Publishedarticles - Tumblr Posts
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
——-
Can We Discard Trinitarianism by Rejecting Hypostasis?: A Critical Review of Frank Nelte’s Article “The Facts About 'Hypostasis' “
By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim
——-
Does the Worldwide Church of God Have the Corner on the Market?
The article under discussion that’s still relevant today was written a while back by Frank W Nelte of the Worldwide Church of God——a religious organization, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong——which some have referred to as a cult: https://franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=192
Armstongism refers to the teachings of
Herbert W. Armstrong, which became the
teaching of the Worldwide Church of God.
These teachings were often at odds with
traditional Christian beliefs and at times
were explicitly in contradiction to the Bible.
The most well-known of Armstrong’s
teachings is that of Anglo-Israelism.
(Gotquestions)
Always question the systematic theology behind the articles you read. For example, T. D. Jakes, the famous televangelist, is a self-professed modalist (he believes that there aren’t 3 persons in the Trinity but rather 1, operating in 3 modes). So, we must be cautious of subscribing to theologies that are not grounded in cogent arguments. Many offshoots of The Worldwide Church of God also hold to tenuous and spurious doctrines, such as that of David C. Pack, which promotes Binitarianism (one deity in two persons), and the notion that the Holy Spirit is not a Person.
——-
Frank Nelte is trying to discredit Trinitarianism by showing that the language used to support it comes from outside the Bible and is based on Greek philosophy. He hopes to zero in on a defeater of the belief that the Greek term ὑπόστασις (hupostasis) is a reference to God’s essence or substance: https://biblehub.com/greek/5287.htm
Does Hypostasis Mean Title Deed?
Nelte starts off by trying to change the definition of the term hypostasis by introducing various questionable reference works, such as the “HELPS Word Studies for Greek/Hebrew.” But caution is advised because Bible dictionaries, especially those not accepted by credible scholars, tend to make theological assumptions concerning the denotative definition of words. Accordingly, Nelte declares:
the word ‘hypostasis’ meant ‘TITLE DEED’!
That’s incorrect. That explanation is based on theological “interpretations,” not on the classical meaning of the word per se, as I will show you anon. This assumption can be found in The “HELPS Word-studies” reference work, which reads:
5287 hypóstasis (from 5259 /hypó, ‘under’
and 2476 /hístēmi, ‘to stand’) – properly,
(to possess) standing under a
guaranteed agreement (‘title-deed’);
(figuratively) ‘title’ to a promise or property,
i.e. a legitimate claim (because it literally is,
‘under a legal-standing’) – entitling
someone to what is guaranteed under the
particular agreement. For the believer,
5287/hypóstasis (‘title of possession’) is the
Lord's guarantee to fulfill the faith He
inbirths (cf. Heb 11:1 with Heb 11:6). Indeed
we are only entitled to what God grants
faith for (Ro 14:23).
But the primary meaning of the word “hypostasis” does not mean title deed. According to the scholarly reference work of H.G. Liddell & R. Scott, “A Greek-English Lexicon” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901) p. 1639, the Greek term ὑπόστασις (Hypostasis) means “substantial nature, substance.” It defines “hypostasis” as follows:
the real nature of a thing, as underlying and
supporting its outward form and properties,
and so = [equal to] ουσία or η υποκειμένη
ύλη, essence.
This categorically refutes Nelte’s argument completely. The only thing Nelte is willing to concede is that hypostasis refers to some sort of support. He writes:
Hupostasis refers to something we can
stand upon;
Well, yes. But actually, stand under. It’s similar to the English term “understand.” The definition from the “Online Etymology Dictionary” is as follows:
Old English understandan ‘to comprehend,
grasp the idea of, receive from a word or
words or from a sign the idea it is intended
to convey; to view in a certain way,’
probably literally ‘stand in the midst of,’
from under + standan ‘to stand’.
According to the aforesaid meaning, to “stand under” connotes a deeper understanding or comprehension. Similarly, hypostasis means to stand under (see Strong 5287 hypóstasis [from 5259 /hypó, "under" and 2476 /hístēmi, "to stand"]). In other words, just as the word “understand” departs from its denotative meaning and implies comprehension, so does “hypostasis,” whose connotative meaning pertains to an underlying foundation. We cannot simply bypass the latter’s historical-grammatical meaning that dates back to Ancient Greek philosophy and which is described as the underlying substance of fundamental reality. By contrast, Nelte writes:
Put in very plain terms (perhaps somewhat
oversimplified) they teach that
HYPOSTASIS refers to the SUBSTANCE
(from Hebrews 11:1) that the Godhead
consists of. Supposedly God the Father and
Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all one
HUPOSTASIS, etc.. Now this interpretation
of the word ‘hupostasis’ is not in any way
supported by the five times that Paul used
this word in two different epistles in the New
Testament. Paul really meant exactly what
Webster's Dictionary understands the
English word HYPOSTASIS to mean. We
should remember that the word
‘SUBSTANCE’ (with its present meaning in
the English language) in Hebrews 11:1 is
really a mistranslation. Hypostasis simply
means: to stand under or upon, to support,
etc. It has nothing to do with ‘substance’.
