Truth Magazine

In every person’s life comes the moment when he or she faces the question of motivation — why do I do what I do? Every Christian needs to ask and answer this question frequently. Those who take on special roles such as elders, deacons, preachers, teachers, etc. should ask and answer this question even more frequently. It is a question that was recently driven home to me when studying 1 and 2 Peter.

Warren Wiersbe, in his Biblical Exposition Commentary, interestingly observed: “Some writings are manufactured out of books, the way freshmen students write term papers; but this letter (1 Peter,  rb) grew out of a life lived to the glory of God. A number of events in Peter’s life are woven into the fabric of this epistle” (II:388). It was from this new perspective that I studied 1 and 2 Peter and gleaned more from them than I ever had before. This also gave me insight into Peter’s motivation.

2 Peter 1:12-15 says, “Therefore, I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know them, and are established in the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Moreover, I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.” It is from this text that we focus attention on why we do what we do, especially in teaching the gospel of Christ.

To Avoid Negligence (v. 12)

Evangelists are specifically instructed not to neglect the abilities they have in preaching and teaching, to “fulfill your ministry” (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; 4:5). We should develop and be encouraged to develop every strength we have for use in the kingdom, as well as strengthening our weaknesses.

Peter’s reference to negligence, however, is the failure to teach all that needs to be taught. Plainly speaking, there is nothing that can be left out of our teaching (Acts 20:27). No passage or biblical subject is exempt. When we leave something out, or are encouraged to leave certain subjects alone, be sure that Satan will rear his head and take advantage of that area of weakness. His prey are those who are untaught, thus unstable (1 Pet. 5:9; 2 Pet. 2:14; 3:16-18). Negligence in balanced teaching opens doors for departures from the faith.

To Remind Those Already Established in the Truth (vv. 12, 13, 15)

In the four short verses of our text, “remind” is mentioned three times. That tells us something about human nature — we are forgetful. We can forget instruction not heard in a long time, or our ability to connect passages on a given theme becomes rusty — all because we were/are not periodically reminded. To hear first-principle lessons, perhaps those we’ve heard many times, can reinforce sound teaching, and may even open new doors of thinking and application.

Lessons on the inspiration of the Bible, its theme, the identity of Christ, authority, the church, etc., are needed lest a generation arise which is untaught on these vital points (cf. Judg. 2:7ff). All it takes is one untaught generation to cause serious internal problems. A vital part of the work of a local church is the repetition of fundamental themes and teaching.

To Establish Others in the Truth (v. 12)

Though not specified in the text, a by-product of repeating established points is the benefit to those not yet established in truth. Any general audience will have unbelievers who are willing to consider evidence, young Christians who need to be strengthened, those who have never matured as Christians, and mature Christians. This opens the field considerably when contemplating the potential for good (or evil) that we have. Not only can we influence the mature, but the unbeliever and immature can be tremendously helped by fulfilling the respective areas of service we have.

It Is Right (v. 13)

By their very nature, there are some things that are just right to do, and we should want to abound in such things (cp. 2 Pet. 1:13; Eph. 6:1). One of those things is to continue to teach, as Peter did, because “it is right.”

It is right and proper for one to want to teach as many people as he can. Not only can we influence by teaching, but also by our example (read 1 Pet. 2:12, 14-16; 3:1-2,16; etc.). We do so, when properly motivated, because it is simply the right thing to do.

The Reality of Limited Opportunities (vv. 13, 14)

Let’s face it, folks — we won’t be here forever. Peter realized this in our text — “as long as I am in this tent . . . knowing that shortly I must put off this tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.” He knew that opportunities were limited, thus more precious.

Similarly, whether shorter or longer, our time and opportunities are limited. That is why we must take advantage of every opportunity that we have to teach and influence people with the truth in whatever scriptural means we can. How many times have we put off taking advantage of opportunities because of inconvenience, only to lose them? I shudder to answer that question! Why should we be “fervent in spirit, serving the Lord” (Rom. 12:11)? Because we won’t live on this earth forever. May God help us to take advantage of every opportunity that we have to faithfully serve him, and thereby serve others.

To Stir People Up (v. 13)

Sometimes we use this term “stir” to mean “rile.” No, I don’t mean that we should try to “anger” people! However, we should strive to “stir” people — to rouse from sleep, kindle, etc. (Vine). To waken people out of lethargy can be done in any combination of three ways: instruction, correction, and encouragement. Nehemiah 8 is a good ex- ample of being stirred to responsibility as people of God. As one brother said years ago, “The greatest problem in the church is not that of winning others to the kingdom, but that of arousing those who are already members to a sense of their responsibility.” I am convinced he’s right; if we can accomplish that, then the work of evangelism will be accomplished.

To Leave A Faithful Legacy For Future Generations (v. 15)

Nearing the end of his life, Peter wanted to ensure that Christians of the next and subsequent generations would have the necessary reminders on proper living when he was gone. He, by his own example and epistles, left just such reminders — for centuries to follow.

