Saturday, June 26, 2010
Lifting up Joni Eareckson Tada
Yesterday I heard on a radio program that Joni Eareckson Tada, founder and CEO of Joni and Friends, has, on top of being a quadriplegic, breast cancer. She has had a mastectomy already and has updates of her condition at the ministry’s website. Let us remember this extraordinary woman and bright witness for Christ in our prayers and thoughts.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Creator/creature distinction in the Anthropology of Irenaeus
“People...who attribute the weakness of their nature to God are completely unreasonable. They understand neither God nor themselves; they are ungrateful and never satisfied. At the outset they refuse to be what they were made: human beings who are subject to passions. They override the law of human nature; they already want to like God the Creator before they even become human beings. They want to do away with all the differences between the uncreated God and created humans. Thus they are more unreasonable than the dumb animals.”
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, IV:38:4
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, IV:38:4
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!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
MEREDITH KLINE—THE TWO TABLETS OF THE COVENANT
Everyone should indulge himself or herself by reading Meredith Kline’s rich article “The Two Tablets of the Covenant,” from a 1960 edition of The Westminster Theological Journal.
Although the article has a great number of insights, one that was especially penetrating for me was the idea that the Ten Words, in their entirety, were inscribed on both of the tablets. Here is an excerpt from p. 139.
Although the article has a great number of insights, one that was especially penetrating for me was the idea that the Ten Words, in their entirety, were inscribed on both of the tablets. Here is an excerpt from p. 139.
“These considerations point to the conclusion that each table
was complete in itself. The two tables were duplicate copies
of the covenant. And the correctness of this interpretation is
decisively confirmed by the fact that it was normal procedure
in establishing suzerainty covenants to prepare duplicate
copies of the treaty text.”
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.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Philip Schaff on the works of the Patristic Apologists
The Christian apology [i.e., vindication of Christianity] against non-Christian opponents, and the controversial efforts against Christian errorists, are the two oldest branches of theological science...
Their first object was to soften the temper of the authorities and people towards Christianity and its professors by refuting the charges against them...
Yet the chief service of this literature was to strengthen believers and to advance theological knowledge. It brought the church to a deeper and clearer sense of the peculiar nature of the Christian religion, and prepared her thenceforth to vindicate it before the tribunal of reason and philosophy; whilst Judaism and heathenism proved themselves powerless in the combat, and were driven to the weapons of falsehood and vituperation. The sophisms and mockeries of a Celsus and a Lucian have none but historical interest; the Apologies of Justin and the Apologeticus of Tertullian, rich with indestructible truth and glowing piety, are read with pleasure and edification to this day.
The apologists do not confine themselves to the defensive, but carry the war aggressively into the territory of Judaism and heathenism. They complete their work by positively demonstrating that Christianity is the divine religion, and the only true religion for all mankind.
History of the Christian Church, vol. II, pp. 105—07.
Their first object was to soften the temper of the authorities and people towards Christianity and its professors by refuting the charges against them...
Yet the chief service of this literature was to strengthen believers and to advance theological knowledge. It brought the church to a deeper and clearer sense of the peculiar nature of the Christian religion, and prepared her thenceforth to vindicate it before the tribunal of reason and philosophy; whilst Judaism and heathenism proved themselves powerless in the combat, and were driven to the weapons of falsehood and vituperation. The sophisms and mockeries of a Celsus and a Lucian have none but historical interest; the Apologies of Justin and the Apologeticus of Tertullian, rich with indestructible truth and glowing piety, are read with pleasure and edification to this day.
The apologists do not confine themselves to the defensive, but carry the war aggressively into the territory of Judaism and heathenism. They complete their work by positively demonstrating that Christianity is the divine religion, and the only true religion for all mankind.
History of the Christian Church, vol. II, pp. 105—07.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Notable Quotables
A couple of quotes from this month’s Christianity Today sure jumped out at me.
The first one ironically came from Ted Olson’s “Quotation Marks” sidebar, p. 13. It was Benny Hinn complaining, “My wife has no biblical grounds for what she has done.” Frankly, I’m actually encouraged by this comment, that Hinn would concern himself over “biblical grounds” for anything is both remarkable and hopeful. How long have we made the same complaint against his message and ministry?!?
