God's Elect or World's Elite? XXIX

Ethos, Pathos, & Logos

Ethos is about establishing your authority to speak on the subject, logos is your logical argument for your point and pathos is your effort to sway an audience emotionally. 

Ethos has to do with the speaker, with his credibility, authority, and character. It involves a speaker's credentials, the reasons why he should be heard or "worth listening to." It also includes dressing appropriately, using a good choice of words, giving the impression that the speaker is sincere and honest by his demeanor, deportment, and the way things are spoken or characterized.

Pathos has to do with the hearers of a speaker and with their emotions, including their prejudices and biases, as we see in "emotional appeals," or when a speaker seeks to "draw pity from an audience," or when he seeks to excite and arouse sentiment. Speakers want people to "experience" and feel the weight and intensity of the discourse, to receive it with the same passion in which it is spoken, to feel a certain way.     

Logos is an appeal to logic and reason, to concrete fact and proof, to authority. Words, speech, or argument first reside in the mind of the speaker before it is communicated to the audience. Thus, just as pathos appealed to emotion so logos appeals to intellect. 

The Sophist tradition in Corinth and in the Greek world was strong in the minds of the first Christian converts in Corinth. We have already spoken much of this and of the fact that Paul addresses various Greek philosophies in his letters to the Corinthians. 

Paul called himself the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom. 11: 13) and said that he was especially sent to preach the glad tidings to "Greeks," though he did as well to the Jews. He knew Greek philosophy. He knew the Greek mind, its worldview, its values, beliefs, traditions, etc. He knew about Aristotle's "means of persuasion" and of the philosophical talk about rhetoric and debate. He knew all this and was therefore a fit "ambassador" for Christ and his kingdom in relation to the world. To the Corinthians Paul said that he and other evangelists were "ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us." (II Cor. 5: 20) 

It is required that an ambassador know his own people, his own country, its laws, customs, values, beliefs, etc. He represents his country, acting by its authority, by appointment of its king, governor, or president. It is required that an ambassador know much about the country to which he is appointed to deal with or else he would be of little value. So Paul knew much about the Greeks and Gentiles, about their beliefs, culture, laws, customs, etc. It can well be argued that Paul was chosen by the Lord to be his special ambassador to the Gentiles because he had previously and providentially been trained in Gentile and Greek literature. 

The Sophists were orators, public speakers, mouths for hire in an oral culture. They were itinerant tutors who claimed to teach all that was necessary for "success in public life," how to "get ahead." They mainly taught rhetoric and related fields such as grammar, history, and literary criticism, psychology, etc., but all for the wrong reasons and ends. They were also in many cases the lawyers of the day, paid advocates, people who could argue either side of a case.  

When cases are tried by public opinion, those who can best sway, via rhetoric and debate skills, the assembly of citizens assembled to try cases, are most desired by defendants, those who have been accused. This was the case with Paul when he stood on the mount in Athens when on public trial for his discourse, for his "logos." (Acts 17) There he gave his "apology," that is, his "rational verbal defense." In this he had to "answer" the charges of his accusers. (I Peter 3: 15, discussed previously) 

"Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons (Greeks), and in the market daily with them that met with him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seems to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof you speak, is? For you bring certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean...Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious." (Acts 17: 16-20, 22)

The learned elite, who were Paul's accusers in Athens, were skilled Sophists. They knew every trick in the book when it comes to winning an argument. In the above encounter with the philosophers their Sophistry is clearly on display. They first make ad hominem attacks, calling Paul a "babbler." They attack his ethos, his credentials and character, and also summarily dismiss his logos without a reply in kind, they appealing to pathos, to the emotions and biases of the people. 

They accused him of preaching a "new doctrine," of "setting forth strange gods (Greek demons)" of reporting "certain strange things," weird theology. They accuse him of innovation in religious belief, of teaching absurd ideas, as in affirming that the Son of God and savior of the world died on a cross, and that he was physically resurrected after being dead three days.  

They make use of "insinuation" as a tactic, insinuating things about Paul that would lead people to think that he was not worth their time listening to. They "cast aspersions," using an old ad hominen tactic called "poisoning the well." By their preemptive and unfounded aspersions, insinuations, and denunciations, they intended to create doubt and suspicion in the minds of the audience about Paul's credibility, his character.

The people were curious to hear Paul for of the Athenian people it is said (vs. 21) that they spent their time in hearing or relating "news," about new ideas, new events, new public celebrities, etc. The philosophers, as well as some of the Jews and Pagans ("devout persons"), were not as curious as they were fearful and angry. They were afraid of losing followers, money and prestige, and were angry that some "upstart" from the poorer class could "outdo" them in logos, could attract attention. But, sometimes this tactic can "backfire," for when a speaker is "talked down" much by his opponents it can spur the curiosity of people to hear such a person even further. It can also backfire further if the speaker turns out to be much better than how he was depicted by his opponents. 

The learned philosophers of the several schools mentioned only joined into a discussion with Paul because they saw many people listening to what he was saying and they were both jealous and afraid for their own standing. Had no one paid any attention to Paul, then they would also have paid no attention.

The verbal defense that Paul gave on Mars Hill, in the Areopagus, was an excellent discourse. It has none of the flattery of the Sophists, no "eulogies" for the citizens, no boasting of credentials, no foolish questions. Rather he begins by saying that "they are too (overly) superstitious (or religious)." (vs. 22) He gets right to the issue. He is bold and frank. At the end of his defense the record says:

"And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them." (32-34)

Notice the different reactions to Paul's discourse (logos). Notice how the "disputers of this age" are left speechless, saying "we will hear from you again on this matter." They obviously needed time to figure out a way to deal with Paul, either in argumentation or through violence. There was also an implied threat in their remarks. They were informing Paul that he would be "called on the carpet" for what he has said. Among the lay people some did not believe and resorted to mocking and ridicule and yet a few, God's elect, "believed." 

The Sophists "paid for hire" speakers spawned the word "sophism" as a result of their "artful dodger" type of argumentation. "Sophism" is "a plausible but fallacious argument, or deceptive argumentation in general. In rhetorical studies, sophism refers to the argumentative strategies practiced and taught by the Sophists." (See here) Sophism is what Paul saw in his opponents in Athens and he saw it on many other occasions.

From Athens Paul goes to Corinth where he will encounter again the same Sophists.

"After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth...And he reasoned (dialegomai) in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded (peithō) the Jews and the Greeks." (Acts 18: 1,4)

The word "dialegomai" means to "converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss." The word "peitho" means to persuade, to convince, to get someone to agree, or to give credit to a discourse. It is not only the duty of apostles to "reason" and debate, to persuade by convincing argument, but also every believer to one degree or another, as we have previously shown. This also was a habit with the apostle who invited debate and open discussion of what he preached. Notice these other instances of Paul's apologetic speech.

"And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God." (Acts 19: 8) 

"Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands" (Acts 19: 26)

Again Paul disputed, reasoned, persuaded, and spoke plainly and boldly and yet the Sophists judged it as a "turning away" of people from truth, even though "much people" were listening to him and some agreeing with him. Paul was seeking rather to "turn away" the people from Paganism and false religion and to the pure religion of Christ.

Paul's Ethos

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech (logos) or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (I Cor. 2: 1-5)

Paul came not with excellency or superiority of speech? But, is not Christian speech more elevated than the speech of unbelievers, even of the world's elite speakers and persuaders? Have we not seen how believers, especially apostles, are superior in their logos, in their speech and conversation? Did not Paul have excellent logos on Mars Hill? Surely Paul means that he did not come with superior speech by the judgment of the Sophists, by the opinion of the teachers of rhetoric and persuasion skills in the elite schools, by the judgment of the world. To the believer the discourses of the apostle are most excellent! So he said in those keynote words of his opening words to the Corinthian believers: "the logos of the cross is to them who are perishing foolishness but unto us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1: 18) 

If one defines "excellent speech" as that which uses lots of flattery and "fancy talk," or "flowery language," then yes, Paul was not excellent, but inferior. But, the standards for judging profitable talk are different for the believer than they are for the unbelieving Sophist. God defines "excellent speech" one way and the world defines it in a different way. Certainly Paul's logos was far superior as concerns the substance of his words. The only way it could possibly be inferior was in style and rhetoric, and, by Sophist standards, his speech was not excellent, not eloquent. But, by a higher standard, Paul's rhetorical abilities excelled that of the Sophist smooth talkers.

