Truth Magazine

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Questions are sometimes phrased briefly but in fact are broad, involving comprehensive implications. Such is the question that is the subject of this column. The response to it will involve stating a context within which the answer to the question will be given. Otherwise, the answer could be misunderstood and given an application far beyond its in-tended scope. Of necessity, it will be important to ascertain precisely what the question is and then to give the answer to it which Scripture from heaven supports.

Question: Do Christians “have to” sin?

Response: It is important that I set forth precisely what I understand the question so that the response to it can be interpreted accordingly. It appears to me that the querist is asking whether theoretically it is possible for a child of God to be, or to live, above sin. It would imply in the final analysis if one would “have to” sin that there is at least one commandment of God which it would be impossible for the child of God to obey. On the other hand, it would also imply that man’s nature is such that man cannot comply with what God commands in every respect.

Human accountability to God’s under girds the issue involved in the question. One would have to contemplate the situation in which God requires something and holds one accountable for one’s response to it. I f one by human nature finds it impossible to do that which is required, how could God hold one accountable since God gave man his nature by creation?

Jesus is the Son of man and in that role has shown man what ought to be in relation to God in whose image he was made. In fact, Jesus left us an example that we should follow in his steps (1 Pet. 2:21). It is obvious, therefore, that fact must be taken into consideration in response to the question posed. We are to have in us the mind of Christ as forth in the revelation of the New Testament (Phil. 2:5).

Man’s admitted sinfulness also must be taken into consideration in the response to the question. If one says he has not sinned, he makes God a liar and his word is not in him (1 In. 1:10). If one says he has no sin, one deceives himself and the truth is not in him (1 Jn. 1:18). But if one does sin, he has an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous (1 In. 2:1).

In any response to the question, one must do so within the context of what is true as set forth in the proceeding paragraphs. The response must be consistent with a comprehensive view of what God’s word says in relation to the generalizations embodied in the issue set forth in the pre-ceding three paragraphs.

The concept of possibility and probability must also be taken into consideration. There is a difference in its being possible for one to do something and its being probable that the thing will be done. If God is to hold one responsible for one’s doing something, then it follows of a certainty that one must have the capability of doing it. Otherwise God would be unjust in giving the command and holding one responsible for doing it.

Whatever response or answer one would give to the question, therefore, is circumscribed by all the parameters which have been articulated in all the preceding comments and observations. With all of them in mind, I will proceed to respond specifically to the question raised.

In the most direct response to the question, the answer would simply be that one does not “have to ” sin. Why is this answer correct? Someone might as well raise this question having seen the answer given. Being omniscient, God can state a reality about a man’s sinfulness without in any manner interfering with the freewill of the person to act as he or she might wish. The experience of man is known to God and he can see what one’s choices might be. God can do all of this independent of the free action and will of men. On the other hand, the answer can be defended on the basis that it is possible for one to do what God commands as demonstrated in the life of Jesus. He shared fully in our nature (Heb. 2:17). Also, he as tempted in all points such as we are, yet with without sin (Heb. 4:15). As a man clothed in flesh and partaking in all respects in the nature of man and in his relation to God, Jesus demonstrated that man can obey God in all respects. Were this not possible, man would be accountable for what he does not the capability of doing and Jesus would not be a model of behavior in relation to God for man.

But man’s experience from the beginning is that he sins. God’s word points this out and holds man responsible for his works. The Scriptures are especially clear on this point. Jesus states that all that are in the tombs shall come forth and “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment” (Jn. 5:29). We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of God to receive the things done in the body whether they be good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:10-12). If God holds one responsible for his deeds, then man must have had the capability of doing deeds in accord with the will of God.

One might look at the question from this point of view: if God says man has sin, has sinned, and will sin, then man would “have to” sin or otherwise God would not be reliable or truthful in talking about the sinfulness of man. Let us examine this point of view. In doing so, we must not shift premises or otherwise we would be woefully inconsistent. In the Old Testament, God predicted what Assyria would be as the rod of his anger, as an instrument of his wrath (Isa. 10:5) but God adds, “Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and to cut nations not a few” (Isa. 10:7). This is a clear-cut case of God’s omniscience at work but in no wise taking control of the heart. The ruler was free to do what he willed but God knew that in what he proposed to do would serve as the rod of God’s anger, as an instrument of wrath. The ruler did not “have to” do what he proposed and in fact accomplished. But if he had not done what God predicted, then God would not have been omniscient. But the omniscience of God did not cause the Assyrian ruler to act as he did.

