Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 11

The Slippery Slope

As human beings we seek to understand our world through the perception of our senses and the exercise of our faculties of reason. We like to imagine ourselves as neutral, objective arbiters of what we perceive and in how we reason. And yet we are all finite, limited, and biased to some degree or another; furthermore, as Christians, we must confess how we have all been subjected to sin and death and the corruption present in the creation (Romans 5:12-21, 8:18-22). Thus, not everything we think we perceive is accurate; not all of our thoughts, feelings, and actions are based on well-reasoned principles. Humans prove liable to fallacies: mistaken beliefs which often themselves derive from application of deficient forms of reasoning.

Some fallacies can all too easily become staples of argument and rhetoric to the point of rarely being questioned. Among us, no type of fallacy would embody this tendency more than the slippery slope.

The “slippery slope” can be understood in terms of either arguments or events. A slippery slope event presumes a type of “domino effect”: if an event takes place, further events take place as necessary and unavoidable consequences of that event; such is why it is also called the “domino fallacy.” The fallacy in this conclusion involves its determinism: assuming these events which happen in sequence must be caused by all previous decisions, as if those acting in-between had all but lost their moral agency.

A slippery slope argument represents the rhetorical attempt to argue against a given proposition by insisting its acceptance would then demand accepting a further, more unacceptable position. Such slippery slopes can be framed in either conceptual or practical terms. A conceptual slippery slope involves presuming accepting a given idea or reason would then necessitate all presumably consequent ideas or reasons, commonly exemplified by Sextus Empiricus’ outrageous “justification” of incest: he argued if it is not immoral to touch your mother’s big toe with one’s little finger, then the rest would differ only by degree. The practical slippery slope presumes if one decides on a given course of action, there would be no rational basis on which to reject or avoid taking what is presumed as the next step in the imagined course of action which leads to what is imagined to be an undesirable result.

Many might well take offense at characterizing the “slippery slope” as a fallacy. They might point to situations in which people did accept a given proposition, or took a given course of action, and those same people eventually ended up going even farther and ended up accepting or doing the kinds of things regarding which they were warned.

Certainly, part of the appeal of the slippery slope fallacy is its explanatory power and the ability to point to some instances in which people did ultimately find themselves in a very different place than they had imagined when they started. Nevertheless, we must remember the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.” The fallacy of the slippery slope argument is in its insistence that the contemptible or unpleasant end results necessarily follow once the original idea or practice is accepted or fulfilled. In this way, the slippery slope fallacy represents a kind of Calvinism in the decision-making process: once a given idea or action is believed or accomplished, such persons are now predestined to end up accepting or doing contemptible or unpleasant ideas or practices.

Among those in what are deemed non-institutional churches of Christ, arguments against using the collective financial resources of the congregation to support various institutions were often reinforced by appeals to the slippery slope: once they would start supporting orphan’s homes, it was alleged, they would then begin to support other things, and then there would be no end to the kind of “liberal thinking” such people might accept. This “slippery slope” approach can then find its “vindication” by appealing to churches which did begin supporting other things once they started supporting orphan’s homes, and some of those groups have since embraced many other ideas and practices which we believe do not represent God’s purposes as made known in Jesus.

But did it necessarily follow that said Christians and churches would invariably end up supporting all these other things? Counterexamples remain legion but are ignored on account of confirmation bias: there remain plenty of Christians and churches who believe they can support various institutions with the collective financial resources of the congregation who have not accepted other ideas or practices which we believe do not represent God’s purposes and made known in Jesus. Furthermore, if we are willing to see it, there are some more “conservative” than we who have used similar “slippery slope” logic to condemn us: for them the first step in such apostatizing was maintaining multiple loaves and cups in the Lord’s Supper, or maintaining Bible classes divided by age or interest!

Likewise, another challenge of slippery slope arguments involves a failure of imagination. A slippery slope argument imagines accepting a given idea or practice will necessarily lead to accepting a specific set of ideas or practices. But are there not other possibilities which might attend to accepting those ideas or practices? And could one also not construe a “slippery slope” about continuing to deny the legitimacy of the idea or practice against which the argument is made? For instance, some within non-institutional churches of Christ have gone beyond in their denial of the use of collective financial resources to support various institutions and deny that Christians should jointly participate in any kind of collective work above and beyond the local congregation. Does the fact that some have thus behaved demand that all who would agree with the original premise are doomed to condemn all joint participation among fellow believers independent of a local congregation?

Slippery slope arguments do not appeal to reason; they represent a subtle, or often less than subtle, form of fearmongering. Slippery slope arguments do not give sufficient credit, or accountability, to people in their use of moral reasoning. By portraying accepting a given proposition as necessarily requiring a series of thoughts or actions leading to an unpleasant destination, those advancing slippery slope arguments both infantilize those with whom they disagree while also discrediting what might well represent their legitimate concerns with accepting a given idea or practice. The slippery slope argument is refuted the moment anyone accepts the idea or practice without going any farther; valid concerns raised are then easily thrown out the window in endorsing the idea or practice.

In God in Christ through the Spirit, truth is not determined by what we fallaciously imagine must be the inevitable conclusion. Truth, likewise, is not determined by means of rejecting whatever those with whom we disagree accept, or by accepting whatever those with whom we disagree reject. Perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18): we will not stumble upon the truth by crouching into a position based on the fear of possible consequences or results. Yes, there will be times when people will accept a given idea or practice as acceptable, and in so doing they will open themselves up to ideas or practices which we believe are unacceptable. Many times, they will then accept those unacceptable ideas or practices. But there will be other times in which at least some will reject those unacceptable ideas or practices. At the same time, those who argue against the original idea or practice might find themselves accepting other conclusions based on that idea or practice which also proves unpalatable! Our standard must never be what we imagine must happen if we accept a given idea or practice as true; our standard must always be to ascertain whether a given idea or practice is consistent with what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit, and whether they will lead us closer or farther away from God and His purposes. Let us be wary of any and all appeals to the slippery slope, and firmly anchor ourselves in God in Christ through the Spirit, thus obtaining the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Works Consulted

Slippery Slope (accessed 2024-01-31).

The post The Slippery Slope appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Treatise on Love Concludes | 1 John 4:17-21

Herein is love made perfect with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as he is, even so are we in this world. There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath punishment; and he that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love, because he first loved us. If a man say, “I love God,” and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen. And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also (1 John 4:17-21).

Perhaps one of the most popular and justly famous passages of Scripture is 1 John 4:7-21, the Apostle John’s grand treatise on love. We have previously considered 1 John 4:7-16 and have seen how God is love and has manifested love through the sacrifice of His Son, and those who love are the ones who confess Jesus as the Christ, abide in God, and God in them. Even though we have not seen God, when we love, God is present with us and has given us of His Spirit.

John continues his discussion in 1 John 4:17-18 by establishing that love is made perfect, or complete, within us, so that we have boldness on the day of Judgment, for as God is, we are in the world, and that there can be no fear in love, for this completed love casts out fear. Fear leads to punishment, and those who fear cannot be perfected in love.

John touches upon a significant theme in the Bible: man’s need to not fear. Indeed, God commands people to not fear 365 times in the Bible, making it the most often given command in Scripture. It is evident that fear is a major difficulty for people: fear of rejection, fear of pain, fear of isolation, fear of censure, and so on and so forth. Our failure to do right is most often due to some fear, and much of what is deemed sin stems from some kind of fear. Whereas fear compels people to build barriers, love leads to compassion and understanding (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, Ephesians 2:11-18). Fear leads to trepidation, but love allows one to live and act with boldness (cf. 1 John 4:17).

The Christian, therefore, is encouraged to live in confidence before God: not arrogance or smugness, nor with a sense of entitlement, but because they are seeking to serve God and are in association with Him (Galatians 6:1-3, 1 John 1:5-9). Christians can approach the throne of God with boldness (Hebrews 4:16), and if we are active in our service to God, there is no reason to fear the day of Judgment (cf. Matthew 25:1-13). This does not mean that we should not revere or “fear” God in that way, for we must always show God proper respect (cf. 1 Peter 2:17). Instead, if we love as God is love, we indicate that we are like God in that respect, and fear will not dominate our existence!

John concludes his treatise on love by indicating the source of love: we love because God loved us (1 John 4:19). Those who say that they love God but do not love their brother are liars, for those who cannot love their brother whom they see cannot love God whom they have not seen (1 John 4:20). Therefore, whoever loves God must also love his or her brother (1 John 4:21).

