Eternally Begotten?

Systematic theology often confuses me. I read things that seem to make sense, and "feel" true -- yet they sometimes have little scriptural support. Once, though, I figured out that a systematic theology is basically a "scientific model" of scripture.

Most systematic theologies take some small number of biblical principles and abstract a larger system of thought that plugs into those scriptures and seems to make them fit. We use "models" in understanding all sorts of things, but one of the dangers I've encountered in theology is that of not recognizing where the scripture ends and the model begins.

One set of doctrines in which I've been very frustrated with this phenomenon is the Trinity. Don't get me wrong, I'm a trinitarian through and through. But there are some models for understanding the Trinity that have always bothered me. "Jesus is 100% God and 100% man." What is that supposed to mean, anyway? It's a sequence of words that actually cannot mean anything (if you know what a percentage is).

I've been running into some trinitarian "models" dealing with the deity of Christ that have been gnawing at me recently. Some statements of faith talk about the "eternal begottenness" of Jesus. Or perhaps they will refer to his "eternally proceeding" from the Father. The Nicene Creed reads, "begotten of the Father before all worlds."

I recently read a whole essay on the eternal begottenness [1] of Jesus, where the primary argument was that Jesus is the Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24) and Proverbs 8:24-25 says that wisdom was "brought forth" before the mountains were settled. It's argumentation like this that makes me think we've come up against a flaw in the model that others have abstracted from the biblical statements of the Trinity!

The reason this came up for me was that Jehovah's Witnesses are always arguing that the "begotten" terminology in the New Testament in reference to Jesus indicates that He had a beginning. Then, just to confuse you more, they can pull out some of these "classic" trinitarian statements (such as from the Westminster Confession and the creeds) and show you how confusing they are.

But things started to make more sense for me when I found the following passage in Hebrews 1:6 -- "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." I realized that this is a reference to the incarnation. It was then that the entire heavenly host worshiped Jesus, as an infant even.

I then started checking the various "begotten" references to Jesus. In this usage, it is predominantly used by the Apostle John (four times in the Gospel of John and once in 1st John). A key verse is John 1:14, with which we should all be familiar anyway:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John, who gives us the "begotten" terminology, calls the pre-incarnate Jesus the "Word". This is His Name -- and He was beheld by John as the only begotten of the Father (in the body of Jesus Christ, the man). Further down in the same chapter is the following pair of verses (vv. 17-18):

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The reason I included verse 17 is for a bit of context. Grace and truth came (past tense) by Jesus Christ, and the only begotten Son declared (past tense) the Father. Jesus is (present tense) in the bosom of the Father. I recently heard this preached for almost an hour about how "in the bosom of the Father" refers to the eternal begottenness without any scriptural cross-references. Isn't it much simpler to suppose that this means the incarnated Christ declared God to the world and then went up to be with the Father in glory?

It's my conclusion that the primary application of the begottenness of Christ is as the incarnated Christ. Jesus certainly did have a beginning -- as God, incarnated. Prior to that event, He was eternally the second member of the Godhead (Trinity). His role was that of the Word of God, and was the agency through which the worlds were created.

I found out recently that I am not the only crazy person ever to notice this -- Walter Martin in his classic "The Kingdom of the Cults" discusses the concept in his section on the Jehovah's Witnesses. He writes, "He previously existed as the eternal Word of God prior to His incarnation." No "eternal Sonship" or "eternally begotten" or "eternally proceeding" in Martin's view either.

What does it all mean? It means that if I hold too firmly to an abstracted model for understanding the Trinity, I can get into trouble when I'm witnessing to someone who wishes to attack this doctrine. If I quote the Westminster Confession and the Nicene Creed in my defense, I'm elevating it to the status of scripture. I will inevitably get into trouble. I've noticed that the Watchtower folks will just assume that I believe these documents as if they were scripture, and lead off with an attack on them right from the beginning.

Is someone a heretic for teaching that Jesus is eternally begotten? No -- it's a model. I think it's a leaky one, that falls apart under some scrutiny. Seeing "begotten" as a reference to the incarnated Christ does not change anything important (Jesus is eternally God, made the world, represented Man in the atonement, serves as the mediator and advocate, etc., in both cases). What it changes, though, might be your ability to argue about this with a unitarian -- and isn't the real Gospel ministry the main focus of deep biblical study in this life anyway?

If you disagree with me, that's fine -- but if you run into someone who says "begotten" means Jesus had a beginning, I think you can say, "Yep, when the eternal Word became a man!" And you can even give them a scripture reference for it (which sure beats using a trinitarian creed).

Romans 7 - Struggle or Unsaved?