Paul says that his "speech and preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom." So, if use of "enticing words" be one of the things that determines "excellency of speech," then Paul's speech was anything but excellent, was not superior to the Sophist and their professional talk. Many translations use the word "persuasive" instead of "enticing." Paul is not condemning being persuasive in speaking, for he himself was very persuasive. But he is condemning a kind of persuasion exercised by the Sophists. In fact he identifies the kind of persuasive words he intends when he adds "of man's wisdom." The "persuasive words of God's wisdom" (implied) is set in opposition to "the persuasive words of man's wisdom." 

The Sophists were taught about what Aristotle called "all the available means of persuasion." The Sophists came up with all kinds of ways to persuade, ways that were not always principled and right, as we have already spoken. It is the same kind of persuasion we see in advertising done by marketers. Sophist like marketers are able to "talk people into" believing what is said about a product and into buying it.

Paul's Parousia

Paul says that his physical presence and demeanor was not up to the standards of the Sophists. There was nothing "sophisticated" about his person, his bodily appearance, his clothes, nor of his "coming," which did not include, as it did with the popular Sophist speakers, a trumpeted arrival, a pompous entrance into an auditorium or amphitheater, and much "stagecraft." 

In any college speech class one is taught the importance of bodily deportment and of the proper use of the body's physical members in giving speeches or talks. You are taught how to stand, how to look at the audience, how to use or not use your hands, etc. You are taught the importance of "first impressions," how it is important to dress appropriately for the type of discourse being given, and for the setting and type of audience. Dress, grooming, erect stature, strong voice, pleasing face, healthy look, bold spirit, etc., are taught in speech communication. The speaker's bodily appearance includes demeanor and deportment. All this is part of the speaker's ethos, what the audience sees in the speaker or knows by report or reputation. 

Paul tells the Corinthian believers that when he visited Corinth and spoke to them that he was with them "in weakness and fear and much trembling." Later in second Corinthians Paul cites the opinion of the Sophist rhetoricians regarding his bodily appearance:

"For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." (II Cor. 10: 10)

By elitist standards, this would be a sizable demerit as respects Paul's credentials as a reputable speaker. Yet, ironically, his speaking was "in demonstration" of both the Spirit and "of power." Powerful speech from such a man of "weak presence"! But, this is a fitting example of God's choosing and using "the weak things of the world to confound the things which are powerful." (I Cor. 1: 27) In Paul's second epistle to Corinth he cited the words of his Sophist critics. In the words "his bodily presence is weak" the criticism is that Paul's "presence" is unimpressive. The Greek word for "presence" is "parousia." Let us first define "parousia" and see how it relates to a speaker's ethos.  

In the above passage "parousia" is translated into English by the word "presence" and for the above passage this is a good translation. Notice also these words of Paul:

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence (parousia) only, but now much more in my absence (apousia), work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil. 2: 12)

Parousia denotes presence while apousia (literally "without presence" or "not present") denotes absence. More often however the word is translated as "coming." Notice these instances:

"the coming of Titus" (II Cor. 7: 6)

"the coming of Stephanos" and et als (I Cor. 16: 17)

"the coming" of the "man of sin" (II Thess. 2: 9)

"my coming to you again" (Phil. 1: 26)

Parousia is also one of the words often used in the new testament for the second coming of Christ. It also is never used in reference to his first coming. There is an interesting reason for this as we will see. On the meaning of parousia Vine's NT Words says:

"Lit., "a presence," para, "with," and ousia, "being" (from eimi, "to be"), denotes both an "arrival" and a consequent "presence with." For instance, in a papyrus letter a lady speaks of the necessity of her parousia in a place in order to attend to matters relating to her property there. Paul speaks of his parousia in Philippi, Phl 2:12 (in contrast to his apousia, "his absence."

Notice how the use of the word may sometimes focus on arrival or advent rather than on the continuous presence following. When the focus is on the former it is better to translate as "advent," "arrival" or "coming." When the focus is on the latter it is better to translate as "presence." In each instance it involves the appearing of a person in his physical body. It never denotes a spiritual coming or mental coming. Yet, Paul did speak of his spirit being present when his body was absent.

"For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed." (I Cor. 5: 3)

By Paul's being present in spirit in Corinth when absent (Greek "apeimi" denoting absence or departure) in body he no doubt refers to his words remaining with the believers when he was gone from them. It involves their memory of both his words and his spirit. But, Paul does not use "parousia" (nor "apousia" for absence) for "present" it being from the Greek word "pareimi" which is another word for presence. 

Paul does not use the word "parousia" when he says he "came" to Corinth but the Greek word "erchomai." Paul's critics, as we have seen, referred to Paul's "bodily presence (parousia)," when they described it as being "weak." Paul does use parousia in other epistles in regard to his coming, and to the comings of other ministers, but more often he uses "erchomai." The same is true in regard to the second bodily coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Both words are used to refer to it although there is a distinction to be observed in the several contexts in which they are used. Parousia occurs only twenty four time in the New Testament while erchomai occurs about six hundred times. Erchomai is a more general term for the coming of a person to another person or to a place. As we will see, however, parousia is used mostly as a technical term for the visit of a king or prince, for a "royal visit," as well as for other celebrities and dignitaries, including popular speakers. As such it includes all the appurtenances of such visits.

Formal Receptions

When a head of state visits another head of state there are what are called "state visits" and as such include much pomp and circumstance. Wrote one commentary:

"The BDAG Greek-English lexicon says that parousia was “the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp. of kings and emperors visiting a province.” Robert Mounce writes that parousia “is widely used in non biblical texts for the arrival of a person of high status” (New International Biblical Commentary). Ann Nyland writes that the Emperor Nero wanted as many people present as possible at his parousia to Corinth (The Source New Testament; note for Matt. 24:3). Visits by dignitaries were expensive, so the cost of the “visit” was often paid for by special taxes that were levied, making the parousia of a high-ranking official a burdensome event for many people. A parousia was a public event, because kings and dignitaries arrived with great pomp and pageantry." (See here)

Important and popular speakers when visiting a city also did much to promote their parousia. The same is true in our day. When politicians visit cities in campaigns and have rallies, they too have much cost involved in organizing and preparing for the visit, a cost often paid by supporters and contributors. There is much planning involved in the stagecraft, in the gala and pageantry, in the pomp and circumstance. Knowing this about the meaning of "parousia" we can better see what is intended in the criticism of Paul by the Sophists in Corinth when they said "his bodily parousia is weak" (or powerless). By this they mean that Paul lacked the normal dignified and enthusiastic advent that comes to the popular speakers and lecturers. And, Paul never denied this criticism. What Paul attacked was the fallacious premise of the Sophists which affirmed (in their criticism) that no good or truthful speaker could possibly lack such an advent. 

Paul's informal and lackluster parousia to cities in preaching the gospel was designed by God to demonstrate something to all who would hear the apostle (and other apostles and evangelists too). The Lord was showing what Paul said in his opening words to the Corinthians (which we have previously examined).

"For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." (1: 26-29)

Paul, as regards his physical form and appearance, had no symbols of high status, no expensive clothes and jewelry, no makeup and perfume, etc. He was "weak" and "base" and "despised," a "thing of nothing," in respect to such things, but God was showing men that truth and logos and power come from him and not from men. In this way neither Paul nor his teachers could take credit for the power of the "logos of the cross" preaching. People could see that the power of gospel speaking was not a result of Sophistic training.

