The Bible: Difference Between Perfect and Complete

Due to the exchange with a cessationist, i was informed of his reaction and below is my brief rebuttal. So since you do not have all that he wrote, this post would seem a pretty much one sided. I agree. However i thought that what is discussed below might provok you to think some more and maybe discuss it.

Have a nice weekend in Jesus name,
....
I read and i disagree with most of what he said obviously. I'll just take one, 'cause it might take a book to debunks most of what he said.

If i was you, I would be very careful with ambivalent statements like this:

"The chart was just intended to continue our discussion about whether or not the Bible (new testament) is God's completed revelation and therefore is the perfect of I Cor 13:10." - wrote the cessationist.

He is framing you into something that you didn't say. First, there is no equivalency between "the Bible is God's completed revelation" and "the bible is the perfect of 1Co 13:10." someone who has a partial or a portion of the bible such as having a Gedeon New Testament does not have an imperfect thing. The new
testament book is still a perfect revelation of what God want us to know in those writings, even though they do not represent a complete revelation due to the absence of the old testament. So it is incorrect to assume that God's completed revelation is tantamount to what is perfect. Whatever God has revealed
from the start was perfect though not yet complete to form the canon of the scripture.

Actually i even doubt that the New Testament itself has a complete revelation of what God has ever said and will ever say. It is merely complete for our current doctrinal need. Here are three examples of what i mean:

In John 21:25, John tell us in the Gospel that "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen". This point to the reality that not everything that Jesus ever did in this world is recorded. If they were, the scriptures would have been overwhelmingly huge.

2Co 12:3-4 "And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knows); How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." If he heard things that cannot be spoken by a man, that means that we are informed that there is a knowledge he had access to but that he could not tell us. This clearly show again that the Bible contain, certe, the perfect word of God's revelation but not every word that God has ever spoken or will ever speak.

REVELATION 10:4 "And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, 'Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down' ". As you can also see in this text, there was a revelation that only John will ever know; for he was prohibited to write it down and by this making it non accessible to the rest of humanity including the church. These examples are just chosen to present the evidence of what i had just said about our understanding of what the complete revelation or word of God means.

When something is perfect we do not add into it. So it was, during the writings of the old scriptures. Many time, we are informed as we read it, that we should not add or remove because it comes from God. This shows that the Bible itself recognize the difference between that which is pure and perfect and that which
is complete. Man should not add to what God says, only God should. So it was the case from the old testament to the new testament as it is clearly spelled out in the verses below.

Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. "

Deuteronomy 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

Pro 30:5-6 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Rev 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. "

Gal 1:9-12 "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

This last one goes on the same direction that the previous texts. The gospels as we know it, meaning the good news is not from man but it is from Jesus Christ (therefore God). That shows why it shouldn't be changed. It is perfect for its purpose. But as we know it, when Paul wrote that, it was not his last time to
write an epistles hence a scripture. You see the same logic, Moses informed us that nothing should be added or remove and then he wrote again some more few chapters than he said again that what he just wrote should stay unchanged. Then the author of proverbs many century after write many scriptures and tell us that no one should add into them because they are pure (perfect). Then he writes again few more verses. Then many other people kept writing the scriptures as the Lord inspired them. So we see that even in the midst of perfection there is accumulation and growth of scriptural material. This is just to make sure that we do not seduce ourselves in our own thinking believing that perfection means the end of information.


Check My Book here or more here

A Response To A Cessationist - Part II

This is the second part to the previous letter. I forgot to say that this rebuttal happened in February 2011.


A) "Paul may have still been alive when the written New Testament was completed, but I don't know that he was."

Indeed! He doesn't know! He wasn't alive! His epistles are among the earliest manuscript we have about the NT writings.

B) " I don't think Paul's use of the personal pronoun “I” in I Corinthians 13:12b should be taken to mean that he would necessarily be alive when the perfect is come."

The reason he feels the need to try to explain an otherwise clear text, it is because he is looking for something between the text. But as we know, there is nothing between the lines. No, Paul was not talking about the arrival of the Bible, but rather having that perfect understanding like all the saints on the day of resurrection. That is when with the rest of us, we will all be mature in the likeness of our master (Ephesians 4). Jesus said in Luke 6:40: " The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master."

