A Filioque Soliloquy

This past Sunday, my pastor preached an excellent message on the Holy Spirit. Obviously, it is impossible to cover this subject in a lifetime, so he was able to merely touch on the subject. In describing our understanding of the third person of the Godhead, he used the Latin term “filioque” and explained it and the history behind it. Later, on a post in Facebook, one of my friends, an Orthodox friend of ours, made a reply to the post and a lengthy debate ensued between my pastor and him. I “laid low” for two reasons: first, I was busy with other items and, second, I made up my mind to write a blog response rather than do “battle” on Facebook. What follows are my humble thoughts on the matter as I read the Scripture. 

What is the Filioque?

The Latin phrase simply means “and the Son”. To see why it plays a role in theology, one must briefly review church history.

During the early centuries of the church, differences arose in the church’s understanding of the person of Christ. Attempting to resolve these differences, several church leaders met at the Council of Nicea in 325. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the adoption of a creed, the final sentence reading, “We believe also in one Spirit.” The Council used Eusebius’ creed as a foundation and developed an official creed which contained one sentence relative to the Spirit: ““(We believe …) And in the Holy Spirit.”

In 381, a Council met at Constantinople to affirm Nicea as well as address other disputes within Christianity. The creed adopted at Nicea was updated, especially relative to the Holy Spirit. This modified creed (the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed) expanded the description of the Spirit. This expansion read,

 “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceedeth from the Father, who with Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spake through the prophets:”

It is this creed which is known today as The Nicene Creed. It was officially approved at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

A regional council (not an ecumenical one) meeting in Toledo in Spain in 589 inserted a phrase into this Nicene Creed, modifying the sentence above. The statement on the Holy Spirit now read:

“And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spake through the prophets:”

This phrase was adopted by the Church in the western part of the Empire but not in the east. Divisions continued to grow between the western and eastern Churches, especially when it came to papal authority. The two bodies divided in 1054 and the “filioque” in the creed was never adopted by the Eastern Church. It remains one of the dividing points between the two groups even today.

So, What Are We Talking About Anyway?

This subject has to do with the nature of our God and the internal relationships of the Trinity. Clearly, this is a deep subject for we will never fully comprehend the nature of our Creator. From our study of Scripture, we do know:

1. Our God is ONE being.

2. Our God eternally exists in THREE persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3. Each person is fully God, but each person is distinct (i.e., the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, etc.).

But why is the Father known as the Father and the Son as the Son if both are equal in essence and eternal in existence? Scripture often refers to the Son as the “only begotten of the Father”, a phrase which has been misunderstood at times in church history. Some believed this phrase meant Christ was created by the Father, that there was a time when He did not exist. But, that is not what is intended. In some way we will never comprehend, the person of God the Father eternally begets the Son. Theologians speak of the Father “generating” the Son who is, therefore, “begotten”. Again, this is a timeless act. Father and Son have eternally existed in this manner. The Father actively generates the second person of the Godhead and the result is eternal filiation.

But, what about the Spirit? Ah, here is where the filioque phrase enters the discussion. Again, Scripture never refers to the Spirit as “begotten”. He is “the Spirit”, not another “Son”. So, there is a different action involved with the “eternal formation” of the Spirit than with the “eternal generation” of the Son. Theologians usually refer to the action as “spiration” and the result as “procession”. God actively and eternally “spirates” the Spirit and the result is “eternal procession”.

Originally, the Nicene Creed indicated this procession was from the Father and the Father only. God the Father spirates the Spirit, hence, the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. But, the Western Church (including Protestants), have adopted the modified creed which has the filioque phrase. We understand Scripture to teach that the Spirit proceeds not just from the Father but also from the Son.

Remember, these acts (generation and spiration) are NOT creative acts.  They are not temporal and transient but eternal and unceasing.

Where is This Stuff in the Bible?

When one does theology (as you do when you open the Word), one must attempt to gather all relevant passages on a given subject before formulating a belief on that subject. There is some Scripture dealing with the issue of “eternal procession”.

John 15:26 – But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

This is the only verse which claims the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father. Clearly, that’s what it teaches! This verse is the reason the phrase appears in the Creed. But, note also, there is no mention here that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son. So, is the “filioque” incorrect? Does the Spirit only proceed from the Father?

Despite being charged of having adopted the theology of Rome (never been a Roman Catholic), I believe the Scripture supports the filioque phrase. I believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Here are some of my reasons for this position.

1. The words rendered “proceedeth from” above are two simple Greek words, one a preposition and the other a compound verb. “From” is the preposition “para” meaning “alongside” or “away from”. “Proceedeth” is the verb “ekporeuomai”, which consists of the preposition “ek” meaning “out of” and “poreuomai” meaning “to go”. So, you could translate the clause as “which goes out of away from the Father”.

I should also note the verb employed implies a continuous action. The Spirit is going out away from the Father. It is an on-going, not one-time action.

2. In that same verse (and the one below), Jesus teaches He (the Son) will send the Spirit. When you send someone, they “go away from” you.

John 16:7 – It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

3. The Bible also teaches us the Father sends the Spirit.

John 14:26 – But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you.

Someone will point out that “send” in these verses is not a continuous action and they are correct. Both the Father and the Son “will” (future at the time spoken) send the Spirit.

4. Jesus also says the Spirit receives from Him.

John 16:14,15 – He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.

In each verse, the phrase “of mine” is literally “out (ek) of me”.

5. The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son. Logically to my mind, how can He be the Spirit of both the first and second persons of the Godhead unless both are involved in some way with His Being? How is the preposition “of” (“Spirit of God”, “Spirit of His Son”) in these phrases to be understood?

