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 entire sanctification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label entire sanctification. Show all posts
Monday, February 11, 2013
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better Through 2 Chronicles 5:11
In 2 Chronicles 5:11, it reads in very literal translation: "And it happened as the priests were going from the sanctuary - for all the priests who were present had sanctified themselves without observing divisions." This translation demonstrates the possibility of a contrast between "sanctified" and "observing divisions." In that case, holy's or sanctified's basic meaning would be that of whole.
You could understand it this way " ... for all the priest who were present were themselves the whole without observing any divisions [among themselves]." This is at least plausible and the contrast with "without observing divisions" would make its meaning also contrast with being set apart or separate.
So this verse at least demonstrates what is at stake in terms of understanding a great number of passages throughout the Bible. By itself, the evidence is not earthshattering, but a number of passages with this same plausibility would be. Please think about it.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
You could understand it this way " ... for all the priest who were present were themselves the whole without observing any divisions [among themselves]." This is at least plausible and the contrast with "without observing divisions" would make its meaning also contrast with being set apart or separate.
So this verse at least demonstrates what is at stake in terms of understanding a great number of passages throughout the Bible. By itself, the evidence is not earthshattering, but a number of passages with this same plausibility would be. Please think about it.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Understanding Holy Better: Concrete Things and Abstract Words
I firmly stand on the principle of Scripture alone in the sense of what is in Scripture has a unique quality of truth compared to the writings outside of it. I think this is terrifically relevant to the discussion on the meaning of holy. The danger though is that we limit not just truth to being found only there, but also we limit ourselves to only one biblical principle.
A valuable principle in addition to Scripture alone and the broader principle of truth is the principle of concrete things and the broader principle of good. Recently, in watching a DVD about the Aztecs and one of their monuments, the narrator said that at one time the majority of their evidence for the chief monument buried under Mexico City was documentary evidence, but now that had changed through archaeological evidence in finding the ancient monument itself.
I don't think that the shift from documentary evidence to the actual thing itself as evidence is harmful. In fact, it is a concrete good. When I defend the principle of truth in Scripture, I hope I do not turn a blind eye to the principle of good in the evidence of real things.
This is why finding a picture of holiness in some text next to the word for holiness would go a long way toward solving our problems with its definition. Likewise, better yet would be to find the concrete objects themselves as described in both a text and the picture. This would nail the definition of holy to the wall for good.
On the flipside, in the last few days I was searching commentaries on Romans for the authors' definitions for holy. It was a sad state of affairs. They all took a slightly different angle on the word. Their meanings were not the same, though in some cases they did overlap or agree.
We can find the concrete evidence we need and still uphold the principle of Scripture alone. Abstract documentary evidence is not passe. It is not a thing of the past. It still contributes truth. What is also a present concern is the matter of a targeted quest toward concrete evidence that should be available somewhere. I pray God will help us all find it. He's already helped me find a concrete biblical picture in a verbal description of righteousness and justice. The same can happen again for all of us on the meaning of holy.
In Christ,
Jon
A valuable principle in addition to Scripture alone and the broader principle of truth is the principle of concrete things and the broader principle of good. Recently, in watching a DVD about the Aztecs and one of their monuments, the narrator said that at one time the majority of their evidence for the chief monument buried under Mexico City was documentary evidence, but now that had changed through archaeological evidence in finding the ancient monument itself.
I don't think that the shift from documentary evidence to the actual thing itself as evidence is harmful. In fact, it is a concrete good. When I defend the principle of truth in Scripture, I hope I do not turn a blind eye to the principle of good in the evidence of real things.
This is why finding a picture of holiness in some text next to the word for holiness would go a long way toward solving our problems with its definition. Likewise, better yet would be to find the concrete objects themselves as described in both a text and the picture. This would nail the definition of holy to the wall for good.
On the flipside, in the last few days I was searching commentaries on Romans for the authors' definitions for holy. It was a sad state of affairs. They all took a slightly different angle on the word. Their meanings were not the same, though in some cases they did overlap or agree.
We can find the concrete evidence we need and still uphold the principle of Scripture alone. Abstract documentary evidence is not passe. It is not a thing of the past. It still contributes truth. What is also a present concern is the matter of a targeted quest toward concrete evidence that should be available somewhere. I pray God will help us all find it. He's already helped me find a concrete biblical picture in a verbal description of righteousness and justice. The same can happen again for all of us on the meaning of holy.
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, December 31, 2010
Holy Means Whole (or Set Apart): According to Solomon's Wisdom
There is an under-appreciated piece of Solomon's wisdom that I recently recovered in Ecclesiastes 9:4. It says that there is hope for the living "because a live dog is better than a dead lion." Its application to the debate over the meaning of holy in the Biblical text is important.
It suggests a wiser approach than I have taken previously to defining this word. It seems appropriate at the very end of 2010 to do a little reflection. As I reflect back to creating my two blogs on the meaning of holy, I realize that I lacked some of Solmon's wisdom. I think I could have made a wiser decision by seeing that "a combined certainty of both possible definitions is better than a singular uncertainty of one definition."
Here is what I mean. Recently, I have run across a lot of admissions by great scholars and great minds that the idea that holy means "set apart" is "probably" or "possibly" the correct understanding. The problem for them, quoting some famous translators, is that: "they are wise [that] rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated by one, when it may be the other."
That would make these scholars potential fools for choosing just one definition "when it may be the other." I too have been a fool at times, thinking I must be decisive and choose one even in the face of real uncertainty.
Martin Luther explained Solomon's advice this way: "Better a sparrow in hand than a crane in doubt." What is not doubtful is that holy means either "whole" or "set apart." Both together with differing probabilities may not look like a majestic crane, yet it is a sparrow without doubt.
My problem is that I cannot say today that I can remove some important doubt about holy means whole. Internally, I have more certainty, but the important thing is the evidence I have been able to present to others. I can say that I am at 70% sure that holy means whole, but that leaves a significant 30% chance I might be wrong on a very important word to define correctly. Better to be aware it might be another meaning than to kid myself.
I am choosing to go with Solomon's dog and Luther's sparrow. I want to be wise. I want to avoid a situation of uncertainty that risks "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Past scholarship has thrown out some bathwater. Let's proceed with caution and make sure the next toss is bathwater too.
From this position of wisdom, learning and studying can then create a stronger and stronger argument for one or the other definition. Then and only then may one definition take a singular place without the other. The nice thing is that I can relax and commit myself to understanding rather than to making sure I don't look like a fool.
So when you see that my title says "Holy Means Whole (or Set Apart), know that I am wiser than I was before. I am wiser and I am hopeful, because "a [sure] dog is better than a [doubtful] lion." Be wise and have a Happy New Year!