The second is from p. 35. Gerald McDermott, Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College, has an article called “On the Jesus Trail.” Therein Prof. McDermott surveys the continual influence of Jesus within the religious diversity of the Muslim, Judaic and Arabic Christian context of Palestine. Through a series of interviews, McDermott cites a Jewish convert, become Christian Pastor. Pastor Yossi Ovadia, of Galilee, was cited, saying,
“The English Christians I met had hearts for God and knew the Bible better than I did, even though I had grown up the son of a synagogue cantor. I started to envy them.”
Isn’t this exactly what God revealed would happen in the great mystery of redemption? Deut. 32:21 (Cf. Rom 10:19) promised that this would happen; that with “those who are not a nation...a foolish nation” [i.e., Gentiles] God would provoke Israel to a jealousy which would result in their inclusion in the New Covenant (Rom 11:11).
How exciting, that we can speak of biblical history in two ways: 1) in the sense of past events which are recorded for our salvation and edification in the Scriptures, and 2) in that we today are living-out, as it were, the history-future promised to come about in the power and reign of Christ through the Holy Spirit working in the Church!
The first one ironically came from Ted Olson’s “Quotation Marks” sidebar, p. 13. It was Benny Hinn complaining, “My wife has no biblical grounds for what she has done.” Frankly, I’m actually encouraged by this comment, that Hinn would concern himself over “biblical grounds” for anything is both remarkable and hopeful. How long have we made the same complaint against his message and ministry?!?
The second is from p. 35. Gerald McDermott, Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College, has an article called “On the Jesus Trail.” Therein Prof. McDermott surveys the continual influence of Jesus within the religious diversity of the Muslim, Judaic and Arabic Christian context of Palestine. Through a series of interviews, McDermott cites a Jewish convert, become Christian Pastor. Pastor Yossi Ovadia, of Galilee, was cited, saying,
“The English Christians I met had hearts for God and knew the Bible better than I did, even though I had grown up the son of a synagogue cantor. I started to envy them.”
Isn’t this exactly what God revealed would happen in the great mystery of redemption? Deut. 32:21 (Cf. Rom 10:19) promised that this would happen; that with “those who are not a nation...a foolish nation” [i.e., Gentiles] God would provoke Israel to a jealousy which would result in their inclusion in the New Covenant (Rom 11:11).
How exciting, that we can speak of biblical history in two ways: 1) in the sense of past events which are recorded for our salvation and edification in the Scriptures, and 2) in that we today are living-out, as it were, the history-future promised to come about in the power and reign of Christ through the Holy Spirit working in the Church!
Friday, April 2, 2010
Dr. Richard Pratt Jr. is Coming to Rivermont!
I am both thrilled and proud to share that our church, Rivermont Presbyterian Church, in Lynchburg, VA will be hosting Dr. Richard Pratt April 18 and 19. Dr. Pratt is the founder of Third Millennium Ministries; he chaired the Old Testament Dept. and taught at Reformed Theological Seminary for 21 years; and has authored a number of great books, including Every Thought Captive, one of the best primer texts for introducing presuppositionalist apologetics.
“The goal will be to provide an inspiring portrait of the ‘big picture’ of our biblical faith, focusing on the unfolding of God’s purpose for our lives as his people.”
The schedule:
Sunday 8:30 and 11:00 AM: The Vision of Christ in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:5—15)
Sunday School at 9:35 AM: God Original Plan for the World (Gen 1:26—28)
Sunday Evening at 6:30 PM: The Unfrozen Chosen in God’s Plan (Gen 12:1—3)
Monday Evening at 7:00 PM: Fighting for Victory (Josh 1:6—9)
“The goal will be to provide an inspiring portrait of the ‘big picture’ of our biblical faith, focusing on the unfolding of God’s purpose for our lives as his people.”
The schedule:
Sunday 8:30 and 11:00 AM: The Vision of Christ in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:5—15)
Sunday School at 9:35 AM: God Original Plan for the World (Gen 1:26—28)
Sunday Evening at 6:30 PM: The Unfrozen Chosen in God’s Plan (Gen 12:1—3)
Monday Evening at 7:00 PM: Fighting for Victory (Josh 1:6—9)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Raising Up the Next Generation of Pro-Lifers!