Rom. 8:9 -But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Ga. 4:6 – And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your heats, crying, Abba, Father

Phil. 1:19 – For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

6. Finally, simple terminology seems to dictate the necessity of the filioque. The second Person is the Son because He is eternally generated (begotten) by the first person, the Father. But, if the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, why would He not also be called a Son? Furthermore, the Son does not generate the Spirit, or the Spirit could be called a “Grandson” to the Father. I realize this all seems a bit silly (and perhaps it is), but I believe the fact the third person is known as the Spirit (“breath”) gives some support for the idea He is the “breath” of both Father and Son. Therefore, He proceeds from both.

Does It Really Matter?

Well, yes and no. Since there is some revelation in the Word on the subject, we are bound as followers of Christ and servants of God to try to understand all we can about the nature and being of our Creator. But, we must also remember that the internal “makeup” of the Godhead is a mystery we will never fully comprehend.  

The Eastern Church (and my Orthodox friend) do have a couple of points in their favor for NOT including the filioque phrase.

1. As I noted above, the only verse in the Bible which talks about the Spirit procession is John 15:26 and it only mentions the Father. And, of course, the procession is described as a continuous activity.

2. NO ECUMENICAL CHURCH COUNCIL ever decided on the addition of the phrase. Personally, I do not care what such councils adopt if they are not in alignment with God’s Word.

Nevertheless, I believe the Western Church has the correct understanding. The Father eternally generates the Son. And the Father and the Son eternally spirate the Spirit. He proceeds from both. As noted in paragraph 3 of the London Baptist Confession of 1689 affirms the filioque.

“In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on Him.”

In conclusion, I believe the Spirit indeed eternally proceeds from both Father and Son. Yet, in the end, I can worship with any believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they accept the filioque or not.

"Meme Theme"

Suddenly appearing on my Facebook page the other day was this meme. Clearly, it is attacking the Reformed understanding of "sola Scriptura". The creator believes he is cleaver, using a text from 2 Thessalonians to "prove" the use of "traditions" in Christianity. I had a difficult time restraining my laughter!

The text is a rendering of 2 Thessalonians 2:15. The King James translators gave us the following:

"Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15; KJV). 

The word translated "traditions" is the Greek "paradosis" meaning "handing over" or "handing down". That very much defines a "tradition". Most of the New Testament translations use "tradition". The problem is the meme creator misunderstands what is meant IN THIS CONTEXT by the word.

If I may, permit me to begin with a brief look at the New Testament usage of the word. It is found a mere thirteen times in the original manuscripts. Here's a list:

Matthew 15:2, 3, 6 - "tradition of the elders"; used by the Pharisees in questioning the behavior of Jesus' disciples and Jesus' responses. Note, for example, his response in verse 3.

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"

The Pharisees thought the traditions (not the Scripture) passed down from their ancestors was on par with God's Word. Jesus tells them otherwise.

Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13 - The Mark passage is another description of the same event recorded in Matthew. Note here, the strong rebuke of Jesus found in verses 8 and 9.

"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. ... Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

Again, the Pharisees love to keep ALL the rules found in the TRADITIONS passed down by their ancestors. For them, they are equal in authority to (or even supercede) the Scripture. Jesus says that is not the case.

So, in the only usage in the Gospels, the word is used negatively by Christ. Now on to the epistles.

1 Corinthians 11:2 - "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

Many of the more recent translations translate "ordinances" as "traditions" for it is the same word as found in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Important to observe in this verse is it is Paul who delivered these ordinances/traditions. The Apostle to the Gentiles has taught them to the Corinthians while with them and now calls on them to obey what HE taught.

Galatians 1:14 - Paul describes his former self as one "exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers." Again, this is a negative usage.

Colossians 2:8 - "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Another negative use of the concept of tradition.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - here we have the passage from the meme.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 - "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."

Again, we see a positive use of the word. But, as I noted in the 1 Corinthians passage, the Thessalonians were to walk after the tradition "which he received OF US", i.e., from Paul.

The context of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 clearly indicates that the traditions in question are those which have been taught by Paul and the other Apostles. Nothing is said here about early church fathers, religious leaders, or even Protestant Reformers. I believe verse 5 of this chapter indicates these are the traditions to which Paul refers.

In verse 15, though, Paul says "the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." What does he mean by this?

First, to repeat, "traditions" refers to what the Apostles taught, not what other men taught throughout church history.

Second, these "traditions" have been taught to the Thessalonians. They learned them from Paul himself when he was in Thessalonica on the second missionary journey (per v. 5; see Acts 17).

Third, how were they taught these traditions? Paul says "by word" or "by our epistle". The latter is easy to understand. Surely the epistle to which Paul is referring is his first letter to that church. In it, he sought to clarify misunderstandings those new Christians had on what they had learned from him. This second letter is a further attempt to provide clarification. But, what does he mean by "word"?

2 Thessalonians was penned around A.D. 52, about 20 years after the resurrection. At the time Paul wrote it, he was in Corinth on his second journey. 1 Thessalonians was the first of the New Testament books written by Paul; this one was the second. It is very probable that only one other book of the New Testament canon existed when Paul picked up his pen to compose this letter and that was the book of James.

Historically, then, the teachings of Christ, who He was, what He did, and what His work means to the believer, had yet to be recorded on paper. They were spread orally by the Apostles such as Paul. In other words, they were taught "by word". Such teaching is the oral tradition of Christianity. Those sent out by Christ repeated the Gospel wherever they went.

Ultimately, the words of the message were recorded in letters such as this. The revelation of God was completed. There was no further use of oral tradition in the same sense.

