Christianity: Religion or Relationship?

It is fashionable nowadays in today’s evangelical world to chant a popular phrase: “Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship.” Now we need to understand why some people make such a statement implying that “religion” and “relationship” (the way they define it) are mutually exclusive. In this essay I intend to critique this very statement, starting off by expanding on what these people mean by that statement, why they say it, evaluate this statement from Scripture, and then add a practical note on how such pep statements can distort true spirituality.

As always, we need to understand the context in which any statement is made, since without the context we run the danger of misrepresenting or misinterpreting what is said. To understand the context of the statement, “Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship” we need to understand popular evangelical consciousness. I had, earlier, in a previous article written about how mainstream Christianity followed popular culture rather than Scripture and thus was a victim of the world’s constantly fluctuating ideologies. Now we need to know about mainstream evangelicalism in order to analyze this statement.

Modern Evangelical Spirituality

To get the pulse of mainstream Christianity one needs to just listen to Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). Walmart might have to ban some of Vineyard’s songs in the future for their explicit lyrics. Some of the “worship” songs had saucy titles like “My Lover, My God,” “Naked Before You,” “Touch Me All Over,” I’ll Do Anything You Want,” and “You Make Me Hot With Desire.” In case you thought that these are not Christian songs and are a bit over the top, it just means that you aren’t exposed to or not listening to much CCM these days. Matt Redman sings “Jesus I am so in love with you, and I am madly in love with you.” Delirious, another popular Christian band sing “I am living just to fall more in love with you.” Some days ago, in my college fellowship, one girl prayed “Lord Jesus, it feels so good to fall in love with you over and over again.”

The reason I mentioned this is to highlight something very peculiar to the brand of Christianity that is widely accepted and practiced today. Today’s evangelical spirituality is heavily influenced by romanticism. And if you notice, this brand of spirituality is popular only among the youth, though some in the middle age group too are victims of it. Now, I am not a grey haired man ranting against youth. I am just in the early third decade of my life and was once upon a time very much into this sort of thing. But when I studied the Scripture I came to see the dangerous implications of this false piety.

The two culprits hiding behind the statement “Christianity is a relationship; not a religion” are romanticism and anti-intellectualism. We will deal with each of these, see the false foundations of these two attitudes and finally mention about what the Scripture has to say about true spirituality.

Romanticism and anti-intellectualism usually go together, since both are the result of abandonment of rational thinking. (Now, when I mean “rational thinking” I do not mean autonomous rationalism which has nothing to do with God or His revelation in Scripture. But, I am referring to logical thinking with all our premises taken from Scripture and the propositions derived from it by necessary inference.) Coming back, Romanticism can have two differing meanings depending upon the context in which it is used. First, in the literal meaning it refers to the sensual experience between a man and a woman. In the other context – the historical one – it refers to the rejection of rationality, and the stress on emotion and experience for happiness in life. We will be dealing with each of these separately.

First, we will briefly survey the present scenario among “Christian youth” and then we will delve into how the present situation came to be.

We are told today that the Christian life is all about a “love relationship” with God. Salvation consists of “falling in love,” and consequently, sanctification consists of “being in love” with God. This “God is my boyfriend/girlfriend” is very attractive to people whose hormones are raging their emotions. Offer spirituality in romantic package and they will swallow it instantaneously. The Bible is not the authoritative Word of God anymore; it is a “love letter” from God. Many seminars and retreats are organized on themes such as “Intimacy with God.” Passion, intimacy, desire, heart throb are the buzz words in the evangelical world today. The question today everywhere is “Have you fallen in love with Jesus?”

Now is that a bad thing? There are millions of people around the world (and I am one of them) who have found the love of Jesus to be the best love of all when compared with love for anything else. You see, the problem is not with Jesus or His love, but with the way many people approach the Christian life. Advocates of spiritual romanticism think that this state of “being in love” is what the Christian life is all about. And that is what they are absolutely and totally mistaken about. This is because this attitude seriously undermines what the Bible teaches about true spirituality and the Christian life.

The Bible and Romanticism

The Bible does have a say, or rather have the say on romanticism. The Scriptures present and explain the basis and reason for romance in a comprehensive manner. We should be careful to not equate or try to mix the Scriptural view of romance with pagan views. In Scripture, romance is always portrayed and glorified within the context of marriage, which itself was God’s plan. Right at the beginning of human history (Genesis 2:20-25) God ordained marriage and blessed it. In God’s sight marriage is a monogamous, heterosexual union for life, unlike the pagan ethic where people change partners (sometimes regardless of gender) the way they change clothes.

In the Old Testament, God frequently compares His relationship with His covenant people to a marriage. In Ezekiel (chapters 18-23) God illustrates His relationship with Israel through the picture of marriage, and Israel’s disobedience and unfaithfulness was considered adultery. The Scripture’s emphasis is always on the covenant love of a husband in choosing and remaining faithful to his wife regardless of her unfaithfulness. In the book of Hosea, God commands the prophet to marry a prostitute and remain faithful to her in spite of her promiscuity. This was intended to convey to the Israelites the faithfulness and love of God for His people despite their idolatry and disobedience.

In the New Testament, this image is magnified all the more since the church is considered to be the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5: 22-33). This is to use the intense marital love as a picture for understanding how Christ relates to us and how we should to Him. This also serves a model for husbands to incorporate in their marriages the need to assist their wives to progress in sanctification. It also means that husbands should be even willing to die in protecting their wives, if such a situation should ever arise. The Scripture’s emphasis on love and marriage is very much focused on the willingness to do and very little does it emphasize feelings and emotions as the main thrust and purpose of marriage. In 1 John 3:18 the love that we are to have has to result in concrete action and not just float about in some vague feeling which does not result in any constructive action.

Now that does not mean that the Scripture is silent regarding the emotional dimension in marriage. There is an entire book devoted to explaining the sensual and physical dimension in marriage. It is, obviously, the Song of Songs. There have been controversial interpretations of that song. It is not my intent to discuss in detail the hermeneutics and exegetical arguments for that book, since that would deviate from the purpose of this article. There are two main approaches to interpretation – allegorical and literal. The allegorical approach interprets the song as the relationship between Christ and his Bride. I guess those commentators who favored this approach were too shy to discuss sexuality within marriage and hence they allegorized almost every verse to have a corresponding “deeper” spiritual meaning. Some of their interpretations are hilarious and outright bizarre! (I will discuss that separately sometime, in another, future article.)

The other approach – the literal one – is exactly what it is: literal – in the fullest sense of the term. This is more faithful to the text and honors it than the previous one. Following the historical-grammatical approach of exegesis one would be forced to land up with this conclusion. This book serves to instruct husbands and wives about God’s approval of sensual pleasure in marriage. Nowhere in this book is there any reference to God and Israel and the covenant love existing between them. Even in the New Testament when there are passages speaking about the relationship between Christ and the church, there is absolutely no reference to this book or any quotation from it. This does not mean that his book does not have any spiritual value. It does. It was placed by God in the canon of Scripture to show husbands and wives how to understand and celebrate their marriages in the way He intended it to be – the way He made it in Eden before the Fall corrupted the human race. This book too is a part of “all Scripture” that God inspired (2 Timothy 3:16) which is profitable for instruction, reproof and training in righteousness.

Thus, this is what the Scripture speaks about romance. However, there is a distinction to be observed here. Whenever the Scripture speaks about the physical delights in marriage (which is also a spiritual thing to experience) as in the Song of Songs and Proverbs chapter 5, it does NOT equate or intermingle that with the divine love which God has for His people. This is very important to understand. The texts in Scripture which portray the relationship between God and His people (or Christ and the church) in marital terms do not contain sensual imagery or subtle innuendoes.

Love for God consists of obedience to his revealed commands (1 John 5:3). We should not spiritualize the sensual love which is to be enjoyed in an earthly marriage and apply it to our relationship with God. When I am using the word “sensual” I am not referring exclusively to the physical aspect, but also to the emotions that go along with it. Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to have “warm feelings” for God and since He is incorporeal, neither are we advised to take delight in His physical attributes, since He has none.

 

Romanticism and the Present Day Christian Experience

Sensual love is exalted and glorified in Scripture, but only within a context between a man and a woman in their marital union and not between God and His people. This is precisely the point where present-day evangelical piety has messed up in a big way. The attempt to relate to God in romantic and sensual terms is the colossal disaster in evangelical Christianity today.

Today’s worship songs wax poetic and sometimes even pornographic, when describing our relationship with God. Instead of meditating and celebrating God’s attributes, worship seems more like describing a high school romantic encounter. “Jesus, I am so in love with you” (Matt Redman). “I am living just to fall more in love with you” (Delirious). The worshipper seems to be “in love” with Jesus. Most of the lyrics focus on the experience the worshipper is having rather than on the characters and attributes of the beloved, who is supposed to be God. The frenzy everywhere is about “falling in love with Jesus.” Jesus is presented as more as a lover from a Shakespearean play than as the, pre-existent, eternal, sovereign Lord of the universe.

Contrast that with how the church in the New Testament time related to God. Read through the book of Acts and the Epistles. In all of them, there is not a single instance where one would find such language being used to relate to God. There is no reference of any apostle saying we ought to “fall in love with God” or enter into a “one-on-one love relationship” with God. The focus was always on God’s attributes and His works. Even in the portions of Scripture which contain doxology, the focus is always on God and not on the feelings (“I feel good/happy/great”) of the worshipper. All doxologies in Scripture are packed with theological concrete, and not some loose statements about experience of the worshipper.

Thus, today worship is not about declaring, celebrating and adoring God’s attributes. Rather, it is about expressing how the worshipper feels about the experience he or she is having. Such worship is man-centered rather than being God-centered. Christianity is about what God has done for His people in Christ by purchasing redemption for them. However, when this focus is removed and Christianity is considered to be an emotional thriller to maintain feelings and intensity, it loses the distinctiveness which characterized the New Testament church. One quote I read somewhere asked “Are we worshipping the Lamb or entertaining the sheep?” That captures the present pitiable situation perfectly.

Romanticism in History

In the history of philosophy, romanticism referred to the time when there was a violent rejection of reason and undue exaltation of emotion. The Industrial Revolution led to the Age of Reason, where religion was critiqued and dismissed off as meaningless. In reaction to this, another school of thought sprang up stressing emotion and experience as foundational to life. This consisted of men like John Keats, Schelly, Alfred Tennyson, Byron and so on. Their writings and poetry strongly betray the irrationalism which was so latent in their “thinking.” John Keats in a letter to his friend said, “O for a life of sensations, rather than a life of thoughts!” Can you see the implicit anti-intellectualism and contradiction in this statement? Of course, Keats had to think that a life of sensations would be better than a life of thoughts! Anyway, romanticism directly infiltrated the then existing evangelical world, and as a result theological studies were devalued and emotions and experience were exalted. The Charismatic movement followed close by and that added more soup to the already existing confusion in Christendom.