In an article titled "Did Paul have a body image problem" Nathan Campbell says (here):

"Bruce argues in The Entries and Ethics of Orators and Paul (1 Thessalonians 2:1-12) that Paul was perhaps worried that the Thessalonians were drawing parallels between himself and the famous orators, or sophists, of his day, a position he argues that he consciously did not choose in Corinth because the Corinthians were rhetorical fanboys who wanted the apostles to be like the famous orators so that they could copy them and join the club, not like little old Paul who instead of coming to town like a flashy orator knowing everything and delivering extemporary speeches by request, came to town “knowing nothing but Christ crucified.”

So very well said. Keep in mind that Paul's parousia is part of his "ethos" as a speaker. Sophists judged his credibility as a speaker and teacher in part by his lack of sophistic advent. Paul purposed not to follow the Sophists in this. To "come" in such fashion would detract from his message rather than enhance it. Also, his plain talk shows again how he will not follow the Sophists in their persuasive tactics. "Orators were a pretty corrupt bunch, in it for fame, fortune, and praise," says Campbell. He also said:

"Paul’s measure of success runs counter to that of his sophist contemporaries, he’s not interested in crowds or fame or fortune – but rather in lives turned to God. Paul provides an account of his methods contrary to the methods of the sophists: For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please people but God, who tests our hearts. You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed—God is our witness. We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else, even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority.  Instead, we were like young children among you."

Again, he hits the mark on Paul's idea about "sound speech" and good discourse and how it runs counter to that of the Sophists. He says further:

"Paul’s approach, as described here, could hardly be confused with that of the sophist. And it seems he deliberately intended to present his parousia as anti-sophistic."

"Secondly, he further reflects on the relationship of rhetoric to his presentation. ‘And I was with you in weakness and fear and much trembling’—hardly the υπόκρισις recommended by Philodemus in his lengthy discussion in his treatise on the rhetoric of ‘bodily presence’ with gestures and voice. Further, his ‘rhetoric’ and preaching were not undertaken with persuasive rhetorical techniques. On the contrary, his message (λόγος) and preaching (κήρυγμα) were not in the persuasiveness of wisdom. He did not engage in the ‘demonstration’ (αποδείξις) of ‘proofs’ (κήρυγμα) used by the orators in the ‘art of persuasion’ but by that of the Spirit and of power. The purpose of so doing was spelt out by Paul—so that the Christian’s ‘faith’ or ‘proof’ (πίστις) would not rest in the wisdom of men i.e. the orators but in the power of God.”"

Again, this is well stated and Paul's letter to the Corinthians has much to say about good speech as scripture defines it versus how the Sophists define it. Campbell says further:

"Bruce’s conclusion: Paul as a preacher had reflected not only on the use of classical rhetoric for the presentation of his message and rejected it. He also resolved in his own mind that it was highly inappropriate for the messenger of the gospel to adopt the εἰσοδος conventions and ethics which governed the first century orators and sophists on their initial visit to a city and their long term relationships with its citizens."

How unlike is Paul to the world's greatest and most popular speakers!

Sophists would charge in advance for seats in the auditoriums. Paul did not. Sophists would begin their discourses by flattering the audience and the city, followed by bragging about their credentials. Paul did not. The power of Paul's logos was not in his rhetorical skills, or in the sound of his voice, but in the substance of what he was reporting. He had news concerning the salvation of the world. He had "news" of a crucified and risen Savior. The power is in the news itself and in the influence of the Spirit of God.

In the next post we will continue along these lines and discuss Paul's pathos. 

Fall Of Satan & Angels

It is my intention in the future to write upon this subject. Here are the questions that should be addressed in any exhaustive study of the subject. Each could be at least one chapter in a book on the subject, some of the questions requiring lengthy treatment.

1. Is Satan for real?

2. Is Satan a fallen angel?

3. When did he fall?

4. Did other angels fall with him?

5. Did the fall of the angels as mentioned by Jude and Peter occur when Satan fell?

6. If they fell at a different time than Satan, then when?

7. What was the sin of Satan?

8. What was the sin of the angels?

9. Was Satan cast down to Hell?

10. Were the fallen angels cast down to Hell?

11. If in Hell, then how do Satan and the fallen angels influence human beings?

12. Are demons and fallen angels the same beings?

13. Can angels still sin and fall from Heaven?

14. What is to be learned by the fall of Satan and angels? 

Throgmorton on Apostasy

 Elder W.P. Throgmorton

(1849-1929)

 
His biography can be read here.

He was a leading Southern Baptist pastor in Illinois. He pastored throughout the state and served as editor of The Baptist Banner, The Baptist News, and later The Illinois Baptist newspaper.

He held about fifty debates, some with Primitive Baptists such as S.F. Cayce, Lemuel Potter, and John R. Daily. 

The following remarks in defense of the perseverance of the saints is very good and I am happy to share it with the readers. Having debated this topic more than once myself and being informed of the pros and cons on the subject, I can say that Throgmorton gave a good defense of the doctrine. It is in a question and answer format with questions being in red. 

Wrote Throgmorton:

"Yes, but these must have had faith, else they could not have departed from it, and if they had faith they were real children of God." 

"That would be true if they had saving faith. But faith often means the system of faith or doctrine. In fact, this is what "the faith" generally means. They departed from the doctrine. You know one may be very orthodox in doctrine and know nothing about the faith that saves. Robert G. Ingersoll was brought up to believe the Bible, but he departed from that teaching. He forsook the faith in which he was reared. This does not mean that he was ever a true Christian." (pg. 182)

Yes, and "the devils believe and tremble." Some have faith but not saving faith, such as Muslims, Hindus, and other false religious faiths. There is also shallow superficial faith, the kind we see in the shallow ground hearer in the parable of the seed and soils. Faith that is begotten of God is never overcome, but overcomes. It is only hypocritical faith that does not overcome. 

Wrote Throgmorton:

"What about the second chapter of Second Peter?" 

"In this place many think they find the doctrine of ultimate apostasy, or of its possibility, beyond a doubt. But I think not. The culmination of Peter's argument is in the last verse wherein he sums up the character of the apostates and the facts concerning them; "But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his vomit again: and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." When a dog casts forth his vomit, because he is sick, that does not change his dog nature, nor does it give him a new nature. So when a sinner gets so sick of some of his evil habits that he quits them, this does not necessarily mean that his nature has been changed, or that he has been made a partaker of the divine nature. When a filthy sow is taken and washed from the filth she so much delights in, it does not change her nature in the least, nor does it give her a new nature. She is the same sow that she was before. So when a man by reformation is made outwardly clean, it does not necessarily follow that his old nature has been changed or that he has been made a partaker of the new nature. This was just the case with these people of whom Peter speaks. In fact, he as much as tells us so. He says, "It is happened unto them according to the true proverb." What is the true proverb? "The dog is turned to his OWN vomit again," and, "the sow that was washed to HER wallowing in the mire." It was just as natural for these people to do as they did, as it was for these animals to do as they did. Is this descriptive of one who has been born again? Surely not. Nowhere are God's children spoken of either as dogs or as hogs."

Again, this is so well expressed. I have had to deal with this passage more than once in debate. There are many believers who are like the Pharisees who were "clean on the outside" (at least for awhile) but were inwardly filthy. They were like the unbelieving Jews who were only Jews outwardly but not so inwardly, being Christians outwardly in word and profession but not so internally.

Wrote Throgmorton:

"My first reason for believing in the doctrine of "once in grace always in grace" is the nature of the new birth. The new birth is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. See John 1: 13. Being made a child of God is not a mere form. It is not a being baptized. It is not simply turning over a new leaf and doing better. It is a being born from above. It is a new creation. Jesus said, "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." When one is thus born again he is as truly God's child as he was before the child of his earthly father. As he was before a partaker of human nature, he is now a partaker of the divine nature. See 2 Peter 1:4. And this divine nature stays with him. He can no more be separated from it than he can be separated from his human nature. The fact that he is the son of his earthly father cannot be undone. No more can the fact that he is the son of his Heavenly Father be undone. Once a child of God always a child of God. In 1 John 3 :9 we have this : "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin : for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Every Christian man is two men. He is the son of Adam and as such has the old Adam nature. He is a son of God. And as such has the "Divine nature." As Adam's son, having Adam's nature, he sins every day. As the son of God, being made a partaker of the Divine nature, he can no more sin than Christ can sin. For this reason his final apostasy is utterly impossible."

