Is Free Grace Theology Biblical?

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

Eli of Kittim

BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION

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 thi

The Logical Problem of Evil

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

The problem of evil is a philosophical conundrum that seems to contradict the existence of God. The question is as follows:

How can we reconcile the existence of

suffering and evil in the world with a

supposedly omnibenevolent, omniscient,

and omnipotent God?

At first glance, these two premises seem incompatible. The most well-known presentation of this dilemma is ascribed to the ancient Greek philosopher and sage Epicurus (341–270 bce). He framed the logical problem of evil as follows:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is unable,

then he’s not all-powerful.

If he’s able to prevent evil, but unwilling,

then he’s not good.

But if he’s both willing and able,

how can evil exist?

And, if he’s neither able nor willing,

then why call him God? [or worship him?]

Epicurus is trying to point out the apparent incompatibility between the existence of evil and that of God. He’s trying to demonstrate that it’s logically impossible for both God and evil to exist. They are at loggerheads with each other. And since we know that evil and suffering exist, it must mean that God does not.

However, the premise that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God contradicts the presence of evil is unsound. A squared circle or a married bachelor is certainly a contradiction. But it’s not logically inconsistent to speak of the existence of suffering and an all-loving powerful God in the same breath. Epicurus’ implication is that if God was all-powerful and/or all-loving he would not have allowed suffering or evil to exist. So, his premise presupposes that either an all-powerful, all-loving God exists and suffering does not, or else suffering exists and God does not. But both cannot exist simultaneously.

However, this is a false assumption. Why? Because if God grants human beings free will, then the possibility of choosing good or evil does not explicitly contradict the existence of God. In fact, if the opposite were true and God were to create a world in which people didn’t have free will and always chose the good, there would be no suffering, but neither would there be any freedom. It would be a world of programmed robots, not free people.

And how would we even know what good really is if evil and suffering never existed? After all, in the Bible, God promises to eliminate evil & suffering at the end of the age! So, how can we possibly know if God has good reasons for permitting evil and suffering to exist for a time? The answer is, we do not know. Both biblically and philosophically, good and evil are not mutually exclusive but coexist temporally and ontologically. Thus, it is not illogical for both God and suffering to exist simultaneously. As philosopher William P. Alston conceded, “It is now acknowledged on (almost) all sides that the logical argument is bankrupt” (The Inductive Argument From Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition. Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 5, Philosophy of Religion [1991], pp. 29-67).

—

The Tower of Babel: History or Prophecy?

By Biblical Researcher & Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 📖

The New World Order

For decades, atheists, anarchists, and irreligious organizations——such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation & the American Atheists——have tried to ban religious freedom and religious expression from society, culture, education, and the media. And, by and large, these secular humanists have won that fight. The Bible was removed from American classrooms in the 1960s, and shortly thereafter prayer and the Ten Commandments were also removed.

The current shift toward atheism in America and Europe is largely due to these political endeavours. And in the globalist agenda——as propounded by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, & António Guterres (the Secretary-General of the United Nations)——religion plays a subordinate role in the upcoming one-world government.

In fact, powerful leaders have been conspiring for decades. We’re talking about a global dictatorship that has been in the making since the founding of the Federal Reserve in the early part of the 20th century. It has been affectionately called by Henry Kissinger, George H. W. Bush, Barack Obama, & Gordon Brown, among others, as “the new world order.” It’s not a conspiracy theory since many US presidents, British prime ministers, and high level officials——including Charles, Prince of Wales——have explicitly referred to it as an ideal future government that they’re all working towards as if “they are one people” (cf. Genesis 11.6)! This is no longer a conspiracy theory since this totalitarian world government——which has now reared its ugly head by censoring the masses through social media-driven panic, fake news, government lockdowns, and forced mask and passport mandates——is emerging before our very eyes. Surprisingly, the Bible foresaw this attack on religion, and especially on Christianity, and recorded it in Scripture. Psalm 2.1-3 (NRSV) reads:

Why do the nations conspire, and the

peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth

set themselves, and the rulers take counsel

together, against the Lord and his anointed,

saying, ‘Let us burst their bonds asunder,

and cast their cords from us.’