Surely, each us wants to leave a faithful example and reminders about godly living for our children and grand- children, even generations beyond. We can do that with our lives (example) and by the pen (instruction).

Think about those who “being dead still speak” (Heb. 11:4). We have the writings of the Bible, numerous uninspired works which direct us to the Bible, personal letters and cards of encouragement, etc. We can reflect on these years after they were written and glean much from them. “But I’m just one person, I can’t make that much difference.” Do you really believe that? Consider the following example.

Jeroboam was just one man, but his departures from truth impacted an entire kingdom for 200 years (1 Kings 12:25-33; 16:30-33; 2 Kings 17:16). It is said or implied about every king in the Northern Kingdom that he “walked in the ways of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” Can one man leave a legacy? You better believe it! Just think about what Israel might have been had they not departed from the truth. One’s legacy for good can be equally strong, even stronger, than one’s legacy of apostasy. Case in point: Abraham — the father of all who believe (Rom. 4:11-12,16-17).

Conclusion

In 2 Peter 1:12-15 we have insight into the mind set and motivation of Peter. It is encouraging to study why he did what he did. As long as we keep his motives in mind and serve based on these, we will do well. Any motive less than these — and there are some (see 1 Cor. 4:3-4) — is dishonorable for a Christian and injurious to the cause of Christ.

 

This article is a review of the debate that took place on March 12-13 at the Gainesboro Missionary Baptist Mission between Mr. Roger Holland and me. Our propositions were: Friday night — “RESOLVED: The Scriptures teach that one is saved by grace through faith alone, before and without water baptism.” Mr. Holland affirmed, I denied. Saturday night — “RESOLVED: The Scriptures teach that baptism, to the penitent believer, is for (in order to obtain) the remission of sins.” I affirmed, Mr. Holland denied.

Overall, there are some things that became apparent as we met this second time. Mr. Holland made many of the same arguments as before. Both nights, pleas were made for him to deal with specific passages and specific arguments, and he refused. He chose to ignore those pleas and preach what he wanted. Now, let us consider some specific points about this debate.

Courtesy

Once again, the debate was held in a very courteous manner. Mr. Holland and this author talked with one another both before and after the sessions. The people of Gainesboro, as well as others who came, saw that people can debate and still maintain courtesy toward one another. This author referred to Mr. Holland as “Mister Holland,” “Sir,” or similar respectful terms. He referred to the author in a similar manner. Often, he called me “brother,” but this author did not call Mr. Holland “brother” because he is not a brother (Matt. 12:48-50; 2 John 9-11). Courtesy prevailed not only from the disputants, but also by the audience. There were no outbursts, and nothing demeaning was spoken to either man. This says something good! It is possible to disagree on matters of doctrine, be blunt and courageous in defending the truth, and still show common courtesy.

Arguments

Mr. Holland made several arguments from the book of Romans. He tried to affirm “faith only” from such places as Romans 3:21, 26-28; 4; 5:1; and chapter 11. He maintained that we could be “saved like Abraham.” He also read 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and declared that since the Old Testament was inspired, that we could “take it all” and indeed needed to in order to please God. Unlike the first debate, Mr. Holland began by asking this author five specific questions, per our agreement. A major part of his first speech was taken up in trying to prove that Cornelius was saved when he was baptized of the Holy Spirit, before baptism. He attempted to use Acts 15:7-11 to bolster this point. Mr. Holland spent a little time in Ephesians 2:8-9, claiming this verse excluded baptism, as well as “any works of exertion.”

Mr. Holland shocked this author when he said that he did not agree with his own proposition! He was reminded that no one forced him to sign that particular proposition. He also said that the “18 Articles” (Baptist creed) said that they ought not say we are saved by “faith alone.” He was reminded of two things. First, that his proposition begins with “The Scriptures teach . . .” not, “The 18 Articles.” Also, his proposition used the phrase “faith alone,” and he had signed it. By signing his proposition, he was saying he agreed with that statement; yet he said before this group that he didn’t believe it!

 

Saturday night, this author began by using 1 Corinthians 1:11-13 to show that we must be baptized to be “of (or belong to) Christ.” Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 were also used to show in no uncertain terms that the Bible says that baptism saves. Mr. Holland was asked by the author to tell us whether “baptism doth also NOW save us,” or “baptism doth also NOT save us.” He never told us directly, though of course, his proposition said it.

We went into great detail with 1 Peter 3:21, showing that Peter was definitely teaching that baptism saves. Not only this, we brought out many translations that consistently showed this truth. The final blow, was in using a Baptist Bible, called the “Common English Version.” It was put out by the American Bible Union in 1864-65. This Bible states plainly, “which in an antitype, immersion, now saves us also (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the requirement of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Mr. Holland was shown that the Baptist scholars who translated this Bible from the original Greek were those who would not compromise their scholarship for their theology! The author also asked Mr. Holland five questions. They were the same five that were presented at Dickson. Also, we asked Mr. Holland what baptism was “for”? Since he claimed baptism was not “for the remission of sins” in contradiction to Acts 2:38 says, then what was it “for”? In four speeches, Mr. Holland never told us.

