manifest moral rebellion. Satan finishes his work in v.5 by appealing to Eve’s emotions and desires, postulating that God had base motives for depriving them of certain knowledge—namely the “knowledge of good and evil.” Eve then began to covet God in her lust for God-like knowledge when she saw that “the tree was to be desired to make one wise” (v.5). Thus, their sin was largely one of the mind and an attack on the Lordship of God himself; their basis of knowledge, for it gave a different answer to the question, “what is true?” “Eve decided to doubt the veracity of God’s word and conduct an experiment to see whether God spoke truthfully.”[ii]
The holistic pervasiveness and consequential fall out of this sin is aptly summarized by Berkhof: “Sin...influences the intellect, the will, and the affections, in fact the whole man, and finds expression through the body.”[iii] Thus, sin not only exists in the mind of man, but more, the mind itself is the fertile ground from which all sin springs forth to fruition and finally manifest expression (Mt 15:19—20).[iv]
The irrationality of sin
To put it a bit crass, sin is simply stupid. That is to say, all sin is ultimately irrational in nature; it is that which is nonsensical, despite man’s efforts to rationalize it. The Fall provides two fine examples of the irrational essence of sin. First, Satan’s personal rebellion against God; hoping to usurp God from his throne and exalt himself above him, did not make a bit of sense. Secondly, Adam and Eve’s reasoning that they could accrue “knowledge” by means of disobeying God’s revelation made even less sense. These cosmic sins, both of them, were more than mere miscalculations in judgment, they were instead the effect of seeking to exercise the creaturely mind in autonomous independence of their Creator and his revealed knowledge and will.
Because the Fall is archetypical of all sin, and it was in great measure an epistemological issue, it is proper to conclude that all sin is largely rooted in the mind of man working autonomously in its search for real knowledge apart from the omniscient God that created him, and as such, it is an exercise in futility, it is irrationalism. Thus, “on the last day” Grudem concludes, “it will be seen in every case that sin ultimately just does not make sense.”[v]
To summarize, sin’s entrance into the world was founded in the mind of man choosing to operate without referencing God and his Self-revelation. The result of this sin and the inherited sin nature that flows out of it leaves no part of man’s person uncorrupted, so that all sin is at some level intellectual, being exemplified in the archetypical sin of the Fall.
All sin is ultimately irrational. Because the sin condition corrupts the mind of man, man then uses his corrupted cognitive faculties in a way that is irrational and thus in moral opposition to God. This process is then back of all actual sins a person commits. Hence, the sinful state and use of man’s intellect is essentially as much an ethical matter as it is an epistemological one. Therefore, the mind of the Christian must be adequately focused upon throughout the process of sanctification if victory is to be attained. The mind of the sinner must be redeemed and renewed.
THE SOLUTION: I
Having established, in the preceding section, what theologians often call the noetic element and effect of sin on man’s nature and outworking of this condition in actual sins committed, this section will consider God’s solution to man’s “depraved mind” (Rom 1:28 NASB); noetic regeneration and sanctification. It will, therefore, be necessary to posit a general working definition of sanctification and its binary nature of being both a definitive event (regeneration) and a progressive process throughout the life of the believer (sanctification) and how this applies to the life of the Christian mind.
Working definition
In setting forth a general definition from which to work, that which Berkhof offers is very helpful, he defines sanctification as: “that gracious and continuous operation of the Holy Spirit by which He purifies the sinner, renews his whole nature in the image of God, and enables him to perform good works.”[vi] Berkhof carefully qualifies his definition by delineating it from justification, saying that sanctification differs from justification in as much as sanctification “takes place in the inner life of man,” furthermore; it is a recreative act rather than a legal reckoning, as with justification.[vii]
In light of the thesis of this composition, one element of Berkhof’s remarks is noteworthy. Berkof stated that sanctification “renews the whole nature in the image of God.” But of course this begs the question of what elements constitute the image of God in man? Lightner, following Buswell, argues “that the image of God in man includes or is related to knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.”[viii] Some historic creeds refer to these principle parts as the “renewed image virtues.”[ix] This conclusion is arrived at through what is called the “restoration hermeneutic,” wherein the three elements above are extrapolated from Eph 4:21—24 (“true righteousness/holiness) and Col 3:9—10 (“true knowledge”). These qualities, restored upon saving faith in Christ Jesus, who is the true expression of God’s image (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3, etc.), are then read back into Gen 3 in order to reconstruct the originally good constitution of man as God’s image bearer and what man lost in the Fall.[x] So then, the earlier conclusion that the Fall and man’s sin nature is fundamentally rooted in man’s intellect, reasoning, and understanding, is likewise corroborated by the fact of the restored “knowledge” through Christ.
