Regeneration - Tumblr Posts
NO YOU'RE NOT DOING THIS TO ME DAVID NO DAVID NO HE CAN'T NOOOOOOOO
MY TENTH DOCTOR NO WAY YOU'RE LEAVING ME NOT NOW NO PLEASE NOT NOW I AM NOT READY FOR THAT
Crazy the Doctor has a 20% chance of dying from radiation poisoning
The Regeneration Episode
New teeth. That’s weird.
Man October is just getting to the good parts and I already feel like I’ve been on a big adventure. This is a landmark month for me because it marks the 12th month since my new doctor changed my medicine. It’s also my birthday in just a week or so, it seems appropriate to take stock of how 33 has been.
Let’s start from the beginning, 32 was rubbish. Relationship went sour, got toxic, ended with a precipitous sensation of discard. Has been explored elsewhere laboriously. Doesn’t need further analysis here. Job was looking shaky. Rent was reasonable but heavy once I turned single again. Mind you I adore my landlord and i’ll always remember that apartment as the place where I showed that I was capable of long-haul and nurturing, but it had become ponderous.
Social life was badly- perhaps even dangerously- contracted. Arms were weak, cardio was nonexistent, joints were beginning to act like old people joints.
And then I turned 33 and my doctor switched me to a drug that didn’t depress me. This was possible only because the job that was starting to feel like a trap became a critically important source of stability. I could wake up in the morning unburdened by the sensation that my efforts were futile.
So, waking up at 4am I did the only sensible thing and went in to do deadlifts, as one does. So now I was getting out of bed without feeling like some kind of ghost and i was starting to be able to move heavy things like I used to do. Then heavy things turned into drills with a sledgehammer, turned into the climbing wall, turned into the obstacle course, turned into even heavier deadlifts including a personal best. At the end of this month it will be true that I have trained a full year with no more than one break and that no greater than 5 days. 51 weeks of commitment to my goal.
I took the energy from the gym to the office and many things were easier than before. I didn’t feel belabored so often. My restlessness could be easily converted into the energy to pursue new work projects. Turned my performance record (which was not awful but needed work) into one of the better ones on my team.
Brought that energy back home and made some plans for the future. Engaged a realtor. Toured lots of houses. Learned many things about property and location. Bought a house. I planted a garden full of yellow and orange flowers and tomatoes and herbs and it was wonderful. I built a garage gym so no snow drift may stay me from my goal.
I had already begun and now began accelerating a project to make one new friend in each month. I reconstituted a new and reliable D&D group. I had tea with friends. I attended events and participated in things new that I hadn’t tried. I saved a room full of people from a zombie using my karaoke portfolio. I remembered that booze was useless to people who can sing in public without shame and discarding it has been immensely helpful in controlling costs and freeing up more money to spend on things like protein shakes.
And here we are looking at 34. I’ve made a commitment to do a fitness competition sometime when i’m 35, because you really do have to lay such plans in terms of years. I’m looking forward to new house improvement plans. I’m pursuing exciting new opportunities at the office. My cat is happy, my house is secure and peaceful and comfortable. I’m playing in a campaign as a player for the first time in years. I visited with dear old friends in Florida and I went to a nude beach. I promise, I’m not a woman in my 60s, I’m just experiencing the same relief because my brain is unclouded by a paralyzing mist of inertia and self-doubt for the first time in years.
I was out at the park training with the sledgehammer on the tires and I got invited to the rugby practice. I decided that i’d spent enough time exercising largely on my own and that it was time to stop hiding myself away and get back out among other gay people so I joined up. I might as well check off the one-friend-per-month rule because I figure that once I get over my social anxiety this will be a healthy thing for me as a means to rejoin gay society on terms I can relate to comfortably. Aggressive, invigorating terms.
I think that depression, if it is chemically induced like mine or if it’s a normal thing for a person is just awful because it claims our time, it slows everything down. I don’t think one can overstate the radical differences in a person, so to reiterate the difference between healthcare that gives access to modern drugs for me was the difference between being a self-defeating slave willing to put aside his own goals to be ‘supportive’ of someone who didn’t really see me as anything more than an accessory in his own saga and a reinvigorated man who hasn’t either felt so driven or felt as though so many goals were in reach in nearly a decade. Sixteen inch arms seemed like a big deal back at 14.5 but now that i’m here it’s clear that I need to take a look at 17 or 18 and see how I feel about those.
I’ve spent the year practicing self-love and it’s a pretty wonderful thing. I’m excited for 34 as the Year I Got Big and The Year I Stopped Living Like Some Kind of Pariah.
33 has treated me really well. Apart from the new kidneys. I don’t like the color.
Pool a sizable above-ground hot tub
my pluto is also in Sagittarius and the 5th house ❤️🔥
psychic/intuitive astro placements for Pluto
In Astrology, Pluto symbolises regeneration, transformation, and spiritual rebirth. This planet represents subconscious forces, ruling all that is below the surface. A Starseed origin in alignment here is the origin in which you're most connected to in the underworld. This is your 1st and 2nd dimensional origin expression.
Pluto is a generational planet that changes signs between every 12-31 years, and governs the sign of Scorpio.
*Psychic/Intuitive Astrological placements for the planet Pluto* "I Empower"
Sagittarius: (1995-2008) great prophetic abilities were stimulated during Pluto's time in Sagittarius. These natal chart holders were born with natural visionary abilities and a faith in human nature. Especially if Pluto is in alignment with Lyra or the Shaula Starseed origin which run along the Sagittarius degrees.
Scorpio: (1983-1995) these natal chart holders were born with a strong intuition and a great psychic ability that is likely to be well-developed. Especially if Pluto is in alignment with the stargate Antares (The Family of Archangel Uriel) which runs along the Scorpio degrees. Pluto is most comfortable here in its home sign, but since Pluto is a generational planet other psychic/intuitive aspects/natal placements are needed to activate it.
Pluto in 1st house: intuitive. These chart holders radiate intensity naturally and are likely to have well-developed instincts. Especially if Pluto is running along an Aries degree (regardless of what sign Pluto is in) which is connected to the stargate Pleiades.
Pluto in 3rd house: mystic, intuitive, and prone to prophetic visions. Especially if Pluto is running along a Gemini degree which is connected to the Orion stargate. These chart holders have a very analytic mind and they instinctively search for hidden meanings. They are very observant and they learn through observation of others.
Pluto in 5th house: intuitive, creative, and possess powerful visionary capabilities. These chart holders act as creative catalysts for the collective and they possess powerful creative impulses. Especially if Pluto is running along a Leo degree which is connected to the Regulus Starseed origin (The Family of Archangel Raphael.)
Pluto in 8th house: these chart holders possess a strong intuition and are possibly clairvoyant. They're likely to experience more unusual events than others due to their fascination of all that is hidden, taboo, or "dark." They are gifted with great healing abilities that come naturally to them. Especially if Pluto is running along a Scorpio degree which is connected to the stargate Antares (The Family of Archangel Uriel.)
Pluto in 9th house: intuitive, drawn to psychology and/or occult topics, very mystical. These chart holders possess a great inner depth to them and a profound, unique inner wisdom. Some of these chart holders make for the greatest spiritual teachers/leaders. Especially if Pluto is running along a Sagittarius degree which is connected to the Lyra and Shaula Starseed origin.
Pluto in 12th house: possess a deep healing power, intuitive and mystical in nature. Especially if Pluto is running along a Pisces degree which is connected to the Andromeda Galaxy. These chart holders are inclined to go deep, explore the meaning behind their dreams, and analyze their personal psychology. They are quite adept at comprehending others' motives, and it's possible that they discover they have healing powers and tune in quite quickly to others' struggles and vulnerabilities. Understanding more than most. They have a strong empathy with a sense that we are all capable of good and evil. (This goes for most 12th house placements, though. Especially Moon, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, and/or Pluto in this position.)
Note: not all astrological placements for Pluto are listed. If your Pluto house/sign is not listed that does not mean that you do not have other intuitive/psychic indicators in your chart. Everybody has intuitive and psychic placements to one degree or another in their astrological chart. This is why it is important to refer to the entire astrological chart as a whole! <3
What house/sign is your Pluto in? Note below! Mine's in 5th house Sagittarius! :)
For business inquiries please email harlronicareads@gmail.com ! I'm currently offering Full Starseed Origin chart readings for $30 and Half Starseed Origin chart readings for $20 which is a shorter reading than what you receive with the Full Origin reading. I accept paypal/venmo and do not require payment until after the reading.
What you will receive in each reading:
Full Starseed Origin Reading: for $30 you will receive a list of each Starseed origin that is found within your astrological natal chart. You will also receive a full detailed description of where each Starseed origin is located at in your natal chart and what this means for you; along with a detailed description of the meaning behind each Starseed origin. For this reading it is required that you provide your exact time and date of birth (M/D/Y) along with birth location. The timing for this reading can range anywhere between 1-3 days due to the thoroughness of the reading.
Half Starseed Origin Reading: for $20 you will receive a list of each Starseed origin that is found in your astrological natal chart along with a detailed description of the meaning behind each origin. You will not receive a detailed description of where each origin is located and what it means for you as you would with the Full Starseed Origin Reading. For this reading it is also required that you provide your exact time and date of birth (M/D/Y) along with your birth location. The timing for this reading is usually within the same day requested.
There's something in the whole "regenerations are affected by who the Time Lord last sees/first sees/is thinking about at the time" that has some undertapped characterisation potential.
Like, 9 becoming young and bubbly 10 for Rose, Simm choosing to be young to match with the Doctor (to do battle better, obviously. Definitely not anything else haha. Definitely.) 12 having a Scottish accent after 11 died thinking of Amy?? And then Missy taking the accent for herself??
The Doctor taking traits from their companions and the Master taking theirs from the Doctor being the pattern here. Like come on. So much can be read into that. It's just sitting there for free.
Easy Believism Versus Lordship Salvation
El Kittim
Essentially, the teaching of “easy-believism” (which proponents prefer to call “free grace,” or some similar term), asserts that the faith which saves is mere intellectual assent to the truths of the gospel, accompanied by an appeal to Christ for salvation. According to proponents of the “free grace” movement (i.e. “easy-believism”), it is not required of the one appealing for salvation that he be willing to submit to the Lordship of Christ or to stop sinning.
This shallow understanding of salvation and the gospel, known as "easy-believism," stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.
