plodblog

2 Kings 19:35-36

“And that night the angel of the LORD went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies. Then Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went home and lived at Nineveh.”

The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,

And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;

The sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea,

When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.

 

Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green,

That host with their banners at sunset were seen:

Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn had blown,

That host on tomorrow lay withered and strown.

 

For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,

And he breathed in the face of the foe as he passed,

And the eyes of the sleepers turned deadly and chill,

Their hearts but once heaved – and for ever grew still!

 

And there lay the steed with his nostril all wide,

But through it there rolled not the breath of his pride;

The foam of his gasping lay white on the turf,

As cold as the spray of the rock-beating surf.

 

And there lay the rider distorted and pale,

With dew on his brow, and rust on his mail:

The tents were all silent – the banners alone

The lances unlifted – the trumpets unblown.

 

Now the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail,

And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal;

The might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,

Had melted like snow in the glance of the Lord!

 

Lord Byron

The account of Naaman the leper is found in 2 Kings 5. He was an Aramean (modern Syria) and commander of the armies of Benhadad II during the time of Joram king of Israel, around 850 BC.

He was no trifle of a man. He was successful, powerful, rich, important and he was afflicted with a leprosy of the white kind (v. 27) which had so far defied cure.

He was a great man with two diseases – leprosy and pride.

A summary of 2 Kings 5 – Note: The words in italics give the gist of what each person had to say and are not direct quotes.

1-4 – A powerful man listened to a slave girl who said a few words that caused a lot of commotion in two kingdoms and which revealed the power and nature of the One True God, as well as revealed the hearts and minds of many powerful people.

5-6 – Naaman brings a letter from his king and money and clothes to pay for healing.

7 – Joram, king of Israel, an idolater, thought the letter meant that he was to cure Naaman. He knew he couldn’t do it so he suspected a trap and pretense for attack.

8 – Elisha, ‘Relax, the man of God will handle this.’ There were idolaters at the palace, but a man of God in the streets. There is a true prophet in Israel, which means the true God is the God of Israel.

9-10 – Naaman was a great man, with great things, ready to pay a great price, but Elisha did not even bother to see him. He was all business when about God’s business and sent word to Naaman, ‘Here is the cure, just go do it. Lets see what kind of faith you have. Just believe and obey.’

11-12 – Naaman thought Elisha was a fool and he was not willing to obey, ‘What about me and the way I think it should be done? What is so special about your way, Elijah? We have better rivers back home! What about the show, the religious spectacle? This is not the way we do it in the big city. I’ve washed in cleaner waters and nothing ever happened. You ignorant bumpkin, do you take me for a fool? What a waste of time, I’m outta here.’

13-14 – His servants had more faith than he did and if it were not for them he would have just gone home. They said, ‘It can’t hurt to try.’ Naaman thought everything was achieved the way he and others had achieved success in this world, by their own power and abilities. He wanted to do it his way, not God’s way.

15 – God was merciful and He healed in spite of Naaman and so he said, ‘Whoa, your God really is the true God. So, how much for the healing?’ Naaman wanted to pay for the healing because that is the way things were done in his world.

16 – Elisha, ‘No. No payment asked or accepted. It was God, not me, that healed you and God’s mercy and miracles cannot be bought. He does not need and does not want your money. You cannot treat Him like the so-called ‘gods’ of the other nations.’

17-18 – Naaman, ‘Oh, no money? Well then, how about I worship the true God? I’ll do that, but I’m a rich and powerful man who would rather not lose all he has in this world, so, do you think the One True God could just accept my lip-service and let me go on living like I have and not let my belief actually affect my life because if it did I would lose all that the world has to offer. I’m in the position of having to choose between the things of this world and God and I have a lot of the things of this world and following God would actually cost me something.’

Naaman had money, power and fame. All he lacked was health and now God had given that to him too.

19 – Elisha, ‘Yeah, whatever, Naaman, take the dirt, it won’t do you any good, and I pray the peace of God will go with you, really, I do.’

20-27 – Gehazi, ‘What!?!?! Free money from an unbeliever! Let’s take this infidel to the cleaners!’ Gehazi secretly took money from Naaman and Elisha called him on it, ‘I know it all. Your sin was to make Naaman think that what God gives for free was not free at all. You have misrepresented God and made Him look like all the false gods. Is it time to work for the things of the world or to work for God? If you work for the things of this world you will end up being cursed.’

Based on the events Naaman came to the correct conclusion, “I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel” (v.15), but I don’t think he had a change of heart along with his change of mind for the following reasons.

First, he thought you paid for what God gives. Only when his money was refused (v.16) did he then decide to ask for the dirt to worship with (v.17). This is significant. Notice what Naaman said after his money was refused, “If not . . .” (v.17). This shows that if he had been able to pay for the healing then he would not have asked for the dirt in order to worship.