As stated earlier, according to Liddell & Scott, the term hypostasis means foundation, “essence,” or “substance.” In other words, the term hypostasis can be defined as some sort of underlying support or foundation upon which something else stands or exists. So, it can certainly refer to the essence or substance of the Godhead. This interpretation of hypostasis is clearly supported in the New Testament. In Hebrews 1.3 the Greek text says ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. This means that Christ is the apaugasma (ἀπαύγασμα) or “radiance” of God’s glory and character, namely, the exact representation of God’s hypostasis. What could that possibly mean? It could only mean that Christ is the exact imprint or image of God’s essence or character or substance. It is true that hypostasis doesn’t denotatively (literally) mean substance. But it does appear to suggest it connotatively!
That’s why at the outset of an argument one must always try to see where the author is going with it. That will reveal their intention and motivation, whether it is pure and genuine or whether they have an axe to grind. In this case, Nelte is trying desperately to prove that the Trinity is false. So, he attempts to manipulate the language in order to prove his point. But true scholarship follows the evidence wherever it may lead. The minute you try to manipulate the evidence, you have turned it into a confirmation bias and a private interpretation.
Is a Borrowed Concept Necessarily False?
Nelte outlines his basic criticism of the Trinity by suggesting that because many of its theological concepts are grounded in Platonic philosophy——especially “the ‘hupostasis ideas’ about the nature of God”——they must therefore be inappropriate or inapplicable, at best, and erroneous or fallacious, at worst. But is this a valid argument? He writes:
It should be quite clear to anyone who takes
the time to study into this, that the religious
views of the Catholic Church, as expounded
by the Catholic ‘church fathers’ and as
discussed at the various Councils of the
Catholic Church (Nicea, Constantinople,
etc.) are STEEPED IN THE IDEAS OF PLATO!
And the ‘hupostasis ideas’ about the
nature of God are central to that whole
scheme of things.
It is true that Christianity borrowed a great deal from Platonic philosophy. But philosophical and linguistic inheritance is only one aspect of New Testament theology; divine revelation is another. There are other metaphysical considerations that need to be addressed. For example, Nelte argues that since the term hypostasis is borrowed from Plato, the 3 hypostases applied to the Christian godhead must be erroneous. And the notion that the Holy Spirit is a 3rd hypostasis must equally be false. But this is a fallacious argument. All historical, cultural, and scientific endeavors have borrowed profusely from their predecessors. It’s part of the evolution of language and culture. It’s part of who we are: Standing on the shoulders of giants! All knowledge is derived from previous predecessors.
The Old Testament Flood of Noah account was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh from ancient Mesopotamia. What is more, the Hebrew name of God in the Old Testament is “El.” But this name was also borrowed from the Levant. Historically, El was a pagan deity and the supreme god of a Canaanite pantheon of gods, analogous to to the Greek god Zeus. But just because the name El was borrowed from this religious and cultural milieu (paganism) doesn’t mean that the corresponding values of the two deities are equivalent. In other words, it doesn’t follow that the Hebrew God is a false, pagan, Canaanite god. Precisely because the culture was familiar with this god, the God of the Bible chose to associate himself with this cultural icon in order to make the transition of faith smoother and far more acceptable. It’s similar to missionary work. If you’re trying to convert aborigines to Christ, you’ll try to explain certain concepts according to the existing terminology of the culture at hand. If you deviate and introduce completely foreign concepts, your theology will create cognitive dissonance with the native and local spiritual religions. Many of the New Testament narratives about Jesus are borrowed from the Hebrew Bible, but they don’t have equal value in both Testaments.
So, the attempt to judge the truth value of a concept based solely on its linguistic and philosophical antecedents is not a sound argument. Besides, historical-grammatical studies alone cannot answer metaphysical questions, as, say, the existence of God and his attributes. So, it seems to me that this is a fallacious argument, namely, the attempt to invalidate certain concepts or to explain them away simply because of previously borrowed religious, philosophical, and linguistic antecedents. That type of argumentation would invalidate science itself. Current science is very different from that of the renaissance. Yet the language of modern science is borrowed directly from Greek and Latin texts. In fact, the entire scientific project has borrowed extensively from the philosophical and linguistic heritage of its predecessors. Does that invalidate its current status? I think not!
Conclusion
Frank W. Nelte tenaciously maintains his objection to the classical interpretation of “hypostasis” throughout the paper. He writes:
The truth is that the word ‘hypostasis’ has
NOTHING to do with ‘substance’ or with
‘ousia.’
Au contraire, as the scholarly work of Liddell & Scott demonstrates, “hypostasis” has everything to do with “substance” and “ousia.” For example, in Hebrews 1.3, the New International Version translates the Greek term ὑποστάσεως (hupostasis) as “the exact representation of … [God’s] being.” The New Living Translation expresses it as “the very character of God.” The English Standard Version renders it as “the exact imprint of his nature.” The Berean Literal Bible translates it as “the exact expression of His substance,” while the New American Standard Bible explicates it as “the exact representation of His nature.” What are all these translations of the word “hypostasis” getting at? Answer: they’re depicting God’s very “being,” “nature,” and “substance.” All these credible translations are talking about the very essence or substance of God. Therefore it is not inappropriate to refer to God’s innermost nature as his hypostasis. This view is supported by the New Testament! Hebrews 1.3 reads:
ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ
τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα
τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως, δι᾽ αὑτοῦ ⸃
καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ⸃
ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν
ὑψηλοῖς.
——-