Question:
Can a person receive Jesus as his/her Savior without receiving Him as his/her Lord?
Easy believism says, yes.
Lordship salvation says, no.
What do you say?
Biblical Sin: Not as Behavior but as Ultimate Transgression
By Author Eli Kittim
I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in this particular context the phrase “no sin” (2 Cor. 5.21) is referring to Jesus’ action or behavior, it contradicts many New Testament (NT) passages. One that immediately comes to mind is Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness by Satan. If Jesus is sinless in the sense that he is born without a sin-nature——and therefore incapable of committing a sin, as the church proclaims——then the so-called temptation of Jesus becomes absolutely meaningless because how can you “tempt” someone who, by definition, cannot be tempted? And would Jesus “be like His brothers in every way” (Heb. 2.17), fully human, if he was unable to be tempted? The answer is a resounding no! If by “sin,” the NT is referring to behavior, it would also contradict aspects of human nature and common knowledge. It would imply that in his human development, from childhood to adulthood, Jesus never made a mistake and was without error, which is patently ridiculous (cf. Luke 2.52; 18.19).
So, what does the NT imply when it refers to Jesus being “without sin”? I would like to suggest that this reference has nothing to do with Jesus’ actions or behavior but rather with the nature of his being. According to Robert Mulholland, a NT scholar, “sins” (in the plural) are behavioral symptoms whereas “sin” (in the singular), out of which these symptomatic behaviors and attitudes arise, is a question of being. In this sense, it is a throwback to the garden of eden and the “sin” of Adam and Eve. There’s no particular “action “ or “behavior” that is associated with their transgression except that they accepted the serpent’s advice and partook of the idiomatic apple. Similarly, although It would have been utterly impossible for Jesus to avoid sin as an activity or behavior, nevertheless he did not sin in his being because, during his temptation by Satan, he ultimately did not transgress the law of God as Adam and Eve had done! He kept it!
Just as “Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, … [so] Christ’s one act of righteousness brings [salvation] … for everyone” (Rom. 5.18).
How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
What does the Bible say about salvation?
Romans 8.14 implies that if you’re not “led by the Spirit” you’re NOT a child of God. The phrase “led by the Spirit” implies an actual “existential experience” (cf. Mt. 4.1), not mere belief (i.e. an idea presumed, but not known):
“For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (Rom. 8.14).
Romans 8.9 makes it absolutely clear that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are not saved: https://biblehub.com/romans/8-9.htm
Jesus also makes it very clear in John 3.3 that you can not even see the kingdom of God, let alone be possessed by it, unless you are born again: https://biblehub.com/john/3-3.htm
That’s precisely why the Epistle to the Ephesians instructs us to put away the “old self” and to put on a new identity, namely, “the new self,” which is made in the image of God:
“You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (4.22-24 NRSV).
And, of course, we must “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3.18) and truly believe “that Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10.9), especially in the midst of this existential crisis!
*****
All these verses seem to indicate that the requirements for salvation involve considerable risk. Therefore, we must undergo some kind of personal existential experience (or a Dark night of the soul) in order for a transformation to take place. It is only in the midst of this mysterium tremendum, or existential dread, that salvation can take place. Thus, Philippians 2.12 poignantly says, “So work with fear and trembling to discover what it really means to be saved” (CEV): https://biblehub.com/philippians/2-12.htm
Ezekiel 36.26 drives home this spiritual idea of death and resurrection: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you” (cf. John 12.24)!
——-
We must first die to our ego before we can reach out for God in faith
The language of the New Testament thus implies that we have to go out of ourselves in order to find God, as Thomas Merton used to say. For example, 2 Corinthians 5:13 suggests that Paul (and by implication each and every apostle) had lost his identity to gain Christ’s (cf. Gal. 2.20):
εἴτε γὰρ ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ ·
Translation: “If we are out of our mind, it is for God” (BSB): https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/5-13.htm
So the question arises: Why is a *Mad-Mind* mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:13, and what exactly is Paul trying to teach us about the process or the goal of Salvation?
Astoundingly, we find the exact same theme reiterated in Mark 3.21 where Jesus himself is said to be “out of his mind” (which may be an allusion to the biblical narrative known as the “Temptation of Christ” in which after being baptized Jesus was led by the Spirit into the Judaean Desert to be tempted by Satan): https://biblehub.com/mark/3-21.htm
The soteriological point of that existential experience is that Jesus must lose his identity so as to enter into the divine union with God. I’m by no means suggesting “Adoptionism,” the notion that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism. No! Not at all! All I’m saying is that Jesus becomes one of us by taking on human nature (and all the suffering that it entails) so that he, too, like us, is confined to the same spiritual process and requirement of transcending the “self.” As Søren Kierkegaard once wrote, “to have faith is precisely to lose one’s mind so as to win God” (The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening)!
Similarly, John of the Cross, the celebrated 16th century mystic, says that during “the night of sense” a spirit of dizziness overtakes the spiritual faculties of an individual. This energy overwhelms the mind and causes it to lose its identity. That’s probably what Isaiah 19.14 is all about: https://biblehub.com/isaiah/19-14.htm
Do you recall Acts 2.15 in which Peter had to explain to the crowd that “Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, “ but rather filled with the Holy Spirit?
A contemplative exegesis of Psalm 107.27-30 suggests this mystical journey through the Dark night of the soul:
“they reeled and staggered like drunkards, and were at their wits' end. Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he brought them out from their distress; he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed. Then they were glad because they had quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven.”
This is reminiscent of the path of the mania of love (or the madness sent from the gods) by which we arrive at divine knowledge, as exemplified in Plato’s works: Phaedrus and Symposium. Evagrios the Solitary (aka Evagrios Pontikos), a mystical monk from Pontus (ca. 345-399 ce), says something similar about the prayer of stillness, “which by virtue of the most intense love transports to the noetic realm the intellect that longs for wisdom” (The Philokalia: The Complete Text; Compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. Trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Kallistos Ware. Vol. 1. [London: Faber, 1983], p. 62).
*****
The Beatitudes must be understood in the same exact context. They’re not a political manifesto that calls for social reform, nor are they about the materially poor or the physically hungry. Matthew 5.3 reads: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Notice that Matthew doesn’t say that they are poor in the sense that they lack sufficient money, but rather that they’re “poor in spirit,” as are those who enter the dark night of the soul! Similarly, the text unambiguously says: “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Mt. 5.6), not for food and drink! It would appear then that the Beatitudes are a guide to inner transformation or regeneration, what it means to be “born from above” (3.3) in the Johannine gospel. Only those who are poor in spirit (not in money), who have emptied themselves and have become as nothing can be blessed, meek, righteous, merciful, pure in heart, peaceful, and loving! Why? Because only those can be “born from above” and “be called children of God” (Mt. 5.9) and receive “the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5.10). Only those are worthy of salvation! No one else. That’s the point!
——-
How then is the Dark night of the soul (which makes us poor in spirit) depicted in Scripture?
One illustration might come from Isaiah 6.5:
“Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”
Elsewhere, Isaiah 50.10 reads:
“Who among you fears the Lord and obeys the voice of his servant, who walks in darkness and has no light, yet trusts in the name of the Lord and relies upon his God?”
*****
It’s quite clear from Exodus 20.21 that we can only approach God in darkness:
“Then the people stood at a distance, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.”
——-
So if this is in fact the cost of salvation, how do we obtain it?
Well, first we have to “estimate the cost”:
“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?” (Lk. 14.28).
If you reply to this question in the affirmative, then the next question is a practical one, namely, how do we proceed?
Answer: Not through discursive thinking but rather through meditation. That’s because God can only be found in silence. Thought is a distraction. One form of Western contemplation that goes back to the desert fathers of Egypt is what is known as *Centering Prayer.* This is a popular Christian meditation that places a strong emphasis on interior silence. In a very advanced stage it leads to inner transformation and union with Christ! In other words, it leads to authentic salvation! And the litmus test of that experience is that you fall madly in love with Jesus Christ!
*****
Allegorically speaking, Matthew 6.6 alludes to this prayer of stillness when it says:
“But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
The Hebrew Bible also says: “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46.10; 62.5)!
——-
Conclusion
Salvation is not an act of the will or the intellect. Rather, it’s a transformation of the mind: a rebirth! This, then, is the noblest path to salvation, the symbolic road to Emmaus that leads to resurrection, regeneration, and new life! But regeneration and rebirth from above (Jn 3.3-6) require much suffering (Heb. 12.6), pain (Acts 14.22), fear (Phil. 2.12), as well as deep and profound changes to the personality (Acts 2.1-4, 15; 9.20-22). That’s why in 2 Corinthians 12.9 God doesn’t say “my power is made perfect in weakness,” but rather “my power is accomplished in illness.” Most, if not all, Bible versions translate the Greek word ἀσθενείᾳ as “weakness.” But ἀσθενείᾳ really means “illness.” In other words, God’s power is manifested and accomplished in us when we become ill: that is, mentally ill! This, more accurate, translation should really change our understanding of soteriology & inform us about the process of salvation itself❗️
——-
Which Church is the True Church of Jesus Christ?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
The Decline of Christianity
Christianity has become a speculative art. It has created over 38,000 denominations as well as thousands of seminaries and Christian universities all over the world in an effort to promote its speculative and largely anthropomorphic doctrines. What’s more, academic faculties have hitherto bestowed higher degrees to qualified graduates who are deemed “knowledgeable” in doctrinal and pastoral matters. And so the theological baton has been passed from teacher to student seemingly ad infinitum.
In the seminary or the academy everyone has an opinion, and so there are, naturally, a wide variety of viewpoints and many different schools of thought. However, there can only be one truth, if it exists at all. So, which view is correct in any given case? Well, we’re living in the post-modern era of relativism, so take your pick. Both Christian methodology and epistemology are equally informed by currents in academia (i.e. interdisciplinary studies), so much so that doctrinal issues are beginning to reflect the modern culture more and more, from liberation theology and feminist theology, to even queer theology and trans-gendered theology.
What ever happened to the concept of one church, one body, one Lord, one spirit, one faith? (Eph. 4.4-6). Whatever happened to Paul’s appeal “that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose”? (1 Cor. 1.10 NRSV).
