Monthly Archives: May 2016

John 1:1

Posted on by
Reply

stormsDr. Sam Storms:

The ESV translation of John 1:1 is as follows: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Perhaps a few comments will prove helpful.

The Greek preposition translated “with” (pros) often means “towards” or “to”, thereby pointing to the Word and God in face to face intimacy. The term “with” implies a strong sense of relationship. In some sense the Word is distinct and distinguishable from God and yet in another sense is God. In the Godhead in eternity past there was no solitude or isolation. There was complete togetherness. God is his own family.

John clearly declares that the Word is God. The Word who always was, the Word who always was with God, this Word was and is himself God. Although the Word is in some sense distinct from God, so too the Word and God are in some sense the same. John doesn’t say the Word was “like” or “similar to” or that he “bears a striking resemblance to” God. The Word was God. He doesn’t say the Word was a copy or facsimile of God or a reflection of God or merely analogous to God. The Word was God.

Therefore, whatever you can say about God the Father that pertains to his being God, you can say about the Word (God the Son; and God the Spirit as well). John isn’t saying there is something “divine” about the Word, as if he has some exalted, mystical, godlike qualities. He is God. The Word wasn’t an angel. The Word was God. The Word is in no sense, way, shape, or form inferior to God the Father.

So what are we to make of the insistence by Jehovah’s Witnesses that the absence of the definite article “the” requires that we translate the verse as: “and the Word was a god”? What follows may only make sense to those who know Greek, but I urge everyone to read it closely.

The absence of the Greek definite article (“the”) does not mean the Word is only one of perhaps many gods. In this kind of Greek construction where an anarthrous predicate nominative (one lacking the definite article), in this case theos or God, precedes the verb, the noun retains the emphasis of specificity or definiteness (i.e., “the” vs. “a”).
The apparent equation of subject and predicate nominative does not imply complete correspondence. The predicate nominative describes a larger category to which the subject belongs. Thus the verb “is” does not always mean “equals”.

I should also point out that when the article occurs with both the subject and predicate (which is not the case in John 1:1), both nouns are definite and interchangeable. When the nouns are not interchangeable, as here, the article is absent from the predicate (i.e., absent from the noun theos, God).

In other words, if John had included the article (“the” God) he would have contradicted himself. If he had said “the Word was the God” one would be led to conclude that the Word is all there is to God, that no being could be God except the Word. But John has already said the Word was with God. In other words, the Word isn’t all there is to God. There is also God the Father and God the Spirit.

So we see from this that there is both an excellent grammatical and theological reason why the definite article (“the”) does not appear with the noun “God”. And thus we are on solid ground when we affirm that John is declaring the Word, Jesus Christ, to be God.

Debating Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Debate-PhotoIn my opinion Steve Camp is quite mistaken here in the stance he takes regarding debate with unbelievers. He wrote on his Facebook page:

ITS AN EFFORT IN FUTILITY TO DEBATE NONBELIEVERS, ESPECIALLY MUSLIMS, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” – 1 Cor 2:1-2. It’s the gospel … that any nonbeliever needs to hear (Mt 16:24-26; Acts 17:1-3, 17-39; Rom 10:9-10, 15:20-21; 2 Cor 4:5-6; Eph 2:8-9; 1 Pt 3:15). When witnessing of your faith in Jesus do not try and argue someone into believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, but give a reason for the hope that is in you. And do so with gentleness and respect. Amen?

***********

Here is Dr. James White’s response:

Sorry, Steve, no amens from the man you are talking about. Not after I looked into the face of a young man after the debate at Kensington Temple in London Friday evening and heard him say, “Three years ago I was a Muslim, but through the instrumentality of your debates, I have come to faith in Jesus Christ, and your work continues to strengthen my faith.” Not after talking to Muslims afterward who said, “You are consistent—you clearly try to represent us accurately. You make me think.” Not after talking to many young people excited about their faith and emboldened to go out and proclaim the gospel as a result. No, you can have your quiet, far-away-from-the-frontlines amens, but I, and those others, won’t be joining the chorus.

I have no idea why you have changed your position so radically over the past decade or so, Steve. But I would like to challenge your biblical argumentation, as brief as it was.
First, you cite 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, as if this text indicates it is “futility to debate…Muslims” on essential Christian doctrine. Could you explain the relevance of the text? You well know, Steve, that I do not believe I can argue anyone into the kingdom of God. Unless the Spirit takes out the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, there can be no salvation. So I suppose if you were talking about an Arminian debater pleading with a Muslim to “change their mind” or something of the sort, maybe I could see some kind of application. But most of the folks reading your words know who I am, and well know I do not believe that my arguments are going to somehow force anyone, including my Muslim debate opponent, into capitulation to the lordship of Christ.

But how do you come to the conclusion that it is “futility” to proclaim the gospel to Muslims? You have, in the past, intimated that the gospel is not central to our debates. Those who attend them, and listen to them, know differently. The gospel is always there, even when the topic is on another aspect of the Christian/Muslim conflict. So when I defend the Trinity, or the resurrection, or biblical reliability to Muslims—you do not think the Spirit of God can use this in drawing the elect to the Savior? There is no place for removing stumbling blocks in the life of those in whom the Spirit of God is working? Are you sure that is what Paul was addressing?

You boldly assert that these debates “do not further the kingdom of God nor can it bring someone to salvation.” I do not know what has caused you to turn against Christian apologetics, but it is hard not to come to the conclusion that you have. When believers are emboldened and encouraged, this does not further the kingdom of God? When the Lordship of Jesus Christ is proclaimed over all mankind, this does not further the kingdom of God? When falsehoods raised against the faith are refuted and shown to be empty, this does not further the kingdom of God? The kingdom of God is only furthered in the singular repetition of the Four Spiritual Laws? Surely you do not believe such things.

Upon what basis do you decide to limit the actions of the Spirit of God as to how He can bring His elect to salvation? Since I know of many who have, in fact, experienced salvation for whom the means of debates was vital, I simply have to say your assertion flies in the face of reality. But more importantly, it flies in the face of apostolic example as well. When Paul went into the synagogue and ????????? ??? ????????????? (17:3), do you think there was no opposition, no interaction, just one-sided proclamation? Notice that ????? ?? ????? ??????????—but not all. Had Paul wasted his time with the others? Surely not. And have you ever pondered why Luke used the imperfect when he wrote, ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ????????? ??? ??????? (18:4)? And pray tell, Steve: would you have taken to Facebook to rebuke Apollos. You know the text:

And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. (Acts 18:27–28)

Evidently, Christians can be encouraged by a powerful refutation of error and opposition, even when there is no mention of a positive “gospel response” upon the part of those thusly refuted! Have you considered this in coming to your dogmatic conclusion that God simply cannot use apologetics to bring people to faith?

You finished your statement by refuting what you had said before—at least in the obvious context of taking a shot at me and the wonderful evening of testimony at Kensington Temple (or even the debate a few days earlier at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa). Everyone knows I do not believe I can argue anyone into the kingdom, and everyone knows I believe firmly in obeying the actual command of Peter in the key apologetics text, which is not the apologia part—it is the ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? part. And my presentation in both places was in perfect harmony with that text. If you think otherwise, I invite you to provide examples from a careful review of either/both debates where I did not seek to fulfill that command. Until then, I invite you to reconsider your opposition to apologetic ministry to Muslims, and to realize that your insistence that the gospel is not being proclaimed in these events is, to put it quite bluntly, blatantly untrue, contradictory to the documented evidence, and irresponsible.