Yes, the nature of the new birth! If that was understood, then no one would deny eternal security for the true believer. The 1689 London Baptist Confession also affirmed that the nature of the new birth prevents apostasy and insures perseverance.

Wrote Throgmorton:

"The surest sign that one is a Christian is that he has the spirit of Christ, and that spirit seeks always to know and to do the Lord's will. If you are refraining from sin simply because you are afraid of hell, the best thing for you to do is to repent and believe the gospel. You are not yet a Christian, and you know nothing about either saving grace or preserving grace."

Hatred of sin and love for Christ and the gospel produces "patient endurance in well doing."

God's Elect or World's Elite? XXVIII

We have already introduced the above verse in a previous chapter when we discussed "boldness" or "plainness" in speech. Christian speaking should generally be plain, simple, frank, and straightforward, and the language of common men. There is little "flowery language" in preaching the word of God, or "fancy talk." On the above words of the apostle John Gill wrote (commentary):

"we use great plainness of speech; plain and intelligible words, not ambiguous ones: or "boldness"; we are not afraid of men nor devils; we are not terrified by menaces, stripes, imprisonment, and death itself: or "freedom of speech"; we speak out all our mind, which is the mind of Christ; we declare the whole counsel of God, hide and conceal nothing that may be profitable to the churches; we are not to be awed by the terror, or drawn by the flatteries of men to cover the truth; we speak it out plainly, clearly, with all evidence and perspicuity."

"Freedom of speech," what does that mean? Many preachers have often begun their discourses by asking their hearers to pray that the Lord would give them "liberty" to preach effectively and inspirationally. They desire the "blessing" of liberty to preach to edification. Of course, when we speak of "freedom of speech" in this sense we exclude what that means politically, where it means to have license to say what one pleases (with exceptions) without criminal liability. What we mean is that a speaker has freedom of thought in speaking, has a fresh memory where recall is easy, and is free from hindrances and distractions, and where there is a kind of "unction" or exuberance felt and manifested. It has to do with easiness of expression, or fluency. It also includes the idea of speaking with fervor, with deep and intense feeling. It also includes, as Gill says, speaking clearly and distinctly and in "intelligible words" and avoiding ambiguity. 

"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (II Cor. 3: 17) This would of course include freedom of speech. Further, in looking through the four Gospels and the Book of Acts and seeing the many times where men filled with the Spirit spoke we see this liberty in speaking exemplified. When filled with the Spirit and speaking and teaching the word of God there is no hesitancy in speaking, no stammering, no searching for words, for speech then just flowed smoothly like a stream of water. Let us notice Paul's words before his trial before Festus the ruler.

"But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak (apophthengomai) forth the words (rhema) of truth and soberness." (Acts 26: 25)

The Greek word apophthengomai means "to speak out, speak forth, pronounce," it not being "a word of everyday speech but one belonging to dignified and elevated discourse." It also means to "enunciate plainly." It was sober conversation, dealing with the most important subjects concerning the world and human beings. As the subject matter is grave, so must be the discourse. In fact, Christians are exhorted to avoid talking about unimportant matters in the place of speaking of the gospel. 

"But avoid foolish questions," said Paul, along with verbal "contentions and strivings about the law," saying that "they are unprofitable and vain." (Titus 3: 9) They are to avoid them in their discoursing on the things of God. Such speech is no good, useless, not edifying. Paul also warned against "foolish talking" (morologia, a word we looked at previously), and against "jesting" in discourse, saying such was "not convenient," not right or proper. (Eph. 5: 4) 

People generally want simple honest plain talk although they are vulnerable to "smooth talkers," as we well know from advertisers and politicians. They are generally interested in the facts, not in embellishment of them. Sadly, this is the kind of talk on many news and opinion shows in the media today. 

As we have previously noted, Isaiah wrote:

"The fearful heart will know and understand, and the stammering tongue will be fluent and clear." (Isa. 32: 4)

Such was the speaking of the apostles and the church's first evangelists and teachers, even its lay members. They by the Spirit of God spoke in words that were "fluent and clear." In fact, we can put that word "fluent" into those paragraphs above where we spoke of freedom in speech, for "fluent" means "able to express oneself easily and articulately." The word comes from the Latin and means "to flow like a stream" and this simile is what we just previously referred to in those chapters about liberty in preaching. People who talk about a given discourse will sometimes mention "the flow of the speech" or "the flow of the argument." 

Notice too how those who the prophet said would come to "know and understand" and to speak clearly and fluently are they who were previously people who had a "fearful heart" about speaking publicly, yea, even people who "stammered" in their speech. This was fulfilled in the Book of Acts when the apostles and first Christians spoke in such language, yea, even miraculously in other languages. But on that we will enlarge upon in a future chapter.

Paul advised that Christian speak should be -

"Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you." (I Titus 2: 8)

By "sound speech" is meant healthy talk, not "sick speech." It should reflect life and light, should invigorate and enliven, enrich, and be robust. It should rejuvenate, motivate, vivify, energize, and refresh listeners. Paul says that "sound speech" is what "cannot be condemned," that is, cannot be legitimately refuted. Notice how Paul describes speech in a debate format. There is the speaker with "sound speech," the one with the truth of the proposition in debate, on one side, and then there is the opponent on the other side, "he that is of the contrary side." Notice how Paul describes the victory of truth verbally defended by the Christian debater. He says that the opponent 1) "cannot condemn" the speaker nor his reasoning and proof (his words), and 2) becomes "ashamed" of his opposition to the sound speech, and 3) is silenced so that he has "no evil thing to say of you." 

Along this same line of thought Paul also wrore:

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." (I Tim. 6: 3-5)

"Sound speech" and "wholesome words" denote much the same thing. It is productive talk, conversation that is good for a person's well being. It is beneficial and nutritious for the hungry mind. Speech and communication for the Christian should be bible based. The bulk of words used in Christian discourse and conversation should be the very words of scripture themselves. The words of Christ and scripture should be predominant because they were chosen by Christ and the Holy Spirit (who inspired the Bible writers). The words in scripture were specially chosen by God to convey truthful ideas. 

When we look at the words chosen for use in holy scripture we see how God communicated in simple plain language, in the language of the common man. That is not to deny that the Bible contains poetry, well written narratives, clear doctrinal statements, and good rhetoric and grammar.   

As to the substance of a conversation or discourse one should avoid debates and verbal disputes about "questions and strifes of words," and avoid "perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds." From such types of discussions one should "withdraw," should not participate in. Sophists and popular speakers often participate in such useless argumentation. Paul says they "dote" over such kinds of arguing, doting denoting a mental sickness. As mentioned earlier from another passage, such quarrels over words involve "foolish and unlearned questions." (II Tim. 2: 23) They are called logomachies. Wrote Dr. Gill on this doting:

"or he is "sick or diseased"; his mind is distempered; he is like one in a fever, that is delirious; his head is light and wild; his fancy is roving, and he talks of things he knows not what; his head runs upon "questions"; foolish and unlearned ones, about the law and works, and the necessity of them to justification and salvation; concerning genealogies, and other fruitless and unprofitable subjects." (Commentary)

Notice how such doting conversation about things of no serious import often involves "railings," the disputants merely making ad hominems and spewing out personal attacks towards each other, casting aspersions, denigrating, ranting and raving, yelling and screaming, etc. Such unhealthy discourse also often entails "evil surmisings," or "groundless suspicions," or "wicked opinions." Such discourse produces anger and wrath, discord, turbulent clashes, all of which is most unbecoming speech, very unhealthy.

In order to speak well a speaker should strive for clarity so that hearers might not be in doubt as to what is being said, so that there be no misunderstandings or misinterpretations, no confusion. Wrote Paul:

"So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air...Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." (I Cor. 14: 9, 19)

Speak so as to be clearly understood. To do this, in most cases, one should choose words that are well known and easily understood. 