I am so blessed to share the following letter with you. It was written by a good friend and co-worker, Ryan Campbell. Ryan is a younger guy (considerably younger than me;), and an outstanding athlete. He even played a couple of years of pro-am football after high school, without having played that sport in school! He very quite and unassuming; but as the letter demonstrates, he’s not afraid to speak the truth! Look forward with me to more from Ryan in the future!
Response to the 3/18 letter, “Abortion is about sparing lives pain.” Homer says, “The decision [to have an abortion] is made to save a child from a painful life.”
It is said that childbirth is the most painful experience a woman can have. If we could compare the pain of childbirth to that an aborted child experiences, there could be something much worse.
Put yourself in the child’s place, then even with a minute chance of being raised by a loving family—I being one whose upbringing was not ideal—whether it’s by the biological parents or not, anyone would have their fingers crossed for a chance at life, even a rough life, considering the alternative, no life at all.
There is no painless abortion method. Burning to death by saline solution, dismemberment by cutting and tearing and worse prevents abortion from being a way of saving a child from pain.
Homer ends with, “The debate is whether or not you want to save a child and mother from a pain-filled life.” The fact is that the debate is really over whether or not one wants to save the child from the excruciatingly pain-filled, intentional death.
Ryan Campbell
Response to the 3/18 letter, “Abortion is about sparing lives pain.” Homer says, “The decision [to have an abortion] is made to save a child from a painful life.”
It is said that childbirth is the most painful experience a woman can have. If we could compare the pain of childbirth to that an aborted child experiences, there could be something much worse.
Put yourself in the child’s place, then even with a minute chance of being raised by a loving family—I being one whose upbringing was not ideal—whether it’s by the biological parents or not, anyone would have their fingers crossed for a chance at life, even a rough life, considering the alternative, no life at all.
There is no painless abortion method. Burning to death by saline solution, dismemberment by cutting and tearing and worse prevents abortion from being a way of saving a child from pain.
Homer ends with, “The debate is whether or not you want to save a child and mother from a pain-filled life.” The fact is that the debate is really over whether or not one wants to save the child from the excruciatingly pain-filled, intentional death.
Ryan Campbell
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Life of Nero at a Glance
Here is an essay Israel did last year (8th grade) on the life of Nero.
Introduction
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was the son of Gnaeus and Agrippina, and was the successor of his great uncle and stepfather, Claudius. Claudius was Agrippina’s second husband after the death of her first, Lucius’ father. Lucius was more commonly known as Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus, or just Nero, an Emperor of Rome and Tyrant of the World and Persecutor of the Christian Church. Lucius was illustrious for many things, such as, the persecution of the Christian Church and the Great Fire of Rome; also for the murders of his mother, Agrippina, his stepbrother, Britanicus, and his wives, Octavia and Poppea. This emperor was not always so fowl, however. He did have the makings of a good ruler until there was no one to restrain him.
Childhood and Background
This young ruler was born on December 15, A.D. 37. After his mother, Agrippina, was exiled by the Emperor Caligula, Lucius went to live with a distant aunt. But following the murder of Caligula and his family, his uncle, Claudius came to power. Claudius then allowed Agrippina to come out of exile, and married her not long after that.
Lucius was officially adopted into the Emperor’s family in A.D. 50. Claudius then renamed him Nero. This young man was quite a bit older than his new stepbrother Britanicus, and consequently became the immediate heir to the throne of his uncle. At the age of 14, he was proclaimed an adult and started to aid the emperor politically, make public appearances with him, and appear on coinage.
Early Years of Reign
Claudius died in A.D. 54, (many assumed that Agrippina poisoned him, but there was no evidence) and Nero became ruler of the Roman Empire at the age of 16. His mother appointed two men to be his tutors. One was a well-known and scholarly Stoic named Seneca, who would instruct Nero in the way Rome wished him to act; and the other was a praetorian prefect named Burrus, who would instruct him in the matters of warfare.