In Christ,
Jon
It suggests a wiser approach than I have taken previously to defining this word. It seems appropriate at the very end of 2010 to do a little reflection. As I reflect back to creating my two blogs on the meaning of holy, I realize that I lacked some of Solmon's wisdom. I think I could have made a wiser decision by seeing that "a combined certainty of both possible definitions is better than a singular uncertainty of one definition."
Here is what I mean. Recently, I have run across a lot of admissions by great scholars and great minds that the idea that holy means "set apart" is "probably" or "possibly" the correct understanding. The problem for them, quoting some famous translators, is that: "they are wise [that] rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated by one, when it may be the other."
That would make these scholars potential fools for choosing just one definition "when it may be the other." I too have been a fool at times, thinking I must be decisive and choose one even in the face of real uncertainty.
Martin Luther explained Solomon's advice this way: "Better a sparrow in hand than a crane in doubt." What is not doubtful is that holy means either "whole" or "set apart." Both together with differing probabilities may not look like a majestic crane, yet it is a sparrow without doubt.
My problem is that I cannot say today that I can remove some important doubt about holy means whole. Internally, I have more certainty, but the important thing is the evidence I have been able to present to others. I can say that I am at 70% sure that holy means whole, but that leaves a significant 30% chance I might be wrong on a very important word to define correctly. Better to be aware it might be another meaning than to kid myself.
I am choosing to go with Solomon's dog and Luther's sparrow. I want to be wise. I want to avoid a situation of uncertainty that risks "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Past scholarship has thrown out some bathwater. Let's proceed with caution and make sure the next toss is bathwater too.
From this position of wisdom, learning and studying can then create a stronger and stronger argument for one or the other definition. Then and only then may one definition take a singular place without the other. The nice thing is that I can relax and commit myself to understanding rather than to making sure I don't look like a fool.
So when you see that my title says "Holy Means Whole (or Set Apart), know that I am wiser than I was before. I am wiser and I am hopeful, because "a [sure] dog is better than a [doubtful] lion." Be wise and have a Happy New Year!
In Christ,
Jon
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Holy Means Whole: According to Common Sense
Common sense is not as common as people wish. I don't mean this as a criticism of people in general. I also don't mean to sound as though it is an unreachable ideal. I rather mean that it is not as common, as most of us would like. If it were more common, I think the idea that holy means whole would also be more common.
I recently was on flights to Atlanta and Orlando. In the airports, I heard a lot of common sense and a lot of people complaining about the lack of it, when it came to airports and airlines. I witnessed its lack again the other day, when discussing rules for a track meet. Even the officials admitted the lack of common sense in rule making. What is happening?
It is intimidating, if people feel that "It is all Greek to me!" It is exhilarating, if people feel, "It is just common sense!" So how does a person find a way out of intimidation, when dealing with the Bible originally being written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? Does it mean we all are left feeling intimidated by scholars? Or is there a way out?
I know from the Bible that there is a way out. I also learned a very valuable way out, while I was in the auto industry. One of my coaches taught me the way out by distinguishing between features and benefits. This greatly diminished the feeling of being intimidated and the danger of intimidating others.
When we were in training, very often our training focused on features like power windows, ABS brakes, rack'n’ pinion steering, etc. But when we were talking to our customers, we were supposed to focus on the benefits of those features, not on the features themselves. So we were to talk about convenience, the ability to brake and steer at the same time and quick handling on corners, etc. There were exceptions, like when a customer started asking technical questions. Sometimes, my job then switched to finding someone more technically educated, than I was. Yet our rule remained, start with benefits.
A more common sense example would be your first moving vehicle, usually propelled by another family member. It was your little red wagon. Admit it, you rode in one of these long before you owned a red Dodge Power Wagon. You became very aware of a smooth ride, when it was happening. It was definitely a benefit, when a rough ride got too rough. We may even have advanced to understanding that rough sidewalks or a damaged wheel meant a rough ride. Those features usually could be grasped by even a pretty young rider. I'm sure you were brilliant for someone your age.
Going back to our cars, most of us know that when we have a properly inflated tire, which is a feature, that it shows itself by a smoother ride, which is the benefit. As a person working in the auto industry I was living in a world beyond common sense and a world of common sense at the same time. You could say I was a middle man between the uncommon sense world of technical features and the common sense world of real benefits.
So what is the difference between a feature and a benefit? In a few words, it is the common sense difference between parts and the whole. You have the part called a round wheel and then you have the whole of the smooth ride. The experts on language say it in almost the same words; they call it the difference between feature and activity. Watch how this plays out in the common sense world of real benefits and see if the experts are right. In the end, you can then feel a lot less intimidated. Just use your common sense to advantage.
In Luke 10:25-37, life and love are connected to each other. Life is the big thing in the question asked and life is the big thing in the answer given, using common sense. On the city street or at the grassroots of the farm, life and death are everyday things. Most people’s common sense tells them that a person or an animal is dead when activity or life ceases. They get life and death. It is a little harder to get their hands around love, yet love is not absent from life.
Jesus makes it clear that without love, life will not be inherited. Both love and life are actions; the only question is what their roles are. From a common sense point of view, life is the more common sense thing, so it is likely the greater of the two. So life would be the benefit while love would be the feature.
To understand love you actually do have to get a little technical. Sorry. Love is a general word. Love relates to helping change another's tire, like furniture relates to chairs.
Yet love is very important, because it is the umbrella for the features needed for the activity of life. That makes common sense, since life is the main issue in the question and that indicates what is most central. Also without love for one's neighbor, Jesus makes pretty clear that there will be no inheritance of eternal life. So what does this mean for the meaning of holy? How can we use our common sense there? I think we can use it, like we used it for seeing the roles of life and love. The question is which role, whole or part is the role for holy?
We read in our Bibles many times that Yahweh is holy. We also see a difference between love and holy. We don’t read love, love, love; yet we do read “holy, holy, holy” is “Yahweh God Almighty.” Holy is not a feature like love, it is something greater as indicated by its repetition.
Its greatness is indicated by how many times we read that Yahweh is holy, but also by its connection to the name Yahweh. When I was growing up, I knew that nothing in church was more important than the name Jesus. It was common sense. I have known this and it matches with what I know from my grassroots and my street life. Names are important on the street and at the grassroots.
Experts tell it to us this way. They say that there is the integrating object or person and there are the components of that object or person. They are talking here about the whole and its parts.
Using common sense, either Jesus or Yahweh are the name for the integrating person. If you are not familiar with the name Yahweh, Jesus’ name means “Yahweh saves.” There is nothing greater in the Old Testament to integrate everything than the name Yahweh. I grew up knowing that there was nothing greater in the New Testament than that name Jesus.
So what then is the meaning of holy? I think holy is that word that indicates the components that make up the person of Yahweh and Jesus. It tells us the most important thing about the components. It tells us that the person’s components are whole. They lack no component in their personality.