In 1 John 4:10 John indicated that love is not that we have loved God but that He loves us, and verse 19 confirms this thought. God is love, and if God did not want to associate with us, we would not be able to love, for we could not be of God (cf. 1 John 4:7). John says this, at least to an extent, to preface the final thought, addressing those who are confident in their love of God but yet do not reflect that love to their fellow man. As God is the Source of life and all the blessings thereof, we should seek to reflect God and thus to show love!

In 1 John 4:12, John says that no man has ever seen God. He returns to this idea as he concludes the treatise on love to make a most compelling point regarding love. Loving God seems to be an easy thing; after all, God is love (1 John 4:8), God loves us (1 John 4:10), and has given us most precious gifts (1 John 4:9; cf. Ephesians 1:3). As Jesus says, even terrible sinners love those who love them; therefore, for man to love God for all that God has done for him is easy (cf. Matthew 5:46).

But the love that God shows is for everyone, for those who love Him as well as those who reject Him and despise His name (cf. Matthew 5:44-48). He shows His love in that He loved us while we were sinners (Romans 5:5-11). He loves all the people of the world, our neighbors (cf. Luke 10:25-37), and desires for them all to come to repentance (1 Timothy 2:4). Therefore, we must love our neighbor if we really love God, and that is far more difficult, since our neighbor may not like us and may attempt to harm us.

Yet we can see our neighbor. We live with him on a daily basis. If we cannot have love in our hearts for him, how can we love the God we cannot see with our eyes? It is good for us to love our neighbor, for in the end, God is love, has demonstrated His love to the righteous and the sinful through His Son, and calls upon us to reflect His love. Let us love one another!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Treatise on Love Concludes | 1 John 4:17-21 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Sweet Light of Life

Light is sweet, and it is pleasant for a person to see the sun. So, if a man lives many years, let him rejoice in them all, but let him remember that the days of darkness will be many – all that is about to come is obscure. Rejoice, young man, while you are young, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Follow the impulses of your heart and the desires of your eyes, but know that God will judge your motives and actions. Banish emotional stress from your mind. and put away pain from your body; for youth and the prime of life are fleeting (Ecclesiastes 11:7-10).

Life under the sun will not endure forever. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Throughout Ecclesiastes 1:1-11:6 the Preacher meditated upon the hevel of life under the sun: all is vain, futile – truly absurd. He compares most human endeavors toward meaning as “chasing after wind”: people pursue pleasure, wealth, wisdom, or other things looking for ultimate purpose and satisfaction and will be disappointed and frustrated by all of them. To rage against such truths is itself futile and striving after wind. God understands better than we do, and His work and ways are inscrutable to us.

The Preacher began to conclude his discourse in Ecclesiastes 11:7-10, and in so doing more of his intentions with his meditations become apparent.

The Preacher commended enjoying life: he commended light as sweet, the latter term often used in association with honey, perhaps suggesting savoring the experience of life in light; he commended the experience of seeing the sun (Ecclesiastes 11:7). We should not imagine the Preacher is recommending looking at the sun and thus going blind; instead, he evokes the experience of being outside on a sunny day. Have you ever stood outside on a sunny day and felt more energized, vitalized, and alive? Such is what the Preacher commends.

Since life should thus be enjoyed, the Preacher further commended rejoicing in the years one is able to live (Ecclesiastes 11:8). The Preacher specifically called out those who are able to live for many years; as people get older, they have a tendency to focus on the challenges and problems which attend to life, and it is a good to be reminded how life remains a gift which is to be enjoyed. Soon enough the Preacher will present his observations on the aging process (cf. Ecclesiastes 12:1-8). While people should enjoy life, they also do well to remember the days of darkness which will soon come will be many, and all which is about to take place is hevel (Ecclesiastes 11:8). While hevel has been often translated as “futile” or “absurd,” the Preacher’s nuance here is well captured by the NET with “obscure”: none of us really knows what we will experience in these “days of darkness” to come. Some wish to consider the “days of darkness” as perhaps including the experience of aging; while some of the Preacher’s illustrations to come in Ecclesiastes 12:1-8 might commend this characterization, it nevertheless stands against what the Preacher has just said about life and the contrast being evoked. The “days of darkness” are those in which there is no ability to experience the light of the sun and the light of life; they represent the time after death.

The Preacher then provided specific counsel to the young: rejoice, let your heart cheer you, set aside physical and emotional pain, since youth and the prime of life do not last very long (Ecclesiastes 11:9-10). He encouraged the youth to pursue their desires while reminding them God would judge them for how they thought, felt, and behaved (Ecclesiastes 11:9).

Is the Preacher commending some kind of hedonism? Does he stand at variance with the wisdom tradition in general, and especially that which has been preserved in Proverbs? By no means. The Preacher warned about the judgment of God; Solomon in Proverbs commends finding joy and pleasure in life (cf. Proverbs 10:24, 11:23, 13:19, 17:22). If anything, hedonism would work against truly enjoying and valuing the experience of youth: a lot of foolishness goes along with hedonistic experiences, and the consequences of such foolish behaviors work against joy.

Instead, the Preacher provides appropriate encouragement to young people to enjoy their youth. Just like it can be difficult for older people to remember the joy and pleasure of life, young people tend to take the experience of youth for granted. This tendency is understandable: most young people have no experience regarding what it is like to go through the challenges, limitations, and weaknesses which generally attend to older age. We do not truly appreciate how well our bodies are able to function until we experience the loss or complications of those functions. Furthermore, while in our youth we are convinced we are very busy, tired, and have many reasons for anxiety, in truth our burdens and difficulties multiply with greater significance in age. As we get older we often wish we could return to what we thought was being “busy,” “tired,” and “anxious” when we were younger!

In this spirit the Preacher encouraged young people to “follow their dreams,” as we would put it. As we get older, we have a tendency to look down patronizingly at what we often call the “idiocy” of youth; we can point to a lack of full brain development and maturity to explain all sorts of foolish and stupid things we thought or did when we were younger. Certainly, almost all of us can look back and think of some things we thought, felt, or did when we were younger that we now regret to some degree or another. It does seem unfair how we are called upon to make some of the most significant decisions of our lives when we are least equipped to make them. And yet we do well to sit in and reflect upon how and why God would have made us this way. We can look at our youthful impetus in negative terms negatively as reflecting a lack of full brain development and maturity, or we can look at our youthful impetus and energy positively as not being weighed down and paralyzed by our older, more advanced understanding of things so as to have sufficient imagination and impetus to do things. Yes, there are many things which we do in our youth which we would not do when older: some of those things we should not have done, but many of those things we absolutely should have done!

Our youthful dreams and desires are not all bad; in fact, many times older people are well censured because they have entirely abandoned the spirit and energy which animated their lives and efforts. A lot of times there are things we do when we are young which we would think ourselves out of, or not have sufficient energy for, as we get older.

Therefore, the Preacher’s counsel to youth is robust and worthy of emulation. We should encourage young people to pursue their dreams, to cultivate and share in deep relationships, to commit in marriage and to have children, and to pursue careers which are meaningful and beneficial. We should not impose upon young people all kinds of emotional and mental burdens; life will impose such things upon them soon enough. We are only young once, and it passes before our eyes very soon.

Many consider the Preacher and his meditations in Ecclesiastes to be depressing. Yet, as the beginning of his conclusions in Ecclesiastes 11:7-10 should exemplify for us, the Preacher’s purpose is actually to encourage. Life should be enjoyed; youth should be cherished. They should be cherished and enjoyed because they will not last, and what will come afterward is obscure. If we find Ecclesiastes depressing, it is because we have invested far too much in that which will not endure, and therefore what cannot really sustain and uphold the energy and investment we have put into them. Life on earth is short and ultimately futile; therefore, find ways to enjoy the life you have. Do not put so much investment in the future that you cannot find anything to enjoy in the present. This is not an invitation to folly and immorality: God will judge us all for what we think, feel, and do, and far too many of our difficulties in life come from our foolish behaviors. But in the end, life is a gift; we should make the most of it. We do best when we glorify God as the Giver of life, and strive to obtain the resurrection of life in Jesus His Son!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Sweet Light of Life appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

No True Scotsman

As human beings we seek to understand our world through the perception of our senses and the exercise of our faculties of reason. We like to imagine ourselves as neutral, objective arbiters of what we perceive and in how we reason. And yet we are all finite, limited, and biased to some degree or another; furthermore, as Christians, we must confess how we have all been subjected to sin and death and the corruption present in the creation (Romans 5:12-21, 8:18-22). Thus, not everything we think we perceive is accurate; not all of our thoughts, feelings, and actions are based on well-reasoned principles. Humans prove liable to fallacies: mistaken beliefs which often themselves derive from application of deficient forms of reasoning.