In conclusion, the simple answer to the question is “no.” But this answer must be understood in the context of what has been set forth in all of the comments and observations set forth in connection with it.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 5-6
July 15, 1993

By Ron Daly

The expression “in one Spirit” (en heni pneumati) occurs in I Corinthians 12:13, which in the ASV reads, “For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.”

I Corinthians 12, 13. and 14 comprise one context in which Paul discusses the distribution, duration, and pro-per use of spiritual gifts. He informs the saints in Corinth that the gifts are not given for selfish ends which culminate in contentious rivalry but for the edification, growth, and stability of the body of Christ, as each member supplies his part by working in love.

The meaning of verse 13, relates directly to the correct interpretation of “in one Spirit.” Some of the Pentecostal movement insist that the expression designates the Spirit as the substance or element “in” which or “with” which one is immersed; hence, they see “Holy Spirit baptism,” a miraculous element, in the text. But, 1 believe their presupposition is invalid. The phrase “in one Spirit” does not indicate the “element” or “substance” “in” which or “with” which one is immersed in this text; rather it designates the Holy Spirit as the agent of the immersion.

How can we know that “in one Spirit” expresses agency? We should always look for similar phraseology by the same writer in the immediate context of the text under investigation, or in his other writings relating to the same subject. The context of chapter 12 supplies the answer as to the proper meaning and interpretation of the phrase “in one Spirit.”

“In one Spirit” (en heni pneumati) is a prepositional phrase, the preposition is en, which is used with (followed by) the dative singular form of the noun pneuma, which has as its modifier the dative neuter singular adjective, heni, grammatical form of heis.

Often prepositional phrases and their interpretation do make a difference in the meaning of a whole text.’ The Greek preposition en can have peculiar usages which are theologically important’ depending on the context and intent of the inspired writer. It is agreed by nearly all experts of Hellenistic Greek that en can mean “in, on, at, near, before, among, within, into, and by.”‘ In order to ascertain which of these uses we may ascribe to en we must closely examine the con-text, syntax, and look for identical or similar constructions by the same writer. In translating the phrase en heni pneumati, “by one Spirit” is to be preferred over “in one Spirit,” and we are using the word “by” as a preposition expressing “means or agency: through the means, work, or operation. And, I present the following reasons as the basis of my conclusion.

First the Spirit is not here indicated as the substance or element “in” or “with” which one is immersed because it is affirmed by the text “en heni pneumati were we all (pantes) immersed into one body.” But, the “immersion of the Spirit” was not promised to all, and therefore was not received by all (Acts 1:1-8,26; 2:1-4; 10:44-48; 11:12-18; 15:7-9).

Second, apart from 12:13 Paul uses en with the dative in the context four times: “speaking in the Spirit of God,” en pneumati theou la/on (v. 3a), “in the Holy Spirit,” en pneumati hagio (v. 3b), “in the same Spirit,” en to auto pneumati (v. 9a), “in the one Spirit,” en to heni pneumati (v. 9b). There should be uniformity in translating en in all of these instances, and most recent translations use “by” instead of “in” for en in all of these cases.’

Third, also, in the context, Paul attributes actions to the Holy Spirit as an agent, not as the substance or element! “Speaking in the Spirit” he is the one by whose agency the person speaks  the Spirit effects the speaking. “No man can say Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit”  the Holy Spirit is the agent who reveals the credible evidence by written and spoken testimony concerning the nature, claims, and authority of Christ (v. 3b; Jn. 20:30-31). “The word of wisdom is given through the Spirit,” dia tou pneumatos, (v. 8), by means of his agency. The Spirit, in the distribution of spiritual gifts was “dividing to each one severally even as he will,” hekasto kathos bouletai  as he determined  he was the active agent.

Since each of the preceding actions is ascribed to the performance of the Holy Spirit in the context which includes 12:13, then why cannot en heni pneumati express agency or some act performed by the Holy Spirit, especially since the same grammatical construction exists?

What was the Holy Spirit’s specific role in the scheme of redemption? To be the agent of the Godhead in the revealing of divine truth. Jesus called him “the Spirit of truth” (Jn. 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), who would “bring to the remembrance” of the apostles, the words of Christ, and “teaching them all things” On. 14:26), and he would “bear witness” through them, as he would be “guiding” them into all the truth, “declaring” things that were coming, and by means of these functions, he would “convict” the world of sin On. 15:26; 16:12-13) through apostolic preaching and teaching.

Sometimes an action is attributed to one person, yet through the figure of speech known as metonymy it is accomplished through another person or thing (cf. Lk. 16:29-31; Jn. 4:1-2; Acts 8:30).