Less than a month ago, I was reading through Romans. As I got to chapters 6-8, I felt like something wasn't right. Chapter 7 seemed really out of place. I had always heard chapter 7 preached as a Christian struggling with sin, but as I read through, I didn't get that impression at all. After more reading and studying, I came to change my position on this passage. I want to point out that I changed my position solely on the reading of Scripture, it actually wasn't until after I'd changed my mind and began to labor to iron out some of the details that I became aware of any debate over this passage. Since I've had this experience of recently changing my mind on this passage, I feel like I'm in a good position to give my thoughts on it.

First off, I would start by encouraging everyone to read through this passage, starting at chapter 5. Keep reading until you've passed at least 8:18. For this discussion, I'll start off very general. I think the tone of these passages speak plainly. In chapters 6 and 8 especially, we see Paul making clear contrasts between those who are dead to sin and living after the Spirit and those who are not. In chapter 7 Paul makes statements about himself, oftentimes using terminology which is essentially the same as that used in chapters 6 and 8 in places that are clearly talking about the unsaved. I think it's clear that Paul is not talking about a Christian struggling with sin, but about his experience with the law before he was saved.

Let's get a little more specific. In Romans 6 Paul uses strong language to describe our state as believers. Here are some of the main ideas:
- We are dead to sin (v.2, 7, 11).
- Our old flesh is crucified with Christ (v. 6, 8).
- We are no longer servants of sin, but are servants of righteousness (v. 13-14, 17, 20)

We see a similar thing in chapter 8:
- We are free from sin and death (v.2)
- Christians walk in the Spirit (v.1, 4, 9, 13-14)
- We are not carnally minded (v. 5-9, 12)

Now let's see what Paul says in chapter 7 in light of this:
[1-4] Using the analogy of marriage, Paul explains how we are dead to the law, so we can be married to Christ.
[5] Before salvation, sin worked with the law to bring death
[6] However, we're delivered now because we are dead to the law.
[7-8] Paul continues discussing the function of the law. The law itself is not sin, but shows us what sin is and gives opportunity for sin. This is where Paul starts talking about himself before conversion. Again, the point is to explain the function of the law. From everything we've noticed beforehand, it's plain that the law is active only to the unbeliever. Believers are dead to the law.
[9-11] Before Paul knew the law, he was alive, but the law came, sin worked, and he died.
[12-13] Paul again describes the function of the law. It is not made for death, but sin worked with the law to bring death.
[14-23] Paul describes himself as carnal and sold under sin, then goes on to describe what this looks like. He knows the law, and knows that he should obey it, but he can't/won't.
[24] Paul begins his conclusion of the matter by asking: how can I be saved of all this? Of course, the answer is Christ. As a side note, I think Paul is also giving a description of the conversion process (seeing God's law as good, recognizing his own sin, coming to the end of himself, turning to Christ for mercy).
[25] The last part of this verse is a summary of what he was saying. As an unsaved man, he acknowledges and serves the law in his mind (contrast this with being dead to the law), but in reality serves sin.
* Note that his next phrase is that, because of what Christ did, we have no condemnation and we walk in the Spirit, not the flesh.

If that doesn't take care of it for you, here are a few more verses to look at which make this even more clear. In addition to what I've highlighted in red above, these are instances in which Paul uses the same terminology:
- 7:17, 20, 23 compared to 6:13-18.
- 7:14 compared to 8:6-7

Conclusion - Do Christians still struggle with sin? Yes. However, our teaching on that should come from other passages in Scripture, not this one. While a Christian may still fight and struggle with sin, he is also dead to it, but alive unto God through our Lord Jesus Christ. If someone is in a situation where they can say with Paul in chapter 7 that, "I agree that the law of God is good, but I serve sin.", they need to repent and turn to Christ for their salvation.

Baptism for the Dead

There are certain passages that hold a special place for the apologist. They're the ones that sit in the back of your mind when you ring a doorbell. The ultimate fear is that someone asks you about it "out there", where it "really matters." Why? Because they appear to defy explanation, especially when compared with the rest of scripture. With practice, a little motivation, and the certain help of the Holy Ghost, I've found satisfaction on many such passages. Here's a doozy:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? (1 Cor. 15:29)

I've found various explanations. Obviously, Mormons like to use it for their actual practice, surrogate baptisms for dead people. I've met Roman Catholics who use it to defend prayers for the dead in purgatory. Those don't particularly thrill me. I've heard from some that it means "... baptized for the [testimony of] the dead." Or, perhaps, it's, "... baptized for the [replacement of] the dead [lest the churches die out]." Finally, I've heard it means, "... baptized for the [resurrection of] the dead."