One such fallacy which takes place all too frequently in argumentation and ideological thinking and practice is an appeal to purity, these days best known as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. It received the moniker of “No True Scotsman” from the example given by Antony Flew in his 1966 book God & Philosophy:

In this ungracious move a brash generalization, such as No Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, when faced with falsifying facts, is transformed while you wait into an impotent tautology: if ostensible Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, then this is by itself sufficient to prove them not true Scotsmen (italics original).

Thus the concern has nothing to do with Scottish people per se but exposes the undercurrent of the deep desire to establish the purity of a given category or group. The No True Scotsman fallacy arises out of the desire to uphold a given group of people as superior, either intrinsically or on account of upholding some standard of belief and/or practice. Invariably some example will arise of someone who identifies with that group who thinks or acts in ways which would cast aspersions on the superiority of that group. Such an example should lead to a reconsideration of the original premise: is that particular group of people really superior, or is there an expression of an inappropriate bias or presumption? Yet, in human weakness, the result is often the No True Scotsman fallacy: the attempt is made to find a reason to exclude the contrary example in order to continue to uphold the exalted view of the group. Therefore, the person who committed the infraction is not really a part of and does not really represent the group; after all, no person truly in that group would believe or do such a thing.

The No True Scotsman fallacy also exists at the ideological level. This time it is not upholding a group of people, but a given set of ideas, which some desire to uphold as superior. Invariably some attempt will be made at realizing these ideas, and the result will often prove less than expected or perhaps even desired. Such should lead to a reconsideration of the set of ideas; yet, in human weakness, the attempt will be made to demonstrate how the set of ideas was not actually well put into place. The No True Scotsman fallacy, in the world of ideas, is when people fail the ideology, but the ideology is never seen as failing.

As with all fallacies in logic and reasoning, we find it quite easy to identify situations in which others have fallen prey to the No True Scotsman fallacy, and we imagine we will somehow prove immune to it; or, as Jesus put it, we well perceive the speck in our brother’s eye while remaining ignorant of the beam in our own (Matthew 7:3-4). We do better to try to understand why we are tempted to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy if we will have any hope in resisting it.

Much of what animates the impulse toward the No True Scotsman fallacy comes from the dark place of chauvinism: in our anxieties and fears we are strongly tempted to project an air of strength and superiority which remain completely unjustified on merit. In order to justify “us” against “them,” and particularly why “we” might enjoy privilege or standing which is denied to “them,” “we” must demonstrate why “we” deserve it and “they” do not. The easiest way to make such a justification is to believe “we” are better or superior to “them,” either just by identification in a given ethnicity or geographic location or on account of maintaining a given set of beliefs and/or practices. “We” then invest much in being part of “our” group, and thus become quite invested in the presumption of “our” superiority. Anything which might cast aspersions on “our” superiority would call the entire framework into question; thus it proves easier for “us” to want to find reasons to reject the cause of offense than to reconsider whether “we” are really and truly as awesome and superior as “we” would like to believe.

But not all impulses toward the No True Scotsman fallacy come from such dark places. Humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27); an impetus to uphold holiness and righteousness therefore exists within mankind. It is not a bad thing for human beings to aspire to a high standard of belief and conduct in righteousness and holiness. It is not a bad thing for humans to maintain noble ideals about human thinking and behavior. But human beings, in their finite and corrupt nature, fail at realizing ideals in belief and practice.

The No True Scotsman fallacy thus proves quite tempting in the cognitive dissonance created when the real falls short of the ideal: it allows us to continue to hold onto the ideals without any compunction or reservation. The Idea is always right; it cannot fail, only be failed. The Elect remain unmoved; people just prove they are not part of said Elect.

Examples of the No True Scotsman fallacy can be found in droves in the worlds of culture and politics. The partisan tribe is always pure; anyone who deviates from its orthodoxy is not really a member of the tribe, and any misbehavior is always somehow the responsibility of the other tribe. The social or economic ideology is always correct; supposed evidence to the contrary only really proves how the ideology has not been entirely or fully realized. At times some groups fall prey to the No True Scotsman fallacy more frequently than not; but all groups do so to some degree or another at all times.

The presence of the No True Scotsman fallacy in the Christian faith proves quite pernicious, but is tempting for understandable reasons.

In Christ the people of God are set apart in holiness and to uphold the standard of holiness (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8, 1 Peter 1:13-19). Thoughts, feelings, and actions inconsistent with that standard of holiness are condemned as sinful and transgressive, and the Apostles warned how those who persist in them will be condemned (e.g. Galatians 5:19-21). Paul expected Christians in local congregations to disassociate from those who persisted in transgressive behaviors and to mark those who continually advanced distorted instruction (Romans 16:17-18, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13). John spoke of the “antichrists” in the following way in 1 John 2:18-19:

Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us.

According to the New Testament, therefore, one cannot be a faithful Christian and hold to false teachings and/or practice sinful behaviors. At least some of those who depart from the faith demonstrate in so doing how they never really believed and thus were never really counted among the people of God.

We can therefore understand why it proves so easy to dismiss examples of misbehavior and wrongdoing among those professing Jesus in terms of “No True Christian,” and how Christianity can be perceived as never failing, but only people failing Jesus. In very real senses, it is true that Jesus has not failed and does not fail, but we do fail Him (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:9). It is true that any Christian who is caught up in distorted teachings and/or sinful behaviors is not honoring Jesus as Lord.

In practice, however, “No True Christian” remains the No True Scotsman fallacy because all have sinned and continue to sin, falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8-10). After all, if the standard is absolute faithfulness to the ideal, none of us can be truly Christian, because none of us prove entirely faithful.

Far too often Christians obsess over identifying who is and who is not a Christian based on certain standards; all such endeavors fall prey to the No True Scotsman fallacy. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles commend such an obsession; with one voice they proclaim Jesus as Lord and Judge, and such a prerogative is never given to any of His followers (Matthew 7:1-4, Romans 14:1-13, James 4:11-12). Likewise, Christians blithely dismiss certain historic and contemporary examples of wrongdoing by those professing Jesus by arguing how such thinking and behavior are contrary to the ways of Christ, and thus those who did them were not really Christians: another example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The history of the people of God, Israel according to the flesh and Israel centered in Jesus, exhibit plenty of episodes of distorted thinking and unholy behaviors. God never encouraged a No True Scotsman response; instead, He would have His people recognize the transgressions of the pass and lament them so as not to follow in the same patterns of warped thinking and disobedience (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1-13). Yes, there will be plenty of people who believe they belong to God but will find themselves cast out on the final day (e.g. Matthew 7:21-23); but that decision is made by the Lord Jesus Christ, not His followers. Upon the evidence of two or three witnesses, local congregations should disassociate from Christians who persist unrepentantly in sin (1 Corinthians 5:1-13); in so doing Christians demonstrate a severance of their “horizontal” relationship as fellow Christians while confessing Jesus will ultimately be the judge of such a person regarding their “vertical” relationship with Him.

We are inclined to idealize ourselves as individuals and groups, as well as our ideals and customs. Thus we are ever tempted to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy whenever reality rudely intrudes on our ideals. Ideals are important and can be good and healthy; but we must always recognize how reality is messy and corrupt. As Christians we do well to strive toward ever greater faithfulness to God in Christ through the Spirit, leaving judgment to Jesus and in humility not considering ourselves as greater, superior, or more intrinsically right than anyone else, thus disarming the impetus to the No True Scotsman fallacy. We will all fail Jesus in some way or another; thanks be to God for His grace and mercy lavishly displayed in Christ. May we not presume mercy for ourselves and condemnation for others, lest we find ourselves condemned and mercy given to others; may we instead entrust ourselves fully to God in Christ through the Spirit in humility, displaying love, grace, and mercy, and obtaining life in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post No True Scotsman appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Treatise on Love Continues | 1 John 4:12-16

No man hath beheld God at any time: if we love one another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected in us: hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God. And we know and have believed the love which God hath in us. God is love; and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him (1 John 4:12-16).

John is justly known as the Apostle of love, and 1 John 4:7-21 represents his grand treatise on love. He begins to demonstrate the power and the necessity of love in 1 John 4:7-11. He establishes that we ought to love one another since love is of God and God is love. This love is demonstrated through the sacrifice of Jesus so that we could live to God. Our love for God is based in His love for us, and we should respond by loving one another.

John then continues with what may seem to be an unrelated statement: no one has seen God at any time (1 John 4:12). He has made such a statement in John 1:18 and will take it in a different direction in 1 John 4:20, but what is it doing here in the middle of a treatise on love?

