Category Archives: Theology

“G-d” instead of “God” – really?

Posted on by
1

YahwehIn this correspondence between man made ideas often trump the Bible. I am talking about the practice of writing “G-d” instead of “God.” All I can say is “You are right Phil. Well done!”

To: K___ B_____
From: “Phillip R. Johnson”
Subject: Cr–t-r?!

Dear K_____,adds:

I am so delighted to see the irascible Phil Johnson tear into this ostentatious practice of writing “G-d” instead of “God.”

For the uninitiated, this is an affectation often adopted by both Jews and Gentile Christians who are trying to get all cool and “Messianic” and Jewishistic, indulging in a Goyed-up version of that Pharisaical obscuring of “Yahweh” which has cursed Christian translations with the “Lord / LORD / LORD God / Lord GOD” absurdity for centuries. (Not that I have strong feelings about that issue, mind you.) It is done, we’re told, out of supposed reverence for God’s name and care for Jewish sentiments. So these poor souls write “G-d,” elliding the “o.” Sometimes they even efface other Divine titles the same way. (Phil’s correspondent even ellides the vowels to “Creator,” thus birthing the deformed “Cr–t-r” — I kid you not.)

Phil has excellent responses, as one would expect, some of which I’d not considered before. I now make bold to add some of my own.

If these folks were to be consistent about their practice, shouldn’t my name be written “Dani-l,” instead of “Daniel,” to omit the offensive theophoric element? Similarly, shouldn’t Isaiah be “Isai-h,” and Zechariah “Zechari-h,” and Israel “Isra-l”? Shouldn’t Joel be J–l? Shouldn’t Timothy be “Timoth-“? And since they’d not want to name pagan deities, shouldn’t Saturday be “S-t-rday,” and Wednesday “W-dn-sday”?
How does it honor God to substitute a well-known American-language blasphemy for His name? Ask any man on the street what “Geedee” (G-d) signifies. I guarantee he won’t reply, “Oh, that’s a reverential way of avoiding making God’s name common, in violation of the third commandment!” No, he’ll tell you it’s an abbreviation for a common blasphemy. And this is more God-honoring than simply writing God’s name?
As far as we know, none of the NT writers— NONE! — observed this practice. Paul (apostle to the Gentiles) did not write th–s instead of theos, nor did Peter (apostle to the Jews) write k-r–s instead of kurios. Certainly he did not write any church instructing that this be done. Of course, the Hebrew OT contains “Yahweh” nearly 7000 times, not counting the names with theophoric elements. The practice is without Biblical precedent.

Not only is it without Biblical precedent, it is against explicit Biblical commands and precedent. Biblical writers used God’s name constantly; the sacrosanct Yahweh appears some 6,823 times in the OT. Esther is remarkable in being the only book our of 66 not explicity to use one of God’s names. Moreover, how can one call on God’s name, swear by God’s name, glory in God’s name, or do any of these other worshipful, Biblical practices, if one plays games with God’s name?

The argument collapses in silliness. It is argued that ink (or bits and bytes) are too ephemeral to contain God’s name, or that written copies may be thrown into the trash, thus defiling it. But what is more ephemeral than breath? And into what horrid places might breath be blown? Yet are we further to disobey Scripture, by not even saying God’s names? Are we to grunt out “Guh-duh,” or worse, “Gee-dee,” instead of simply saying “God”?

If we are to write “G-d” so as not to offend the Jews, why is it OK to write “Y’shua”? If we believe that Christ is God, shouldn’t we write “Y-sh-“? But wait — that will offend the unbelieving Jews, too, since they deny Christ’s Deity! If our summum bonum in life is to order our practices by the strictures of those who have rejected their Messiah, mustn’t we do the same? Quite the dilemma… for the sacro-silly, anyway.
And while I’m on that, I’m sure these poor souls feel themselves to be special and hardcore and all for writing “Y’shua” and “Sha’ul,” instead of Jesus and Paul. But our Lord is never once in the Bible called “Y’shua.” Ever. Nor is Paul ever called “Sha’ul.” Why not? Because those are Hebrew (mis-)transliterations, and the New Testament is entirely in Greek. If this is their idea of being hardcore, shouldn’t they write Iesous, and Paulos? Of course, then, they’ll have to explain to everybody what the heck — pardon me, what the Gehenna — they’re talking about. Which leads me finally to this:

It really isn’t about God anyway, is it? It’s about the person. It’s about being different and special. It’s all about “Hey! Hey, look at me! I’m so different and extra-cool! Look at me, me me!” As I recall, C. S. Lewis referred to this sort of thing as “trying to be holier than God.” Since God Himself, in moving the writers to inscripturate His Word, felt no such compunction and issued no such commands, that is indeed all this is. It is “improving” on His Word. It is “helping” God, filling in all those nasty blanks He inadvertently left, but would have filled in Himself had He our foresight and insight. (I speak as a fool.) And if this is not the heart and soul of Christ-killing traditionalism, what is?

By contrast, it’s my observation that the sort of “different-ness” that glorifies God is believing and obeying His word as sufficient, and thus not needing our helpful supplements. That in itself makes us just as “different” as God wants us to be.

And isn’t that really what being a Christian is supposed to be all about?
Then there is the problem that some of these “Jew-tiles” head off for the heresy of modalism. (Though adumbrations of the truth of the Trinity appear literally all over the OT from Genesis to Malachi [pardon the Gentile canon-order], the concept is offensive and confusing to unbelieving Jews, so… out it goes!)

But perhaps more on that, another day.

The Distinction Between Law and Gospel

Posted on by
Reply

Martin Luther declared of the person ignorant of the distinction between Law and Gospel that “you cannot be altogether sure whether he is a Christian or a Jew or a pagan, for it depends on this distinction.” – Hermann Sasse, Here We Stand: Nature and Character of the Lutheran Faith, trans. by Theodore G. Tappert, (New York: Harper & Bros., 1938). p. 114.

Elsewhere Luther wrote, “Whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between the Law and the gospel, him place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture.”

Today, I was interviewed for almost an hour on the “Knowing the Truth” broadcast with Kevin Boling on the subject of Law and Gospel.

The program is now available online at this link.

God’s Simplicity

Posted on by
Reply

Kevin DeYoung the Belgic Confession (1561), begins with the declaration “that there is a single and simple spiritual being, whom we call God” (Article 1). This may seem a strange way to open a confession. There is only one single being called God; that makes sense. But God is simple—what’s that all about?

The simplicity of God is an important truth few Christians think about any more. By “simple” we do not mean God is slow or dim-witted. Nor do we mean that God is easy to understand. Simple, as a divine attribute, is the opposite of compound. The simplicity of God means God is not made up of his attributes. He does not consist of goodness, mercy, justice, and power. He is goodness, mercy, justice, and power. Every attribute of God is identical with his essence.

Consequently, we ought not suggest, for example, that the love of God is the true nature of God while omnipotence (or holiness of sovereignty or whatever) is only an attribute of God. This is a common error, and one which the doctrine of simplicity would have us avoid. We often hear people say, “God may have justice or wrath, but he is love.” The implication is that love is more central to the nature of God, more true to his real identity than other less essential attributes. But this is to imagine God as a composite being instead of a simple.

It is perfectly appropriate to highlight the love of God when Scripture makes it such a central theme. But the declaration “God is love” (1 John 4:8) does not carry more metaphysical weight than “God is light” (1 John 1:5 ), “God is spirit” (John 4:24 ), “God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29 ), or, for that matter, Scriptural statements about God’s goodness, kindness, or omniscience. “If God is composed of parts,” Bavinck explains, “like a body, or composed of genus (class) and differentiae (attributes of different species belonging to the same genus), substance and accidents, matter and form, potentiality and actuality, essence and existence, then his perfection, oneness, independence, and immutability cannot be maintained (Reformed Dogmatics 2:176).

In other words, the simplicity of God not only prevents us from ranking certain attributes higher than others, it allows God to have “a distinct and infinite life of his own within himself” (177). He is not an abstract Absolute Idea who happens to have love, wisdom, and holiness, as if we first conceive of a being called God and then relate qualities to him. Rather, God in his very essence—within himself and by himself—is love, wisdom, and holiness. God is whatever he has. He is not the composite of his attributes, some in greater and some in lesser amounts. God is a simple being without parts or pieces. His attributes do not stick to him; he is what they are.

