Inerrancy of the Bible

Norman P. Grubb

May-June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?

A. That’s easy to answer: Yes! But there is this recurring problem of definition or more detailed explanation. That is why I don’t really like to get involved in these leading questions which are not framed in biblical terms. We so easily slip into the words and phrases, distractions which Paul several times warned Timothy to avoid. But having been asked the question, here is the answer.

Yes, but the only final inerrancy can be in the Scriptures originally given. And of course we don’t have them. We depend on translations or copies. This may give an excuse, if any want one, to raise questions about inerrancy. I don’t because I seek to be “existentialist.” In other words: Let’s be practical and down-to-earth.

Now I had to come down to earth to the very last word myself, because I had the privilege of spending the Twenties in the Congo, translating the New Testament into the market language of that area of north-eastern Congo, called Bangala. My brother-in-law, Alfred Buxton, had produced the first primer and made a partial translation of New Testament passages. I had time available and gave myself to producing the complete translations (as well as some parts of the Old Testament and Psalms). To do this I used my King James Version and my knowledge of Greek. Because of my years of study at public school and at Cambridge I could take back each phrase to the Greek. By these means I found completely all I needed to produce this translation. (To my joy, since the Congo became independent and adopted the name Zaire, this Bangala dialect, now called Lingala, is the official language of the whole nation, and the translation of the whole Bible has long been completed.)

But my point is that there is certainly sufficient “inerrancy” in our versions for all practical purposes, and in no place is any vital truth in doubt. Certainly there are variant readings and some few passages in question as to their real meaning, but except for linguists or theologians called to explore the most detailed accuracy, we can and do boldly say, “Yes, our Scriptures are inerrant.” And we are wise to concentrate our undivided attention on what the Spirit is saying through the Word, not on questions about the possible accuracy of one word or another. Let the Scriptures be what we hold them to be in our Union Life fellowship, and what Jesus said they are: “spirit and life.” And let us avoid those who remain in the “letter that kills.” Thank God for a totally reliable Scripture, revealing to us a totally reliable Lord Jesus Christ with the Father and Spirit.

www.NormanGrubb.com

Pantheist

Norman P. Grubb

May-June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Are you a Pantheist?

A. Again the answer depends on how we define pantheism. From the Greek I had in my English schooling, I remember that “pan” is the neuter case in Greek for “everything,” and of course theism relates to “Theo” (God).

In that sense it is ridiculous that any reader of a Union Life article could think that we who so totally center all in the Living Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we know the Father by the Spirit, could conceive of God as a thing, or as “everything!” Surely we give no grounds for any such suspicion. Rather we would actually say that by this definition of pantheism, every human not born again is a pantheist. Before we enter into a living relationship with the Father through the Son, our “god” is some kind of “thing,” whether that “thing” is our own fallen selves, or some earthly god, or possibly even our “religion.” All the unredeemed are pantheists, for some thing is god to them, some form of the “everything.”

But some people get nervous and even call us “pantheists” because we do believe in God as Spirit (John 11:24) as the Invisible One manifested by His visible forms (Rom. 1:20), as He who “fills heaven and earth” (Jer. 23:24), and as finally known by His universe as “All in all” (and thus known now by faith in His eternal changelessness). These are the terms commonly used of Him: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He is love, light, power, and thus He must be everywhere. So in those realities we see Him and speak about Him as manifested in all His forms: the “Beyond in the midst,” the transcendent in the Immanent, the Vine expressed through the branches, the Head expressed through the body. The “whole human race lives and moves and has its being in God” (Acts 17:28). The pantheists would see Him as the forms; we see Him in them. We therefore come under the category of being “panentheists,” the all-important little Greek preposition en in that phrase meaning in. He in everything, not He everything.

A simple illustration is our human selves. We as persons are “spirits” contained in our bodies. No one mistakes us for our bodies! But because of our strong emphasis on God being manifested in all His creation, and because we call ourselves “see-throughers” rather than “see-aters,” it is inevitable that some non-understanding people will falsely label us as pantheists. Indeed we are in such union with Him that we are called by Jesus “the light of the world.” But He is that light in our form.

www.NormanGrubb.com

Existentialism

Norman P. Grubb

From the May June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Does Union life Embrace Existentialism?