One argument made that this author believes helped to show people the meaning behind Mark 16:16 was the following. After reading Mark 16:16, this author said, “He that believeth and sticketh his arm out, shall receive $20.00.” With this, the author waved a $20.00 bill in the air and said it again, putting the bill close to Mr. Holland. He refused to take it, and with that, it was declared, “At least Mr. Holland is consistent, he doesn’t believe Jesus, either!” Another thing that drove the point home was that brother Loren Stephens from Cookeville, Tennessee stuck his arm out, and received the $20.00! Those present got the point, and could see the parallel, including Mr. Holland.

Quibbles Answered

For those unfamiliar with this term, a quibble is “a use of ambiguous, prevaricating, or irrelevant language or arguments to evade a point at issue” (Webster’s). Certainly, Mr. Holland tried to evade the issue of baptism on several occasions. A few quibbles he made are below.

1. Mr. Holland made the statement, “Faith has no ‘I’ in it.” His point being that we do not earn this, and we cannot in some way boast about faith. (Of course, implying that baptism was such a work!) He was then asked, since faith has no “I,” then who does the believing — us or God? Our Primitive Baptist friends teach that man is so depraved that he cannot even believe, but God must do it all. Therefore, the author asked Mr. Holland if he was taking that position, and that God must do it all for us, including give us faith?

2. Another quibble Mr. Holland made was about a show he saw. He said he watched some news show where our government is working to send people to Mars for about two years. One of the comments he heard was that Mars has a very small amount of water on that planet. Upon explaining this, Mr. Holland said, “I just thought, well, I guess since there is so little water on that planet, that when they leave earth to go to Mars, salvation will be far away for them.” This author replied by showing him that baptism is required to be a Baptist, so therefore, they’ll be far away from the Baptist Church when the people are on Mars, too!

3. Mr. Holland also made the same quibble that he had made in Dickson, Tennessee. He tried to compare Mark

16:16 with the following statement: “He that getteth on the train and sitteth down shall arrive at his destination.” He was making faith equal to getting on a train, sitting down equal to baptism, and arriving at the destination equal with salvation. He said, “You must get on the train, but you’ll get to the destination whether you sit down or not!” This was answered by showing that according to Mr. Holland’s doctrine, a man is saved the moment he believes; therefore in his supposed parallel, the minute a man gets on the train, he’s already at his destination and doesn’t have time to sit down! A second point shown was that a person can get to his destination without taking a train, so that would cut out faith as easy as he cuts out baptism!

4. Mr. Holland said that he had been married to his wife for 24 years. He said when they met, he fell in love with her, and died to the other girls he had dated in the past. He said he died to them, then loved, and trusted his wife completely. His parallel was to try to say you die to this world of sin, then put your love, and trust in Christ, and that alone saves before and without baptism.

This author responded by asking that when he died to those other girls, and loved, and trusted his wife, was he married, yet? You see, marriage changes the relationship from boyfriend/girlfriend to husband and wife. In like manner, baptism is what changes the relationship from being outside to “in Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Mr. Holland had the last speech Saturday night, and responded to my argument by saying “marriage didn’t change anything”! Dear reader, read Hebrews 13:4 for yourself and see whether or not a marriage changes the relationship of a man and woman.

5. Mr. Holland also made the false claim that there was no difference between the Old Law and the New Law. He read 2 Timothy 3:16-17, noted the phrase “All Scripture. . .” and ridiculed the idea of there being different dispensations in the Bible. He was shown that there has been a “change of the law” (Heb. 7:12). This author also suggested several things Mr. Holland needs to do if the Old Law is still in force! Of course, it would be impossible to keep both Old and New Laws today, which was the point!

Results

What will be the results of this debate? Only God knows that answer! We know that his word will not return to him void (Isa. 55:11), and that he gives the increase when men plant and water the seed (1 Cor. 3:6)! Let us strive to have more debates with false teachers and denominational folks. When people are allowed the opportunity to study the Scriptures, and see them laid out side-by-side with error, good will come!

Conclusion

Victory does not come by truce. God’s terms are unconditional surrender. We are in a fight for the truth and the cannon-fire cannot cease until the enemies of the church stack arms.

The church grew when the fight was waged and the battles raged. When the let-up came in the fight, the let-down came in the church. It is said that the denominations do not fight any more. That is because the church has quit fighting and they have nothing to fight. If gospel preachers will fight now as gospel preachers fought then, the denominations will fight now as they fought then — and truth will triumph now as it triumphed then. Shall we yield to the line of least resistance, or shall we challenge error in its strongholds and citadels? (Quotes from The Gospel For Today, by Foy E. Wallace, Jr.)