——-
A State of Theological Confusion
This state of affairs is primarily due to the fact that we have lost sight of who is a true Christian, and who is not. We can no longer differentiate between a nominal Christian and an authentic one. We don’t even know what constitutes a real Christian and what is the criteria for meeting that requirement. And we certainly don’t know who’s telling the truth. Fake news, false narratives, and the spread of misinformation have affected every aspect of Christianity. So, because we can’t tell the difference between what is true and what is false, we generally classify Christian doctrines into various levels based on their popularity. We decide which pastor to listen to according to their social status, academic degrees, reputation, experience, popularity, book sales, and the like. Or, we walk into a particular church simply because of how it makes us feel. These are not valid reasons for attending church, for following a particular denomination or pastor, or for assenting to their doctrines and believing in their creeds. That’s why modern Christianity has lost its direction and has gone so far astray that it no longer represents the teachings of Jesus Christ. It only represents human inventions, speculations, and secular academic endeavours. Sadly, modern Christianity doesn’t have a clue about the revelation of the New Testament (NT) or about its main object of study: Jesus Christ. Second Timothy 4.3-4 reads:
For the time is coming when people will not
put up with sound doctrine, but having
itching ears, they will accumulate for
themselves teachers to suit their own
desires, and will turn away from listening to
the truth and wander away to myths.
——-
True Christians Get their Information Directly from God
There are only a few regenerated people in this world who know the *truths* of the NT, and this is due to their intimate knowledge of, and personal relationship with, Jesus! These all share the exact same knowledge of Christ! For them, the truth does not vary. Their knowledge is identical without the slightest variation as to the basic truths of the faith. They are all one, united in one faith, under one spirit and one lord. How is that possible, you may ask? The information they receive does not come from seminaries or academic universities, or from books or distinguished scholars. No. It comes straight from the mouth of God (Deut. 8.3; cf. Mt. 4.4). How can that be, you ask?
In the Old Testament (OT), there is obviously a divine communication that is revealed between God and humankind, particularly when the prophets declare categorically what “the LORD says” (cf. Jer. 23.38; 1 Kgs 12.24; Ezek. 20.5; Amos 5.16). This OT divine communication is also promised to the NT believers who will be regenerated in the Spirit (Jn 16.13):
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will
guide you into all the truth; for he will not
speak on his own, but will speak whatever
he hears, and he will declare to you the
things that are to come [ερχόμενα].
So, the process of salvation, or regeneration, has everything to do with knowledge and truth! It is the dividing line or the threshold between authentic and false Christianity. And that makes all the difference in the world. People are confused about what salvation is. For instance, there are all sorts of scholarly debates between those who hold to “easy-believism” and those who adhere to lordship salvation. There are those who think they are saved, when they’re not. For example, pastors often tell people, who answer altar calls, that they have been reborn simply because they made a profession of faith. Joel Osteen is a case in point. Other folk think they can go on sinning because all they are required to do is to believe, according to their interpretation of Scripture. Steven Anderson, the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, is such an example. But God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14.33). And, unfortunately, most people don’t know what authentic salvation in Christ really is. If people have believed lies, then the truth will necessarily seem false to them. So they react negatively by portraying true salvation as if it were evil, unbiblical, untraditional, or even revolting. However, if you reject true salvation, your Christianity is as fake as you are. Your pseudo-religion is nothing more than a bad caricature of Christianity. Just listen to one of Paul Washer’s sermons. There is only one way for you to know the truth and become a part of the one true church of Jesus. And that is by understanding the *process* by which you can be saved!
Every church and every ministry teaches something different, and most of their teachings are completely foreign to the NT. It’s reminiscent of Paul’s stern warning to the church of Corinth (1 Cor. 1.12, 13) that began to split into various divisions or denominations:
each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I
belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’
or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been
divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or
were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Paul explicitly condemns this fragmentation of church doctrine and says it is not of God. Accordingly, 1 Timothy 4.1-3 is prophesying of what is to come:
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later
times some will renounce the faith by
paying attention to deceitful spirits and
teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy
of liars whose consciences are seared with
a hot iron. They forbid marriage and
demand abstinence from foods, which God
created to be received with thanksgiving by
those who believe and know the truth.
——-
A Soteriological Crisis
Why all the splinter groups and all the contradictory doctrines? Because we lost touch with spirituality. In other words, we lost touch with God. We can no longer hear him. We can no longer communicate with him. Why? Because we’re suffering from bibliolatry! The Bible is not an end in itself. It’s supposed to lead us to Christ. Yet we have become idolaters, Bible-worshipping Christians with no spirituality whatsoever, as if the Bible alone had the capacity to transform us into Christ. As if the Bible has replaced Christ. Hence the reason for Jesus’ caveat in Jn 5.39:
You search the scriptures because you think
that in them you have eternal life; and it is
they that testify on my behalf.
We’ve also created new doctrines and man-made traditions. The various doctrines became officially mandated during the successive councils of the church. Thus, all the denominations are in error. They exist without NT authority. Consider what Christ will say to the fake Christians on Judgment day (Mt. 7.21-23):
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only
the one who does the will of my Father in
heaven. On that day many will say to me,
‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your
name, and cast out demons in your name,
and do many deeds of power in your
name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never
knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'
But what exactly does it mean to do the will of Christ’s father? Does it depend on us, forcing our will to conform to his, through repetitive behavioural acts? No. It means to surrender your will to God so that you can say with Paul, “it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2.20). Then, divine obedience becomes natural and automatic. But, unfortunately, that’s not what we’ve been told by the religious authorities. We’ve been taught to think that we’re Christians on our way to heaven. In other words, there’ll be upright people——people who even claim to believe in Jesus——that will be lost on the day of judgment! But what is the soteriological standard against which all other theories are measured? Notice the criterion that God uses: “I never knew you.” So, we must try to explain, then, how it is that God “knows us.” Answer: if we surrender our life to him, he will know us personally and intimately in a deep, unitive, and mystical sense. In short, he will permanently become an integral part of our lives (Jn 14.23):
Those who love me will keep my word, and
my Father will love them, and we will come
to them and make our home with them.
But how can you make this happen? How can you become a part of the true church? Some say by “obedience,” while others claim you only need to “believe.” But they are both wrong because both of these Pelagian premises are based on you saving yourself through personal works. In this scenario, Jesus becomes utterly irrelevant. So, that’s not it. The answer is, you have to be transformed! Notice in the undermentioned passage that Jesus inflicts “vengeance on those who do not know God” and who, therefore, disobey him. The text prophesies the final consummation (2 Thess. 1.7, 8),
when the Lord Jesus is revealed from
heaven with his mighty angels in flaming
fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do
not know God and on those who do not
obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
Most churches claim that all you have to do to be saved involves rote learning and habitual religious exercises. For example, the Church of Christ says that you have to obey the Gospel by hearing, Believing, Repenting, Confessing, and being baptised. And then you’ll be saved. How wonderful. How convenient. How painless. All man-made, all based on one’s own efforts, and the greatest thing of all, no spirituality is necessary, and there’s no need for a change of heart or a radical renewing of the mind (Rom. 12.2). By the way, when Paul speaks of baptism, he’s not referring to the immersion in water but to a painful baptism into Christ’s death that regenerates the believer “in newness of life” during the dark night of the soul (cf. Acts 19.5-6). He says in Rom. 6.3, 4:
Do you not know that all of us who have
been baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death? Therefore we have
been buried with him by baptism into death,
so that, . . . we too might walk in newness of
life.
So, congregants are being deceived into thinking that they are saved, when they are not! Church leaders will typically quote a few out-of-context verses about belief in Christ and his resurrection, and, if you meet these criteria, they’ll tell you that you’re good to go. You’re saved. This is downright nonsense! How pathetic has been the fall of so many people who were not properly trained or educated on the nature of salvation within the Christian faith. No wonder so many of them have left the faith and have turned to atheism, profoundly disillusioned with the form of Christianity that could neither solve their problems nor offer any meaning in the face of today’s postmodern world.
——-
You Will Know the Truth, and the Truth Will Make You Free (John 8.32)
As Paul reminds us, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rom. 8.9). So, how do we do our part in order to allow this transformation to take place and to invite the Spirit into our lives? There are many methods. However, one of the most effective means of doing so is by way of “stillness,” which is traditionally known as a prayer of silence! From a phenomenological perspective, this Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” requires a transcendent existential experience. This involves a deep meditation in which the mind leaves all knowledge behind and passes into a state of transcendent *unknowing* where the “intuition of naked truths” is “conveyed to the understanding” (John of the Cross. “Ascent of Mount Carmel.” Trans. E. Allison Peers. [Liguori: Triumph, 1991], p. 182). The point is that we’re not going to get there by discursive thinking but rather by “being,” in the existential sense!
Thus, being obedient is not enough. Being morally upright or having good intentions is not enough. Being a descendant of Abraham is not enough. Salvation is not based on a biological birth, but on a birth from above. In short, we must be born again (Jn 3.3):
Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the
kingdom of God without being born from
above.
See my article: How Are We Saved? https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/624396009262415872/how-are-we-saved-is-it-simply-by-belief-alone-or
Is John MacArthur a Christian?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
——-
MacArthur is a Reformed Protestant and a
strong proponent of expository preaching.
He has been acknowledged by Christianity
Today as one of the most influential
preachers of his time and was a frequent
guest on Larry King Live as a representative
of an evangelical Christian perspective.
— Wikipedia
——-
Is Religious Experience Unchristian?
John MacArthur typically uses exaggerated caricatures of New Testament (NT) teachings to mock and ridicule *religious existential experiences.* But isn’t religious experience the foundation of our salvation, according to the NT? Romans 8.9 (NLT) says, “remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.” So how do you get the Spirit of Christ to live in you if not through an experience? Is it based on wishful thinking? Jesus says in Jn 3.3: “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” But how is someone “born again”? Through a profession of faith? Absolutely not! Jesus clearly emphasizes that no one will be accepted into the kingdom of heaven simply on that basis alone. Much to their horror, those who thought they were saved will be utterly perplexed, confused, and disappointed! They will appeal and say: “Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name.” (Mt. 7.22). But Christ will ultimately reject them and say: “I never knew you” (Mt. 7.23).
So, how is one born again if not through some kind of an experience? And how does one develop a relationship with Christ if not through an experience? Jesus simply becomes an imaginary partner or a wishful thought or daydream? Is that what the NT teaches? And how do we get a new identity, according to Eph. 4.22-24? By reading the Bible? MacArthur clearly contradicts Scripture by implying that Christian salvation is not based on any “experience” at all. Yet, in Philippians 2.12 (NASB) Paul exhorts:
work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling.