A. That depends on what we understand by “existentialism”. My understanding comes from Kierkegaard, who was fiercely combating Hegel’s theories of self-improvement as the ultimate goal of the individual. Kierkegaard called him down to earth by saying, “Let’s talk in terms of practical existence, not vague idealism.” And then he proceeded to shock Denmark awake with his two books Either-Or, which exposed not only the basic rottenness of the hedonistic life, but also the so-called morality of the “ethical” life. His conclusion is that “Before God we are all wrong.” He then shows that there can be no human bridge over the gulf of our wrongness which separates us from God, and he introduces the rational “absurdity” of the Infinite God taking finite form in His Son, who makes a sufficient atonement for us. Here is where Kierkegaard made famous the phrase “the leap of faith” (which he borrowed from the philosopher Lessing). For Kierkegaard it is a leap of faith beyond reason, on the authority of God’s word, into our acceptance by God and justification by grace through Jesus Christ. And to this basic “existential” leap of faith, which he would even call the “absurdity of faith” (because it is beyond reason) I thoroughly align myself. Yes, on Kierkegaard’s terms, I am an existentialist.

But since Kierkegaard’s days, other unbelieving philosophers, led by Heidegger and consummated we may say in Jean Paul Sartre, have prostituted the meaning of the leap, saying that it is a leap into anything which we will name as our belief (or Unbelief) and attach ourselves to. Thus Sartre pitifully dies with his leap boldly declared as into death as the end of all. Curiously the present Christian world seems to have caught on to that interpretation of the leap as true existentialism, and thus made it a dirty word to Christians, and some even accuse Kierkegaard of misusing the term. They had best re-read that magnificent interpreter of evangelical faith. I am proud to remain an existentialist of the original brand!

www.NormanGrubb.com

The Exchanged Life - Norman P. Grubb

Norman P. Grubb

Many Victorious Life teachers give a good dishful of Gal.2:20, and many are blessed, but I always knew from the first ‘revelation’ in Congo in 1924 that there was something radical about the “I am crucified” part of our great Gal. 2:20, and I saw but couldn’t put it in clear form, and almost spoke as if we are Christ! So my earlier writings had not got it FULLY CLEAR THAT THE “exchanged life” is not exchanging Christ for self, which is the ‘normal’ teaching, but exchanging Christ for SATAN, and this beautiful created self BUT ONLY AS CONTAINER AND CHOOSER (John 7:17), and then ALL THE REST IS HE, HE, HE, but starting with the false “He” - that VAST, VAST LIE which has “drowned” still most of even the redeemed!

www.NormanGrubb.com

Conqueror Plus One

by Aaron Ireland

Rom 8:31-39

"...in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us..."

More than a conqueror

No matter how great the conquest, the greatest title given to the victor is "conqueror". To conqueror implies that the war is over, and the enemy is defeated. In other words, successive "battles" are won until there emerges a final victor who is known as the "conqueror".

When the conqueror emerges from the war there is no more fighting to be done. There is nothing more to be added to the conquest. To attain greater conquest, would mean starting the war again, which would mean that we cease being the conqueror until the war is won again, at which point we go back to being the conqueror.

In other words, the only way for us to taste something "more" would be to taste defeat. Then we would cease to be the conqueror (ie, become "less" than a conqueror). In warfare, there will always be a winner and a loser ("conqueror" and "conquered"), at the end. The only exception would be in the event that diplomatic resolution leaves both sides equally victorious, in which case there is neither "conqueror" nor "conquered".

Victory through Christ's defeat

So what could it mean to add to conquest? Could it possibly be "conquest through defeat"? Although this seems contradictory, consider the cross, where Christ is "conquered" by the ruling religious and secular leaders of his day, and based on his 'defeatedness', he obtains Victory over sin and death.

In the same way that Caiphas, Herod, and Pilate (and all that they represented) were enemies of Christ, so too are we. We would have been crying out for his crucifixion also, as Jesus had displayed a blatant disregard of human morality (Matt 26:63-65; Mark 14:61-64; Luke 22:67-71; John 18:19-23; religion), democratic choice (John 19:10-11; politics) and curious enquiry (Luke 23:89; science). These attitudes are among the chief causes of indignation when they are directed at us, as they imply that we are corrupt and incompetent, while denying analysis of the evidence, in order to the "de-vilify" our reputation.