Some organizations, such as the one to which I assume the meme creator belongs, believes church tradition bears equal weight with the Scripture. If I may quote from one web site:

"... it can be seen that there is no theological distinctions or differences or divisions within the Tradition of the Church. It could be said that Tradition, as an historical event, begins with the Apostolic preaching and is found in Scriptures, but it is kept, treasured, interpreted, and explained to the Church by the Holy Fathers, the successors of the Apostles. Using the Greek term Pateres tes Ecclesias, the Fathers of the Church, this "interpretive" part of the Apostolic preaching is called "Patristic Tradition."

Has the author of these words READ the church fathers? No theological distinctions or differences or divisions? Well, that is not what I see when I read the church fathers. Allow me to continue the quote from the site:

"The Fathers, men of extraordinary holiness and trusted orthodoxy in doctrine, enjoyed the acceptance and respect of the universal Church by witnessing the message of the Gospel, living and explaining it to posterity. Thus, Apostolic Preaching or Tradition is organically associated with the Patristic Tradition and vice versa. This point must be stressed since many theologians in the Western churches either distinguish between Apostolic Tradition and Patristic Tradition, or completely reject Patristic Tradition. ... there is one Tradition, the Tradition of the Church, incorporating the Scriptures and the teaching of the Fathers."

Well, there it is. Tradition is placed on equal footing with the Word of God. No wonder many in the West make such distinctions and/or reject Tradition!

By the way, which men are these who are considered to have "extraordinary holiness" and "trusted orthodoxy"? Who are they who "enjoyed the acceptance and respect of the universal Church?" Again I ask, have you read early church history?

How were these men chosen and considered to be the church fathers? I doubt if ALL early Christian leaders are included in this group. There had to be a picking and choosing of whom to include. Which church fathers make up the Patristic Tradition? Who had the "authority" to make such decisions?

By the way, if a specific father, for example Augustine, is part of this Patristic Tradition, is everything he said and wrote part of that tradition? If not, who had the "authority" to decide what to include and what to omit? Furthermore, is this "Patristic Tradition" limited to the second century? Third century? Fourth century? Why not the sixteenth century? Oh, oh! Protestant Reformation time!

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Paul has no such tradition in mind when he wrote 2 Thessalonians. Wouldn't it be more proper to refer to this Patristic Tradition as the "traditions of elders" or "traditions of men?" Ouch! Recall Colossians 2:8, please, along with Jesus' rebuke of the use of such tradition.

When you set any tradition on the scale of authority opposite the Scripture and claim they are equal, you have an authority. Which of the two becomes your final arbiter in spiritual matters? No, tradition equal to the Scripture in terms of authority does not work.

Enter sola Scriptura! The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from the scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." AMEN!

The Reformed teaching of sola Scriptura is concerned with the sufficiency of Scripture. We believe Scripture, and only Scripture, is our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. All truth required for our salvation and spiritual life is found in the Scripture either explicitly or implicitly.  This teaching does not claim everything taught by Jesus or His apostles was preserved in the Word but it does mean everything God requires is given to us in His Word. Our consciences are, indeed, captive to the Word. We may not add or subtract from it.

It is Scripture and only Scripture that is our perfect standard of spiritual truth. God's Word reveals what is necessary for our salvation and for glorifying Him.

Nothing further needs to be said about the "Mean Theme so Extreme it is out of the Mainstream"!

The GOSPEL

Last evening, my pastor began an evangelism training class. I was pleasantly surprised by the number of members who were there and grateful for their interest and enthusiasm for the subject. Of course, having been born again for over forty years and having served as a pastor for over ten of those years, I have encountered a variety of evangelism training courses. Some of them have been very good and quite rewarding. Others, though, have left much to be desired.

Through experience, I have learned evangelism is best learned by just doing it! Find an opportunity (and they are abundant) to present the gospel to a lost individual and do so. Each situation is different, demanding its own unique approach. There are, however, certain facets of evangelism which never change. The principal one of these is the message you share.

In our opening session, the pastor asked the key question: "What is the Gospel?" No one can properly share the gospel if they don't know what it is! The class discussion was very interesting. It was clear those present have a good grasp of the key facts which comprise the gospel.  Now, how to present them is sometimes the challenge.

Having taught Old and New Testament History at the local Baptist university many, many times, presenting the gospel has been, for me, a requirement. Usually, when I ask my students the same question we were asked last evening, the answer I most often receive is "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John"! While they are correct in one sense, they have missed the true question. Often, their incorrect answer is due to their spiritual condition. They do not KNOW the Lord.

Each student of mine will hear me share the gospel with them more than once. I begin the Old Testament History course with a discussion of the creation and the covenant made by God with Adam (and mankind). Everything is perfect there in the Garden of Eden.

Then, we encounter Genesis chapter 3 and our world is turned upside down! We read of temptation, disobedience, rebellion, sin, guilt, condemnation, and judgment. We learn the very, very BAD NEWS. Each of us is born a sinner before God. Our nature is spiritually corrupt and chooses to sin against the Most High. The punishment for our sin is death, physical and spiritual. And, if we die physically while we are spiritually dead, we suffer the third death: eternal death. For my math-minded students, I codify this equation as:

SD + PD = ED (spiritual death plus physical death equals eternal death)

What a horrible, miserable equation! I am SD at birth. Because of my sin, PD will follow! What hope is there for me to avoid ED? None, at least, not in myself.

I explain to my students that, even in Genesis 3, we see the grace and mercy of our great God. Beginning with verse fifteen of that third chapter through the entire book or Revelation, God reveals to us His Good News, His Gospel. Yes, that's what the word "gospel" means: "good news". And what is that good news?

God the Son, the second person of the eternal triune God, took upon himself flesh, was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life in full obedience to His heavenly Father, suffered and died on a cross as a substitutionary, propitiatory sacrifice, an atonement for His people, was buried, resurrected, ascended, and is coming again! And, if we, sinners by nature and by deed, will turn from our sins and put our trust (believe) in the Lord Jesus Christ, our sins are forgiven. We experience a spiritual birth and the "SD" in our equation is replaced by "SL" giving us a new equation.