C) "Paul uses the personal pronoun “I” multiple times in Romans 7:14-25, but I think you will agree with me that he is not talking about himself per se, but is just talking about any person's struggle with sin (mind over flesh). The exact same thing is taught in Galatians 5:17 and there he doesn't refer to himself specifically."

No i disagree. He is also talking about himself. And no, he is not talking about the struggle with sin in the sense he talked about it in Chapter 6 of Romans. Rather he talks of his struggle about sin when someone revert to live under the law - the mosaic law that is. Certe, theologians are in both side of the issue but i see no reason that would exclude Paul from having to struggle with some form of sin for after all he admitted himself that he wasn't yet perfect! St. Paul said in Philippians  3:12  "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." And as for Galatians 5:17, i don't see his point. I guess he gave the wrong verse.

I will suggest that he chooses another diagram to illustrate his point and this time, i suggest he makes a comparison between a child both in 1 Co 13:11 and Ephesian 4:14 and maturity or mature man (perfection) both in 1 Cor 13:11 and Ephesian 4:13

Then maybe he will stop looking as darkly as in a glass when he will read this portion of the scripture!


Check My Book here or more here

A Response To A Cessationist - Part I

Last year, i wrote a series of post on a yahoo forum (JC) as a response to some views that i have always found difficult that some intelligent christian who dearly love the lord still uphold those views. Hear it is:
..........                                                         ......                                                        ........             
A good friend of mine sent me a letter from a christian christian who seem to believe that the miraculous act of God through the Spirit has stopped when the Bible was completed. So as i read it, it made me laugh and i thought since it doesn't take any effort whatsoever to refute his view i decided to take a break from my busy schedule and relax in responding to his letters. I want as a disclaimer to mention that i do have a healthy respect of the Bible and that i do use the scripture for my personal life quite intensively and i do also use it when i exhort, teach or evangelize. So whatever you may think while reading my numerous intervention, i am not denigrating the value of the scripture, i am just attacking in deconstructing the evangelical cessationist argument advanced in the letter i read.

 I like evangelical and i learnt a lot from them in the past and i am still learning. But when they come against the move of the Holy Spirit as conceived in the pentecostal/charismatic theology, we depart company. And i have to say that not all evangelical churches have that discomforting view on the Holy Spirit move. Some are quite indistinguishable from their distant cousin: the Pentecostal/charismatic church. I was in such evangelical church this morning. So this ain't an attack to any church but to a view that i guess need to be confronted merely because though it claims to be pro- biblical, they argument is far from it. Sadly!

So enjoy. It comes in three part ... so relax and take it slowly. If any question arises, i'll be delighted to try to comment on them to the best of my ability when i have time.

Cheers and have a great and blessed week in Jesus name, 


A) "As I said to being the study, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for Paul to be telling us when these things are going to stop (1 Cor 13) if they are going to stop at the end of the world “ that would go without saying, all things stop then."

Incorrect! the argument we made was not that all the spiritual gifts will stop at the end of the world but when their ultimate purpose in the body of Christ will be fulfilled, meaning at the perfection of the church, which is not yet the case! Unless, some proof is advanced and shown that the church is already perfect at the perfect stature of Christ (without blemish). (Eph 5:25-27) there are no logical reason to believe that the spiritual gifts such as prophecy and else are no longer active nowadays.

B) "Remember that God's word (the Bible) is called "the perfect law of liberty" in James 1:25.  Thinking about how we knew yesterday the "part" refers to part of the body in Luke 11:36 (because the part and whole will be of the same nature in such a contrast), then by that same reasoning we know the perfect of I Cor 13:10 must refer to the means by which God gives his complete New Testament revelation/law, since the "part" is referring to the means by which God gives his New Testament revelation/law in parts.  A part of a cherry pie comes from a whole cherry pie.  And the means by which God gives his complete New Testament law is the Bible, the written New Testament “as we have it today in our hands."