Not only that, but Christ's words, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" rub salt in the wounds of his "taunts", as they not only confirm our wrong doing and ignorance but imply that he is both smarter and holier than us. "How dare he claim this? Doesn't he know that 'all men are created equal'?" we cry from every pore of our consciousness. "Even though I'm not perfect, no one is greater than I!!!" This is the war cry of selfishness and it is implied when we object to having of faults revealed. Selfishness is our crime. And this selfishness is what we are charged of and because of this "selfish nature" we share in the guilty of Christ's murder, as accessories. It's charge that shares equal responsibility with the one whose hand took the life of the victim, for without us; there would be no reason for Christ to have died.

Our Conqueror becomes our Advocate

Consider now the contradiction between Christ being both our "condemner" and "intercessor" (v34) in our murder trial where he is also the "victim". Literally, Christ is both "prosecutor" and "defence" in this trial. How can he be both "for" and "against" us at the same time? Wouldn't this create a conflict of interest? Verses 35-37 give us a clue by presenting a woeful situation of us being counted as "lambs for the slaughter, killed all the day long for (His) sake", and then while looking at this lamentable situation, declaring us to be "more than conquerors" with the qualification of this being that we are "in all these things", and all this in response to the question of "Who can separate us from the love Christ?" Even this "answer" raises enough questions to drive one to the brink of insanity. This perplexity shows that are yet to realise the "mind of Christ" that has been "freely given" to us (1 Cor 2:16).

We have to realise that true victory is attained through our own defeat. Christ "condemns" our "selfish nature". Christ also "intercedes" in order to liberate us from that same "selfish nature". Essentially we are being liberated from our own selves. When we begin to grasp this, we can see how "neither death, nor life"...etc can "separate us from the love of God", because all these are God's salvific agents in delivering us from ourselves. In this we can see that it is we who are conquered in Christ's victory, which he has bestowed upon us as a gift. In other words the basis of our victory is in that we have been in our "defeatedness".

Conclusion

To summarise, when my enemy is myself, my defeat becomes my victory, and I am "more than a conqueror" but when self wins, my victory becomes my defeat and I become "more than vanquished".

Mat 16:24-25 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

©2006 Aaron Ireland - Non-commercial (free) distribution is both permitted and encouraged provided this notice appears.

For further information on the themes discussed feel free to email the author at cjakforest@hotmail.com

Righteous Sumission vs Zealous Obedience to Principle

The following thoughts came to me after meditating upon Rom 10, particularly v1-4:

1 Brethren, my heart desire and prayer to God for Israel, is that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knoweldge 3 For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For, Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, unto every body that believeth.

To set the scene for my train of thought, I'll include a number of assumptions that can be made.

Paul, being a pharisee, knew what Isreal considered to be righteous.

Paul had not given up on Israel.

Israel, as a people, were particularly zealous for God.

Rather than trying to find the heart of God, they distilled all the statements of Moses and the Prophets into a detailed list of "dos and don'ts".

Christ's purpose is that people would cease to follow these letter of the Law, and being to operate out of a heart for God.

This is really, baby christian stuff, however, it seems to me that often times, this truth is agreed to with mental assent, but not with lifestyles.

Let me explain. As finite beings, life seems impossible without knowing what we are doing at anytime. We need to know that our deeds are in agreement with a prescribed principle, rather than acting out of the nature that God has placed within us, being cultivated through perpetual communion with God, emanating from regular and consistant quiet times with God.

This "nessesity for principle" can appear to one to be righteousness, while to another, the absense of this "safety net" can appear to be a licence to commit any kind of immoral behaviour. Please understand that I am in no way trying to promote a kind of "until God 'convicts' you of a specific sin, you can disobey scripture". What I am essentially saying is that "obedience" that is spawned from a bregudged heart, is in fact disobedience.

A pass over the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5-7), particularly the beatitudes (Mat 5:3-12), will reveal the priority of the heart attitude over the action. This is not to say that actions are irrelevant, but that internal agreement with God is of higher importance.

Consider Jesus explaining obedience of heart (particularly Mat 5:17,21-22,27-28). We can see this as a "raising of the bar" - It's not enough to control your actions, but you need to control your thoughts. Could it be, that like Israel listening to Moses, in coming to this assumption we are "establishing our own righteousness", rather than coming to a greater dimension of the knowledge of God?

I believe that Christ is saying to us, "The problem isn't that your killing and adultering, but that you want to be a murderer and adulterer." After all, you're not going to do something you really don't want to do. How many are fighting an urge to go out and buy drug and get high while reading this? The next question would be, how many of those that answered "No" to the last question, have ever had a desire to do drugs? Hopefully, the people who answer an ashamed "Yes" to the second question, answer an indignant "No!!"to the first.