None of those work for me -- they involve adding words to explain it, or justifying practices / doctrines that are otherwise refuted in the scriptures. But, in wrangling about this within our group for some time, I believe we've found a model for approaching this passage that really works well.

What is this chapter about? This verse shouldn't be interpreted in isolation. To conserve space and paint the logical flow, here's a rough outline of the chapter:

(1) The Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (vv. 1-4)
(2) There's lots of evidence of this (vv. 5-11)
(3) If there's no resurrection, then Christ is still dead (vv. 12-14)
(4) Paul's preaching is but lies if Christ is still dead (vv. 15-16)
(5) If this is the case, then "ye are yet in your sins," and now-dead Christians are still dead (vv. 17-19)
(6) But Jesus did rise, and we are made alive in the (future) resurrection (vv. 20-28)
(7) Baptism for the dead is vain (v. 29)
(8) Why would we suffer, then for Christ? (vv. 30-32)
(9) Dissertation on the resurrection itself (vv. 33-58)

The whole chapter is about resurrection, and how it is not vain to become a Christian because of the truth of it. It's clear that vv. 12-19 are all about what things would look like if there was no resurrection. I think the key verse for understanding the difficult text is v. 13:

But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

We know baptism is the outward profession of an inward new birth. It is a testimony that, "I now follow Christ." In whose name are we baptized? Is it not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Paul writes in verse 29 that if there is no resurrection, then the Son is dead, and your baptism is meaningless on behalf of that dead Christ. In other words, perhaps I could paraphrase it this way:

All of these people that would be baptized in the name of a dead man, who did not conquer death, suffering in this life, will only go to the grave. If the dead do not rise, there is no hope in the Gospel, and Jesus as a dead man is a meaningless start for a religious movement. So, your reception of the Gospel, and baptism in the name of this dead man is also vain. The subsequent suffering is all you have, and all is vanity.

Of course, this is all completely different if the resurrection is true. It shows that death is truly conquered, Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection, and your profession of faith (baptism) has wonderful meaning -- you, like Him, will rise and be glorified. Isn't it wonderful?

This verse isn't talking about some ancient, now-defunct practice of baptizing people on the behalf of other dead people. It is a part of Paul's logical argument about the centrality of the resurrection in the Gospel. Indeed, no victory over death makes the Gospel absolutely meaningless. Gladly, though, we continue on, preaching that Gospel, because we have hope for the restitution of all things in Christ at the second coming!

Appendix: In anticipation of someone pointing out that the Greek word "for" means, "in behalf of," or "for the sake of," that doesn't really frustrate this interpretation. Baptism is an identification with Christ, and it is certainly because of him (and also for him in obedience) that we are baptized.

Romans 10:13 and the Sinner's Prayer

It is perhaps fitting that this post be the first content post on this blog. This issue is one which has been thoroughly and repeatedly discussed by the group that is collaborating on this blog. It is an issue which we feel is of great importance. Also, this post will hopefully be an example to our readers of what we mean by a traditionally unbound interpretation of Scripture. In nearly all cases, this one included, the "tradition" that we address is really the modern interpretation, not a well-established 2000 year Christian understanding of the passage.

Scripture in question -- "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Traditional Interpretation -- In order to be saved, someone must call on the Lord in prayer, asking Him for forgiveness and salvation. Most believe that if someone sincerely asks Jesus to be saved, He will definitely save them. This interpretation is commonly used in conjunction with the Roman's Road, or presentations of the gospel which end in a sinner's prayer. In these presentations, the sinner's prayer is often equated with "calling upon the name of the Lord" and upon such a profession, a person is given assurance of their salvation. The prevalence of this interpretation can be established by examining most gospel tracts and church websites which explain salvation.

Refuting Tradition -- Before getting into specifics, it's helpful to realize that there is no place in Scripture in which a person is told to respond to the gospel by calling on the name of the Lord, or by a prayer. When the gospel is presented, it is preached that men should repent and believe (Mark 1:15, Acts 20:21). This alone should give pause to anyone considering the traditional interpretation.

Let's dig deeper. The next step in understanding this passage is to recognize that it is a quote from Joel 2:32. At this point I would recommend reading all of the book of Joel. The really relevant parts are the first 2 chapters, but it's short so go ahead and read the whole thing. From Joel, it's clear that "calling upon the name of the Lord" includes deep sorrow and repentance, (Joel 1:8, 1:13-14, 2:12-13) much more than a simple prayer.