Many questions could be raised. Who did Moses then see on the mountain? With whom did Jacob really fight? What did Isaiah or Ezekiel see? It would seem that on the basis of John’s statement that these men all saw manifestations or representations of God, not God in His true spiritual form (cf. John 4:24). Nevertheless, John’s purpose here is not to delve into the mysteries of how God appears to humans. He wants to emphasize the true nature of our relationship with God. God is love, after all (1 John 4:8), and therefore if we love one another, God abides in us (1 John 4:12). When we love one another, God’s love is perfected, or completed, within us, for we are able to treat our fellow man as God has treated all of us (1 John 4:12).

We then are told of a further confirmation that God abides in us: He has given us of His Spirit (1 John 4:13). John has already indicated as much in 1 John 3:24; why must he mention it again? There may be some who doubt or are unsure that they are loving as God loves, and may question whether they are of God. It is more likely that the gift of the Spirit is a further demonstration of the love of God and a reason for confidence in Him.

This confidence is also inspired by the testimony of John in verse 14: he has seen and bears witness to the fact that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Those who confess this truth, that Jesus is the Son of God, abide in God and God abides in him (1 John 4:15).

The assurance that God abides in/with the believer is a consistent theme throughout 1 John. John has previously spoken of such things to make the contrast between true believers in God and those who have gone astray into false doctrine, especially those following the Gnostic belief systems (1 John 2:24-29, 3:19-24). As before, so also here: it would be foolish to turn John’s statements into absolutes and believe that as long as someone confesses with their lips that Jesus is the Son of God that God definitively abides in them. More is required than just saying that Jesus is the Son of God; one must also keep the commandments (1 John 2:3-6)!

We have seen previously that God abides with those who have heard His Gospel and have His anointing (1 John 2:24, 27), who do not sin (1 John 3:6), and those who keep His commandments (1 John 3:24). To this we now add that God abides with those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 4:15) and also those who abide in love (1 John 4:16).

This returns us to the theme of love. True believers come to know and believe deeply in the love that God has for us and that is present within us (1 John 4:16). Those who do not believe the truths of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection cannot truly understand or trust in that love. Only sacrificial love could motivate God to take on flesh and dwell among us (John 1:14). Only sacrificial love can explain why God would die on the cross for our reconciliation to Him (1 John 4:10). When we begin to understand the great love which God has for us, we will be motivated to believe in the message of the Gospel, declare that belief before others, do what He says, and thus to show the same type of love to others. When we have that kind of love toward our fellow man we demonstrate that even though our eyes may not have seen God, we abide in Him, and He in us. Do we abide in love?

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Treatise on Love Continues | 1 John 4:12-16 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Forgiveness in Psalm 32:1-11

For generations, the Psalms have been considered a wonderful treasure of expressions of faith in life. The Psalms express great emotional depth and metaphorical power, providing color and body to the substance of the faith. This is certainly true for Psalm 32:1-11, a meditation on the power of God’s forgiveness of sin.

The psalm begins with its theme: “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven/whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom YHWH imputeth not iniquity/ and in whose spirit there is no guile” (Psalm 32:1-2). David is pronouncing happiness for the one who no longer bears the burden of his sin because he has confessed it before God and did not hide anything, as the following verses will demonstrate.

David continues by describing how he feels when he recognized his sin and had not yet confessed it. His bones wasted away on account of his internal groaning (Psalm 32:3). The hand of God was upon him strongly (Psalm 32:4a), and his strength (literally, “moisture” or “sap”) was “dried out” as if by the drought of summer (Psalm 32:4b). In order to obtain release, David confesses his sin before God and does not hide anything, and receives the desired forgiveness for his sin (Psalm 32:5).

As a result, David exhorts everyone who is godly to act likewise: to make petition to God when He can be found, and not in the “overflow of great waters” (Psalm 32:6). This would seem to make allusion to the Flood and thus judgment; one should pray to God for forgiveness while His mercy is extended, and not wait until God turns in judgment against them (cf. Isaiah 55:6). For David, God is a hiding place, preserving him from trouble, and delivering him from difficulties (Psalm 32:7).

David then turns to his intended audience, indicating that he would provide instruction and teaching for them (Psalm 32:8). The audience is not to be without understanding, like a horse or a mule, animals that wander if the bit is not in their mouths (Psalm 32:9). These are exhortations for the audience to consider what wisdom will then be expressed: the sorrows of the wicked are many, while the lovingkindness of God surrounds the righteous (Psalm 32:10). The righteous, therefore, should be glad in YHWH and shout for joy (Psalm 32:11).

God is the strength, comfort, and joy of the righteous not because they are without sin, but because they are humble and willing to confess their sins and repent of them. The burden of sin is beyond what any man can bear; it leads to misery and death (cf. Romans 6:23, Psalm 32:10). Both the righteous and the wicked acutely feel the burden of guilt and shame on account of sin. The wicked, for whatever reason, do not humble themselves, admit their guilt, and give up that burden before God, and their misery continues. The righteous are wise enough to recognize their need to humble themselves, confess their sin, and to get rid of their burden. This is all possible because of God’s great love for mankind and His willingness to forgive the sins of any who would come to Him and obey His will (Matthew 6:14-15, 1 Peter 1:22).

Psalm 32:1-11 teaches us the wisdom of God through David: do not bear the heavy burden of sin and lose strength, but be willing to have the faith in God to confess sin and turn from it, and He will forgive, comfort, and strengthen you (cf. 1 John 1:9). God’s hand is heavy upon the sinner, but He will turn and become the joy of those who change their ways. Let us praise God for the ability to obtain the forgiveness of sin through the blood of Jesus His Son and confession of our sin, and shout for joy for salvation in His name!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Forgiveness in Psalm 32:1-11 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Rome

Throughout most of antiquity there would have been little reason to pay attention to the town developing on the Tiber River on what we call the Italian peninsula; it was a small, multicultural yet rowdy settlement on the very periphery of the “civilized world.” And yet from Rome would develop the greatest and most consistent military force the ancient world had yet seen. Rome would consolidate cultural, military, political, and social forms and power, cultivating a “Greco-Roman” way of living which would prove the most advanced and refined until the middle of the nineteenth century. As all roads would lead to Rome, so, apparently, did all of what we know as Western ancient history and culture. Western man remains haunted by the Roman Empire and its fall.

According to its own mythology, Rome was founded on 21 April 753 BCE by Romulus, a descendant of a line of kings whose ultimate origin was Troy, yet who had been abandoned as an infant along with his brother Remus and nurtured by a she-wolf and then a herdsman who found them. This would be contemporaneous with Jeroboam II of Israel and Uzziah of Judah, the last moment of “normalcy” in the ancient Near Eastern world before the advance of the Assyrians. Archaeological evidence suggests a long pattern of occupation on many of the seven hills which would make up Rome throughout the Bronze and Early Iron Ages; however, it does seem the settlements were organized into a coherent city-state at some point in the eighth century BCE.

Rome was founded on seven hills along the Tiber River in the area known as Latium; it lay around 30 kilometers inland from the Mediterranean Sea in the middle of the Italian peninsula. The Etruscans had developed a robust and flowering civilization to the immediate north of Rome; not far to its south lay the many Greek colonies which later Romans would call Magna Graecia. The Etruscans and the Greeks would prove profoundly important influences on the development of the Roman city-state.

Romulus, according to the legend, became Rome’s first king, welcoming men of all sorts of origins to come and become citizens, and facilitated the kidnapping of local women to serve as their wives. Six kings, of which the last three were believed to be Etruscan, would follow after Romulus; they would establish the contours of Roman religion and law. The Romans believed the seventh king’s son raped the Roman noblewoman Lucretia, who killed herself after having revealed the matter to some of the Roman nobles. In retaliation Lucius Junius Brutus and other noblemen and citizens of Rome rose up and expelled the king, founding the Roman Republic in 509 BCE, which would give rise to the official name of Rome for the rest of antiquity: Senatus Populusque Romanus (SPQR), the Senate and People of Rome. This would be roughly contemporaneous with the days of Darius the Persian and the completion of the building of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. While most historians believe the stories to be purely legendary, what evidence we can find does suggest a transition toward a new form of leadership within a fifty-year period of 509 BCE and the throwing off of the yoke of Etruscan authority.