For me, being a reformed addict, drugs are no longer an issue, and not their temptation is even on the proverbial menu of sins for my flesh to select. Sure it appears periodically as a "special of the day", but not with the regularity of things like lying, lustful thoughts, anger, and laziness, which are "specialties of the house". To be honest, the only struggle I have with drugs is fighting the urge to look down on addicts as second class citizens.

Does this mean that I desire to be angry, lustfull...etc? Of course not, but reality is, is have not quite developed the desgust with my behaviour that will lead to complusive obedience in these areas. Does that give me licence to fulfill these lust? Of course not. Am I ashamed of my "ever present sin"? Of course. Then why is it there? Mmmmm...can I answer that honestly. Probably not. Is it I don't pray enough? Is it that I don't spend enough time in the Word? These are "real life" issues to be confronted. Do I have the answers? To be honest, not really. I may be able to present alot of hypotheticals, but answers...if I had them, I wouldn't have the problems.

Before people accuse me of absolving people from their God given responsability, let me point toward Eph 2:8-10.

8 For by grace are we saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

From this, we can see a progression:

1. Salvation is by grace alone.
2. The mechanism for receiving this grace is trusting God (faith) as the only one "rich enough" (Rom 10:12) offer this saving grace.
3. Even the actual faith isn't our doing, as it can only be given to us, as God Himself reveals His truth to us (Rom 10:17).
4. Becuse of all this, we can take no credit for our salvation as coming about by our own doing.
5. Once the salvation issue is settled, we display our salvation, by fulfilling His righteous requirements, and obeying His directions.

While this can sound like a "I have faith, you have works" kind of thing, the truth of the matter is, that "good works" are the only logical option for a person. After all, a man who has been made aware of the seriousness of his rebellion against God, by the convicting light of the Holy Spirit, could not in good conscience wilfully rebel against Him again (Mat 18:23-35). Surely it would break his heart at the very thought of dispointing his Saviour that "...loved (him) and gave himself for (him)" (Gal 2:20b).

My one and only point is that there is little point splitting hairs over details of our rebellion against Deity. In the end, it is all disobedience from dishonesty to genocide. Albeit, we commit our sins one at a time, so therefore we must confess them likewise. My heart in explaining the whole obedience to "Principle" vs "Deity", is that splitting hairs over the principles, will inevitably lead to excusing sin.

If we consider ourselves to be "spiritually and morally bankrupt", and that leading to our "mourning" over our personal lack, we will begin to comprehend "meekness", and develope a true "hunger and thirst for righteousness". If after all that, we are not "merciful" toward others, then perhaps the love of God isn't in us. This mercifulness that eminates from an earnest desire for righteousness, is true "purity of heart". Who else would be qualified to be a pure motived "peacemaker", between God and man? Who else will be able to "rejoice and be glad" in the midst of "persecution", but them that have "seen God"?

Am I declaring a "cheap grace" or "legalistic" message here? I'll leave that for you to decide.

The Sin of Speculation

by Aaron Ireland

Mat 6:25-34

v34 - "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Perhaps calling speculation "sin" is a slight overkill. It is not my intention to paint every kind of hypothetical thinking as sinful, but to highlight the notion of the existence of a sinfulness that exhibits itself as distrustful speculation and consider the ramifications of our entertainment of it. These are my own thoughts that I desire to have placed on record in order to open them up to the scrutiny and discernment of the Body of Christ in light of 1 Cor 14:32. I believe that they are both based in scripture and shared by others. In light of this I bring this offering and from here we will begin.

The tendency of fallen man is to lust for knowledge and the center of this lust is the speculation of how things "might be" at the expense of how they "are". It is a kind of fantasy realm of thought which has the potential to elevate boredom while at the same time create a sense of safety as we plan for unseen and potentially dangerous instances as well as dream of preferred futures that may or may not happen. While this may seen innocent, in extreme cases speculation this can lead us to question everything to the point of inducing paranoia. These questions can be crippling to a Christian as they can create doubts in the goodness and mercy of God and can also lead us to lazy from of philosophical entertainment (Acts 17:21).

Questions in themselves are not bad, however it would be wise to be careful of ones that start off with "What if..." and "Why..." Also, we should always be prepared to receive an answer that we won't like and beware of the compulsion to demand an answer for our questions. Often times "silence" will be your answer, although experience says that few can truly appreciate "silent answers". The ability to ask questions are a gift from God, and His tool for leading us into truth.