Fear and trembling do not occur except in unusual circumstances that involve “experiences” of existential dread! And, according to Paul, these experiences are essential to working out one’s salvation. Yet with regard to religious experience, MacArthur says the exact opposite. In a YouTube video, he exclaims:
it’s nothing but sheer imagination, at best;
and, at worst, you are courting demons. . . .
And some people, sad to say, it’s not
enough to believe in Christ, they pursue the
paranormal, the supernatural, the mystical,
the intuitive, and they make things happen
in the mind that aren’t happening, and they
open themselves to things that do happen
from demonic sources. It’s a frightening
thing to think about.
So demonic sources can make things happen, but God can’t? In other words, he suggests that demons can make things happen in this realm, whereas God is powerless and can’t possibly compete with them. Then he added:
Why is it that people pursue that? I’ll tell you
why. Because somewhere in their theology
they have bought into the fact that it’s not
enough to have Christ. And they’re into all
these experience with angels, and so
forth.
——-
Should We Reject the Supernatural?
The problem with John MacArthur is that he doesn’t explain the process by which we “have Christ” in the first place. How exactly do we have Christ if not through an experience? He went on to say,
that’s not great faith that brings those
supernatural experiences; that’s doubt
looking for proof that fantasizes those
experiences.
So, according to John MacArthur, the supernatural signs and wonders of the NT, including the supernatural miracles of Jesus, do not involve great faith——contradicting what Jesus himself taught (Mt. 14.31)——but are rather fantasies that don’t really exist! How then does his epistemology differ from that of Liberal theology? Isn’t it one and the same? He’s basically saying that the supernatural dimension does not exist. It’s a fantasy world of imagination, at best, or the realm of the demonic world, at worst. Really? Isn’t that what the Pharisees accused Jesus of, namely, of casting out demons because “He gets his power from Satan, the prince of demons”? (Mt. 12.24 NLT).
In fact, in trying to downplay and discredit visions and experiences, he will even pit Paul against Paul! He employs Paul as a mouthpiece to denigrate visions and revelations. Yet, according to Galatians 1.11-12, everything that Paul knows about Christ is EXCLUSIVELY through visions and revelations (cf. 2 Cor. 12.1-4). Besides, didn’t John of Patmos see visions and revelations that he later encoded in the Book of Revelation? Are we to conclude that he, too, was just imagining things that are not real and do not exist? Was Paul’s vision of Christ (Acts 9.3-5) equally false and imaginary? And this man is lauded and respected as a credible pastor-teacher? Listen to some of his comments that were directed to his congregation:
Now, there’s no higher plane. There is no
surpassing experience. There’s no deeper
life.
If we didn’t know who uttered these words we would easily ascribe them to a positive atheist like Michael Shermer or Richard Dawkins. Astoundingly, they were uttered by John MacArthur. This is downright false. This man has drifted away from Christianity. His epistemological position is extremely dangerous. He’s putting peoples’ salvation on the line. By contrast, here’s Jesus’ promise to those who love him (Jn 14.21):
I will love them and reveal [ἐμφανίσω]
myself to each of them.
MacArthur then diverts his listeners’ attention by attacking a straw man. He creates a false dichotomy and makes it appear as if this debate is about Christ versus experiences. Either Christ is sufficient or else you choose experiences. But that’s a red herring. On the contrary, Jesus demands regeneration, and Paul exhorts believers to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Rom. 12.2 NASB), not by simply reading the Bible and pretending to have an imaginary relationship with Jesus. How is Christ sufficient? Simply through reading a Book? That’s preposterous! In fact, the one thing that God wants us to do is to *experience* him. That’s the whole Bible in a nutshell!
(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/e0fETODHsoM)
——-
Is the Experience of the Holy Spirit Nonsensical?
In another video, he claims that spiritual formation——in which people seek inside themselves——is “just a lot of bunk.” He says:
digging deep in to find your spiritual core
and your spiritual center . . . is nonsense.
In other words, he’s contradicting the Word of God. Acts 2.1-4 (NLT) reads:
On the day of Pentecost all the believers
were meeting together in one place.
Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven
like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and
it filled the house where they were sitting.
Then, what looked like flames or tongues of
fire appeared and settled on each of them.
And everyone present was filled with the
Holy Spirit and began speaking in other
languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this
ability.
——-
MacArthur’s Deism
Then he goes on to explain his own theology and soteriology, which are diametrically opposed to those of the NT. He says without flinching:
The assumption is that spiritual truth is
somewhere inside of you. And that is not
true. Spiritual truth is outside of you. It is
external to you. It is in a Book outside of
you. It is not in you. . . . You can go sit on a
rock in the middle of nowhere and think,
and you will find in you no source of divine
revelation whatsoever. Because divine
revelation is external to you. It’s external to
every human being. It’s in a book that God
wrote. And when you put the book down
and start looking into your own brain all
you’re gonna do is be led down a black
hole.
This is a deist understanding of God as a transcendent Being, wholly independent of the material universe, who is not accessible to creatures and does not personally interact with them. So, the NT teaching that the Holy Spirit “will be in you” (ἐν ὑμῖν)——in Jn 14.17, 23 (cf. Rom. 8.9), or “that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who lives in you [ἐν ὑμῖν]” (1 Cor. 6.19)——is false? (cf. Titus 3.5; 1 Jn 2.27). This is the exact opposite of what Lk 17.21 says, namely, that the kingdom of God is within you (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν)! So, “truth” (who is Jesus; Jn 14.6) is never inside (immanent) but always outside of every believer? Of course not! In Rev. 3.20, Jesus declares the exact opposite:
Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you
hear my voice and open the door, I will
come in [εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν].
According to MacArthur, it seems that a personal relationship with Jesus is equivalent to just reading about him in a book. So, there’s no truth outside the Bible, no experiential relationship to God, no real spiritual insight, no miracles, no supernatural world, no signs & wonders, no changes in the personality, no religious experiences, no Holy Spirit, nothing whatsoever. This is a form of deism, pure and simple: God does not intervene in the affairs of men except through a book. Not only does this view contradict Scripture, it is patently ridiculous and utterly absurd! To hear a supposed Bible teacher——who holds the attention of millions worldwide on a daily basis——saying these things is absolutely shocking, if not shameful.
——-
If Being Born Again Is Not an Experience, Is It a form of Rote Learning?
MacArthur continued:
That’s what happens when you start
trying to poke around inside of yourself for
spiritual truth when it’s all contained in
one book, and that book is external to you.
And the spiritual truth resides in that
book, if you never lived or if you never had
a thought. It’s the external truth that we
must understand, cuz there’s nothing
inside, until that truth gets in our minds.
So, he seems to suggest that “truth” gets into our minds not through the experience of regeneration but only by constant reading and repetition. In other words, he reduces Jesus’ and Paul’s spirituality to *rote learning.* So, When Paul says “put on the new self” (Eph. 4.24 NASB) or the new identity, does he mean that our personalities will radically change as we master the Biblical literature through repetition and memorization or through some sort of intellectual assent? If that were so, Christianity would be nothing more than B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism!
——-
BIBLE IDOLATRY
John MacArthur’s message seems to be that nothing happens inside of us experientially. God only speaks today through the Bible. He has made of the Bible an idol. And he has also broken the first Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Yet he worships the Bible (aka bibliolatry)! Jesus, however, poignantly rebukes such people in John 5.39 (NLT):
You search the Scriptures because you
think they give you eternal life. But the
Scriptures point to me!
In short, according to MacArthur, the Bible has replaced God. God can no longer speak apart from or outside the Bible. Scripture also trumps Jesus. His spiritual relationship to human beings is not direct; it is indirect via the Bible. Put differently, we no longer believe in Jesus or God as realities or entities, which exist outside the Bible, with the ability to communicate and transform our lives. No! They interact with us only in and through the Bible. Therefore, we only believe in the literary “word” of God: *the Bible!* These divine beings only exist inside the Bible and not apart from it. That’s what John MacArthur seems to be saying. He’s in love with a book, not the author of that book. Outside of that book, he doesn’t seem to “know” its author. He only meets him via that book! By contrast, 1 Corinthians 4.20 (KJV) says: “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” This is what the Protestant reformation of sola scriptura has produced. But this epistemology is completely bogus, as if God is incapable of speaking to us outside the Bible. As Jesus observes: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Mt. 15:8)!
——-
Conclusion
For John MacArthur, belief, not experience, is the key. Therefore, we don’t need to “experience” or “know” Jesus intimately or personally. The old saying: “Taste and see that the LORD is good” (Psalm 34:8) need not apply. In this strange and demonically twisted scenario, the Bible is Lord!
This is the hallmark of a false teacher. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the NT or with Christ’s command to love God above and beyond everything else, including books (Mk 12.30). It is not sanctioned by the Scriptures. And it is neither according to God’s word nor his will. It is a form of secularism: quasi-deism coupled with liberal theology. It is a counterfeit Christianity! This view is far removed from Christian teaching. It was quite laughable to witness.
If we sum up his theology, and take it to its logical conclusion, it’s as if God & Jesus are simply *literary characters* in the Bible whose powers and abilities are confined and subject to the authors’ discretion. Accordingly, we don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus; we have a personal relationship with the Bible! We don’t know God apart from the Bible. That’s MacArthur’s basic message, namely, that Christianity is not a “spiritual” but rather a “literary” religion! He reduces Apocalyptic Christianity to literature! His rejection of religious experience, and of the operations of the Holy Spirit, is analogous to paganism!
He contradicts both himself and the Bible by stating that mystical, supernatural experiences do not exist. Yet the Bible is filled with them: think of Isaiah, Daniel, Paul, John, and Jesus!
So, his teaching involves not only an unwarranted epistemology——in which real, living, divine persons become reduced to literary characters——but also a self-contradictory exegesis wherein he refutes the very teaching he espouses, namely, the supernatural world of the Bible!
My question is simply this: does John MacArthur represent authentic Christianity?
And, judging from his own statements, the answer is a resounding no!