God and Idolatry

Posted on by
Reply

john-piperWhen he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2 Thessalonians 1:10)

People stumble over the teaching that God exalts his own glory and seeks to be praised by his people because the Bible teaches us not to be like that. For example, the Bible says that love “does not seek its own” (1 Corinthians 13:5, see NASB).

How can God be loving and yet be utterly devoted to “seeking his own” glory and praise and joy? How can God be for us if he is so utterly for himself?

The answer I propose is this: Because God is unique as an all-glorious, totally self-sufficient Being, he must be for himself if he is to be for us. The rules of humility that belong to a creature cannot apply in the same way to its Creator.

If God should turn away from himself as the Source of infinite joy, he would cease to be God. He would deny the infinite worth of his own glory. He would imply that there is something more valuable outside himself. He would commit idolatry.

This would be no gain for us. For where can we go when our God has become unrighteous? Where will we find a Rock of integrity in the universe when the heart of God has ceased to value supremely the supremely valuable? Where shall we turn with our adoration when God himself has forsaken the claims of infinite worth and beauty?

No, we do not turn God’s self-exaltation into love by demanding that God cease to be God. Instead, we must come to see that God is love precisely because he relentlessly pursues the praises of his name in the hearts of his people.

– John Piper

The First Cause

Posted on by
Reply

sedona-arizona02“Applying the principles of cause and effect, it is clear that scientific logic indicates that the Cause for the universe in which we live must trace back to an infinite First Cause of all things. Random motion or primeval particles cannot produce intelligent thought, nor can inert molecules generate spiritual worship.

The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite.
The First Cause of endless time must be eternal.
The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent.
The First Cause of universal inter-relationships must be omnipresent.
The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient.
The First Cause of spiritual values must be spiritual.
The First Cause of human responsibility must be volitional.
The First Cause of human integrity must be truthful.
The First Cause of human love must be loving.
The First Cause of life must be living.

We would conclude from the law of cause-and-effect that the First Cause of all things must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, spiritual, volitional, truthful, loving, living Being!”

– Institute for Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/transcendent/

Theological Idolatry

Posted on by
1

Sproul11This article by R. C. Sproul is © Tabletalk Magazine, and was originally published as “Man — The Maker of Idols” in the March 1989 issue, pages 20–21. For more information about Tabletalk visit: www.ligonier.org/tabletalk; email: tabletalk@ligonier.org; or call toll free: 1–800–435–4343.

The central theme of Romans 1 concerns the general revelation that God makes of himself to the whole world. Paul labors the fact that the revelation of the gospel is to a world that is already under indictment for its universal rejection of God the Father. Christ came into a world that was populated by sinners. The most basic sin found in the world is that of idolatry.

Man is a fabricum idolarum. So wrote John Calvin in an attempt to capture the essence of human fallenness. In Germany, shop a fabrik is a factory. It is a place where products are mass-produced. Calvin’s phrase simply means “maker of idols.”

In cultured civilizations, we tend to assume that idolatry is not a problem. We may complain about the use of statues and focus on certain ecclesiastical settings but where they are absent, we feel relieved from concern about primitive forms of idolatry. In a broader sense, however, any distortion from the true character of God is an act of idolatry. Our theology itself may easily become idolatrous. If our concept of God is incorrect at any point, that point of error is itself an element of idolatry.

The Sin of Theological Error
To commit theological error is to commit sin. We excuse ourselves lightly by appealing to the weakness of the intellect and the difficulty of the subject matter. We pride ourselves in being noble seekers after truth and dismiss our errors as mere “mistakes” along the way. Mistakes are something children make when they err in the sum of 3 + 5. We do not think of such mistakes in moral terms.

God commands us to love him with all of our minds. He calls us to diligent discipleship. We are called to meditate on his word day and night. Our errors in theology are rooted in our pride and our slothfulness. We are satisfied with sloppy views of God. We are comfortable with idols. It is our fallen nature to prefer the idols to the real God. Idols are lifeless and worthless. But they are also harmless. That is why we are comfortable with them. We make our own idols. What we make, we own; and what we own, we can control. We did not make God. We cannot control him. That makes us uncomfortable.

Special Judgment for Teachers
Let me be candid, revealing my innermost thoughts about the problem of idolatry. I am a student of theology. I am also a professor of theology who has taught the doctrine of God in theological seminaries. That is supposed to mean that I know something about the subject. Like most students, however, I realize that the more I learn about God, the more aware I become of what I don’t know about him. I realize that I should know a lot more than I do know about God.