The first five years of Nero’s rule went very well with these two advisers molding Nero’s mind into a proper emperor. Agrippina had always had a lust for power and always used the men in her life to get there; such as, Claudius, Nero, and later through Claudius’ son, Britanicus.
Through this period of time, Agrippina grew exceedingly jealous of the amount of influence Seneca and Burrus had on her son. Seneca had previously warned Nero of his mother’s growing lust for his power. It became evident when she was pushing for Britanicus to assume the throne as the rightful heir, because she knew she could influence him as she once did Nero, and Claudius before that. Although, before Britanicus could make any decisions, he quickly and mysteriously died in A.D. 55. Nero then had Agrippina executed for conspiring against the Emperor of Rome.
The Latter Years: Nero’s Decent into Madness
After the death of the Praetorian Prefect, Burrus, Seneca gradually detected his grip on Nero’s mind loosening. Seneca knew he could no longer influence Nero as he once did with the help of Burrus. Consequently, Seneca requested to be released from his service as Nero’s political advisor. With no one to restrain him, Nero quickly became foolish and reckless. He became infatuated with many types of entertainment. He even possessed his own circus, in which he would put Christians on display as bait for lions and wild dogs. It was said that Nero believed that it was right to eliminate rivals to the throne. He also felt that the Christians were a threat to his life, and therefore deserved death.
The Great Fire of Rome
When the Great Fire of Rome took place in A.D. 64, the Romans believed that Nero might be responsible for the fire, and Nero redirected the blame to the Christians. At this point in time, not many people tried to stop Nero when he did what he thought was just to the people of the Christian community. Many lost their lives at that time, whether it was by gruesome ways of slow demise in Nero’s circus, by crucifixion, or by setting their bodies ablaze to illuminate his garden parties. As historian Tacitus once described the event:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as nightly illumination, when daylight had expired" (Tacitus, Annals XV.44).
At this point in Nero’s reign, he began to loose the respect of the Roman citizens, because he no longer valued life and order as he once did. He had become a ruler that believed what was just was what he himself believed was just and the murders that he had once been accused of: Agrippina, Octavia, Brittanicus, and Poppea, were now being added to by the thousands.
The Finality of Nero’s Life
Like any other emperor, Nero received several threats from surrounding countries and from within Rome. Many rebellions took place but only one drove Nero to his end. The revolt of Vindex and Galba, which began when the Vindex rebels sought aid from Galba. They tried to place a new emperor on the throne in opposition to Nero. The people began to abandon their loyalty to Nero and to throw their support toward Galba. Nero sent out messengers in hopes of gathering anyone who supported him to rally behind him; he received no response. He eventually went into hiding. Right before a group of angry rebels closed in on him, he asked his servants to dig him a grave. He exclaimed over and over, “What an artist dies in me!” (Suetonius, Nero, xlix). A messenger from the Senate arrived and told Nero that he had been proclaimed an enemy of the State and that he would be executed by being beat to death. Followed by this, he stuck a dagger through his throat and said, “Too late! This is fidelity!” and then he died (Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Nero 49).
Conclusion
Yes, Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus was a tyrant and a major persecutor of the Christian community. Although, he did not behave this way until his lust for autonomous supremacy grew to a level that no one could influence him to do whatever thing that Nero himself thought was unmerited. With the death of Nero, so ended the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
Introduction
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was the son of Gnaeus and Agrippina, and was the successor of his great uncle and stepfather, Claudius. Claudius was Agrippina’s second husband after the death of her first, Lucius’ father. Lucius was more commonly known as Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus, or just Nero, an Emperor of Rome and Tyrant of the World and Persecutor of the Christian Church. Lucius was illustrious for many things, such as, the persecution of the Christian Church and the Great Fire of Rome; also for the murders of his mother, Agrippina, his stepbrother, Britanicus, and his wives, Octavia and Poppea. This emperor was not always so fowl, however. He did have the makings of a good ruler until there was no one to restrain him.
Childhood and Background
This young ruler was born on December 15, A.D. 37. After his mother, Agrippina, was exiled by the Emperor Caligula, Lucius went to live with a distant aunt. But following the murder of Caligula and his family, his uncle, Claudius came to power. Claudius then allowed Agrippina to come out of exile, and married her not long after that.
