Christians intentionally swearing?

As I mentioned on my Facebook, posting in blog format for me isn’t new, this is a return to an old format. Well, I decided to take a trip down memory lane and read through the posts on my old Xanga site, which I haven’t visited for years. This was the first or second post I stumbled across. Funny how something that was relevant to me like 6 years ago is still relevant now. At the time I was writing because I was friends with some Christians on MySpace who I was deciding to delete because I didn’t like their language, people who were Christians. Something different is popping up today, amongst some of my friends no less.

What I’m hearing today is that there are groups of Christians who are swearing on purpose. They are doing it intentionally so that people will see that they aren’t concerned with outer images. They are doing it so that people will see that they are saved by grace, which isn’t concerned with rules. What backward thinking! What ignorant logic!

There are so many topics that could be addressed here. I could address the fact that we are “the salt of the earth,” or that we should not “be conformed to the patterns of this world.” Or I could talk about James, in that he says, “If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.” I could talk about all of those things, but I won’t.

The answer is very simple: “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth… (Eph 4:29).” The argument made from their perspective is that culture defines what a swear word is, therefore they can say what they want. They also say that “unwholesome word” doesn’t necessarily mean swear words. Ignorance.

1)    If “unwholesome word” doesn’t mean swear words per se, then it by necessity must mean all corrupt speech, even swear words. For their argument to make any sense, it must assume that “no unwholesome word” must mean something apart from swearing. But swearing, by nature, is unwholesome.

2)    The two words “unwholesome word” are in the singular (λόγος σαπρὸς, logos sopros). This really rules out this passage talking about gossip or slander or other filthiness that is considered as casual conversation. The verse is talking about use of specific, singular words in conversation.

I challenge any one of them to teach a Sunday School class, and use that language in front of the children. Heck, use it in front of your own children, tell them its ok, then send them to school. They will be immediately told not to use it because they are “dirty words.” Culture certainly does define certain words as vulgar expletives. They are a part of grammar, and even grammar defines them as filthy. Any 5 year old knows this. So what are 20 year olds so confused about?

This is really part of a larger problem, which is Christians trying to fit in with the rest of the world to the point that they are indistinguishable from it. According to Rom 8:29-30, we are predestined to “be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he may be the firstborn among many brethren.” Do you think Jesus used filthy language to reach the lost during his ministry? How about Peter? John? Paul? How about none of them? It is a simple fact that swearing, like any other sin (yeah I said it- swearing is a sin), ruins ministry. It presents yourself and Christ as being no different than the rest of the world, and lets face it- you’re not witnessing to people in order to give them the world. You’re witnessing to them to give them Christ.

Offer unbelievers the world, and they’ll walk away, because no matter how hard you try, the world is better at offering the world than you ever will be. Offer them Christ, and you offer something the world just cannot offer.

Bridle that tongue,

Mike

What does John 3:16 really say?

We all know this verse. In fact, there are probably many who are unsaved that know this verse. There are probably many more who at least know the reference, even if they don't know the verse itself. It is probably the most famous, though maybe not the most important, verse in Scripture. I'll quote it anyway, just for the sake of being thorough.

For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

What I'd like to talk about today is the term "whosoever" in John 3:16. This word is usually the pivot point in this verse for the Arminian position that a person's salvation rests solely on their ability to receive the good news. Usually in a debate, a Calvinist may quote something like John 6:44,

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws (ἕλκω) him...

which is then answered by the Arminian, "But John 3:16 says 'whosoever!' Whosoever!" In case you think I'm being facetious, I can assure you that this has happened to me personally on a number of occasions, both in online debates and in person.

While this is not the only verse in defense of their position, it is an important verse. I'm obviously not going to tackle the whole range of the Arminian position- that would be nearly impossible. One thing I believe in when it comes to Biblical exegesis that does pertain to this article is the idea of interpreting a verse within its own context. In my experience (which is quite large), Arminians like to jump from verse to verse, answering the rebuttal to one verse by quoting another verse, rather than rebutting the rebuttal. This practice does not strengthen a position. The case here, usually, is that John 3:16 is held side by side with Rev 22:17,

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

More traditionally, the KJV rendering is used for the last part of the verse,

And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. 

The Greek used here is entirely different than John 3:16 (καὶ ὁ θέλων- "and the will-ers") though the same English word is used. I'm not going to address it, but I do want to dismiss it as using different grammar and therefore not a sister verse. So, once again, John 3:16 must be translated within its own context according to its own grammar.


[I couldn't help but add 1 Tim 2:4 after finishing the post, because I don't want to be accused of avoiding passages. 1 Tim 2:4 says that God, "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." The word for all here is pas, which will be mentioned below. The context here is that Paul is urging Timothy to pray for "all men, for kings and all who are in authority" (v2). The context here is that God desires that all types of men be saved, even those kings who are currently persecuting them. Paul is admonishing Timothy to not hold animosity against any one people group. Okay, you may continue reading now. -Mike]


First, we need to understand that English and Greek are fundamentally different (obviously). What I want to point out here is the idea of a connotation. In English, as with any language, certain words will carry a side meaning or an idea that is not inherent within the actual meaning of the word itself. This is the case with the word whosoever. The connotation that the English word brings is the idea that the invitation for believing is open to anyone, and depends entirely on the person's will to make the decision to believe. This idea is not found in the Greek, so let's move on to the original language. In the Greek, John 3:16 reads,

οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

The main words here that we're looking at are "whosoever believes," which in the Greek, is actually three words,  πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων (pas ho pisteuon), which translates to all the believing. I think you can see where I'm going with this, but I'll break it down anyway.