Fourth, the consequence of en heni pneumati was “we were all immersed into one body.” This shows that the expression does not refer to the “immersion of the Spirit,” for it was not by such an act that believers gained entrance into the body of Christ! Entering the company of the saved, i.e. body of Christ, was the result of immersion in water which was commanded by the Spirit through the apostles and New Testament prophets (Acts 2:38; 10:47-48; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 5:26).

An expanded paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 12:13 which would do no injustice to the text in its context could be worded as follows: “Brethren, let all of us be united in our use of the gifts of the Spirit, for by the revelation of truth given by one Spirit, and our obedience to it, we were immersed into (and comprise) one (spiritual) body, regardless of whether we are Jews or Greeks, nor does it matter whether we are slaves or freedmen; and we were all (without exception) made to drink richly of the gifts of one Spirit.”

So, the element in which the Corinthians were immersed is water (Acts 18:8; 10:47-48). The one by whose hands at least some of them were immersed was Paul (Acts 18:5-8; 1 Cor. 1:1,14-16). The instrument which affected their salvation in being immersed was “Paul’s speaking” (Acts 18:8-10; 1 Cor. 1:17,18-21; 2:1-7). The word of God is what he spoke unto them. The ultimate agent underlying Paul’s work, that gave him the gospel to preach, and the one whose word instructed them of their need for immersion was the Lord “by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 14:37; 2:9-14). Reasoning inductively, we therefore conclude that the Holy Spirit, by revealing the word of truth through the apostles and prophets, taught the Corinthians the necessity of immersion, and he is the agent that caused them to be immersed into one body.

Footnotes

New Testament Exegesis, Gordon D. Fee, The Westminster Press, 1983, p. 82, Section 3.3.4.

‘Grammatical Insights Into the New Testament, Nigel Turner, T & T Clark, 1983, pp. 118-119.

‘Cf. The following grammars of New Testament Greek: A Manual Grammar, Dana and Mantey. McMillan, 1957, p. 105, Section 112, A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek, H.P.V. Nunn, Cambridge University Press, 1973, p. 30, Syntax of New Testament Greek, Brooks and Winbery, University Press of American, 1979, pp. 29-45, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, W.D. Chamberlain, Baker Book House, 1984, pp. 34,35,118,119, Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, Syntax, Nigel Turner, 1963, T & T Clark, 1963, pp. 236-244, Gram-mar of New Testament Greek, G.B. Winer, T & T Clark, 1877, pp. 480-488, A Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Blass, Debrunner, Funk, University of Chicago Press, 1975, pp. 117, 118, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A.T. Robertson, Broadman Press, 1934, pp. 584-591. Also, see the following Greek Lexicons: A Greek-English Lexicon, Louw and Nida, UBS, 1990, Vol. I, p. 798, Sections 90:6 and 90:10, et. al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, J.H. Thayer, Zondervan, 1979, pp. 209-213, Bauer, Arndt-Gingrich, University of Chicago Press, 1959, pp. 257-261.

‘Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, World Publishing Company, 1970, p. 194.

‘The Simple English Bible, The New Revised Standard Version (uses “by” in each place except 12:13), Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, (uses “by” in all instances with the marginal note “or, in”) King James Version, New International Version, The New King James Version.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 8-9
July 15, 1993

By Dan King

Recently I was both amused and informed as I ran across a tidbit of wisdom from a sage of the past. It seems that Sir Winston Churchill is credited with having offered this definition of a fanatic: “A fanatic is one who cant change his mind and wont change the subject.”

The more I read this little quotation, the more I thought of certain individuals whom I have met through the years. They fit this definition to a “T”. So, I quickly copied the quote down on the back of a business card in my wallet for future reference. Just this week I ran upon it again (this time in my wallet). Once more, I thought that the statement was filled with the wisdom borne of observation and experience. So, I thought it good to share it with you in this article. Several things are clearly true about fanaticism and the fanatics it spawns:

1. Fanatics Never Consider Themselves as Fanatical. Most always they think of themselves as zealots for some unnoticed and unappreciated cause. By dictionary definition a fanatic is one who “is marked by excessive enthusiasm and intense uncritical devotion” to some cause, position or per- I son. Devotion to a good cause is, of course, to be commend-ed. But two aspects of the definition of a fanatic make him unworthy of commendation. First, his enthusiasm is excessive. He becomes over zealous and extreme. Second, his devotion is uncritical of the object of his zeal. He is obsessed to such an extent that he is unreasonable and irrational.