Through a scriptural survey, Lightner, in his recognition of the role of the mind as a functional quality of God’s image in man, contrasts the mind before and after regeneration: “The unregenerate mind is vain (Eph 4:17), defiled (Tit 1:15), blinded (2 Cor 4:4), darkened (Eph 4:18) and reprobate (Rom 1:28).” Conversely, “the regenerate mind is to be lead captive (2 Cor 10:5); it needs girding (1 Pet 1:13) and renewed (Rom 12:2).”[xi] The mind, therefore, is a preeminent object of sanctification, being an essential part of man’s whole person in which Christ redeems and restores. God the Holy Spirit works both instantly and continuously in purifying the Christian’s mind of inherent sin and sinful reasoning, and transforming his mind into the image of Christ his Creator.
Noetic regeneration
Because the mind is such an integral part of the Christian’s restored nature, the whole of the believer’s mind and cognition must definitively come under the Lordship of Christ at conversion and continue the renewal process throughout his life. This definitive role of the mind in conversion shall be considered first.
The passive side
The work of John Frame is very helpful in regard to the regeneration of the noetic aspect of the sinner. Frame calls the intellectual aspect of regeneration “cognitive rest.”[xii] Pointing to the moment when a sinner no longer struggles against the Scripture’s testimony of the saving Person and work of Jesus Christ, Frame says, “Coming to cognitive rest about Christianity is achieving a ‘godly sense of satisfaction’ with the message of scripture...(and to) accept it willingly.”[xiii] The regeneration of the mind is a Trinitarian work. The Holy Spirit confirms his word in order to bring conviction. Also, the new believer is endowed with “the mind of Christ” and his wisdom. Finally, the scriptures speak of the Father as the teacher of the saving truth of the message.[xiv] These observations help to illustrate the divine work in the sinner’s conversion; it is the quickening of a mind that was once hostile to God and dead to his word. Like sanctification in general, this renewal of the mind or setting apart as holy unto God should be, in one sense, understood as a definitive one time event (e.g., Acts 20:32; I Cor 6:11), yet having ongoing effects. From the human perspective, the regenerative work is passive. It is solely a supernatural work of God on the intellect and will of the sinner. Nevertheless, the mind of man must also play a very proactive role in conversion.
The pro-activity of man in conversion
The activity of the sinner’s mind in his conversion can be summarized in one word—repentance. Repentance, upon which a person’s salvation is contingent, while involving the whole person, has predominately epistemological connotations. The Greek word for repentance, μετάνοια, metanoia, is a compound formed from meta, a word with broad semantic range, however, when in conjunction the root nous, “mind,” meta is best taken to mean “with, around, or change.” Thus, the root meaning of the term repentance is “to change one’s mind” or “to adopt another view” or even “to change one’s feelings.”[xv] Lest a word study would lead to misconstruing the NT meaning as being too cerebral, it must be understood in light of the Hebraic context of the biblical writers who viewed man holistically. For this action will affect a. the emotions, b. the will, and c. the thoughts. It is seldom a function of the intellect alone, but the whole person.
The fullest expression of God’s moral obedience that he commands of man is found in the Shema (Deut 6:5) and Jesus’ reiteration of it, in what is called the Great Command (Lk 10:27; cf. Mk 12:29—30; Mt 22:37). These again reinforce the utter unity of man’s personhood, with God demanding an entire reorientation toward him and total surrender from his creatures, even all their minds.
So then, the non-negotiable action demanded from sinners in the Gospel call is repentance. This, while involving the whole person, is an act that begins in the intellect when the Gospel is clearly articulated and then correctly understood and spiritually appraised by the regenerated sinner. With this new and right understanding of his moral rebellion, his standing before a just and holy God, and his personal plight, the sinner experiences and expresses profound remorse. He turns from his sinful reason and the actions that result from it, to Christ, in whom all wisdom and knowledge is deposited (Col 2:3). Christ’s wisdom and his righteousness then become the “new man’s” controlling presupposition. This is the newly sanctified (set apart as holy) mind—this is “cognitive rest.”
Although there is an immediate, definitive point at which the noetic aspect of a person is “sanctified,” this once-for-all-time event does not, however, magically confer upon the believer “all spiritual wisdom and knowledge” (Col 1:9) in respect to their thinking Christ-like-ly—God’s thought after him. There is also a gradual, ongoing progress. This process will now be taken up.
THE SOLUTION II
Noetic sanctification
In this final section two points will be raised and briefly exegetically examined. First, as a case in point, the positive injunction of I Pet 1:13 will be considered; here Peter yokes the believer with the responsibility for the care and nurture of the mind as a preeminent element in sanctification. Second, the circular (or better concentric) nature of the mental—ethical connection will be highlighted from Phil 1:9—11 before finally concluding.