I also know that as a teacher, I am supposed to know more about God than the average Christian. That terrifies me. The Bible warns that not many are to become teachers because there is a special judgment in store for teachers. If I am guilty of leading the little ones astray, that makes me a candidate for a millstone around my neck.

A Major Problem Among Evangelicals
I like to think that my theological errors are mere “mistakes.” The truth is, however, I err because I have not done my homework. I have not applied my mind fully to the love of God. So my own failures in theology haunt me.

There is still another matter that deeply concerns me. I see a problem with idolatry in the evangelical world. There is much that is orthodox within current evangelicalism. Sadly, there is also much that is not orthodox. I see the problem of idolatry, not as a slight deviation here and there, but as a major problem. Idolatrous views of God are rampant within current evangelicalism. I find a God who is not immutable, who is not infinite, who is not holy, and who is not sovereign. Such a god is simply not God. It is an idol.

The Roots of Idolatry
In Romans 1, the apostle Paul traces the root of idolatry. He writes,

… although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him … (verse 21)

The problem with idolatry is not a matter of ignorance. It is a problem of human attitudes toward God. The primary posture of fallen man is one of refusing to honor God.

Somehow it seems that to honor God means to sacrifice the honor of ourselves. I do not want God to get the credit for my achievements. This is our most basic sin, our pride that squeezes out any room for the proper honoring of God. The sin of ingratitude is linked to the sin of dishonoring God. Obviously, if we had a proper sense of gratitude to God for all the benefits he has bestowed upon us we would have an intense desire to honor him. Our hearts would be aflame with adoration.

Defining Idolatry
The apostle goes beyond describing the roots of idolatry to providing a solid definition of the nature of idolatry. He writes,

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (verse 25)

Idols are not made from scratch. It involves the distortion of already present truth. The truth is changed into a lie. The lie depends upon the truth it is distorting for its power, just as the counterfeit depends upon the authentic for its value. Our idols of God contain truths within them, making them all the more seductive to us. To be sure, God is love. To reduce God to love, however, is to change the truth into a lie.

If evangelical Christianity is to move beyond idolatry, we must do serious study of the character of God. We, of all people, carry that responsibility. That the “liberal” distorts the character of God is no surprise. That ardent evangelicals do it should shock us awake from dogmatic slumbers.

God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Responsibility in Harmony

Posted on by
Reply

packer-245x300“the living God, who created the entire universe and actively upholds it in being (otherwise it would vanish away, and so would we as part of it), knows everything that has been and now is and foreknows everything that will be just because, in a way that totally passes our understanding, he plans and decides and controls everything that takes place. From inside (and we are all insiders at this point) the cosmos appears as a huge interlocking system of cause and effect, the working of which scientists can examine, map out, and within limits predict because the processes all operate with what appears as built-in regularity. But Christians know what science can never find out, namely, that all the processes of nature are willed and sustained directly by the Creator, every moment, down to the smallest detail, as also are the free-flowing thoughts that run through our minds, and the dreams that befuddle us while we sleep, and the self-determined, accountable decisions about what we will and will not do that we make in a steady stream throughout our waking hours. Let us say it clearly: all the regularities of nature, including the functioning of our own minds and bodies, are as they are because God wills and keeps them so. Nothing would be as it is – nothing, indeed, would exist at all – were it not for the active will of God…

To affirm God’s sovereignty over everything around us, within us, happening to us, and issuing from us takes nothing from our certainty (which Scripture confirms) that all our thoughts, words, and deeds, including all our motives, purposes, attitudes, and reactions, are truly our own, not forced upon us from outside but coming out from within us, so that we are in truth responsible subjects, open to assessment both by other people and by our own consciences, and finally by God himself. Rather it adds to our certainty that, as our continued existence and all our living really involve God, so God really involves himself in an overruling way, somehow (just how, no creature can conceive), in all our circumstances, motives, actions, relationships, experiences, joys, pains, pleasures, griefs, and ventures, which form the situational reality of our daily lives.”

J. I. Packer and Carolyn Nystrom, Guard Us, Guide Us: Divine Leading in Life’s Decisions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 199-200.

God as “Father”

Posted on by
Reply

In this excerpt from R.C. Sproul reminds us of the privilege we have to address God as “Father.”