Both these circumstances make him difficult to reason with and impossible to deal with. That group in early Christianity known as “Judaizers” fit this description exactly. In Acts 15, Luke informs us that they came down from Judea to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas had experienced great success in reaching Gentiles for Christ. They dared to challenge Paul and Barnabas with a gospel which demanded circumcisim of Gentiles: “Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” “No small dissention” is what erupted at Antioch after their spreading of this doctrine among the saints there. Evidently they claimed to represent the position of Jerusalem and its apostles, so Paul and Barnabas traveled there to stop the error at its source.

When they reached Jerusalem and rehearsed the specifics of their work among the Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas were immediately confronted by the factions: “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses” (v. 2). If this is not a case of brazen fanaticism, I would not know one if it bit me! Imagine the gall of these men, who confronted the apostles of Christ, and had the audacity to put them on notice as to the terms of the gospel! These people did not see themselves as fanatics!

2. Fanatics Cannot Change Their Minds. Line up all of your arguments. Carefully put together your presentation. Make sure your logic is flawless. No matter! If you are dealing with a fanatic, he still will not change his mind. Remember, a fanatic can never be critical of the object of his devotion.

Paul makes mention of another experience that he had with fanatics in the second epistle to Timothy. He says (2:16ff.): “But shun profane babblings: for they will proceed further in ungodliness, and their word will eat as doth a gangrene: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some.” Of Hymenaeus (with a certain Alexander), he formerly wrote, “whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. 1:20). Even in the face of an apostle of Jesus Christ, these men could not change their minds! Is there any wonder that fanatical false teachers to-day are beyond the reach of Scripture, or good sense, or logic?

3. Fanatics Wont Change the Subject. In the past we have often made use of the term “hobbyist” to describe someone who, like a scratched record, does not seem capable of talking about other things than his favorite subject. The Christian system involves balance. A person is “well-rounded” in the New Testament sense only when he is capable of declaring, as Paul said he did, “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).

I remember a young fellow in his mid-twenties, saying once that he had been studying “the covering question” for ten years. This statement painted a portrait in my mind of a fifteen-year-old beginning a ten-year intensive investigation of all the Bible says about the covering (which would quite easily fit into one chapter of the Bible, and could be rigorously studied in a week!). How absurd! Again, I recall a man standing outside the local grocery store handing out tract materials to everyone who walked in the door. I took the tract and looked at it when I got inside. It was a poorly-printed and shabby document that decried the “Sunday school” and “located preacher” system in the churches of Christ and in denominationalism. This poor fellow was such a fanatic that he could not change the subject long enough to talk to these folks about the salvation of their souls  which is the first order of business for unbelievers and sectarians. But, once more, that is not at all surprising because fanatics wont change the subject!

Good People Can Fall Prey to Fanaticism. The sad fact is that even those who have the truth on certain issues at times become fanatical. A fanatic can do more harm than good, even though his heart is in the right place. He clumsily parades his favorite issue before all who will hear, regardless of the occasion or the appropriateness of the subject for the victim of his tirade. He shows no love or kindness or tact in his presentation, and in the end he makes it impossible for someone with skill later to reach that soul for Christ. Do not fall prey to fanaticism! It can be a soul-damning evil, if it chases people from before the gate of the kingdom of God (Matt. 18:6; Lk. 11:52).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14 p. 20-21
July 15, 1993

By James W. Adams

Many times the charismatic personality and oratorical and rhetorical abilities of a speaker conceal the pernicious error implicit in that which he says, and multitudes are deceived. Conversely speaking, these same qualities often lessen the transforming influence of the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is taught and preached. Under such preaching, multitudes may “join the church,” but few are converted to Christ.

It is said that a person heard a world-famous evangelist and came away saying, “What a marvelous speaker!” Sometime thereafter, he heard a consecrated preacher of little fame preach in simple idiom, but with great conviction and sincerity, the story of the cross and came away saying, “What a wonderful Christ!”

This calls to mind a verse of a poem written by W.G. Elmslie which addresses the point of this article.

He held the lamp of truth that day

So low that none could miss the way;

And yet so high to bring in sight

That picture fair the World’s Great Light

That gazing up  the lamp between 

The hand that held it scarce was seen.

We should so teach the Word of God as to emphasize the message which it conveys and Him who is its author that the hearts of the hearers may embrace “the World’s Great Light.” The less they see of “the hand that holds it up,” the more impressive it will be.

However, let us not use these facts as an excuse for poorly prepared and slovenly delivered lessons or sermons. The lamp stand and the hand that holds it should be of such character as to display the Light, whether held “low” or “high,” to the best advantage so that its rays of redeeming light may shine clearly and powerfully to all who need it.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 4
July 15, 1993