The Word was God.

In this past Sunday's sermon on the Trinity, I spoke briefly regarding John 1:1 as a witness to the deity of Christ and the Jehovah's Witness (JH) mistranslation of this verse. I'd like to recap it here- several of you had asked about it.

A discussion about the JH mistranslation of this passage is simple and difficult. It is simple because the normal, historic, critically and scholarly translation of John 1:1 follows a very basic rule of grammar. To argue with it is rather silly. But, it is always difficult to argue with someone who is unable to accept simple and plain truth. Sometimes arguing with a JH's interpretation of this verse is like debating whether or not the sky is blue.

Here's the deal- in the original Greek this clause reads (transliteration): theos en ho logos. Greek is an inflected language, and word order in translation depends upon case ending. In this verse we find that both 'theos' - God and 'logos'- Word have the nominative, masculine, singular ending. Word- 'logos'- has the article 'ho' before it, while 'theos'- God; does not. The JH translation, the New World Translation, claims that because there is no definite article before 'theos', then it should be translated 'a god' (and so deny the full deity of Christ and assert a sort of Arian, sub-deity, quasi-divinity of Christ).

But, this translation ignores the fundamental rule at work in this clause. In this very simple Greek clause we have two nouns both with the nominative ending (the-os and log-os)connected by the verb 'to be' (eimi or en). We would not know which now stands in the subject position and which stands in the predicate position (the word was God or God was the word?). The rule is that the noun without the article is the predicate and the noun with the article (ho logos) is the subject. We find in this clause that 'theos' is put first, though it is the predicate. John places the predicate in front of the subject as a matter of emphasis. I believe that in the context we can discover plainly that he does this to boldly emphasize the deity of this eternal, preexisting 'logos'.

There are two other interpretive/translation principles that are broken by the JH's on this passage. First, they are fundamentally allowing a theological bias drive translation. Of course, we do recognize that no one is ever without some sort of bias. And, of course, we bring various orthodox convictions to the table whenever we do translation and interpretative (to some degree, us being human and all). But we cannot let it override plain readings of the text. Also, to say that John simply introduces a concept of a created, divine being ('a god') in the face of two thousand years of revealed Jewish monotheism is ludicrous. The JH fundamentally reject the deity of Christ and mistranslate the Scriptures to suit their heresy.

Secondly, the whole context of John 1:1-18 militates against such a denial of the deity of Christ. John is arguing and presenting the whole humanity and the whole deity of Jesus in this passage (indeed, throughout his gospel and his first epistle) while also maintaining the whole counsel of God which reveals his nature as ONE (John 1:1, 18; 8:58; chs. 14-17)! So, the JH mistranslate the Scriptures in the face of the plain contextual force of John's argument.

Here are a couple of resources that might further help in your defense of historic Trinitarian Christianity when reasoning with a Jehovah's Witness or anyone else who denies the biblical teaching on this matter: Christian Research Institute and Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry might be good places to start.

Moore on Mars Hill

No, not Beth Moore. Russel Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written a great piece on the constant reinvention of the church via misinterpretations of Acts 17. Excellent article.

Behe and Veritas Forum Media

The Veritas Forum has a wealth of apologetics resources.

I've posted some choice quotes from Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box - here is an excellent lecture by Dr. Behe delivered at Ohio State's Veritas Forum.

Wilson and Hitchens Debate

If you have not discovered Doug Wilson and Credenda Agenda, I encourage you to check them out:

http://www.dougwils.com/ (Wilson's blog, nicely titled, Blog and Mablog. I like it, though I think LaHaye and Jenkins might take issue with such a title. Perhaps they might think it aptly titled seeing as how Wilson and his ilk are yet another sign of the oh so near apocalyptic judgment.)

http://www.credenda.org/ (A webzine that always proves provocative, insightful, and full of some sharp wit. Enjoy being offended, confused, and edified by Pastor Wilson. Always a sign of a good prophet. Yes, Wilson and his band of merry men are under some serious scrutiny with their 'Federal Vision' stuff. If you know about all that, then know as well that I - a good reformed baptist - am thoroughly agin' it {the Federal Vision, that is}. In my view, Wilson takes the covenant paedo baptist arguments to their logical sacrementalist end. If you don't know all about that hub-bub, well, count yourself blessed {if you're a inquisitive, and have a few extra days to spare, you can read all 'bout it here: http://www.federal-vision.com/ . So, while I am not in agreement with all of Wilson's stuff, I must say he is always a breath of fresh air.)