Lucius was officially adopted into the Emperor’s family in A.D. 50. Claudius then renamed him Nero. This young man was quite a bit older than his new stepbrother Britanicus, and consequently became the immediate heir to the throne of his uncle. At the age of 14, he was proclaimed an adult and started to aid the emperor politically, make public appearances with him, and appear on coinage.
Early Years of Reign
Claudius died in A.D. 54, (many assumed that Agrippina poisoned him, but there was no evidence) and Nero became ruler of the Roman Empire at the age of 16. His mother appointed two men to be his tutors. One was a well-known and scholarly Stoic named Seneca, who would instruct Nero in the way Rome wished him to act; and the other was a praetorian prefect named Burrus, who would instruct him in the matters of warfare.
The first five years of Nero’s rule went very well with these two advisers molding Nero’s mind into a proper emperor. Agrippina had always had a lust for power and always used the men in her life to get there; such as, Claudius, Nero, and later through Claudius’ son, Britanicus.
Through this period of time, Agrippina grew exceedingly jealous of the amount of influence Seneca and Burrus had on her son. Seneca had previously warned Nero of his mother’s growing lust for his power. It became evident when she was pushing for Britanicus to assume the throne as the rightful heir, because she knew she could influence him as she once did Nero, and Claudius before that. Although, before Britanicus could make any decisions, he quickly and mysteriously died in A.D. 55. Nero then had Agrippina executed for conspiring against the Emperor of Rome.
The Latter Years: Nero’s Decent into Madness
After the death of the Praetorian Prefect, Burrus, Seneca gradually detected his grip on Nero’s mind loosening. Seneca knew he could no longer influence Nero as he once did with the help of Burrus. Consequently, Seneca requested to be released from his service as Nero’s political advisor. With no one to restrain him, Nero quickly became foolish and reckless. He became infatuated with many types of entertainment. He even possessed his own circus, in which he would put Christians on display as bait for lions and wild dogs. It was said that Nero believed that it was right to eliminate rivals to the throne. He also felt that the Christians were a threat to his life, and therefore deserved death.
The Great Fire of Rome
When the Great Fire of Rome took place in A.D. 64, the Romans believed that Nero might be responsible for the fire, and Nero redirected the blame to the Christians. At this point in time, not many people tried to stop Nero when he did what he thought was just to the people of the Christian community. Many lost their lives at that time, whether it was by gruesome ways of slow demise in Nero’s circus, by crucifixion, or by setting their bodies ablaze to illuminate his garden parties. As historian Tacitus once described the event:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as nightly illumination, when daylight had expired" (Tacitus, Annals XV.44).
At this point in Nero’s reign, he began to loose the respect of the Roman citizens, because he no longer valued life and order as he once did. He had become a ruler that believed what was just was what he himself believed was just and the murders that he had once been accused of: Agrippina, Octavia, Brittanicus, and Poppea, were now being added to by the thousands.
The Finality of Nero’s Life
Like any other emperor, Nero received several threats from surrounding countries and from within Rome. Many rebellions took place but only one drove Nero to his end. The revolt of Vindex and Galba, which began when the Vindex rebels sought aid from Galba. They tried to place a new emperor on the throne in opposition to Nero. The people began to abandon their loyalty to Nero and to throw their support toward Galba. Nero sent out messengers in hopes of gathering anyone who supported him to rally behind him; he received no response. He eventually went into hiding. Right before a group of angry rebels closed in on him, he asked his servants to dig him a grave. He exclaimed over and over, “What an artist dies in me!” (Suetonius, Nero, xlix). A messenger from the Senate arrived and told Nero that he had been proclaimed an enemy of the State and that he would be executed by being beat to death. Followed by this, he stuck a dagger through his throat and said, “Too late! This is fidelity!” and then he died (Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Nero 49).
Conclusion
Yes, Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus was a tyrant and a major persecutor of the Christian community. Although, he did not behave this way until his lust for autonomous supremacy grew to a level that no one could influence him to do whatever thing that Nero himself thought was unmerited. With the death of Nero, so ended the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)