His intention was not to worship the Lord based on the truth he now knew, but instead to pay for what God had done for him.

His subsequent request for the dirt and statement that he would worship the Lord was not motivated by belief, but still by his ‘pay for it’ mentality. He was thinking, ‘Well, if the God of Israel and his prophet don’t want to be paid with money then my ‘worship’ will pay the bill.’ He was motivated by a sense of debt and payment, not by a change of heart.

Second, he did not intend to change his ways and stop doing what he knew to be wrong. Naaman was no idiot. He knew that if the God of Israel was the One True God then that meant He was the only God who could be worshipped and to worship any other god would be wrong. This is why he asks for pre-forgiveness concerning his duties in the worship of the Aramean god Rimmon (v.18).

Though he came to the right conclusion the truth did not penetrate any further than his mind. Naaman’s dedication to the Lord was merely mental and outward. He was actually planning to sin against God and thought it would be OK as long as he made arrangements before hand. After all, he was going to give the God of Israel His due and compensate Him by worshipping Him privately so surely the God of Israel could overlook his “duties” in the worship of a false god.

This mentality is a slap in the face of God. It says, ‘I’ll give God my mental assent, I’ll compensate Him and give Him His due in my own private way, but don’t expect what I know to be true to actually change the way I live. I paid God back, He can’t expect more from me.’

Even worse than that, it is an affront to the very character of God to think you could make arrangements with Him to sin in the future and He would approve of the idea!

Third, Elisha was very non-committal in his response to Naaman. Naaman said the right thing (there is no God but in Israel and I will worship Him, vs.15 & 17), but then he also said he wanted to do the wrong thing (still worship a false god, v.18) and Naaman wanted Elisha to ask God to give him a pass on this particular sin (“may the Lord pardon your servant when . . .”, v.18).

Elisha recognized the incongruity and neither approved nor disapproved, but gave a benediction concerning is journey and said “Go in peace” (v.19).

Taking into account Naaman’s motivation, actions and intentions for the future I think they outweigh his words, and even the great prophet Elisha did not pronounce him a changed man.

Hopefully Naaman, and others like him, will be in heaven, but I just don’t see any change of heart. It is dangerous to lift up Naaman as a changed person because it could give the impression that God winks at sin and that it is OK to say the right thing, be privately religious and yet not live a changed life and even expect God to give you a pass on your sin.

This post uses some big theological words without defining them. If I defined and clarified all of them then this would be a book on soteriology (see there, the first big theological word) and not a blog post.

If you desire to know what all the terms mean then look them up on the following web sites here, here, here and here.

Predestination has gotten a bad rap among some Christians and one reason is because of the false characterization of it as “double.” Here is an excellent statement by R. C. Sproul on this false concept:

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: [It says] there is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation . . . from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation . . . and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative . . . This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine . . . Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

Dr. Sproul continues with the correct view of our subject:

. . . predestination . . . is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity . . . we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship. In the Reformed view, God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. . . . Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Here is the entire excellent article by R. C. Sproul. Also see; Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, p. 135-8 and Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p 372-6.

A problem with double predestination is the same as one of the many problems with Arminianism, they both require and are based on a wrong understanding of God’s foreknowledge which leads to a wrong understanding of the status of humanity before God.

For a correct understanding of God’s foreknowledge go here.

God knows people and events as they actually are and He deals with them as they actually are.

God, in His omniscience, knows what, from a human perspective, “could” have happened and what “might” happen, but that is just knowledge of what we humans call “possibility” and God does not base His actions on, nor does He interact with possibilities.

Possibilities are never realities with God and they never become realities because God, due to His omnipresence and transcendence in relation to time, functions in and outside of time and is right now “in” the past and right now “in” the present and right now “in” the future. But, there is no past, present or future with God, He is in the ‘eternal now’ in relation to time.

This means God knows people and events as they actually are because He is there with them now knowing them as they actually are (as you can tell, I’m not an open-theist).

God knows the elect as the elect because that is their status in reality. He also knows the non-elect as the non-elect because that is their status in reality. Because of God’s foreknowledge – because God knows us as we actually are – there is no third option, no third group of humanity.

The Arminian says that there is a neutral pool of humanity, neither elect nor non-elect, and from this neutral pool people are deciding of their own free will to either jump into heaven or jump into hell.

Double predestination requires the same neutral pool of humanity, but this time it is God who is tossing some into heaven and others into hell. This view of God’s sovereign predestination is the error that Dr. Sproul refutes at the beginning of this post.

Adam and Eve were created in a right relationship with God. They sinned, fell and died, but they did not lose their salvation. They were never in a neutral position with God.