(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/mTEm9NI17Do)
——-
How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
Our Teacher Should Be the Holy Spirit
Before I venture out to expound on how Biblical “inspiration” occurs, it’s important to first say a few words about who determines the “meaning” of a text. In other words, where should we get our “hermeneutic” from? Should we draw it from our personal responses? Or should we conform to what the scholars say? But isn’t that still speculation and conjecture either way? Yes, it is! And it could be totally wrong, even if it’s a long-held consensus held by leading scholars! So what determines the meaning of a text? Is it Bible-study tools? No because they only give us a partial understanding. The short answer is: the Holy Spirit! Just as the Holy Spirit is responsible for “inspiring” the Biblical authors, so it is also responsible for communicating the “meaning” to its “recipients.” However, its recipients are not just anyone. They are neither those who openly profess to be “reborn” Christians nor those who post Facebook memes, “Repent or Go to Hell.” Rather, they’re the true, authentic Christians who don’t show off and hardly ever talk about their status as saved believers. Unbeknownst to the Cessationists, they hear from God “directly.” And they can interpret the Bible not based on current theological trends or methods of exegesis but on the word of the Spirit! So, they are “in the know.” Ideally, this is where the meaning of Scripture should come from! Bible-study tools won’t reveal these meanings no matter how sophisticated they might be. Now, let’s get back to the concept of Biblical “inspiration.”
Can the Bible Limit What God Can and Cannot Do?
There are many modern Biblical interpreters who hold to a form of “Pelagianism.” In ancient times, the Pelagian heresy comprised the Christian theological position that the human will alone is capable of choosing the good without the assistance of grace or any divine aid. Even Jesus’ salvific atonement becomes ultimately irrelevant in this view. These people, and I have met quite a few of them, don’t believe that the Spirit plays any significant role in our salvation. According to them, all we need to do is to follow the external dictates of the Bible. In this view, the Bible replaces God and thus becomes God-like, so to speak. Besides contradicting large portions of the New Testament, this position is also heretical in another way because it presents a counterfeit Christianity; that is to say, it presents the exact opposite of what authentic salvation truly consists of. It rejects inward spiritual experiences that lead to true “union” with God and promotes only an external form of obedience to rules and regulations. Jesus himself explains that such people don’t know God; they have neither heard from him nor do they know his “word”:
“You have never heard his voice or seen his
form, and you do not have his word abiding
in you, because you do not believe him
whom he has sent” (Jn 5.27-38).
Jesus nails it. Their erroneous doctrine is based on disbelief. In essence, they don’t even believe in Jesus. He goes on to say:
“You search the Scriptures because you
think that in them you have eternal life; it is
these that testify about Me” (Jn 5.39).
So, for them, the Bible has supplanted the Godhead and has become their “god.” It’s no longer God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit who holds sway but rather the Bible per se and nothing but the Bible. That’s a form of idol-worship where “a means to an end” has suddenly become an end in itself! The King-James Only cult is a case in point!
The Dictation Theory
What is more, as far as Biblical inspiration is concerned, most modern scholars typically say that the Holy Spirit did not give the New Testament authors each and every word by dictation. To which I say, why not? They try desperately to fit in with the modern-secular, liberal culture that does not believe in supernatural phenomena and mocks all forms of divine communications. And yet, according to the Bible, these communications do exist (see 2 Tim. 3:16–17)!
The Bible stands or falls on the presence or absence of these divine communications. What ever happened to the Old Testament declaration: “Thus says the LORD”? Why water it down? Why dilute it to make it more palatable to the masses? Either God communicates with the human family or he doesn’t. In other words, either the Bible is the word of God or it isn’t. It’s that simple. By comparison, you’re either pregnant or you’re not. There’s no in between. Either God directly spoke to Isaiah and to Jeremiah or he didn’t. If he did, the Bible is transcribing divine communications. If he didn’t, then the Bible is the word of man. But if God indeed spoke to Isaiah, why couldn’t he equally speak to the Biblical authors, giving them the precise words audibly? After all, the authors themselves claimed to have heard God speak, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 3.17). Besides, Jesus himself openly declares:
“For I did not speak on my own, but the
Father who sent me commanded me to say
all that I have spoken” (Jn 12.49).
If God has spoken directly in Isaiah 6.7, Jeremiah 26.2, Ezek. 28.2, John 2.1, 8, and also through Jesus (Jn 12.49), why wouldn’t he speak directly to the Biblical authors as well? It’s akin to when “Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote on a scroll at Jeremiah's dictation all the words of the Lord that he had spoken to him” (Jer. 36.4).
The Dictation Theory Has Been Greatly Misunderstood
The reason most scholars don’t accept the dictation theory is because it seems to suggest that the Holy Spirit inscribed the words of Scripture through the agency of human authors who were somehow under God’s full control, in a state of passivity (perhaps in a trance), in which God dictated each and every word with perfect accuracy. In other words, scholars totally mischaracterize this communication process, as if they’re talking about zombies, automatons, people half-asleep, on sodium pentothal, under hypnosis, somnambulism, or the walking dead. In other words, the dictation theory has often been mistaken for the mechanical view of inspiration, such as automatic writing, and the like.
This mischaracterization and distortion stems from the fact that these scholars don’t yet fully understand what salvation really is, that is to say, what the relationship of the regenerated person to God consists of. Actually, by default, a regenerated person is already under the control of God, so that they don’t have to pass out or become an automaton in order to hear God’s voice. In other words, God communicates with them naturally, without restriction or interference, via a form of interpersonal communication while they are physically and cognitively stable, completely aware, and fully conscious! Therefore, the authentic, born-again Christians are already under God’s control and don’t need altered states of consciousness in order to hear God’s voice. Given that they are already sons of God (Jn 1.12-13), “born of the Spirit” of God (Jn 3.5-6), they hear God all the time (Jn 10.14, 27, 28)!
Stylistic Differences May Reflect the Source Rather Than the Authors
As for the argument pertaining to the stylistic differences between the New Testament authors, which suggests a variety of different personalities at work——consequently ruling out the possibility of verbatim-dictation from a single source——my reply is, why couldn’t the “stylistic differences” reflect the source rather than the authors? In other words, perhaps the texts reflect the Spirit itself——setting the context and content in various ways within the different compositions——rather than the individual personalities of the authors. After all, Heb. 1.1 says that “God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets.” That’s why we can find verbal agreements between disparate texts. For example, we read in the Old Testament narrative of Exodus 34.29 that Moses’ “face shone” (Hb. qaran; meaning “shine”) and then, lo and behold, we find the exact same equivalent words used in the Greek New Testament (Matthew 17.2) to say that Jesus’ “face shone” (Gk. ἔλαμψεν; meaning “shine”). Two completely different authors with completely different writing styles and languages, writing from two completely different time periods and locations, with over 1,000 years separating the two texts, and yet we find verbal agreements! Why? Same source; same Spirit dictating the exact same words through different languages and styles. Such verbal agreements and parallels abound in Scripture. Otherwise, if it was left up to each and every individual author to write whatever they wanted, then it would obviously be the word of man and should not be accepted as the word of God.
Biblical Interpretation Should Be Based Entirely on Biblical Inspiration
Furthermore, Biblical interpretation should be based entirely on the Spirit, not on guess-work. Being partly-right doesn’t cut it because it implies that we may also be partly-wrong. Either we know what’s going on or we don’t:
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide
you into all the truth; for he will not speak on
his own, but will speak whatever he hears,
and he will declare to you the things that
are to come [ἐρχόμενα]” (Jn 16.13).
In other words, those who are indwelt by the Spirit walk by the Spirit and are constantly informed by the Spirit who guides them “into all the truth.”
Conclusion
Therefore, based on the aforementioned reasons, it seems indisputable that the Spirit of God inspired the Biblical authors by giving them each and every word by dictation. For God speaks to us directly, but only those who belong to him can actually hear his voice. The following quote demonstrates that Scripture (which is almost entirely prophetic) was not left to the discretion of the individual authors but that the authors were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” when they “spoke from God”:
“for no prophecy was ever produced by the
will of man, but men carried along by the
Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1.21).
——-
A Response to Jon Bloom’s “Can I Follow My New Heart?”
By Biblical Researcher, Psychologist, & Award-Winning Author, Eli Kittim
In an article entitled “Can I Follow My New Heart?” (published July 1, 2021), which was posted on John Piper’s desiringGod website, Jon Bloom, staff writer of https://www.desiringgod.org/ writes:
When Christians are born again, we enter
into a lifelong internal war where ‘the
desires of the flesh are against the Spirit,
and the desires of the Spirit are against the
flesh, for these are opposed to each other,
to keep you from doing the things you want
to do’ (Galatians 5:17).
That is incorrect, inaccurate, and misleading. When Paul talks about the war within, between the flesh and the Spirit, he is referring to a *pre-regenerative* rather than a “post-regenerative” state of mind. This battle or war between the flesh and the Spirit is waged BEFORE “Christians are born again,” NOT after! After “Christians are born again” this battle ENDS! The War within ends, provided an *authentic-regeneration* has taken place (not simply a fake “rebirth” based on a profession of faith or an altar call) in which we have died to our selves in order to receive a new identity (Ephesians 4:22-24). There is no more internal struggle. Sin no longer reigns within. God is now on the throne of your heart and, instead of war, there is peace. Instead of bitterness and anger there is love and self-acceptance. Sin has not been completely eradicated. It’s still there. But it no longer dominates your mind and heart. So, the notion that we enter a battle or a war AFTER we are reborn is completely false. On the contrary, that’s when the battle, in a certain sense, ends for us and tranquility ensues.
Jon Bloom misinterprets both the authorial intent of the Biblical authors as well as the concept of authentic rebirth. He mistakenly employs certain Biblical quotes to suggest that they are referring to a condition AFTER rebirth, when in fact they are referring to a carnal mind PRIOR to regeneration. Thus, he misreads the following verses out-of-context:
their ‘passions are at war within’ them
(James 4:1). Peter warns his readers (and
us), ‘Do not be conformed to the passions
of your former ignorance’ (1 Peter 1:14).
Paul describes this internal experience of
warring passions as ‘wretched’ (Romans
7:24).
Finally, the fact that he’s been totally misreading and distorting the Biblical authors becomes apparent. He writes:
And he [Paul] admonishes the Colossian
Christians (and us) with strong language:
‘Put to death therefore what is earthly in
you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion,
evil desire, and covetousness, which is
idolatry’ (Colossians 3:5). Why did these
apostles feel the need to speak this way to
regenerated people? Because the hearts of
these regenerated people were not yet fully
free from the influence of their flesh, their
old selves.