The early Christians were enabled to speak "in an unknown tongue," and this indeed shows the superiority of the believer's conversation and discourse over that of unbelievers, including its elite speakers. The divine gift of tongues was intended to demonstrate this superiority in speech and language to the unbelievers no doubt. Paul said that the gift of tongues "are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." (I Cor. 14: 22) Why is the gift of tongues a sign to unbelievers? Are not all spiritual and supernatural gifts, all miracles, signs? Either to believers or unbelievers? Paul goes on to say that the gift of prophecy was a gift to believers, but not to unbelievers. So then, how and why is the gift of supernatural speech a sign to unbelievers? And, what does the sign signify to unbelievers? What message does it communicate to them?

Most commentators have not sufficiently explained how the gift of tongues in particular is a sign to unbelievers. Many say that the gift of tongues was like other spiritual gifts and miracles, all of them being signs to unbelievers. But that is not tenable. Why single out the gifts of tongues? Further, Paul says the gift of prophecy was not a sign to unbelievers, and yet it was a miraculous gift. Are all of the supernatural gifts signs? Some of the sign gifts may be intended for believers alone, like prophecy, some intended for unbelievers alone, like tongues, and some intended for both, or for neither if some of them are not "signs." 

What message was God sending to unbelievers by the sign of tongues? Why can it not be seen as a word of condemnation towards orators, rhetoricians, and the Sophists of the present world? The experts in speech, the linguists who knew multiple languages, the professional speakers, existing in Corinth and the Greek speaking world, when they heard men of the lower classes of believers speak fluently in foreign languages, miraculously, what would have been their opinion of it? The meaning of the sign for unbelievers, how is it different than the other sign gifts? There must be some word from God intended specifically for unbelievers in their hearing believers speak in tongues, for a symbol's purpose is to convey ideas in imagery. It seems that unbelievers must see in the sign a divine condemnation or judgement of some kind, and many commentators affirm this much, but disagree on the nature of the condemnation. It seems more likely that it was a judgement upon all their lofty ideas about the role, nature, and importance of rhetoric. Certainly it condemns the Sophist idea about the purpose of good speaking, which was not to glorify God or to correctly teach religious truth.

So far as speech is a means of one person communicating to another or to others it must be in a language and verbiage that hearers understand. Such speech not only includes the choice of words but in speaking them clearly and distinctly, as was the case in Nehemiah.

"So they read (out loud) in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." (Neh. 8: 8)

The content of speech should be paramount, far more important than the manner in which speech is delivered, and words and sentences are the ingredients of that content. But, if one cannot understand your words because you are not speaking with good diction, your words will have been of no benefit. To mumble words and to slur speech is a hindrance to good speech. 

Some speakers are good as entertaining people with the quality of their diction and the melodic rhythm of their words. But, if a speech merely pleases the ear in such a way without informing and teaching, then it is of little value. In the discoursing of Ezekiel we see an example where speech merely tickled the ear of the hearers in spite of the fact that he was speaking the truth in substance.

"And they come unto thee as the people come, and they sit before you as my people, and they hear your words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they show much love, but their heart goes after their covetousness. And, lo, you are unto them as a very lovely song of one that has a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear your words, but they do them not." (Eze. 33: 31-32)

Ezekiel was a good speaker apparently. But, he was not merely such because of his eloquence only but because he was informing the people about what God's word says. So, the fact that the people were merely entertained by hearing the pleasing and melodic voice of the prophet is not the fault of Ezekiel the speaker but the fault of his audience. Still, many highly paid popular speakers would love for their hearers to be as entertained with their speaking as were the people hearing Ezekiel. 

On this verse Dr. Gill wrote (Commentary):

"Whose voice, and the music of it, are regarded, and not the matter of the song, but the manner in which it is sung; so these people did not so much attend to what the prophet said as the manner of his delivery; they were delighted with the harmony of his voice, the eloquence of his speech, the propriety of his expressions, the eloquence and aptness of his diction, and the cadency of his words, and not with the excellent doctrines he delivered; they were affected and pleased no otherwise than if they had been at a concert of music; or had been entertained by one that understood not only vocal music, but could "play well on an instrument" at the same time, and make both agree together; which yields much pleasure to lovers of music."

In the new testament such entertaining discourse is spoken of under the metaphor of "tickling" an "itching ear" (II Tim. 4: 3) which denotes being "tickled in their hearing." (Vincent) People today speak of "tickling one's fancy," denoting something, including talk, that makes people feel good. It generally involves comedic talk, loose talk, talk designed merely to entertain and move the emotions without imparting any substance or knowledge, sort of what we see in most "chit chat." 

Profitable discourse and conversation for he believer requires grace poured into their lips and their mouths sanctified. Said the Psalmist: "You art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into your lips: therefore God has blessed you for ever." (Psa. 45: 2; See also Prov. 22: 11)

This grace is most needed when the believer faces a hostile opponent to what he says as one who disseminates truth. He needs God's grace and blessing to have courage and boldness at such times in order to defend the teachings of scripture. Notice these words from Jeremiah the prophet about his being sent to speak in the name of the Lord.  

"Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations. Then said I, Ah, Lord God! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. But the Lord said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for you shall go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command you you shall speak. Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with you to deliver you, says the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in your mouth." (Jer. 1: 4-9)

Like Moses we see how Jeremiah also shrunk back from his call to go and teach the rebellious sinners of his day because he felt his inabilities. But, God told him not to fear, to put his trust in him, and the Lord assured him that he would give him what abilities he needed to speak in his name, saying that he would "deliver" him from harm and threats, and he also equipped him with powers of speech by "touching" his mouth and by putting God's "words in your mouth." The believer can be assured that God will bless him as he purposes to speak in the name of the Lord.

God's Elect or World's Elite? XXVII

Having shown how the believer is gifted in speech and having shown the evils of "corrupt communication," of unbelievers, including their best talkers and disputers, we will now focus on the good speech of believers, especially those who have been schooled in the scriptures. 

The above passage is one the best passages on Christian speech, on verbal communication. There are a lot of things to carefully observe in the comments of Paul. It is ironic that Paul, accused of being unsophisticated in his speech by the Sophist elites, knew quite a lot about good public speaking. We have already noticed many texts of the apostle on the subject. He knew well the philosophy of the Sophists and their tactics in persuasion and rhetoric, as we have seen. 

"Speech" in the above is from "logos" of which we have already much spoken. Let your discourse, let your words, let your logic and reasoning, let your argumentation, let your exhortations, etc., be "in grace." In other words, "be gracious in speech" and "minister grace to hearers." 

There should be no suspicion in the audience that the speaker has ulterior motives or does not wish the good of the hearers. There must be a real sense of honesty and sincerity detected in the words of a speaker by an audience for there to be credibility. Public speakers in the Christian community must be charming without trying to charm or to mesmerize an audience. 

To speak with grace is to be charming, attractive, and gracious in speech, and by charming I mean in the sense of being kind and gentle, in the sense of having a pleasing disposition, an attractive personality, a welcoming face, a friendly persona, etc. These qualities should accompany the words of Christian speakers and be seen and sensed by the hearers for there to be any credibility. Concerning what else is involved in the meaning of "grace" we will have more to say shortly.

We have already seen how good speech is one that edifies and one that "ministers grace to the hearers." In the above instruction the apostle mentions speaking "with grace." What does he mean by speaking with grace? What does it mean to receive grace? What is grace?

Charisma

Grace comes from the Greek word "charis" and is defined as "that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech, good will, loving-kindness, favour." (Strong)

Many give the most simplest of definitions when they say "grace means unmerited favor." But, though this is certainly true, grace involves much more. Also, such a simple definition does not explain what is involved in being "favored." We often do use "grace" and "favor" interchangeably, as when we say "he favored us with his presence" or "he graced us with his presence." But, in either case, the idea includes not only some information about the giver of grace but also about the effect that grace and favor has on the recipient. Grace given necessarily involves a change in the recipient and involves the impartation of some gift or character quality to the receiver of grace. 