First of all, James wasn't writing his letter after the completion of the New Testament (N.T). He was writing the christian scripture himself when he wrote about the perfect law of liberty to his audience in his epistle. Hence, he was N0T speaking about the Bible since the New Testament wasn't even completed, nor was the rest of the chapter in his epistle that followed the first chapter were the term 'perfect law' was written. He was speaking of something else than the Bible as we know it today to his readers who apparently knew what that perfect law of liberty was all about, even thought they may have not been able to apply the principle. Secondly, it is just bad scholarship to say that 1 Co 13:10 refers to the mean by which God gives his complete N.T, since the text doesn't even refer to a mean or a mechanism of the NT writings.

C) "First let's look at John chapters 14-16.  Examine 15:16a, 27b, 17:6, 12, 18, 20 and see if you don't agree with me that Jesus is talking about the apostles being guided into all the truth (16:13), not every Christian.  This guiding into all the truth is referring to the inspiration of the New Testament books.  So they would be guided into all the truth in their lifetime; the revealing of God's New Testament law is not an ongoing thing."

Fascinating and hilarious! No, Jesus wasn't just saying that the Holy Spirit was the helper and teacher of the Apostles only and not the rest of the Christian community during the generations to come. And second, it refers to the inspiration of the future scriptures also certainly but not only that. See it this way, there were 12 disciples who received this message from Jesus, but we only have the writings of only three of them, namely, Mathew, Peter and John. So were are the other revelations that came to the other 8 remaining apostles (i left Judas Iscariot out)? If that was just to the 12 apostles before Christ crucifictions, then where is the other truths and revelation from the others? or do we have to assume that they recorded them and it got lost? if that is the case, we certainly have an incomplete revelation of the truth then? Unless one want to argue that only three of them received the Holy Spirit privy teachings, there is no way we can explain the absence of the other apostles writings. And that makes it again weird since the new testament have other writers who weren't from the original 12. So why is their writings part of the NT? Paul, Luc, Jude, Mark, the author of Hebrew and probably James. What on earth were they writing in the New Testament (NT) and why was their writings in the NT?

James who might be another James, not the one of Acts hence not an apostles - but i'll concede and grants him as an apostle just to have fun, which makes the writings of the original apostles of Jesus of John 15-17 on the ratio of 4 to 7 - if James is added! Still not the majority!

D) " The scriptures (written word of God) is intended to make the man of God perfect (complete), throughly furnished unto all good works.  Not the Scripture is given that the man of God may be almost perfect, partially furnished unto most good works (so we need our feelings and extra Biblical revelation)."

Unnecessarily pedantic! This verse of 1 Tim 4:17 doesn't explain how the scripture will make the man of God perfect. The mechanism is explained in Ephesian 4  where it is clearly said that it is those who have the gifts who are the ones who will be used to make the Body of Christ perfect. Simply said, the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists,  the teachers and the Pastors uses the word of God through their respective gifting to perfect the Church of Christ. The scripture can be at time a milk for babies and a solid food for spiritual adults. So it is not self learned! It is learned under the supervision of those who have been called in the ministry! So he missed the point of 1 Tim 4. It is not a counter argument, but a supporting argument to Ephesians 4 and to Ephesian 5:25-27

E) "Consider that Rev 20:12 teaches we are going to be judged by the things written in the books (of the Bible), not by our feelings or supposed modern day revelations."

Incorrect commentary! Judgement will be done in many ways: "Mat 7:2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." .. Even Jesus said that 'by your words you will be judged!' Moreover the book of Revelation did not speak of the Bible since the Bible wasn't even canonized at that time! It happened few centuries later (4th century)! It refers to "the book of this prophecy" (Rev 22:19) meaning the book of Revelation itself, it is in the singular. As for Rev 20:12, one has just to read it to realize that someone has been misreading the scripture. 

Rev 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in THE BOOKS, according to their works.

This verse talks of Books in the plural. And it says that there was one book of life, so among all the 66 books of the bible, which one is the book of life according to your theology? Is it the Gospel of John? or the epistle of Jude? or is it the book or Ruth?


This is why i find this view wanting.

More on that in the next part. Check My Book here or more here.

Is Insemination The Answer For A Single Woman?

Not long ago in a yahoo forum (J.C) where i am a member and a moderator -- i read a question that seemed to fall under an ethic section. Many members of the group tried to give their views. So I decided to also give mine - although it seemed a little different from theirs - this is a euphemism to mean - not at all like their. I hope my post below won't offend you but seriously make you consider the real-life implication.

...