The Tower of Babel & the One-World Government

The modern discoveries & innovations in virology, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, genetics, molecular biology, as well as the harnessing of nuclear energy are seemingly implied in the following Biblical excerpt from Genesis 11.6:

and this is only the beginning of what they

will do; nothing that they propose to do will

now be impossible for them.

Might the scheme to “confuse their language” be a form of electromagnetic pulse attack known as EMP? An EMP is a massive burst of electromagnetic energy that can be generated using nuclear weapons. It creates an enormous magnetic field that can cause widespread damage & disruption to electrical and power grids within range. According to Peter Pry, a defense analyst with the Congressional EMP Commission:

You can use a single weapon to collapse

the entire North American power grid. …

Once the electric grid goes down,

everything would collapse … Everything

depends on electricity: telecommunications,

transportation, even water.

This is certainly one way to “confuse” or disrupt all forms of communication.

Since the towers or ziggurats that ancient people built were no match for the modern skyscrapers, might the Tower-of-Babel narrative be a *prophecy* instead of an origin myth about why people speak different languages? Let’s look at the evidence. The Hebrew Bible (Gen. 11.4) says that the people built a tower (וּמִגְדָּל֙ ū·miḡ·dāl) whose top (וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ wə·rō·šōw) is in the heavens, or will reach into heaven (בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם ḇaš·šā·ma·yim)! Have the ancients ever built a tower that soared above the clouds? Hardly! However, the Jeddah Tower (aka Kingdom Tower), currently built in Saudi Arabia, will be 1 km (3,281 ft) high, “whose top” will literally be “in the heavens.” And it is appropriately called: a “tower.”

Notice also that many of today’s highest skyscrapers are actually called “towers” and they do, in fact, reach the clouds: the Jin Mao Tower, in Shanghai, the Willis Tower, in Chicago, the Petronas Towers, in Kuala Lumpur, the Burj Khalifa, in Dubai, even the Empire State Building, in New York City. Here’s a shot of the Empire State Building peeking above the clouds!

The Prophecy Concerning Babylon the Great

Revelation 18.8-21

‘therefore her plagues will come in a single

day — pestilence and mourning and famine

— and she will be burned with fire; for

mighty is the Lord God who judges her.’ And

the kings of the earth, who committed

fornication and lived in luxury with her, will

weep and wail over her when they see the

smoke of her burning; they will stand far off,

in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas, alas,

the great city, Babylon, the mighty city! For

in one hour your judgment has come.’ …

Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a

great millstone and threw it into the sea,

saying, ‘With such violence Babylon the

great city will be thrown down, and will be

found no more.’

Conclusion

All of the evidence——including the language of the Hebrew Bible——supports an *apocalyptic* rather than a pseudo-historical Tower-of-Babel. The so-called “confusion” or disruption of communication may indicate the coming world Judgment in the form of EMP attacks & nuclear weapons, as alluded to in Daniel 12.1, Joel 2.31, Zechariah 14.12, Matthew 24.6-21, Luke 21.20-26, & Revelation 6.12-15 (i.e. the Great Tribulation). And the prophecy is set to take place when the whole world will be united as “one people” (Genesis 11.6), or one-world government!

Genesis 11.4-9:

Then they said, ‘Come, let us build

ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in

the heavens, and let us make a name for

ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered

abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’

The Lord came down to see the city and the

tower, which mortals had built. And the Lord

said, ‘Look, they are one people, and they

have all one language; and this is only the

beginning of what they will do; nothing that

they propose to do will now be impossible

for them. Come, let us go down, and

confuse their language there, so that they

will not understand one another's speech.’

So the Lord scattered them abroad from

there over the face of all the earth, and they

left off building the city. Therefore it was

called Babel, because there the Lord

confused the language of all the earth; and

from there the Lord scattered them abroad

over the face of all the earth.