The words of brother Wallace ought to mean something to us. It is not enough to say we know the differences be- tween the church and denominations. Let us stand strong and fight for the truth every day! Souls are at stake. “Who is on the Lord’s side?”

There are three major views currently being espoused con- cerning the incarnation of Jesus Christ. These are historical traditions, two of which have been introduced within the past few years among the churches of Christ. All three traditions affirm that Jesus was manifest in a body of flesh. Differences concern the nature of the divine Spirit in that body and his relationship to it.

1. The first and oldest tradition is that God in the person of Jesus was tabernacled in a body, just as the spir- its of all men are. The divine Spirit, being immutably God, retained the fullness of his deity or Godhood in the body that was prepared for him. He experienced all that relates to the body: hunger, thirst, weariness, suffering, pain, etc. He exercised his divine powers only as compatible with his role as servant and the life he lived as a man. He was God manifest in the flesh. He suffered death in the same way that all men die: his Spirit departed from the body. His death constituted a sacrificial offering of his body for our sins.1

2. The second tradition is that Jesus, as a man, in his humanity had a human spirit and, as God, he is Spirit. The two, the eternal Spirit and the human spirit, were united in the womb of Mary. Thus, as regards his Godhead he existed before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood he was begotten of Mary. Thus, “He is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man,” having the same substance or essential nature “with the Father as touching his Godhead, and … with us as touching His manhood…”2

3. The third tradition is that the divine Spirit “abandoned his attributes of deity, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and cosmic sovereignty, in order to become a man.”3 Within this tradition there is a variance. (a) Some interpret Philippians 2:7 “in the sense that the Logos gave up all the divine attributes, laid aside his deity, and so was transmuted into a man.” They insist “that when the Son became a man, not only did he lay aside all the divine perfections, but, initially at least, he had no consciousness of his Logos-nature, no longer experienced the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Spirit, and ceased to govern the universe.”4 (b) Others distinguish “between God’s relative attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience) and his immanent attributes (holiness, power, truth, love). In an act of self-limitation, the eternal second person of the Trinity was said to have divested himself of the relative attributes when he assumed the limitations of space and time. Having given up the divine form of existence for a creaturely form of existence, Jesus acquired a genuinely human consciousness and passed through all the stages of normal human development.” Further, “if the Son of God had retained the so-called relative attributes, he could not have lived a truly human existence.”5

We readily accept and affirm the first tradition, one handed down from God. It is true, as God’s word is true (John 17:17). The second and third traditions are traditions of men,6 which we reject and hereafter refer to as (1) the two-spirit position and (2) the kenotic, or divested God, position. These latter two traditions (positions) have been introduced among God’s people in this present time, but in re- verse order, the third tradition (kenotic position) being first introduced and then the second (two-spirit position). I have debated both positions and have published much material in refutation of both.

The Kenotic Tradition

The kenotic position is bankrupt and needs no further response. Its principal advocate, John Welch, has admitted to having taught error in the theory’s basic premises: on the deity and the divinity of Christ. Deity and divinity are correlative terms, defining the state of being God and the qualities that constitute that state. One does not exist without the other. His original contention, which gave rise to our controversy with him, was that the Word in coming to earth divested himself of his deity or Godhood. He stated, “He divested himself of the glory, honor, divinity, godhood and became subject to the Father as a man. Whatever qualities and characteristics had been his as divine were foregone. Whatever privileges and powers there might have been were stripped from him. He was a man” (Faith and Facts, April 1987, 100).

“Godhood,” from the Greek theotes, is otherwise translated “deity,” meaning the state of being God. To state that Jesus divested, gave up, surrendered, abdicated, or was stripped of his Godhood or deity is to say that he was no longer God, but became in full point of fact just a man. This statement, quoted above, John Welch confessed in our debate in Louisville, in June 1995, to be false. “It was wrong.” “Wrong! One hundred per- cent wrong!” “It’s false!” “Error!”7

However, he continued to argue that Jesus was in full point of fact a man, and argued that the attributes of God were stripped from him. He argued that God can surrender the at- tributes that make him God and still be God, a God stripped of the attributes, powers and qualities of God. So Jesus was God stripped of the qualities, prerogatives, and powers that make him God, so that he became a man no different from other men. He taught:

Ladies and gentlemen, Jesus Christ did not give up his divinity for just 33 years. He gave it up for all time . . . for all time! (September 19, 1989, Ontario, Canada.)

We continued to expose this error, as we did in the debate, showing that deity and divinity are correlative terms; that one cannot be withoutthe other. Where there is deity, there are the attributes of deity (divinity); where all the divine attributes (divinity) reside, there is deity. You cannot have one without the other.

Finally, in 1996, he acknowledged that saying Jesus divested his divinity is also wrong. “I made the statement quoted above. It was wrong.” Further, “it is not the truth.” “I am sorry for having made the statement. I have changed my mind about the truth concerning it.”8

For the most part, the proponents of the kenotic position are quiet as far as any serious discussion of the basic is- sue is concerned. Rather, there seems to be an effort to minimize the controversy, even to suggesting that there is no real or serious problem, no serious differences between brethren.

