At times the biblical word for holy is defined by scholars and theologians by the word "perfect". This is a word many people have come to avoid, if not to also hate. They will recite perfectionism and the harm it did to them personally. The way we define it in English, it is something unattainable. But what if biblical perfection is something different from our definition and what if that can help us understand holy better? So what I want to do in this post is to define perfect and also relate it to holy.
Perfect means per-the-goal. Perfection is relative or absolute depending on the goal attached to it in a particular context. It is not always referring to a final goal. It can refer to other goals along the way to a final goal.
Perfect in this life
Perfect in the next life
Love and perfection
Perfect love
Perfect is related to Hebrew words translated as whole.
[This is still in process ... please check other entries in the meantime. ]
Showing posts with label perfect. Show all posts
Showing posts with label perfect. Show all posts
Monday, February 11, 2013
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to Joseph Le Conte, Once Highly Respected Scientist
I am willing to bet that Joseph Le Conte is a not a household name in Christian circles. Yet I discovered him through a rather household name in Baptist circles, Charles H. Spurgeon. I want to quote Le Conte more extensively than Spurgeon did, partly because his material is so little known, but more importantly because he has a great way of saying things. He has this to say about holiness:
MY CHRISTIAN FRIENDS: I approach, not only with reluctance, but even with fear, the subject of my evening's lecture, the Divine Holiness. There is no attribute of the Divine nature which should so affect us with deep humility - none before which our pride and self-sufficiency should so fall prostate with face in the dust - none with which seems to show between Him and us so impassable a gulf, as this of holiness. These is none, therefore, which seems to us so awful, but which is at the same time so glorious as this. There is none which is so frequently mentioned in the Scriptures, and in such sublime and glowing language, and which is so closely connected there with the Divine glory. In the grand language of Moses: "Who is like unto thee, O Lord? glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders." Isaiah, in still more sublime and glowing language, represents the seraphim in his presence as covering their faces and crying one to another: "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory."
Shall I call this an attribute, then? Is it not rather the glorious combination of all his attributes into one perfect whole? As all his attributes proceed form the absolute, so all again converge and meet in holiness. As from the insufferable white light of the Absolute they all seem to diverge and separate into prismatic hues, so they all seem again to coverge and meet and combine into the dazzling white radiance of his holiness. This, therefore, is rather the intense whiteness, purity, clearness, the infinite lustre and splendor of his perfect nature - like a gem without flaw, without stain, and without color. All of his attributes are glorious, but in this we have a combination of all into a still more glorious whole. It is for this reason that it is so frequently in Scripture associated with the Divine beauty. The poetic nature of the Psalmist is exalted to estasy in contemplation of the "beauty of holiness," the "beauty of the Lord." Beauty is a combination of the elements according to the laws of harmony; the more beautiful the parts or elements, and the more perfect the harmonious combination, the higher the beauty. How high and glorious, therefore, must be the beauty of his attribute which is the perfect combination of all his infinite perfections!
You see, then, why this attribute is so awful to us. In the ideal man all the faculties and powers, mental, moral, and bodily, work together in perfect harmony, making sweet music - the image of God is clear and pure in the human heart. But alas! how far are we from this ideal! In the actual man the purity is stained, the beauty is defaced, the harmony is changed into jarring discord, "like sweet bells jangled out of tune." How it came so, we are not now inquiring. We all feel that it is so. Therefore is this attribute awful to us. It is the awfulness of absolute purity in the presence of impurity; it is the awfulness of perfect beauty in the presence of deformity; it is the awfulness of honor in the presence of dishonor and shame; in one word, it is the awfulness of holiness in the presence of sinfulness. How, then, shall we approach Him before whom angels bow and archangels veil their faces - Him in whose sight the white radiance of heaven itself is stained with impurity?
Is this glorious attribute also revealed in the physical, material nature? Yes, even this is revealed there; but only as such an attribute can be revealed there - viz., by physical symbols. There is a deep correspondence between things spiritual and things physical, a correspondence necessarily flowing from the fact that the physical prceeds from, and there must be a revelation of, the Divine spiritual. Now, we have already seen that holiness is the harmonious combination of all the Divine attributes into one perfect, beautiful whole. Evidently, therefore, the symbol, or correspondence, or revelation, of this must be found in the beauty and harmony of the physical universe, a beauty and a harmony determined by perfect law.
Still later Le Conte says this:
Holiness is like a forgotten strain of music, still lurking unknown and unrecognized in the memory: strike one chord, and the whole may be dimly brought back to the mind. This chord is struck by the Scriptures. The true nature of holiness, once understood by the intellect, and what a glory and a lustre it sheds upon the whole moral and physical world! what a glory is there then in the nature of Deity! what a nobleness and dignity in the true nature of man! What a splendor even in the physical universe, a the symbol and revelation of Deity! Holiness once appropriated and possessed as an attribute of our nature, and what words can adquately express the glory of the change? It is a new heart, a new life, a new spirit, a new birth.
If, then holiness is the beauty of and perfection of the Divine nature, surely it is also the beauty and perfection of the human nature. Now, we have seen that the whole work of man on this earth is to restore or perfect the Divine image in the nature of man, in the reason of man as truth, in the heart of man as love. Now, it is the harmonious combination of all these divine features that constitutes the beauty of the Divine image or holiness in man. Holiness, therefore, is the true end of human life and every other is false.
My friends, I have tried to show you the exceeding beauty of holiness. Shall I now turn [to] the other side of the picture? Shall I show you in contrast the exceeding ugliness of its opposite, sinfulness? If holiness is perfect law and order, then is sinfulness lawlessness and anarchy; if holiness is perfect harmony, then sinfulness is perfect discord; if holiness is spiritual beauty, the sinfulness is spiritual deformity; if the one is purity, and lustre and life, and health, then is the other foulness, and blackness, and spiritual death, and corruption.
Joseph Le Conte, Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1877), p. 158-160, 164-165.
Let me add some straightforward biography as to who this man was for those interested in understanding things more deeply. From Wikipedia, I believe, we read:
Joseph Le Conte (February 26, 1823 - July 6, 1901) was an American geologist.
Of Huguenot descent, he was born in Liberty County, Georgia to Louis Le Conte, patriarch of the noted Le Conte family. He was educated at Franklin College in Athens, Georgia (now the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Georgia), where he graduated in 1841; he afterwards studied medicine and received his degree at the New York College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1845. After practising for three or four years at Macon, Georgia, he entered Harvard University, and studied natural history under Louis Agassiz.