SL = EL

Physical death is no longer part of our equation. Oh, we might die physically, but, if we already possess spiritual life, we also possess eternal life! Praise God, this is GOOD NEWS! This is the Gospel!

Yes, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the Gospels. They received that classification because they tell the story of the One who made THE GOSPEL (the message) a reality: Jesus Christ.

So, what is the Gospel? Personally, I like the way Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 15.

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you THE GOSPEL which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand: By which also ye are SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the Scriptures; And that HE WAS BURIED, and that HE AROSE AGAIN the third day according to the scriptures: And that HE WAS SEEN ...".

The Gospel is the Good News that Jesus Christ saves sinners!

The Nature of God

Over the years, I have read several works by Puritan authors and have enjoyed most of them. As expected, some writers are more challenging to read than others. For me, Jeremiah Burroughs (1599-1646) is one of those who are easy to read and overwhelming with their insight. He pastored churches and much of his writings are sermons he preached. Burroughs was also part of the body which wrote the Westminster Confession (a "Westminster Divine"), though he was an Independent and not a Presbyterian.

Presently, I'm reading through his work "Gospel Revelation". This morning, I was completely overwhelmed by a section in that book. So, I thought I would share some of what I read today.

Let me begin by noting that the first two chapters of the book are sermons he preached on the verse "For His name alone is excellent" (Psalm 148:13; if you're interested, chapter 3 is his application from this verse; and I thought MY pastor was long-winded!). His first sermon is titled "Ten Points on the Nature of God". His second sermon, on the same text, is titled "Eight Additional Points on the Nature of God"! Yes, Puritans are extensive expositors!

In this second sermon, Burroughs is describing God's excellence and comes to this point.

"15. God alone is excellent in His operation, in His power, in the manner of His working. Though God gives a power to other creatures to work, yet God works in a different way from all other creatures."

You are completely off base if you believe those two sentences are all he has to say on this specific point! No, not Burroughs! He breaks down the matter of God's operation in the universe with five sub-points. I will list them below and provide a simple summary. However, the author takes a complete paragraph to discuss each one.

"First, God does whatsoever He pleases either in heaven or earth."

God is sovereign and is free to act or not act as He, not we, choose.

"Second, the power of God appears in that the Lord does the greatest and most difficult things as easily as He does the least and the easiest."

God acts with the same power no matter what He is doing.

"Third, God is excellent in all that He does. There is nothing that God does at any time but was decreed to be done from eternity."

Again, here we see His sovereignty as well as His providence. God's work has been prefaced by an eternal, unchanging plan (decree).

"Fourth, God is so far from needing any matter to work upon, or instrument to work by, when He does anything as there is no more required for any creature to be or work at any time when God would have it, but the alone act of God's will thus was from eternity."

For example, God did not suddenly decide to create the world. He felt no compulsion to do so. Rather, he decreed the creation of the world from all eternity yet performed that creation in time.

"Fifth, where God has done any work, all His works add nothing to Him."

For example, if we prepare a meal, that meal benefits us, it adds to us. Nothing God accomplishes adds anything to His nature for He is eternally excellent.

What a blessing it is to consider the excellencies of our God!

MY Top Ten: Theological Works

Over the past week, I have seen multiple posts concerning "Top 10" lists covering a variety of topics. I'm not a big fan of such lists since they are quite subjective and really prove very little.

Last evening, at our church's Bible study, the subject of theologians was raised for the second time in the past few days. So, I decided to assemble a list of MY top 10 theological works. Here are the criteria I used in ranking the works:

1. It must be a published theological work (not sermons or commentaries).

2. It must be a work I own.

3. It must be a work I use!

4. Its position in the list is, for the most part, indicative of its frequency of use by me.

5. It is not necessary that I agree with everything in the work (as though anyone does other than the author of the work).

With those in mind, here is my list in reverse order.

10. "The City of God" by Augustine - Perhaps the first systematic theology of the Christian era. I find it to be Augustine's best work, at least of the ones I own. As with others, I disagree with the church father in some areas. But, I feel reading Augustine is a prerequisite for doing theological studies.

9.  "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin - Need I say more? Brother John and I disagree on several points and, given the historical context at the time he ministered, he is difficult to read in certain areas. Yet, if you haven't read Calvin's Institutes (or own it!), you need to, whether you agree with him or not.

8.  "Manual of Theology" by John L. Dagg - A Baptist theologian of the south, later President of Mercer University, Dagg was a blind theologian. This work is not nearly as thorough as others but very good, especially, in my opinion, when it comes to the church.

7.  "Abstract of Systematic Theology" by James P. Boyce - Boyce was a Southern Baptist, one of the founders of Southern Seminary and on its original faculty. I view the work as more of an outline of Systematic Theology but refer to it often.

6.  "Systematic Theology" by L. Berkhof - Louis Berkhof was Dutch Reformed (as was Bavinck and Kuyper below). An excellent work highly appreciated by Wayne Grudem (also see below).

5.  "Dogmatic Theology" by W. G. T. Shedd - another Presbyterian who is as good as Hodge. Once again, my major problem with Shedd is his understanding of the church.

4.  "Reformed Dogmatics" by Herman Bavinck - Bavinck was a Dutch Reformed theologian of the 19th century. This work is very good though I find him difficult to read in spots.

3.  "Systematic Theology" by Charles Hodge - Possibly the best Presbyterian theologian. This is a great work. If only he would have better understood Ecclesiology! 