The Roman Republic would endure for almost 500 years and would remain almost continually at war throughout. The Roman Republic maintained the pretense of representing all of the citizens of Rome; in truth, the various noble families dominated the Senate and two of its members would serve as the annual consuls directing the Senate. During the fifth century BCE the Romans would grow ever stronger in their control over Latium and effectively checked and weakened the power of the Etruscans in their southern domains. Rome was sacked by the Gauls, a Celtic people originally from modern-day France, in 387 BCE, destroying any sort of records which were kept of history before that date. The Romans hastily rebuilt and went on the offensive; after a century, the Romans were masters of central Italy.

The greatest power in the western Mediterranean basin during this period was the Carthaginians, the descendants of Phoenician colonists from Tyre who maintained their stronghold of Carthage in north Africa and developed a maritime empire across the coasts of northern Africa, Spain, and France. The Romans would fight the Carthaginians in a series of three “Punic Wars” from 264 to 146 BCE; despite how Hannibal of Carthage would destroy a couple of Roman armies and threaten the integrity of Rome itself, the Romans would defeat the Carthaginians in each of these Punic Wars, and in so doing destroyed Carthage and eliminated its empire as a going concern.

By the end of the third century BCE, Rome was the master of all of Italy and the southern coast of Spain; by 146 BCE the Romans had become masters of almost all of the Iberian Peninsula, the coast of the Adriatic Sea, Greece, and parts of western Asia Minor. Yet all was not well among the Senate and People of Rome: class-based conflicts continually came to the fore, and many among the elite perceived a great way forward in obtaining power and influence by advancing a populist cause. This would lead to a series of civil wars, power given over to dictators, and two sets of triumvirates governing the city-state and its armies. The generals, dictators, and triumvirs have become historically famous and infamous: Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Julius Caesar, Marc Antony, and Octavian.

Despite the internal discord of the period from 150-27 BCE, Roman armies continued their advance, and the lands of Britain, Gaul (modern-day France), Numidia, much of the Anatolian peninsula, Libya, Egypt, and Syria came under Roman hegemony. The Roman general Pompey intervened in the civil war between the Hasmoneans Hyrcanus and Aristobulus in 63 BCE; he besieged and conquered Jerusalem, and infamously barged into the Most Holy Place of the Second Temple (cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 14). The Romans would rule over Judea by means of proxy kings or governors from 63 BCE until the First Jewish War of 66-70 CE, by a legate of the Roman army until the Second Jewish War of 132-135 CE, was then merged with and made part of Syria Palaestina until 300, and finally divided into three “Palaestinae” provinces by Diocletian around 300.

Octavian, Julius Caesar’s grand-nephew, would be the last man standing after all of the civil conflicts; he would declare himself as princeps, or the first among the Senate and People of Rome, in an attempt to make his imperial designs more palatable. Whereas representatives of the Roman Republic had assassinated his great-uncle Julius Caesar for considering becoming dictator for life, the civil wars had exhausted the Senate and People of Rome, and Octavian would become known as Augustus, the first Roman Emperor, and the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire in 27 BCE. Augustus would consolidate the Empire into its most recognizable form, encompassing the whole of the Mediterranean Sea, the Iberian and most of the Anatolian peninsulas, Britain, Gaul to the River Rhine, the Balkan Peninsula, the Levant, Egypt, and the north African seacoast. Later emperors would, at times, add territory in Germany, the lands north of the Balkan Peninsula to the River Danube, and parts of Mesopotamia.

Thus began what the Romans would call the Pax Romana, an overall unprecedented time of peace, stability, and security throughout the Mediterranean world, which would last until the third century CE. The Romans had cultivated skill in engineering, governance, legislation, and the military; the Roman elite had become quite fond of Greek culture and philosophy. The western half of the Roman Empire had never before been organized into a single political entity, and would rarely again see such kind of uniformity; Latin, the language of the Romans, would become pervasive throughout the west. The eastern half of the Roman Empire continued with the Hellenization process as had been playing out ever since Alexander the Great in 332 BCE, and generally spoke Greek; Roman influence was seen primarily in terms of engineering and governance. The pax Romana coincided with what scientists have called the Roman Warm Period, a climactic period from roughly 200 BCE to 200 CE which allowed for greater harvests in the Mediterranean, and thus to feed a larger populace.

The world of the pax Romana is the world of Jesus, the Apostles, and the development of early Christianity. Overall life in the Roman Empire in these days was the “best” it had ever been under any ancient civilization, and modern Western civilizations would not again reach similar levels of quality of life and life expectancy until the early modern period of 1600-1820. Even though the Roman authorities proved at best ambivalent, and at worst outright hostile toward Christians and Christianity, the world they conquered and administered facilitated the spread of the Christian faith. Paul and other early Christians traveled far and wide on Roman roads and could speak to people from Spain to Iraq and from Britain to Egypt in Greek or Latin and be understood. Paul would leverage his privileges and rights as a Roman citizen to avoid certain forms of punishment and make appeal to Caesar, the Emperor himself (cf. Acts 22:23-29, 25:10-12).

On the whole, however, things were not well between the Romans and the peoples of the One True God. The Romans were polytheistic and were more than happy to have its subjects also serve Roma and the genius of the emperor, both past and present, as gods. The Jewish people were given an exemption because of the antiquity of their customs; nevertheless, they continually bristled against what they viewed as Roman imperial oppression, and they rose in revolt against the Romans twice, in the First Jewish War of 66-70 and the Second Jewish War of 132-136. As a result of these wars, along with other conflicts in the provinces, Jerusalem and the Second Temple were destroyed, the Jewish population of Alexandria was decimated, and Jewish people were banned from Jerusalem, which was re-christened Aelia Capitolina and a temple to Zeus built on the Temple Mount. Christians found themselves with even fewer privileges than the Jewish people: while Christians appealed to their heritage in Moses and the prophets, the Romans reckoned Christianity as a novel superstition, since the Christians claimed Jesus was God in the flesh and was crucified and raised from the dead in the days of Tiberius Caesar. From the days of Nero until the days of Diocletian, Christians would endure periodic periods of active persecution, in which the Roman authorities would seek out Christians to destroy their Scriptures and have executed any of them who would not offer sacrifice to the genius of the emperor. Yet even if the Romans were not engaged in an active time of persecution, Christians could at any point be accused before a Roman official and be imprisoned and/or executed, and many Christians would be marginalized from participation in economic and social life throughout the Empire because of their faith.

In the days of Domitian John was given a vision of that which was to come in the book of Revelation. The end of the pax Romana at the end of the second and throughout the third centuries CE provided grotesque fulfillment of what had been seen. The Roman Empire was beset by the Antonine (165-180) and the Cyprianic (249-262) plagues, which are believed to have been smallpox/measles and Ebola or some other hemorrhagic fever, and led to the deaths of significant percentages of the Roman populace. These came at the same time as climactic changes which led to degraded soils and smaller harvests, leading to widespread hunger and famine. Such climactic changes brought the first of the “barbarian invasions”. The Persian Sassanids overtook the Parthians as rulers over Iran and Mesopotamia and inflicted many severe defeats on the Roman army. Politically the period was a mess more often than not, with emperors rising and falling frequently.

It is a testament to what the Romans built that their Empire somehow managed to survive the third century. Diocletian and then Constantine would provide a level of stability to the position of Emperor, and Constantine is famous for having established the Edict of Milan promoting tolerance of the Christian faith, and converting to Christianity himself. Constantine was also justly famous for establishing a new great city in the east, at the Bosphorus channel between the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea, at the point where Europe and Asia meet; the city would become known as Constantinople (modern Istanbul in Turkey).

By the end of the fourth century CE the emperor Theodosius would have Christianity established as the religion of the Roman Empire. For the first time in human history since time immemorial, the One True God was being honored, at least in pretense, more than the pagan gods of the nations; a situation unimaginable in the days of Jesus and the Apostles. But the days of the Roman Empire as it had been were numbered. Theodosius would be the last emperor over the unified Roman Empire of west and east. Within a generation, the western half of the Roman Empire would entirely collapse. Alaric the Visigoth oversaw the sacking of Rome in 410; the western Roman Empire would become divided between the Germanic people known as the Franks, the Goths, the Visigoths, and the Vandals. The last Roman Emperor in Rome, Romulus Augustulus, was set aside by Odoacer in 476.

The eastern Roman Empire, however, would persevere for another millennium. Emperors styling themselves as Roman Emperors ruling over the Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople until 1453 CE. In the sixth century Justinian would re-assert “Roman” rule over Italy and parts of north Africa; he would also oversee major changes to Roman laws and the establishment of the Code of Justinian as well as the building of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. It was also during Justinian’s reign that the bubonic plague spread throughout the Eastern Roman Empire and likely further west, likely killing a third to half of the population, and would return in waves for generations from 541 to around 750.