Since then all of humanity has been born in sin and estranged from God and not one person has ever been in a neutral position in relation to God. This is total depravity, see here for more on this subject.

This is why salvation is described as – salvation, deliverance, redemption. It is a rescuing of a person from the pool of lost humanity described in Romans 1-3 & 5, a pool that we all, every single human being who ever lived, voluntarily jumped into with Adam.

We have all like sheep gone astray, we made the wrong decision. God in His mercy and grace rescues us from the pool of lost humanity and He knows us as His dear children.

The others? They are not predestined, they are permitted to continue on.

For double predestination and Arminianism to be true there must be a neutral pool of humanity filled with people who are neither on their way to heaven or hell. No such pool has ever existed.

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14

Claude Orten went to my church in New England and lived in our town.  He was not a simple man, though I think most people would have thought that about him.  He took life as it came without too much philosophizing and life often came hard to Claude.

He grew up in the poor rural south and took on its mannerisms and rural common sense and accent so that you knew where he was from the moment you met him.  He had a fourth grade education, but was not ignorant, nor stupid.  He grew up working hard and playing hard and he married a sturdy woman who had grown up the same way and who shared his values.  They were well suited to each other.  They loved each other and made up for each other’s faults as best as they could and were totally committed to each other.  And they loved God.  No doubt these loves kept them together through all the troubles of life.

Early in their married life Claude packed up the family and moved to Connecticut, a very different place from the poor south.  Not long after arriving he was burnt badly at work and spent many weeks in the hospital.  He almost died and never really recovered.  From that point on he began to spiral down in most every way.  Life became a bit of a chore for him, but he continued to work hard.  He even took correspondence courses and earned a diploma from Moody Bible Institute.

We met just two years before he passed away and I liked him instantly.  He reminded me of some of the older folks in my family that I knew when I was growing up, the generation before my parents.  He talked slow with a thick drawl, wore jeans and a t-shirt, smoked and drank, though not as much as he used to, and in his garage he had all the same tools my grandfather did.  His garage even smelled the same with the wood and metal and machinery and oil and dirt.  I love that smell.

In the summer we would sit on old rusty chairs in front of his garage with a can of “carbonated beverage.”  It took Claude about thirty minutes to warm up, but once he did we would just talk about things, about life and God mostly, not too much about the past.  The past was painful for him so I didn’t press it.

When he was ready he would talk and I would marvel at the terrible things people can go through and yet still not be destroyed in body or spirit.  Claude had been beaten pretty badly by this age and its spirit and he had made some bad decisions, but he owned them and he was not bitter.  He only complained to get sympathy from his wife, who gave it to him anyway.

In the summer we would be out front of his garage and in the winter we would move inside and talk around the kerosene heater.  Sometimes he would make things and I would help him with a project.  I have a shelf we made together.

One day he said he thought of me as a son, and I was happy for him because of it.  I was glad he said it and I loved him more for it and I told him so.  I thought of him as a favorite uncle, but I did not tell him that.  I did not want to be cruel.  It made him feel good and closer to me and I was happy for that and for him.

One day Claude’s wounds from life got the best of him and after a short stay in the hospital he was gathered to his God and his people.  He only wanted his wife, one of his daughters and me to visit him in the hospital.  When he died it was a relief, not only for Claude, but for the rest of us.  We were glad to see his years of suffering end and his eternity of peace and happiness begin.

He wanted to be buried back home in the south and he wanted me to speak at his funeral, but God had other ideas.  Three cancelled flights and one late plane later I ended up spending the day alone at a big airport three hours from the funeral.  We even tried to charter a helicopter, but that was broken down too.  It was a lousy, lousy day.

We had a memorial service back in Connecticut a week later and when I spoke I was sad and I missed Claude and I said so to all the people.  After the service some fools chastised me for being sad because Claude was no longer here but in heaven.  I was sad even though I knew he went on to glory where there is no more crying and all his injuries are healed.  I still miss him and I like to think about him and about where he is now and how he is doing, and about seeing him again and sitting down and having a good long talk.

WWJD is more than a fad, it is a marketing masterpiece. It is a good and important question that is relevant to all of life and it was the perfect slogan, post-it note, bumper sticker, fashion accessory and tattoo for a generation of American Christians.

I like WWJD. A number of times I came sooo close to picking up one of those fashion accessories at the local religious trinket store. I want to know what Jesus would do. I am serious when I say that WWJD is an important question. It needs to be asked even more than it has been. WWJD is an honest attempt at helping Christians do what Jesus would do, and that is a noble endeavor.

But, it is like a theologically correct and well delivered sermon that is not directly related to or even relevant to life. Theology, the Bible, What Jesus Would Do – all these are essential and relevant and directly related to life, but they are not always presented that way.