This was coupled along with anti-intellectualism and together they dealt a devastating blow to orthodoxy. The masses were brainwashed with such teaching and the preachers who played on emotions became icons in the average evangelical mind. Doctrine was degraded and experience was exalted.

Usually anti-intellectualism and romanticism are two sides of the same coin, since the fundamental attribute of these two movements is the rejection of the centrality of the mind. This finds wide appeal in many Christian churches today.

The Difference it Makes in Christianity Today

This makes a world of difference (if not all the difference!) in Christianity today. We have discussed two things till now: how romanticism and anti-intellectualism have exerted a big, but negative influence on Christianity. People are pre-occupied with their own feelings, emotions and excitement rather than the nature and attributes of God.

In contrast to this and contradicting the romantic nonsense, the Scriptures present the biblical model of spiritual growth and experience to be centered on the mind. The spiritual life consists of understanding God’s verbal revelation and not about kicking up feelings and emotions just for the sake of it.

The following verses deal with the nature of the spiritual life and growth.

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. (Ephesians 1:7)

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:17, 18)

For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, (Colossians 1:9, 10)

Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (2 Peter 1:2, 3)

Take the time to read Psalm 119 sometime. Maybe later on, I shall offer a verse by verse exposition on that chapter. There, the worshipper is so much caught up with and obsessed by God’s word, statutes and ordinances. Of course, there is significant mention of the emotions that he undergoes, but that does not occur in mindless vacuum as in a mantra. His joy, delight, and pleasure lie in rejoicing in God’s word and works. He is not delighting in or exalting in his experience, but rather in God. This is the crucial distinction to be observed always in our worship. We must not worship our experience. We must worship God.

In Psalm 1:2 we read that the “blessed man” is the one whose “delight is in the Law of the Lord. And on it he meditates day and night.” Delight in the written Word of God….? Yes. And…”meditate” on it…? Yes. And, that too…”day and night”…..? Yes. Yes. Yes. This is the description of a “Christian mind”, if you so will call it. You see, the spiritual life is rooted in theological contemplation and not chanting “Jesus I love you/feel you/enjoy you” along with powerful musical accompaniment. Therefore, the less theology you know more shallow and hollow will your spiritual life be. I know this is quite a hard statement for many to digest. But this is the truth. If your mind is not filled with and structured systematically with biblical truth then your “spiritual life” is one BIG joke. I do not delight in hurting people, but I need to drive home some comments in a particular tone, so that people will feel the weight of the situation.

This is what A.H. Strong says in his textbook of Systematic Theology, published in 1906.

“Truth thoroughly digested is essential to the growth of Christian character in the individual and in the church. All knowledge of God has its influence upon character, but most of all the knowledge of spiritual facts in their relations. Theology cannot, as has sometimes been objected, deaden the religious affections, since it only draws out from their sources and puts into rational connection with each other the truths which are best adapted to nourish the religious affections. On the other hand, the strongest Christians are those who have the firmest grasp upon the great doctrines of Christianity; the heroic ages of the church are those which have witnessed most consistently to them; the piety that can be injured by the systematic exhibition of them must be weak, or mystical, or mistaken.”

On Loving God

As mentioned earlier, there is so much of hype created today about “falling in love with Jesus,” “being in love with God” and so on. These do not arise from the biblical teaching of what it means to love God, but rather expressions are driven by sensual desires which are masked under the pretense of spirituality.

So what does the Bible say about loving God?

“And this is love for God: to obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” (1 John 5:3)

“If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love; just I have kept my Father’s command and remain in His love.” (John 15:10)

Therefore, our love for God should be characterized by obeying his commands which He has given to us in the Bible. One cannot have a persistent antinomian attitude and claim to love God at the same time. One does not love God by floating in “praise and worship,” but by consciously fighting the sin within and without in order to obey God. We should be in constant vigilance on our souls. Of course, sinless perfection is unattainable in this life (1 John 1:10), but that is not an excuse for habitual lifestyle of sin. A true Christian will never abuse the grace of God and use it as a license to sin.

In order to obey God, we should know what He has commanded us to obey in the first place. We cannot obey God’s commandments, without knowing what these commands are. Therefore, the first step in loving God is to go and study your Bible. Putting it on other words, theology comes before the “practical” aspects of the Christian life. Creed comes before conduct. Theology is the necessary precondition for all Christian activity. Of course, this is an intellectual activity. Just because something is “spiritual,” it does not mean that it is mystical. According to the Bible, the spiritual is the intellectual. One cannot devalue the intellect and yet be spiritually mature at the same time. Abiding in Christ, means having His words to abide in us (John 15:7).

 

Religion or Relationship?

Now we finally come to address the question: “Is Christianity a religion or a relationship?” As always the terms must be clearly defined before we analyze any statement. Usually, when this statement is uttered it is made in the anti-intellectual spirit implying that religion (dogma and doctrine) is inferior, if not completely useless, when compared with relationship (emotions and experience).

We are told that what matters in our spiritual life is personal commitment and experience of a relationship and not doctrine and truth. Truth is hard to understand and doctrine is boring. So why bother with that? Instead this “relationship” thing sounds more cool and appeals much better to our emotions than doctrine.

Likewise, it is also said that it is not enough to believe the words spoken by Christ, but we must put our trust in Christ himself. Believing the words will not give us the “deeper/fuller” Christian experience. But believing Christ and having a personal relationship with him will only lead us to spiritual satisfaction. “Mere belief,” they say, is of no use; what matters is personal trust and commitment. Here, there is a sharp dichotomy assumed between believing the words spoken by a person and the believing and trusting the person himself. Though it appears to sound “profound” it is an easy way to avoid the intellect, and yet try to appear wise at the same time.

Believing in Christ means believing the words He spoke – that He is the only begotten Son of God, that He is the resurrection and the life, that he is the bread of life, that He is the way, the truth and the life, that He is going to come back in all His Father’s glory to judge the living and the dead and so on. You cannot not believe the words of Christ and say you believe in Christ at the same time. It means that you are a liar. Believing in Christ means believing in the words He spoke. Believing in God means believing in the words He has given to us in the Bible. No one can claim to believe in God and not believe the Bible at the same time, and call himself a Christian.

In any relationship, regardless of how “personal” it is, there has to be an exchange of information and intellectual content. Without this, there is nothing left to the “relationship.” It is impossible for two people to communicate with each other without the mutual transfer of thought between them. Thought is communicated in the form of propositions. It is fashionable nowadays, even in some intellectual circles to say that “truth is not just propositional, it is personal.” But this is just sophistry masquerading as scholarship. The one question to ask these characters who make such statements is, “What do you mean by ‘personal’?” And the next thing you will see in them is that they will be stroking their chin, or giving a “mature” smile while struggling to search for an answer. And they will cover up their ignorance with an air of attempted profundity by saying things like “The more you experience God, the more you will understand” or something to that effect. They will never accept that they don’t know what they are talking about.

Without propositions to go with the person, you have nothing left to know about the person. In getting to know a person, you get to know some propositions about the person. Without that there is nothing left for you to know.

I have in an earlier article critiqued this view about “personal relationship.” John Robbins, in his article “The Biblical View of Truth” says the following:

“The view, that truth is personal, not propositional, has led theologians to substitute the nebulous concepts of ‘commitment,’ ‘personal relationship,’ and ‘union’ for the clear and Biblical concept of belief, thus undermining the Gospel itself. The New Testament uses believe and its cognates hundreds of times, specifically with regard to believing the Gospel, believing Scripture, believing Christ, and believing God. (Incidentally, when Scripture uses the word believe followed by the name of a person or a pronoun, it always means believing the words spoken by or about that person. Using a noun or a pronoun is simply a shorthand way of referencing a proposition or collection of propositions. On the other hand, commit and its cognates are used much less frequently, and almost always with regard to committing sins. Donald MacKinnon commented on this shift from belief to commitment, saying that the analysis of faith ‘in terms of self-commitment to a person leaves unanswered (or even deliberately seeks to evade) the distinction between such commitment and that involved in a Fuehrerprinzip.’ To speak plainly, if commitment to a person is substituted for belief of propositional truth, then there can be no reason not to commit passionately to a demon.”

People who rant about “personal relationship” but avoid theology and doctrinal studies at the same time are hypocrites. Whenever doctrine is avoided or neglected and substituted with something else, the result is not spiritual worship but spiritual whoredom. The Israelites crafted a golden calf with their creativity, but God was not impressed with their sense of aesthetics. Tozer said it well that “an idol of the mind is as offensive to God as an idol of the hand.” Today, many in mainstream Christendom are fashioning a god of their own liking and thinking that they are some great “man of God” or “woman of God” because of the Christian activities they are involved in. Their knowledge of God and consequently every spiritual activity is not from Scripture. It is from their vain imagination. They belittle the word of God and call it “merely propositional.” They undermine the biblical teaching of belief and say that it is not enough, but something more – an “experience” – is needed. They don’t revere Scripture (or maybe pay lip service to it), but place their “experience” as a greater authority in spiritual matters. These self-declared, self-approved, and of course self-deceived clowns will be held accountable by God.

Have you been believing that Christianity is all about a romantic experience with God? Were you told that studying the Bible alone is not enough, but you need something more – an “experience” or encounter with God? Did you think that Jesus Christ is your divine boyfriend/girlfriend and that you could think of Him as you please? Have you been designing a custom-made religion to satisfy your sensual appetite, under the garb of “spirituality”? If you have answered at least one of the questions in the affirmative, then, it’s about time you woke up.

Get back to the word of God. This is what Jesus said about the words he spoke: “The words I have spoken to you, they are spirit and life” (John 6:63). You see, the “words” are “spirit and life.” If you ignore the words, that is, the propositional content of God’s revelation but keep playing on emotions, and thinking you are spiritually “mature,” its high time your see your folly and return back to Scripture. After Jesus’ teaching, when most of the disciples left Him saying it is “hard teaching,” Peter and handful of others decided to remain with Him saying “Master to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). Therefore, let God’s Word be the only focus and authority in our lives.