Why would Paul say “put to death” all these vices to regenerated Christians who have already done just that and have died to sin? And if reborn, recreated Christians are “not yet fully free from the influence of their flesh” (i.e. “their old selves”), then that implies that Christ either lied or was confused when he said “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32 NIV). No! It is Jon Bloom himself who is confused because in spite of what he writes, he nevertheless seems to acknowledge that after rebirth sin no longer dominates. He writes:
Paul lays the theological foundation of our
understanding by explaining ‘that our old
self was crucified with [Christ] in order that
[our] body of sin might be brought to
nothing, so that we would no longer be
enslaved to sin’ (Romans 6:6). Our new
selves were ‘raised with Christ’ (Colossians
3:1) so that ‘we too might walk in newness
of life’ (Romans 6:4). Therefore, we ‘must
consider [ourselves] dead to sin and alive to
God in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 6:11).
In sharp contrast to Jon Bloom’s overall message, Paul declares a radical change that has ALREADY occurred in the personality as a result of the *NEW BIRTH,* as well as a new way of being that is no longer dominated by sin or the carnal mind (Romans 8:1-2 ESV):
There is therefore now no condemnation for
those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of
the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ
Jesus from the law of sin and death.
I therefore take issue with the notion of *regeneration* as an “internal war” between the flesh and the Spirit in which we “are not yet fully free.”
For a comparative reading, see the undermentioned link:
“Can I Follow My New Heart?” (Article by Jon Bloom, Staff writer, desiringGod website): https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/can-i-follow-my-new-heart?fbclid=IwAR0SjG4T6TVZN8TVuB0Sjt-10zS5UnRy05rxjPd00YiVWcixmVCR6dm3EW0
——-
Is Free Grace Theology Biblical?
By Award-Winning Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,
he is none of his.
(Romans 8.9 KJV)
——-
Sola fide
Sola fide (meaning “faith alone”) is a theological doctrine which holds that believers are justified by faith alone. Originally, the purpose of this doctrine was to distinguish the Protestants from the Catholic & Orthodox Churches that relied on sacraments (such as the Sacrament of Penance, aka Confession) and “works” for salvation. By contrast, Sola fide maintained that it is on the basis of faith alone that believers are justified (pardoned) and saved.
However, the original doctrine of Sola fide (faith alone) didn’t mean to imply that nothing happened to the believer existentially, psychologically, or supernaturally *after* they were saved. On the contrary, many reformers emphatically stressed that *regeneration* should produce verifiable evidence of the spiritual life. As 2 Pet. 1.10 warns (cf. 2 Cor. 13.5), make sure your faith is real:
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give
diligence to make your calling and election
sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never
fall.
The evidence of conversion is a believer’s *new self* in Christ (his new identity cf. Gal. 2.20; Eph. 4.24), with proof of ongoing fruit in their life. Many people mistakenly think they are converted or born again but they show no evidence of a personality change (a recreation) nor any fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace). Alas, despite what they say publicly, they have not been converted; they have not been reborn! Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “Sudden Conversions Are Very Often False.”
The reformers knew the importance of John 3.7: “Ye must be born again.” This Biblical concept doesn’t refer to the time when, during a crusade, you decided to make a spiritual commitment to Christ, or to the time when you made a sincere profession of faith during an altar call at a Jimmy Swaggart rally, or when you decided to give your life to Jesus, in your living room one night, while watching Billy Graham or Joel Osteen. This “decision” is characterized under the category of “works” (since you decided the outcome by yourself), and it has absolutely nothing to do with Biblical regeneration or with God. Why? Because God had nothing to do with it, nor is there any evidence of a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in your life. That’s why 2 Corinthians 5.17 declares:
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a
new creature: old things are passed away;
behold, all things are become new.
Unfortunately, the sinner’s prayer doesn’t save anyone. It doesn’t change your carnal nature into a new creature. Your sin nature remains the same and dominates your mind and heart. So how, then, are you saved? A saved person is dominated by God, not by his passions.
That’s why the reformers spoke of irresistible grace (monergism). Regardless of whether we agree with it or not, the point is that this soteriological doctrine teaches that God’s grace is effectually applied to the believer in order to save them, and that God overcomes their resistance and *changes* them from *within.* In other words, a transformation takes place on the inside. It’s not just faith alone. If they cannot deny it or resist it, then that means that God’s grace has a direct cause-effect influence in their lives. That’s why scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit (Matthew 3.11): “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16.16)!
——-
Free Grace Theology
Free Grace (aka Easy-believism) is a Christian soteriological position which holds that anyone can be saved and receive eternal life simply by believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). The only condition for receiving the grace of eternal life is *faith.* Nothing else is required. In fact, one is not even required to stop sinning. They have completely removed Sola fide (faith alone) from its original Biblical and soteriological context, thereby isolating and distorting it to mean something entirely different.
By contrast, *Lordship Salvation* requires obedience to Christ. And this is the actual teaching of Scripture! The free Grace movement apparently forgot Jesus’ teaching which states: “repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1.15). Grace is free, but it’s not cheap. Christ says in Mt 16.24:
If any man will come after me, let him deny
himself, and take up his cross, and follow
me.
Here are Jesus’ own words in John 14.15:
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Besides, how can *mere belief* ALONE be sufficient for *salvation* if the demons believe just as much? (James 2.19):
Thou believest that there is one God; thou
doest well: the devils also believe, and
tremble.
In fact, 1 John 2.3-4 would call proponents of Free Grace “liars”:
And hereby we do know that we know him
[Christ], if we keep his commandments. He
that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his
commandments, is a liar, and the truth is
not in him.
And yet, *free grace theology* is constantly mocking Lordship Salvation, calling it evil and unbiblical. Therefore, we should take heed of Isaiah’s (5.20) stern warning:
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good
evil; that put darkness for light, and light for
darkness.
In this paper, I’m only talking about the *regenerated* or *born-again believer,* and what their salvation consists of. I’m trying to demonstrate that a rebirth entails a new identity, a new creation, and a constant outflow of the fruit of the spirit. Just to be clear, Christian salvation is not based on the *works* of the law. Obeying the commandments of Moses doesn’t save anyone. We are not saved because we obey; we obey because we are saved! Nor is salvation an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity (see Wayne Grudem’s “Free Grace” Theology). You don’t simply look at the facts, weigh the evidence, and conclude that Jesus must be the Messiah. Salvation is NOT an intellectual exercise. Rather, it’s an experience! In Paul’s “Participationist” model of salvation, we don’t merely stand afar off and believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ. No! Rather, we *participate* “in Christ.” We share in his baptism (Rom. 6.3), death (Gal. 2.20), and resurrection (Rom. 6.8). Psalm 34.8 says:
O taste and see that the LORD is good.
—
What Is Original Sin?
By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim
Most of us think that we are good people. We haven’t harmed anyone. We’re not that bad. So, what kind of sins do we have to confess? In fact, sometimes we can’t even think of any. Yet 1 John 1.8-10 (KJV) reads:
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness. If we say that we have
not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word
is not in us.
——-
Original Sin
Original sin is the Christian doctrine that human beings inherit a sin nature at birth, with some Protestant theologians even arguing for total depravity, namely, that we’re in such a state of rebellion against God that we’re not even able to follow him, by ourselves, without his effectual grace. Other Christian theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD), totally dismissed the thought of original sin by giving it a more allegorical interpretation.
Unlike Christianity, both Judaism and Islam hold a more positive view of human nature. They assert that human beings have an equal capacity for both good and evil, and that they don’t inherit another person’s sin at birth. They also claim that although humans might be culturally conditioned to sin by decadent societies, nevertheless they’re not born that way. To back that up, the Jews often quote the Torah (Deut. 24.16), which states:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the
children, neither shall the children be put to
death for the fathers: every man shall be
put to death for his own sin.
To drive the point home, they usually cite Ezekiel 18.20:
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the
father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon
him.
But these passages are only referring to actual sins, namely, to behavioral sins that each individual is personally responsible for. These verses, however, are not addressing *collective sin* that resides in human nature.
——-
The Collective Unconscious
Carl Jung (1875 - 1961), the famous Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, defined the concept we now know as the “collective unconscious.” This phrase refers to the deepest layer of the unconscious mind which, according to Jung, is genetically inherited and is therefore not part of individual history or personal experience. In other words, it’s not part of the personal unconscious.
Jung held that each person retains these innate unconscious impressions of humanity as a collective knowledge of our species. They’re in our genes, so to speak. But, here, also lurk all the dark, animal instincts of man, as well as the archetypes. One such archetype is called the “shadow,” an unconscious aspect of the personality that the conscious self doesn’t recognize or identify with. It represents a large portion of the *dark side* that is completely foreign and unknown to the ego. These collectively-inherited unconscious archetypes are universally present in every human being.
Over the years, many artistic works, like Star Wars, have addressed themselves to the dark side of human nature, from Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, to horror movies like American Psycho and Hannibal Lecter, to the constant violence that no current Action film seems to be without. Life imitating art would be when we witness the exact same things happening in real life while turning on the 6 o’clock news. We customarily disassociate ourselves from this aspect of human nature. We can never imagine that this state of mind resides within all of us. We always point fingers at someone else. In our eyes, we are saints. We’re like the Pharisee in Luke 18.11:
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with
himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as
other men are, extortioners, unjust,
adulterers, or even as this publican.
But, according to Jesus, we are all a bunch of hypocrites. In Matthew 15.18-19, Jesus implies that the dark side is hidden in the unconscious. It’s not simply a conscious thought, a spoken word, or an action that is the cause of one’s sinful behavior but rather a deep state of being (aka “the heart”) out of which proceeds all manner of evil:
But those things which proceed out of the
mouth come forth from the heart; and they
defile the man. For out of the heart proceed
evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
fornications, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies.
That’s why Jeremiah 17.9 declares:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked: who can know it?
No wonder Paul says that the unregenerate are still carnal (Rom. 8.8):
they that are in the flesh cannot
please God.
As theologian Timothy Keller asserts:
The church is not a museum for pristine
saints, but a hospital ward for broken
sinners.
If one fails to understand Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious,” or the dark side of human nature, one will ultimately misunderstand the Biblical doctrine of original sin.