I could tell you what Jesus would do or about some other theological truth. So what. If you are not forced to deal with what those theological truths mean for you then they become just interesting bits of religious data that you can decide to take or leave, and that is the problem with WWJD.

There are many Christians out there with big theological brains who know lots of biblical data. They know what Jesus would do, and yet they still don’t do what Jesus would do.

WWJD is not a hard question to answer. In fact, it is easy. Jesus would not sin in your situation. You can read the gospels to see what He did in different life situations. Christians know they should watch less TV and minister more to their families and the church and then go evangelize the world. They should put on the fruit of the Spirit. They should put off sin. They should obey the Word of God. Christians know these things.

As with a good sermon, or a Christian slogan, we must be brought to the place where we personally deal with truth and the God who gave us that truth. That is why I could not bring myself to ever get WWJD tattooed on my forearm.

The question to ask (and the question I am copywriting so that I can make a bazillion dollars on the next big Christian slogan) is: WYDWJWD. Catchy, isn’t it? I need to get one of those online stores like they have at Pyromaniacs and Reflections so I can cash in on the ground floor of this new tool for personal righteousness.

For those of you who have not yet heard of the latest Christian slogan that is helping to sanctify you, it is – Will You Do What Jesus Would Do – WYDWJWD! WYDWJWD, go ahead, try and say it tree times fast.

But seriously, will you?

I taught at the Beltsi Bible Institute in Moldova for two weeks in November of 2004.

11.7.04, 8:50pm, Beltsi Moldova

We are staying at the Scripnic home – Peter & Svetlana (dad & mom), 3 daughters – Irene, Diana & Catherine. They live in a 5 room apartment. The building is an old Soviet era cement monolith that is surrounded by a half dozen more. It is falling apart, I think it would be condemned if it were in the US, and this is a good part of town. Their apartment is very nice though, a real home.

Went to church today – a very different experience. There were 2 sermons that lasted 30 min. each. I preached in the morning and Diana translated. I bombed. It was my first time speaking through a translator and it was not easy.

At church the men sit on one side and the women and children on the other. Everyone, including babies, is in the service. The singing is great. The feeling of the service is fairly grave, but not sad nor depressed at all.

We went to a different church in the evening. I did not preach. They must have heard about the egg I laid in the morning.

The country suffers under grinding poverty. This place was never built up very well and what was built up has been run down and worn out. The good part of town looks like the bad part of south central LA, or Detroit. The roads were paved once, the curbs are broken up, the sidewalks are crumbling, the buildings are falling down and the ones still standing should probably be condemned. Everything is cement and dirt and peeling paint and cracks and weeds. Trash is everywhere. Rats run in the streets at night. People still get around in horse drawn carts. The few cars on the road belch smoke except for the occasional new Mercedes and BMW driven by the mafia. I have not seen any over weight people. Everyone has a garden, or access to one, to make sure they get enough to eat. Water and electricity go off regularly and this is the second largest city in the country. The children of this country have a deep hole to climb out of. Moldova is a 60 year project minimum.

11.8.04, 2:35pm & 8:40pm, Beltsi

First day of class. So far so good. I am learning to speak through an interpreter, it takes some getting used to. Classes are being held at an old communist youth camp that ought to be bulldozed. We are also sleeping here. There is very little heat, the rooms get up to about 50 degrees, there is no hot water at all & the bathroom is a breeding ground for the plague, but it does work well for school and I don’t mind all the mice. The food is not so bad. No big deal. I’ve slept in worse places, or maybe not.

11.9.04, 8:45am & 8:15PM, Beltsi

Waiting for morning devotions to start. The church here is very legalistic, therefore, worldly in its orientation. Not worldly in a Western money centered and self-centered way, but in a working in the flesh and motivated by fear kind of way.

Yesterday I asked the class how they would counsel a person in their church on how to overcome sin in their life. Their answer was, “Tell him to repent and fear God before God punishes him! Just tell him to stop it!” That is a direct quote. This is doomed to failure, completely lacks love, provides no hope at all and is devoid of spiritual power. This is the kind of thing that keeps people in bondage.

There is nothing to do in Moldova, and if there were no one could afford to do it anyway. There are lots of bars and nightclubs, few restaurants. The top 10% of Moldovan society has fled the country in the last 10 years, this includes the church.

11.12.04, 2:25pm, Beltsi

Wrote the test for class last night. It won’t be very easy, but not very hard either. What a very different culture this is. God can change it, if He wills, I’m glad that’s not my job. I enjoy the people though. If I ever come back I will be better prepared – more paper, pens, notebooks, appropriate clothes, bathroom items, etc. A laptop with a printer would be a necessity. A translation program for Romanian and one for Russian would be very useful.