There is also one more place in the NT that this verse is quoted. Examine now Peter's sermon on Pentecost. Peter quotes this verse in the middle of his sermon (Acts 2:21). Now, if you glance down to the end of the sermon where the people were pricked in their hearts and said "what shall we do?" Notice Peter's response (v. 37-38). He tells them they need to "repent and be baptized (Hopefully the reader understands that baptism is irrelevant to salvation, but is commanded for everyone to do after repenting unto salvation.) The point here is that Peter quotes this passage and his response to the people at the end shows that he understands this "calling upon the name of the Lord" to be repentance.

Finally, a few miscellaneous points. Those who hold to the traditional interpretation should compare their understanding of the passage with Matthew 7:21-23, where some of those who call Jesus "Lord, Lord" are sent away into hell. Obviously, understanding that Jesus is Lord and calling Him so is not enough. Romans 10:14 should also be mentioned in this discussion. Immediately after saying that "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Paul continues by saying, "How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed?" This makes it clear that the issue is not a process of actually calling on the Lord in prayer, but the issue is true saving faith, which naturally includes repentance.

Traditionally Unbound Interpretation -- Now that the traditional interpretation has been thoroughly refuted, what is this passage really saying? If we look at the context, we see that Paul is talking about Israel and the Jews at the beginning of the chapter. You can expand the context a couple chapters back, but I think starting at the beginning of 10 is sufficient for understanding this passage. Again, Paul starts off talking about the Jews. Then, around verse 11 or 12, depending on how you look at it, Paul expands his discussion of salvation by saying that it's for everyone, not just Jews.

Verse 12 is a huge hint here. The first thing to notice is that Paul isn't writing a thesis on how someone gets saved. In actuality, in verse 13, he's basically just making the point that even the OT shows that salvation is for everyone, not just the Jews. This isn't to diminish the fact that "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" is a true statement. However, as we have seen in the description in Joel, as well as Paul's statement immediately following this verse, we can very plainly conclude that "calling on the name of the Lord" is essentially repentance and faith.

Concluding Remarks -- At this point I will plead with the reader to carefully consider his position on this issue. This is not a lofty theological position with no practical relevance. Twisting Romans 10:13 to teach a sinner's prayer for salvation is a corruption of the gospel. An evangelist or preacher who teaches this is making a large number of false converts who will show up on the day of judgment saying "Lord, Lord" and will hear "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Instead, please preach the gospel in simple terms, and call people to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Traditionally Unbound Interpretation of Scripture!

This is the inaugural entry in a collaborative blog. Its intent is to collect insights from among a core group of friends, seeking to labor for the Master in His harvest fields. Our hope is to share with one another, and with anyone else with patience to read, what the Lord is teaching us through an honest look through the scriptures.

The guiding principles for our journey through scripture on this blog are the following:

Scripture Interprets Itself -- This is the idea that the biblical authors are consistent in their terminology, and especially in their usage of other scripture. For example, in Matthew 12:31, when Jesus explains that the the Ninevites "... repented at the preaching of Jonas," we can use the description of the event in Jonah 3:5-8 to better understand what was Jesus's concept of repentance.

Context is Sometimes a Whole Book -- Context is not three verses up and three verses down. Expanding the context to the entire book (or more!) helps tremendously. We can understand that Ephesians 3-6 contains not a disparate series of commands, but an illustration of the fruit of the regeneration discussed in chapters 1 and 2. One indivisible message unfolds, and not a series of fragments stapled together.

Cultural Arguments are (Usually) Bad -- I think it's often either a peacock display of scholarolatry or a desire to explain away something we don't want to obey. Whatever the motivation, lots of teachers major on cultural explanations. For example, 1 Cor. 11:5-6 tells us that women should not shave their heads. Well, lest we become judgmental, we would rather say that Corinthian prostitutes shaved their heads, and this instruction is to be culturally interpreted. But culturalizing the principles makes us wonder which other ones might be "merely cultural," and is typically a very slippery slope.

Utility is no Excuse -- Just because a passage can be used for some purpose doesn't mean it should. 1 Cor. 16:2a sounds so much like weekly tithing, that the modern culture sees no other use for the passage. But 16:2b-3 makes it so clear that it was not a normative collection, that we would look like fools to anyone who actually read it if we interpreted it that way.

Scripture Survives Translation -- If a standard, Mark-1 Christian needs a Greek-priest to tell him what the Bible really means, then none of us can really trust what we read. Scholarship is not bad, but as it is often used it's usually unhelpful, especially when it undermines confidence in the Bibles we can hold in our hands.

For other principles, I'll leave it to the comments. Suffice it to say, I hope this blog will become a useful repository (and group-memory), so that the fellowship, debate, and study we find in our community of brethren (and sistren) won't fade away with each passing Thursday.