“It is written!” (Mathew 4: 4, 7, 10) – let that be the phrase that is constantly on our minds when we think of anything. Let us strive to think God’s thoughts after Him. We should also learn to eradicate statements from our vocabulary like “I think so,” “I feel so,” “In my opinion,” and so on. Well, who cares about what you think? I care about what God thinks about the issue at hand. We should work hard at getting rid of the subjectivity in our thoughts which is most often perverted due to the noetic effects of sin. Thus, the most urgent and important thing to do is to saturate our thoughts with Scripture. And this means exegeting the biblical passages we read and studying doctrine. The best way to study doctrine is to grab a text on systematic theology. This is important because systematic theology shows how various biblical doctrines are related to each other and enables us to fit in the parts within the whole.

If you ignore the words of Scripture, you are NOT a Christian, atleast according to biblical definition. Jesus said, “If you hold to my teachings, you are really my disciples” (John 8:30). A disciple is supposed to hold on to the “teachings.” Thus, if you don’t know the teachings, there is nothing left for you to hold on to, and it follows that you cannot be a disciple, according to Jesus. Of course, you can always call yourself a Christian. Anyone can do that. I can buy a dog from a pet shop and give it a “Christian” name, but that won’t make it a Christian. You can deceive yourself and others by sympathizing with and pampering yourself with all those romantic statements which are popular to say nowadays. But you wont get very far in the Kingdom, that is, if you manage to enter it in the first place. If you are shocked by what you read just now, and realize your folly and irreverence, then I pray that God will lead you back to His Word. It is the word of God which will outlast and outlive everything – not your emotions, not your feelings, not your experience. Only God’s Word is eternal. Let us, therefore strive to bring all our thoughts in confirmity to what God has revealed in His Word.

“How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” Psalm 119:103

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” Mathew 24:35

Knowing God versus Knowing About God

In the previous essay we saw the importance of theology and the pivotal place it occupies in a Christian’s life. I shall quickly summarize the main points of the last essay before moving on to the current topic. Theology is too important to be locked inside seminaries, and theological understanding is not meant exclusively for the clergy, but for the laity as well. It’s the job of the clergy to teach the laity and not hide theological knowledge from their congregation. Theology is the study of God, and since nothing can be more ultimate than God, theology is the ultimate intellectual discipline. Nothing can be compare with it or even come close to it in significance. Every other field of study is merely child’s play when contrasted with theology. Theology is the only discipline which can wield and exercise exhaustive authority regarding all of reality, because it deals with revelation from God. God alone defines and gives meaning to all that exists since He created all of it. This is God’s universe and only His interpretation of reality is true. He sets the rules and we play by it. If we invent our own or redefine His rules according to our convenience, we are bound to see terrible repercussions of it in eternity.

In this essay, I will critique in detail the false distinction some have brought up between knowing God and knowing about God. Though this sounds very pious-sounding, when we strip it rationally and analyze it from the vantage point of Scripture, we will see that it is nothing but intellectual laziness and irrationality masquerading as spirituality. We will do an exegesis of 2 Peter 1:2-3 and Romans 12:1-2 to build up our case.

Now, it is the duty of theology to systematize the knowledge God has revealed in the Bible. It is authoritative to the extent it reflects Scripture and does not contradict it. By theology, I am referring exclusively to the discipline which has the Bible (Old and New Testaments) and the Bible alone as its foundation. The content of its worldview (that is, the Biblical/Christian worldview) is the propositions of the Scripture and all those validly deduced from them. Every other system of thought which competes for attention in the philosophical marketplace is false since it is not based on revelation from the true and living God.

Since God has revealed Himself in the Bible, it is our task to diligently gain knowledge about Him. This is done by making meticulous efforts to study and understand Scripture. And this is hard work. It is not like reading a comic strip or flipping through a novel. When we study theology, our minds are consciously stretched to the limit; for what can stretch our thinking as much as the study of God? God has given us information about Him in the Bible. This is accessible to every Christian. So, to know God means to study Scripture. One cannot know God without knowing Scripture. This is important to understand. Thus, if one is bankrupt in biblical knowledge, he (or she) does not know God, no matter how emotionally they pray, how much they enjoy “action songs” or, how much excited they are about evangelism, “praise and worship” or something else. If you don’t know your Bible, then just SHUT UP. Stop deluding yourself thinking you know God when you do not know Scripture. Repent of your irreverence and return to being an obedient student of the Bible. You cannot know God without knowing His Word.

Theology defines, explains, and clarifies what God has revealed. Any professing believer can ignore theology at his or her own peril. Theology refers to the study of God from what he has revealed to us in Scripture. This involves rational thinking with God’s revelation as our foundation. That is, we reason based on revelation.

But, giving in to the unbiblical, anti-Christian attitude of anti-intellectualism, many professing Christians assert that there is a distinction between knowing about God and knowing God. To them, studying theology would mean that we would only know “about” God. And apparently, according to these characters, this is not enough. We must “actually” know God. Something more than just studying theology is needed. Theology cannot apparently bring one into a “personal relationship” with God. Theology is as dry as dust. Only a “relationship” with God is dynamic, active and real. Thus they deride and rant against theology.

Anti-intellectualism is such a phenomenon in today’s evangelical “Bible-believing” community that it is as familiar as the air we breathe. It is a rarity to find an evangelical who stresses the importance of the intellectual dimension in spiritual growth. If such a godly preacher is there, he will be persecuted and ridiculed by ignorant and immature Christians. At one point in time, Christianity was accused of being “too intellectual.” Today, it is synonymous with irrationalism and credulity. The church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). We are custodians of God’s truth and it is our most important duty and delight to study and understand it. We ought to preach and defend it to the unbelieving world. Many professing Christians are so excited about God’s love, mercy, patience, grace and so on, but are not at all bothered (let alone be excited) by God’s truth. Why? If God is not truth, then none of these things about Him would be true. Truth is the starting point. Gordon Clark says, “Since God is truth; hatred for truth is hatred for God.” It is as simple and sharp as that.

Coming back to the distinction between knowing about God and knowing God, what is the difference? Is it possible to know God without knowing about Him? And likewise, is it possible to know about God without knowing Him? What is the difference? A common example that is used to differentiate is about how well one “knows” a certain someone who is popular. A certain classmate in school mentioned to me about this: “I know about George Bush; but I don’t know him. On the other hand, I just don’t know about Nishanth. I know him.” So according to him, one can know about someone and not know him. Likewise, one can know someone and not know about him.

This is simply nonsensical. If you say you know me, it means that you know some facts about me. That I am a male; that I am passionate about Christian theology; that I am a medical student, and so on. You cannot know me without knowing something about me in the first place. Of course, you may not know me personally. You might have received this information from a second or third person, but it does not mean that the knowledge you have of me is any less real. You might not have met or talked with me, but that does not mean that what you know about me is false or unreal. I might not have shook hands with George Bush, have had breakfast, or played golf with him. But that does not translate into meaning that the knowledge I have about George Bush that he is a man, that his wife is Laura Bush, and that he is the President of the USA is false.

Some anti-intellectual characters say that “personal relationship” with God is what matters, and not studying theology. But without theology, one cannot know which God (?god) you are speaking about. Even the relationship with this “god” will remain undefined apart from theology. If this “personal relationship” is substituted for belief in propositional truth, there is no reason not to commit passionately to a demon. Even Satan has a very “personal relationship” with God. He hates God and his hatred is very personal. This “personal relationship” sounds very romantic and mushy-mushy, but it is plain silly and makes no sense until it is explained who we are having a relationship with and why.

If I were to ask you a question “Do you know X?” how would you answer me? You would begin by telling me facts about that person – even if X is your son or spouse. Yes, you know them personally – that is, you talk and interact with them first hand. You would be stupid if you say that you know them, but do not know something about them, for knowing someone means knowing something (if not everything) about them. One cannot know someone without knowing something (or knowing all that you can know) about them. In fact, a collection of facts about someone amounts to knowing someone. If you know someone, you have to know about them in the first place. You cannot know someone without knowing some facts about them. Thus, when it applies to our spiritual life, we cannot know God without knowing about God. If you do not know about God – by studying theology – you simply do not know God. Theology is the study of the Bible, and there is no better or “personal” way to know God than studying theology.

Let us now briefly analyze what the term “personal relationship” means. In any relationship, there has to be an exchange of information and intellectual content. Without this, there is nothing left to the “relationship.” It is impossible for two people to communicate with each other without the mutual transfer of thought between them. Thought is communicated in the form of propositions. A proposition refers to a statement. Even if it is non-verbal, that is when audible noise is not produced, communication still occurs since thought is transferred in the form of propositions from one mind to another. Communication refers to the transfer of thought between minds. It can be verbal or non-verbal. That is, audible effects may or may not accompany the communication process. But communication can never be non-propositional. Thought is always propositional. Thus, communication can still occur, even when not associated with verbal accompaniments, since it refers to the exchange of thought in the form of propositions.

Now we need to ask how personal is personal? For the sake of brevity, let us define “personal” as first hand knowledge and communication. That is, “direct” interaction with the person we are concerned about. When transferred to our spiritual life, we should know that the most “personal” way to know God is to receive information directly about him. The only way to receive this “direct” information from Him is to read Scripture and study theology. In other words, the best, direct and most “personal” way to know God is to STUDY YOUR BIBLE. Some say that we know God by prayer. But even prayer is undefined without theology. You cannot know whom to pray to, how to pray, and what to pray for unless you study theology. Some people say that you know God by “experiencing his love in your heart.” But, apart from theology one cannot know which “god” you are speaking about, how this “love” is defined, or whether the “experience” you have is true or not.

Some say that theology is a human task and not a divine one. It is very fashionable to for some to say “theology is a human task; my theology is the Bible,” thereby implying that theology has nothing to do with Scripture. This is ignorance of the worst kind. As I mentioned earlier, theology is all about systematically studying God’s verbal revelation – the Scripture. We are dealing with Scripture – the Bible – and not with some pagan texts. Theology is a human endeavor in the sense that humans are involved in studying it. Theology is also a divine study in the sense that we are dealing directly with God’s verbal revelation. Take for example, the doctrine of the Trinity. The word “trinity” does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Today, orthodoxy is defined by affirmation of the trinity. There are some heretical groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny this. How did we arrive at the truth of the trinity that “God is one in essence, but three in person”? This did not happen because somebody dreamed it up, or somebody else “felt” this was so. This happened because Bible scholars faithfully searched the Scriptures, found what it taught and framed the doctrine of the trinity. This is theology – it all about the study of doctrine that is taught in Scripture. There is good theology and bad theology, just like there is right doctrine and false doctrine. Correct or good theology reflects Scripture and does not contradict it. On the other hand, bad theology, or heretical theology does not reflect Scripture, but rather brings in unbiblical presuppositions and tries to harmonize them with Scripture. Heretical theology is a mish-mash of biblical and unbiblical presuppositions, which is why it contradicts itself and Scripture. Scripture on the other hand is perfectly coherent and does not contradict. People tend to see a “contradiction” when their unbiblical presuppositions do not agree with Scripture and not because the Scripture contradicts itself. Good theology will contain right doctrine and bad theology will contain heretical doctrine. Good theology, which conforms to Scripture, will lead to right thought and conduct. Bad theology which distorts Scripture will lead to heretical doctrines and wholesale practical disaster.