An older pastor in class told me at the beginning of the week that he was very much against this “new theology” as he put it, but today he said he was understanding some things for the first time and it was all making sense. Thank you Lord!

All my students took the full 2 hours to take the test. After the test the whole class, except for the two troublemakers, asked if they could come back tomorrow (Saturday) and if I would continue to teach them. Then they asked if I would be coming back to teach again. I want to see these men trained. They need to be trained. The church here desperately needs them to be trained and I would come back if the Lord wills it.

This country and the people and the church are all an emotional workout. There is so much to be done and so many needs. The church here is not exactly weak, but it is not deep either. Commitment runs high, but it does not seem to me that there is much spiritual maturity. The church desperately needs well trained pastors.

The Baptists here think birth control is a sin. And for the women; make-up, earrings and pants are a sin too and they must wear head scarves.

11.14.04, 10:10pm, Sunday, Beltsi

On the way to church tonight I was informed that I would be preaching at a church across town. Vasili (my guide) drove me to the church, we went in the back door and straight to the pastor’s office. I met the translator and the pastor, we prayed and walked into the auditorium where they were just finishing up the song service.

The pastor walked up to the microphone and said, and I quote, “We have a guest speaker tonight from America. I just met him, I don’t know him, he is teaching at the bible institute, his name is Steve.” I preached on the greatest commandment.

After the sermon the translator said “Follow me” and we walked from the pulpit right out the door that is at the back of the preaching platform. I accidentally slammed the door on my way out. The translator escorted me to the back door of the church where Vasili was waiting and we walked to his car.

It was a cold windy night and it seemed a bit colder than usual to me, for good reason. When I stepped into Vasili’s van I felt a cold breeze, I reached down and found that the seam in the seat of my pants was ripped open about 10 inches!

I preached with a hole in my pants. No big deal because I was behind a pulpit, but the pastor of the church sat right behind the pulpit and he had a great view the whole time.

And not only that, we entered and left the pulpit area from a door in the wall that is next to the pulpit and facing the congregation in plain view of the whole church. When I left the church I had to turn my back to the congregation and they could see me walking away. I even had to stand in front of the door for a few seconds with my back to the congregation while the translator fumbled with the doorknob. I think that pastor will know who I am next time.

So anyway, I get into Vasili’s van and we are supposed to go over to another church and meet up with the other professors, but I have a huge hole in my pants. Vasili speaks little English, and I don’t speak any Russian. But, after a few moments of strange gesturing on my part and a few raised eyebrows and puzzled looks by Vasili, he finally understood what had happened. He began to laugh uncontrollably and we almost crashed.

When he regained control he said “Scripnic” (the name of the people we are staying with) meaning “Let’s go to the Scripinc’s and get some pants without a hole in them.” I said “Nyet, church.” Meaning that they were at church and I did not have a key to their apartment. He said “Oh, da.” (Oh, yeah.).

Then he grabbed his cell phone and said “Diana” and called Diana Scripnic, but I knew that would not work because she was busy translating for the other professors at the other church and she would have her cell phone off, at least I hoped she had it off. The last thing anyone needed was for Vasili to catch Diana and tell her what had happened just before she went up to the pulpit to translate. Fortunately she did not answer.

So, we went to Vasili’s house and he loaned me a pair of his pants. Now, Vasili is a great guy, but he is about 40 pounds heavier and six inches shorter than I am, but there was no hole in his pants. I really did not care if people noticed the pants I was wearing were too short.

When we got to the other church things were just winding down and everyone laughed uncontrollably when we told them what happened. It was the best evening so far in Moldova and things were just getting started.

Next, we went to Vasili’s for dinner. When we arrived two things of note had transpired since I had been there to change my pants. First, Vasili’s wife had sewn up my pants! They are as good as new.

Second, there was a van parked in front of Vasili’s drive way. Vasili’s in-laws, brother-in-law and aunt & uncle-in-law had arrived unexpectedly from the Ukraine. No one knew they were in the country let alone expected them for dinner. Vasili and his wife were not exactly thrilled.

I think we were the first Americans the unexpected guests had ever met. They seemed nice enough, but they did not say much, they did not speak to us Americans and they just kind of stared at us all evening.

I also learned something interesting about table etiquette in this part of the world. No one uses serving spoons. I sat at the end of the table with the unexpected guests and after we prayed they used their forks to scrape food off of the serving dishes and onto their plates. I thought this was odd, but since their forks had not yet been in their mouths it really did not bother me at all.

But, after the first round of food they did not use their forks to scrape the chow onto their plates anymore. No, even that was too much of a lack of decorum for them. What they did instead was to use their forks and eat right out of the serving bowls!