Also, check out the e-debate between Hitchens (author of the latest atheistic diatribe, "God is Not Great") and Wilson on the question, "Is Christianity Good for the World?".
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

More posts coming. Just a li'l something to chew on.

Is Humanity a Waste of Space?

A few years back Jodie Foster starred in the movie Contact that was scripted by the late agnostic astronomy-Guru Carl Sagan. The movie attempted (in typical Hollywood fashion- Matthew McConaughey plays a hunky theologian) to deal with some of the questions that have perplexed and plagued mankind throughout history: Why are we here? Where did we come from? Are we alone in the universe? Foster’s character is on a tireless crusade to prove that there is intelligent life out there in the cosmos (filled with billions and billions of stars and galaxies), though her search is often foiled by political spin-doctors and power hungry scientists. Ultimately Sagan’s worldview breaks through loud and clear with the close of the film when Foster’s character is asked by a group of schoolchildren on a field trip if there is life in the universe, on some distant planet, in some far off galaxy. The answer is given: “If not, then all this sure is a waste of space.”

There is a problem with Sagan’s worldview on a variety of levels. First, it ignores the incredible studies and findings that have surfaced in the field of physics in fairly recent history. One of the most significant studies was dropped like a bomb on the scientific community in 1973 by an astrophysicist from Cambridge, Brandon Carter. Carter developed a notion he called the ‘anthropic principle’ in physics (coming from the Greek word for man, ‘anthropos’). Basically, Carter’s thesis was this: It seems that the mysterious fundamental forces of physics, the ‘constants’ which we recognize as necessary yet inexplicable on a basic level (gravity, for example) are held in a intricate and delicate balance in order to produce a universe which would sustain and uphold human life. Further, it seemed to Carter that billions of years of evolution moved amazingly toward the goal of creating human life. Now, Carter’s theological commitments are ambiguous, to say the least, and he doesn’t attempt to answer a variety of biological questions regarding the biblical narrative surrounding creation. But his thesis is an incredible one, and has been the source of no little debate in the scientific community. How is it that man seems to stand at the center of such a vast and intricate mystery? If any of the ‘constants’ of physics are altered in the least, then human life is unable to continue. The laws of the physical universe sustain and uphold human life in an astounding way, and the more physicists discover of the universe, mankind’s existence becomes more and more baffling to those who have no ‘theological center’ to provide the answers to their questions. It seems that the more we learn about ‘space’ and the universe we realize that none of it is ‘wasted’ but is part of a created order, held in a delicate balance, in order to sustain the lives of human beings who stand at the center.

This brings me to the ‘theological’ problem with Sagan’s worldview. What a hopeless and devastating outlook! It is a common sentiment in our postmodern age. It is the sentiment which pervades every corner of a secularized community. In a world with no theological reference point we are simply a waste of space. With no theological reference point, one faces a vast and random universe and realizes he is only a blip on the screen. If indeed, as Sagan himself often said, “the cosmos is all that ever was and all that ever will be”, then we should not be surprised that we live in a culture of despair and hopelessness.

So what is the Christian’s response to the jaded philosophy of despair that has seeped into our culture? It is found in Genesis 1:26-27, 31, “Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them…God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Carter’s anthropic principle espouses an ancient and biblical doctrine, the doctrine of the imago Dei, that God has indeed created the universe for the purpose of sustaining human life, life which reflects his own image. Human life is precious and full of worth because humanity reflects, even in a fallen world, the image and likeness of our sovereign God.

But there is more to the biblical answer. The Apostle Paul says this in his description of the person of Christ in Colossians 1:15-20, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…in him all things hold together…For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” Though made in the image of God, man fell into sin and depravity. Yet his inherent dignity and worth remains and is shown in the reality that the same God who created us in His image, became man to reconcile us to himself. What a powerful message to proclaim to our culture of despair. God has created the universe for his own glory, and God has sent his Son to redeem a fallen race, to reconcile alienated and sinful men. The God of the universe entered time and space, was incarnated (made flesh) to redeem us. No Christian should ever entertain for a moment the thought that in comparison to the vast reaches of outer space that we are just a waste of space. The cross of Christ is proof positive that all things (including our immense universe) were created for God’s glory- and the most glorious event to have occurred since the beginning of time is beheld at Calvary. And it is there that we find our purpose, our worth, and our dignity. And it is to Calvary that we should point our despairing and hopeless culture.