The Two-Spirit Tradition

The two-spirit tradition was introduced among us in 1995 by Jack L. Holt, and we debated it in Temple Terrace, Florida, August 11-14, 1997. The material used in this discussion is published in a booklet, The Humanity of Jesus. The tradition continues to be advocated and taught, though not as diligently.

Instead of a serious discussion of this issue, the proponents of this position appear to be aligning with the kenotic theorists in trying to convince brethren that there are no real differences between the three traditions.

Is There A Real Problem?

The reason I am writing further on the subject at this time is because of an effort to obscure and minimize the seriousness of these controversies concerning the deity of Christ on earth. After having discussed these issues for years, the tack now seems to be to avoid further discussion by pretending that there is no real differences between us. In fact, some have expressed the idea that there is no issue because they have been led to believe that everyone basically believes the same thing. This has been accomplished, in part, by a cleverly written slogan, which is ambiguous enough that everyone can subscribe to it when he puts his own definition to the terms.

The Statement

Jesus was God as God is and man as man ought to be.

Those of a biblical persuasion could accept this statement if the terms are legitimately defined. Jesus on earth was God as God is — possessing and in full command of his divine attributes, characteristics and power. He was no stripped-down God. And he was man as he ought to be — a spirit (in the likeness of God; in this case the spirit is God, in whose likeness we are) tabernacled in a body of flesh. And since no man has two spirits residing in his body, the one spirit in Jesus was the Word (John 1:1-3). Do the “stripped-down God” advocates and the “two-spirit” advocates agree with this statement properly defined?

Those who promote a stripped down version of God in the person of Jesus can likewise accept the statement if they define the terms. Jesus on earth was God — a mutable God9 whose “attributes all were changed”10 so that “Jesus developed in his spirit just like John the Baptist did,”11  and as all men do. And he was a man as he ought to be — a man as all other men are, a man no different than other men. If this is what the statement conveys, then the statement is false. This statement that “Jesus was God as God is and man as man ought to be” was first introduced, according to my knowledge, by the kenotic theorists in an effort to make it appear that there is no real difference, that the whole controversy was much ado about nothing.

And now the two-spirit advocates use the statement to suggest that we all believe the same thing. However, they define the terms to mean that Jesus was God as God is — in Him indeed dwelled the fullness of the Godhead, which includes all of the attributes, characteristics, prerogatives, and power of God. No problem here. But He was a man as man ought to be — a finite spirit in a body shared with God (the Word). Of course, this is not “man as he ought to be” — I know of no man with two or more spirits residing in his body. I know of no one who thinks every man ought to have two spirits! To pretend that when they say that “Jesus was God as God is and man as man ought to be,” they are saying what everyone else is saying is not true and it is deceptive!

Any statement that can be used to set forth different and conflicting beliefs is useless at best and harmful at its worst. With its ambiguity it says nothing. In that it is used to support traditions of error as being harmonious with truth, it is pernicious in effect. It is used by those who seek to effect a compromise of the truth.

The Present Effort

The two-spirit advocates are deceptive in using the statement; without explanation it does not express what they believe. An occasion of this is the purpose of this article, as I now turn to the latest (to my knowledge) effort to promote the theory in an inoffensive way, while planting the seeds of heresy.

In the January (1999) issue of Truth Magazine, our esteemed brother Elmer Moore published an article entitled, “The Humanity of Christ.” If one is familiar with the concept and terminology of the two-spirit position, he can clearly see that our brother is promoting the idea that when Mary gave birth to Jesus, she gave birth to a man (spirit and body) in whom the Word, as a second spirit, resided.

Elmer Moore’s article is in two parts: the first part deals with the humanity of Jesus, and the second part with his temptations. He is not forthright in affirming that God (the Word), in becoming a man, shared a body with a created spirit. His argumentation necessarily leads to that conclusion, which he leaves to the reader to draw. Those who are not familiar with the two-spirit concept will conclude that surely he is describing Jesus as a divine Spirit tabernacled in a body, while those who accept the concept of two spirits in the body will find comfort in what he says. Let him tell us plainly, without equivocation, that two spirits were in the body of Jesus. That he does, we will demonstrate.

Ambiguity and equivocation allow the true and full concept of the two-spirit concept to go undetected . . . for a time, until it is exposed or until those drawn into it are made to understand it clearly. Those who closely followed the presentation of the two-spirit tradition, as espoused by Jack Holt, understand clearly what I am saying. For a time, our brother ridiculed the charge that he believed in two spirits. He accused those who opposed him of charging him with believing that “Jesus had two spirits.” This misled many until we detected that by “Jesus” he meant “God,” and so he ridiculed the idea that God had two spirits, which would equal three spirits! Of course, no one charged him with believing that there were three spirits in the body, but by misrepresenting us he was able to make some think that he did not believe in the two-spirit tradition. However, when stated clearly that his concept is: there were two spirits in the body of Jesus, the obfuscation ceased.