Usually, the line of argumentation from Arminian scholars is to focus on the word pas. Pas means "all." The idea presented from Arminians is that due to the use of the word "all," the verse has the intention of showing that any, all, everyone without distinctions, ahem... "whosoever" may believe. They argue that the word is limitless, and that the word itself has no specific group in mind. But, any good exegete knows that a word is always defined by its context, and cannot be translated independently of all else. In this case, pas is part of a phrase, pas ho pisteuon. So what its saying is, "all- all of who? All of the believing [ones]." Being that it is part of a phrase, and in this case ho pisteuon is working as an adjectival clause describing pas, the phrase itself cannot be broken apart and must be read as a whole. Thus, "all" certainly is limited, specifically, to the ones who believe.


All that said, now let's retranslate.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that the believing ones should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Now remember what we said about connotation, and don't add any to the italicized phrase. What the verse is simply stating is that God will save the ones that believe. Period. This is a neutral statement when the question of "Who's will is responsible for salvation?" is asked. It says nothing of the will or of responsibility in salvation. Instead, it is a simple de facto statement that God will save those who believe.


What I'd like to close with is the idea of studying our Scripture carefully. Christians must understand that the Bible is a historical document, written in a dead language to people that are culturally different than us. That said, our understandings of words and ideas is fundamentally different. It is vitally important to add a critical textual study of the Word to your regular devotions, so that you familiarize yourself with what is actually written, and not just with softer applications of the text, or worse yet, maybe no other help at all. So, when you're reading your Bible, take some time to look at key words in the original languages to help you understand what's being said. Or, if you don't trust yourself to understand, grab a commentary from a trusted source to help you along.


Train well,


Mike

What does it mean to be a Berean?

Hello! Good to see you here! I've decided to start a blog, since most of my thoughts on Facebook are a tad on the short side. Having a blog allows me to go a little more at length than a quick post or tweet ever could. Nonetheless, this will hardly be comprehensive. Maybe once in a while I'll do something that's a little more researched, but most of the time I'll just be doing short pieces on whatever random topic is on my mind at the time.

For my first post, I'd like to write a little about my mindset. Often I get criticized for my standpoint on issues, that I take too much of a hard-nosed stance on specific points. From my point of view, I would bounce this back to say that its a problem with the Church of today that sees this as an issue. Our post-modern mindset wants to allow all points of view to have equal validity; everyone could potentially be correct, and everyone could potentially be wrong as well. It also has pushed love to the point that love has become God, rather than the other way around. At times, it seems love is God's only attribute, or at best, his most supreme attribute. Love is used as a reason to not disagree, to not rebuke others, to not state, You are wrong, I am right. The fact is, we can know Scripture. So I present to you my mind.

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:10-11)

My mind, as I see it, is that of a Berean. Maybe you've heard this word before, used of someone who studies hard and is a student of the Word. This passage is where that term came from. The people from Berea, upon hearing the Gospel from Paul, scoured the Scripture to check the veracity of Paul's words. 

To see whether these things were so. Think about those words. They validate two facts:

1. Scripture can be known, there can be correct interpretations and incorrect ones, and they can be discerned. 
2. They had the ability, by Scripture, to prove a person to be correct or incorrect.

In this day and age, the idea of calling someone else out on a doctrine, or an action based on interpretation is frowned upon. What? Tell someone they're wrong? That's unloving! Not according to the Bereans. As a matter of fact, they are called noble-minded. They are the perfect example of Prov 27:17, As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. They studied, they searched, they examined (with great eagerness) the Scriptures in order to validate Paul's words. Let's forget the fact that this is Paul we're talking about, probably the greatest theologian who ever lived.

We live in a day where we should never question anyone, never tell someone they're wrong, never bring up a person's doctrinal errors. It can be stated very directly that this is not the picture Scripture gives us of how we are to operate. Timothy says,

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

 When we hear someone speak about Scripture, we are to look at Scripture to check the truth of what has been said. When something incorrect has been stated, we are to correct them, so that the man of God may be adequate. We do these things for their benefit, not to slam them, humiliate them, or on our side, to puff ourselves up with pride, or to draw glory to ourselves. Nonetheless, to correct someone is to help them. It is to straighten them, so that once they are corrected, they will be better equipped from that point forward.

So, to borrow my brother's phrase, this is my mind. I believe in studying Scripture. I believe in dwelling on it. Overthinking it. I believe that theology is as important to the layperson as it is to the Pastor, to the Missionary, to the Seminarian. I firmly believe that when a person understands Scripture more perfectly, it impacts their life (both their Spiritual life and their normal life) in ways that no other feeling or emotion could ever accomplish. Scripture is something to be known, and then applied. In some cases, Scripture is something to defend, and defend with. It is our foundation upon which we stand, and if we cannot be sure of the things we believe, then the Bible is a sand castle on the shores of modern culture.

To close my first post, I urge you to be a Berean. Study the Scripture as if you were working out your muscles- wanting to push yourself daily so that you will grow. Reaching for topics that are slightly out of your comprehension, that the Holy Spirit may stretch you to further knowledge. And don't be afraid to question people's interpretations. But when you do, check your heart to make sure you're doing it for the right reasons.

In Him,

Mike