2.  "A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity" by John Gill - Gill is always criticized for being "hard shell". But, for an older writer, I find him well-organized, easy to read, and quite thorough.

1. "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem - I consider Grudem to be the best systematic work done in the past one-hundred years. Since it is more recent, it is very easy to read. Grudem is quite thorough, utilizing the Scriptures extensively. There is a smaller version containing a subset of the material available.

A few of honorable mentions to:

"A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion" by James Oliver Buswell - Buswell is good but I prefer Berkhof of the two.

"Systematic Theology" by Augustus H. Strong - I feel he is weak in certain areas.

John Owen's work (several volumes) but especially "The Death of Christ". Owen is a terrific theologian but very difficult to read.

"Lectures in Systematic Theology " by Henry Thiessen - the original work was written more from an Arminian position; the revised version is more Reformed.

The works of Dutch theologian Hermann Witsius. Not an organized systematic theology but good nevertheless.

The same may be said for the works of Abraham Kuyper.

"The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression" by E. Y. Mullins - there are spots where I believe this work falls short.

"Christian Doctrine" by W. T. Connor - not overly thorough and, like Mullins, I feel it falls short in many areas. 

That's my list for what it is worth. It has changed over the years and, most likely, will change again in the future if the Lord delays His return!

For Some, This World is All There Is

The 17th Psalm is a prayer of David and his conclusion contains the following:

"Arise, O Lord, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword: from men which are thy hand, O Lord, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes."

(verses 13-14, King James Version).

Two more recent translations render the passage similarly.

"Arise, O Lord, confront him, bring him low; deliver my soul from the wicked with your sword, from men with your hand, O Lord, from men of the world, whose portion is in this life, and whose belly you fill with your treasure; they are satisfied with children, and leave their abundance to their babes."

(New American Standard)

"Arise, O Lord! Confront him, subdue him! Deliver my soul from the wicked by your sword, from men by your hand, O Lord, from men of the world whose portion is in this life. You fill their womb with treasure; they are satisfied with children, and they leave their abundance to their infants."

(English Standard Version)

No matter which translation you use, the message is the same. And, the part of this particular message which grabbed my attention today is in verse 14: "which have their portion in this life". For some (David calls them wicked in verse 13), this life is all there is.

God is often gracious to such individuals, yet they never acknowledge Him. He fills their bellies, giving them food, possessions, notoriety, money, influence, power, offspring, or a thousand other earthly "treasures". But, no word of gratitude is offered up to the giving Lord. For these individuals, this world is all they have. When their life ends, "the rest of their substance" ("their abundance") will be left with their children ("you can't take it with you"). Nothing of enjoyment remains for them for they have enjoyed God's blessings in this life but are not prepared for the life that is yet to come.

In fact, it is not uncommon to find those people who serve and worship God encountering a multitude of hardships during this life the aforementioned people never experience. You see, God has promised something MUCH better for them than for those who reject Him. So, for now, He permits the "wicked" to enjoy this life for that is all there is for them.

The believer in Christ is a mere pilgrim in this world. We are no longer citizens of this earth for our citizenship is in Heaven. God has promised us an abundance in the life to come. It will be a perfect life, a sinless life, a joyful life, a painless life, a forgiven and redeemed life, a life of fellowship, worship, and praise. It will be a life that is eternal in every sense of the word.

So, when this world knocks us about during our time here, let us rejoice and, with hope, look forward to the world yet to come. Our stay on this earth is brief compared to an eternity of joy.

But, to those who have never repented of their sin and put their trust in Jesus Christ, enjoy the blessings God is giving you NOW. For this is all there is, at least, all that will be enjoyable for you.

You see, your existence will not end at the moment of your death. However, your enjoyment of life will. Judgment awaits and the Great Judge of the Universe knows you and of your rebellion against Him. Yes, by refusing to bow to the Lord Jesus, the only Savior and Redeemer, you have "thumbed your nose" at God. Your sin remains without an atonement and redemption. You stand guilty of an offense against an eternal, infinite God. Your punishment will match the crime.

At that time, you will experience the full wrath of God and will be tossed into eternal torment. Your punishment will never end. Your pain will never cease. You will never find joy, ever! All that awaits you upon your death is eternal misery.

Therefore, enjoy the blessings of God now, while you have them. They will end. For you, this is as good as it gets.

May the Spirit of God bring to you conviction of your sins and cause you to repent of them and put your faith in Christ.

Religions are NOT all the same

I was reading in Acts 3 and 4 this morning and, following our celebration of Christ's resurrection yesterday, the passage spoke to my heart. Without going into specific detail about every religion man has ever pursued, I will simply say, all religions are NOT the same.

What do I mean by "religion"? The Oxford dictionary gives as a definition: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. ... A particular system of faith and worship."

Many today try to teach the concept that all religions are the same. They claim there are many ways to God (if he truly exists). No one religion is better than any other religion. We must treat all religions the same. But I do not believe that for a second nor does the Bible teach such nonsense.

Jesus has died on the cross, arose from the dead, appeared to over 500 people, and ascended into heaven. Then, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended and the apostles became dynamic witnesses for Jesus. In Acts 3, Peter and John heal a lame man and call upon the unbelievers to repent. The Apostles are seized by the priests and Sadducees at the beginning of chapter 4. What disturbed these religious zealots is noted in verse 2.

"Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead."

The message of the resurrection offended them and they wanted that message stopped. These two apostles appeared before the high priest and were asked by what power they healed the lame man. Peter gives the answer very clearly beginning in verse 10.

"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

There it is. Christianity stands unique from other religions because it has a unique Savior. There is one and only one name by which men may be saved and that name is Jesus Christ. The proof that this is the case is the FACT that Jesus has been raised from the dead by God. He is a unique Savior. He is the only Savior of men given by God.