—

Has Anyone Ever Seen Jesus?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

—

Jesus Christ, Whom No Human Being Has Ever Seen

Writing at the end of the first century AD, 1 Timothy 6.14-16 (SBLGNT) surprisingly says that Jesus Christ “WILL BE REVEALED” in due time:

τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον

ἀνεπίλημπτον μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ

κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν καιροῖς

ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος

δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων

καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων, ὁ μόνος ἔχων

ἀθανασίαν, φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον, ὃν εἶδεν

οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων.

Translation (NJB):

do all that you have been told, with no faults

or failures, until the appearing of our Lord

Jesus Christ, who at the due time will be

revealed by God, the blessed and only Ruler

of all, the King of kings and the Lord of

lords, who alone is immortal, whose home is

in inaccessible light, whom no human being

has seen.

According to Bible scholars, the First Epistle to Timothy was written by an unknown author in Macedonia, Greece at the end of the first century AD. But according to the gospels, the chronology of Jesus’ ministry (which is typically dated to around 27-36 AD) supposedly took place at least 64 years earlier. Yet these two accounts appear to contradict each other. If either one of them is true, the other must be false. However, in my view, both of them are true. We’re just comparing different genres (Theological versus Didactic literature).

About whom is the passage written? The aforementioned passage is clearly talking about the so-called “king of kings and lord of lords,” a title that is uniquely associated with Jesus Christ. In fact, it mentions him by name and says that he will be revealed in due time. That means that he was never previously revealed! It further exhorts believers to do good “until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ … whom no human being has seen.”

First Timothy 6.14-16 therefore confirms Heb. 9.26b, 1 Peter 1.20, and Rev. 12.5, among other verses, that Christ’s initial revelation takes place in the end-times!

—

The Son of Man Comes at Some Point in Human History

2 John 1.7 (SBLGNT) reads:

πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον,

οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν

ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί · οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος

καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος.

Translation (YLT):

many leading astray did enter into

the world, who are not confessing Jesus

Christ coming in flesh; this one is he who is

leading astray, and the antichrist.

Yet in deference to Biblical usage, I’m not denying John’s proclamation of “Jesus Christ coming in [the] flesh” (2 John 1.7) but rather qualifying it in terms of its chronological relevance. In other words, I deny the *timing* of this event, not the event itself! Put differently, I certainly don’t deny the notion of Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh at some point in human history. I’m simply asking, “WHEN,” according to Scripture.

—

Know Thyself

By Author Eli Kittim

“Through the study of books one seeks God;

by meditation one finds him.”

(Padre Pio)

According to the Greek writer and geographer, Pausanias, the ancient Greek aphorism “Know Thyself” (γνῶθι σεαυτόν) was a maxim inscribed on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. Throughout the centuries, people have studied the physical and metaphysical world through science and philosophy. But how can a person study himself or herself? By turning inward! In the Phaedo, one of Plato’s famous dialogues, Socrates explains that the senses are incapable of informing us about the true nature of reality, and thus are not to be trusted. One needs to look beyond the senses in order to find meaning and clarity. Socrates says to Simmias:

“Did you ever reach them [truths] with any

bodily sense? – and I speak not of these

alone, but of absolute greatness, and

health, and strength, and, in short, of the

reality or true nature of everything. Is the

truth of them ever perceived through the

bodily organs? Or rather, is not the nearest

approach to the knowledge of their several

natures made by him who so orders his

intellectual vision as to have the most exact

conception of the essence of each thing he

considers?”

Later in the Phaedo, Socrates begins to expound on what we today would call “silent meditation.” Remember, this is not India. This is 5th to 4th century BCE Greece! Gautama Buddha happens to be Plato’s contemporary. Socrates begins to describe the practice of meditation as follows:

“He who has got rid, as far as he can, of

eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the

whole body, these being in his opinion

distracting elements when they associate

with the soul hinder her from acquiring truth

and knowledge – who, if not he, is likely to

attain to the knowledge of true being?”

Over 500 years later, the Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus would also base his entire philosophy on meditative silence. So, given that Socrates (Plato’s teacher, who coined the phrase “Know Thyself”) lived in the 5th century BCE, it is difficult to say if this contemplative practice originated in the East or the West. Let’s not forget that Plato is deeply indebted to an older mystical philosopher named Pythagoras (6th century BCE), who was probably one of the first great and well-known mystics in the west!