Now we turn to 2 Peter 1:2-3:

“Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.”

New Testament scholars contend that Peter wrote this epistle in his old age, just before he was to be martyred (2 Peter 1:13,14). This was his last letter to the believers to whom he had written the previous epistle. In this, he discusses about the necessity of Scriptural knowledge for our spiritual growth, the importance of being established in the truth of the gospel, false teachers and their destruction, and finally winds up with eschatology, teaching how God will consummate history. You can see that this is a very important letter since, this is his last testament to the flock he had shepherded and he writes with the expectation of how they will fare after he is gone (2 Peter 1:15).

He begins by stressing the necessity of knowledge. From Proverbs 9:10 we know that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of the Holy one is understanding.” The knowledge that Peter is referring to is very specific: it is biblical knowledge. Jesus made it clear that our spiritual life depends “on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). Thus, Peter when Peter mentions knowledge, here he is not speaking about “common sense” or something else. He is specifically mentioning about knowledge of God’s Word.

The Greek word used here for knowledge is epignosis. Thayer’s Greek Definition for this word is “precise and correct knowledge.” This is derived from another Greek word epiginosko which means “to know accurately and thoroughly.” Do you have this sort of knowledge of the things of God? If not, do you make conscious efforts to attain it? Are you seriously working on increasing in this knowledge? It is this knowledge which will give you “grace and peace in abundance” (2 Peter 1:2). It is this knowledge which will give us “everything we need for life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Everything means everything – that is, everything about everything. The “victorious Christian life” is possible only because of KNOWLEDGE of God’s Word. Grace and peace will not come from singing “praise and worship” continuously for two hours, praying for three hours or being excited about action actions. Grace and peace will come from knowing and understanding God’s Word. Period.

The Greek word for knowledge, epignosis, which means “precise, correct, accurate, and thorough knowledge,” is used in the following passages as well.

For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. (Romans 10:2)

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. (Ephesians 1:17)

“….until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:13)

“…and having put on the new self which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its creator.” (Colossians 3:10)

“….who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4)

“Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

“…..always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7)

“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness…” Titus 1:1

“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left….” Hebrews 10:26

All the above mentioned verses are very “practical,” so to say, in the modern Christian sense of the term, since they are speaking about how this knowledge applies to our everyday living. But we cannot practice what these verses speak about if we are bankrupt in knowledge, in epignosis, of God’s Word. The urgent need of the church is not more musical equipment or creative ideas for youth games, but strong shepherds who would feed their flock heavily from Scripture.

Now we should briefly look at Romans 12:1-2:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing, and perfect will.

Paul writes the book of Romans to the church in Rome. This is the most comprehensive treatise ever written on the gospel and how it relates to God’s big picture for Israel and the church. The book of Romans is divided into various sections. The final section starting with chapter 12 begins with the word “therefore” which implies that what we read follows from what Paul had discussed before. Since this is not a study on the book of Romans, we cannot look into what Paul wrote about earlier. For the purpose of our study, we can look only into the current concern of the verse. The phrase “spiritual act of worship” in NIV is translated as “reasonable act of worship” in KJV. In NIV, a footnote will be given indicating that the word “spiritual” can also be translated as “reasonable.” Here in this context, “reasonable” does not mean “ok” or something that has a practical connotation to it. The Greek word used here for the word “spiritual” is logikos, and Thayer defines it as “pertaining to reason and logic.” This is derived from another Greek word logos, which the Greek philosophers considered to be the unchanging principle of reason, order and design in the universe. Logos is the Greek word from which the English word logic is derived. The Apostle John identifies Christ with logos. This is root word from which logikos is derived. That clause in Romans is best translated as “rational act of worship.” Thus, we can clearly see the heavy intellectual emphasis that is placed upon the believer’s life.

Paul also mentions that we should be transformed by the renewing of our mind. The Greek word for mind is nous, which Thayer defines as “the intellectual faculty related to perception and understanding.” If you ignore the intellectual dimension in your spiritual growth, then you have nothing left since the intellectual is the spiritual. They are not mutually exclusive, but are the one and the same thing. Theology is dry as dust to pagans and false converts, but to those whose one and only passion in life is to know and obey God, it is throbbing, dynamic and active. It is the very blood of our spiritual life.

Systematic theology is the most important topic any Christian can study in his or her lifetime. Every other study such as medicine, physics, economics, linguistics or geology cannot rank anywhere close to theology. Does such a statement surprise you? Are you shocked to hear that theology is the most important subject that could by studied by man? Have you been so much brainwashed and “fascinated” with the world’s wisdom, which is no wisdom at all (1 Corinthians 2:6), that God’s wisdom – that is, theology – seems “irrelevant” to you? Have you been digging so much into the world’s wisdom which amounts to dung in God’s sight (Philippians 3:8), that the fragrance of God’s knowledge – that is, theology – seems “boring” to you? Have you been brainwashed with the pragmatism of the world, which obeys “the ruler of the kingdom of air” (Ephesians 2:2) that theology does not seem that “practical” to you? Are you boasting of your secular accomplishments and so captivated by them (1 Corinthians 1:20), that you don’t care at all about growing in knowledge of the things of God by studying theology? Are you drooling and enjoying world’s thinking that theology seems too “lifeless” to you? Can you spend two hours with your surgery textbook making and memorizing elaborate notes, but hardly spend even twenty minutes studying God’s Word and understanding it? Do you refer up international journals and reference books for your once-in-a-blue moon presentation on some medical topic, but find it “too difficult” to read a text of systematic theology or a Bible commentary? Examine yourself to see if you are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). Don’t be deceived about your spiritual condition. God defines the terms, not we. If we redefine His terms to justify our irreverent thinking and behavior, we will land up as cosmic buffoons. Make absolutely NO mistake about that.

Theology is central to all our thinking and living. If you claim to be a Christian and hate theology or think it is unimportant for your spiritual life, its high time you stop thinking like a pagan and looking like a fool in the sight of God. Repent of your stupidity and return to God with humility to know His Word and study it with all diligence, the way Ezra did.

“For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the LORD, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel.” (Ezra 7:10)

 

In Defence of Theology

 

Introduction
Theology is derived from two Greek words, theos, meaning God, and logos, referring to study. It literally means the “study of God.” The purpose of this essay is to defend the study of theology as being the most crucial factor in a Christian’s growth and spiritual maturity. I also intend to rebuke the antagonism many professing Christians hold when it comes to studying theology as an academic discipline. This is the first in a four-part series where I shall specifically critique some attitudes which have mushroomed up due to the anti-theological mindset. The present essay would just introduce the depth of the problem in Christendom today.

 

Contemporary attitudes in Christendom
Today theology is frowned upon. It is considered to be meaningless, irrelevant and not of much use for “practical” living. Now, if secularists or atheists say such things, it should not come as a surprise to us, for the wisdom of God is foolishness to unregenerate men. But what is scary (yes, scary) is that many professing Christians are no different when it comes to this, and have a disdain, if not altogether hatred for theology.

I have heard many preachers come to the pulpit and say “I am not going to preach a sermon. I am just going to share my experience.” Of course, irrational people and spiritual infants will find that so-called “preaching” to be very “meaningful.” The preacher will begin by complementing the congregation, tell them how glad he is to be with them, crack a couple of jokes, comment about the weather, and then wax about his life. In the end, the congregation will know more about the preacher than about Christ. Why, what is wrong with preaching a sermon? Why should somebody’s experience have to carry more weightage than an exegetically rich exposition? What is wrong with preaching doctrine? The answer is that there is nothing wrong with preaching doctrine. The problem is precisely with these people who resent doctrine. When Paul was awaiting trial he penned two epistles to Timothy. What was the most pressing issue Paul was concerned about? The word “doctrine” appears five times (1 Timothy 1:3; 1:10; 4:16, 6:3, 2 Timothy 4:3), each in the context of the necessity to preach sound doctrine. Moreover, what was his admonition? “Preach the Word” (2 Timothy 4:2). He did not tell Timothy to preach his experience, or preach what he dreamt about last night. No! In those times where there was doctrinal laxity, Paul reminds his “son in the faith” of the centrality of the Scripture. The exposition of doctrine is meant to be the foundation of Christian thinking and living. This stands in stark contrast with what I have heard from many pulpits.

Time again I also hear about those who come and chant “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” This is used as a tactic to avoid studying theology. But the song does not say “Jesus loves me this I know, and this is all I need to know.” If that was so, why are there 66 books in the Bible containing 1189 chapters and 31,174 verses? God could have just sent the “Jesus loves me” song on a 3″ x 4″ papyrus straight from heaven rather than inspiring Scripture in redemptive history over a period of more than 1500 years. Plus, that would have saved the early Church Fathers from the discernment and us from the contemporary confusion associated with canonisation. “Jesus loves me this I know! And this all I need to know and no more!” Theology is too complicated. Why do you want to complicate your faith? Just believe!” Hallelujah! Those who repeatedly rant such phrases want us to believe that Christianity is a matter of “simple faith” and easy believism. Now, I do agree that the truth of the Scripture is easy to understand, provided it is taught with clarity by competent elders and teachers. Those who hate theology, avoid it because, according to them it is too complex. Now, who said theology is not complex? Studying theology is not like reading a Tintin comic strip or listening to stories from our grandmothers. Just read through the complex arguments developed in the book of Romans, Galatians or Hebrews. In 2 Peter 3:16 the Apostle Peter writes that some of Paul’s writings are “hard to understand.” If that was so for an apostle itself, can we expect anything less? Also why does Paul command Timothy to “study to show thyself approved unto God” (2 Timothy 2:15)? Why is there such an emphasis placed upon teaching ministry of the church? Too often, intellectual laziness is masked in the garb of spiritual piety and manifested by pious-sounding but nonsensical statements such as those mentioned above. We should sharply rebuke this attitude and return to the Scripture.