Wrote W. E. Vine (Vine's NT Words):

"Grace: has various uses, 

(a) objective, that which bestows or occasions pleasure, delight, or causes favorable regard; it is applied, e.g., to beauty, or gracefulness of person, Luk 2:40; act, 2 Cr 8:6, or speech, Luk 4:22, RV, "words of grace" (AV, "gracious words"); Col 4:6; 

(b) subjective, 

(1) on the part of the bestower, the friendly disposition from which the kindly act proceeds, graciousness, loving-kindness, goodwill generally, e.g., Act 7:10; especially with reference to the Divine favor or "grace," e.g., Act 14:26; in this respect there is stress on its freeness and universality, its spontaneous character, as in the case of God's redemptive mercy, and the pleasure or joy He designs for the recipient; thus it is set in contrast with debt, Rom 4:4, 16, with works, Rom 11:6, and with law, Jhn 1:17; see also, e.g., Rom 6:14, 15; Gal 5:4; 

 

(2) on the part of the receiver, a sense of the favor bestowed, a feeling of gratitude, e.g., Rom 6:17 ("thanks"); in this respect it sometimes signifies "to be thankful," e.g., Luk 17:9 ("doth he thank the servant?" lit., "hath he thanks to"); 1 Ti 1:12; 

 

(c) in another objective sense, the effect of "grace," the spiritual state of those who have experienced its exercise..." (Vine)

From this definition and analysis of new testament usage, we can have a better understanding of what it means to "let your speech be always with grace." It speaks to the manner of speaking or discoursing. To speak with grace means to be charming and attractive in speech, not repulsive or antagonistic. It denotes both a graceful disposition and graceful language. It means to speak with a "friendly disposition" and from good character and composure. In this respect graceful speech has to do with "ethos," one of the three aspects of persuasion, the other two being "pathos" and "logos." Of these three we will have more to say. But, for now we say only this much about "ethos." 

Speaking "with or in grace" is similar to the exhortation to "speak the truth in love." (Eph. 4: 15) Combining these ideas we have "graceful discourse" and "lovely speech" or something similar. The idea of beauty being connected to the meaning of "grace" may be seen in the words of James from the KJV who gave us the words "the grace of the fashion of it (the earth) perishes." (James 1: 11) The word "grace" in this text is not from "charis" but from "euprepeia" but the KJV translators used the word "grace" for it because they understood that grace involved beauty.

Aristotle's first element of persuasion is ethos, or the speaker's credibility. Involved in a speaker's credibility are his credentials, reputation, knowledge and expertise, etc. As we will see, Paul's credibility or ethos was called into question by the Sophists in Corinth and Paul responds to it. A man must be believable and judged as reasonable, not outlandish. 

Vine also notes that ""grace," is once rendered "benefit," 2 Cr 1:15" and says that "it stresses the character of the "benefit," as the effect of the gracious disposition of the benefactor." 

Again, we must emphasize that the word grace many times in its usage in the new testament, and even in Greek literature, focuses upon "the effect" of divine grace and favor on the receiver. But on this too we will have more to say.

Vine adds:

"Favor, Favored: denotes 

(a) objectively, "grace in a person, graciousness," 

(b) subjectively, 

 

(1) "grace on the part of a giver, favor, kindness," 

(2) "a sense of favor received, thanks." 

It is rendered "favor" in Luk 1:30; 2:52; Act 2:47; 7:10, 46; 24:27; 25:9, RV (for AV, "pleasure"); Act 25:3." 

Upon these definitions we will have more to say. However, let us enlarge upon the meaning of "charis" in Greek history and literature. In "The Roots of Charisma" by John Potts (here) we have these remarks:

"Charis in Greek and Hellenistic culture Charis was a remarkable word in Greek culture, encompassing a broad range of meanings. The English word most suited to conveying the breadth and diversity of nuances contained in charis is ‘grace’ – but only if grace is understood to incorporate, at the very least, ‘attractiveness’, ‘favour’, ‘gratitude’ and ‘charm’, as well as ‘gift’. The primary meanings attached to charis before Paul’s appropriation of the word were ‘grace, beauty, charm, favor, goodwill, free benevolence, gift, benefit, gratitude’. These connotations derived from three branches of significance associated with its primary meaning of ‘grace’: grace in the sense of personal beauty or charm; in the sense of favour or love; in the sense of benefit or gift, offered out of one’s goodness." (pg. 12)

Those three branches of significance for the usage of "grace" are important to keep in mind as one studies the multitude of places where the word is used in the new testament. Notice again how one of the common usages of grace is that of "gift" or "benefit." This is the way in which one was "favored" by another. It is also one way in which a person is "set apart" or "sanctified," the way he is distinguished. Upon this we will enlarge shortly.

Potts continued:

"Charis features in the mythology detailed by Homer and Hesiod in the eighth century BC. In the Iliad, Charis is a ‘lovely’ goddess with a ‘shining veil’, outstanding in the realm of deities due to her beauty: she is ‘shining among divinities’ (18, 382–8).3 In plural form (number unspecified in Homer, identified as three in Hesiod), the Charites or Graces confer all grace, even the favour of Victory in the Games. In the Odyssey, the goddess Athene bestows charis on a favoured mortal, Odysseus’s son Telemachus: Athene endowed him with such supernatural grace [charis] that all eyes were turned on him in admiration when he came up." 

"This Homeric reference contains two elements that will appear – in a transformed state – in Paul: that charis is bestowed by a divine agency, and that it results in a special quality in certain humans. Charis in Homer also contains the sense that a special individual’s outward grace is the result of being well favoured. The primary Classical Greek meaning of grace as physical loveliness covers attractiveness of speech and physical beauty, as well as the notion that such outward grace is the result of bestowal by the gods." 

Again, as we have said, grace received involves being favored but favor involves, as Potts says, receiving a "special quality" that makes one a "special individual" with "outward grace" radiating from internal grace. The graciousness and beauty of believers is in their character and behavior, in the minds, souls, and spirits, and not in their physical bodies. The physical body does not receive grace. It is the inner man who is graced by God.

Potts continued:

"The gracious act of bestowal, as represented in Athene’s endowment of grace upon a mortal, is an important component of the network of meanings contained within charis. Grace was understood as a favour, connecting giver and recipient in a binding relationship." 

Again, as Vine stated, we have both the objective and subjective aspects of grace, grace viewed from the standpoint of the giver and that of the receiver. Also notice that Potts brings out an important point that is often overlooked by bible teachers as respects how grace given and received creates a "connection" between giver and receiver, a "binding relationship." Also notice how Potts, like Vine and other Greek scholars, mentions the numerous usages and meanings for the single word "charis" or "grace," speaking of "the network of meanings." This is similar to what we saw concerning the Greek word "logos," the word for "speech" and it cognates and synonyms. 

Potts continued:

"For the giver, charis meant graciousness and goodwill to the one receiving the act of kindness. For the recipient, charis meant the favour received and the gratitude resulting from this favour. The acknowledgement of gratitude was an important social act: it could be expressed in a return gift, or in acknowledging that the recipient was beholden to the giver. This ethos of reciprocity features in Homer, particularly in the counter-gift that connects benefactor and recipient in a system of obligation and honour."

Again, Potts like Vine speaks of grace objectively on the part of the giver (God or the gods generally) and subjectively on the part of the receiver, that of the benefactor and beneficiary. 

So, what does it mean for the recipient to be "graced"? What change is effected in the recipient? Grace is often used in the new testament for a divine gift that is given apart from merit or desert. In fact it is part of the historical meaning. Again Potts mentions the relationship produced by the giving of grace between the divine giver and the mortal recipient in what he called the "ethos of reciprocity." 

Now let us speak about of the uses of grace in modern English. If someone "moves with grace," we mean that they move in a smooth, controlled, and attractive way. We speak of the "social graces," being the ways of behaving and doing things which are considered polite and well-mannered, beautiful and elegant. When something "graces" a place or a person, the meaning is that it makes the place or person more attractive, more appealing and delightful. People also speak of "saying grace" before meals. We also have "grace periods" in contracts. Of course, we also have the word "charisma" (derivative from charis). In an article on the Internet for "Psychology Today" titled "What is charisma?" we have these words about the definition of "charisma" in English today (See here):

 "Charisma is a personal quality, evident in the way an individual communicates to others, that makes someone more influential. This power to attract attention and influence people can be embodied in the way someone speaks, what someone says, and how someone looks when communicating." 