The bubonic plague, “barbarian” invasions and wars, and various famines and other challenges in the days of Justinian brought an end to the ancient world and inaugurated the medieval one. Almost all of the glory, and even much of the knowledge, of the ancient world would be lost. In the west, the Roman Catholic Church would preserve Roman governance and legal customs and the Latin language; the vast majority of the primary sources we have from the ancient world were preserved by monks in medieval European monasteries. From Latin would develop French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish, and would profoundly shape English through French; many would write treatises in Latin for generations, and knowledge of Latin was expected as part of a classical education until only the past couple of generations.

Indeed, to this very day many remain haunted by the Roman Empire, its glories and its fall. The medieval world of Europe lived in the shadow of the ruins of the Roman Empire and were very cognizant of the comparative decline. Anyone who has ever attempted to exert hegemony over major parts of Europe has done so with the Roman Empire and its Caesars in mind: Charlemagne and the creation of the Holy Roman Empire, which was in truth none of those things, in 800; the kaiser, German for “Caesar,” and the czar/tsar, Russian for “Caesar,” over Germany and Russia; Napoleon; Hitler and Mussolini. To this day the remains of Roman aqueducts, roads, and towns can be found throughout the lands of their former empire. The Romans fascinate us to this day: for instance, only recently have we ascertained some of the ingredients of Roman concrete, and have come to realize their formulation weathers and endures in ways superior to our own.

While Rome may fascinate us, and its fall haunt us, we do well to remember how Rome was “whore Babylon” to early Christians: the ultimate culmination of the great pagan oppressive power, projecting its strength through political and economic means, persecuting the people of God. Thus the Roman Empire was judged and condemned; while the empire was “Christianized” in late antiquity, the Christian religious institutions which it engendered have often been understood in terms of “whore Babylon” as well ever since. Roman armies made deserts and called them “paradise”; the pax Romana came at the end of Roman spears. We do better to come as Christians and bring the grace, mercy, and peace of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, who brought forth that Kingdom through His own death and resurrection. May we honor the Lord Jesus Christ and serve Him in all things!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Rome appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Wisdom in Enterprise

Send your grain overseas, for after many days you will get a return. Divide your merchandise among seven or even eight investments, for you do not know what calamity may happen on earth. If the clouds are full of rain, they will empty themselves on the earth, and whether a tree falls to the south or to the north, the tree will lie wherever it falls. He who watches the wind will not sow, and he who observes the clouds will not reap. Just as you do not know the path of the wind, or how the bones form in the womb of a pregnant woman, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. Sow your seed in the morning, and do not stop working until the evening; for you do not know which activity will succeed – whether this one or that one, or whether both will prosper equally (Ecclesiastes 11:1-6).

As with wisdom, so with enterprise and labor: the Preacher laments their limitations yet still encourages their value.

Throughout Ecclesiastes 1:1-10:20 the Preacher meditated upon the hevel of life under the sun: all is vain, futile – truly absurd. He compares most human endeavors toward meaning as “chasing after wind”: people pursue pleasure, wealth, wisdom, or other things looking for ultimate purpose and satisfaction and will be disappointed and frustrated by all of them. To rage against such truths is itself futile and striving after wind. God understands better than we do.

While the Preacher bitterly lamented the ultimate futility of all human endeavor, such did not mean he found human endeavors of no benefit or value. Thus the Preacher commended human enterprise, and the exercise of wisdom in human enterprise, in Ecclesiastes 11:1-6.

The Preacher literally encouraged one to “cast your bread upon the waters, for you will find it in many days” in Ecclesiastes 11:1. Some have wished to understand this in terms of fishing, but in context it is better understood in terms of commerce. To cast bread upon waters was often used in ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature to refer to sharing in some form or another. Perhaps the sharing was more a matter of mutual aid; thus the Preacher would be encouraging the sharing of grain with others with an understanding one would then receive grain when one was in need. Contextually, however, it is probably best to understand the Preacher speaking of sharing in terms of commerce, as expressed in the NET. In this way the Preacher commended participating in some kind of market economy.

In Ecclesiastes 11:2 the Preacher encouraged giving a “portion” to “seven or eight”; “seven or eight” is idiomatic to express variety in distribution. But a “portion” of what? Many have imagined the Preacher as commending giving benevolence widely, understanding the “portion” as some kind of material benefit. The Preacher would probably not argue with such beneficence, but contextually again the NET is most likely accurate in understanding the “portion” as some kind of investment. To this day any investment manager worth his or her salt will encourage their clients to maintain a diversified portfolio, and for the same reason the Preacher gave: you do not know exactly when, where, or how disaster might strike. Many of us have lived through the bursting of many economic “bubbles” and watched whole sectors of the economy nearly collapse; therefore, we well understand the Preacher’s concerns.

The Preacher then seemed to transition to a new thought with a view to what he had just considered: clouds full of water vapor will rain on the earth, and the tree will lie wherever it falls (Ecclesiastes 11:3). We can make some connection with the calamities which occur on the earth, but the statement would otherwise be baffling on its own. The Preacher carried on with his thought: a person who spends all their time watching the signs of the weather will never sow or reap a crop (Ecclesiastes 11:4). A person may not understand how or where the wind blows, or how a child forms in the womb; likewise a person does not understand God’s works in their making (Ecclesiastes 11:5). Thus the Preacher counseled his audience to sow seed in the morning and work until the evening, for one cannot know which enterprises in which they engage will prove successful or not (Ecclesiastes 11:6).

We can already hear the quibbling objection: ah, but we now do have some understanding about how and where the wind blows and how a child is formed in the womb! Yes, we have come to a better understanding about how various aspects of the creation works.

But for all we have learned about how the creation works, far more remains well beyond our understanding, and will likely always remain beyond our understanding. The premise of the Preacher remains quite valid: we do not know the work of God who does all.

We can apply this wisdom to almost any enterprise. Our economic system is based on a powerful and elaborate financial system which has developed incredible technologies and algorithms to attempt to ascertain how the markets will move; and yet there will still be times, events, and situations which were not well predicted and which lead to the rise and fall of many. Our ability to forecast the weather has significantly improved over the past few generations; and yet storms and temperatures will often change and develop in ways which were not well predicted. Any sports fan can tell you how often there is great variance between the betting odds and the actual result.

But we should not lose sight of the Preacher’s lesson in this premise: we can overthink ourselves out of productive behavior. There is wisdom in forecasting, planning, and even considering possible objections in terms of any kind of enterprise. But at some point, we do well to do the work! We can always come up with enough challenges and objections to decline participation in any given enterprise. But we should work, and maintain some level of diversification in work. Yes, some projects will fail; some for easily foreseen reasons, and others for reasons unimaginable at the beginning. But some projects will not fail; and these will provide for us mentally and financially. Nevertheless, you miss every shot you do not take; an enterprise only in the mind has no hope of success whatsoever.

We can know all earthly efforts are ultimately futile, and we will not know exactly what God is doing or how it will all turn out. And yet we can, and should, exercise wisdom in pursuing our enterprises. We should diversify our investments and our labors. Who knows where we might succeed or fail until we try?

The Preacher reflected wisely regarding life “under the sun.” We may not know how God is working in every particular way on the earth, but we can maintain confidence how God has worked in Christ to reconcile us to Him and to one another. May we thus entrust ourselves to God in Christ and work to glorify Him in all things, and share in eternal life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Wisdom in Enterprise appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

“Re-Baptism”

According to what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit, immersion in water in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sin represents the point at which a believer has put on Christ, is baptized into the Spirit and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, and is reckoned as in Christ (Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:1-11, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27). Since this experience is so fundamental and foundational to growth and development in faith, a lot of significance is attached with such a baptism. For all sorts of reasons, people might be concerned their baptism was not done appropriately and might seek to be immersed again, or to thus seek “re-baptism.” Can, or should, such a one submit to another baptism and get “re-baptized”?

In order to properly consider the question of “re-baptism,” we must first better understand “baptism.” Baptism is a transliteration of the Greek baptizo; in English, according to the Oxford Dictionary, baptism has come to mean “the religious rite of sprinkling water onto a person’s forehead or of immersion in water, symbolizing purification or regeneration and admission to the Christian Church.” The Greek term originally meant “to dip, immerse”; it was well and appropriately used to describe washings of religious purifications, but the term had plenty of “secular” uses as well, including describing laundry and bathing.