"The true Christian insists upon stripping things down to the hard core of reality. He wants to know truth as it is: About life. About sin: Whether it is; What it is; How to get rid of his. About his relation to God: both possible and actual. Where he stands with respect to judgement to come. About heaven and about hell" - A.W. Tozer (The Voice of Reason)

Regarding eternal matters, beware of questions that are not answered in scripture.

"If you tell me 'why' 100% of all the people before the Fall sinned, and I'll tell you why 100% of the people after the fall have sinned. And the scripture doesn't tell us 'why', it tells us 'that'. And how much time is wasted on trying to produce 'why's that the scriptures don't give answers to? If the scripture doesn't tell us why, let's not discuss it. Let's stick with what it says." - Paris Reidhead, commenting on St Augustine's doctrine of "Original Sin" (The Right Use of the Law

As we consider our text, we find that we are exhorted to "seek ... first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness", with the promise that "all these things shall be added unto (us)" (Mat 6:33). What are "all these things"? Provision of necessities, viz. Food, Drink and Clothes (v31). Notice also that we are to "behold the fowls of the air" and notice that our "heavenly Father feedeth them" in spite of the fact that they "sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns" (v26). As an extended interpretation, could it be that "perceived necessary explanations" could be included in the list of "all these things"? After all, this is another thing that "the Gentiles seek" (v32) Perhaps God is often waiting for us to allow Him the right to decide the difference between what is a "necessary explanation" and what is not, before He gives it (1 Cor 2:14-16).

Many of us tend to "gather into barns" our own "crops" of opinions, ideas and philosophies, at the expense of memorising scripture itself. And this at the expense of awaiting God's explanation.

"Wherever man attacks the concrete Word of God with the weapon of a principle or idea of God there he has become lord over God." - Dietrich Bonhoffer

So, what's the big deal about "speculation" anyway? Speculation puts words and events into "future" history that don't belong there, out of a fear of what "might be" based on what "could have been" (see Rev 21:8). It could be said that oftentimes the root cause of speculation is the "fear of the unknown" and is evidence of the existance of a distrust of God. Consider this in the light of Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Speculation says, "Imagine if God did..." (Past) Faith says, "Look what God is." (Now) Speculation says, "What about if God does..." (Future) Faith says, "Look at who God is." (Now)

God dwells in the eternal "Now". This may be a little confusing, but here goes. "We" pass through "Now" from the "Future" to reside in the "Past". If I were looking into the future from 200 years ago, you would exist in the future and not yet in the past or present (unless you're really really old). Looking now into the past back from 200 in the future, you would exist in the in the past, but not in the present or future (momentarily putting aside millennial doctrines and the resurrection). God, on the other hand, is present in every moment that can be called "Now" (Rev 1:8) and not only that, He is the exactly the same at everyone of these moments (Jas 1:17). This is why He introduced Himself to Israel as "I AM" as opposed to "I was" or "I will be" (Ex 3:13-14).

Based on this "fact", there is no need to speculate as to what God "might do" as we only have to look at what He "has done" throughout history (as described in Scripture) knowing that He will be consistent with what He has done. Not only that, but we also know that He "does" what He "says He will do" (Heb 6:17-19). Because of these facts, "faith" could be defined as having confidence that what God has "already provided" in the past, will "manifest itself" in the future, in spite of it being "not visible" now, in spite of having "no other proof", than His Word and His Prior Acts (Heb 11:1). Consider our salvation, for example. God provided our salvation in the event of the crucifixion of Christ, before we had even sinned. At a fixed point in time, we appropriate that salvation by repenting of our sin, putting our trust in Christ, being baptised and receiving of the Spirit of Life. There was a point where we didn't "possess" the salvation that was given at Calvary. We made a choice, in our unsaved condition, to believe that God had already provided this salvation, that was not yet manifested in our life, but based solely on a glimpse of his integrity, with no other assurance that we would or had received it until after we had actually received His Spirit (Rom 8:16). That is saving faith (Eph 2:8-9). Either He provides what He said He will provide or we are going to be left looking silly.