An excursion made with Professors J. Hall and Agassiz to the Helderberg mountains of New York developed a keen interest in geology. After graduating at Harvard, Le Conte in 1851 accompanied Agassiz on an expedition to study the Florida reefs. On his return he became professor of natural science in Oglethorpe University which was located in Midway, Georgia at the time; and from December of 1852 until 1856 professor of natural history and geology at Franklin College. From 1857 to 1869 he was a professor of chemistry and geology at South Carolina College, which is now the University of South Carolina.
On January 14, 1846, he married Caroline Nisbet, a niece of Eugenius A. Nisbet. The LeContes had four children grow to adulthood: Emma Florence Le Conte, Sarah Elizabeth Le Conte, Caroline Eaton Le Conte, and Joseph Nisbet Le Conte.
During the Civil War Le Conte continued to teach in South Carolina. He also produced medicine and supervised the niter works (to manufacture explosives) for the Confederacy. However, after the war he continued to teach, but he claimed to find Reconstruction politics intolerable, with moves of the Reconstruction-era Legislature to deeply cut funding to South Carolina College.
In 1869, he moved to Berkeley, California to help organize the University of California, along with his brother John Le Conte. He was appointed the first professor of geology and natural history at the University, a post which he held until his death.
He published a series of papers on monocular and binocular vision, and also on psychology. His chief contributions, however, related to geology. He described the fissure-eruptions in western America, discoursed on earth-crust movements and their causes and on the great features of the earths surface. As separate works he published Elements of Geology (1878, 5th ed. 1889); Religion and Science (1874); and Evolution: its History, its Evidences, and its Relation to Religious Thought (1888). In 1874, he was nominated to the National Academy of Sciences. He was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1892, and of the Geological Society of America in 1896.
Le Conte is also noted for his exploration and preservation of the Sierra Nevada of California, USA. He first visited Yosemite Valley in 1870, where he became friends with John Muir and started exploring the Sierra. He became concerned that resource exploitation (such as sheepherding) would ruin the Sierra, so co-founded the Sierra Club with Muir and others in 1892. He was a director of the Sierra Club from 1892 through 1898. His son, Joseph N. Le Conte, was also a noted professor and Sierra Club member.
He died of a heart attack in the Yosemite Valley, California, on the July 6, 1901, right before the Sierra Club's first High Trip. The Sierra Club built the LeConte Memorial Lodge in his honor in 1904. The Le Conte Canyon, Le Conte Divide, Le Conte Falls and Mount Le Conte were named after him. He is buried in Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland, California.
Obviously from this short biography, he was a man of some renown in his own day. We may disagree today with some of his views on science and nature. Yet I have a rich science and nature background and love his connections to the field of science and nature. What is so valuable in what he has to say is his connection of holiness to things natural in the way he expresses himself. He has a profound ability to use natural analogies as he speaks, which adds clarity to his thought for those aquainted with nature. I can relate in many ways to what he has to say about holiness. May you also be richly blessed by his writing.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I am willing to bet that Joseph Le Conte is a not a household name in Christian circles. Yet I discovered him through a rather household name in Baptist circles, Charles H. Spurgeon. I want to quote Le Conte more extensively than Spurgeon did, partly because his material is so little known, but more importantly because he has a great way of saying things. He has this to say about holiness:
MY CHRISTIAN FRIENDS: I approach, not only with reluctance, but even with fear, the subject of my evening's lecture, the Divine Holiness. There is no attribute of the Divine nature which should so affect us with deep humility - none before which our pride and self-sufficiency should so fall prostate with face in the dust - none with which seems to show between Him and us so impassable a gulf, as this of holiness. These is none, therefore, which seems to us so awful, but which is at the same time so glorious as this. There is none which is so frequently mentioned in the Scriptures, and in such sublime and glowing language, and which is so closely connected there with the Divine glory. In the grand language of Moses: "Who is like unto thee, O Lord? glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders." Isaiah, in still more sublime and glowing language, represents the seraphim in his presence as covering their faces and crying one to another: "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory."
Shall I call this an attribute, then? Is it not rather the glorious combination of all his attributes into one perfect whole? As all his attributes proceed form the absolute, so all again converge and meet in holiness. As from the insufferable white light of the Absolute they all seem to diverge and separate into prismatic hues, so they all seem again to coverge and meet and combine into the dazzling white radiance of his holiness. This, therefore, is rather the intense whiteness, purity, clearness, the infinite lustre and splendor of his perfect nature - like a gem without flaw, without stain, and without color. All of his attributes are glorious, but in this we have a combination of all into a still more glorious whole. It is for this reason that it is so frequently in Scripture associated with the Divine beauty. The poetic nature of the Psalmist is exalted to estasy in contemplation of the "beauty of holiness," the "beauty of the Lord." Beauty is a combination of the elements according to the laws of harmony; the more beautiful the parts or elements, and the more perfect the harmonious combination, the higher the beauty. How high and glorious, therefore, must be the beauty of his attribute which is the perfect combination of all his infinite perfections!
You see, then, why this attribute is so awful to us. In the ideal man all the faculties and powers, mental, moral, and bodily, work together in perfect harmony, making sweet music - the image of God is clear and pure in the human heart. But alas! how far are we from this ideal! In the actual man the purity is stained, the beauty is defaced, the harmony is changed into jarring discord, "like sweet bells jangled out of tune." How it came so, we are not now inquiring. We all feel that it is so. Therefore is this attribute awful to us. It is the awfulness of absolute purity in the presence of impurity; it is the awfulness of perfect beauty in the presence of deformity; it is the awfulness of honor in the presence of dishonor and shame; in one word, it is the awfulness of holiness in the presence of sinfulness. How, then, shall we approach Him before whom angels bow and archangels veil their faces - Him in whose sight the white radiance of heaven itself is stained with impurity?
Is this glorious attribute also revealed in the physical, material nature? Yes, even this is revealed there; but only as such an attribute can be revealed there - viz., by physical symbols. There is a deep correspondence between things spiritual and things physical, a correspondence necessarily flowing from the fact that the physical prceeds from, and there must be a revelation of, the Divine spiritual. Now, we have already seen that holiness is the harmonious combination of all the Divine attributes into one perfect, beautiful whole. Evidently, therefore, the symbol, or correspondence, or revelation, of this must be found in the beauty and harmony of the physical universe, a beauty and a harmony determined by perfect law.