Today “personal testimonies” and “experiences” carry more weight in evangelical circles as opposed to theological discussions and bible studies. I have been to many camps and fellowships where I had to sit through something called “sharing time” at the end of it. I shall spare you the details, but mention the highlights common to each of them. Each person had to narrate their testimony with such force and emotion, as though some prize was to be given to the most thrilling one. Some cried in between to add to the effect, and I sat there bored to death. Even in their narration, it was all about what they were doing then and what they are doing now. God had to be mentioned in the passing just to give a Christian fling to it. Very little was mentioned about the atoning work of Christ, God’s role and salvation, the power of God’s Word and so on. It was all about how bad they were then and how good they are now. It was polished moral science. That’s all. This attitude has greatly affected evangelism as well. We are told that the best way to witness is through our life. The New Testament model of verbal, rational proclamation is hardly given any importance to (Acts 9:22; 17:2-3; 17:17; 18:4; 18:19; 18:28; 19:8; 28:23). Just read through all the preaching instances in the book of Acts. Did they try any such “lifestyle witnessing”? No! Rational argumentation is not simple and easy, especially if one is dealing with cocky unbelievers. To avoid this, they come up with this romantic-sounding, silly “witness through your life” idea, which is nowhere commanded in the Scripture. I shall critique this in detail a separate essay.

 

Tracing the Decline
This dislike for theology did not happen overnight. It is the practical outworking of anti-intellectual ideals espoused by some in the earlier generation which was not counteracted with biblical rebuke. Os Guinness has written exhaustively about this in his book Fit Bodies, Fat Minds. He traces the historical underpinnings which made this attitude into a movement today. I shall briefly mention some of them here which would be necessary for the forthcoming essays. The trend in theology is closely associated with the ongoing secular attitude, which I shall deal with shortly.

First, there is the polarization between the heart and the mind. This distinction and dichotomy is not the result of a detailed study of biblical anthropology, but the fusion of pagan Greek mythology, secular psychology, and Romantic poetry. More about this later.

Next, there is the idea of populism. Those who emphasize theological studies are presented as elitists who reside inside ivory towers, in contrast with those “servants of the Lord” who are sweating it out in the heat and rain. Without any theological training, they are doing so much work! Their “living ministry” is appreciated in contrast with the “learned ministry” of those who teach in seminary. This attitude is modeled by most of the Charismatic preachers today. They scorn ivory towers, little realizing that ivory towers are the control centers of civilization.

Next, there is pragmatism. “Of what use is theology, anyway?” “No creed but Christ.” “What matters is whether you have experienced the love of God in your heart.” “Theology is not that practical.” I hear truckloads of such gibberish every now and then. (May God grant me endurance and long-suffering in ever increasing measure.) Some Christians seemed to be so obsessed with being “practical” that there is hardly anything left to practice. Somebody’s “life experience” seems to be more practical to them than a concrete Bible study on the book of Romans or something similar. Why? Because Scripture is not relevant? Oh no! They find it too “theoretical” and not relevant to daily living. It makes me wonder whether such people are Christians in the first place, since a believer’s life is characterized by constant zeal and conscious devotion for God’s Word. Psalms 1 says that “his delight is in the Law of the Lord”, meditating “day and night” on it. Permit me to ask you, when was the last time you heard a sermon on the trinity, or on the incarnation? And, when was the last time you heard a sermon, or rather, pep-talk about being an “effective” witness, positive thinking, being successful and God’s abundant blessings? The answers will show you the pitiable state in we evangelicals have brought us to.

 

Contemporary secular culture & its influence on Theology
We live in times where there is a lack of mental discipline. Guinness calls it the time of “mental hedonism.” John Robbins has rightly christened this as the “Age of Irrationality.” Any junk is accepted as truth and any practice is justified in the name of “tolerance.” Today’s intellectual climate called “postmodernism,” is marked by agnosticism and relativism, where any claim to knowledge and truth is viewed with suspicion. Skepticism is considered to be synonymous with sophistication. How did this shift happen? That would necessitate a detailed discussion of the history of western philosophy, which is beyond the scope of the current essay. But, I shall very briefly mention the cultural shifts which led to the current philosophical scenario. (For detailed reading, I would suggest Francis Schaeffer’s How Should We Then Live, where he traces the history of western philosophy in detail.)

The Reformation was the light which shattered the darkness from the Medieval Ages. There was a revival of the Bible as the sole authority for mankind. This was when even the common man was given access to the Bible. With the invention of the printing press, many copies were made of the Bible and circulated. There was boom in theological knowledge. Theology was considered to be the “Queen of Sciences.” Revival spread as preachers such as Luther, Calvin, Farel, Zwingli, Edwards, Whitefield, and Knox preached heavy duty theology. The Bible was applied to all spheres of life. This is when the scientific movement was born. Men realized that a rational God had made a rational universe and thus, we can manipulate nature for our comfort. This is when many new inventions where made and hospitals were established.

This was soon followed by the Renaissance. In fact, there was a slight overlap of these two movements, since the Reformation was happening in the south of Europe and the Renaissance was happening in the north. Here it was just the opposite of the Reformation. Man was the ultimate measure of all things. This was reflected in philosophy, art, sculpture, music, politics and ethics. This eventually led to modernism.

Modernism is also referred to as the Enlightenment and the era of Industrial Revolution. Historians consider this to the the time when there was rapid development in industries and technological sophistication. The Enlightenment (18th century) followed the Age of Reason (17th century), though historians consider it to be one large era. This was the historical intellectual movement where reason alone was considered to be the basis for establishing an authoritative system of philosophy, politics, government, public policy, art, aesthetics, ethics and so on. Since this was the period of the scientific revolution, and people were excited by Newtonian kinematics and physics, they applied this natural law to all areas of life. Proponents of the modernist philosophy included Rene’ Descartes, George Berkeley, Thomas Paine, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume. They launched a full fledged and well planned attack on the church, religion and towards anything metaphysical in general. This was the beginning of skepticism towards theology.

There was a violent reaction to this in the late 18th century which led to the period of Romanticism. They protested against the rationalization of nature, and stressed strong emotion as the source of human experience. Historians consider this to be the era of “Revolt against Reason,” or “Counter Enlightenment.” They emphasized the importance of intuition, subjectivity and emotion. There was skepticism towards anything rational or logical. The prominent men of this time were Keats, Coleridge, Yeats, Blake, Byron, Schelly and Wordsworth. This greatly influenced theology as well. Soren Kierkegaard stepped on the scene and said that truth is subjectivity. One needed to take the “leap of faith” to experience God. This was the beginning of irrationalism in theology.

In 1930, Karl Barth introduced fideism in theology and stressed the importance of experience as opposed to formal study. There was shift from the objective to the subjective, from the rational to the emotional, from the revelational to the mystical, from the propositional to the personal. He was the proponent of what is called “neo-orthodoxy” which has received severe criticism by present day theologians. Meanwhile, in contemporary philosophy Ludwing Witggenstein brought up his theory of language, which was in line with the irrational mindset. Logical Positivism followed soon afterward, where only empirically verifiable statements were considered to carry meaning. Jacques Derrida came up with deconstruction where he tried to undermine metaphysical terminology in language. This eventually led to conclusion that theology is a worthless subject.

The cumulative effect of all these intellectual attitudes affected everything, including theology. This was when the “Hippie movement” was born. People began to shake away the fetters of religious and parental authority began to rebel, and live in outright defiance to accepted cultural norms. This was when sexual perversion was glorified; weird hairstyles, body piercing and tattoos were popularized. Teens began to do drugs and other intoxicants. Right at this time when the West was getting disillusioned with materialism, the East made inroads into it. Many “Gurus” became popular and had huge crowds following them. They packaged Hindu philosophy with Western technology and we now have what is called the New Age. Today postmodernism refers to the general attitude where there is incredulity towards metanarratives. It is a combination of nihilism, narcissm and skepticism. There is an aversion towards linear and analytical thinking.

This briefly sums up the history of Western thought and its influence in theology. Popular theology has closely followed mainstream secular philosophical attitudes. The result had let to doctrinal absurdity and practical disaster. However, there have been a few theologians in every age who have not compromised on God’s truth and it is because of their efforts, there is still a remnant in theological circles that are faithful to Scripture.

 

The Queen of Sciences
As mentioned earlier, theology was considered to be the “Queen of Sciences.” All the prominent universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth and Princeton were established by Christians who were passionate about preserving knowledge for their posterity. Theology was the ruling intellectual discipline of the day during the times of the Reformation and the First Great Awakening. But now, this is sadly not the scenario.

How can theology be the “Queen of Sciences”? Now, that can lend itself to misinterpretation. In what sense is theology a “science”? The meaning of a word if often limited by its usage in the historical context. Today, “science” refers to the academic discipline where information is gained by the process of observing, experimenting, framing hypotheses, repeating the experiment again, and arriving at a conclusion. What I want to stress is that, in science information is gained by the process of induction. That is, universal claims are arrived at based on observations made in particular instances. Induction cannot make a universal statement which is logically valid. This is no place for me to write a critique on the philosophy of science and the problems associated with it. But I need to mention this, because this stands in stark contrast with the way knowledge is gained in theology.

In theology, one doesn’t observe, experiment or experience with nature. God’s revelation in Scripture is the foundation on which the Christian theological enterprise is built. Theology is possible only because God has revealed Himself in Scripture and Scripture alone, and not in any other religion’s sacred texts. God has given us propositions about himself in the Bible and it is our task to seriously and responsibly study them and progress in sanctification. Thus, in theology knowledge is gained by the process of valid deduction from the revealed propositions in Scripture. This in turn, guarantees the validity and certainty of theological knowledge as opposed to science, where theories are being revised everyday. Knowledge is based on the immutable. Thus, science cannot be reckoned as knowledge in the strictest sense of the term because it is always in a state of flux.

In contemporary usage, “science” is used almost exclusively to the discipline concerned with observation and experimentation. But that is not the sense in which the word was used a few centuries ago. The word “science” is derived from the Latin word scientia which means knowledge. Science, way back then, referred to an organized body of knowledge. Thus, when it is said that “Theology was the Queen of Sciences” it meant that this the most important body of knowledge that could be studied by man.

Now, I am not a professional theologian who is trying to justify my profession and make it appear attractive to others who have not been to seminary. I am student of medicine. I also know where medicine and the rest of the subjects stand in comparison with theology. Scripture says that God has made foolishness the wisdom of the world. Without any hesitation I heartily say “Amen!” Theology should be the sole, all consuming subject of study for every Christian. Sadly, this is not the case. If many theologians do not consider their discipline as the most important study that could ever be done by man, what then can you expect from the average lay person?