Now, I had already had some food during the first round, but I wanted to be polite so I had not taken much, and their plates are about the size of our saucers so you can’t put much food on them anyway, and it had been almost 8 hours since we had lunch so I was very very hungry. The only thing they had not forked was the bread, so I ate bread. Come to think of it, so did Diana. She must have experience with relatives like this.

11.16.04, 4:40pm, Beltsi

Some of the students are not really equipped to be here, but I am glad they are here. They can pick up something of value to them and their ministry. Some of the guys are not used to processing information in this kind of setting and some struggle quite a bit with theological ideas and biblical problems.

I was expecting a deeper level of understanding and that was a strategic mistake. In order to teach to the level of the students and to make sure they understand the material I need to go slower than I planned. They struggle with some things that I thought would be simple and easy for them. As a result I think my teaching time is not as smooth as it could be, but while the translators are speaking they provide me with a moment or two to collect my thoughts and to be more precise in presenting the material.

I am tired today, but I very much enjoy teaching and I hope God is using it to help meet a great need in the church in this part of the world.

We have taken over the Scripnic’s apartment and I feel kind of bad about it. Svetlana, Diana and Catherine are staying in the apartment and are sleeping in the parents bedroom. Peter and Irena are staying at a friend’s home.

11.18.04, 9:48PM, Beltsi

This afternoon Vasili and I went to the market and I bought some things for my kids. I also bought some flowers for Svetlana Scripnic. That woman waits on us hand and foot – and she can cook! I also bought some flowers for Vasili to give to his wife. We walked from the market to his house and he communicated to me with the little English he knows that he wants me to move to Moldova to teach full time and to help in the church. I communicated that I would like to come back to teach once in a while. I don’t know if he understood me. I did not say that I have no desire to move here.

We went to a prayer meeting at Vasili’s last night, a good turnout. Vasili is a good man, we get along well and he told the group that he felt our friendship was like David and Jonathan. That is a lot for a Moldovan to say. The church in Moldova needs more men like him, but he needs to lighten up on the legalism. He is a product of his religious environment.

11.19.04, 10:04pm, Vienna Austria

Last day of class was today, we also gave a test. Everyone was bummed out to see us go. Everyone wanted us to stay. I am glad to be going home, but also sad to leave. Diana was on the verge of tears in the airport. Vasili looked like he was getting audited by the I.R.S.

On the bus ride from the Vienna airport to the hotel the American professor in charge said “Well, Steve, I would like to say it was a good time, but it wasn’t – it was an awesome time!” And I agree. I just pray that God uses our time there to strengthen the church and glorify Himself. Tomorrow we go home, and tomorrow we go home, life is a vapor.

Romans 8:16 is a bit of a hobby of mine. I preached through Romans a few years ago and I received by far the most feedback from people when I was in chapter 8. When we got to verse 16 some people said it was great, others said it was heresy. Some loved it and others hated it.

The broad context of Romans 8 is the spiritual condition and benefits of believers. The chapter makes various statements of fact concerning the spiritual realities of a child of God. The focus of the chapter is about the inward spiritual realities of a Christian, and not primarily about a believers outward actions.

The immediate context of the verse (verses 9-26) deals with the assurance of the believer. Paul is assuring those who walk according to the Spirit that they will make it all the way to heaven.

Romans 8:16 reads, The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God (NASB).

Now, the question on everyone’s mind is, How does the Holy Spirit testify that we are children of God? We have four options.

The First Option, we are completely unaware of this testimony and it is totally unknowable to us.

The Second Option, the Holy Spirit testifies through the word of God.

The Third Option, the Holy Spirit testifies through our own obedient works.

The Fourth Option, the Holy Spirit testifies by a spiritual instinct or awareness or experience that only Christians have.

First option, some say this testimony of the Holy Spirit is directed toward God the Father and not us and therefore we are unaware of how the Holy Spirit testifies and of the content of this testimony. Few people take this position.

The idea of this testimony being directed to God and not us is quite ridiculous on three points.

First; If this testimony of the Holy Spirit cannot be known by us and we are unaware of it then it cannot contribute to our knowing that we are God’s children and so this would be totally meaningless in the context.

Second; If this testimony of the Holy Spirit cannot be known by us and we are unaware of it then it would be God explaining to Himself that we are His children, something He already knew from eternity past.

Third; If this testimony is directed to God then what possible reason could there be for our spirit to also tell God that we are His children? As C. E. B. Cranfield says in his excellent commentary on Romans, “What standing does our spirit have in this matter?”

To say that this testimony is directed to God and not us and therefore we cannot know what it is or how it is done totally ignores the context, ignores the intent of the verse, would make this meaningless information to us and should be a plainly ridiculous idea to everyone.

Before going on to the next three options we need to note here that this testimony of the Spirit in verse 16 is done in conjunction with our spirit. But, to what in us does the Holy Spirit testify? The verse says that the Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit, but, what does the Holy Spirit and our own spirit testify to?