Still later Le Conte says this:
Holiness is like a forgotten strain of music, still lurking unknown and unrecognized in the memory: strike one chord, and the whole may be dimly brought back to the mind. This chord is struck by the Scriptures. The true nature of holiness, once understood by the intellect, and what a glory and a lustre it sheds upon the whole moral and physical world! what a glory is there then in the nature of Deity! what a nobleness and dignity in the true nature of man! What a splendor even in the physical universe, a the symbol and revelation of Deity! Holiness once appropriated and possessed as an attribute of our nature, and what words can adquately express the glory of the change? It is a new heart, a new life, a new spirit, a new birth.
If, then holiness is the beauty of and perfection of the Divine nature, surely it is also the beauty and perfection of the human nature. Now, we have seen that the whole work of man on this earth is to restore or perfect the Divine image in the nature of man, in the reason of man as truth, in the heart of man as love. Now, it is the harmonious combination of all these divine features that constitutes the beauty of the Divine image or holiness in man. Holiness, therefore, is the true end of human life and every other is false.
My friends, I have tried to show you the exceeding beauty of holiness. Shall I now turn [to] the other side of the picture? Shall I show you in contrast the exceeding ugliness of its opposite, sinfulness? If holiness is perfect law and order, then is sinfulness lawlessness and anarchy; if holiness is perfect harmony, then sinfulness is perfect discord; if holiness is spiritual beauty, the sinfulness is spiritual deformity; if the one is purity, and lustre and life, and health, then is the other foulness, and blackness, and spiritual death, and corruption.
Joseph Le Conte, Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1877), p. 158-160, 164-165.
Let me add some straightforward biography as to who this man was for those interested in understanding things more deeply. From Wikipedia, I believe, we read:
Joseph Le Conte (February 26, 1823 - July 6, 1901) was an American geologist.
Of Huguenot descent, he was born in Liberty County, Georgia to Louis Le Conte, patriarch of the noted Le Conte family. He was educated at Franklin College in Athens, Georgia (now the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Georgia), where he graduated in 1841; he afterwards studied medicine and received his degree at the New York College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1845. After practising for three or four years at Macon, Georgia, he entered Harvard University, and studied natural history under Louis Agassiz.
An excursion made with Professors J. Hall and Agassiz to the Helderberg mountains of New York developed a keen interest in geology. After graduating at Harvard, Le Conte in 1851 accompanied Agassiz on an expedition to study the Florida reefs. On his return he became professor of natural science in Oglethorpe University which was located in Midway, Georgia at the time; and from December of 1852 until 1856 professor of natural history and geology at Franklin College. From 1857 to 1869 he was a professor of chemistry and geology at South Carolina College, which is now the University of South Carolina.
On January 14, 1846, he married Caroline Nisbet, a niece of Eugenius A. Nisbet. The LeContes had four children grow to adulthood: Emma Florence Le Conte, Sarah Elizabeth Le Conte, Caroline Eaton Le Conte, and Joseph Nisbet Le Conte.
During the Civil War Le Conte continued to teach in South Carolina. He also produced medicine and supervised the niter works (to manufacture explosives) for the Confederacy. However, after the war he continued to teach, but he claimed to find Reconstruction politics intolerable, with moves of the Reconstruction-era Legislature to deeply cut funding to South Carolina College.
In 1869, he moved to Berkeley, California to help organize the University of California, along with his brother John Le Conte. He was appointed the first professor of geology and natural history at the University, a post which he held until his death.
He published a series of papers on monocular and binocular vision, and also on psychology. His chief contributions, however, related to geology. He described the fissure-eruptions in western America, discoursed on earth-crust movements and their causes and on the great features of the earths surface. As separate works he published Elements of Geology (1878, 5th ed. 1889); Religion and Science (1874); and Evolution: its History, its Evidences, and its Relation to Religious Thought (1888). In 1874, he was nominated to the National Academy of Sciences. He was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1892, and of the Geological Society of America in 1896.
Le Conte is also noted for his exploration and preservation of the Sierra Nevada of California, USA. He first visited Yosemite Valley in 1870, where he became friends with John Muir and started exploring the Sierra. He became concerned that resource exploitation (such as sheepherding) would ruin the Sierra, so co-founded the Sierra Club with Muir and others in 1892. He was a director of the Sierra Club from 1892 through 1898. His son, Joseph N. Le Conte, was also a noted professor and Sierra Club member.
He died of a heart attack in the Yosemite Valley, California, on the July 6, 1901, right before the Sierra Club's first High Trip. The Sierra Club built the LeConte Memorial Lodge in his honor in 1904. The Le Conte Canyon, Le Conte Divide, Le Conte Falls and Mount Le Conte were named after him. He is buried in Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland, California.
Obviously from this short biography, he was a man of some renown in his own day. We may disagree today with some of his views on science and nature. Yet I have a rich science and nature background and love his connections to the field of science and nature. What is so valuable in what he has to say is his connection of holiness to things natural in the way he expresses himself. He has a profound ability to use natural analogies as he speaks, which adds clarity to his thought for those aquainted with nature. I can relate in many ways to what he has to say about holiness. May you also be richly blessed by his writing.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to Rev. John Howe
Rev. John Howe gives a good summary phrase for holiness. He calls it the "attribute of attributes." A quick translation of his understanding of holiness is that it includes all the other attributes. In other words, holiness expresses wholeness. Attributes like truth and love would be parts of holiness for Howe. May God richly bless your life through His wholeness.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Rev. John Howe gives a good summary phrase for holiness. He calls it the "attribute of attributes." A quick translation of his understanding of holiness is that it includes all the other attributes. In other words, holiness expresses wholeness. Attributes like truth and love would be parts of holiness for Howe. May God richly bless your life through His wholeness.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Friday, September 07, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to the Scriptures (Psalms 145:8-9)
In the case of this Psalm, I will argue for wholeness not so much from holiness as from an example where wholeness is inherent in a passage, showing its significance in the Bible in general. So again, I want to be clear, this will not be a clear exposition of holiness so much as an example of wholeness as a principle within Scripture.
In Psalm 145:8-9, in the NKJV, we read:
"The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and great in mercy. The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works."
I see here first a set of four elements or parts together in verse 8: gracious or grace, compassion, slow to anger or longsuffering and mercy. These are all in verse 8, but in verse 9, I think we see a summary of all of them as described in the words: "are over all His works." The word that summaries these four parts is translated "tender mercies," but also could be translated as tenderness or even softness. The word "mercies" is actually misleading since it has no direct connection with "mercy" in verse 8. If there is any possible connection it is more likely with compassion, though I do not regard them as necessarily connected, as some do.