 

Notice the mention of "personal quality" connected with "grace" or "charisma" as we observed earlier from the words of Potts who spoke of that "special quality" that graced/favored persons have about their persona and presence as a result of being given divine grace. Notice also how charisma involves being able to "attract attention" in speech, to "influence people" by discourse and logical argument, by the what of the speech, its substance, but also by the manner of address and the "looks" of the speaker, both which respects his face while talking and his clothes and mannerisms.

The article next asks "What is a charismatic person like?" and says:

"A variety of factors can make a person charismatic. They include but are not limited to: confidence, exuberance, optimism, expressive body language, and a passionate voice. People with charisma are often enthusiastic and speak with assertiveness."

Surely our Lord and his apostles were charismatic persons in the highest sense! However, they were not "charismatic" in the same sense in which the world speaks of it. The world of unbelievers, especially among its elite, has its charismatic individuals but so too does the Christian world. Nevertheless, there are of course similarities and shared definitions.

Under the sub title "How to Develop Charisma" the article said: 

"Like many characteristics, charisma is not something you simply have or don’t have. There are different ways of defining what counts as charisma, and some people possess certain—or sometimes, many—charismatic qualities in above-average proportions, from a talent for emotional storytelling to beaming confidence. While charisma is sometimes described as a “gift,” some experts have sought to break it down into specific characteristics and argue that it can be learned. Many people, not just celebrities and presidents, use their charisma to stand out from the crowd."

In the bible grace and charisma are viewed as being both gift (talent) and skill, the former not having to be learned, while the latter involves training. Christians have been given grace and this grace imparts to them inner qualities and strengths, inner intuitive knowledge, character alterations, various virtues, etc. But, they nevertheless still require training to sharpen their skills and gifts and so grace is both art and science.

The article says further:

"Charisma may come more naturally to some people—certain personality traits, like extroversion, could help. But even highly charismatic people may have learned from role models along the way, and some experts believe that charismatic behaviors can be trained."

Again, charisma is both art (gift) and skill. 

Christ The Example

Christ is "full of grace and truth." Wrote John: 

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that comes after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace." (John 1: 14-16)

Christ was "full of grace." That means that he as the incarnate Son was highly favored by God his Father. We also read of Stephen, the first recorded Christian martyr: "And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people." (Acts 6: 8) The KJV translation erroneously translates "charis" as "faith" and so translates Stephen as being "full of faith and power." So too was Mary addressed and described by the angel Gabriel as "kecharitōmenē" or "highly favored" or "full of grace" in Luke 1: 28. 

But, Christ's grace excels all. In fact, it is of "his fullness" of grace that all grace comes. They "receive grace for grace," or better "grace on top of grace," or "grace and more grace," or "grace upon grace." Grace comes in degrees, in various measures. (Eph. 4: 7) So James indicated when he said: "But he gives more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble." (James 4: 6) Paul spoke of "abundance of grace" (Rom. 5: 17). He also says that believers each have "gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us" (12: 6), that is, have gifts that correspond to the measure of grace given. Just as the Spirit dwelt in Jesus "without measure" (John 3: 34) so too does Christ have grace without measure. 

Given our extended definition of "grace" we can well say that Christ was "full of grace" in the sense that he was as a man charming, attractive in speech and character, charismatic, a man with qualities that won the approval of both men and God. The gospel record says “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor (Greek "charis") with God and man.” (Luke 2: 52) We may say that Christ was "in the good graces of" both God and men. Solomon wrote: "So you will find favor (grace) and a good reputation in the sight of God and man." (Prov. 3: 4) 

Christ was a charismatic personality. He had a friendly face on most occasions (except when confronting his accusers), and spoke with enthusiasm and optimism in his exhortations and pronouncements. He was not a Pharisee who "put on airs," and who "disfigured their faces" so that they "might appear unto men" to be what they are not. (Matt. 6: 16) Jesus had no pretensions and his speech engendered trustworthiness in those who heard him among the common people.

The grace of Christ's words, of his discoursing, of his verbal teachings, of his own oracles, his speech, is the example for all speakers, especially for believers. Wrote Luke:

"And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?" (Luke 4: 22)

About Christ's speaking with "gracious words" Gill says that it speaks of "the graceful manner in which he delivered himself, and the aptness of his words, the propriety of his diction, and the majesty, power, and authority, with which his expressions were clothed." (Commentary) The words of the Lord were truly charismatic, beautiful, and so fitting. Solomon said "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver." (Prov. 25: 11) Nothing Christ said was "out of place." He spoke only what was appropriate or "fitting" for the time, need, and circumstances, and this kind of word was most beautiful, drawing or attracting attention. A "word fitly spoken" corresponds to that ability in speech to "speak a word in season" (Isa. 50: 4) Good speakers not only know what to say, but to whom to say it and when to say it.

Grace and truth go together. Truth (Greek "aletheia") is not only what is right and correct, but also the manifestation of reality, the unveiling of what is actual, the removing of all the illusions, veils, shams, phoniness, facades, pretensions, counterfeits, fakery and fraud. In speech grace and truth should be essential elements of Christian logos. 

The bible speaks of "seeing the grace of God" by which is meant "seeing the effects of the grace of God" (Acts 11: 23), such as in seeing the "ornament of a meek and quiet spirit" in believers (I Peter 3: 4), a "mildness of disposition" in their speaking.Though the word "ornament" is not in the Greek text yet it is implied from the previous verse where Peter says "your adornment must not be." And so the meaning is that your adornment and ornament should be in possessing such a spirit, character, and personality.

Gifts Of Grace

"Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us." (12: 6) 

Every gift from God is a "gift of grace." Further, each gift of grace is sometimes also called a grace. The above text indicates that this is so. So too does this text:

"Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also." (II Cor. 8: 7; Also vs. 19)

By "this grace" Paul refers to the financial giving of believers towards support of ministers and needy brothers and sisters. Liberality and hospitality are Christian "graces." A generous believer, a "cheerful giver" (II Cor. 9: 7), demonstrates grace.  In fact, in Romans 12 Paul lists several Christian gifts, such as prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhortation, etc. and then adds "he that gives" with the admonition to such an one to give "with simplicity." (vs. 8) It is that believer who has the gift of charitableness, having a generous spirit. It is not the kind of giving or philanthropy that characterizes sinners. Said Jesus: "And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full." (Luke 6: 34) Those who have the grace and resources given them to be a giver should give expecting nothing in return.

The above passage not only shows us how the gift of giving is a grace, but also how faith, speech, knowledge, love, and diligence, yea all things wherein believers "abound," are also each a grace or gift of grace. The gospel is called "grace," or "the grace of God." (Gal. 1: 6) Paul says that he "was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me." (Eph. 3: 7) Peter speaks of spouses being "heirs together of the grace of life" (II Peter 3: 7), life itself being a grace or gift of grace. Solomon said that "whoever finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor (grace) of the Lord." (Prov. 18: 22) A good wife (husband too) is a gift of grace. Peter also spoke of the "manifold grace of God" (I Peter 4: 10).

Grace Is Unmerited Favor

"Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." (Rom. 4: 4)

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." (Rom. 11: 5-6)

Integral to the meaning of grace, especially in scripture, is the idea of what is unmerited, unearned, what is a "free gift." (Rom. 5: 15-18) It is a gift that comes with "no strings attached." It only has to be accepted or received. Said Paul also in Romans: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6: 23) Notice the contrasts in the above words. "Wages" is set opposite "gift," and "death" is set opposite to "life," yea, "eternal life." What comes from grace is not wages, not earned, not what is due. Said Paul:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Eph. 2: 8-9)

No recipient of grace can take credit to himself and away from the gracious giver without incurring the severest condemnation. Faith, as we have seen, is a grace given. In the Book of Acts it is recorded that sinners "believed through grace." (Acts 18: 27) It is either all of God's doing or it is not. Salvation, eternal life, yea, every blessing and every good thing is a gracious "gift from God." 