I may be viewed as simplistic, but if God has provided only one means of salvation, then true faith and worship must include this means of salvation. In other words, the only true religion is the faith and worship which teaches Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation.

True religion must be centered on Jesus Christ. Therefore, Christianity must be the only, true religion.

And the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead proves it.

The Commandments of James 4:7-10

Our pastor preached a great message on James 4:7-10 this past Sunday. Ever since I first read through James in the original language, I have been fascinated by this paragraph. It reads as though the author picked up a gun and fired shot after shot at his readers (pardon the analogy, I mean it in a good way).

In these four simple verses, James issues ten, yes ten, commands! Here they are (from the KJV):

Verse 7:    (1) Submit   (2) Resist

Verse 8:    (3) Draw nigh  (4)  Cleanse   (5)  Purify

Verse 9:    (6) Be afflicted  (7) Mourn  (8) Weep   (9) be turned

Verse 10:  (10) Humble

As my pastor pointed out, this paragraph calls on those who are living a self-centered life to repent, and it does so by using these ten commands. They may be divided into five actions.

First, the self-centered individual must submit/subject himself to the Lord. He is the Lord, the Master, and we are his servants, his slaves. Such submission reminds us who is in charge of our life. Furthermore, after submitting to Christ, the individual must resist the devil and his temptations.  James tells us to oppose him, to take a stand against him. The self-centered believer still has the indwelling Spirit and is able to stand tall against Satan and his wiles.

Second, James calls the self-centered to draw nigh to God.  In other words, come near to Him. I see, in this command, our need to offer up our prayers to God, to meditate on His Word, to know Him better than we ever have.

Third, the self-centered individual must be cleansed. In other words, they need to seek forgiveness.  We see this clearly in the second half of verse 8. James tells us to cleanse our hands. He paints the picture of the priests washing the filth from their hands and feet prior to their ministry for God. The sin must go. We must purify our hearts referring to internal, spiritual cleaning. Seek the Lord for forgiveness. As John tells us in 1 John 1, those who confess their sin will be cleansed and forgiven.

Fourth, James issues the call for repentance in verse 9. He commands the self-centered person to be afflicted. The word carries the idea of lamentation, a sincere regret for behavior. Such affliction demands the individual recognize the error of his ways. As a result, he is to mourn or grieve internally; a sincere heart inwardly grieving for its behavior. Such internal mourning is often accompanied by outward weeping, the physical expression of such grief over sin. Daniel Doriani has said, "The desire for a pure heart leads logically to sorrow for sin."

Verse 9 concludes with the key command of repentance:  "be turned". True repentance leads to a turning, a change in life. The self-centered person who truly repents will move forward with a life lived for God rather than self.

Fifth, and finally, James commands those who have recognized their self-centeredness, who have grieved over their sin, and who have turned their focus from themselves to God to "humble themselves". God will exalt those who live for God rather than self.

So, we have a choice between two ways of living. We can live ambitious, proud, self-centered lives or a life of repentance and humility. As the Apostle Peter has written,

"Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you." (1 Peter 5:6-7)

Preparing a Sermon

Today, my pastor published a blog entry on the topic of preparing a sermon. He has asked others who preach to provide comments, so I have decided to respond to his request not with a comment but with my own blog entry.

You may read my pastor's blog entry here.

While I have read multiple books on preparing a sermon, I'm not a supporter of any "one way fits all" approach. Preachers are people, each having their own style, skills, and resources from which to work. You just can't cram all preaching into one, codified approach. I'm certain almost every preacher (at least, expository preacher) would agree that is the case.

Personally, as a pastor, I wanted to preach through a Biblical book. That is the best way to maintain contextual consistency. However, no matter whether I am preaching through a book or from some "random" passage, I will do my best to preach it as an exposition. In other words, if my overall point and my main points do not arrive from the text itself, then I am beating the wind with a bunch of hot air!

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, I am preaching through a Biblical book, my general approach would be something along the following lines. Be forewarned: the days listed and the events associated with those days were always DESIRED goals. Rarely was I successful in maintaining such a schedule.

Sunday evening: seek the Lord and determine the text for the next message. I tentatively map out the path through a book weeks in advance, but I always remain open to changes if I sense the Lord would have me do so. Sometimes that means connecting a couple of paragraphs. Sometimes it means focusing on a single verse, phrase, or even word. However, for the most part, my next sermon will be the ensuing paragraph of whatever book I am in.

Monday: if I have not yet translated the paragraph (sometimes on Sunday evening), then Monday is the day to get that done. I spend whatever time I have in the text trying to follow the author's train of thought. How are the words related to one another? Are there any unique words demanding special attention (if so, out come the Greek/Hebrew lexicons, thesauruses, etc.). My goal on Monday is to have all the translation work completed and to understand the main point of the paragraph.

Tuesday: using the main point, put together the wording of the proposition I want to communicate to the people in the message. The remainder of the message centers on that proposition.

Next, using the textual outline, develop two or more major points which support the proposition of the message. I, too, like alliteration if its obvious from the text. There have been times when I have stretched the alliteration and regretted doing so later. It its not there, then I try to find points which simply express support for the proposition.

Wednesday/Thursday: these are the flesh-out days. Often I add some sub-points to my main points.

Friday: now to the commentaries. I prefer to limit my review to six or seven at most. A preacher could spend weeks reviewing all the commentaries on any given passage. That is simply too overwhelming and, in my opinion, overkill. A few reliable commentators are all you need. I usually use a couple from the reformation age, a puritan author or two, and a modern author or two.  If I have time, I will also read sermons preached from the same text by notable men of God.