How far does His integrity go? Consider now the case of God's threat to wipe out Israel and make Moses into a nation (Ex 32:7-14) to answer this. It would appear that this instance contradicts the integrity of God. God had already promised that the "sceptre shall not depart from Judah" (Gen 49:10) but here He is telling Moses, "let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." Here we have God, as a husband catching his wife in the very act of adultery, reacting to the event of the blatant idolatry of His betrothed Israel with their self-made Golden Calf, which they had even named "Yahweh". In His understandable jilted jealousy, He expresses His desire to not only divorce His people, but to wipe them from the face of the earth, every tribe, including the aforementioned Judah. He then offers to make a new and great nation out of one that did not participate in the idolatry. Now, considering that Moses was of the tribe of Levi, and the sceptre would not depart from Judah, and God for all intents and purposes was about wipe out Judah with the rest of Israel, it would seem that God had painted Himself into a verbal corner. How can these two statements be reconciled while keeping God's integrity intact?

In order to illustrate the answer to this question, I will relate a true story. A family was driving through the country and the children started acting up in the back seat. The father turned around in a fit of rage and roared, "Right! The next kid to make a noise is getting out and walking home!" Suddenly the gravity of his words hit him, and he began to silently pray that they would remain silent so he wouldn't have to follow through with his threat while at the same time retaining his integrity before his children. Thankfully they didn't call his bluff.

Now obviously every illustration breaks down at a point, but consider that God knew Moses and trusted that the heart He'd formed in him over 40 years of tending sheep in the wilderness wouldn't call His bluff. If we reread God's words to Moses, we see that the condition that God attached for Himself to be able to wipe out Israel was for Moses to "let (Him) alone" (see also Is 45:11). In an incredible display of His omnipotence and omniscience God entrusted the validity of His redemptive plan to the decision of one man. And apparently it was in safe hands. In short, he took advantage of an opportunity to display His mercy, maintain His integrity and prove Moses character all at the same time.

So we can see that God is utterly consistent, even when at time He appears erratic. All the more reason to be ever vigilant to distinguish between placing our trust in our "speculations" of what God "might do" and the "facts" of what God "did do" and "is doing", knowing that He is the same "yesterday, today and forever". We can do this by considering where our opinions have their origin, in the light of scripture, out of our vital union with Him (Heb 4:9-13), be they "eternal" or "internal", "heavenly" or "carnal", as opposed to "good" or "evil", "efficient" or "wasteful".

"The man who lives under the sign of the tree of life, cannot know of himself, that which he must know, and which has therefore to be told him (to be explained and interpreted to him). The reality of Divinely given life speaks for itself. The possibility of Divine likeness does not do so. It obviously does not commend itself. Man has to be told specifically and in fact is told that from that tree he must not eat. It's not an opinion. Not an evaluation he makes, he needs to be told, and to receive the word that comes to him, from God, as being the statement of the Lord. This is the relationship that God has wanted to establish, from the first in the garden, that man is not to make his own independent assessments or determinations by the operation of his own mind, which is eating of the wrong tree, but that he recognises that there are things that he can not know." - Karl Barth (as quoted by Art Katz in "Gleanings From The Garden")

Knowledge that may have been beneficial in leading us out of yesterday's defective opinion, may be merely a "lesser deception" compared to the undiluted truth that God is leading us toward. Therefore that same knowledge that helped us I can be toxic to our walk tomorrow.

How then can we be safe from deception? Paul mentions a healthy attitude, "...let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged" (Rom 3:4). In other words if you never allow yourself the luxury of thinking that "any man" has a handle on truth, but always consider the possibility of them being wrong. Be prepared to judge their words in the light of scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17), their behaviour in the light of the "fruit of the Spirit" (Mat 7:15-20; Gal 5:22-24) and the "spirit" of their work (1 John 4:1-6). If we do this, then the possibility that our words and deeds will stand under scrutiny will be greatly increased. [A thorough study of 2 Timothy and 1 John would be most beneficial in this area.]

Note, that it is not my purpose here to turn people into "heresy hunters", but to exhort cautiousness in our choice of who we entrust with our spiritual input. It is possible that God can conceal truth in the most unlikely places, however it is unwise to run with a philosophy that says that "every bush is burning, but only those who take of their shoes will hear the voice from the flames". There are times that the our shoes must be left on in order to "shake the dust off" them (let those who have "ears to hear" these comments hear them). Remember, it is not about how God "can" speak and what He "would" say (speculation), but how He "is" speaking and what He "is" saying (fact).