On the city street or at the farm’s grassroots, you have to know that the people you are dealing with are whole. On the street, your survival depends on others being integrated people who are whole and healthy. You don’t want to hang out too long with people who are imbalanced and whose personalities are disintegrated, unless you are skilled to handle their issues. At the grassroots, your survival depends on others being integrated who are whole and healthy. You don’t go hunting with a partner who lacks an important part of his personality, like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, who needs a brain. You need whole persons.
I know in the business world, there were imbalanced personalities, who thought that just working hard is all you need to succeed. These imbalanced people were dangerous to one’s health. That is to say nothing about the fact that they were spewing nonsense.
It is common sense too that Jesus was not a person who saw his primary component as a person, as being separate. Isn’t this just common sense from his story? He didn’t become an Essene or join the community in Qumran. He walked the streets and the country grassroots restoring the wholeness of the broken-hearted.
In the end, I think common sense tells us that separation doesn’t make sense as a meaning for holy. An integrated person is the central object of the Bible. And His person is made up of not just one component, but many. His Name is Yahweh. He is one, He is Father, etc., He is living and He is God. He is also these things in general. He is holy, He is righteous, He is true, He is love and He is good.
So I think this makes it easier for us not to feel so intimidated about the technical parts. If we can first grasp the common sense whole, then we can accomplish a great deal. We do not need to feel so intimidated by the scholar, yet we don’t want to be too scornful either. The parts have their place, like love to life and like round wheels to a smooth ride. Yet common sense seems more comfortable with the whole. Common sense needs to come first, so that it rules rather than nonsense and intimidation. There is a way out.
In Jesus,
Pastor Jon
I recently was on flights to Atlanta and Orlando. In the airports, I heard a lot of common sense and a lot of people complaining about the lack of it, when it came to airports and airlines. I witnessed its lack again the other day, when discussing rules for a track meet. Even the officials admitted the lack of common sense in rule making. What is happening?
It is intimidating, if people feel that "It is all Greek to me!" It is exhilarating, if people feel, "It is just common sense!" So how does a person find a way out of intimidation, when dealing with the Bible originally being written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? Does it mean we all are left feeling intimidated by scholars? Or is there a way out?
I know from the Bible that there is a way out. I also learned a very valuable way out, while I was in the auto industry. One of my coaches taught me the way out by distinguishing between features and benefits. This greatly diminished the feeling of being intimidated and the danger of intimidating others.
When we were in training, very often our training focused on features like power windows, ABS brakes, rack'n’ pinion steering, etc. But when we were talking to our customers, we were supposed to focus on the benefits of those features, not on the features themselves. So we were to talk about convenience, the ability to brake and steer at the same time and quick handling on corners, etc. There were exceptions, like when a customer started asking technical questions. Sometimes, my job then switched to finding someone more technically educated, than I was. Yet our rule remained, start with benefits.
A more common sense example would be your first moving vehicle, usually propelled by another family member. It was your little red wagon. Admit it, you rode in one of these long before you owned a red Dodge Power Wagon. You became very aware of a smooth ride, when it was happening. It was definitely a benefit, when a rough ride got too rough. We may even have advanced to understanding that rough sidewalks or a damaged wheel meant a rough ride. Those features usually could be grasped by even a pretty young rider. I'm sure you were brilliant for someone your age.
Going back to our cars, most of us know that when we have a properly inflated tire, which is a feature, that it shows itself by a smoother ride, which is the benefit. As a person working in the auto industry I was living in a world beyond common sense and a world of common sense at the same time. You could say I was a middle man between the uncommon sense world of technical features and the common sense world of real benefits.
So what is the difference between a feature and a benefit? In a few words, it is the common sense difference between parts and the whole. You have the part called a round wheel and then you have the whole of the smooth ride. The experts on language say it in almost the same words; they call it the difference between feature and activity. Watch how this plays out in the common sense world of real benefits and see if the experts are right. In the end, you can then feel a lot less intimidated. Just use your common sense to advantage.
In Luke 10:25-37, life and love are connected to each other. Life is the big thing in the question asked and life is the big thing in the answer given, using common sense. On the city street or at the grassroots of the farm, life and death are everyday things. Most people’s common sense tells them that a person or an animal is dead when activity or life ceases. They get life and death. It is a little harder to get their hands around love, yet love is not absent from life.
Jesus makes it clear that without love, life will not be inherited. Both love and life are actions; the only question is what their roles are. From a common sense point of view, life is the more common sense thing, so it is likely the greater of the two. So life would be the benefit while love would be the feature.
To understand love you actually do have to get a little technical. Sorry. Love is a general word. Love relates to helping change another's tire, like furniture relates to chairs.
Yet love is very important, because it is the umbrella for the features needed for the activity of life. That makes common sense, since life is the main issue in the question and that indicates what is most central. Also without love for one's neighbor, Jesus makes pretty clear that there will be no inheritance of eternal life. So what does this mean for the meaning of holy? How can we use our common sense there? I think we can use it, like we used it for seeing the roles of life and love. The question is which role, whole or part is the role for holy?
We read in our Bibles many times that Yahweh is holy. We also see a difference between love and holy. We don’t read love, love, love; yet we do read “holy, holy, holy” is “Yahweh God Almighty.” Holy is not a feature like love, it is something greater as indicated by its repetition.
Its greatness is indicated by how many times we read that Yahweh is holy, but also by its connection to the name Yahweh. When I was growing up, I knew that nothing in church was more important than the name Jesus. It was common sense. I have known this and it matches with what I know from my grassroots and my street life. Names are important on the street and at the grassroots.
Experts tell it to us this way. They say that there is the integrating object or person and there are the components of that object or person. They are talking here about the whole and its parts.
Using common sense, either Jesus or Yahweh are the name for the integrating person. If you are not familiar with the name Yahweh, Jesus’ name means “Yahweh saves.” There is nothing greater in the Old Testament to integrate everything than the name Yahweh. I grew up knowing that there was nothing greater in the New Testament than that name Jesus.
So what then is the meaning of holy? I think holy is that word that indicates the components that make up the person of Yahweh and Jesus. It tells us the most important thing about the components. It tells us that the person’s components are whole. They lack no component in their personality.
On the city street or at the farm’s grassroots, you have to know that the people you are dealing with are whole. On the street, your survival depends on others being integrated people who are whole and healthy. You don’t want to hang out too long with people who are imbalanced and whose personalities are disintegrated, unless you are skilled to handle their issues. At the grassroots, your survival depends on others being integrated who are whole and healthy. You don’t go hunting with a partner who lacks an important part of his personality, like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, who needs a brain. You need whole persons.
I know in the business world, there were imbalanced personalities, who thought that just working hard is all you need to succeed. These imbalanced people were dangerous to one’s health. That is to say nothing about the fact that they were spewing nonsense.