My primary reason for utilizing commentaries and sermons is to make certain I am not preaching something foreign to the text. In other words, these scholars of the Word help me ensure my message is theologically sound. If I think I have found something new in the text, then its probably something I have invented and should throw away as quickly as possible!

To me, the keys in using commentators (and sermons) are these: (1) use reliable, godly men who treasure the Word of God; (2) use them sparsely; (3) give credit to those you do use in your message; (4) never open a commentary or read a sermon until you have your outline ready to go.

Lastly, I add an introduction, a conclusion, and an appropriate illustration if one is needed. I don't like to use a lot of illustrations because people in the pews often remember the illustration and forget the message you were preaching!

I do not write out my messages. I do jot down some thoughts I want to make sure I communicate at certain points in the message as well as any quotations (Biblical or otherwise). But, I don't want a manuscript in front of me as I preach and I don't want to be attempting to recall from memory a written speech. My attempt is to be as extemporaneous as I can be.

Of course, the entire process is wrapped in prayer. Often, the above schedule is interrupted by the daily affairs of life and I wind up cramming a lot of my effort into Saturday. It's good to have a plan and a schedule. Unfortunately, life does not always follow your plans! To be a preacher demands flexibility!

For what it's worth, that's my general approach. Sometimes the message, in my humble opinion, is very good. At other times, it should have remained on paper and never spoken! Yet, God promises His Word always accomplishes the purposes for which it is sent. If that were not true, I might have stopped preaching years ago!

"I'm Gonna Get the Guns!"

Near the conclusion of the movie “The American President”, the President, portrayed by Michael Douglas, briefly discusses gun control legislation. One of his statements relative to this topic is, “I’m gonna to get the guns”.  Given the recent school shootings, this attitude is spreading across the country. I’m sure there are many well-meaning folks who are expressing this view. However, it is the wrong approach to the problem we are facing, wrong for multiple reasons.

First, the right of Americans to possess such weapons is guaranteed by our Constitution. You will never eliminate that amendment apart from another civil war in this nation. Take away my right to own a gun and I have no means of defending myself when the criminal shows up with a gun. You surely do not believe criminals will give up their guns if we merely eliminate the Second Amendment!

Second, you can’t eliminate all guns. It is an impossibility. Someone will always have a gun or equivalent weapon. I’m certain you want the police and military armed. You want guards with guns protecting certain individuals. Someone will have guns. The right was added to the Constitution to ensure the public could arm itself against a tyrannical government. Therefore, some citizens should possess weapons, or we are exposed to the whims of any tyrant. And, IF ANYONE HAS A GUN, someone must manufacture such a weapon. In other words, they will be available and anyone who owns one may commit such a crime.

Third, gun regulations and gun buy-back programs do not work. Check out Chicago which has the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look at their murder rate. St. Louis holds gun buy-back days. But, those who sell their guns back to the authorities are the law-abiding citizens, not the ones committing the gun crimes. Yes, guns are taken off the street, however, the result is a more unprotected populace, not a reduced criminal element.

Fourth, if you outlaw certain types of firearms, do you really believe the criminal will stop using them? Even if you could banish all guns, it would not deter the individual desiring to kill. They will find another weapon. Already, we have witnessed mass murder by knife, by plane, and by vehicle.

Fifth, the gun is not the problem. The problem is the person using the gun. Each of us have the capability of pulling the trigger. We must recognize the root cause of such shootings is our depraved, evil, sinful nature. To commit such an act, is to commit rebellion against our Creator and our Judge. Jesus understood this quite well. When, at his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter used his sword to cut off the servant’s ear. Jesus told him to put away the sword. He did not tell him to get rid of his sword. In that situation, Jesus recognized the problem was not the sword; it was Peter’s heart!

So, is there anything we can do to make schools safer? Yes, if we use some common sense. I offer up a few suggestions.

1. “See something, say something”. This saying has been with us since 9/11. Much of the time, however, we see things but never say anything. But, in the recent Florida shooting, someone saw something, someone said something, and the agencies involved DID NOTHING. Let’s call on our government to be as diligent in their pursuit of potential killers as they are in their exhortation for us to be in reporting the same.

2. LOCK THE SCHOOL DOORS. Make certain those admitted to a school are not armed.

3. Allow some of the educational staff to conceal and carry. Not every teacher has to be armed and you don’t have to force every teacher to own a gun. But, I suspect every school in the nation has a few individuals who own weapons. Provide them whatever training they need to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon and, then let them do so at the school. No one need know who it is. But, if a killer knows there may be armed personnel in his targeted location, he may think twice about attacking it.

4. Owning a gun is a right granted in our Constitution. However, as certain rights are restricted or removed due to prior offenses, so should the right to own a gun. Let’s appoint justices to our courts who take such crimes seriously. If you are armed during any type of criminal action, you automatically serve time in prison and lose the right to own a gun in the future.  

5. Let us recognize that “but by the grace of God I am what I am”. Apart from His grace, we could be the one committing the crime. Man’s nature and not man’s weapon is the problem. Until our nature is changed, there is always the risk of such acts of evil: planes as bombs, gassing thousands to death in showers, running over individuals with a truck, blowing up an office building in an Oklahoma town, shooting individuals in a church or a school, or killing a woman’s unborn child.

For decades, our nation has been on a steady decline from following God. Many believe that is a good thing, a sign we are emerging from a “dark, superstitious age”. We do our best to remove God from every part of our society. By doing so, we think we will become better people. Perhaps, it is time for our nation to reconsider this view. You see, it is here the Bible speaks to us. Without the regenerating work of God’s Spirit upon our heart, evil will continue to dominate and rule. And that evil WILL manifest itself from time to time in such tragic events as took place last week in Florida.

The ultimate answer is found not in gun control but in Jesus Christ. He alone changes lives. He alone has overcome evil. He alone can make the difference.