So to summarize, I see four parts in: grace, compassion, longsuffering and mercy. And these all fit under what summarized as all His works in this context: tenderness. I am convinced it must be specific to this context since righteousness and truth are His works too and would not necessarily be tender in all cases like mercy, etc. clearly are when they are applied. So I do see this context as an example of a parts and whole relationships being significant in Scripture. This is an example of how important wholeness can be in principle.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
In the case of this Psalm, I will argue for wholeness not so much from holiness as from an example where wholeness is inherent in a passage, showing its significance in the Bible in general. So again, I want to be clear, this will not be a clear exposition of holiness so much as an example of wholeness as a principle within Scripture.
In Psalm 145:8-9, in the NKJV, we read:
"The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and great in mercy. The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works."
I see here first a set of four elements or parts together in verse 8: gracious or grace, compassion, slow to anger or longsuffering and mercy. These are all in verse 8, but in verse 9, I think we see a summary of all of them as described in the words: "are over all His works." The word that summaries these four parts is translated "tender mercies," but also could be translated as tenderness or even softness. The word "mercies" is actually misleading since it has no direct connection with "mercy" in verse 8. If there is any possible connection it is more likely with compassion, though I do not regard them as necessarily connected, as some do.
So to summarize, I see four parts in: grace, compassion, longsuffering and mercy. And these all fit under what summarized as all His works in this context: tenderness. I am convinced it must be specific to this context since righteousness and truth are His works too and would not necessarily be tender in all cases like mercy, etc. clearly are when they are applied. So I do see this context as an example of a parts and whole relationships being significant in Scripture. This is an example of how important wholeness can be in principle.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Holiness is Wholeness: According to John Albert Bengel (Sometimes Johann A. Bengel)
In Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament, there is now included a section titled "Life and Writings of J.A. Bengel" apparently written by Charlton T. Lewis. There we read:
"From 1711 to 1713 he (J.A. Bengel) served a curacy at Stuttgart. It was about this period he composed a Latin treatise, On the Holiness of God, in which he shows, by parallel passages of Scripture, that all the attributes of God are implied in the Hebrew qodesh holy: in fact, that the divine holiness comprehends all his supreme excellence."
There is more than this to this story, however. It has also come to my knowledge that Bengel would introduce this teaching on the character of God before he would take his students through the process of studying the Scripture itself. I have even written to the scholarly source of this information and hope to learn more later. Bengel clearly understood character's importance and priority.
What is incredible to me is that there seems to be no way to acquire this treatise in either Latin or English to examine his proof from "parallel passages in Scripture." It would be a great find to see this proof!
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
In Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament, there is now included a section titled "Life and Writings of J.A. Bengel" apparently written by Charlton T. Lewis. There we read:
"From 1711 to 1713 he (J.A. Bengel) served a curacy at Stuttgart. It was about this period he composed a Latin treatise, On the Holiness of God, in which he shows, by parallel passages of Scripture, that all the attributes of God are implied in the Hebrew qodesh holy: in fact, that the divine holiness comprehends all his supreme excellence."
There is more than this to this story, however. It has also come to my knowledge that Bengel would introduce this teaching on the character of God before he would take his students through the process of studying the Scripture itself. I have even written to the scholarly source of this information and hope to learn more later. Bengel clearly understood character's importance and priority.
What is incredible to me is that there seems to be no way to acquire this treatise in either Latin or English to examine his proof from "parallel passages in Scripture." It would be a great find to see this proof!
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Monday, August 27, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to John Gill
Who preceded the great Baptist preacher of the late 1800s, Charles Haddon Spurgeon? It was Pastor John Gill. Spurgeon may have gotten his first hints that holiness is wholeness from his predecessor.
John Gill writes in his A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 1 Chapter 20, Of the Holiness of God:
Holiness is an essential attribute of God; it is his nature and essence; it is himself, he is holiness itself; "he swears by himself, because he can swear by no greater"; and he will not swear by any less, and yet he swears by his holiness, (Heb. 6:13; Ps. 89:35; Amos 4:2, 6:8) which places put [together] and compared together show that the holiness of God is himself; and it has been thought to be not so much a particular and distinct attribute of itself, as the lustre, glory, and harmony of all the rest; and [it] is what is called "the beauty of the Lord", (Ps. 27:4) as it is the beauty of the good angels, and of regenerate men; and, indeed, what is wisdom or knoweldge, without holinesss, but craft and cunning? or what is power, without it, but tyranny, oppression and cruetly? but God is "glorious in holiness", (Ex. 15:11) this gives a lustre to all his perfections , and is the glory of them ; and therefore none of them are or can be exercised in a wrong manner, or to any bad purpose.
So again we have an example of another giant of the faith, in the Protestant tradition, who recognizes that holiness is not a particular attribute, but the harmony of all the rest. In clear words for today, we would say that it is the whole. And who cannot rejoice in Gill's point that holiness prevents any particular attribute from being misused. A wonderful insight by him and something to consider before we accuse a whole God of any wrongdoing.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Who preceded the great Baptist preacher of the late 1800s, Charles Haddon Spurgeon? It was Pastor John Gill. Spurgeon may have gotten his first hints that holiness is wholeness from his predecessor.
John Gill writes in his A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 1 Chapter 20, Of the Holiness of God:
Holiness is an essential attribute of God; it is his nature and essence; it is himself, he is holiness itself; "he swears by himself, because he can swear by no greater"; and he will not swear by any less, and yet he swears by his holiness, (Heb. 6:13; Ps. 89:35; Amos 4:2, 6:8) which places put [together] and compared together show that the holiness of God is himself; and it has been thought to be not so much a particular and distinct attribute of itself, as the lustre, glory, and harmony of all the rest; and [it] is what is called "the beauty of the Lord", (Ps. 27:4) as it is the beauty of the good angels, and of regenerate men; and, indeed, what is wisdom or knoweldge, without holinesss, but craft and cunning? or what is power, without it, but tyranny, oppression and cruetly? but God is "glorious in holiness", (Ex. 15:11) this gives a lustre to all his perfections , and is the glory of them ; and therefore none of them are or can be exercised in a wrong manner, or to any bad purpose.