Think holy, as He is holy
The first text that will be considered here is I Pet 1:13. The best and most literal expression of this command is, “Therefore, Gird up the loins of your mind” (v.13a KJV; NKJV). This familiar Hebrew idiom would have evoked in the mind of its original readers the idea of carefully folding up and tucking into the belt the long flowing robes worn by men in antiquity. The robes would obstruct freedom of movement and hindered their being “prepared...for action” (v. 13a ESV; NIV).[xvi] Moreover, the “loins” were the “place where the Hebrews thought the generative power resided.”[xvii] The command, therefore, indicates that the mind, far from being intrinsically good, must “be girded” in order to correctly use its “generative power.”
Peter sandwiches this command between vv. 3—12, wherein he exhorts his readers to contemplate the riches and glories that Jesus’ first Advent brought them. As well, v.13c they are to set their hope fully upon the grace which will be brought to them at Christ’s second Advent. “Therefore,” Peter says, the mind of the Christian “must remain alert” and be “ready and able to think actively to glorify and adorn God’s name, will, and kingdom.”[xviii]
The purpose of this injunction is a life of holiness, sanctification. In vv.14 and 15 Peter creates a contrast between the prohibition of conformity to “former ignorance” and the positive precept to “be holy in all your conduct.” The grounds which Peter bases his argument on here is nothing less than God’s own holy nature (v.16). We see, therefore, that a life progressing in sanctification and holiness is the effect of the Christian’s mind being taken up and actively engaged as a mediating, regenerative power source for the believer’s role in the process.
Sanctification: linear or circular or both?
Of course, the path to holiness is linear or teleological. That is to say, the believer is purposely moving from his originally corrupt state at conversion toward a point of Christ-likeness. However, many passages indicate that the pilgrimage from point A to point Z is to be in some sense circular, or better concentric, where Christ’s character is the plumb-line to which the believer’s mind and experiences in life are gradually drawn closer and closer by means of exercise and engagement. Frame, therefore, would have one to “note the circular relationship between ethical sanctification and Christian understanding.” He further argues that the ability of a believer to progressively augment his “cognitive rest” in the outworking of the Christian life requires growth in holiness—and vise versa—holiness and sanctified conduct are the result of “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (II Cor 10:5).[xix]
This principle of circularity alluded to in the exposition of I Pet 1:13, is perhaps even more emphatic in Phil 1:9—11 (and its close parallel in Col 1:9f. See also: Rom 12:1—2). In this text the Apostle reveals his prayerful desire for his church with the concentric model described above. The ultimate end of this prayer is purity (v.10b), fruitful righteousness in believers (v.11a), and the “glory and praise of God” (v.11b). Genuine holiness is then the teleological centerline. However, in order for t[xx]hese believers to achieve this high calling in life, Paul explains the process in a concentric fashion, narrowing the circles toward the goal with each phrase.
Paul begins with the summum bonum of Christian virtue, “love,” praying “that” (ίνα, hina; purpose clause) it would “abound more and more” in his reader’s lives. The love here is to be understood as “unrestricted” concerning its object, but not its application as Paul is quick to qualify this love, desirous that it be “in real knowledge and all discernment.”.[xxi] The categorical breadth of “abounding love” is then tightened by “real knowledge” (επιγνωσις, epignosis). Thus, “love must be intelligent and morally discerning, in order to be genuine.”[xxii]
The Christian’s mind and his morality are inseparable here. Moreover, love and full knowledge are brought together in the next circle, being further tightened by Paul adding “all discernment”—the conjoining of “love” and “real knowledge” in practical, authentic, real life application. This word, “discernment” (αισθησις, aisthēsis), occurs nowhere else in the NT nor the LXX, but a relative form is found in Heb 5:14 within a similar context. Thus, Thayer defines it as: perception, not only by the senses but by the intellect; cognition, discernment; of moral discernment in ethical matters.[xxiii] Hebrews 5:14 and Thayer’s analysis help us to see Paul’s progressive constriction and concentration, bring the categories of both mind and morality into a unified force, thrusting toward the goal of holiness. Thus, Paul, in a final circle of means-to-the-end, states, “that you may approve what is excellent,” so as to bring the two domains of the Christian’s epistemology and praxiology to a point of singularity before stating the central goal to which he would have them striving.
Paul earlier used a hina clause to introduce the proposed means through which his prayer would be efficacious in the reader’s lives, so also here, beginning in v.10b Paul states the prayer’s ultimate goal or end: “in order (ίνα, hina) to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ...filled with the fruit of righteousness...to the glory and praise of God” (vv.10b—11 NASB). Thus, we arrive at the centerline of the concentric process, the place of sanctification. The role of the mind in this process is undeniable. For love alone, without real knowledge being sought and exercised simultaneously would render discernment impossible, thus disenabling the believer from proving that which is best or excellent in any circumstance.
