The Lynden Bible Lectures
Letter to the Preachers
Dear Terry and Joe,
I enjoyed my chat with you outside the hall, but I think that it is important that I follow up with some of the support I have found in scripture for some important things that I stated. I trust that, since we already know we have some disagreement as to the identity and nature of God, you might be willing to debate the point with me in a way that allows you the same privilege as I have claimed - ie., time to take the points made away and study them out from scripture.
Firstly, let me set forward why I believe that this topic is of vital importance - again, from my reading of scripture.
I shall list the same verse from three translations - first from the KJV, then from the NASB, and then from the NIV. Let me state here that the differences between translations seem so minimal as to rather emphasize the sovereign guard of scripture by none other than God Himself. You will need to know my basis for use of these versions - ie., the type of translations each is, as follows;
KJV - A very good, but very old-English Idea for Idea translation of mid-dated manuscripts. (based upon the works of Desiderius Erasmus, 1469-1556 - ie., the origin of the “Textus Receptus”)
NASB - The best modern-English Word for Word translation made from the oldest reliable manuscripts. (manuscripts dated 1000 years earlier than those used by Desiderius Erasmus)
NIV - The best modern-English Idea for Idea translation made from the oldest reliable manuscripts.
The Eternal Vitality of the Identity of Jesus Christ According to Jesus:
¥ KJV JOHN 8:24
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. (the word “he” in italics is a word added to the text by the KJV translators - it does not appear in the manuscripts)
¥ NASB JOHN 8:24 “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (the word “He” in italics is not in the manuscripts)
¥ NIV JOHN 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."
Who Did Jesus Claim to be?
¥ John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
If Jesus was saying simply, “Before Abraham was in existence, I was in existence (an astounding claim in itself) why did he not phrase it, “Before Abraham was, I was.” There is rather strong evidence here that Jesus was claiming to be the I AM of Exodus 3:14 - “And God said unto Moses, I AM That I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”
“Then took they up stones to cast at him:” (John 8:59) In complete logical keeping with this interpretation, those who did not believe that Jesus was God, made immediate preparation to administer capital punishment for blasphemy.
¥ JOHN 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus DID indeed claim to be God - the Jews well recognized that fact. According to this verse, they didn’t believe that Jesus is God - they thought that he was a mere man.
It is for precisely that reason that they were piling up stones
to stone him to death -
in keeping with God’s law that required capital punishment for blasphemy -
they, like thousands in more recent times
thought the idea that Jesus is God somehow dishonors God.
You were absolutely iron-literally correct to state that the Apostles did not attempt to prove that Jesus is God. However, to use this fact to discount Jesus as God ignores poor old doubting Thomas. Thomas was a strict empiricist. Thomas NEEDED proof - just like I do.
- When Jesus came into the locked room where they gathered, and having not heard Thomas’ words by any natural means, but offered his wounds and quoted Thomas’ exact words, Thomas bowed and said, “My Lord and my God.”
- What is even more significant here is that Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for worshiping Him as God - Jesus commended Thomas for his belief. Jesus supplied all the proof Thomas needed in order to believe - Jesus also supplied “many infallible proofs” for us.
“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God,” (Hebrews 1:8) The strongest of Biblical evidence for the validity of Jesus’ claim to be God came from the Father Himself.
Unless Jesus and His Father are both liars, lunatics or worse, Jesus is God. The fact that the Bible states that the Father called Jesus “God” is good enough for me - I will not presume the ability to argue that point with the Father.
“If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12)
Do I understand how Jesus and the Father are both the ONE God?
Definitely not!
I cannot even tell you how a caterpillar is at the same time, a butterfly.
Jesus did not say, If you don’t figure out how I am who I am, you will die in your sins. Jesus said, “. . . if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.” We are not required to understand everything in order to be saved. But according to Jesus, there are very specific things that we MUST believe in order to be saved.
Did God die on the cross? Not likely! Any such question would indicate an attempt to understand God from a mere human perspective again - a virtual impossibility. However, scripture states that Jesus was a man. John said, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” (John 1:14). As a man, Jesus had no difficulty in dying on the cross without threatening God’s existence one bit. If one cannot fully comprehend God, one would waste his time trying to figure out what happened to God on the cross - if Jesus is God, it’s of powerful little consequence whether we understand what happened to God on the cross. As you yourselves stated, truth is truth, whether people believe (or understand) it or not. We do not make truth true by our limited mental capabilities.
Please excuse my didactic style - I have no intention to assume authority to become your teacher, but I simply cannot ignore what I believe to be this important. I express my views in love and respect - not out of criticism.