Spurgeon says,
There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the Divinity. It is a subject so vast, that all out thoughts are lost in its immensity; so deep, that our pride is drowned in its infinity. Other subjects we can compass and grapple with; in them we feel a sense of self-content, and go our way with the thought, ‘Behold, I am wise’. But when we come to this master-science, finding that our plumb-line cannot sound its depth, and that our eagle eye cannot see its height, we turn away with the thought that vain man would be wise, but he is like a wild ass’s colt; and with solemn exclamation, ‘I am but of yesterday and know nothing.’ No subject of contemplation will tend to humble the mind, than the thoughts of God…..

While the subject humbles the mind, it also expands it. He often thinks of God, will have a larger mind than the man who simply plods around this narrow globe. ….The most excellent study for expanding the soul is the science of Christ, and Him crucified, and the knowledge of the Godhead in the glorious Trinity. Nothing will so enlarge the intellect; nothing will magnify the whole soul of man, as a devout, earnest, continued investigation of the great subject of the Deity.

Just think about that! What can be more ultimate than God in this universe? And what study can be more ultimate than the study of God? Theology deals with revelation from God. Theology has the first and last say when it comes to everything, which means everything about everything. Theology alone has the right to define and make any authoritative statement concerning every nook and corner of reality. Theology is the ultimate intellectual discipline. So be it. Let no ignorant kid assume otherwise.

The Image of God – Part 9

Anti-intellectualism is one of the most rampant sins plaguing the church today. The reason why many professing Christians are still feeding on “milk” and not “solid food” is because the intellectual nature of the spiritual life has been thoroughly denied and replaced with emotions and experience.

 

It has been clearly established from the above writings that sin is a lapse in rationality, and conversion should target this.

 

4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

 

(2 Corinthians 4:4-6)

 

Satan has blinded the “minds” of the unbelievers, and gospel preaching should be targeted towards the mind, that is, the intellect, and not towards emotions. That is, we should not appeal to unbelievers to believe in Christ so that they can “feel good,” but rather preach in such a way so as to bring them to an intellectual realization of their sinful condition.

 

Spiritual problems are intellectual. This does not mean that they can be cured by education. When we say that spiritual life is “intellectual” we are referring to the non-emotional nature of spiritual content. That is, it pertains to the mind and thus, spiritual growth consists of advancing in knowledge and understanding of Scripture. Many people do not understand what the word “intellect” means or they have their own pet definition of it, so that, the moment some hear the word, all that comes to their mind is professors, fashionable language, oratorical etiquette, and universities. Thus they get terrified when any Christian preacher uses emphasizes the intellectual nature of spiritual growth.

 

Merriam Webster defines intellect as the “capacity for knowledge and rational thought.” It is derived from the Latin word intellectus, which means “to understand.” Thus, when we say that spiritual growth and sanctification is intellectual in nature, we are saying that it pertains to the mind and it is a matter of knowing and understanding Scripture.

 

The Bible repeatedly admonishes to grow in spiritual knowledge and understanding. “Spiritual” does not denote something non-intellectual; rather it refers to the intellectual comprehension of Scriptural truths.

 

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. (Ephesians 1:7-8)

 

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:17, 18)

 

For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, (Colossians 1:9, 10)

 

Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (2 Peter 1:2, 3)

 

In the above verse, Peter states that “grace and peace” will be in abundance and that “everything we need for life and godliness” is given through knowledge of Jesus Christ. Knowledge of Scripture and understanding of it is the key defining factor of spiritual maturity.

 

In Romans 12: 1-2, Paul states, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

There are two Greek words used for “spiritual.” One is pneumatikos which is used widely in the Pauline corpus, and the other is logikens, which is used only in Romans 12.The word “logiken” is related to the other group of words all of which have the root meaning as logic, study and wisdom. Hence that clause is best translated as “rational act of worship.” Paul goes on to state that we should not conform to the thinking pattern of the world, but rather develop biblical thought patterns so that we can know the will of God and do it. Thus to know the “good, pleasing, and perfect will of God” one should study Scripture and understand it rather than depending upon “feelings” and chasing after visions, dreams, and fantasies.The Apostle John begins his gospel identifying Christ with the logos, which the Greeks considered to be unchanging principle of reason, order, and design in the universe. The Logos fashioned us in His own likeness and image. Let us, therefore, as Christians offer our lives as living sacrifices – holy and pleasing to God – for this is our rational act of worship.

The Image of God – Part 8

Now we shall look into what the Bible teaches about the constitutional nature of man. We have earlier seen what the image of God in man was. It refers to a rational mind. Now we shall briefly spend some time analyzing about what theologians call “trichotomy” and “dichotomy”. These are also known as the tripartite and bipartite view of man. The trichotomous view holds that man is composed of three parts - body, soul, and spirit (tripartite). The dichotomous view holds that man is composed of body and soul (bipartite). What is the Scriptural position? The mistake many Christians make when finding out what the Bible says about anything is to already have an idea in their mind before searching the Scripture and finding out what it says on a given topic. They try to harmonize unbiblical ideas with Scripture and the result is doctrinal absurdity and practical difficulty.

 

So, first let us examine some verses to see what they refer to. Genesis 2:7 says, God created man from the “dust of the ground” and only after the “breath of life” was breathed into him, did he become a “living being.” Thus, we can see that there are two components to man: a physical component(“dust of the ground”) and a non-physical component(“breath of life”).  What does this “breath of life” refer to? Does it refer to the soul or the spirit? And what is the difference between the two? Does the Scripture differentiate between the two?

 

The Scripture uses the terms “spirit” and “soul” interchangeably. They are used synonymously. Here are some verses to check that out.

 

“Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. (John 12:27, NASB)

 

“When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.” (John 31:21, NASB)

 

Here we see that there are two verses which mention about Jesus being troubled, one mentioning “soul” and the other “spirit.”

 

This verse from Hebrews speaks about the “spirit” of the righteous which will be made perfect.

 

“…to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect..” (Hebrews 12:23, NASB)

 

Revelation speaks about the “souls” of those who had been slain for the their testimony. “When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained.” (Revelation 6:9, NASB)

 

Morever, there is one more verse from Mary’s Magnificat in Luke 1:46-47, where she says, “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour.” This is a Hebrew poetic device called “parallelism” which is used to repeat or emphasise a point. The spirit and the soul are not two different parts of our personality, but one and the same thing.

 

In Mathew 10:28 Jesus says, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Here Jesus speaks of man as being made of body and soul, both which can be destroyed by God in hell.

 

In 1 Corinthians 5:5 Paul says, “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” Here Paul tells the Corinthian church how to deal with the immoral brother so that his “spirit” may be saved on the day of judgment.

 

Morever, Scripture also uses the terms spirit and soul interchangeably when speaking about death.

 

The following verses speak about those who gave up their “soul” as they died.

 

“It came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.” (Genesis 35:18, NASB)

 

“And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again.” (1 Kings 17:21, KJV)

 

The following verses speak of those who gave up their “spirit” as they died.

 

“Into your hands I commit my spirit; redeem me, O LORD, the God of truth.” (Psalm 31:5, NIV)

 

“Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.” (Luke 23:46, NIV)

 

“While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’” (Acts 7:59, NIV)

 

From this it is evident that the Scripture does not speak about spirit and soul as two different entities, but are used interchangeably and synonymously.

 

There are however two verses which need to be examined which seem to apparently support the threefold division of man. The first is 1 Thessalonians 5:23, in which Paul says “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” One important rule in biblical hermeneutics is that Scripture must never be interpreted in a way that contradicts the rest of Scripture. In 1 Thessalonians 5:23, it is true that the words used for body, soul and spirit and infact, different words. Here some interpret it that man’s constitutional nature is made up of body, soul and spirit.

 

However Mark 12:30 makes such an interpretation impossible, which states we ought to ”Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” Here four parts are mentioned – heart, soul, mind, and strength.  If 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is used to say that man is composed of three parts, then based on Mark 12:30 we ought to say that man is composed of four parts! Also Mark 12:30 does not mention body, and if we include that, it would mean that man has five parts! Thus the trichotomist argument fails.

 

Next trichotomists also use Hebrews 4:12 for support which states “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” Here it is stated that the Word of God penetrates to dividing between “soul and spirit.” They immediately conclude that the soul and two spirit are two different entities. However upon examining the symmetrical structure of this verse we find that it does not say that the Word of God divides the soul from the spirit, or divides between the soul and the spirit. The verse does not say that word of God can divide between the soul, spirit and body, but that it can divide “soul and spirit, joints and marrow.” The intention of the biblical author was that the word of God has the power to penentrate to the innermost regions of a man’s thinking so that it even judges the thoughts and and intents of his heart. That is the intended meaning here.

 

 The trichotomous view is not biblical and has its origins in Greek philosophy. Greek dualism differentiated between the material and immaterial, the visible and invisible, body and spirit. There was a gulf separating these two components of reality. What was needed was an intermediary which would bridge the gulf between the two worlds of body and spirit. This need was met with the “soul”, which so to speak formed an apparent bridge between two things which actually could not be united. This view was repudiated by the early church fathers since they recognized the roots of trichotomy. The dichotomous view was held in vogue from the time of Augustine till the Reformation and trichotomy was not considered at all. However, this view regained popularity when the science of psychology began to develop in the late nineteen and early twentieth centuries. The Romantic poets and Sigmund Freud did a masterful job of making sure their thoughts trickled down to the common man. This is when the distinction between soul and spirit, heart and mind came into prominence. Historians consider the era of the Romantic poets to the age of “revolt against reason.” Anti-intellectualism began in the writings of Byron, Shelly, Keats, Blakes, Wordsworth and Coleridge. Rational thinking was degraded and emotions were exalted. This combined with Freudian psychology was carried over into evangelism. Charles Finney reduced Christian conversion to psychological brainwashing.

 

The results of all these ideas is manifested by mainstream Christianity today. People are so desperate for “experience with God” to the extent that they neglect systematic study of Scripture. Jesus said our spiritual sustenance depends of every “word that comes from the mouth of God,” and these deluded folks are totally unaware of such a verse in existence. Pentecostalism and the Charismatics focus so much on being “filled with the spirit” that the Word is hardly given any importance to. Moreover, their “spirit” seems to be so alien to the Spirit described in the Bible which does not bark, start out laughing like a lunatic and among other such things, “slays” people every now and then. Such is the outworking of unbiblical theology.

Our conclusion is that the Scripture states that man is made of body and spirit. The term spirit is interchangeable with soul, heart and mind.