So again we have an example of another giant of the faith, in the Protestant tradition, who recognizes that holiness is not a particular attribute, but the harmony of all the rest. In clear words for today, we would say that it is the whole. And who cannot rejoice in Gill's point that holiness prevents any particular attribute from being misused. A wonderful insight by him and something to consider before we accuse a whole God of any wrongdoing.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to Martin Luther
I like how one great pastor put it: "Luther needs no trumpteter." He meant that everyone has heard of Martin Luther. Yet not everyone has heard his views on holiness or sanctification. Here is one popular expression of his view from Edward W. A. Koehler in A Summary of Christian Doctrine. He says on page 155:
XXVI. SANCTIFICATION THROUGH FAITH. (STEP V)
The word "sanctication" is sometimes used in a wider sense, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:13: "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." The term here comprehends the entire work of the Holy Ghost, by which He leads the sinner unto eternal life. However, it is also used in a narrower sense, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:3: "This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication" etc. Here the term evidently refers only to that part or phase of the Spirit's work, by which He incites and directs believers to live a godly life.
A couple of notes on Koehler's quote. First, note the "wider sense" of holiness as being a word that "comprehends the entire." Stopping right there you see the concept of wholeness in other English words. Then in the "narrower sense" you see that it "refers only to that part or phase." Stopping right there you see the concept of part.
So we can at least see some notion of wholeness in Luther and in the tradition that follows him. It now is our job to clear up this notion of holiness even more. We have to continue reforming in this tradition.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon Westlund
I like how one great pastor put it: "Luther needs no trumpteter." He meant that everyone has heard of Martin Luther. Yet not everyone has heard his views on holiness or sanctification. Here is one popular expression of his view from Edward W. A. Koehler in A Summary of Christian Doctrine. He says on page 155:
XXVI. SANCTIFICATION THROUGH FAITH. (STEP V)
The word "sanctication" is sometimes used in a wider sense, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:13: "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." The term here comprehends the entire work of the Holy Ghost, by which He leads the sinner unto eternal life. However, it is also used in a narrower sense, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:3: "This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication" etc. Here the term evidently refers only to that part or phase of the Spirit's work, by which He incites and directs believers to live a godly life.
A couple of notes on Koehler's quote. First, note the "wider sense" of holiness as being a word that "comprehends the entire." Stopping right there you see the concept of wholeness in other English words. Then in the "narrower sense" you see that it "refers only to that part or phase." Stopping right there you see the concept of part.
So we can at least see some notion of wholeness in Luther and in the tradition that follows him. It now is our job to clear up this notion of holiness even more. We have to continue reforming in this tradition.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon Westlund
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: The Purpose of My Work in this Blog
I ran across this quote that really struck my heart as I was working on something other than my chief passion of holiness.
"Keep about your work. Do not flinch because the lion roars; do not stop to stone the devil’s dogs; do not fool away your time chasing the devil’s rabbits. Do your work. Let liars lie, let sectarians quarrel, let critics malign, let enemies accuse, let the devil do his worst; but see to it nothing hinders you from fulfilling with joy the work God has given you. He has not commanded you to be admired or esteemed. He has not commanded you to get rich. He has never bidden you defend your character. He has not set you at work to contradict falsehood (about yourself) which Satan’s or God’s servants may start to peddle, or to track down every rumor that threatens your reputation. If you do these things, you will do nothing else; you will be at work for yourself and not for the Lord. Keep at your work. Let your aim be as steady as a star. You may be assaulted, wronged, insulted, slandered, wounded and rejected, misunderstood, or assigned impure motives; you may be abused by foes, forsaken by friends, and despised and rejected of men. But see to it with steadfast determination, with unfaltering zeal, that you pursue the great purpose of your life and object of your being until at last you can say, ‘I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do’." AUTHOR UNKNOWN
Add to this:
He [Thomas Cranmer, major contributor to Anglican and Episcopal churches] continually had to meet and overthrow error and he did not always have enough time or energy to adequately state and discuss the truth. If that is an exaggeration, perhaps we can put it this way. He could not state and discuss the truth in such a way that it is seen in its right perspective, as a positive thing and not merely in the defence against something else. And it cuts deeper than that. For even when he does state and discuss the truth, he is inhibited to some extent by the fear of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. The fear was not illusory, .... But it is not always a help to the free and positive expression of truth to have to keep a continual watch over the shoulder at possible misinterpreters. .... For after all, the best answer to error which is a perversion of the truth, is not a negative of the error, but a bold affirmation of the truth." G. W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian
And finally add to that:
"... means that we have to give it careful consideration, but it is no guarantee of validity." G. W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian.
I see three key purposes for people to understand in reading this blog about holiness is wholeness. They relate to each of the quotes above.
The first purpose of this blog is to publicly make available my work on holiness is wholeness. It is written to allow people to have access to that view. If I am to work on that subject, it is paramount that I not get sidetracked by being a storehouse for all the views out there. I am willing to guess with my education that you can find all of them on the internet!
The second purpose of this blog is to biblically support the view that holiness is wholeness. It is not to criticize the view that holiness is separation alone, or the view that holiness is separation with a secondary idea of wholeness or the view that holiness is wholeness with a secondary idea of separation. If the view that holiness is wholeness is good, then it will have plenty of positive examples from the Bible to support it.
The third purpose of this blog is to show that holiness is wholeness deserves careful consideration as a biblical stance before moving on to guarantee its validity as a biblical stance. My point is that holiness is wholeness is not a strange novelty bursting on the scene and made popular only because the lessons of the past are unknown. Instead it is itself a past lesson that has been that has been unknown only because it was forgotten. I want to bring holiness is wholeness back to memory for careful consideration and then I want people to look to the Scriptures as marching orders for whether it is a biblical stance. I am only asking for serious consideration of holiness is wholeness when I compile the quotes or create links to quotes from Christian leaders. Then I am asking for people to follow up this careful consideration with biblical examination.
Biblical examination is now my work that I must not be distracted from, it is my task to support it with postive evidence without trying to answer all negative criticisms and it is my focus to look at holiness is wholeness through biblical examination.
Please pray for me and help me stay accountable to this effort.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I ran across this quote that really struck my heart as I was working on something other than my chief passion of holiness.