If you are wrong, I do not want to simply turn away from you,
and let you go on carrying a load of penalties to your grave.
I would welcome your response, for if I am wrong, I would hope that you would care enough to correct me - I have no desire to die with the penalty still due for my sins either.
May the One true God open our eyes! One of the opposing sides in this issue is WRONG and in eternal peril, not because I say so, but because Jesus said so!
See you next week.
Gray
Responding Interview with the Preachers
The above letter was given to Terry Wells on February 16, 1996, with a request that both preachers read it and respond the following week (February 23, 1996).
Below is the response made after their "lecture" on Feb 23rd:
¥ Terry - We read your paper.
¥ Gray - Yes?
¥ Terry - Could we get together with you?
¥ Gray - It would have to be at your place.
¥Terry - Ok. You know we don't have a home.
¥ Gray - That's my problem too.
¥ Terry - Maybe at a restaurant or something?
A discussion was arranged at a restaurant. Gray met with Mr. Wells and Mr. Lewis as scheduled. The interview went on for about two hours.
Points of doctrine debated were:
¥ The Deity of Jesus Christ
¥ What is the gospel?
¥ The "vehicle" of salvation, ie., "God's organization," or God the Son
During the debate, Mr. Lewis eventually stated, "In some sense, Jesus is God - he was the son of God - he was the same substance as God. But we don't believe that the Father and Jesus were the same individual. They were separate individuals."
Gray responded that indeed, scripture presented ONE God who is Father, Son AND Holy Spirit. One God who is three distinct persons.
Gray suggested (as a point of consideration) that the view Mr. Lewis had presented, ie., that "in some sense, Jesus is God - he was the same substance as God" be included in their preaching in the future - for the benefit of those listening who do not know that ESSENTIAL Biblical fact.
Mr. Lewis went on to cloud the statement by arguing that people gain a "divine nature" at rebirth - ie., that people at rebirth gain the status of having two natures just like Jesus had. The view in its clouded form is quite heretical - none of thousands of people who claim to be reborn ever raised another from the dead, much less raise themselves from the dead like Jesus did - people seem to stay dead once they get to that state.
Fostering my respect and personal liking for him, Mr. Lewis, took some pains to study his answers to the points made in Gray's letter. He brought his Strong’s Concordance with him to show that "I AM" (actually the word "am" was looked up by Mr. Lewis) could be translated into English to the word "was." First of all, this totally ignores the fact that Jesus said, "Before Abraham WAS . . ." right in the same sentence - Mr. Lewis failed to notice that the Bible translators recognized some difference between the Greek word they translated "was" and the word they translated "I AM" in that same sentence.
Secondly, "I AM" cannot be translated to "was" even in English!
The word "I" is the first personal pronoun denoting a speaker speaking of him/her self. The word "am" is a first person present tense indicative of the word "be." Joined together and capitalized entirely "I AM" denotes the eternal Self speaking of Himself existent in Himself - without causation or dependence upon anything - the "first cause" to use modern philosophical terms.
This is apparently what Jesus claimed of Himself, which goes a long way in explaining how Jesus could claim (of His life), "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."
18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
Were it not for the historic FACT of the resurrection of Jesus, we might well now conclude that Jesus was a lunatic to make such a statement! Interestingly, that very idea was put forward 2000 years ago, by the division among those He said it to - "There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?"
19At these words the Jews were again divided. 20Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"
21But others said, "These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"
And so, it would seem that the same debate occurred again in the restaurant in Lynden, Washington.
In regard to the topic of what the gospel is, Gray presented the Apostle Paul's description given very clearly in
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Mr. Wells opened his Bible and read the entire passage audibly, but Mr. Wells and/or Mr. Lewis made no comment whatsoever regarding the passage. But after a short silence from both ministers, Mr. Wells stated, "We have the four Gospels in the New Testament." Immediately ‘getting the point’, Gray responded that the titles of the canonical books of the Bible cannot be considered as inspired, and therefore, defining the gospel by the book titles is not appropriate. Gray went on to state that the book titles, chapter and verse divisions were not made until long after the original manuscripts were written. It became obvious to Gray that both ministers intended to ignore the Bible verses that clearly define what the gospel is.
The discussion ended with it approaching the topic of the vehicle of salvation. Mr. Lewis again asserted that Jesus had established a ministry and a church, and that he chose to be a part of that. The discussion began to touch on the preachers' topic for their next lecture, "Is there a true church?"
Gray offered the option of continuing debate or leaving off.
Mr. Wells looked at the time and said, "No. We have to leave now. We have a Meeting ...."