The New Testament betrays no understanding of “baptism” as sprinkling or pouring water upon a person; the examples given indicate immersion (e.g. Acts 8:36-39), and Paul’s association between baptism and death and resurrection necessitates immersion over sprinkling or pouring (Romans 6:3-7). “Baptism” by pouring can only first be found in the Didache 7, and even then only in situations in which flowing water could not be found for immersing.

Much of our conversation about “baptism” and “re-baptism” presuppose the English definition in which baptism is a Christian ritual. The Anabaptists, for instance, are thus named because they were condemned for “baptizing again,” insisting on the immersion of believers in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins, since the powers that be in the early modern period would never countenance any questioning of the legitimacy of the sprinkling of infants. When we talk of “re-baptism,” we generally do so because a person has already experienced a Christian ritual that involved getting sprinkled, poured, or immersed in or with water, and now wonder if the experience was truly legitimate or valid.

Yet in the usage of Koine Greek at the time of the New Testament, “baptism” happened all the time. People “baptized” their clothes. People “baptized” themselves for ritual purification, or just as a bath. Such is why Peter’s witness in 1 Peter 3:21 is worth consideration:

And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you – not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We should note well how Peter affirms what baptism is not: the washing off of physical dirt. Peter was not attempting to deny the existence of immersion to cleanse from dirt as a valid and appropriate definition of the Greek baptizo; instead, Peter wished to emphasize how such an immersion would not save them or anyone.

Perhaps this scenario remains entirely hypothetical, but based on 1 Peter 3:21, if a person came forward and desired baptism, and their real intention was to get a bath, they would certainly have accomplished their purpose: they got a bath. Yet that bath would not save them in Christ.

Therefore, not every immersion is the “baptism” which brought a person into Christ. “Baptism,” like almost everything else in the Christian faith, is determined by the purpose and meaning associated with the event by the person who submits to baptism: as Peter put it in 1 Peter 3:21, submitting to immersion as a pledge of a good conscience to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Peter described baptism in Acts 2:38 as immersion in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Jesus had previously commanded the Apostles to go out and baptize believers in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18-20).

Thus, the baptism in which one puts on Christ, is baptized into and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, and is now in Christ is an immersion done in the name of, understood as by the authority of, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and for the purpose of the remission of sins. In baptism a believer makes his or her appeal to God in faith to receive the cleansing from sin which was made possible by Jesus’ death on the cross, and God will faithfully thus reckon them as cleansed from sin (1 Peter 3:21).

Furthermore, the Scriptures consistently speak of the experience of baptism in Jesus as a unique, one-time event. The Scriptures never speak of anyone getting “re-baptized” or “baptized again.” Luke spoke of disciples of John the Baptist who had been baptized “into John” in Acts 19:3-4, but did not say they were “re-baptized” in Acts 19:5:

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Yes, the disciples of John were submitting to a baptismal ritual for a second time, but they had previously been immersed in John’s baptism, which was not the same as the baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Thus these disciples were baptized once into Jesus and had no need for baptism again.

Baptism takes place once because it is the point at which one “dies to sin” and walks in “newness of life” according to Romans 6:1-11. Jesus died to sin and was raised once; Jesus has no need to continually die again and be raised again. Likewise believers can only die to sin and be raised again once by means of baptism; at that point they are in Christ and have put on Christ, and have no need to continually attempt to put on Christ again and again. When Christians sin, the response is not “re-baptism,” but confession of sin and repentance (cf. 1 John 1:7-9).

Therefore, the first question anyone considering a “re-baptism” must ask involves what they experienced as their first “baptism.”

Were they “baptized” as infants by means of sprinkling? If so, is sprinkling immersion? No. Even if sprinkling could be legitimated, does any baby submit to such an experience in faith in God in Christ for the cleansing of their sins? They have committed no sin or fault for which such remission would be required. No baby has therefore ever truly experienced the baptism which brings one into Christ; they have been made wet. Anyone who has experienced sprinkling as a baby should submit to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins. In truth they would not be “baptized again”; they are being baptized into Christ for the first time.

Did they submit to some kind of “baptismal ritual” which involved sprinkling or pouring? Are sprinkling or pouring immersion? Can one “die to sin” and “walk in newness of life” if one has not been really “buried”? Does such a person feel sufficiently confident in what they experienced as truly bringing them into Christ? In such circumstances we would encourage such people to submit to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins; and it would also be baptism into Christ for the first time.

Were they immersed, but immersed because other people were getting immersed, or succumbed to parental pressure, or to join a church, without any regard for believing in Jesus and obtaining the remission of sins? They certainly got immersed; yet, as we have seen, the value of the immersion is dependent on the reason why the person has submitted to it. If a person was immersed for reasons other than the remission of sin, he or she should submit to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins; such also would be baptism into Christ for the first time.

In all such situations, the people involved must be comfortable understanding their previous experiences as “getting wet,” and confident in the reconciliation of their relationship with God and His people as fully inaugurated in the moment when they were immersed in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins.

But what about someone who is concerned they did not really understand what they were doing when they submitted to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins? Or perhaps they second guess themselves and the reasons why they submitted to baptism? Or maybe they are on a pilgrimage or having some kind of religious experience and want to get baptized again?

The significance of baptism testifies to the power of the moment of baptism, and we do well to respect and honor its significance and power. In a very real way, if we submit to baptism over and over again, we diminish the importance and power of baptism. We do not appropriately honor it as a sacred moment in that way.

We can understand baptism as the sign of the new covenant (cf. Colossians 2:11-13): when we are baptized, we obtain full membership in the covenant between God and all mankind in Christ Jesus, and obtain all the blessings which attend to that covenant. A human covenant which provides significant corollaries would be the marriage covenant (cf. Malachi 2:14, Matthew 19:4-6). In this way we can understand getting baptized into Christ in terms of a wedding ceremony: at baptism we enter into the covenant with Christ, just as in a wedding ceremony a man and a woman enter into a covenant of marriage.

Anyone who has been married for any length of time comes to recognize they had no idea to which they were committing themselves when they uttered their wedding vows. Such a lack of understanding, however, does not delegitimate the integrity or the commitment established in those vows. Likewise, anyone who has been a Christian for any length of time comes to recognize they had little idea to which they were committing themselves when they were baptized into Christ. Likewise, that lack of understanding does not delegitimate the integrity of the appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We can also note how Paul wrote to the Romans and explained to them how their baptism was a type of death and resurrection in Romans 6:1-11, and to the Galatians regarding how they put on Christ in baptism in Galatians 3:27. Maybe some of the Roman or Galatian Christians fully understood these concepts and import of their baptism as they experienced it; yet it is quite likely many did not have such an understanding until later, perhaps even learning about it from these very letters. Yet that lack of full understanding did not delegitimate their baptism: their baptism was a type of death and resurrection whether they understood that or not, and they put on Christ whether they understood it or not.

There are likely a few people who have legitimate reasons for questioning whether they were immersed in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin or for some other reason. Yet the majority of those who experience such doubt are likely bedeviled with other forms of anxiety, doubt, or insecurity in their relationship with God. Many such people submit to a “re-baptism,” but the anxieties, doubt, or insecurities remain. They may even get “baptized” few more times!

Anyone who has been immersed in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins has committed themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to cast aspersions on the integrity of that baptism is to cast aspersions on the integrity of their relationship with God in Christ. We can again illustrate the premise with the corollary of marriage: imagine going to a spouse to which you have been “married” for a few years, or even many years, and telling them you have come to wonder if you really meant anything you said in your vows, and you think you need to have another wedding ceremony to make sure the vows are legitimate. How well do you think that would go for you? How would your spouse respond? Would they not justifiably feel quite put out and dishonored? Would they not feel as if you had just delegitimated the entire relationship to that point? Why would such a spouse even want to go through another wedding ceremony with you? What confidence would they have in your commitment to that wedding ceremony, any more or less than the first one?

Thus, if we truly wish to honor the integrity, power, and sanctity of immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin, we must reject any notion of “re-baptism.” True baptism into Christ can only happen once, just like wedding vows only happen once. Perhaps a person went through a Christian ritual, but they were not being immersed in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin as an appeal to God for a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus; such people should submit to baptism, which would become their one baptism into Christ. But once one has thus submitted to baptism into Christ, they are in Christ, and any thought of “re-baptism” would be like thinking of “redoing wedding vows,” and creates as much relational damage between a person and their God and His people as it would between a husband and wife. Growing in understanding of our commitment to God in Christ through the Spirit does not invalidate our commitment; instead, it deepens it. Many who remain anxious about their relationship with God do better to focus on that relationship in confession, lamentation, and repentance rather than seeking “re-baptism,” as would be true for a spouse who is anxious about his or her marital relationship. May we all seek to live our lives to glorify God in Christ through the Spirit, and thus obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post “Re-Baptism” appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Disinformation

What was going on? The situation seemed pretty dire. Exploitation and oppression proved rampant. Government officials worked to suppress any messages which would expose such failures and which worked against the government’s purposes. Yet said officials were perfectly fine with jingoistic celebrations of their favored status and exceptionalism. Unsurprisingly, most of the people gave heed to messages which fit the way they had always seen themselves and their world.