The Image of God – Part 7

Now we shall briefly analyze what emotions are. In the previous posts we have refuted the head versus heart view and concluded that the Scripture does not support such a distinction. We saw in the end that the word “heart” is not equivalent to emotion, but that it refers to the self. It is the seat of understanding. A brief look into any Hebrew Lexicon will reveal that. The heart refers to the seat of knowledge, understanding and deliberate, rational thought. This might come as a surprise to many, since they are used to seeing cartoons of Cupid shooting “heart arrows” at lovesick people, who are perpetually floating on cloud nine. Thus, they conclude, the heart refers to emotions. Of course, this conclusion was not reached from diligent searching of the Scripture, but from pagan Greek mythology and Freudian psychology, both of which have nothing to do with Christianity.

 

Emotional topics are frequent concern of many writers today in Christendom and elsewhere too. Psychologists often speak of “emotional health.” In fact, they have even coined something called Emotional Quotient, and many “tests” are available to check one’s emotional quotient score. When probed into a little detail into what emotions are, most of these authors barely know what they are speaking about. What is emotion? The best answer some of them can muster up is “feeling.” But that doesn’t help much. What is a feeling? When does a person experience one? These questions are left unanswered by these “emotional fitness” gurus.

 

Merriam Webster defines emotions as “disturbance.” But, disturbance of what? We shall look into that shortly. Tracing the etymological roots is quite helpful. The French word emouvoir means “to stir up” and the Latin word emovere refers to displacement. Thus, the fact that emotions are disturbances is clearly established. But, what are they disturbances of? What causes them? Do they occur in a vacuum? A brief illustration will help answer these questions.

 

Now just try to feel really, really angry. Just do it. Try feeling really angry. Or, try feeling really, really sad, or really, really happy. Were you successful till now? Were you able to get yourself to feel these various “feelings” just like that? In case you were not successful, read on.

 

Now, think about some moment when somebody really got on your nerves, or when you fired somebody badly out of shape. Why did you do that? Or think of that moment you got that appreciation for the work well done, or when you got that special gift for that birthday. Now think about the suffering or demise of one your family members or friends who was very closely attached to you. Do you now actually feel something?

 

What did you notice? Could you whip your emotions just like that when you wanted to do it? Or did it happen when you thought about those specific events which happened in your life? The point I am trying to drive home is that emotions are due to thinking. Thinking causes emotions. The common contention is that emotions and thinking are two entirely different functions. This assumption is outright false, as we have seen just now.

 

That is why in Philippians 4:8, immediately after speaking about the peace of God which will guard us, Paul mentions that we should think on things which are noble, right, pure. lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy. It is our thinking which governs our emotions. Emotions do not arise in a vacuum. They are the result of deliberate, rational thought.

 

We earlier saw that the etymological roots of the word “emotion” indicate that it refers to a disturbance, to stir up something. We can now easily conclude that emotion refers to a disturbance of mind. Normally when we call somebody an “emotional person” we refer to somebody who is unstable, who freaks out easily and few people have a high opinion of him or her. Emotions refer to disturbance of the mind. In Isaiah 26:3 it is mentioned that God keeps in perfect peace the mind of the man who is steadfast by trusting in Him.

In conclusion we can state that emotions are the result of thinking and not something which is independent of it. In my psychiatry posting we were told that the mind is meant for thinking and the heart is meant for feeling. This sort of nonsense came from “professors” who had had “studied” so much that their name board nearly collapsed due to the amount of degrees following their name! Of course, I was armed with the biblical worldview and immune to this junk. Alright, in the next post I shall deal with the dichotomy/trichotomy issue.

The Image of God – Part 6

Now, I shall dicuss about the head/heart distinction. In Christendom today, sharp contrasts are drawn between rationality and emotion, intellect and sentiment, thinking and feeling. Many preachers extol “heart religion” against “head religion.” Emotional outbursts are given priority than disciplined Bible study. The final conclusion they arrive at, is that the heart is meant for “relationship with God,” while the head (or, the mind) is meant for just knowing things about God, which they assume is not that important for living the “practical Christian life.” This view is a very deeply ingrained concept in the lives of almost all Christians (except a few who have researched into this) that it would be a surprise to see someone who does not believe in this head/heart distinction. It is assumed by these folks that the head(mind) and the heart are two mutually exclusive, water-tight parts of our personality. The heart and mind and totally unrelated to each other, and in-fact, “head religion” is detrimental to spiritual growth.

 

This head/heart distinction is also closely associated with the tripartite view of man. The head, or the mind, is considered to be synonymous with the soul and heart is synonymous with the spirit. I shall refute trichotomy later on, but now, I want to focus on the head/heart distinction.

 

All the preachers who mention about this head/heart separation are either doctrinally bankrupt or intellecutally lazy. This is because this head/heart distinction is alien to Scripture. It is never from the Bible. It is from secular psychology popularised by Sigmund Freud who was anti-Christian to the core and from the Romantic poets. These unbiblical presuppositions were carried over into Christianity and the result now is wholesale practical disaster.

 

As was pointed out sometime ago, the heart of the Bible has been identified with the emotions of popular psychology. To refute this nonsense, we ought to begin by understanding the Biblilcal usage of the term “heart.” That is, we need to understand what “heart” meant in the Hebraic sense. Thus an analysis of Biblical data ought to be done.

 

When contemporary Christian preachers contrast the head and the heart, they are equating the heart with the emotions. Such an antithesis between the head and the heart is nowhere found in Scripture. Its usage at once indicates a departure from Biblical anthropology. We cannot afford to look through all the verses where the term heart appears in the Bible. For sake of brevity few verses shall be considered.

 

The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. (Genesis 6:5)

 

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. (Genesis 8:21)

 

“Before I finished praying in my heart, Rebekah came out, with her jar on her shoulder. She went down to the spring and drew water, and I said to her, ‘Please give me a drink.’
(Genesis 24:25)

 

The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.” (Exodus 4:21)

 

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses. (Exodus 9:12)

 

Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them. (Deuteronomy 4:9)

 

But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 4:29)

 

Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. (Deuteronomy 4:39)

 

Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever! (Deuteronomy 5:29)

 

These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. (Deuteronomy 6:6)

 

Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you. (Deuteronomy 8:5)

 

When we heard of it, our hearts melted and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below. (Joshua 2:11)

 

“Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the LORD your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed. (Joshua 23:14)

 

Hannah was praying in her heart, and her lips were moving but her voice was not heard. Eli thought she was drunk. (1 Samuel 1:13)

 

Then Hannah prayed and said: “My heart rejoices in the LORD; in the LORD my horn is lifted high. My mouth boasts over my enemies, for I delight in your deliverance. (1 Samuel 2:1)

 

He won over the hearts of all the men of Judah as though they were one man. They sent word to the king, “Return, you and all your men.” (2 Samuel 9:14)

 

May he turn our hearts to him, to walk in all his ways and to keep the commands, decrees and regulations he gave our fathers. (1 Kings 8:58)

 

But your hearts must be fully committed to the LORD our God, to live by his decrees and obey his commands, as at this time.” (1 Kings 8:61)

 

The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24)

 

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. (1 Kings 11:4)

 

Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again. (1 Kings 18:37)

 

Glory in his holy name; let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice. (1 Chronicles 16:10)

 

For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war. (2 Chronicles 16:9)

 

I set out during the night with a few men. I had not told anyone what my God had put in my heart to do for Jerusalem. There were no mounts with me except the one I was riding on. (Nehemiah 2:12)

 

My days have passed, my plans are shattered, and so are the desires of my heart. (Job 17:11)

 

You have filled my heart with greater joy than when their grain and new wine abound. (Psalm 4:7)

 

My shield is God Most High, who saves the upright in heart. (Psalm 7:10)

 

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. (Psalm 14:10)

 

The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes. (Psalm 19:8)

 

May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. (Psalm 19:14)

 

The poor will eat and be satisfied; they who seek the LORD will praise him- may your hearts live forever! (Psalms 22:26)

 

My mouth will speak words of wisdom; the utterance from my heart will give understanding. (Psalm 49:3)

 

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. (Psalm 51:17)

 

The poor will see and be glad- you who seek God, may your hearts live! (Psalm 69:32)

 

For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. (Proverbs 2:10)

 

My son, do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart. (Proverbs 3:1)

 

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5)

 

The wise in heart accept commands, but a chattering fool comes to ruin. (Proverbs 10:8)

 

Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that prevails. (Proverbs 19:21)

 

All a man’s ways seem right to him, but the LORD weighs the heart. (Proverbs 21:2)

 

Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed. (Isaiah 6:10)

 

I can keep piling verses upon verses, but for the sake of brevity I have to stop with these. There are more than 750 occurences of the word heart in the Old Testament and the obove quotations are a small sample. We can see that the term heart denotes the focus the personal life. It is the organ of self-knowledege. The Hebrew term heart is the English equivalent of self.

 

Now just try subsitituting the word “emotion” for heart in the above verses. It would turn out to be complete chaos.

 

The utterance from my emotion will give understanding. (Psalm 49:3)

 

For wisdom will enter your emotion and knowledge will be pleasant to you soul. (Proverbs 2:10)

I do not want to do this for the other verses since my hands feel itchy for typing such absurdities! Now, it is not to be denied that the term heart in the Bible does also refer to the emotions, though even here there must be some intellectual understanding to it. A detailed Biblical analysis of emotions will follow in the next post.

The Image of God – Part 5

Now, I shall post some verses to show the importance Scripture gives to words and the relationship to truth. That is, the verbal, propositional nature of truth.

 

Your righteousness is everlasting and your law is true. (Psalm 119:142)

 

Yet you are near, O LORD, and all your commands are true. (Psalm 119:151)

 

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. (Psalm 110:160)

 

For the word of the LORD is right and true; he is faithful in all he does. (Psalm 33:4)

 

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (Proverbs 30:5)

 

To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (Revelation 3:7)

 

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. (Revelation 3:14)

 

Then the angel said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’ ” And he added, “These are the true words of God.” (Revelation 19:9)

 

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” (Revelation 21:5)

 

The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.” (Revelation 22:6)

 

These verses are suffecient to show the importance of words, the verbal the nature of truth. I repeat again that truth according to the bible is verbal or propositional. A picture is not a thousand words, as many believe today. In fact, a picture is not worth even a single word. Does that surprise you? Let me show you an example from Scripture itself in the book of Daniel. In chapter 2 the king Nebuchadnezzar has a strange dream and is so troubled by it. He calls in the courtiers to tell him the dream and interpret it. Nobody is able to do so. Daniel intervenes and God reveals to him the dream and proceeds to the interpretation of it. The king did not understand the meaning of the image in gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay. The king did not understand what was meant by the stone striking the feet of the image and the image crumbling down. Both the image and event by themselves did not convey an iota of meaning to the king. Later on, Daniel explains the meaning in propositions to the king after God reveals it to him. This proves that a picture is not worth even a single word, let alone thousand words!