Hello L.,

With reference to your first question ...

1) "Quest ce que vous pensez d'une jeune fille qui a la trentaine et approche la quarantaine et n''a pas encore trouve de mari; elle decide d''avoir une enfant par insemination ;is it wrong?"

Let's first distinguish the insemination by itself as a method of fertilization of a woman uterus and the reason (motif) people look for an insemination .

I find no reason whatsoever to imagine or even think that insemination is a wrong practice or even a sinful act. It has been applied for both married couples and single woman. Matter of fact, the first reported case of artificial insemination by donor occurred in 1884 to a married couple. A Philadelphia professor of
medicine took sperm from his "best looking" student to inseminate an anesthetized woman. The woman was not informed about the procedure, unlike her infertile husband. The case was reported 25 years later in a medical journal. (Wikipedia on the History of insemination).

Now, what about the motif? The example given in the question raise the question of a woman who is still a single woman and feel lonely, and decides to have an insemination so that she can combat that loneliness by the presence of the new child in her life. Here is the rub. Single woman have really had a tough time even through adoption to get a child. Actually, some adoption agencies do insist that a child adoption should only be done by a married couple for the sake of the child psychological balance. This is why even the adoption of a child by an homosexual/lesbian couple have been difficult and combated by child care agencies. So I wouldn't recommend adoption of a child neither to a single woman, even less an artificial insemination. They  are reasons why a child should have a family of at least two for an ideal growth. For it is inappropriate for the child mental health and psychological growth to grow single parented. You see L., my argument rejecting the search for a child by a single woman who just happen to feel bored is not religiously based. It can purely be defended on sociological ground.

As for the fact that she is still single at 40. Well, i'll tell her first that the success of insemination will be as difficult for her at that age as it would be for a normal pregnancy at that same age due to her menopause. Remember that funny biological clock we have been debating with ladies here on J.C early 2010?

Second, I would recommend her to stop listening to most church folks advise on how to get a boyfriend/companion. Jesus will most likely not give her that boyfriend/companion as most Christians keep saying and thinking. She will have to revisit instead her methods and approach with people of the other sex. T. gave us the story of a lady who married this year at 35. Interesting in that account is that the woman did not wait in prayer only for the guy. She emailed him for a coffee. And guess what? He SmSed her later for a meal. The rest as we say is history. The usefulness of prayers came later for the big decision. I'll keep saying that to Christian over and over. There is no special one decided from heaven (save some exceptions) just for you. You make someone your special someone. You are the one who choose. Read the bible please!!!!

2) "I understand what you are saying, but it is so unfair to see a young lady living alone. It is not her fault if she does not find a boyfriend, someone who please her...after all, el n''a pas eu des rapports sexuels. et si elle adoptait, is that wrong aux yeux de Dieu? elle a besoin de compagnie, et cet enfant manquera l''affection dun pere, certes; mais il recevra l'amour d'une mere."

I can imagine you got dissatisfied by most of the reactions. You are right. So was i! Yeah, it is not always her fault. It could also be the fault of the people she has been listening to. Clueless advise most of the time masqueraded as biblical teachings or divine counsels hurts a lot of single folks. What she should do is to stop listening to some clueless religious folks in matters of dating, and start looking at life as it really is. Soon enough by God's grace she'll know what to do and how to do it rightly. For the rest, if she needs a life-long friend, the biblical solution for that is called marriage. Not children. Children come and go. A husband stays to death - ideally.

Hope this has helped. In brief, her solution against loneliness is not artificial insemination. Her solution is to fire her former dating counselors and her modern biblical clueless marriage -mate-matching advisers.

If she does that she will save her soul from a lot of torment!

May the Lord Jesus help her get rid of those 'religious advisers' with whips!

Yours in the Masters' service,
Check My Book here or more here.

Is Jesus against Works and Religion?

After reading this Facebook comments:

Jesus says: “Come to me and find rest!” Religion says: “Get to work!”

It dawned on me that some folks don't really read carefully their Bible. It is very unfortunate. This amount simply to this question, "Does the Bible teach us that Jesus was against Works and Religion?" So below was my two responses to that sentenced. I thought it could help you too.
Check My Book here or more here.
.....