Plotinus follows Socrates’ advice regarding the path to self-knowledge and the philosophy of Being. He insists that the soul must discard all form, image, and thought. It is through concentration, away from the sense world, that we reach the “One” (i.e. God). And the self discovers this when it is annihilated. In other words, a person loses his/her identity during the supreme mystical union with the “One.” it’s as if the person has been “ ‘seized’ by an elemental force and swept into liberation by mystical frenzy” (Thomas Merton). Plotinus says:

“shut your eyes . . . and wake

another way of seeing, which everyone has

but few use.”

The “awakening” in the presence of the “good” is a result that is accomplished by removing multiplicity through the process of negation (which later became known as apophatic theology). That is to say, there is a detachment from the many to the One. The disciple must proceed by way of negation. Rather than positing what the One is, the practitioner gets rid of all knowledge and begins by contemplating what the One is not. This practice has been alternatively called “silence” or “stillness.” It is a way of putting away all otherness and reaching an ineffable union with the One (or God). In the mysticism of Plotinus, the student must not chase after the good but wait quietly til it appears.

Unfortunately, since the time of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, the contemplative aspect of the Platonic tradition is no longer discussed in modern academia. Plato is often taught as a cold, rational thinker whose insights are solely derived from discursive thought. However, Plotinus thought that he was simply clarifying Plato’s teachings. According to Wikipedia:

“Plotinus was not claiming to innovate with

the Enneads [his book], but to clarify

aspects of the works of Plato that he

considered misrepresented or

misunderstood. Plotinus

does not claim to be an innovator, but

rather a communicator of a tradition.

Plotinus referred to tradition as a way to

interpret Plato's intentions. Because the

teachings of Plato were for members of the

academy rather than the general public, it

was easy for outsiders to misunderstand

Plato's meaning.”

Plotinus lived in Alexandria, Egypt in the 3rd century CE. Over 150 years earlier, another Platonic philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, had done the same:

“Philo of Alexandria had written on some

form of ‘spiritual exercises’ involving

attention (prosoche) and concentration and

by the 3rd century Plotinus had developed

meditative techniques.”

(Wikipedia)

According to Plotinus, the One is not simply an intellectual concept but rather something that can actually be experienced; an existential experience where one goes far beyond all multiplicity. The individual eventually reaches a state of tabula rasa, a blank state where everything is deleted, so to speak, while the person merges with the One. The self is dissolved, completely absorbed into the One. But in order to reach this stage, “the Proficient’s will is set always and only inward” (Enneads I.4.11). This process eventually leads to ecstasy:

“The essentially devotional nature of

Plotinus' philosophy may be further

illustrated by his concept of attaining

ecstatic union with the One (henosis).

Porphyry relates that Plotinus attained such

a union four times during the years he knew

him. This may be related to enlightenment,

liberation, and other concepts of mystical

union common to many Eastern and

Western traditions.”

(Wiki)

In Greek, Henosis is the term for mystical "union.” In Platonism, and particularly in Neoplatonism, the aim of henosis is union with the ground of being or absolute reality: the source or the One (τὸ Ἕν):

“Henosis for Plotinus was defined in his

works as a reversing of the ontological

process of consciousness via meditation

. . . toward no thought . . . and no

division (dyad) within the individual (being).

Plotinus words his teachings to reconcile

not only Plato with Aristotle but also various

World religions that he had personal

contact with during his various travels.”

(Wiki)

Plotinus, and his successor Proclus, influenced many great philosophers and theologians, such as Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Heidegger, Barth, Bultmann, and others. Plotinus’ meditation is not unlike that described in Ps. 62.5, which reads: “For God alone my soul waits in silence.” According to Wikipedia, “Plotinus' final words were: ‘Try to raise the divine in yourselves to the divine in the all.’ “ Meditation, therefore, is the method by which we not only grasp the essence of true Being, in the Platonic sense, but also how we find the sure way of salvation, in the Biblical sense:

“Be still, and know that I am God!”

(Psalm 46.10)