Therefore, without a proper balance of godly knowledge and Christ-like reasoning with love-filled motivation, the result of the Christian life is not sanctification; but amorality. This is why, not only in the NT but through the entire Bible, the mind, understanding, cognition, thought—all categories of the intellect—are “generally portrayed as the center of a person’s ethical nature,” thus making the mind central in morality and therefore sanctification.[xxiv]
CONCLUSION
The role of the mind in sanctification has been demonstrated to be a critical factor in the Christian’s overall sanctification process. Because man’s eternal peril, founded in the Fall, is in great measure epistemological in nature, man’s mind is bent in opposition to God’s Self-attesting revelation. Thus, the corruption of the mind has ontological, epistemological, and above all moral implications. Furthermore, because the cleansing of this sinful nature and the recovery of what was lost in the Fall through faith in Christ Jesus, namely true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge, the mind has a very important place in the regeneration of the sinner; both passively and proactively through repentance.
The one time sanctification that occurs at conversion is nevertheless part of a larger whole. This initial point of “cognitive rest” is to be augmented throughout the life of the believer. The believer’s mind being active and cultivated in this progressive work was seen to be commanded by Peter in I Pet 1:13, where he placed the believer’s mind at the fore of the process. Moreover, Paul, in Phil 1:9—11, praying for a sanctified body, posited mental and moral categories together, and through a concentric narrowing brought them to a concentrated point of singularity. Thus unified, the means of the mind informing the will, being tightened through conscious experience and engagement, the two categories are dissolved bringing about a life of genuine holiness.
As one has said, you aren’t what you think you are; but what you think, you are! Therefore, a sanctified mind leads to sanctified actions; which leads to genuine holiness; which leads to the “glory and praise of God” (Phil 1:11) and as such, the Christian mind has a crucial place in the process of sanctification.
“Now for this reason, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge...For if these qualities are yours and are increasing...you will never stumble...for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you!” (II Pet 1:5, 8, 10—11 NASB).
The late Dr. Rufus M. Jones used to tell the story of the man who protested, “Whenever I go to church, I feel like unscrewing my head and placing it under the seat, because in a religious meeting I never have any use for anything above my collar button!”[i] The first clause of Dr. Jones’ statement is indicative of an attitude of an ever increasing number of Christians today. In the second clause, there is also the ring of truth. Few churches today give adequate attention to the development of the Christian mind and its role in the process of sanctification.
Most popular level Christian media, whether it be preaching, radio, books, or counseling, is all too often the case that only the will and/or the emotions of the Christian’s person are being treated. Moralistic messages challenge bad habits and beckon the believer to exercise a thrust of his volition, bring it into conformity with a list of do's and don’ts. In addition to this, due to the rising number of problems caused by emotional disorders, within and without the church, the Bible is wrenched in search of therapeutic solutions for recovering a healthy self-image and addressing felt needs. In spite of the best efforts to produce Christians that are morally reformed and emotionally sound, real Christ likeness and expressive spiritual maturity are sorely lacking in the church at large. Perhaps the number one reason for this is because little progress can be made in the process of sanctification without duly addressing the believer as a whole person, will, emotions, and mind.
Thesis and method
Therefore, the impetus of what follows will be spent demonstrating that the nurture and development of the Christian mind occupies a crucial place in the overall process of sanctification. This conclusion shall be supported by three premises. (1) Because the Fall has epistemological roots, sin pervades the whole person, including the mind. Thus groundwork must first be laid so to correctly establish the problem of the fallen mind. (2) The solution to all sin, and intellectual sin in particular, is regeneration and saving faith in the Lord Jesus. Therefore, there is a definitive beginning in the sanctification of the mind, a noetic regeneration. Finally, (3) two NT texts will be examined to show that the mind is to be in the fore of genuine sanctification. Thus, concluding that the role of the mind in sanctification is a crucial element in the Christian’s overall spiritual growth and holiness.
THE PROBLEM
The Fall and its epistemological roots
The one act of rebellion against the Creator, which brought about all other moral aberration, sin, and death, is rooted Adam and Eve’s intellectual anarchy. The act of eating the forbidden fruit was simply the expression or ratification of sinful reasoning; the head sin preceded the hand sin. In God’s good creation, man was not left without certain epistemological strictures. The ultimate reference point in his creature’s reasoning was to be no less than God’s supernatural, verbal revelation, namely his command forbidding man’s use of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and its entailments (Gen 2:16—17). Hence, Satan was wise enough to set forth his case in a manner which would address man’s entire person, with a concentrated aim at his mind.
Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve was framed with more or less subtle epistemological challenges. The question posed by Satan in Gen 3:1—“Did God actually say...”—was just enough to cast a cloud of uncertainty in Eve’s mind concerning the perspicuity of God’s declarative right rule over them, his creatures. This first shot at the rationality of Eve’s certainty, concerning her knowledge of God’s moral demands, was the starting point of a rapid descent down the slippery slope of manifest moral rebellion. Satan finishes his work in v.5 by appealing to Eve’s emotions and desires, postulating that God had base motives for depriving them of certain knowledge—namely the “knowledge of good and evil.” Eve then began to covet God in her lust for God-like knowledge when she saw that “the tree was to be desired to make one wise” (v.5). Thus, their sin was largely one of the mind and an attack on the Lordship of God himself; their basis of knowledge, for it gave a different answer to the question, “what is true?” “Eve decided to doubt the veracity of God’s word and conduct an experiment to see whether God spoke truthfully.”[ii]
The holistic pervasiveness and consequential fall out of this sin is aptly summarized by Berkhof: “Sin...influences the intellect, the will, and the affections, in fact the whole man, and finds expression through the body.”[iii] Thus, sin not only exists in the mind of man, but more, the mind itself is the fertile ground from which all sin springs forth to fruition and finally manifest expression (Mt 15:19—20).[iv]
The irrationality of sin
To put it a bit crass, sin is simply stupid. That is to say, all sin is ultimately irrational in nature; it is that which is nonsensical, despite man’s efforts to rationalize it. The Fall provides two fine examples of the irrational essence of sin. First, Satan’s personal rebellion against God; hoping to usurp God from his throne and exalt himself above him, did not make a bit of sense. Secondly, Adam and Eve’s reasoning that they could accrue “knowledge” by means of disobeying God’s revelation made even less sense. These cosmic sins, both of them, were more than mere miscalculations in judgment, they were instead the effect of seeking to exercise the creaturely mind in autonomous independence of their Creator and his revealed knowledge and will.
Because the Fall is archetypical of all sin, and it was in great measure an epistemological issue, it is proper to conclude that all sin is largely rooted in the mind of man working autonomously in its search for real knowledge apart from the omniscient God that created him, and as such, it is an exercise in futility, it is irrationalism. Thus, “on the last day” Grudem concludes, “it will be seen in every case that sin ultimately just does not make sense.”[v]
To summarize, sin’s entrance into the world was founded in the mind of man choosing to operate without referencing God and his Self-revelation. The result of this sin and the inherited sin nature that flows out of it leaves no part of man’s person uncorrupted, so that all sin is at some level intellectual, being exemplified in the archetypical sin of the Fall.
All sin is ultimately irrational. Because the sin condition corrupts the mind of man, man then uses his corrupted cognitive faculties in a way that is irrational and thus in moral opposition to God. This process is then back of all actual sins a person commits. Hence, the sinful state and use of man’s intellect is essentially as much an ethical matter as it is an epistemological one. Therefore, the mind of the Christian must be adequately focused upon throughout the process of sanctification if victory is to be attained. The mind of the sinner must be redeemed and renewed.
THE SOLUTION: I
Having established, in the preceding section, what theologians often call the noetic element and effect of sin on man’s nature and outworking of this condition in actual sins committed, this section will consider God’s solution to man’s “depraved mind” (Rom 1:28 NASB); noetic regeneration and sanctification. It will, therefore, be necessary to posit a general working definition of sanctification and its binary nature of being both a definitive event (regeneration) and a progressive process throughout the life of the believer (sanctification) and how this applies to the life of the Christian mind.
Working definition
In setting forth a general definition from which to work, that which Berkhof offers is very helpful, he defines sanctification as: “that gracious and continuous operation of the Holy Spirit by which He purifies the sinner, renews his whole nature in the image of God, and enables him to perform good works.”[vi] Berkhof carefully qualifies his definition by delineating it from justification, saying that sanctification differs from justification in as much as sanctification “takes place in the inner life of man,” furthermore; it is a recreative act rather than a legal reckoning, as with justification.[vii]
In light of the thesis of this composition, one element of Berkhof’s remarks is noteworthy. Berkof stated that sanctification “renews the whole nature in the image of God.” But of course this begs the question of what elements constitute the image of God in man? Lightner, following Buswell, argues “that the image of God in man includes or is related to knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.”[viii] Some historic creeds refer to these principle parts as the “renewed image virtues.”[ix] This conclusion is arrived at through what is called the “restoration hermeneutic,” wherein the three elements above are extrapolated from Eph 4:21—24 (“true righteousness/holiness) and Col 3:9—10 (“true knowledge”). These qualities, restored upon saving faith in Christ Jesus, who is the true expression of God’s image (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3, etc.), are then read back into Gen 3 in order to reconstruct the originally good constitution of man as God’s image bearer and what man lost in the Fall.[x] So then, the earlier conclusion that the Fall and man’s sin nature is fundamentally rooted in man’s intellect, reasoning, and understanding, is likewise corroborated by the fact of the restored “knowledge” through Christ.