It is common sense too that Jesus was not a person who saw his primary component as a person, as being separate. Isn’t this just common sense from his story? He didn’t become an Essene or join the community in Qumran. He walked the streets and the country grassroots restoring the wholeness of the broken-hearted.
In the end, I think common sense tells us that separation doesn’t make sense as a meaning for holy. An integrated person is the central object of the Bible. And His person is made up of not just one component, but many. His Name is Yahweh. He is one, He is Father, etc., He is living and He is God. He is also these things in general. He is holy, He is righteous, He is true, He is love and He is good.
So I think this makes it easier for us not to feel so intimidated about the technical parts. If we can first grasp the common sense whole, then we can accomplish a great deal. We do not need to feel so intimidated by the scholar, yet we don’t want to be too scornful either. The parts have their place, like love to life and like round wheels to a smooth ride. Yet common sense seems more comfortable with the whole. Common sense needs to come first, so that it rules rather than nonsense and intimidation. There is a way out.
In Jesus,
Pastor Jon
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Holy Means Whole: According to John Wesley (Sort of)
Hi,
Here is an extensive quote of John Wesley from his comments on Revelation 4:8. The portions that I have italicized are the portions where Wesley brings out the meaning of holy as having to do with being the whole. The quote reads:
4:8 Each of them hath six wings - As had each of the seraphim in Isaiah's vision. Two covered his face, in token of humility and reverence: two his feet, perhaps in token of readiness and diligence for executing divine commissions. Round about and within they are full of eyes. Round about - To see everything which is farther off from the throne than they are themselves. And within - On the inner part of the circle which they make with one another. First, they look from the centre to the circumference, then from the circumference to the centre. And they rest not - O happy unrest! Day and night - As we speak on earth. But there is no night in heaven. And say, Holy, holy, holy - Is the Three - One God. There are two words in the original, very different from each other; both which we translate holy. The one means properly merciful; but the other, which occurs here, implies much more. This holiness is the sum of all praise, which is given to the almighty Creator, for all that he does and reveals concerning himself, till the new song brings with it new matter of glory. This word properly signifies separated, both in Hebrew and other languages. And when God is termed holy, it denotes that excellence which is altogether peculiar to himself; and the glory flowing from all his attributes conjoined, shining forth from all his works, and darkening all things besides itself, whereby he is, and eternally remains, in an incomprehensible manner separate and at a distance, not only from all that is impure, but likewise from all that is created. God is separate from all things. He is, and works from himself, out of himself, in himself, through himself, for himself. Therefore, he is the first and the last, the only one and the Eternal, living and happy, endless and unchangeable, almighty, omniscient, wise and true, just and faithful, gracious and merciful. Hence it is, that holy and holiness mean the same as God and Godhead: and as we say of a king, His Majesty; so the scripture says of God, His Holiness, Heb 12:10. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. When God is spoken of, he is often named the Holy One: and as God swears by his name, so he does also by his holiness; that is, by himself. This holiness is often styled glory: often his holiness and glory are celebrated together, Lev 10:3; Isa 6:3. For holiness is covered glory, and glory is uncovered holiness. The scripture speaks abundantly of the holiness and glory of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And hereby is the mystery of the Holy Trinity eminently confirmed. That is also termed holy which is consecrated to him, and for that end separated from other things: and so is that wherein we may be like God, or united to him. In the hymn resembling this, recorded by Isaiah, Isa 6:3, is added, The whole earth is full of his glory. But this is deferred in the Revelation, till the glory of the Lord (his enemies being destroyed) fills the earth.
You should note too that Wesley has reversed Bengel's understanding that holy means properly whole and only secondly separate. Wesley has reversed the order of primary and secondary. He has however, kept the meaning of "all his attributes conjoined." That is what I mean by whole.
So here again is proof of another major Reformer of the church who recognizes that holy means whole, in some shape or form. This was something I was not taught growing up and probably you were not taught as well.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Here is an extensive quote of John Wesley from his comments on Revelation 4:8. The portions that I have italicized are the portions where Wesley brings out the meaning of holy as having to do with being the whole. The quote reads:
4:8 Each of them hath six wings - As had each of the seraphim in Isaiah's vision. Two covered his face, in token of humility and reverence: two his feet, perhaps in token of readiness and diligence for executing divine commissions. Round about and within they are full of eyes. Round about - To see everything which is farther off from the throne than they are themselves. And within - On the inner part of the circle which they make with one another. First, they look from the centre to the circumference, then from the circumference to the centre. And they rest not - O happy unrest! Day and night - As we speak on earth. But there is no night in heaven. And say, Holy, holy, holy - Is the Three - One God. There are two words in the original, very different from each other; both which we translate holy. The one means properly merciful; but the other, which occurs here, implies much more. This holiness is the sum of all praise, which is given to the almighty Creator, for all that he does and reveals concerning himself, till the new song brings with it new matter of glory. This word properly signifies separated, both in Hebrew and other languages. And when God is termed holy, it denotes that excellence which is altogether peculiar to himself; and the glory flowing from all his attributes conjoined, shining forth from all his works, and darkening all things besides itself, whereby he is, and eternally remains, in an incomprehensible manner separate and at a distance, not only from all that is impure, but likewise from all that is created. God is separate from all things. He is, and works from himself, out of himself, in himself, through himself, for himself. Therefore, he is the first and the last, the only one and the Eternal, living and happy, endless and unchangeable, almighty, omniscient, wise and true, just and faithful, gracious and merciful. Hence it is, that holy and holiness mean the same as God and Godhead: and as we say of a king, His Majesty; so the scripture says of God, His Holiness, Heb 12:10. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. When God is spoken of, he is often named the Holy One: and as God swears by his name, so he does also by his holiness; that is, by himself. This holiness is often styled glory: often his holiness and glory are celebrated together, Lev 10:3; Isa 6:3. For holiness is covered glory, and glory is uncovered holiness. The scripture speaks abundantly of the holiness and glory of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And hereby is the mystery of the Holy Trinity eminently confirmed. That is also termed holy which is consecrated to him, and for that end separated from other things: and so is that wherein we may be like God, or united to him. In the hymn resembling this, recorded by Isaiah, Isa 6:3, is added, The whole earth is full of his glory. But this is deferred in the Revelation, till the glory of the Lord (his enemies being destroyed) fills the earth.
You should note too that Wesley has reversed Bengel's understanding that holy means properly whole and only secondly separate. Wesley has reversed the order of primary and secondary. He has however, kept the meaning of "all his attributes conjoined." That is what I mean by whole.
So here again is proof of another major Reformer of the church who recognizes that holy means whole, in some shape or form. This was something I was not taught growing up and probably you were not taught as well.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Holy Means Whole: According to the Same Reference
The greatest genius I ever met educationally was a gentle giant intellectually. He once told me that Kenneth Pike would have been better known than Noam Chomsky in the linguistic field, if it were not for Pike's humility. I could say the same for him.