Grace excludes all bragging, all boasting, all taking credit, and credits all to the benefactor. Like the prodigal son, who said in contrition to his father, "I have sinned and am not worthy to be your son" (Luke 15: 19) so too do believers confess their unworthiness for all the good they have. Believers in understanding this learn to be gracious themselves because they have themselves experienced divine graciousness, just as they learn to be merciful because they have been shown mercy. They display grace, especially in their speech, because they have been given grace. Graceful lips are what we need, with each other, with our spouses, our friends, etc. 

Seasoned With Salt

Having discussed what it means to speak "with grace," we will now look at what it means to have speech that is "seasoned with salt." The chief thought is to be seen in the word "seasoned" rather than in the word "salt." In other words, Paul says good speech is "seasoned" or "flavored" discourse. Paul, if he were in our day could have said "seasoned with salt and pepper," or seasoned with any other of the many seasonings available today. Seasoning makes things taste better, making many foods more palatable. 

The Sophists also knew well how to season or flavor their speech, but the seasonings they used are either not good or given in too much amounts. One of these seasonings, as we have seen, is "flattery." They know how to spruce up their discourse with praise on the audience, how to season what is in itself not very palatable or tasty. But, this is not the kind of seasoning for edifying speech. 

If there is any additional signification to the mention of salt other than as a seasoning it may be in the sense that salt, being a preservative, is intended to convey the idea that a speaker should discourse in a way that is memorable, in a way in which his words are preserved in memory. We don't want people to leave hearing us and not remembering much about what we said. We want them to go away praising the message, not the messenger. 

The "spirit" that accompanies speech is also very important. Speech will reveal the speaker's spirit, that is, his disposition, his emotional state, temperament, etc. Speech should be in a lively spirit, for instance. It should be accompanied by a graceful spirit, a sincere and honest spirit, a loving and caring spirit. It also should be with a bold and courageous spirit, with a spirit of holiness, with a reverent spirit, etc. 

And finally, the purpose of good Christian discourse is so that the believer may "know how to answer every man." We should be in the answering business as believers and teachers of the word of God. Recall the words of Peter that we have already spoken of, where he exhorts all believers to be ready to give a verbal defense of the gospel and word of God. 

Spurgeon's Advice On Sermons

"Do not close a single sermon without addressing the ungodly, but at the same time set yourself seasons for a determined and continuous assault upon them, and proceed with all your soul to the conflict. On such occasions aim distinctly at immediate conversions; labour to remove prejudices, to resolve doubts, to conquer objections, and to drive the sinner out of his hiding-places at once." 

(From Lectures to my Students as cited here)

I agree with Spurgeon. How about you? I pray more of my Hardshell preacher brethren will heed this advice from the great Baptist preacher.

Need Assurance? Test Yourself

The apostle Paul exhorts professing Christians “to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test (be reprobates kjv)?” (II Cor. 13: 5)

The context has Paul defending himself against those who question his apostolic authority and he essentially says, in a piece of irony, perhaps even sarcasm, "You seek a test of my power. Apply a test to yourselves." 

Vincent's Word Studies says:

"Examine yourselves (ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε). Yourselves is emphatic. Instead of putting Christ to the test, test yourselves. Rev., try, is better than examine. Examination does not necessarily imply a practical test. It may be merely from curiosity. Trial implies a definite intent to ascertain their spiritual condition.

Assuming that you thus prove yourselves, does not this test show you that Christ is in you as the result of your faith in him?"

On "fail the test" or "reprobates" Vincent says:

"Reprobates (ἀδόκιμοι); An unfortunate translation. A reprobate is one abandoned to perdition. The word is kindred to the verb prove (δοκιμάζετε), and means disapproved on trial."

The Amplified Bible reads:

"Examine and test and evaluate your own selves to see whether you are holding to your faith and showing the proper fruits of it. Test and prove yourselves [not Christ]. Do you not yourselves realize and know [thoroughly by an ever-increasing experience] that Jesus Christ is in you—unless you are [counterfeits] disapproved on trial and rejected?" 

Phillips Translation reads: 

"You should be looking at yourselves to make sure that you are really Christ's. It is yourselves that you should be testing, not me. You ought to know by this time that Christ is in you, unless you are not real Christians at all."

Wuest translates as:

"Be putting yourselves to the test whether you are in the Faith. Be putting yourselves to the test for the purpose of approving yourselves, and finding that you meet the specifications, put your approval upon yourselves. Or, do you yourselves not recognize that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are those who are disapproved?"

Christians need to pay attention to this statement of the apostle. Not all who profess to be in union with Christ, and therefore saved, are really attached to him. How can we know if we are? 

There are so many "shallow ground hearers" of the gospel. They are half hearted believers. They are "fair weather" Christians who "believe for awhile," but when persecution or trial comes for being Christian they fall away. They hastily made a profession without "counting the cost" and therefore do not last long. As the shallow ground produces plants with shallow roots so they therefore cannot endure the heat of the sun and so wilt and die, never bringing forth fruit. (Matt. 13; Luke 8; Mark 4)

If we do not hate sin, then we fail the test of being truly born again and a "partaker of the divine nature." (II Peter 1: 3-4) If we do not love righteousness and holiness, then we fail the test. If we do not regularly pray and study the word of God, then we fail the test. If we do not walk humbly with God, then we fail the test.

We cannot take our salvation for granted. "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." (I Cor. 10: 12) But, let us not stand in doubt either. You can pass the test. It begins with simple faith and a turning in repentance to the Lord. 

"Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble." (II Peter 1: 10)

"Life Precedes Action" & Hardshell Logic

From chapter nine "Hardshell Logic On Regeneration" (here) I wrote this:

Life precedes action

Here is what Brother Gowens wrote:

"Birth is the necessary prerequisite of belief, in the same sense that life must come before activity."

Here Brother Gowens is upholding the "Bio-Genesis" argument. Sinners must be regenerated first, apart from means, before they can believe, repent, turn to Christ, etc. Why? Because there are Bible verses that say that? No, but because Hardshells are using human "logic" and applying it to the mysteries of God.

But, Hardshell views on regeneration say that life exists where there is absolutely no activity at all! That just won't wash either. Just as "faith without works (actions) is dead," so too "life without activity is dead." Remember that Sarrels said that regeneration "produces no internal sensations", or no activity! We cannot say, dogmatically, which came first, faith or life, faith or repentance, for the scriptures put them in reverse order. This, combined with the overall commentary of the apostles and New Testament writers, tells us that they occur simultaneously, or as I said earlier, you cannot have one without the other. You cannot have life without faith, nor can you have faith without life. So too we say that one cannot have faith without repentance nor repentance without faith.

Notice these words of Jesus to some who were clearly "dead in tresspassess and sins," and needed life.

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:40)

If the Hardshell theory were true, Christ could not speak thusly but would have to say, "And you will not have life that you may come unto me." Coming to Christ precedes the obtaining of life. "Coming" is a verb, and denotes action. So too do we read in Isaiah 45:22: "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." It is similar to Numbers 21:8.

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live."

Notice that salvation, the "shall live," is the result of the action of "looking." In the teaching of Christ, this "looking" corresponds to our believing in Christ and seeing him upon the cross, the anti-type of the pole set up by Moses in the wilderness. In the preaching of the gospel people see Christ "set forth" and "crucified." (Gal. 3:1) They see him, his sufferings and death, and they look in faith to that atonement, trusting in it, and are thereby changed and born of the Spirit. The Spirit works through the word in bringing men to Christ. I will have more to say later, in a separate chapter, on "Coming To Christ," wherein I examine Hardshell teaching about what it means to "come to Christ."

Now let me add a few thoughts to the above (the whole chapter is worth reading).

Ezekiel and the giving of life to the dry dead bones. Was there action before life? Yes.

Wrote the apostle John:

"but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20: 31)

Does life come from believing or does believing come from life? Can you have one without the other? Is believing "action" and does it occur before life? Likewise, as noted above, John wrote:

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5: 40)

Is coming an action? Does that action precede or follow obtaining life? 

What think ye?