——-
Why Does Jesus Have to Die for Humanity?
Jesus doesn’t have to suffer greatly and die on a tree simply on account of sins that were committed in the past, or to justify repentant sinners because of their current or future sins. No! Jesus dies to redeem *human nature* from original sin. He dies for humanity’s collective sin (past, present, and future). And he also redeems humanity, in himself, by dying to sin. In other words, Jesus dies to the sinful state of being, if you will, in order to free human nature from the bondage of death and decay. Not only does Jesus justify sinners by dying to sin, but because he is God, he also transforms human nature itself. In the resurrection, Christ’s human nature that rises from the grave is no longer sin-tainted, but glorious!
Otherwise, if everyone sinned voluntarily, and human beings were not tainted by original sin, then there wouldn’t be any reason for God’s Son to die for mankind. In that case, sin would be an individual or personal responsibility, not a collective one. And humanity would not need a savior because there would be neither a collective cause nor a cure for crime, violence, and murder. These people would simply be classified as criminal offenders who, unlike others, consciously “chose” to behave that way.
However, that’s not what Paul says in Romans 5.18–19:
Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam]
judgment came upon all men to
condemnation; even so by the
righteousness of one [Christ] the free gift
came upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners, so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous.
In fact, Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15.21-22:
For since by man came death, by man
came also the resurrection of the dead. For
as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive.
Conclusion
Because the concept of the unconscious had not yet been discovered in Antiquity or the Dark Ages, the existence of the collective unconscious was not known, let alone addressed by either Judaism or Islam. Their criticism of original sin is quite unsophisticated and is presented exclusively from the point of view of the conscious mind. They neither comprehend the totality of the personality nor do they consider unconscious motivation. Therefore, to deny or ignore the overwhelming influence of the dark side of man (aka sin nature) is equivalent to a naïveté: a lack of experience, sophistication, and wisdom! This lack of skillful treatment is either due to innocence or deep repression.
That’s precisely why many people don’t know what sin is. And, consequently, they keep sinning. They can’t even understand why Jesus has to die for them. They often ask, what’s the big fuss about “original sin”? Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “The heart of man is exceedingly deceitful.”
What do you think is the meaning behind Robert Louis Stevenson’s book, “The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”? It presents the duality within man. This work is emphasizing the dark side of human nature that is hidden underneath our socially-acceptable “Dr. Jekyll” persona. But in the unconscious lurks another personality, Mr. Hyde, who represents evil that’s waiting in the wings. The depth of human cruelty is also represented in “Heart of darkness,” by Joseph Conrad. It’s the same idea in Bram Stoker's “Dracula.” All these classic works of art act like mirrors in trying to show us blind spots that we don’t usually see in ourselves and end up projecting onto others. And this darkness that proceeds from man’s collective unconscious is what Christian theologians have coined “original sin.” Louis Berkhof, in his “Systematic Theology,” pt. 2, ch. 4, writes:
actual sin in the life of man is generally
admitted. This does not mean, however,
that people have always had an equally
profound consciousness of sin. We hear a
great deal nowadays about the ‘loss of the
sense of sin.’
Therefore, the psychological and spiritual goal is to give up one's naivete and to expand one's consciousness so as to embrace and integrate all aspects of one’s personality and human nature. That’s what psychoanalysts mean when they say, “making the unconscious conscious.” It is here that rebirth in Christ becomes possible. That’s why wisdom teachers typically say that we need to see existence as it really is. What you need to do, in the words of the Dalai Lama (which represent the title of his book), is to figure out “How to see yourself as you really are.” It is then, and only then, when you will finally realize that sin is not simply an isolated behavior, but rather a state of being——deeply rooted in the “carnal mind” (cf. Rom. 6.6)——that needs to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. And that *existential experience* in and of itself constitutes not only a prelude to “rebirth,” but also the hope of salvation in Jesus Christ!
——-
For more info on this topic, see my essay, “BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184880965717/i-think-the-greek-phrase-%CF%87%CF%89%CF%81%E1%BD%B6%CF%82-%E1%BC%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82-ie
The Baptism of the Holy Spirit
🔎 By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
In discussing the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I’m not referring to the Christian doctrine which holds that salvation is related to the act of water baptism. Rather, I’m referring to a Spirit baptism or a “conversion experience” where an individual has a personal encounter with the power of God (cf. John 3.3) in the Wesleyan sense. Many denominations——especially fundamentalist, evangelical, and pentecostal Christians——emphasize that without such a “born-again” experience no one can be saved.
From the outset, scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit. In Matthew 3:11 (NKJV), John the Baptist says:
I indeed baptize you with water unto
repentance, but He who is coming after me
is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not
worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the
Holy Spirit and fire.
In Mark 16.16-17, it’s not merely by faith alone, but by spirit “baptism” that salvation is accomplished! Given that the born-again Christians “will speak with new tongues,” it’s clear that the text is not referring to an immersion in water but rather to a baptism of the Holy Spirit:
He who believes and is baptized will be
saved; but he who does not believe will be
condemned. And these signs will follow
those who believe: In My name they will
cast out demons; they will speak with new
tongues.
According to some of the Church Fathers, such as Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John Chrysostom, baptism was considered to symbolically represent a form of rebirth——“of water and the Spirit” (John 3.5). Although Baptism is defined as a sacrament or a rite of admission into Christianity——typically by immersing in water——this ritual is symbolic of being cleansed from sin (1 John 1.7), and it also represents the death of the old self and the beginning of a new life! Similarly, 1 Peter 3.20-21 says that the salvation by water is not a baptism of the flesh that cleanses our filth but symbolic of a good conscience.
In Romans 6.3-4, Paul talks of a baptism Into Jesus’ death! It’s a believer’s participation in the death of Christ to allow them to “walk in newness of life”:
do you not know that as many of us as
were baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into His death? Therefore we were
buried with Him through baptism into death,
that just as Christ was raised from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life.
Similarly, in reference to his crucifixion and death, Jesus says in Luke 12.50 (cf. Mark 10.38–39):
I have a baptism to be baptized with,
and how distressed I am till it is
accomplished!
In this context, the term “baptism” obviously doesn’t refer to water but to death, which will be eventually followed by resurrection and rebirth. It is, in fact, part of the same regeneration process which comprises the death of the old self and the rebirth of the new self (Ephesians 4.22-24). The best example of the baptism of the Spirit, as a requirement for spiritual growth, is in Acts 2.1-4:
When the Day of Pentecost had fully come,
they were all with one accord in one place.
And suddenly there came a sound from
heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it
filled the whole house where they were
sitting. Then there appeared to them
divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat
upon each of them. And they were all filled
with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
utterance.
—
Was Jesus Born Again?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
Jesus’ Baptism in the Holy Spirit
In discussing Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit, I’m not referring to John the Baptist’s water baptism. Rather, I’m referring to a Spirit baptism or a conversion experience where Jesus had a personal encounter with the power of God. Many Christian denominations emphasize that without such a “born-again” experience no one can enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3.5). From the outset, scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit (Mt. 3.11 NRSV):
‘He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and
fire.’
In Mk. 16.16-17, it’s not merely by faith alone but by spirit “baptism” that salvation is accomplished! Given that the born-again Christians “will speak with new tongues,” it’s clear that the text isn’t referring to a symbolic immersion in water but rather to a baptism of the Holy Spirit! And although Baptism is defined as a rite of admission into Christianity——by immersing in water——this ritual is *symbolic* of being cleansed from sin (1 Jn 1.7) by the death of the self. First Peter 3.21 (NIV) reads:
and this water symbolizes baptism that now
saves you also—not the removal of dirt from
the body but the pledge of a clear
conscience toward God.
In Rom. 6.3-4, Paul talks of a baptism Into Jesus’ death! It’s a believer’s participation in the death of Christ to allow them to “walk in newness of life.” It’s part of the same regeneration process which comprises the death of the old self & the rebirth of the new one (Eph. 4.22-24). The best example of Spirit baptism is in Acts 2.1-4! Colossians 2.12 (NIV) similarly says:
having been buried with him in baptism, in
which you were also raised with him through
your faith in the working of God.
Keep in mind that, in the gospel story, Jesus didn’t start his ministry prior to his regeneration. Nor was Jesus revealed prior to his rebirth. Mt. 3.16-17 (NRSV) suggests that Jesus’ regeneration began with John’s baptism and was followed thereafter by his encounter with the devil in the wilderness:
And when Jesus had been baptized, just as
he came up from the water, suddenly the
heavens were opened to him and he saw
the Spirit of God descending like a dove and
alighting on him. And a voice from heaven
said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, with
whom I am well pleased.’
This is a symbolic account of his rebirth. Notice that it was Jesus *alone* who saw (εἶδεν), presumably for the first time, the Spirit of God (cf. Jn. 3.3) who would later indwell him. If Jesus already had the Holy Spirit, there would have been no need for a temptation in the desert. Jesus already had the fullness of the Deity within him in bodily form (Col. 2.9) but, being innocent, he still had to receive the Holy Spirit in order to energize it and be transformed. The next verse says (Mt. 4.1 NRSV):
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the
wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
This is a continuation of the earlier baptism motif in the previous chapter. If “ ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance’ “ (Acts 19.4 NIV), as “Paul said,” then Jesus would have had to necessarily confront his sin nature at some point. For those who object to the notion that Jesus had a sin nature, how could he have been “like His brothers in every way” (Heb. 2.17), fully human, if he were unable to be tempted? Not to mention that it would also render the temptation pericope ipso facto meaningless because how could the devil tempt someone who is unable to be tempted by sin? That’s why scripture says that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5.21 NIV)!
So, as part of his rebirth experience, Jesus had to confront the devil. That’s why the text emphasizes that he didn’t do it on his own. Rather, “he was led up [ἀνήχθη] by the Spirit.” Jesus then confronts the devil head on. He is persistently tempted in order that he may prove his loyalty to God. He faces various temptations and is put to the test. He experiences what the German Protestant theologian Rudolf Otto (1869–1937) calls the “mysterium tremendum”:
A great or profound mystery, especially the
mystery of God or of existence; the
overwhelming awe felt by a person
contemplating such a mystery (Oxford
English Dictionary).
The text shows that, by the end of his temptation experience, Jesus had been reborn in God by following the same principle as the one found in James 4.7 (NRSV):
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist
the devil, and he will flee from you.