I sat under some educational giants or people who are better known by others than he was. The list includes people like Dr. John Piper, Pastor Tom Stellar and Dr. Dan Fuller. Then there is Dr. Paul Hiebert, Dr. Betty Sue Brewster and Dr. Eddie Gibbs. I also was at Bethel when they had Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. Scott Hafeman and Dr. Bob Stein in addition to Piper and Stellar. These are some educational giants, who I benefitted from in many ways.
Yet none of them taught me how to read the Biblical text in the way my least known mentor did. Piper got me motivated in reading classic theologians and in his method of arcing the relations in the text. Yet this man gave me the bigger picture on communication. His name is Dr. William Smalley. He outlined how communication worked in way that stirred my larger imagination and sent me in the direction of learning a great deal from Wycliffe Bible Translators and later, Dr. Dan Shaw.
What I learned that most benefitted me is a basic understanding of words and their meaning. Yet I also learned more built upon that same foundation. I learned the larger picture of what creates meaning.
He structured his class outlines somewhat around what I am about to offer. I have added to his material, yet without his work, I could not have created the outline below for how communication and meaning work.
His outline (with my additions or changes from his material) for what words signify is:
Sense and Non-sense
Continuity and Change
Bond and Barrier
Rule and Freedom
Reference and Non-reference
For Dr. Smalley, though I have changed his outline slightly, words were seen to signify these kinds of meanings to people. I think his outline offers a broad insight into the way language works and the kinds of meanings it communicates to us.
What I am concerned with today is the last in this series or outline. This is because I think it is being overlooked that the so-called conservatives are claiming to preserve the same reference for the meaning of holy as that of the Protestant reformers of the past and this is simply not accurate.
For a reference to be the same, it must be a reference to the same thing. And for the reformers like Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley and Spurgeon; the reference is to some version of the whole as the primary meaning of holy. It is not primarily a reference to some version of separation.
Luther refers to the "entire work of the Holy Spirit" as the "broad" and for him, primary meaning of holy. Calvin uses it in the context of addressing "whole man." Cranmer uses it in the sense of "wholesome" or "comprehensive." I read at one time that Richard Hooker's focus on being comprehensive was derived from his understanding of holy. Wesley used the phrase "entire sanctification" in reference to Thessalonians. Yet this does not tell us how he defined the word holy itself. I think everyone acquainted with Wesley knows how much he relied on Johann Bengel and Bengel summarizes the meaning of holy as the "summary of all God's attributes." Spurgeon in one of his sermons says that he told his congregation "many times that holiness is wholeness."
So how does the current reference to separation fit with the past reference of wholeness? I don't think it does, except in the sense of the secondary reference for holy in the Protestant Reformer's thinking. They did see separation as a secondary meaning at the most and it was entirely dependent upon the context. As Luther described it, the context determined when we are looking at the "narrow" meaning of holy.
Yet now reference to the whole or summary of God's attributes is gone, not only from the liberal side of the fence, but also from the conservative side of the fence. To change the wholeness reference into only an adjective for separation is not to have the same reference as the Reformers.
When I say I have put together the whole bike, that is a far cry from saying that my bike is separate from your bike. Those are two different references or things. I am sure Dr. Smalley would agree with me on this!
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I sat under some educational giants or people who are better known by others than he was. The list includes people like Dr. John Piper, Pastor Tom Stellar and Dr. Dan Fuller. Then there is Dr. Paul Hiebert, Dr. Betty Sue Brewster and Dr. Eddie Gibbs. I also was at Bethel when they had Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. Scott Hafeman and Dr. Bob Stein in addition to Piper and Stellar. These are some educational giants, who I benefitted from in many ways.
Yet none of them taught me how to read the Biblical text in the way my least known mentor did. Piper got me motivated in reading classic theologians and in his method of arcing the relations in the text. Yet this man gave me the bigger picture on communication. His name is Dr. William Smalley. He outlined how communication worked in way that stirred my larger imagination and sent me in the direction of learning a great deal from Wycliffe Bible Translators and later, Dr. Dan Shaw.
What I learned that most benefitted me is a basic understanding of words and their meaning. Yet I also learned more built upon that same foundation. I learned the larger picture of what creates meaning.
He structured his class outlines somewhat around what I am about to offer. I have added to his material, yet without his work, I could not have created the outline below for how communication and meaning work.
His outline (with my additions or changes from his material) for what words signify is:
Sense and Non-sense
Continuity and Change
Bond and Barrier
Rule and Freedom
Reference and Non-reference
For Dr. Smalley, though I have changed his outline slightly, words were seen to signify these kinds of meanings to people. I think his outline offers a broad insight into the way language works and the kinds of meanings it communicates to us.
What I am concerned with today is the last in this series or outline. This is because I think it is being overlooked that the so-called conservatives are claiming to preserve the same reference for the meaning of holy as that of the Protestant reformers of the past and this is simply not accurate.
For a reference to be the same, it must be a reference to the same thing. And for the reformers like Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley and Spurgeon; the reference is to some version of the whole as the primary meaning of holy. It is not primarily a reference to some version of separation.
Luther refers to the "entire work of the Holy Spirit" as the "broad" and for him, primary meaning of holy. Calvin uses it in the context of addressing "whole man." Cranmer uses it in the sense of "wholesome" or "comprehensive." I read at one time that Richard Hooker's focus on being comprehensive was derived from his understanding of holy. Wesley used the phrase "entire sanctification" in reference to Thessalonians. Yet this does not tell us how he defined the word holy itself. I think everyone acquainted with Wesley knows how much he relied on Johann Bengel and Bengel summarizes the meaning of holy as the "summary of all God's attributes." Spurgeon in one of his sermons says that he told his congregation "many times that holiness is wholeness."
So how does the current reference to separation fit with the past reference of wholeness? I don't think it does, except in the sense of the secondary reference for holy in the Protestant Reformer's thinking. They did see separation as a secondary meaning at the most and it was entirely dependent upon the context. As Luther described it, the context determined when we are looking at the "narrow" meaning of holy.
Yet now reference to the whole or summary of God's attributes is gone, not only from the liberal side of the fence, but also from the conservative side of the fence. To change the wholeness reference into only an adjective for separation is not to have the same reference as the Reformers.
When I say I have put together the whole bike, that is a far cry from saying that my bike is separate from your bike. Those are two different references or things. I am sure Dr. Smalley would agree with me on this!
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Holy Means Whole: According to Being More Biblical
I grew up with a saying in my family that is great in principle and yet very hard to live by. It is: "chapter and verse." What this meant in my family is that if you have an opinion on something debateable, then you had better be able to back it up with chapter and verse from the Bible. Since that time this principle has grown for me into the principle of being biblical.
I have striven to be that very thing for a lot of years and yet I find that there are still areas where I discover I am less than biblical. This could be a reason for despair. Yet the vision I have for a new church plant is: "To strive to be more biblical, while owning our errors and removing harmful compromises."