Free Will?

“Do you believe in free will, or is every action by man determined and controlled by God?”

I do not like using the term ‘free will’ in the context of a biblical discussion on this issue. The reason is that there is so much imprecision in the usage of such a term. But I do believe in some sort of ‘freedom’ when it comes to the actions and decisions men. Calvin says this,

“Man will then be spoken of as having this sort of free decision, not because he has free choice equally of good and evil, but because he acts wickedly by will, not by compulsion. Well put, indeed, but what purpose is served by labeling with a proud name such a slight thing…But how few men are there, I ask, who when they hear free will attributed to man do not immediately conceive him to be master of both his own mind and will, able of his own power to turn himself toward either good or evil…If anyone, then, can use this word without understanding it in a bad sense, I shall not trouble him on this account…I’d prefer not to use it myself, and I should like others, it they seek my advice, to avoid it.”

What Calvin is getting at is the fact that the term ‘will’ (either thelema, or boulomai in the NT Greek) is rarely used with reference to man. It almost always refers to the eternal and steadfast decrees and counsel of our sovereign God. When thelema (the common word for ‘will’) is used of men, it is used to speak of man’s ability to choose sin and wickedness and his inability to procure grace for himself. Look at Ephesians 1 and 2—in chapter one the word ‘will’ refers to the free and sovereign will of God (vv. 1, 5, 11) and the only description of the ‘will’ of men is in chapter where we find Paul describe man in his ‘gratifying the cravings (thelema- ‘will’) of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest we were by nature children of wrath.’ The testimony of Scripture by and large describes man’s ‘freedom’ as tragically hampered by his sinful nature and depravity. This is why, in describing the ‘will’ of men, Paul says this in Romans 9: 16, “It [‘it’ referring, I believe to vv.11-12 speaking of God’s purpose in election] does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort (boulomai), but on God’s mercy.” In this passage we find that man’s ‘will’ has nothing to do with the issue, all is based on God’s mercy.

This is not to say that man is not morally responsible or culpable- the Scriptures testify that he is and that he is subject to punishment and wrath because of his sin. And we must speak of man as being ‘free’ in some respect. Otherwise God is some sort of capricious master puppeteer and we are his robotic craftsmanship. This is not the case. We engage in moral decision making throughout the day, we are responsible to ‘choose’ good and to deny evil ‘choices’. But I never want to assert the will of man as separate and distinct from the omniscience and omnipotence of our sovereign God. Psalm 139 is for me a great testimony to the fact that God is one who knows all things, ordains all things, and sees all things. In that passage, this divine knowledge extends to even the minute details of our lives, he knows our words before they are on our lips. It is, I believe, a tragic flaw in one’s theology of God to assert that the God who has revealed himself in such a way does not have knowledge of who his people are- are that the exercise of his creatures’ will is outside of his control. To be honest, to say that our ‘will’ is totally free and incontingent is to deny the free and incontingent will of God. Basically, you can’t have a God who is sovereign and free and have a creature who is able to make completely ‘free’ choices outside the contingencies that bind him (such contingencies being: his own depravity, his inability and need for grace, his dependence upon God for all things).

So, to make a long answer even longer I would say this: I am careful to use words like ‘free will’ because the common conception of such a phrase usually is very loaded and is often not consistent with the testimony of Scripture. I will say that there must be a sense in which we are ‘free’ in that we are responsible- some call us ‘free moral agents’. Dr. Packer says that the testimony of Scripture presents us with an ‘antinomy’. An antinomy is the phenomenon in physics where we find seeming contradictions in the physical universe (light as both wave and particle, for example). In Scripture, we find a tension between God’s sovereignty (the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent ruler of all he has created) and man’s responsibility. This is a ‘seeming’ contradiction from our limited and sin-stained perspective. But, in fact, from the divine perspective it is not a contradiction, such tensions are resolved in God’s divine and eternal counsel and will one day be revealed to us in glory. Ultimately, I will land on the shore of God’s power and purpose as free and sovereign, because I believe the burden of Scripture is on the shoulders of those who assert that man’s will is totally free and completely undetermined in any sense by God’s election, foreknowledge, and will.