"Keep about your work. Do not flinch because the lion roars; do not stop to stone the devil’s dogs; do not fool away your time chasing the devil’s rabbits. Do your work. Let liars lie, let sectarians quarrel, let critics malign, let enemies accuse, let the devil do his worst; but see to it nothing hinders you from fulfilling with joy the work God has given you. He has not commanded you to be admired or esteemed. He has not commanded you to get rich. He has never bidden you defend your character. He has not set you at work to contradict falsehood (about yourself) which Satan’s or God’s servants may start to peddle, or to track down every rumor that threatens your reputation. If you do these things, you will do nothing else; you will be at work for yourself and not for the Lord. Keep at your work. Let your aim be as steady as a star. You may be assaulted, wronged, insulted, slandered, wounded and rejected, misunderstood, or assigned impure motives; you may be abused by foes, forsaken by friends, and despised and rejected of men. But see to it with steadfast determination, with unfaltering zeal, that you pursue the great purpose of your life and object of your being until at last you can say, ‘I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do’." AUTHOR UNKNOWN
Add to this:
He [Thomas Cranmer, major contributor to Anglican and Episcopal churches] continually had to meet and overthrow error and he did not always have enough time or energy to adequately state and discuss the truth. If that is an exaggeration, perhaps we can put it this way. He could not state and discuss the truth in such a way that it is seen in its right perspective, as a positive thing and not merely in the defence against something else. And it cuts deeper than that. For even when he does state and discuss the truth, he is inhibited to some extent by the fear of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. The fear was not illusory, .... But it is not always a help to the free and positive expression of truth to have to keep a continual watch over the shoulder at possible misinterpreters. .... For after all, the best answer to error which is a perversion of the truth, is not a negative of the error, but a bold affirmation of the truth." G. W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian
And finally add to that:
"... means that we have to give it careful consideration, but it is no guarantee of validity." G. W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian.
I see three key purposes for people to understand in reading this blog about holiness is wholeness. They relate to each of the quotes above.
The first purpose of this blog is to publicly make available my work on holiness is wholeness. It is written to allow people to have access to that view. If I am to work on that subject, it is paramount that I not get sidetracked by being a storehouse for all the views out there. I am willing to guess with my education that you can find all of them on the internet!
The second purpose of this blog is to biblically support the view that holiness is wholeness. It is not to criticize the view that holiness is separation alone, or the view that holiness is separation with a secondary idea of wholeness or the view that holiness is wholeness with a secondary idea of separation. If the view that holiness is wholeness is good, then it will have plenty of positive examples from the Bible to support it.
The third purpose of this blog is to show that holiness is wholeness deserves careful consideration as a biblical stance before moving on to guarantee its validity as a biblical stance. My point is that holiness is wholeness is not a strange novelty bursting on the scene and made popular only because the lessons of the past are unknown. Instead it is itself a past lesson that has been that has been unknown only because it was forgotten. I want to bring holiness is wholeness back to memory for careful consideration and then I want people to look to the Scriptures as marching orders for whether it is a biblical stance. I am only asking for serious consideration of holiness is wholeness when I compile the quotes or create links to quotes from Christian leaders. Then I am asking for people to follow up this careful consideration with biblical examination.
Biblical examination is now my work that I must not be distracted from, it is my task to support it with postive evidence without trying to answer all negative criticisms and it is my focus to look at holiness is wholeness through biblical examination.
Please pray for me and help me stay accountable to this effort.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to Scripture (Exodus 20:8)
"Substitute wholeness every time you see holiness." That's Ray Stedman's rule for reading with the understanding that holiness is wholeness. I love that rule. The only difficulty is that sometimes it doesn't seem initially to make sense. So I want to prove that it can make sense even when at first glance it may not seem possible.
"Substitute wholeness every time you see holiness." That's Ray Stedman's rule for reading with the understanding that holiness is wholeness. I love that rule. The only difficulty is that sometimes it doesn't seem initially to make sense. So I want to prove that it can make sense even when at first glance it may not seem possible.
Let's look at the text of Exodus 20:8, "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
The key here is whether it can make sense in the context to say: "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping the Sabbath Day wholly." And whether it can make sense to say: "Therefore the Lord blessed [keeping] the Sabbath day and made the Sabbath day [keeping] whole." On the surface it may not look like this is possible, because we are so accustomed to a particular way of interpreting the passage. So let's look more in depth at a way of understanding holy as whole.
Let's begin from the most obvious or most certain, and then end at the least certain. By this process, I think we will be able to clear up whether holiness is wholeness in the case of this important Sabbath text. First, we are looking at one day that is distinct from the other six days. We know that "the" indicates one and that "six" is explicitly mentioned regarding the other days. The idea of a week is implied, but not explicit which would make up a unit of seven. We also see that holy is an amout according to the translators in the context as shown by its ending. I would understand this to mean to keep it wholly versus partially. Others would understand it to mean to count it separately versus together with based on the idea of separation.
Second, we are looking at the fact that no work or not any work is supposed to happen on the Sabbath day. Not any implies that every type of work is forbidden. What is important here is that the idea of all usually includes all that is within a group like in "ya' all." Every or any tends to be even more inclusive in that it may reach beyond the members of a group and include even those outside a group. But we know from any translation that no amount of work is supposed to be allowed into this day of rest. This part of the translation needs work since this allows a fair amount of discussion on the strictness of keeping the Sabbath free from work. This part of the discussion is not as certain as the first part. So much for amounts or numbers.
Let's move on to the next most obvious. The seventh day is in contrast to the other six as shown by "but." It also follows the other six since it is called the "seventh" day. We also see relationships between various groups of people as alternative groups as shown by "nor." We see again a contrast as shown by "but" in the contrast between "made" in six days and "rested" on the seventh day. Finally we see what results from God resting on the seventh day. "Therefore" He blesses it and makes that day wholly. So much for relationships.
Let's now deal with some things not as obvious. There is a lot happening. We are to "remember," then be "keeping," then "shall labor" and "do," then understand what it "is," then "do" again, then God "made," then "rested," then "blessed" and finally "made holy."
Let's discuss the action of "remember." Remember could be said because it refers to something already known before. But I think it is meant to do more than just say I have told you this before. Is it not also possible that we would forget this day in the sense that it is not the usual routine? Why would we forget it? Because it is an exception to the rule of the other six days which are more the norm for each week. Simply put, it would be exceptional. Like birthdays, which occur only once per year, they occur only once per week, and so are harder to remember than the six that are the same.
Let's discuss too the action of "keep." It means first or fundamentally to watch like a person watching for a full moon to occur. The idea of keep is a secondary meaning from the context where it means to keep a watchful eye on something that may otherwise be lost. This is where the idea of guarding sometimes comes in. Overall, it is a call to due diligence when it is combined in the context with remember. We have to remember and watch which is a great definition for diligence.
Another action to discuss is the most basic action of all, "do." Next to it is "made." My sense from the use of these words is that the key point is do not undo what the Lord has made.