Through a scriptural survey, Lightner, in his recognition of the role of the mind as a functional quality of God’s image in man, contrasts the mind before and after regeneration: “The unregenerate mind is vain (Eph 4:17), defiled (Tit 1:15), blinded (2 Cor 4:4), darkened (Eph 4:18) and reprobate (Rom 1:28).” Conversely, “the regenerate mind is to be lead captive (2 Cor 10:5); it needs girding (1 Pet 1:13) and renewed (Rom 12:2).”[xi] The mind, therefore, is a preeminent object of sanctification, being an essential part of man’s whole person in which Christ redeems and restores. God the Holy Spirit works both instantly and continuously in purifying the Christian’s mind of inherent sin and sinful reasoning, and transforming his mind into the image of Christ his Creator.
Noetic regeneration
Because the mind is such an integral part of the Christian’s restored nature, the whole of the believer’s mind and cognition must definitively come under the Lordship of Christ at conversion and continue the renewal process throughout his life. This definitive role of the mind in conversion shall be considered first.
The passive side
The work of John Frame is very helpful in regard to the regeneration of the noetic aspect of the sinner. Frame calls the intellectual aspect of regeneration “cognitive rest.”[xii] Pointing to the moment when a sinner no longer struggles against the Scripture’s testimony of the saving Person and work of Jesus Christ, Frame says, “Coming to cognitive rest about Christianity is achieving a ‘godly sense of satisfaction’ with the message of scripture...(and to) accept it willingly.”[xiii] The regeneration of the mind is a Trinitarian work. The Holy Spirit confirms his word in order to bring conviction. Also, the new believer is endowed with “the mind of Christ” and his wisdom. Finally, the scriptures speak of the Father as the teacher of the saving truth of the message.[xiv] These observations help to illustrate the divine work in the sinner’s conversion; it is the quickening of a mind that was once hostile to God and dead to his word. Like sanctification in general, this renewal of the mind or setting apart as holy unto God should be, in one sense, understood as a definitive one time event (e.g., Acts 20:32; I Cor 6:11), yet having ongoing effects. From the human perspective, the regenerative work is passive. It is solely a supernatural work of God on the intellect and will of the sinner. Nevertheless, the mind of man must also play a very proactive role in conversion.
The pro-activity of man in conversion
The activity of the sinner’s mind in his conversion can be summarized in one word—repentance. Repentance, upon which a person’s salvation is contingent, while involving the whole person, has predominately epistemological connotations. The Greek word for repentance, μετάνοια, metanoia, is a compound formed from meta, a word with broad semantic range, however, when in conjunction the root nous, “mind,” meta is best taken to mean “with, around, or change.” Thus, the root meaning of the term repentance is “to change one’s mind” or “to adopt another view” or even “to change one’s feelings.”[xv] Lest a word study would lead to misconstruing the NT meaning as being too cerebral, it must be understood in light of the Hebraic context of the biblical writers who viewed man holistically. For this action will affect a. the emotions, b. the will, and c. the thoughts. It is seldom a function of the intellect alone, but the whole person.
The fullest expression of God’s moral obedience that he commands of man is found in the Shema (Deut 6:5) and Jesus’ reiteration of it, in what is called the Great Command (Lk 10:27; cf. Mk 12:29—30; Mt 22:37). These again reinforce the utter unity of man’s personhood, with God demanding an entire reorientation toward him and total surrender from his creatures, even all their minds.
So then, the non-negotiable action demanded from sinners in the Gospel call is repentance. This, while involving the whole person, is an act that begins in the intellect when the Gospel is clearly articulated and then correctly understood and spiritually appraised by the regenerated sinner. With this new and right understanding of his moral rebellion, his standing before a just and holy God, and his personal plight, the sinner experiences and expresses profound remorse. He turns from his sinful reason and the actions that result from it, to Christ, in whom all wisdom and knowledge is deposited (Col 2:3). Christ’s wisdom and his righteousness then become the “new man’s” controlling presupposition. This is the newly sanctified (set apart as holy) mind—this is “cognitive rest.”
Although there is an immediate, definitive point at which the noetic aspect of a person is “sanctified,” this once-for-all-time event does not, however, magically confer upon the believer “all spiritual wisdom and knowledge” (Col 1:9) in respect to their thinking Christ-like-ly—God’s thought after him. There is also a gradual, ongoing progress. This process will now be taken up.