The reason I stay optimistic is that being biblical is a matter of degree and not a 100% degree. Let me illustrate. I think the degree or measure is this. What is big and what is little? When it comes to communication from God, what is big to you? Is it an oral communication you heard last Sunday? Is it a written communication in the latest popular Christian book? Or is it the written communication from a book commonly referred to as the Bible? Is that in fact what is big for you? Is it bigger than everything else?
When I say I am a biblical Christian, I don't think I am so in a 100% way, but in a way that the Bible represents the written or oral communication that is bigger than all else. For me the Bible is not exclusive in communicating helpful things to me as opposed to harmful, but it is the greatest by far in communicating those helpful things which I need.
I think this is the right measure the Bible deserves. It is not that there are not lesser lights in books written by Christian authors or others. It is that it is the greatest and not to be surpassed as an authority. Nothing is its equal. This is what is right and just.
My argument for holiness is wholeness is my attempt to be more biblical and not hold even Christian or other authors above the Bible. This is a hard saying for many people who look at being Biblical as though the biblical person can never be wrong about something as big as holiness.
I think it is rather possible to be wrong and still be right in the bigger sense. I also think that unless you hold that view, you are liable to defend what should not be defended. A pastor friend of mine recently told the story of his son getting in trouble at school. After his son told the story to his dad, he asked his dad if his dad's response meant he could never sin. His dad responded that "Mistakes happen, compromises continue."
I think it is important to correct the wrongs of the past and not fall into continuing compromise. It appears to me that some of the church fathers and reformers made an error with regard to the meaning of holy. They could not solve whether it meant whole or separate, so they settled for an intermediate position of both meanings with the context determining which one was valid. When the 19th century came to a close new data on other Ancient Near Eastern languages indicated that this was no longer valid. One possible root of meaning pointed toward separate. The other pointed toward whole. It was now clear that the previous position was now a compromise and no longer just an error that happens to all of us.
The question became whether or not the error would end or whether a compromise would continue. The problem is that there are harmful and harmless compromises. Half a loaf of bread is a harmless compromise, if the alternative is no bread. Half a baby on the other hand is a harmful compromise, if the alternative is a living baby (even in the wrong hands) as Solomon and the child's actual mother realized.
Unfortunately, the effort to end a compromise on the meaning of holiness may have resulted in having no bread at all or in cutting a baby in half in such a way that we were left with a corpse. By some deciding to end any compromise and rather settle for none, they lost wholeness. This seems to be the more conservative side. On the other hand, by some deciding to cut the baby in half and settle for something dead, they also lost wholeness. This seems to be the more liberal side. Both sides of argument over error seemed to have been a little overzealous and destroyed something that was helpful in trying to remove compromise and error.
With holiness meaning wholeness, there is still plently of support for separation. But without holiness meaning wholeness, there is very little support for wholeness. We lost something in trying to remove error. Half a loaf was better than no loaf and a living baby was better than half of a dead corpse.
I want above else to be biblical. Genesis 2:1-3 supports the idea of wholeness. Exodus 31:13-17 supports the idea of wholeness. So does even Luke 10:27 in principle, "`You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, ....'" Aren't these parts that make up the whole of the self? What word in Scripture brings together the parts of the whole better than holiness?
I want to finish by saying I strive to be a biblical Christian with the Bible bigger than any other book in my influences. I get support for the wholeness idea mostly from within this book itself. Unfortunately, I cannot supply all this support in one big gulp. But is it not acceptable to admit our errors so that in the end we might be right, but even more God right about what our world needs? Our time needs wholeness, health and soundness. May God get the glory!
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I have striven to be that very thing for a lot of years and yet I find that there are still areas where I discover I am less than biblical. This could be a reason for despair. Yet the vision I have for a new church plant is: "To strive to be more biblical, while owning our errors and removing harmful compromises."
The reason I stay optimistic is that being biblical is a matter of degree and not a 100% degree. Let me illustrate. I think the degree or measure is this. What is big and what is little? When it comes to communication from God, what is big to you? Is it an oral communication you heard last Sunday? Is it a written communication in the latest popular Christian book? Or is it the written communication from a book commonly referred to as the Bible? Is that in fact what is big for you? Is it bigger than everything else?
When I say I am a biblical Christian, I don't think I am so in a 100% way, but in a way that the Bible represents the written or oral communication that is bigger than all else. For me the Bible is not exclusive in communicating helpful things to me as opposed to harmful, but it is the greatest by far in communicating those helpful things which I need.
I think this is the right measure the Bible deserves. It is not that there are not lesser lights in books written by Christian authors or others. It is that it is the greatest and not to be surpassed as an authority. Nothing is its equal. This is what is right and just.
My argument for holiness is wholeness is my attempt to be more biblical and not hold even Christian or other authors above the Bible. This is a hard saying for many people who look at being Biblical as though the biblical person can never be wrong about something as big as holiness.
I think it is rather possible to be wrong and still be right in the bigger sense. I also think that unless you hold that view, you are liable to defend what should not be defended. A pastor friend of mine recently told the story of his son getting in trouble at school. After his son told the story to his dad, he asked his dad if his dad's response meant he could never sin. His dad responded that "Mistakes happen, compromises continue."
I think it is important to correct the wrongs of the past and not fall into continuing compromise. It appears to me that some of the church fathers and reformers made an error with regard to the meaning of holy. They could not solve whether it meant whole or separate, so they settled for an intermediate position of both meanings with the context determining which one was valid. When the 19th century came to a close new data on other Ancient Near Eastern languages indicated that this was no longer valid. One possible root of meaning pointed toward separate. The other pointed toward whole. It was now clear that the previous position was now a compromise and no longer just an error that happens to all of us.
The question became whether or not the error would end or whether a compromise would continue. The problem is that there are harmful and harmless compromises. Half a loaf of bread is a harmless compromise, if the alternative is no bread. Half a baby on the other hand is a harmful compromise, if the alternative is a living baby (even in the wrong hands) as Solomon and the child's actual mother realized.
Unfortunately, the effort to end a compromise on the meaning of holiness may have resulted in having no bread at all or in cutting a baby in half in such a way that we were left with a corpse. By some deciding to end any compromise and rather settle for none, they lost wholeness. This seems to be the more conservative side. On the other hand, by some deciding to cut the baby in half and settle for something dead, they also lost wholeness. This seems to be the more liberal side. Both sides of argument over error seemed to have been a little overzealous and destroyed something that was helpful in trying to remove compromise and error.
With holiness meaning wholeness, there is still plently of support for separation. But without holiness meaning wholeness, there is very little support for wholeness. We lost something in trying to remove error. Half a loaf was better than no loaf and a living baby was better than half of a dead corpse.