Bear in mind that you are to judge yourself by the same standard, knowing that you come under the "every man" category also. Even Christ rebuked someone for referring to him as "Good Master" saying "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" (Mat 19:16-17). We all know that the "punch line of this joke" is that Christ is God, but because this young man wasn't privy to this revelation, Christ applied this "eternal standard" which was later to be revealed to us through Paul's epistle (Rom 3:4). Such was his integrity. If Christ would apply this principle to himself, then who among the rest of us under the category of "every man" is exempt from being known as a "liar" apart from where his words are consistent with God's?

Why would people speculate?

Overcaution (Deut 12:32)

Some people form a hypothetical "safety barrier" around that which is clearly presented in Scripture as sin (eg. Gen 3:1-3 - Eve adds "neither shall ye touch" to God's command to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge).

Seduction (2 Tim 3:13)

Some seek to avoid responsibility to obey by rationalising. In reality they are oftentimes deceiving themselves (eg. 1 Sam 15:13-15 - King Saul justifies his allowing Amalekites to survive).

Arrogance (Is 5:20-23)

Some fail to recognise that their "righteousness is as filthy rags" (eg. 2 Sam 6:6-7 - Uzzah touches the ark to steady it, considering his hands to be cleaner than the dirt; Acts 8:18-23 - Simon the sorcerer offers money to receive the Holy Spirit).

Whether by overcaution, seduction or arrogance, speculation tends to result in self preservation. Consider the words of Jesus in Mat 16:24-25, "...If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

Being speculative is like riding a bike with training wheels. As one is starting out, confidence is increased due to increased stability. However, as they get used to riding the bike they find that the training wheels reduce maneuverability. Then as speed is increased the wheels become dangerous as the rider attempts to lean into corners. The same training wheels that helped at the onset, now hinder greatly. This "speculative protection" denies the realisation that there is "no good thing" in human flesh unless God put it there (Rom 7:18). Mankind is in need of "total redemption" and there is nothing that can be added to it (Deut 12:32). Any attempt to do so "adulterates" so "great a salvation".

So what's the answer? First, acknowledge and confess your sin calling it as He calls it (1 John 1:8-10) It's okay to disagree with God's word, if you're prepared to admit that your argument is wrong and choose God's side in your disagreement (Ps 73:25-26). Secondly, remain as humble as a child in the midst of adults (Mat 18:1-4) You don't have all the answers and that's okay because if you did, they'd probably be wrong. Thirdly, see things as they are, as opposed to how they "should be" (Prov 3:7). God knows how things are and doesn't need us to tell Him how "we think" they should be. And lastly, trust the Lord as the only one adequate to guide you through the mess that is this fallen creation, one step at a time (Ps 73:23-24): in thought (Is 55:7-9), word (Mat 10:19-20) and deed(Pr 3:5-6).

In short, in the light of all we have considered "I beseech you ... by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom 12:1-2)

Does this describe you?

"His one purpose is the glory of God. And he's heard Christ say, 'If any man doesn't take up his cross, he cannot be my disciple.' And he's gladly gone with Christ out to the cross. And there he's brought his ego and his ambition and his vanity and his pride and all the things that once motivated him and controlled him to the cross. He has no plan and no purpose but the glory of Christ. This is the one that has heard Christ say, 'If any man does not forsake all he hath, he cannot be my disciple.' He doesn't give a seventh of his time and a tenth of his money. He holds everything as Christ's. All is Christ's." - Paris Reidhead (Agree)

If it is not, then why is that?

Recommended Reading and Listening:

"The Spirit of Truth" (text) Art Katz and Paul Vaulk

"Spirit and Truth Together" (audio) David Pawson

"The Voice of Reason" (audio) A.W Tozer

"The Right Use of the Law" (audio) Paris Reidhead

"The Timelessness of God" (audio) Ian Thomas

"Beyond Categories" (audio) Art Katz

"Gleanings From the Garden" (audio) Art Katz

"Agree" (audio) Paris Reidhead

"Prophetic Reality vs. Fantasy" (audio) Art Katz

"Romans 6 to 8" (text) Norman Grubb

"Apostolic Foundations" (text) Art Katz

"The Normal Christian Life" (text) Watchman Nee

"The Meaning of Life" (audio) Norman Grubb

Most audio listed is available free for download from www.sermonindex.net with few exceptions. If you are experiencing any difficulties locating any of these materials feel free to contact the author at cjakforest@hotmail.com and I will be happy to assist you if I can.

©2006 Aaron Ireland - Non-commercial (free) distribution is both permitted and encouraged provided this notice appears.