Another action to discuss is that of "blessed." God did not originally curse this day making it subject to vanity any more than any other day He made, but he blessed it making it subject to fruitfulness. The reason for this action of "blessed" lies in His action of resting which supports why the action of blessing is needed. It was not that this day itself was cursed and needed His blessing. It was because people sometimes assume resting is unfruitful and so cursed unless God gives His direct blessing on the action of rest as not unfruitful action. Sloth and laziness are under a curse, but resting is fruitful. You can be sure, if some had their way, they would get rid of any rest along with sloth and laziness.
Finally, there is the action of "made holy." There are two traditional understandings of this word. The context determined which one the older commentators saw in a context. In this context it usually was seen as having to do with separation or with consecration. The other option was a meaning of wholeness. I think wholly or wholeness can make sense in the context.
God did not make this day originally profane any more than any other day God made. The reason for this action of "made holy" lies in His action of resting. He made it whole, not in the sense that the day itself was not whole and needed Him to make it whole. It was because people might think that keeping the Sabbath day was only required for part of the day and not the whole day without His direct word on the whole day. The point was to stress the whole day! Some have already gotten their way and have turned holidays, not into something they keep for a whole day, but at best a part of a day.
We see this action problem, don't we, in most holiday observances in the United States? Take the 4th of July. Is it not true that people think they are observant Americans when all they do on that day in observance is watch fireworks for only one part of the day? They give up their evening for the real theme and forget it the other three parts! Maybe I am too kind and some don't even give up their evening to think about independence. To counter this tendency in me, I have actually tried in the past to watch parades and do other things to keep that whole day a Day of Independence. I try to keep the whole day.
In all of this, it is important to note that the blessing and the direction to keep holy are given for the seventh day in this context because of God's change in action from making to resting. The blessing is because the danger is always lurking that someone will turn resting into a curse through calling it laziness. Making it whole is because someone will turn a whole day into a part day through calling keeping the whole day utterly ridiculous, or calling it trying to get the whole shooting match, or calling it the whole shebang, etc. From this they try to get you to back off from the whole day. You get the idea. So much for the action.
Now let's deal with some things that are a little less clear, plain or certain. I would never argue that because holiness is wholeness that there is no sense of separation in Scripture. Rather there is a very clear sense sometimes that we must "come out and be separate." When it comes to things, some very clear separations are happening between things in this context. So in terms of being, some things are separate or distinct from others. In terms of relationships, sometimes we have to come out from others.
Some of the things in this context are: work, rest, Sabbath, day, it, you, etc. , Lord, heavens and earth What Sabbath is literally is to cease from work. So it is separate from work. It does not say that it is or is not separate from play necessarily, but it is distinct from work. Also this day is distinct from other days. We normally separate one thing from many things. In addition, a day, to be a day includes parts: evening, night, morning and afternoon. Each are distinct parts of the day just as days are distinct parts of a week, weeks distinct parts of months, months distinct parts of years, etc. We also told about you, etc., which is distinct from everyone or just oneself alone. We also are told about the Lord who is separate from being a servant or steward. Finally, it is set in reference to the heavens & earth, etc. not just one distinct part of creation.
The confusion as to what holy is comes from the lack of understanding clearly whether parts of days are assumed in this context as what is being combated against or a melting together of this day with the other six is what is being combated. Is it primarily a problem of last day becoming another work day or a problem of this day only being kept one part of the day as a day of rest? That is a very good question. Or could it be that both problems are being combatted with the distinction between work and rest and then the distinction between wholly and partially? That is an even better question. Please ponder this before answering.
What we need is the following: The testimony of places being certain should be followed to take away the doubts of the uncertain places. The certain places should not be allowed to overwhelm the uncertain, but it gives us some great clues. I think the context allows for wholly as combatting a separate problem. I would like to know your thoughts.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon Westlund
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to Protestantism's Soft Spot of Comprehensiveness
Former Miami Dolphins quarterback Bob Griese once said: "There's no great mystery to quarterbacking. You move personnel around in various formations looking for the defense's particular patsy and then you eat him alive." I am afraid that the enemies of God and his people have found our particular soft spot and are now eating us alive!
That weak spot is Anglican or Episcopal comprehensiveness. The reasons for this are many, but the main reason is because the meaning of comprehensiveness has been cut loose from its clear biblical origins. Another reason is that Anglicanism has never had a clear primary leader like has other Protestant traditions. It has Cranmer, Hooker, Jewel, Simeon, etc. as its chief leaders rather than one clear champion like Luther. Richard Hooker is the one who I understand to have defined holiness by the English word comprehensiveness. But knowledge of this and clarity on this seems to be lacking when I write or speak to contemporary Episcopalians. I cannot say that when I speak to a Lutheran about justification the same thing happens. Instead they are quite clear on its biblical origins.
J. I. Packer wrote an excellent little booklet titled: A Kind of Noah's Ark? The Anglican Commitment to Comprehensiveness. As an Anglican, he and C. S. Lewis represent what is right about Anglicanism. In this booklet he writes: "ONE ingredient in today's Anglicanism ... is ... its claim to be comprehensive in a way that other traditions are not, and its confidence that this comprehensiveness is a fine thing." But, not everyone agrees that it is a fine thing. Packer sees this problem and points out that comprehensivenss has been "paraded as an Anglican excellence from at least four points of view."
The four points of view are: 1) inclusiveness (or calculated inclusion), 2) integration ( or integrative practice), 3) tension (inner tension) and 4) relativism (inescapeable theological relativism). The problem as Packer sees it is that "there is no common mind on how the current breadth of doctrinal toleration should be regarded." For Packer, part of this is caused by all of these views parading themselves as excellent views of comprehensiveness. I agree.
Yet let's add to Packer's insight. I believe that these four views mainly emerged because Anglicanism has not been clear on its greatest strength which is holiness. Comprehensiveness was originally a definition for holiness. In the hands of the best Anglicans like Hooker it brought good things to the church like a more comprehensive or whole list of 5 solas in contrast to Luther's partial 3 solas: faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone. It also saw the place for Scripture, tradition, reason and ... as informative parts of a whole schema for grasping the meaning of Scripture. These ideas were in fact more comprehensive in a way that fits with being more whole than other Protestant perspectives.
Holiness is the root of comprehensiveness is in contrast to the many meanings that Packer suggests that have been given to comprehensivness. Sadly, it seems that Anglican scholars like Wescott and Hort at the end of the 1800s may have been duped into some soft version of comprehensiveness in some of their perspectives that has led many to fall into a type of relativism in more recent church history.