Does this sound like America in the 21st century? It is a description of Judah and Jerusalem in the days leading up to their destruction and devastation at the hands of the Babylonians as recorded by Jeremiah and other prophets.

Christians often wonder why the Israelites never seemed to listen to the prophets. In truth, the Israelites did listen to the prophets–the false prophets. But why would the Israelites give ear to the false prophets and resist the message of the faithful prophets?

The engagement between Jeremiah and Hananiah in Jeremiah 27:1-28:17 can prove instructive for us. YHWH charged Jeremiah to make a wooden yoke and go around proclaiming to the Judahites as well as the envoys from the surrounding nations how YHWH has given power and authority to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and they should all submit to his yoke (Jeremiah 27:1-22). Hananiah then stood up in the Temple and resisted Jeremiah’s message, instead proclaiming YHWH said He would break the power of Nebuchadnezzar, and everyone and everything which Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of Jerusalem would return within two years (Jeremiah 28:1-4).

If you were a Judahite in Jerusalem in 593 BCE, who would you believe? Which of the two prophets provided material aid to the enemy? Which of the two prophets affirmed YHWH as the God of Israel who would defeat the enemies of Israel? Who was proclaiming a message of defeat and doom which seemed unimaginable, and who seemed to proclaim the more theologically “orthodox” message?

Thus the people would have had every reason to believe Hananiah, and so they would. Yet Jeremiah’s message was the one truly from YHWH; what YHWH said through Jeremiah took place. YHWH had not spoken to Hananiah at this moment. But what motivated Hananiah to speak as if He had?

It is possible Hananiah was deceived by some demonic voice. Yet, as a prophet of YHWH, one would imagine Hananiah would have been able to use some discernment in regard to these matters. Hananiah quite likely felt compelled to resist and stand up against the treasonous words and premise of Jeremiah. What Jeremiah was suggesting stood against everything the Judahites believed about themselves and their God. It made much better theological, and national, sense for YHWH to break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar than to expect all nations to submit to Nebuchadnezzar’s yoke. And so Hananiah stood up against Jeremiah. The people were reinforced in their misguided, misplaced confidence that YHWH would never abandon Zion to the enemies of God’s people.

We may no longer speak of proclamations regarding the current state of affairs in terms of prophecy and false prophecy, yet the same tempting, deceptive forces remain as active today as they did over 2600 years ago. Today we speak of it as disinformation.

Disinformation involves false information disseminated with a desire to deceive. Disinformation is also misinformation, but misinformation can also describe inaccurate information which may have been sent out without any attempt to deceive.

Disinformation is a challenge as old as humanity; the serpent in the Garden of Eden was the first purveyor of disinformation (Genesis 3:1-5), and people and powers have been active in its promotion ever since.

One great contrivance of disinformation has taken place in the Western world over the past century in which people convinced themselves they were hearing “objective” and “unbiased” news reports from trusted media and governmental sources. The quest for “objectivity” over the past 250 years in Enlightenment thought may have its noble and praiseworthy ideals, but no human being can ever be truly “objective,” and bias pervades any sort of information distribution. To believe one’s viewpoint is “objective” and “neutral” is a great delusion and lie; the same is true for any other source of information.

Sometimes disinformation is manifest and obvious, both in its substance and motivation. Governments, corporations, and other organizations (yes, even religious organizations) will put out disinformation attempting to hide fault or weakness and projecting strength and confidence. Partisans have motivation to see the worst in their opponents and to suppress anything less than ideal about their own side; therefore, they often put out disinformation maligning their opponents and attempting to silence or suppress unflattering information about their own side.

Yet the most effective disinformation is very much like what the serpent told Eve in the Garden: not entirely accurate and intended to deceive, but sufficiently consistent enough with the truth and the situation the way the person wants to see it as to be easily accepted and believed. The most effective propaganda will trumpet good, positive, and noteworthy things, and perhaps make everything look a little prettier than it really is. Sometimes disinformation is present not by what is said but what is neglected: when some parts of the truth are made known, but others are ignored or suppressed, the presentation becomes warped and distorted, and the overall portrayal proves deceptive.

Disinformation works at its best when those who would receive it express little critical engagement with information or have been actively conditioned to lose trust in any and all sources of information. Such is why the people most active in promoting disinformation tend to project the promotion of disinformation on their ideological opponents or anyone who would critique them: they are always the one pushing the “fake news,” and what is left unstated is the unsubstantiated, and often ridiculously false, claim that they themselves are not promoting “fake news.” We are also seeing a lot more pushing of obvious and manifest disinformation which is never meant to persuade: it is instead an attempt to get people so confused and disoriented as to not know who to trust and to despair of finding any trustworthy source. When someone will not trust anyone, they end up falling for just about anything; note well how often those who claim to be “independent” in their thinking and who resist “trusting anyone” end up believing in a lot of conspiracy theories and difficult to substantiate medical, political, social, and religious claims.

Disinformation is promoted because it “works.” Many have profited handsomely from spreading disinformation. Agents of disinformation have gained significant amounts of cultural, political, and social power, and maintain and reinforce that power by the promotion of disinformation. It is hard not to see the hand of the powers and principalities over this present darkness at work behind the scenes of disinformation, and it certainly is part of the worldly, demonic wisdom at variance against the wisdom from above from God in Christ (cf. James 3:13-18).

Most well-meaning people do not intend to believe or promote disinformation, yet we all find ourselves awash in disinformation. So what can we do?

First and foremost, we cannot imagine we could not fall prey to disinformation; in various ways, we all likely have. We may not have intended to, and we might profess a strong commitment to the truth, but we all have our biases as human beings. We have a natural tendency to want to see the best in what we believe to be good, right, and true, and regarding those with whom we affiliate in that regard. We have a natural tendency to prove more critical of those with whom we believe we maintain strong disagreements.

As with all kinds of faults, we are all far better at seeing the “speck” of how others fall prey to disinformation rather than the “log” of how we might fall prey to it (Matthew 7:3-4). When we see someone else promote or share disinformation, we are strongly tempted to resist it and to marshal evidence and facts in refutation. There might well be good and effective times to promote what is good, right, and true; nevertheless, most people have not reasoned themselves into the viewpoints which are motivating them to share such disinformation, and it will therefore prove challenging to reason them out of it.

Instead, if we are truly concerned about disinformation, we need to prove most wary regarding ourselves and those institutions and people with whom we feel significant alignment and association. After all, as with the Judahites in 593 BCE, so with us: we have frameworks of belief and ideas about the way things are and should be, and we are much more likely to accept information which aligns with those frameworks and ideas than information which complicates or upsets them. We are tempted to see the best in “us” and the worst in “them”; we are more prone to believe whatever makes “us” look good and whatever makes “them” look bad, and have a hard time grappling with things which make “us” look bad and “them” look good.

Thus disinformation works best on us when it aligns with what we already want to believe. Disinformation works well when it highlights what we want to highlight even as it ignores or suppresses anything which would compromise our confidence. Disinformation always wants to focus and highlight on them and their problems and never wants to consider where we might prove deficient. Disinformation will rarely be self-critical.

No human being is able to fully escape their biases; we are all embodied, finite creatures, and we all have our perspectives based upon our education and experiences. But we all can seek to learn from other people to broaden and expand our horizons and alleviate some of the natural limitations of our perspectives. We should be able to prove as critical regarding the claims made which align with our ideas and work to our advantage as we are regarding claims which work against us.

Disinformation works until it no longer does. Jeremiah was vindicated by events which took place seven years after Hananiah’s disinformation. Some “apocalyptic” day, a day of revealing of hearts and minds, will invariably expose people and their disinformation. Unfortunately, purveyors of disinformation know how to continue to distort and twist things so people will continue to believe them. God will expose all such things and people on the day of judgment. We do well, therefore, to resist falling prey to disinformation, and certainly should strive to never promote or share disinformation. We must remember our limitations and focus far more significantly on the kinds of disinformation which we would want to believe rather than the disinformation which continues to entangle those we deem our opponents in their delusions. May we hold firm to Jesus who is the Truth in all things, and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Disinformation appeared first on de Verbo vitae.