Is it to our mind through the word of God?

Is it to our will resulting in faithfulness and obedient works?

Is it to all of who we are through, and resulting in, a spiritual awareness or experience that only Christians have?

These are our three remaining options.

Second option, some say the Holy Spirit testifies through the word of God. This would be an objective testimony based on passages that talk about salvation and eternal security like John 10:27-29.

The idea is that as we read the Bible and see what God says – that He will never leave nor forsake those who have by faith come to Him through the work of Christ – this view says the Holy Spirit then takes that truth and impresses it on our minds so that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are God’s children because the word of God says so and the Holy Spirit has impressed this upon us.

No doubt the Holy Spirit does do this. This is one way we may know we are saved but, is this the teaching of Romans 8:16?

This has not been the major view throughout the history of the church. Most mistake the testimony of the Holy Spirit concerning the veracity of the word of God for the testimony of assurance of salvation found here in Romans 8:16. The Holy Spirit does both, but the testimony of assurance is what is being addressed here.

The Holy Spirit does this testifying to all of God’s children and if this view were correct then all of God’s children would read the passages on eternal security and believe in that doctrine and be comforted, but not all the children of God believe in eternal security.

A problem with this being the Spirit’s affirmation of the Word of God is that Paul is writing this letter in AD 56 or 57. What would have constituted the Word of God at that time? Only the Old Testament. Some of the NT books would have been written, but they would not have been universally viewed as scripture yet. Those who appeal to this viewpoint are implicitly thinking of the Holy Spirit’s affirmation of the NT and its statements on assurance which either did not yet exist or were not yet received as Scripture by all the church.

And, the verse is emphatic that it is the Spirit Himself that testifies. The Greek word “auto” (himself) is placed first in the verse for emphasis and it is not grammatically required to understand that this is the Holy Spirit Himself doing this. The presence of the Greek definite article with the word Spirit, “ta penuma” (the Spirit) would have been enough to show that it is the Holy Spirit who is doing this.

The difference between the Holy Spirit Himself doing this or the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures doing this is the difference between me telling you something in person or me writing you a letter. If I do it myself then I do it in person.

To place this testimony in the context of understanding the word of God is to take the emphasis away from our spirit and put it on our mind (understanding the word of God). The verse does not say, The Spirit Himself testifies with our mind that we are children of God.

Third option, some say the fruit produced by the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers, and the ability to do spiritual service, is how the Holy Spirit testifies that we are God’s children.

This is indeed true, the Holy Spirit does this, but is this the teaching found in Romans 8:16? This also has not been the major view throughout the history of the church.

(Same kind of objection as in view 2) – Many who take this view mistake the Holy Spirit’s work of motivating and empowering believers for works of service for the testimony of assurance of salvation found in Romans 8:16. The Holy Spirit does both, but the testimony of assurance is what is being addressed here.

Good works, even good religious works, are not sufficient proof that someone is a child of God. Many – MANY – will say on that day, didn’t I cast out demons in Your name? – or teach Sunday school, or give to the poor, or whatever, and God’s reply will be that He never knew them. Good works by themselves are not sufficient proof that a person is a child of God.

(Same kind of objection as in view 2) – Again, the verse is emphatic that it is the Spirit Himself who is doing this. It is not something you or anyone else is doing.

The difference between the Holy Spirit Himself or the Holy Spirit through our own works doing this is the difference between me doing something for you, or having you do it for yourself because I told you to do it. This is something the “Spirit Himself” is doing.

(Same kind of objection as in view 2) – To place this testimony in the context of our Spirit-empowered works is to take the emphasis away from our spirit and put it on our will. The verse does not say, The Spirit Himself testifies with our will that we are children of God.

We come to the fourth option which has always been the major view of the church. This is an inexplicable, but verifiable, religious experience available only to, and experienced by, the children of God. If we are going to grammatically stick with the word of God then this is where we must come to.

“How the Holy Spirit does this we cannot fully understand any more than we can understand how He produces any other effect in our mind” (C. Hodge).

I know that what I am going to say now will be misunderstood by some and that a few may even condemn it as being wrong and dangerous. But, they stand against 2000 years of church belief and experience and, even more than that, against the teaching of this passage.

It is interesting to note that the vast majority of those who hold to either view two or three almost always begin from the assumption that any and all experience or feeling or spiritual sense is by definition invalid or unreliable at best or even anti-biblical and mystical. I have yet to see any biblical passage that would support the idea that all post-conversion spiritual experience is invalid.

“There is such a thing as a direct and personal witness of the Holy Spirit to believers that they are the children of God. In other words, it is possible to have a personal experience of the presence and testimony of the Holy Spirit” (J. M. Boice).