Holiness is the root for comprehensiveness also means that Anglicans in particular should have been the first to grasp the wholeness of God's character in the major parts of what makes up holiness. I am surprised that someone following in the tradition of Richard Hooker did not grasp the character traits of righteousness, truth, love and goodness as chief parts of God's character in contrast to those who want to stress only his love. The same could be said for the chief parts of God's forgiveness in his mercy, grace, compassion and longsuffering in contrast to stressing only his grace or mercy.
Because comprehensiveness is Protestantism's soft spot, I believe it is the hill, or the valleys that connects the hills, we must retake. We must reform ourselves and realize that comprehensiveness is rooted in holiness or wholeness before we can enjoy the fruit of revival. William Tyndale realized that the Word of God needed to get to the people in their own language. He decided to take that hill or die doing it. We need to decide with the same level of conviction to retake the hill of holiness is wholeness. Comprehensiveness must originate again from holiness. Then Packer's confidence that comprehensiveness is a fine thing can be restored. May God keep reforming us and then may the reviving of us be the fruit of reform.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Former Miami Dolphins quarterback Bob Griese once said: "There's no great mystery to quarterbacking. You move personnel around in various formations looking for the defense's particular patsy and then you eat him alive." I am afraid that the enemies of God and his people have found our particular soft spot and are now eating us alive!
That weak spot is Anglican or Episcopal comprehensiveness. The reasons for this are many, but the main reason is because the meaning of comprehensiveness has been cut loose from its clear biblical origins. Another reason is that Anglicanism has never had a clear primary leader like has other Protestant traditions. It has Cranmer, Hooker, Jewel, Simeon, etc. as its chief leaders rather than one clear champion like Luther. Richard Hooker is the one who I understand to have defined holiness by the English word comprehensiveness. But knowledge of this and clarity on this seems to be lacking when I write or speak to contemporary Episcopalians. I cannot say that when I speak to a Lutheran about justification the same thing happens. Instead they are quite clear on its biblical origins.
J. I. Packer wrote an excellent little booklet titled: A Kind of Noah's Ark? The Anglican Commitment to Comprehensiveness. As an Anglican, he and C. S. Lewis represent what is right about Anglicanism. In this booklet he writes: "ONE ingredient in today's Anglicanism ... is ... its claim to be comprehensive in a way that other traditions are not, and its confidence that this comprehensiveness is a fine thing." But, not everyone agrees that it is a fine thing. Packer sees this problem and points out that comprehensivenss has been "paraded as an Anglican excellence from at least four points of view."
The four points of view are: 1) inclusiveness (or calculated inclusion), 2) integration ( or integrative practice), 3) tension (inner tension) and 4) relativism (inescapeable theological relativism). The problem as Packer sees it is that "there is no common mind on how the current breadth of doctrinal toleration should be regarded." For Packer, part of this is caused by all of these views parading themselves as excellent views of comprehensiveness. I agree.
Yet let's add to Packer's insight. I believe that these four views mainly emerged because Anglicanism has not been clear on its greatest strength which is holiness. Comprehensiveness was originally a definition for holiness. In the hands of the best Anglicans like Hooker it brought good things to the church like a more comprehensive or whole list of 5 solas in contrast to Luther's partial 3 solas: faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone. It also saw the place for Scripture, tradition, reason and ... as informative parts of a whole schema for grasping the meaning of Scripture. These ideas were in fact more comprehensive in a way that fits with being more whole than other Protestant perspectives.
Holiness is the root of comprehensiveness is in contrast to the many meanings that Packer suggests that have been given to comprehensivness. Sadly, it seems that Anglican scholars like Wescott and Hort at the end of the 1800s may have been duped into some soft version of comprehensiveness in some of their perspectives that has led many to fall into a type of relativism in more recent church history.
Holiness is the root for comprehensiveness also means that Anglicans in particular should have been the first to grasp the wholeness of God's character in the major parts of what makes up holiness. I am surprised that someone following in the tradition of Richard Hooker did not grasp the character traits of righteousness, truth, love and goodness as chief parts of God's character in contrast to those who want to stress only his love. The same could be said for the chief parts of God's forgiveness in his mercy, grace, compassion and longsuffering in contrast to stressing only his grace or mercy.
Because comprehensiveness is Protestantism's soft spot, I believe it is the hill, or the valleys that connects the hills, we must retake. We must reform ourselves and realize that comprehensiveness is rooted in holiness or wholeness before we can enjoy the fruit of revival. William Tyndale realized that the Word of God needed to get to the people in their own language. He decided to take that hill or die doing it. We need to decide with the same level of conviction to retake the hill of holiness is wholeness. Comprehensiveness must originate again from holiness. Then Packer's confidence that comprehensiveness is a fine thing can be restored. May God keep reforming us and then may the reviving of us be the fruit of reform.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Monday, June 25, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to John Wycliffe
Name the two most famous translators in English Bible translation history? Two of the most famous, argueably, are William Tyndale and John Wycliffe. I found recently a very exciting piece of evidence that at least one of these translators was convinced that holiness is wholeness.
In the Wycliffe New Testament is a very wonderful example of how Wycliffe understood the word holiness in English. Underlying this example is not the typical Greek word translated as holy, but there is a footnote which shows his understanding of the word holiness in English, even if there is no evidence of his view of the Greek word for holiness.
In Titus 2: 7, we read this in the Wycliffe New Testament:
"In all things give thyself ensample of good works, in teaching in wholeness, in firmness." The footnote for this passage reads: "In all things give thyself example of good works, in teaching in holiness of living, in firmness of virtues." Notice the parallel, wholeness is in the main part of his text, and in the parallel footnote is holiness.
Like I said before, a wonderful example! God bless the translators who understand not just the original text, but their own language so well.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Name the two most famous translators in English Bible translation history? Two of the most famous, argueably, are William Tyndale and John Wycliffe. I found recently a very exciting piece of evidence that at least one of these translators was convinced that holiness is wholeness.
In the Wycliffe New Testament is a very wonderful example of how Wycliffe understood the word holiness in English. Underlying this example is not the typical Greek word translated as holy, but there is a footnote which shows his understanding of the word holiness in English, even if there is no evidence of his view of the Greek word for holiness.
In Titus 2: 7, we read this in the Wycliffe New Testament:
"In all things give thyself ensample of good works, in teaching in wholeness, in firmness." The footnote for this passage reads: "In all things give thyself example of good works, in teaching in holiness of living, in firmness of virtues." Notice the parallel, wholeness is in the main part of his text, and in the parallel footnote is holiness.
Like I said before, a wonderful example! God bless the translators who understand not just the original text, but their own language so well.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