SOLUS CHRISTUS and SOLI DEO GLORIA

Personal Greetings

For some time, I have been assembling my own commentary on Paul's letter to Philemon. Recently, though, I decided to work my way through 2 Timothy, a letter I have not preached or taught before. While I have read it several times, a word leaped out at me as I translated the first verse.  Quoting from the King James Version:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus

This is a typical salutation from the Apostle. The thirteen epistles written by him begin with his name. There is nothing unusual in this. But, what grabbed my eye was the word "apostle". Yes, Paul frequently begins his salutations by noting his divinely appointed office. Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus find the same word in the very first verse. There are only four Pauline epistles which do not have "apostle" in verse 1: 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon.

You might ask, then, why the word in 2 Timothy grabbed my attention. All, but four, of Paul's letters were written directly to churches; only four were personal letters: 1 & Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Having spent so much time in Philemon, I knew Paul never used the word "apostle" in that letter. When writing to his Christian brother and friend, Philemon, about the latter's runaway slave, Onesimus, Paul had no need to remind his friend of his exalted position within the church. Yes, he was an Apostle. Yes, the letter to Philemon bears apostolic authority; it is the Word of God. But, Paul found no need to remind his friend of this. His approach was to appeal, not command, his friend to receive back Onesimus as not only his servant but also his brother in Christ.

Approaching 2 Timothy, I guess I assumed Paul also had no need to remind his friend and former missionary partner of his office. I was surprised, then, when I saw the word "apostle" in that first verse. Quickly, I checked the other two personal letters (1 Timothy and Titus) and, sure enough, the word was there as well.

The Timothy epistles and Titus are collectively known as the Pastoral Epistles. Timothy and Titus are pastors and Paul has insight and instruction for them and their local churches. While the letters are directed to these personal friends, Paul leaves no doubt as to the authority of his words. He is writing not merely as their friend and co-worker, but as an Apostle of the Almighty God. His Words are God's Words. His wisdom is God's Wisdom. His commands are God's commands.

These facts are true in all of Paul's letters including Philemon. Let us clearly understand that, when we read the writings of Paul (or any other Biblical author), we are reading the very Word of God. What they have written is not merely their opinion.

Paul, a prisoner (Philemon 1b)

“a prisoner of Jesus Christ” - desmios Xristou Iesou 

Sometimes Paul refers to himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ, stressing his calling and mission from God.  Often Paul refers to himself as a slave of Jesus Christ, a menial servant who does whatever his master demands.  But in this personal letter, Paul uses a different noun to describe himself: “prisoner”.

We can learn much from this description.  First, we may take the declaration naturally.  Paul is truly a prisoner at this moment.  He is under arrest in Rome, chained to a Roman guard every hour of every day.  As a prisoner for two years in the Middle East, Paul exercised his right as a Roman citizen and appealed his case to Caesar.  Now, for almost two years, Paul has been waiting in Rome for an audience with Nero.  As he pens this letter to a friend, he notes his physical position.  He is indeed a prisoner. However, he does not consider himself a prisoner of Rome or of Nero.

No, the description Paul primarily had on his mind when he penned the word “prisoner” was not about his physical imprisonment. Paul views himself as a spiritual prisoner.  He is “chained” to Jesus every hour of every day.  He goes where Jesus goes.  He does what Jesus does.  He says what Jesus says.  And his “imprisonment” is something he gladly accepts!

The phrase “a prisoner of Jesus Christ” may be interpreted in more than one way even when describing his “spiritual bondage”.  He is a prisoner “belonging to” Christ.  He is Jesus’ “peculiar possession”.  He is also a prisoner “for” Christ.  His devotion is not to himself, his family, his friends, or even his emperor.  No, Christ has made him His prisoner and all that entails (travels, words, actions) is in service to and for Jesus.

This one who, like each of us, was in bondage to sin has been set free from that sin.  He is now happily in bondage to Christ, gladly doing his bidding, whatever it may be.

May you and I view ourselves as prisoners of Christ.  May we see ourselves chained to our Lord, saying and doing (and thinking) only what our dear Savior says and does (and thinks!).

It's Groundhog Day!

Yes, Phil was out this morning, saw his shadow, and, therefore, predicted six more weeks of winter. While I haven't check the television guide yet, I would not be surprised to find Bill Murray's movie, "Groundhog Day", playing all weekend!

Anyway, the annual event performed in Pennsylvania raised a question in my mind.  How accurate has old Phil been with his predictions? So, I did what anyone who has such curiosities might do: I scanned the internet.  Yes, someone has determined Phil's weather forecasting accuracy. For the past ten years, Phil has been correct 50% of the time. I would say the groundhog may be better than most weather forecasters!

Being correct 50% of the time is not bad in certain situations. If you are a major league baseball player and strike out 50% of your opponents, you are a very good pitcher. If you happen to hit safely 50% of the time, you are the greatest hitter of all time! On the other hand, 50% can be very bad for others. If I am a surgeon and my surgical success rate is 50%, I'm out of business (or in jail!). If I play goal for the St. Louis Blues and stop 50% of the opponents' shots, I'm quickly released from the team.

But, there is one area where ANY percent other than 100% is deadly.

"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

A Biblical prophet was called by God to proclaim His Word. Of course, there were times when God's Word was a prophecy or prediction of a coming event. In those cases, God's prophet has 100% accuracy or he's not God's prophet. And, if he is not a prophet of God but is passing himself off as one, well, Scripture says "that prophet shall die".

There are many over the centuries who have called themselves "prophets" and gathered followers. They may be a prophet, however, if even one of their "prophecies" was not fulfilled, they are not a prophet of God.

I guess Punxsutawney Phil is glad he has never claimed to be a prophet of God!