Jesus does precisely that. Notice that the spirit of God and the angels did not minister to him prior to his rejection of Satan (Mt. 4.10-11 NIV):
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan!
For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God,
and serve him only.’ “Then the devil left him,
and angels came and attended him.
This is a clear demonstration that even Jesus himself had to be reborn in order to both see & enter the kingdom of God (Jn. 3.3, 5). Given that he’s fully human (Heb. 2.17), he’s not exempt from the regeneration process, which is the necessary means by which a human being can become united with God.
This concept creates an obvious oxymoron. For example, if Christ was purportedly born-again, does this mean that Jesus got saved? Or that Jesus became a Christian? This is the kind of paradox that such an experience can suggest. In a certain sense, the answer is yes. Think about it. Being fully human, even Christ has to undergo a dangerous temptation in order to encounter God. But if that’s the case, then it means that there was a time when Jesus didn’t know God; a time when he didn’t have a personal and intimate relationship with him. Lk. 2.52 (NRSV) says:
Jesus increased in wisdom and in years,
and in divine and human favor.
If “Jesus increased in wisdom,” then this means that there was a time when he didn’t have much wisdom. The above verse also suggests that the divine favor towards him increased as Jesus got older. All these passages clearly show that Jesus grew up as a normal human being who underwent all of the spiritual experiences for regeneration and rebirth that we all encounter. He was not exempt from any of them, including that of regeneration & rebirth!
Conclusion
Scripture, then, shows that in being fully human, Jesus had to go through everything that we also face, including suffering, pain, depression, rejection, and so forth. Yet there are some pastors who teach that Jesus didn’t have a sin nature, never sinned, could not be tempted, was not reborn, and the like. Remember Isa. 53.3 (NLT)?:
He was despised and rejected— a
man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest
grief.
Yet in response to a Christian talk-show host, a famous preacher who heads a megachurch in Redding, California argued that Christ “wasn’t born again the way we’re born again.” Specifically, the Christian talk-show host posed the following question: So, “he [Christ] wasn’t born again the way we’re born again”? To which Christian minister and evangelist, Bill Johnson, replied: “No, goodness no, no. I have to be born again; he’s already God, so, absolutely not.” So much for pastoral care!
“What is truth?” Pilate asked.
By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
Feigned madness
Recently, I’ve had numerous Biblical debates with various people in many different groups. The topics were all different, but there was a common denominator: all my opponents refused to accept the indisputable and overwhelming evidence that I was presenting. This prompted me to seriously explore and investigate the cause of their reactions. In other words, when a scholar or a scientist provides irrefutable evidence that is not only obvious and clear but also demonstrably factual, then any refusal to accept it should be viewed as a form of mental illness or psychological neurosis. It can also be described as a *delusion*:
a persistent false … belief … that is
maintained despite indisputable evidence to
the contrary.
——- Merriam-Webster dictionary
It’s like giving someone all the facts that the earth is round, but they nevertheless still maintain that the earth is flat. Then there’s nothing further one can say. Anyone who pretends not to understand the evidence is therefore *feigning madness*:
‘Feigned madness’ is a phrase used in
popular culture to describe the assumption
of a mental disorder for the purposes of
evasion, deceit or the diversion of suspicion.
——- Wikipedia
It’s like a mathematician proving that 2+2 = 4. Only an insane person would disagree. Similarly, in one of my debates, I produced multiple lines of indisputable evidence to demonstrate that the pre-tribulational rapture is a false doctrine. Instead of accepting the evidence and thanking me for the proof-texts, my opponent got very irritable and hostile and started to insult me. He even called me a heretic. That’s when I knew I was dealing with a fanatic who probably had some form of mental illness. So, when a scholar or a scientist gathers the available body of facts about a particular topic and clearly demonstrates whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, then that should settle the matter, unless another scholar can disprove him. For example, when a belief or proposition is clearly proven to be false but certain people are unwilling to accept the evidence——to such an extent that they would even use insults to disrespect the researcher——then these people might be labeled fanatics. But what is actually happening psychologically is that these so-called “fanatics” who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence are employing the defensive mechanism of *denial*:
Denial … is a psychological defense
mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst
Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced
with a fact that is too uncomfortable to
accept and rejects it instead, insisting that
it is not true despite what may be
overwhelming evidence.
——- Wikipedia
It seems that a lot of people are deceived about a lot of things because they are essentially BIASED. That is to say, they’re not open to other views. The way this works is that they typically have an obstinate belief that they wish to maintain no-matter what, and so they are not interested in objective truth. They are only interested in maintaining their beliefs. So if people challenge their beliefs, they think that abandoning their beliefs would eventually lead to chaos. So they cling to their beliefs for dear life, even if these beliefs have been totally debunked. They’re not really interested in finding out whether their beliefs are true or false because that would entail a complete restructuring of their entire belief-system. So, instead of abandoning their current beliefs, which could lead to terrifying thoughts and emotions, they’d rather hold on to these false beliefs as a coping mechanism against a potentially hostile reality:
The theory of denial was first researched
seriously by Anna Freud. She classified
denial as a mechanism of the immature
mind because it conflicts with the ability to
learn from and cope with reality.
——- Wikipedia
Seeking Truth
But when something is proved to be false, shouldn’t we disregard it? If it doesn’t matter whether we prove it or not, then why bother debating at all? Why bother interpreting scripture or translating the Biblical languages? Why bother studying the Bible? If truth no longer matters, then why bother explaining scripture? Who cares? Many people typically say, “I don’t care what scholars say or what they can prove. I believe what I believe and that’s final.” Well, if truth no longer matters, then what’s the point of reading the Bible or following God? God might not exist & the Bible might be false. So why should we even bother reading about Christ if we’re no longer interested in truth?
What I am trying to get across is that “truth” must be the basis of everything we do! We must change our beliefs if they are found to be false. We shouldn’t entertain “beliefs” for their own sake but only because they can be demonstrated to be true! If our “beliefs” or “traditions” line up with truth, then we should accept them. But if they don’t, then we should reject them. You see, beliefs can be false, even deceptive and misleading. For example, many liberal pastors have crept into the church and are disseminating many FALSE BELIEFS as if they were true. That’s why so many people are deceived and confused. Many don’t even know what salvation is because of these false teachings. Bottom line, we should not be searching for “beliefs.” We should be searching for the “truth”! Paradoxically, when we find the truth, we will also find Jesus. And when we find Jesus, we will also find the truth. Why? Because the truth is not a principle; it’s a person:
Jesus said to him, ‘I am … the truth.’
——- John 14.6 (NASB)
So, “seeking” the truth is a noble path. In fact, we must be reborn into the truth. Rebirth is all about a new way of seeing (Jn 3.3), when we get rid of our false beliefs about God and meet him existentially. That’s when we come to realize that many of our beliefs about him are false. God then becomes a reality and teaches us new things about him that we never knew before (Jn 14.26).
What is Truth?
When we say that God’s word is “true,” we don’t mean that every story in the Bible is literally true. It could be a parable, a poem, or an allegory. Rather, we mean that the essence of God’s teachings (behind the narratives) is true. And when we do Biblical exegesis, we should always strive to see what we can prove; that is to say, what is true. Otherwise, there’s no point in trusting scripture or following God. We study scripture to prove it is true. And we follow God because we believe that he is truth itself. In other words, truth should be our guide and our teacher:
you will know the truth, and the truth will set
you free.
——- John 8.32
First kings 17.24 reminds us that “the word of the Lord … is truth.” In the same way, Psalm 25.5 prayerfully says, “Lead me in Your truth.” Psalm 45.4 similarly suggests that God himself fights “For the cause of truth” (cf. Rev. 19.11). Moreover, Psalm 119.160 says to God that “The sum of Your word is truth,” while Isaiah 65.16 calls him Elohim, “the God of truth.”
Interestingly enough, Jeremiah 9.3 compares good and evil to truth and falsehood (cf. Jer. 9.5). That’s why Dan 10.21 calls the Bible “the book of truth”! John 5.33 speaks of testifying to the truth. Notice that John 8.32 claims that the knowledge of the truth is what sets people free. By contrast, the devil “does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him” (Jn 8.44). So the battle between good and evil turns out to be a battle between truth and falsehood. That’s precisely why the Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” (Jn 14.17). John 17.17 concludes that God’s “word is truth.” Thus, there is something special about truth that allows us to follow Christ. That’s why in his testimony before Pontius Pilate, Christ says:
Everyone who is of the truth listens to My
voice.
——- John 18.37
Therefore, we can rightly conclude that the difference between sinners and saints is the truth! How did people sin in the first place (according to Romans 1.25)? Answer: “they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood.” This means that the lies we believe are equivalent to sins. And if we are corrected but refuse to accept or even acknowledge the said edification, then we are deliberately sinning against God. Surprisingly, in Romans 2.8, truth is pitted against wickedness. That is to say, those who don’t obey the truth obey unrighteousness. In other words, being evil or morally wrong is directly related to a disobedience of the truth. That is why our defense against evil always involves criteria of truth (Eph. 6.14). As a matter of fact, 2 Thess. 2.10 attributes the state of damnation to a form of deception, in that those who are evil “did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved.” So they will ultimately perish because they loved the lie more than the truth. Unlike Calvinism, which falsely preaches that God predestines people to hell, 1 Tim. 2.4 claims that God “wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Therefore, *salvation* comprises a reception of “the knowledge of the truth.”
That’s why 2 Tim 1.14 is an exhortation to guard the truth that has been given to us by the Holy Spirit. Why should we guard the truth? Because if we believe a lie, it could be the difference between life and death; between salvation and damnation; between eternal life and eternal hell. Second Timothy 3.7 describes sinners as those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This means that one can have a vast amount of knowledge with regard to secular learning yet “never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” First John 4.6 separates the open-minded from the close-minded people in terms of whether they possess “the spirit of truth” or “the spirit of error.” In other words, the ability to listen objectively with an open mind is somehow related to the Holy Spirit. That’s why holding on to deceptive doctrines and “paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1) is equivalent to the wide gate “that leads to destruction” (Mt. 7.13).
We know, for example, that we often deny the obvious truth because our defense mechanisms don’t allow us to hear it. That’s precisely why Jesus often says, “The one who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Only one question remains:
Are you willing to follow the *truth*
regardless of where it might lead?
——-