THE SOLUTION II
Noetic sanctification
In this final section two points will be raised and briefly exegetically examined. First, as a case in point, the positive injunction of I Pet 1:13 will be considered; here Peter yokes the believer with the responsibility for the care and nurture of the mind as a preeminent element in sanctification. Second, the circular (or better concentric) nature of the mental—ethical connection will be highlighted from Phil 1:9—11 before finally concluding.
Think holy, as He is holy
The first text that will be considered here is I Pet 1:13. The best and most literal expression of this command is, “Therefore, Gird up the loins of your mind” (v.13a KJV; NKJV). This familiar Hebrew idiom would have evoked in the mind of its original readers the idea of carefully folding up and tucking into the belt the long flowing robes worn by men in antiquity. The robes would obstruct freedom of movement and hindered their being “prepared...for action” (v. 13a ESV; NIV).[xvi] Moreover, the “loins” were the “place where the Hebrews thought the generative power resided.”[xvii] The command, therefore, indicates that the mind, far from being intrinsically good, must “be girded” in order to correctly use its “generative power.”
Peter sandwiches this command between vv. 3—12, wherein he exhorts his readers to contemplate the riches and glories that Jesus’ first Advent brought them. As well, v.13c they are to set their hope fully upon the grace which will be brought to them at Christ’s second Advent. “Therefore,” Peter says, the mind of the Christian “must remain alert” and be “ready and able to think actively to glorify and adorn God’s name, will, and kingdom.”[xviii]
The purpose of this injunction is a life of holiness, sanctification. In vv.14 and 15 Peter creates a contrast between the prohibition of conformity to “former ignorance” and the positive precept to “be holy in all your conduct.” The grounds which Peter bases his argument on here is nothing less than God’s own holy nature (v.16). We see, therefore, that a life progressing in sanctification and holiness is the effect of the Christian’s mind being taken up and actively engaged as a mediating, regenerative power source for the believer’s role in the process.
Sanctification: linear or circular or both?
Of course, the path to holiness is linear or teleological. That is to say, the believer is purposely moving from his originally corrupt state at conversion toward a point of Christ-likeness. However, many passages indicate that the pilgrimage from point A to point Z is to be in some sense circular, or better concentric, where Christ’s character is the plumb-line to which the believer’s mind and experiences in life are gradually drawn closer and closer by means of exercise and engagement. Frame, therefore, would have one to “note the circular relationship between ethical sanctification and Christian understanding.” He further argues that the ability of a believer to progressively augment his “cognitive rest” in the outworking of the Christian life requires growth in holiness—and vise versa—holiness and sanctified conduct are the result of “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (II Cor 10:5).[xix]
This principle of circularity alluded to in the exposition of I Pet 1:13, is perhaps even more emphatic in Phil 1:9—11 (and its close parallel in Col 1:9f. See also: Rom 12:1—2). In this text the Apostle reveals his prayerful desire for his church with the concentric model described above. The ultimate end of this prayer is purity (v.10b), fruitful righteousness in believers (v.11a), and the “glory and praise of God” (v.11b). Genuine holiness is then the teleological centerline. However, in order for t[xx]hese believers to achieve this high calling in life, Paul explains the process in a concentric fashion, narrowing the circles toward the goal with each phrase.
Paul begins with the summum bonum of Christian virtue, “love,” praying “that” (ίνα, hina; purpose clause) it would “abound more and more” in his reader’s lives. The love here is to be understood as “unrestricted” concerning its object, but not its application as Paul is quick to qualify this love, desirous that it be “in real knowledge and all discernment.”.[xxi] The categorical breadth of “abounding love” is then tightened by “real knowledge” (επιγνωσις, epignosis). Thus, “love must be intelligent and morally discerning, in order to be genuine.”[xxii]
The Christian’s mind and his morality are inseparable here. Moreover, love and full knowledge are brought together in the next circle, being further tightened by Paul adding “all discernment”—the conjoining of “love” and “real knowledge” in practical, authentic, real life application. This word, “discernment” (αισθησις, aisthēsis), occurs nowhere else in the NT nor the LXX, but a relative form is found in Heb 5:14 within a similar context. Thus, Thayer defines it as: perception, not only by the senses but by the intellect; cognition, discernment; of moral discernment in ethical matters.[xxiii] Hebrews 5:14 and Thayer’s analysis help us to see Paul’s progressive constriction and concentration, bring the categories of both mind and morality into a unified force, thrusting toward the goal of holiness. Thus, Paul, in a final circle of means-to-the-end, states, “that you may approve what is excellent,” so as to bring the two domains of the Christian’s epistemology and praxiology to a point of singularity before stating the central goal to which he would have them striving.