I want above else to be biblical. Genesis 2:1-3 supports the idea of wholeness. Exodus 31:13-17 supports the idea of wholeness. So does even Luke 10:27 in principle, "`You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, ....'" Aren't these parts that make up the whole of the self? What word in Scripture brings together the parts of the whole better than holiness?
I want to finish by saying I strive to be a biblical Christian with the Bible bigger than any other book in my influences. I get support for the wholeness idea mostly from within this book itself. Unfortunately, I cannot supply all this support in one big gulp. But is it not acceptable to admit our errors so that in the end we might be right, but even more God right about what our world needs? Our time needs wholeness, health and soundness. May God get the glory!
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to the Options for Systematic Theology
Systematic theology may be a bad word for some, but here are the options on the moral attributes for it, based on how a person defines holy. Holy is a very important factor. So I think it is important to ponder these ways of seeing the whole and its parts systematically. It just might favor holiness is wholeness.
First choice (one or a combination of the major Protestant views):
holiness as comprehensiveness (broadly defined) and as cleanliness (narrowly defined) -Anglican
righteousness and justice with sanctification (holy defined broadly as whole work) (holy defined narrowly as set apart) - Lutheran
humility and truth with sanctification of the whole man (holy defined broadly) and as purity (holy defined narrowly) - Reformed
love and perfect love with entire sanctification (holy as synonymous with perfection) (holy connected to 2nd crisis) - Methodist
goodness and maturity with holiness is wholeness (clarifying the English language) - Baptist
Evaluation: There is much to be learned from each of these traditions. The major problems are slight contradictions and a measure of lack in clarity at some points.
Second choice (presently popular):
separate (holy) - relational
righteous
truthful
loving
good
Evaluation: There is a lack of clarity on how these moral attributes fit together and whether or not some of them are synonymous with holy, especially righteous.
Third choice (an older version of the second choice):
separate (holy) - essential
righteous
truthful
loving
good
Evaluation: Has fallen out of disfavor due to current philosophy and emphasis on relationships. It has the same problems as option 2.
Fourth choice (Popular in mid 1900s to today with some conservatives):
wholly other (holy) - combines relational and whole, whole modifies relational (other to versus other from also a major point, meant to mean a positive versus negative relationship)
righteous
truthful
loving
good
Evaluation: Also quite popular due to its link to relationship. Also liked for its positive emphasis. Problem is that it brings back the wholeness idea as a modifier without adequate etymology to prove its point, after relying on it to prove that separation or other is the primary meaning. Otherwise it suffers from same problems as both 2 and 3.
Fifth choice (My position systematically laid out):
wholly (holy) - holiness is wholeness
righteous & just (subordinate to whole, as a part)
truthful (subordinate to whole, as a part)
come out - relational (subordinate to truth)
loving (subordinate to whole, as a part)
good (subordinate to whole, as a part)
be separate - essential (subordinate to goodness)
pure (by fire) - essential (no mixture) (subordinate to goodness)
clean (by water) - essential (nothing unclean) (subordinate to goodness)
Evaluation: Has advantages in that it uses much of the first option, but eliminates the contradictions and clarifies some points. There remains however weaknesses in that pure and clean could be seen as either part of the attribute of righteous and just, because it could deal with amounts of impurities or cleanliness, or of love, because they are processes by which pure or clean are reached.
The fifth positin has some advantages, that I like, which is why I hold this position. I have kept the evaluation sections very simple. I hope I have not seemed unfair with any one position. Some things have been left out for brevity's sake. Please let me know, if I need corrections.
May God bless you and may He make you whole.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Systematic theology may be a bad word for some, but here are the options on the moral attributes for it, based on how a person defines holy. Holy is a very important factor. So I think it is important to ponder these ways of seeing the whole and its parts systematically. It just might favor holiness is wholeness.
First choice (one or a combination of the major Protestant views):
holiness as comprehensiveness (broadly defined) and as cleanliness (narrowly defined) -Anglican
righteousness and justice with sanctification (holy defined broadly as whole work) (holy defined narrowly as set apart) - Lutheran
humility and truth with sanctification of the whole man (holy defined broadly) and as purity (holy defined narrowly) - Reformed
love and perfect love with entire sanctification (holy as synonymous with perfection) (holy connected to 2nd crisis) - Methodist
goodness and maturity with holiness is wholeness (clarifying the English language) - Baptist
Evaluation: There is much to be learned from each of these traditions. The major problems are slight contradictions and a measure of lack in clarity at some points.
Second choice (presently popular):
separate (holy) - relational
righteous
truthful
loving
good
Evaluation: There is a lack of clarity on how these moral attributes fit together and whether or not some of them are synonymous with holy, especially righteous.
Third choice (an older version of the second choice):
separate (holy) - essential
righteous
truthful
loving
good
Evaluation: Has fallen out of disfavor due to current philosophy and emphasis on relationships. It has the same problems as option 2.
Fourth choice (Popular in mid 1900s to today with some conservatives):
wholly other (holy) - combines relational and whole, whole modifies relational (other to versus other from also a major point, meant to mean a positive versus negative relationship)
righteous
truthful
loving
good
Evaluation: Also quite popular due to its link to relationship. Also liked for its positive emphasis. Problem is that it brings back the wholeness idea as a modifier without adequate etymology to prove its point, after relying on it to prove that separation or other is the primary meaning. Otherwise it suffers from same problems as both 2 and 3.
Fifth choice (My position systematically laid out):
wholly (holy) - holiness is wholeness
righteous & just (subordinate to whole, as a part)
truthful (subordinate to whole, as a part)
come out - relational (subordinate to truth)
loving (subordinate to whole, as a part)
good (subordinate to whole, as a part)
be separate - essential (subordinate to goodness)
pure (by fire) - essential (no mixture) (subordinate to goodness)
clean (by water) - essential (nothing unclean) (subordinate to goodness)
Evaluation: Has advantages in that it uses much of the first option, but eliminates the contradictions and clarifies some points. There remains however weaknesses in that pure and clean could be seen as either part of the attribute of righteous and just, because it could deal with amounts of impurities or cleanliness, or of love, because they are processes by which pure or clean are reached.
The fifth positin has some advantages, that I like, which is why I hold this position. I have kept the evaluation sections very simple. I hope I have not seemed unfair with any one position. Some things have been left out for brevity's sake. Please let me know, if I need corrections.
May God bless you and may He make you whole.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to Its Difference from Perfection
The driving force in the argument between different Christian groups has been to solve the dilemma of what is possible now versus the impossible later. Of course, all is impossible for us in our fallen nature so that forgiveness, as a whole, and mercy, grace, compassion and longsuffering, as parts, must be essential to any discussion. But for now, because forgiveness is assumed by me, I want to work on the standards that God originally intended, which bring us to our knees, and what standards we can live by, after we are Christians.