Understand the issue: we oppose the concept that in the body of Jesus, along with (what they refer to as) a “human spirit” there was the divine Spirit (the Word), who was in control. The concept has many ramifications.12

We look now at the present argumentation, as presented in the article, “The Humanity of Christ,” by Elmer Moore.

In the first paragraph, he argues that Jesus, being in the likeness of man, means he was not in similarity, but sameness with mankind in general. He states, “When men argue that Jesus being in the likeness of men does not mean anything more than similarity; that likeness does not mean sameness, we need to take a look at what the New Testament actually states about Jesus.” If he were considering only one spirit in Jesus, and contends that it was not just like, similar, to the spirits of other men, but is the same, then he would be affirming that the spirit of Jesus was stripped of divine qualities. This is the kenotic concept. But he does not believe this. The other alternative to his argument is that the spirit in the body of Jesus was indeed the same as other men — Jesus had a created spirit. But then the divine Spirit (the Word) was not the same – “He had all the attributes of God.” Hence, two spirits! Of course, to necessarily conclude the two spirit concept, he has to argue that “likeness” means “sameness” because one divine Spirit in the body of Jesus would make him “like” (similar to) other men, but not the same (conforming in every detail). So his argument centers around the word “likeness.”

Jesus “was made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7). “Likeness” is a translation of the Greek term, homoioma, which is defined as: “Likeness, shape, similitude, re- semblance.”13  The word is used five times: Philippians 2:7; Romans 1:23; 5:14; 6:5 and 8:3. Note the word in context:

1. Romans 1:23 — “And changed the glory of the un- corruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” Were these icons or statues the same as actual men, birds, and beasts, or were they similar to or resembling them? Likeness is not sameness.

2. Romans 5:14 — “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” Does death reign only over those who committed the same transgression as Adam? Or, do men sin in a similar way to Adam?

3. Romans 6:5 — “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection . . .” Are we planted in the same death of Jesus, and then raised in the same resurrection as his, when we are baptized? Or is this death and resurrection similar to that of Jesus, not actual but figurative?

4. Romans 8:3 — “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh . . .”

“Sinful flesh” is a translation of two nouns in the genitive case, used as an adjective to modify “likeness,” i.e., sinful flesh’s likeness.14  The flesh is sinful, i.e., guilty of sin or marked by sin. Jesus came to save men defiled by sin. They were not born that way. Babies and children do not have sinful flesh. Jesus did not have sinful flesh. “Likeness” is very significant. If Paul had wanted to say that Jesus was born in the flesh the same as other men, he could have said Jesus “came in flesh,” as it is in 1 John 4:2 and 1 Timothy 3:16. Jesus experienced in his body what other men do, except he knew no sin. He came in the likeness of men guilty of sin, but he did not have the sin. If Jesus came in the same sinful flesh, he would be a sinner as others (and born a sinner at that!) . . . and that is not true (1 Pet. 2:22)!

To raise the questions is to answer them. Likeness does not mean sameness.

To beg the question, if our brother were correct in his assertion that likeness means sameness, then consider the consequences of his argument. Man is made in the likeness of God (Gen. 1:26). Is man the same as God, or similar to God? If the same, this would mean that we are God. Really?

Our brother states more clearly his two-spirit concept when he says: “The Bible description of man, who was created in the image of God, is a proper description of the humanity of Jesus.”

It was the spirit of man that was created in God’s image. Yet, man is not God, does not possess “all of the attributes of God,” which describes deity. This created, finite spirit accounts for his humanity, we are told. At the same time, in the body of Jesus was God — “he had all the attributes of God.” This Spirit is not created, but is eternal and infinite. Therefore, in the body of Jesus there was the divine Spirit, and a created spirit — two spirits! The two are not to be confused; they are separate and distinct. The conclusion is drawn from inference, an inference based upon assumption.

Man is a being consisting of body and spirit (Gen. 1:26; 2:7; Eccl. 12:7; Jas. 2:26). When the Spirit, which is God, determined to come in the likeness of man, He did not need a spirit . . . He is a spirit (John 4:24). Man’s spirit is in the likeness of God — not the same in that all of the attributes of God are infinite; man is finite. All that the Word (God) needed to be a man is a body . . . and it was this that God prepared (Heb. 10:5). The Father did not prepare for the Word both a body and a spirit. If so, where is the passage? I know a body was prepared; God says so. That a finite spirit was also prepared is a matter of theological speculation.

Where does the Bible say that in the body of Jesus there were two spirits? Every reference to the spirit of Jesus is singular, not plural. The idea of plurality is derived, not from Scripture, but from the historic theology of those who speculated about it and developed the two-spirit doc- trine in the fifth century. Without Scripture the theology is bankrupt.