• Careful not to misrepresent Jesus words: “28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my YOKE upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my YOKE is easy and my BURDEN is light.” Matthew11:28-30
  
  Jesus did not promised a yoke-less life or a burden-less life. He clearly said that he will exchange our burden for his burden and yoke. the word yoke here is "zugos" which also means servitude in a sense of a law or an obligation. The word for burden here is "phortion" which also means a task or a service. (eSword Greek and Hebrew biblical dictionary).
  

  about an hour ago · 
• 
  

  Eric Gatera Secondo, religion is not a problem and never was the problem. But the kind of religion people embrace is the problem. Jesus religion is a good religion, it is a pure religion. "Pure RELIGION and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." - James 1:27 - NIV.
  
  The problem with this world these days (last days) is not that people have become religious, but rather that people have become irreligious: "1 Remember that there will be difficult times in the last days.2 People will be selfish, greedy, boastful, and conceited; they will be insulting, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, and IRRELIGIOUS;3 they will be unkind, merciless, slanderers, violent, and fierce; they will hate the good;" 1Timothy3:1-3 - Good News Translation (GNT)

The Meaning of Mathew 9 and 10

I received a question from J.K and it was related with the meaning of two particular chapter of Matthew. I have tried to answer them below. Hopefully you find it also meaning full.

...

Hi J.k,

I received your SmS, but i got caught up in other activities - hence the delay in responding.

For your first question, why this interdiction?

"Mat 10:5  These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 

Mat 10:6  But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

The simple answer is that Jesus had different phase on his mission when he was on earth. The first one was to focus uniquely to the Israelite before his death: "Mat 15:24  But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. " and then the world after his Resurrection: "And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. " Luke 24:46-47 -- St. Paul deals with the reasons of these phases in epistles of Romans from chapter 9 to chapter 11.

2) For your second question,

"Mat 9:14  Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? 

Mat 9:15  And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. 

Mat 9:16  No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. 

Mat 9:17  Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved."

a) The verse 14-15, speaks of the usefulness of fasting. Jesus informed the Pharisees that the fasting was not necessary for his disciples as long as he was with them physically. But that when he will be taken from them after his death and ascension they will have to fast. And we see that happening later in the Book of Acts when the disciples started to follow Jesus recommendation on fasting since now he was no longer physically with them - for he was now gone to the father's presence in his ascension.

"Act 13:1  Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 

Act 13:2  As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 

Act 13:3  And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." 

Fasting became a normal practice in the Church of Jesus Christ when he ascended to the father. But while he was on earth with his disciples, fasting was not required.

b) The verse 16-17, explains that because Jesus was bringing a new way of doing things - the new wine - he couldn't do that with people, namely his disciples - old views of God so long as they had not yet changed sufficiently to bear his new ways and teachings. For a mind which is not disposed to change can suffer tremendously when it is subjected to change. The allegory is based on the phenomenon that a wine that went through a fermentation releases gases that expanded and stretched the wine skin that was used to contain the wine. The container was usually made of animal skin, like a goat skin. So what happened, is that if you wanted to make a new wine, you better should have used a new container because if you used an old and used container, when the new wine would ferment and release gas, the old wine skin would have to stretch again. But since it had already stretched with previous wine to its limit, the new stretching would have burst it and ripped it apart. Leading hence to the loss of the new wine that was put into it. Hence in order to avoid that, a new wine was put in a new wine skin (container). So Jesus uses this illustration to show that in order to practice or receive new things, we need to have new ways of thinking, new predisposition. Otherwise the new things even if good could harm us. Jesus didn't want his disciples to practices fasting in the new covenant the way it was practiced in the old covenant. So he spent first 3 years with them teaching them and changing them before they started practicing it with a new mentality and in a new way. For example, in the new covenant we do not fast in order to receive forgiveness like people did in the Old Testament (ex. of Jonas at Nineveh). In the new covenant, we just trust the blood of Christ to clean us when we confess and repent of our sins (1 john 1:9; 2:1-2). We do not fast for it. So Jesus - the bridegroom - when he was with them was working to change them. When he left them (that is why we are waiting for his return, he is no longer with us as he was before) then the disciples started fasting, but with a new understanding and without using old thinking in the new covenant.

I hope this has helped you J.k.
Check My Book here or more here.