Paul earlier used a hina clause to introduce the proposed means through which his prayer would be efficacious in the reader’s lives, so also here, beginning in v.10b Paul states the prayer’s ultimate goal or end: “in order (ίνα, hina) to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ...filled with the fruit of righteousness...to the glory and praise of God” (vv.10b—11 NASB). Thus, we arrive at the centerline of the concentric process, the place of sanctification. The role of the mind in this process is undeniable. For love alone, without real knowledge being sought and exercised simultaneously would render discernment impossible, thus disenabling the believer from proving that which is best or excellent in any circumstance.
Therefore, without a proper balance of godly knowledge and Christ-like reasoning with love-filled motivation, the result of the Christian life is not sanctification; but amorality. This is why, not only in the NT but through the entire Bible, the mind, understanding, cognition, thought—all categories of the intellect—are “generally portrayed as the center of a person’s ethical nature,” thus making the mind central in morality and therefore sanctification.[xxiv]
CONCLUSION
The role of the mind in sanctification has been demonstrated to be a critical factor in the Christian’s overall sanctification process. Because man’s eternal peril, founded in the Fall, is in great measure epistemological in nature, man’s mind is bent in opposition to God’s Self-attesting revelation. Thus, the corruption of the mind has ontological, epistemological, and above all moral implications. Furthermore, because the cleansing of this sinful nature and the recovery of what was lost in the Fall through faith in Christ Jesus, namely true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge, the mind has a very important place in the regeneration of the sinner; both passively and proactively through repentance.
The one time sanctification that occurs at conversion is nevertheless part of a larger whole. This initial point of “cognitive rest” is to be augmented throughout the life of the believer. The believer’s mind being active and cultivated in this progressive work was seen to be commanded by Peter in I Pet 1:13, where he placed the believer’s mind at the fore of the process. Moreover, Paul, in Phil 1:9—11, praying for a sanctified body, posited mental and moral categories together, and through a concentric narrowing brought them to a concentrated point of singularity. Thus unified, the means of the mind informing the will, being tightened through conscious experience and engagement, the two categories are dissolved bringing about a life of genuine holiness.
As one has said, you aren’t what you think you are; but what you think, you are! Therefore, a sanctified mind leads to sanctified actions; which leads to genuine holiness; which leads to the “glory and praise of God” (Phil 1:11) and as such, the Christian mind has a crucial place in the process of sanctification.
“Now for this reason, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge...For if these qualities are yours and are increasing...you will never stumble...for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you!” (II Pet 1:5, 8, 10—11 NASB).
[i] Bob Deffinbaugh, The New Mind: an Exposition of Romans 12, (as found at: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1178).
[ii] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2000), 493.
[iii] Louis Berkhof, A Summary of Christian Doctrine, 9th edition, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. 1997), 69, emphasis mine.
[iv] For a summary of Pauline hamartiology by L. Morris, adducing this same conclusion, see: Leon Morris, “Sin, Guilt,” pp. 877—81 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Gerald F. Hawthorn, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid, editors, (Downers Grove IL: Intervarsity Press. 1993), 879. Also see: Westminster Confession of Faith, VI/ii—iii.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Berkhof, A Summary of Christian Doctrine, 133, emphasis original.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Robert Lightner, Evangelical Theology: A Survey and Review, (Grand Rapids: Baker. 1986), 171.
[ix] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1998), 429.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Lightner, Evangelical Theology, 170.
[xii] John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God: A Theology of Lordship, (Phillipsburg—New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing. 1987), 152ff.
[xiii] Ibid., 153.
[xiv] Ibid. Texts concerning the work of the (1) Holy Spirit: Jn 3:3ff; I Cor 2:4, 5, 14: I Thess 1:5; I Jn 2:20f., 27. (2) The Son: Mt 11:25ff; Lk 24:45; I Cor 1:24, 30; 2:16; Phil 2:5; Col 2:3. And (3) the Father: Mt 16:17; 23:8ff; Jn 6:45.
[xv] Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, editors, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1967), IV: 976.
[xvi] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity Press. 1993), 710.
[xvii] Thayer’s lexical aides (e-Sword Bible softeware).
[xviii] Simon J. Kistemaker, Peter and Jude: New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker. 1987), 58.
[xix] Frame, DKG, 154—55.
[xx]
[xxi] Kent A. Homer Jr., “Philippians,” pp. 787—811 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary—Abridged Edition: New Testament, Kenneth L Barker, John R. Kohlenberger III, editors, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co. 1994), 791.
[xxii] Ibid.
[xxiii] Thayer’s lexical aides (e-Sword Bible softeware).
[xxiv] Gerald Cowen, “Mind,” pp. 1128—29 in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Butler, Trent C., general editor, (Nashville: Holman Reference. 2003), 1129.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)