Now, I know the objections to this, and I agree with the objections. Any experience can be counterfeited. I would even say the vast majority of so-called spiritual experiences people have is either outright fakery or usually self-deception or even demonic. But, the fact that a spiritual experience can be counterfeited does not invalidate all of them.

And, I know those who seem to often have spiritual experiences are usually seeking them and they frequently run to excess and fall into unbiblical ideas and practices. Every experience must be tested and subjected to Scripture.

All of that being true, this verse teaches that there is a personal and direct experience of the Spirit that is valid testimony to the fact that a person is truly a child of God.

This is not mysticism. Mysticism stays in the mental and emotional realms and is unverifiable. This true religious experience from God will have outward effects on the child of God like humility, gratitude, assurance, obedience, etc. and all the results will be verifiable by the Bible.

Understand this, anyone can say the Holy Spirit has testified to them that they are a child of God. So What? Don’t come tell me about it. That is between you and God.

This spiritual experience does not prove anyone is more spiritual or mature or godly than anyone else. This spiritual experience is for personal use only. It is between you and God for the purpose of personally assuring you of your eternal future with Him.

Hopefully God has done that, but the only way I or anyone else would know if that were true is if you then believed what the word of God says and if you live like a child of God.

The Holy Spirit has not told the rest of us you are God’s child.

“Ultimately this is an ineffable religious experience between you and God that will lead to righteous Christian living” (D. M. Lloyd-Jones).

How does the Holy Spirit testify that we are children of God?

Adherents to the different views.

View 1 – NO ONE KNOWS

I found no major Bible scholars who take this position, though it is gaining ground in some non-charismatic churches.

View 2 – THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD

Jay Adams – in commentary

R. C. H. Lenski – in commentary

View 3 – THROUGH OUR OWN WORKS

John MacArthur – in study Bible, though much less dogmatic in commentary

Sanday & Hedlam – in commentary

Some add this on to the previous view as a sort of evidence that the child of God is submitted to the word of God. While this is true of the children of God it is not the point of the passage.

View 4 – INTERNALLY, EXPERIENTIALLY

Augustine – in writings

Wayne Barber – in article

Albert Barnes – in commentary

Theodore Beza – cited by B. B. Warfield in book, “Calvin and Augustine”

Emil Brunner – in commentary

John Calvin – in commentary (he even uses the Latin term for mysticism!)

Bruce Demarest – in book, “The Cross and Salvation”

John N. Darby – in commentary

Thomas Edgar – in journal article

Jonathan Edwards – in sermon

John Gill – in commentary

F. Godet – in commentary

Wayne Grudem – in systematic theology

Matthew Henry – in commentary

Charles Hodge – in commentary

H. A. Ironside – in commentary

John Knox – in writings on Romans

Martin Lloyd-Jones – in commentary

Martin Luther – in commentary

J. Vernon McGee – in commentary

James Montgomery Boice – in commentary

Douglas Moo – in commentary

John Murray – in commentary

John Piper – in sermon

Bernard Ramm – in book, “The Witness of the Spirit”

Robert L. Reymond – in systematic theology

Charles Ryrie – in “Basic Theology”

Thomas Schreiner – in commentary

C. A. Scott – in commentary

Charles Spurgeon – in sermon

Ray Stedman – in sermon

John Stott – in commentary

Daniel B. Wallace – in article

B. B. Warfield – in book, “Calvin and Augustine”

Isaac Watts – in lyrics

John Wesley – in sermon

The Westminster Confession – XVIII.2

Geoffrey Wilson – in commentary

John Witmer – in commentary

COMBINATION OF THE VIEWS

Adam Clarke – in commentary

William Hendriksen – in commentary

William MacDonald – in commentary

Most hold to a combination of View 2 & 4, some to a combination of Views 3 & 4, few to a combination of Views 2 & 3

NO POSITION TAKEN

F. F. Bruce – in commentary

C. E. B. Cranfield – in commentary

Alva J. McClain – in commentary

Leon Morris – in commentary

Anders Nygren – in commentary

James Stifler – in commentary

Warren Wiersbe – in commentary

I began this blog without writing my first post before I satrted. That was a mistake. No matter, in the next day or two (July 7-9) I will post on some of the following topics.

• Visiting Mars Hill Church
• Sermons That Got Me in Trouble
• Romans 8:16
• Naaman Didn’t Get Saved
• People Problems On Display In the Early Church
• Against Double Predestination & Arminianism – The Same Problem
• WWJD is Too Easy, That’s Not the Hard Question
• Two Kinds of Legalism – Salvation & Sanctification
• I’v Seen Fundamentalists Up Close and Lived to Tell About it, Barely
• My Bookplate
• Like Throwing Raw Meat to Dogs