 

I also metioned that words or phrases by themselves, without a context, do not constitute a proposition and thus, do not convey meaning. In Daniel chapter 5, another king, Belshazzar sees the handwriting on the wall. There are four words, and the king is clueless as to what they mean. Daniel is called in, and God reveals the necessary propositions to him so as to make sense of those words. This proves that single words, or phrases by themselves, without a context and meaningless and do not convey anything. After Daniel explains, the king understands and knows. Before that he was in an emotional frenzy. He was frightened, his face turned pale and his knees were knocking together. None of this emotional hype gave him truth. It was Daniel’s explanation in propositions that gave him truth.

 

By now, I hope it is clear that only propositions convey meaning. That is why Reformed theologians and apologists emphasise the propositional nature of revelation. God chose to reveal himself through words of human language and verbal communication is adequate to convey meaning from and about God. Let us look at some more verses from Scripture before concluding this post.

 

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” (Mathew 7:24)

 

“But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.” (Mathew 7:26)

 

“If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” (Mathew 12:7)

 

“For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Mathew 12:37)

 

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Mathew 24:35)

 

“If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38)

 

The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!” (Mark 10:24)

 

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Mark 13:31)

 

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. (Luke 4:22)

 

All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. (Luke 7:29)

 

For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. (Luke 21:15)

 

After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. (John 2:22)

 

“For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.” (John 3:34)

 

And because of his words many more became believers. (John 4:41)

 

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

 

“Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)

 

On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” (John 7:40)

 

“There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” (John 12:48)

 

“He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.” (John 14:24)

 

“If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.” (John 15:7)

 

“For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.” (John 17:8)

 

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. (Acts 10:44)

 

Alright, I think these many verses that I gave quoted here will suffice to prove the importance of understanding biblical truth as propositional.

Let us quickly look back and see where we have come till now. We started of by looking at the creation of man. Next, we looked into the biblical data as to what that image was. Then, we looked at some verses which throw light on what happens to the image during regeneration and sanctification. After that, we have examining what is the biblical view of knowledge, since the Scripture states the new self is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

The Image of God – Part 4

In this post I intend to discuss about the biblical view of knowledge. We cannot afford to look into all the verses related to this, but some pivotal verses will be examined. I cannot afford to delve into an exegesis of each of them, but shall focus on the relevance of those verses to our topic.

 

However, before doing that, I need to very briefly touch upon the link between knowledge and truth. What is the diference between knowledge and truth? Do they refer to the same thing? Or are they different? Something is considered to be knowledge when the information is true. If it is not true, it is not called knowledge. It is called an opinion or something else. Thus, in any claim to knowledge, the possibility of truth is implicit.  Knowledge, is therefore, based on truth, and something which is not true cannot be reckoned as knowledge.

 

There is a lot in Scripture which speaks about knowledge and truth. The fear of the Lord is considered to be the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). Jesus spoke of himself as the personification of truth (John 14:6). Thus a biblical understanding of knowledge and truth is important, for our spirtual growth and sanctification. I deliberately state “biblical” understanding because many people I know bring in unbiblical presuppositions and interpret the Scripture based on those principles which  leads to heresies in Christendom.

 

I shall be using the terms knowledge and truth synonymously from now on. Now, there are two questions which ought to answered. What is knowledge/truth? And, what is the nature of knowledge/truth? The first question is more or less straightforward and can be answered easily. As mentioned earlier, the Scripture says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Also, Jesus said “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). From these two verses we can define what is knowledge or truth. Knowledge means fearing God. This involves knowing His commands, without which it would be impossible to fear Him. Truth is defined as God’s Word itself. Notice that the verse does not say “Thy word is true.” This would mean that there is some higher standard of truth, and being true would mean conformity to that standard. Rather it says, “Thy word is truth.” This means that truth is God’s word itself. There is no standard for comparision, since it is the ultimate standard.

 

Having defined knowledge and truth, we should now look a bit into the nature of truth. This is important because there are so many unbiblical ideas which have infiltrated Christendom and many hold to those views. Many think of truth as experience, truth as emotion, truth as personal, truth as encounter, truth as mystic union, truth as pictorial (“a picture is worth a thousand words”), truth as bliss and so on.

 

These views have infiltrated the church because those who are called to “sheperds of the flock” were busy expanding their waistline rather than killing the wolves (Acts 20:29). Of course, to slaughter these wolves, the sheperds ought to armed with the biblical worldview themselves (2 Corinthians 10:4,5), which they were not. This had resulted in wolves who are dressed in sheepskin amongst the flock. This is the reason why there are so many stupid, dangerous, unbiblical ideas floating around in Christianity today. These teachings lead to practical disaster. Pragmatism, seeker-sensitive church movements, laughter movement, to name a few. Many of the charismatic lunatics focus so much on experience and emotionalism that doctrinal teaching is given hardly any importance. It is very fashionable nowadays to come to pulpit and say, “I am not going to preach a sermon. I am just going to share my experience.” Of course, spiritual infants and irrational people find such messages to be very “meaningful.” The pastor has to share his personal experience, crack a couple of jokes, and make sure that the person sitting in the pew knows more about the pastor’s life than about Christ.

 

This nonsense is a commonsight in many mega-churches today. There is such a degradation for doctrinal studies and “experience” carries more weightage. This has lead to people embracing a form of Christianity which is not based on Scripture, but on feelings, emotions, sensations, and experience. The importance of verbal, propositional, communication is hardly given any importance. What was Paul’s command to Timothy as he was awaiting trial? “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season” (2 Timothy 4:2). In the very next verse he speaks about the time when men will not put up with sound doctrine, which shows the centrality of the Scripture in Christian thinking and living. Paul did not say preach your experience, or preach what you feel about it. He told Timothy to preach the Word, bringing the focus to the Scripture. I said all this to emphasise the need for focussing on the Scripture (which contains verbal content) as the foundation and cornerstone of our faith rather than drool in our experience and feelings.

 

Coming back to our discussion on the nature of truth, there are five theories about truth: the coherence, corresponence, constructivist, consensus and pragmatic theories. Though each of these differ significantly, none of them disagree on that fact that truth is propositional. (At a much later time I shall offer a biblical critique of these theories.)

 

Truth is propositional. A proposition, as commonly defined in logic textbooks, refers to a sentence which can be either affirmed or denied. It is a statement which can be either true or false. Words, or clauses without a context do not constitute a proposition. It would be obvious by now that a proposition is verbal. Non-verbal forms of communication do not consititute a proposition. Some mentally challenged people say things like “language is inadequate to convey anything about God.” Really? Then why are they using language to communicate that very fact about God? Such anti-intellectual characters will argue with you to tell you that you should not argue about the faith. They will try to persuade you to tell you why you should not persuade anybody when it comes to faith. They will speak verbally to tell you why non-verbal means of communication are superior. And, mind you, these characters are considered to be the “mature” saints!

 

All right, I think I have mentioned enough to show the importance of verbal, propositional nature of truth of Scripture. In the next post we shall examine the verses related to that.

The Image of God – Part 3

Now we shall look into the New Testament data on the topic. Recollect from the earlier posts that the image God was defined in terms of rationality. Many in Christendom might object to that, considering the exagerrated emotionalism found in many churches today. They will never have a biblical or a rational basis for that assumption of theirs, as I shall demonstrate later on. I shall deal about the difference between intellect and sentiment, thinking and feeling, thoughts and emotions in the next post. For now, let us look at the verses in the New Testament which throw light on the image of God.

 

I shall just post a few verses here and later on, offer a proper exegesis taking into account the context in which these verses appear.

 

“…put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.”

 

Colossians 3:10

 

“….put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.”

 

Ephesians 4:24

 

The verse in Colossians says that after sanctification, the image of God is being renwed in knowledge in the image of it’s Creator. Thus, the Imago Dei is equated with knowledge. Again, I know of some characters who speak of two types of knowledge – head knowledge and heart knowledge. I have already criticised this view in one of my earlier posts (“Missing Heaven By 8 Inches?”). Head knowledge is considered by them to be knowledge about God, while “heart knowledge” is knowledge of God. That is, with heart knowledge, you dont “merely” know about God, but you know God Himself. By this distinction they try to point out that knowing God is more personal, and therefore more “spiritual,” than merely knowing about God, which is less personal.

 

I remember talking with my grandmother about the importance of studying theology, and she had pertinent disagreements with me. She said, “Why do you want to study and know doctrines about God, when God says ‘Fear not, I am with you’? God Himself is with you Nishanth, so why do you want to know and study so much about God?” After talking with her for a while, I remembered that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. This is not to demean my grandmother, but just to point out that it is very hard for old people to change their minds about something, if they have been believing it for a very long time. Also, old people are “wise”, “mature”, and “experienced” by self-declaration. And they have unrestrained enthusiasm for spilling their wisdom and experience (which they have accumulated “over the years”) with the younger generation. Now, please keep in mind that I am not making fun of old people, especially if they are Christians. I do listen to the counsel of my parents and mentors and apply it in my life as long as what they say is in line with biblical precepts. Most of the grey-haired Christian folks I have talked to, have the assumption that whatever they say is true by virtue of their age and experience and not because of conformity to Scripture. That is the serious defect in their thinking which resists any change even when confronted with Scripture. The topic at hand restrains me from writing further on this. Thus, discussion about biblical wisdom, experience and maturity will follow in a later post. Now back to the Imago Dei.

 

I was mentioning that some people differenciate between knowledge of the head and heart, and this distinction is unbiblical. It is from Freud and the Romantic poets and not from Scripture. The verse from Ephesians 4:24 states that after regeneration the new self is created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. This does not contradict with Colossians 3:10 which states that the image of God is knowledge. Without knowledge it is impossible to to be righteous and holy. Holiness is conformity to God’s law. Righteousness and holiness pressupose knowledge of God’s law.

 

In fact, the Apostle Peter mentions that our santification is based on knowledge….

 

“His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.”

 

2 Peter 1:3

 

Grace and peace do not come from repeated “praise and worship” sessions or mountain-top experiences with God. It comes from knowledge of God.

 

“Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.”

 

2 Peter 1:2

 

This carries a lot of “practical implications for us. I shall deal with that in the end. Since the verse in Colossians states that the image of God in man is knowledge, we must spend some time exploring what is the biblical view of knowledge. This will follow in the next post.