It is strange that our brother says that he does “not know how he (Jesus) was both God and man,” after telling us that he was God because the spirit in his body was God, and he was man because in his body was a spirit created in God’s image. Yet he has “no desire to try to explain how that happened” and avers that the “Bible declares it.” We request not that he tell us “how,” just show us where God says “that happened.” Where does the Bible declare that in the body of Jesus, along with God (the Word) there was a “created spirit.” Our brother says, “I accept it by faith.” If he speaks of the faith that comes from hearing God’s word, we ask for the reference. If there is no Scripture, then it is a matter of opinion. If there is any faith in such a doctrine, it is a faith in the theologians that devised it.

Without any clear statement that in the body of Jesus there were two spirits, my friend Elmer again tries to find it in an inference. To him, “flesh” is used figuratively for “a human being.” God made (for) him a human being, is his argument. It is not enough that God prepared for him a body, for he says, “The language of John 1:14 does not state (that) he was clothed with flesh; it declares that he was made flesh (KJV), or became flesh (ASV).”

This is the traditional argument: “But we must note at the same time that this is a figure of speech, for in the word flesh the whole man is included. Apollo was therefore foolish to imagine that Christ was clothed with a human body without a soul.”15 The tradition is Catholic and Calvinistic.

In response, we note first that it is assumed that to be made flesh does not allow being “clothed with flesh.” However, that his Spirit was clothed (“to cover as with clothing”) with flesh is clearly set forth in Scripture. In his incarnation, we have noted that the Father prepared for him a body (Heb. 10:5), and it was in this body that he offered himself as a sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 10:10). As human beings, our spirits are covered in a body of flesh. To put it another way, our bodies are tabernacles in which we live (2 Cor. 5:1-8; 2 Pet. 1:13-15; 2 Cor. 12:3). The body is referred to as a temple (1 Cor. 6:19). The spirit is within (Dan. 7:15; Isa. 26:9; Pss. 142:3; 143:4). Even so, Jesus’ body was a temple in which his spirit dwelled. He told the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body” (John 2:19-21).

Now to John 1:14 — “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us . . .” It is noted that “flesh” here is a synecdoche, which means it is put for “man, a human being.”16 He was “made,” i.e., he “came to be” a man. The verb (ginomai) here is used: “As implying a change of state, condition, or passing from one state to another, to become, to enter upon any state, condition.” It is “spoken of persons or things which receive any new character or form.”17  Notice that the Word himself became a man, entered this new state or form. The text does not say that flesh, or a man, was made for the Word, to indicate that the Word indwelled a human being, but the Word was made flesh, i.e., he received a new form, that of a man.

The same argument is made concerning “flesh and blood”: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same . . .” (Heb. 2:14). The phrase is a periphrasis for the whole animal nature of man, the material nature as distinguished from the spiritual and intangible. To say that the expression simply refers to a “human being” is to confuse the definition. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Cor. 15:50). This does not mean that human beings cannot go to heaven; rather the material nature, the materiality that corrupts, is not fitted for the spiritual realm of heaven. God (the Word) was housed in a physical, material body, and thereby shared (koinoneo) in the material nature of mankind. This a far cry from saying that the Word moved into a human being, a person of body and spirit, so as to conclude that two spirits were in the body. No, there is just one spirit in the body. God (pure spirit, invisible to man) was the one manifested (made visible, clear, or known) in flesh (1 Tim. 3:16).

Why The Two-Spirit Position?

The Kenotic position and the Two-spirit position have one thing in common, which explains an apparent affinity they hold for each other, even though there are serious doctrinal differences. Both demand that Jesus be finite in spirit, whether stripped of all divine attributes or whether a finite spirit coexisted with the Word. Jesus had to be a man with a finite spirit in order “to satisfy justice that demands,” they claim, “(spiritual) death as the penalty of sin.” The wages of sin is spiritual death, i.e., separation from God18 (Rom. 6:23). Jesus had “to die as a man” to become a redeemer. And Jesus had to be man, in body and spirit, in order to prove that a man does not have to sin. They denigrate my Lord in order to prove what the Scriptures can easily prove.

In an effort to shift the issue from the nature of Jesus, both positions pretend that the “real issue is ‘Does man have to sin?’” It is not so, and we have exposed the effort over and over again.

John Welch made the charge when we first challenged his teaching: “Much of this controversy has been a smoke- screen to disguise the incursion of a false doctrine by creating a false issue” (Faith and Facts, October 1990, 347). Once Welch set afoot the false charge, it has continued to circulate. And now brother Moore repeats it: “I firmly believe that all the furor that has arisen about the deity and humanity of Christ is a diversion from the real problem. The real issue is ‘Does man have to sin?’” Of course, the charge is false. I have written in opposition to the contention, have preached against it, and actively opposed an attempt to introduce neo-Calvinism in Louisville. I have written evidence of my position, dating back to 1962. To say that I oppose the denigration of my Lord as an effort to create a false issue or to avoid confrontation with neo- Calvinism is ridiculous. We can shake hands in agreeing that man does not have to sin, but I cannot accept either a stripped-down God or double-spirited Jesus.

