Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15)To any modern speaker, of course, you get some early hints that this is not your everyday English. We don't use "needeth." We don't call it "shew." And we wouldn't talk about "dividing" the word of truth. "Oh, no?" No. The word there is a compound Greek word that would be directly translated "correctly dissecting." You can see where "dividing" would come in, but that's clearly not the intent. So more modern translations have accurately rendered it "rightly handling the word of truth." The point is not separating out parts; the point is properly taking it apart to more accurately understand it.
I came across a passage the other day that illustrated the need. It was John the Baptist's declaration concerning Christ. "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29) If we weren't careful ("correctly dissecting"), we could easily come away with the wrong conclusion. How? Well, if you take it in bald, literal form, doesn't this say that Christ ("the Lamb of God") takes away the sin of the world? So, the universalists are right, right? No one is going to Hell because all the sin of all the world is taken away in the Lamb of God. For anyone to pay for sin that is already taken away would be unjust, and we know God doesn't do "unjust." Great! Problem solved!
Of course, any believer will tell you that's not the case. Anyone who reads their Bible will tell you that people do go to Hell. The Scriptures are replete with warnings and declarations of the justice of eternal torment for those who don't have their sins forgiven in Christ, and if everyone falls in the category of "sins forgiven in Christ," such warnings and declarations are pointless. "No green people will go to heaven!" "There are no green people." "So? It's still true." Yes, but it's stupid. So if we are to accurately dissect this word of truth, we need to compare Scripture with Scripture and text with context and figure out what the writer intended to say instead of what it might look like it says without regard to ... God's Word.
This text isn't too hard to grasp if you take the facts into account. First, Scripture is clear that salvation is not universal. (Take, for instance, the neighboring verse of this one that says, "But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God." (John 1:12) Only those who receive Him.) Got it. So this text cannot mean to say everyone gets saved. Clear enough. What then? Well, John was talking to a group of Jews (his disciples and others) pointing out "the Lamb of God." To the Jews, what is understood by the term? This would be the sacrificial lamb, the lamb offered for sin. This lamb is Isaiah's lamb:
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned — every one — to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth. (Isa 53:6-7)The point, then, is the Lamb. That Lamb. And what John did was to call attention to Christ as that Lamb. To the Jewish crowd the lamb would save the Jews. John simply expanded the point. That Lamb -- the Lamb of God -- was God's salvation for the Jews and beyond. This is no a universal claim; it is a denial of a Jews-only salvation. This is not a universal claim; it's a statement of exclusivity. John was saying, "All sin that will be taken away in the whole world for all time is taken away by this Lamb of God. No other." Paul said something similar. "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time." (1 Tim 2:5-6) That doesn't require that He ransom all. That simply requires that He is the only ransom for all who are ransomed. John said something similar in his first epistle. "We have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world." (1 John 4:14) That doesn't require that He save the world; it simply states that everyone in the world who is saved is saved by one Savior -- God's Son. Peter said something similar. "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) One name. Which, of course, brings us around to Jesus. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)
The point in all of this is not the extent of the sin that is covered or the range of salvation. The point is the Savior, the one and only Lamb of God, the only possible way to God. If sin is forgiven, it is forgiven by Christ. If sin is taken away, it is taken away by the Lamb. If we have a Savior, that Savior is the Son of God. No works or beliefs or practices will serve. No animal sacrifices or repentance will accomplish it. If you are Hindu or Buddhist, Muslim or Jewish, no matter who you are there is one Savior, one Lamb, one remedy for sin. That was John's point in the text. And that doesn't contradict anything else in Scripture. The mistake we make? Thinking that it's about us. "That's talking about the extent of forgiveness of sin for us." No, that's about the Lamb of God.
Correctly dissecting the word of truth.
5 comments:
what about Doctrine derived from Negative Inference?
i just learned about this today, so i am a little green on the subject.
It goes something like this, Negative inference is when you read a fact, then assume that the opposite of that fact, is also true. exp we are commanded to repent and be baptized. so is it also true that if someone does not repent and be baptized, they will never be saved?
The negative inference can be either true or false. someone may die on the way to be baptized. someone may have a handicap where they cannot be immersed.
we just don't know the answer until more information is available.
therefore; the negative inference can lead to men making false assumptions, then turn those assumptions into laws.
where the bible speaks we speak. where the bible is silent we are silent.
And that's all i know..
As you pointed out, the negative inference may be true and it may not. Works that way in Scripture and in logic. On your example (repent and be baptized), if we can point to someone who was not, say, baptized but was saved, we can set it all aside. So we take the thief on the cross as an example and the whole point is lost. Since each truth proposition would have to be examined on an individual basis, I'm not sure of the value of the negative inference.
I suppose Negative Inference is best avoided. it's just one more tool in the arsenal of those who's minds have been mis-managed with great skill.
i have seen where an inference has been used to declare that someone can have their names removed from the book of life.
Revelation 22:19, in the King James Version, says, "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."
Inference: You can lose your salvation and be removed from the book of life.
The kind of negative inference that doesn't work.
Although "positive inferences" can be just as wrong. "See? It says that if you do X then you will lose your salvation. Therefore, lots of people can and have lost their salvation." Not necessarily.
Post a Comment