Transcript

Go with a group of Christians and listen to them pray in a home prayer meeting or Bible study, and invariably as Christians pray out loud one after another will address God how? They’ll start their prayer by saying, “Father,” or “our heavenly Father.” It’s the most common expression that we as Christians use to address God. And why not, when our Lord taught us to pray, He said, “When you pray” say what? “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy name.” What could be more basic to Christianity than to address God as Father? Joachim Jeremias, the German New Testament scholar has done research on the prayers of the ancient Israelite people, and it is his conclusion that there is not a single example anywhere in extant Jewish literature, including the Old Testament, the Talmud, the Targums, and so on until the tenth century AD where a Jewish person addresses God directly as ‘Father.’ That is, it simply wasn’t done. People would speak of the fatherhood of God among the Jewish people, but no one would address Him directly as, ‘Father.’ Jeremias says you don’t find it until the tenth century AD in Italy. Yet in the New Testament we have the record of a Jew, a Jewish Rabbi, who has many many prayers recorded for posterity, and that in every prayer that he prayed, save one, He directly addressed God as ‘Father.’ And that is Jesus of Nazareth.

And what Jeremias demonstrates is that Jesus’ use of the term Father for God was a radical innovation; completely unheard of in Jewish liturgy. And what he did in his radical departure from convention He invited his followers to be involved with. Because what Jesus teaches about the human race is that by nature we are not the children of God. This was the dispute our Lord had with the Pharisees who thought that just because they were born Jewish that they were children of Abraham, that they were therefore the children of God. Jesus said ‘you are of your father the devil. God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones.’ Because what Jesus does is define sonship in terms of obedience to God. And because we are not by nature obedient to God, we are by nature children of wrath, the New Testament teaches us, and not universally children of the Father.

The only way we ever have the right to call God “Father,” to cry “Abba” in his presence is because we have been adopted. And the biblical message of sonship and daughterhood in the body of Christ is rooted and grounded in this concept of adoption—that only Christ is the natural son of God. And only if you are in Christ do you become a member of the household of God. It is the church in the New Testament that is called the family of God. It is the church in the New Testament that is called the household of God. And that unique concept of redemption through adoption is completely obscured when we talk about the universal fatherhood of God. Do you see that?

Old Testament Salvation

Posted on by
Reply

Yancey Arringto as New Testament believers, what if you lived during a time when Jesus hadn’t arrived, namely, the period of the Old Testament? Were you saved by your obedience to the Law? Did God just give everyone a “free pass” until Christ arrived? How did salvation work for those who were still waiting for the gospel of Jesus?

One of my favorite responses to this question is from Old Testament and Biblical Theology scholar Graeme Goldsworthy. In his must-read work Gospel and Kingdom he writes:

From man’s point of view we see the Scriptures unfold a step-by-step process until the gospel is reached as the goal. But from God’s point of view we know that the coming of Christ to live and to die for sinners was the pre-determined factor even before God made the world. We must not think of God trying first one plan and then another until he came up with the perfect way of salvation. The gospel was pre-ordained so that at the exact and perfect time God sent forth his Son into the world.

In the meantime, until that perfect ‘fulness of time’ should be reached, God graciously provided a progressive revelation of the Christ event. These prefigurements of the gospel had two purposes. First, this progressive revelation led man gently to the full light of truth. Secondly, it provided the means whereby the Old Testament believer embraced the gospel before it was fully revealed. The Old Testament believer who believed the promises of God concerning the shadow was thus enabled to grasp the reality. It was by Christ that the saints of Israel were saved, for such is the unity of the successive stages of revelation that, by embracing the shadow, the believer embraced the reality. Only in this way can we account for the ‘unity expressions’ of the New Testament which speak of Old Testament believers as hearing the gospel, seeing Christ, or hoping for a heavenly Kingdom. 1

Goldsworthy’s answer is one worth committing to memory. How were Old Testament saints saved? By Christ! But how could Christ save those who lived centuries before the Cross? Because God gave his people types, symbols, and experiences that progressively pointed to the arrival of Christ. They were intentionally given the shadow of things which one day would blossom into reality. And so, salvation came to Old Testament individuals who embraced the “shadow” of the One we, as New Testament believers, now see clearly in the light.

Notes:

1.Gospel and Kingdom, 125-126