Rather than being diverted from the issue at hand, as much as I am tempted to proceed, we defer any comments about the second part of his article until another study. We have addressed the basic concept upon which other ramifications are built. Of course, with the base refuted the superstructure collapses. Our purpose in this review is to expose the effort to introduce the two-spirit concept and then to refute its error.

Conclusion

In the body of Jesus there was one spirit, and every reference uses the singular to describe it. Every reference is to “spirit” (singular) and never “spirits” (plural). Observe references to Jesus (emphasis added):

Mark 2:8 — “And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned . . .”

Mark 8:12 — “And he sighed deeply in his spirit . . .”

Luke 10:21 — “In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit . . .”

Luke 23:46 — “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit . . .”

John 11:33 — “When Jesus therefore saw her weeping . . . he groaned in the spirit . . .”

John 13:21 — “When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit . . .”

The Jesus, whom I worship and serve, is God (John 1:1- 2), for whom a body was prepared and in which he lived as a man while on the earth. As God, in him dwelled the fullness of deity, with all the powers and attributes, though not fully displayed, but veiled and exercised in his role of a servant. Without violating this purpose, he remembered who he is and heaven from which he came; he knew the thoughts of men; he controlled his life and no man could take his life until he laid it down; he forgave sins. He was God manifest in the flesh. In the flesh, he hungered, was thirsty, needed rest, experienced sorrow and joy; he lived as a man and experienced the human condition. Though a man, he was more than just an ordinary man. And unless we believe that he is the I AM, we will die in our sins (John 8:24, 58). (For a fuller study of the two-spirit tradition, read my booklet, The Humanity of Jesus, available at your religious bookstore.)

NOTE: I submitted this article to Elmer Moore for review, if he so desired. His written response follows and is inserted by mutual agreement.

Gene, I do not believe that my brief article necessarily implies what you have indicated. I am sure that you do think so. So be it. I carefully read your response four times.

I do not have the desire, intent, or time to reply to your

Obviously, from what brother Moore has written, the necessary conclusion is that in the body of Jesus there were two spirits, one “human” and the other Divine. He earlier wrote “that Jesus being fully man had to have a human spirit,” and “as God He was a Spirit.”19 Surely, the one is not the other. I can draw no other conclusion, from what he writes, than in the body of Jesus there were two spirits. If our brother does not mean to convey this concept, and, if by saying he doesn’t “necessarily imply” it, he means he doesn’t believe it, then we ask him to plainly and unequivocally so state and repudiate it. A discussion of what he did or did not imply serves no useful purpose.

The issue is, when God prepared a body for the Word, did he also prepare a finite “human spirit” to share that body with his Son? If not, then let our brother clearly state that in the body of Jesus there was the divine Spirit alone. Let him declare that to teach that the Word was degraded to become a finite spirit or that he shared the body with a finite spirit is to teach error. We welcome his clarification. Until he repudiates these errors now dividing brethren, we can only respond as we have. This subject is too serious to leave any doubt as to what one believes and where he stands.

1 2 Thess. 2:15; John 1:1-3, 14; 2 Cor. 5:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:13-14; John 2:21; Mal. 3:6; Col. 2:9; Heb. 10:5; Matt. 26:41; Phil. 2:7- 8; 1 Tim. 3:16; James 2:26; Luke 23:46; Heb. 10:12; Rom. 7:4; 1 Pet. 2:24.

2 H. Orten Wiley, Christian Theology, Vol. 2, 162.

3 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, “Kenotic Theories,” 777.

4 Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, Vol. 2, 253.

5 Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A, Demarest, Integrative Theology, Vol. 2, 252.

6 The tradition of a union of two spirits (the Word and a created spirit) in the body of Jesus is identified with the Chalcedon Christology of the 5th century. The tradition of God divesting Himself of His divine attributes to become a human being is identified as the Kenotic Theory, promoted in the 19th century in Germany and England.

7 John Welch, Frost-Welch Debate, Second Negative, 22.

8 John Welch, published on the Internet, Markslist, November 8, 1996.

9 John Welch, Frost-Welch Debate, Third Negative, 39: “And he (Jesus) was not immutable.”

10  John Welch, Frost-Welch Debate, Second Negative, 23.

11  John Welch, Frost-Welch Debate, Second Negative, 25.

12  These are discussed in my booklet, The Humanity of Jesus.

13 Spiros Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary (N.T.), page 1042; I recommend that the reader read the entire discussion of this word in this lexicon.

14  E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 505-506.

15  John Calvin, John, 25.

16  E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 643.

17  Spiros Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary, 369.

18  Cf. The Humanity of Jesus (Gene Frost), 33-34.

19  Elmer Moore, October 17, 1996, response to questions.