Going from perfection to imperfection is one example of standard change that now allows the standard to be anything goes. I think we need to change things from a willy nilly standard of imperfection to something that has backbone. Imperfection while in a sense admirable has no stopping point as far as how far that imperfection can go. We usually stop at the more recognized sins, but that is not what Scripture does.
The major standards that need correction are being holy, being full, being perfect, being complete and being entire. These standards as they currently are understood have become rocks of stumbling, rather than stepping stones for Christians.
I love John Wesley. John Wesley was a great grammarian and realized that sanctification or being holy, perfection, completion and entire were all present tense. He was so great, he even wrote a grammar at one point. So for him perfect love was a present time standard. So was entire sanctification.
I love John Wesley still. Yet John Wesley was a poor lexiographer, at least on occasion. He never wrote a dictionary and nothing he wrote on definitions, to my knowledge, reflects the skill he had at grammar. So other Christians have objected for good reason to his ideas, but they usually just changed the standard by lowering it, rather than defining the standard correctly or biblically. So many just changed his perfection standard to imperfection, which has led to a host of other problems, even while avoiding the difficulties Wesley faced.
It is time to keep standards that are present tense and possible rather than future tense and impossible, and the best way to do this is to define Biblical words accurately rather than lowering standards. It is elementary, my dear friends. We have defined fundamental and nearly fundamental standards incorrectly.
Wesley did not define holy clearly, when he used the word sanctification. This Latin term carried over into English obscures the clear meaning connected with wholeness. I believe it is God's original intention for us to be whole, and I believe it is His present tense possible standard following repentance and forgiveness, for us to be whole.
The idea otherwise expressed in sanctification of being without sin exclusively or being pure reflects more of an impossible standard. Purity is a wonderful process that is ongoing in our lives, as shown in some of the suffering we experience that purifies us. I don't see our purity as a finished process in this life.
This raises another argument that I cannot handle in this space about our flesh that still battles with our inner self that is renewed. I assume this battle is real, yet Christians can win this warring in Christ. I assume this will be the case with all the standards, so this is all I will say on this topic, only due to the fact that I want to stick to my primary topic and not get too lengthy.
Wesley did not define perfection correctly. I think this is his biggest mistake in understanding the Bible. Having said this, he corrected much of his misunderstanding with understanding. I say this because I agree so much with his grammarian rule that perfection is present tense. "Be perfect" is present tense. The question is still what perfect is.
Pastor Jon
The benefits are always the place to begin before introducing the technical features of anything, I was taught a few years ago. One of the great benefits of holiness is wholeness is its effect on our fundamental standards. One of the problems for the church has been the argument over impossible standards. I think we have to introduce possible standards, but effective ones that still maintain a standard rather than the effect of anything goes.
The driving force in the argument between different Christian groups has been to solve the dilemma of what is possible now versus the impossible later. Of course, all is impossible for us in our fallen nature so that forgiveness, as a whole, and mercy, grace, compassion and longsuffering, as parts, must be essential to any discussion. But for now, because forgiveness is assumed by me, I want to work on the standards that God originally intended, which bring us to our knees, and what standards we can live by, after we are Christians.
Going from perfection to imperfection is one example of standard change that now allows the standard to be anything goes. I think we need to change things from a willy nilly standard of imperfection to something that has backbone. Imperfection while in a sense admirable has no stopping point as far as how far that imperfection can go. We usually stop at the more recognized sins, but that is not what Scripture does.
The major standards that need correction are being holy, being full, being perfect, being complete and being entire. These standards as they currently are understood have become rocks of stumbling, rather than stepping stones for Christians.
I love John Wesley. John Wesley was a great grammarian and realized that sanctification or being holy, perfection, completion and entire were all present tense. He was so great, he even wrote a grammar at one point. So for him perfect love was a present time standard. So was entire sanctification.
I love John Wesley still. Yet John Wesley was a poor lexiographer, at least on occasion. He never wrote a dictionary and nothing he wrote on definitions, to my knowledge, reflects the skill he had at grammar. So other Christians have objected for good reason to his ideas, but they usually just changed the standard by lowering it, rather than defining the standard correctly or biblically. So many just changed his perfection standard to imperfection, which has led to a host of other problems, even while avoiding the difficulties Wesley faced.
It is time to keep standards that are present tense and possible rather than future tense and impossible, and the best way to do this is to define Biblical words accurately rather than lowering standards. It is elementary, my dear friends. We have defined fundamental and nearly fundamental standards incorrectly.
Wesley did not define holy clearly, when he used the word sanctification. This Latin term carried over into English obscures the clear meaning connected with wholeness. I believe it is God's original intention for us to be whole, and I believe it is His present tense possible standard following repentance and forgiveness, for us to be whole.
The idea otherwise expressed in sanctification of being without sin exclusively or being pure reflects more of an impossible standard. Purity is a wonderful process that is ongoing in our lives, as shown in some of the suffering we experience that purifies us. I don't see our purity as a finished process in this life.
This raises another argument that I cannot handle in this space about our flesh that still battles with our inner self that is renewed. I assume this battle is real, yet Christians can win this warring in Christ. I assume this will be the case with all the standards, so this is all I will say on this topic, only due to the fact that I want to stick to my primary topic and not get too lengthy.
Wesley did not define perfection correctly. I think this is his biggest mistake in understanding the Bible. Having said this, he corrected much of his misunderstanding with understanding. I say this because I agree so much with his grammarian rule that perfection is present tense. "Be perfect" is present tense. The question is still what perfect is.
Richard Hooker, I think correctly defined the word in terms of achieving a goal that is set. This would be perfection. It is simply reached the spot that was set for us. It is the child who reaches adulthood in Greek thought. I think this is what Wesley missed when he combined together perfection, entire sanctification and perfect love.
Biblical perfection is relational. Entirety is an amount. Sanctification is a whole. Love is an action. Wesley just needed to distinguish these meanings as well as he distinguished the time of present versus the time of future. May God make you whole this day.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Holiness is Wholeness: According to What is Needed Right Now!
I can't say it better than Martin Luther why holiness is wholeness matters so much at the present time. He once said:
If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the
truth of God except precisely that little point that the world and the devil are
at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be
professing Christ. Where the battle rages fiercely is where the loyalty of the
soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight
and disgrace, if he flinches at that point.
I am concerned that the church is doing many needed things well without doing the one thing needful. Please pray that holiness is wholeness is seen as the major emphasis needed. May God bless those who follow Him.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I can't say it better than Martin Luther why holiness is wholeness matters so much at the present time. He once said:
If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the
truth of God except precisely that little point that the world and the devil are
at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be
professing Christ. Where the battle rages fiercely is where the loyalty of the
soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight
and disgrace, if he flinches at that point.
I am concerned that the church is doing many needed things well without doing the one thing needful. Please pray that holiness is wholeness is seen as the major emphasis needed. May God bless those who follow Him.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
