Comments on: In Reply to Mac Regarding Repentance

By: Tim S.

Tim S. — Sun, 31 May 2009 03:03:16 +0000

Ed,

Your analysis of John 4:24 seems, to me, to be flawed.

You do not take into account the broader context (John 3) of the conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus in which He declared that “that which is born of Spirit is spirit” just a few verses prior. In 4:24, “in spirit,” seems to me to be in that “born-again relationship” with God and all that it implies. John, writing in Revelation 1:10, said “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” I do not believe this necesarily refers to a mystical trance-like state, but it does sound much more intense than most worship assemblies I have seen! Certainly here was a man whose worship experience brought him into the presence of God!

Also, you speak of truth as if Jesus is speaking of specific instructions about the actions of worship (or the “five avenues of worship” we hear so much about?). In 1 John 3:18 the same author who recorded Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman has a similar construction in speaking of truth. There he wrote that our love must be “in deed and truth.” Here “truth” seems to mean “genuine” or from the heart. Your construct of John 4:24 makes Jesus say “according to the truth” when He literally said, “in spirit and truth.”

In reality, He seems (to me) to be saying that our worship must be in a spiritual relationship with God and that it must be genuine and from the heart. It no longer depends on ritual performed in one place but not another.

By: Ed Boggess

Ed Boggess — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:54:32 +0000

Good question: B F Westcott explains it this way – “in spirit and truth” relate to the two groups in context; the Jews and the Samaritans. The Jews had the truth but needed the “in spirit” and the Samaritans had the spirit but needed the “truth”.I believe he nailed it! It best fits the immediate context of the kind of worshipers God is seeking. God is Spirit, unconfined, unlimited, unbound by place; so we may bow before him in Jerusalem or this mountain. But we “must”, inasmuch as He is God, approach Him in spirit (the human spirit focused on exalting Him) and in truth (in harmony with how He wishes we worship). Westcott: “The two characteristics answer to the higher sense of the 2nd and 3rd commandments, the former of which tends to a spiritual service, and the latter to a devout regard for the ‘name’ of God, that is, for every revelation of His Person or attributes or action.” Now then, how does this relate to conclusions drawn from the “silence” of scripture? Regarding the Person of God, his majesty and holiness, I do not carelessly or without caution approach, but as the 24 elders casting their crowns before Him and falling down to worship, I humbly follow what I know He wills without addition or modification, as best I understand.

By: Keith Brenton

Keith Brenton — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:46:53 +0000

How can “in truth” mean “properly (just as the Jews had been right about the place)” when the place was changing? And when Jesus says nothing about a new place to be right about, except that it will be “neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem”?

Your logic escapes me there, Ed.

By: Ed Boggess

Ed Boggess — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:36:27 +0000

Errors that “create divine doctrinal violation”, said Mac. As I understand it, it is the same as N. B. Hardeman’s statement: “Any kind of a lie on earth which would cause me to sin or to fall short of doing God’s will or go beyond that which God demands is the type of a lie that will condemn the soul and rob it of a blissful crown.” That which causes me pause is Jay’s narrow definition of “truth”. There is no question that Jesus is the embodiment of truth: “I am the truth” and that he is the “Word”. But to claim in regard to Jn 17:17 “Jesus was not presently speaking of the New Testament — not a word of it had yet been written. Rather, Jesus is speaking of himself and what God communicates to us through the giving of Jesus for us” appears to me to be smoke and mirrors. Jesus says, “I am the truth” because he reveals God’s will, God’s truth, which when fully revealed and written became what we call the NT. In Jn 8:31, 32 Jesus is speaking to people who believed the “things which I heard from God”, v 26. Are “My word” (31) and “the truth” (32), only words and truth about Jesus? Certainly Jesus is the centerpiece of all his words and truth, but the “truth which I heard from God” (40) includes, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount. To reject what Jesus taught at the Sermon on the Mount, is to reject Jesus, Jn 12:48. Why is there such an effort to separate words about Jesus from words of Jesus? I believe it comes down to John 4:23, 24. How can we get IM fellowshipped? By redefining “in truth”. Jay: “’Truth’ does not mean ‘according the rules of worship inferred from the silences of the scriptures.’ ‘Truth’ means the truth about Jesus learned through living in the Word.” However, such a redefinition does not answer to the context. The woman asked about the proper place to worship. First, Jesus affirmed the Jews had been right (insofar as to what she asked). Second, he told her that things were changing. Place would no longer matter. But Jesus also affirmed that God is seeking “true worshipers” and they are those who worship “in spirit and truth”; in face they “must”. Jay explains the “in spirit” in this way: “to worship ‘in spirit’ is to worship in Spirit. It fits the context and fits Jesus’ point that God is spirit. In other words, the worshippers must somehow be ‘in spirit’ in the same sense that God ‘is spirit.’ And that is given to us when we receive the Spirit. Gal 4:6) Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’” However,if it is the Spirit who enables us to worship (as he is suggesting) then the Father isn’t seeking anything, because worship is then something that the Spirit brings about. Moreover, it misses entirely the continuity of the contrast between what had been and what God seeks. What had been was Samaritans and Jews in conflict over the place. The Samaritans wanted to worship God but they weren’t doing it at the proper place. So Jesus tells her, place is no longer important; but this is important, a “must”, “in spirit”, the human spirit exalting God; and “in truth”, as properly (just as the Jews had been right about the place).

By: laymond

laymond — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:23:59 +0000

Ed, how can there be a discussion on legitimate doctrine, such as the one you referred to, as some which damn, and some that don’t. Unless the doctrine, which some say is the very foundation of the church, is discussable? Is it the fact that some are taboo? some such as the one you referred to are OK, but some are not. I agree the trinity is a controversial doctrine, but so is any doctrine which some agree with, and others disagree with. I was just asking will this doctrine, damn a soul or not? simple question, should require a simple yes or no answer, I suspect that answer is not what is feared here, it the question “WHY” that will come later.

By: Ed Boggess

Ed Boggess — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:42:58 +0000

I suspect the reason you have not received responses is because this is not the place to discuss the legitimacy of the Trinity doctrine. It would not further this discussion. All responding are agreed that there are doctrines that when believed damn, for instance, anyone who refuses to confess belief that Jesus has come in the flesh.

By: laymond

laymond — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:00:53 +0000

thumper, what I said was not intended as a comment on what you wrote, I was talking about the silence of the four principals of this blog, and I do appreciate what you said.I also know that the Jehovah Witnesses, believe in what you said, I do not belong to that organization, I do believe they make a believable argument for Unitarian belief. one supreme God . I believe the bible makes that argument also.

By: thumper

thumper — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:55:17 +0000

Laymond, I have no idea what you are talking about.

My response was not about the trinity per se, but about other questions that often surround it.

Where did anyone say you were outside the parameters, etc?

By: laymond

laymond — Wed, 27 May 2009 12:18:16 +0000

Since this discussion is about “Doctrines that damn, send one to Hell” I thought I was staying within the parameters of the discussion. but seems the fly in the ointment, is not only a fly, it is a “big green blow fly” which the people here avoid. It is just to yucky.

By: thumper

thumper — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:26:34 +0000

What I do think you would get is a tremendous objection if someone claimed Jesus was not divine, pre-existent and the one in whom dwelled “all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”.

I also think you would hear loud objections to a denial that the Holy Spirit is also divine in the same way.

Claiming that Jesus was “just a man” upon whom God infused some of His “divineness” would cause a loud objection.

Jehovah’s Witnesses anyone?