(Rom 12:2 ESV) 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Many readers overlook the passive voice. Paul does not say, “Renew your mind.” He says, “Be transformed.” What is unspoken is who does the transforming.
The word translated “transform” is metamorphoo — which is the root of “metamorphosis.” It can mean either tranformation or transfiguration. Indeed, the word only appears in the New Testament in the transfiguration accounts, here, and in —
(2Co 3:18 ESV) And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
In each case, the source of the transformation/transfiguration is God or the Spirit. All four are in the passive voice. Jesus was transfigured. We are transformed.
The passage is closely parallel to —
(Psa 51:10 ESV) 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.
Paul speaks of our “minds.” Earlier he’d written,
(Rom 1:28 ESV) And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
That is, before our salvation, our minds were debased. Fortunately, because we’ve received the Spirit, God goes to work renewing our minds so that they won’t be debased any more.
Now, “renew” means, of course, to make new again. The thought isn’t that our minds become like a baby’s mind. Rather, they become more like the mind God meant us to have before sin entered the world — we get a fresh start with sin defeated but not yet destroyed in us.
The idea, of course, is that we mustn’t allow the world to shape our thinking but must, instead, allow the Spirit to do so, so that the Spirit’s work of conforming our minds to God’s will will be fully realized. Don’t resist the Spirit!
The unexpected thing, at least to me, is Paul’s statement that we can then “test” or “prove” God’s will. Oh, wow! The word used here is the same word used earlier in Romans to describe the state of the lost —
(Rom 1:28 ESV) And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
(Rom 2:17-21 ESV) 17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth– 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal?
The pagans and Jews both approved the wrong things. But Christians — if they submit to the Spirit’s work in their minds — will approve God’s will. This is the renewal Paul wants for us.
Now, this is really important. You see, we are told that only those whose minds have been reshaped by the Spirit can truly approve of God’s will. That means that the disputes that Christians have are very often due to our failure to submit to God’s retooling of our brains. We make Bible study and doctrine so humanistic — so much a work of man — that we can’t agree because we are approving the wrong things.
I’m not saying that we should expect inspiration! The weakness of the flesh is still with us. But over time, we should agree more and more, because the Spirit is pushing us all in the same direction (1 Cor 2 has the same thought). But, of course, this isn’t happening among us all — and I would say that the cure begins with a healthier, sounder theology of the Spirit. It’s my experience that the Spirit works most powerfully in those who understand that the Spirit works in them. It’s just hard to submit to a work of God that you deny.
But, of course, God’s will is much bigger and deeper than doctrine. Sometimes we need to discern his will for the direction of our lives or our congregations. There aren’t many elderships that haven’t prayed to God for guidance on how to deal with a difficult case. And Paul says we’ll understand God’s will better as our minds are transformed.
Now, he doesn’t say that our minds are transformed by our understanding. Rather, he says the transformation helps us to understand — and that makes all the difference in the world. You see, until we allow God to get our hearts and minds right, we can’t make good decisions as Bible students or leaders. Of course, Bible study helps, but there are some very studious readers of the Bible who are truly clueless about its meaning. Only transformation leads to understanding.
Therefore, we need to learn to pray and live submissively. We need to ask God for wisdom and understanding and knowledge. And sometimes we need to let God teach us rather than man. I mean, a large portion of the Christian world — including a large portion of the Churches of Christ — is laboring under a series of lies about what the Bible says and how to apply it. But I increasingly find people whose hearts and minds have been transformed despite their education. God sometimes gives us doubts about what the preacher or professor or blogger is saying, and he leads us into the truth despite the deceit that surrounds us. And when I see such people, I thank God for his work in them.
We would like to think that understanding the Bible is as simple as taking a course or two in hermeneutics and then just picking it up and reading it. But the reality is that it starts with having the right heart and mind. And I know people who’ve intuited the truth long before they’ve found it in the Bible. And these are people who with great humility submitted themselves to God.
Humility, I’m convinced, is the key to hermeneutics. Until you’re so delighted to learn a new truth that you don’t mind being proven wrong, you’ll never get it right.
Jay, I have been suggesting for years that the three keys to hermeneutical accuracy are Humility, Integrity, and Community.
I think your definition of hermeneutical humility: "being so delighted to learn a new truth that you don't mind being proven wrong" is so brilliant and lively that I will probably co-opt it if I ever get around to writing directly about these three things.
By hermeneutical integrity, I don't mean some vague notion of honesty or good moral character. Rather, I mean the dedication to do what you believe is true, regardless of opinion or opposition. The dedication to follow the truth wherever it leads – there's no cracks between what you're studying and what you're living. I get this idea most directly from John 8:31-32:
Quoting John 8:32 by itself misses the IF of an IF-THEN presentation by Jesus, and we do it all the time! IF we don't quit – IF we stick to doing what we learn – THEN we will know and we will be set free!
By Community, I mean that we bring everything we "discover" to the church and allow everything we "discover" to be challenged by our Spirit-filled brothers and sisters.
Humility, Integrity, Community: the keys to Hermeneutical Freedom
What are the lies you have mentioned?
including a large portion of the Churches of Christ — is laboring under a series of lies about what the Bible says and how to apply it.
I was thinking about asking that same question.
" a series of lies " that must mean a pretty long list.
Help Ted, and I out Jay, don't leave us in the dark.
Exhibit A: the Proposition 8 debacle in California.
Could you expand on your answer, Nick ?
More money is being spent in the name of Jesus to "defend marriage" by passing legislation than I even want to begin thinking about. Millions of dollars spent to promote and pass a piece of legislation that does absolutely nothing to *actually* strengthen marriages, and yet Christian men and women around the country have been duped into believing that their faith demands that they promote anti-homosexual legislation.
How much more good would all that money have done if Christians invested it in free marriage counseling classes for anyone who wanted it?
Exhibit B: Rapturist "attendance and abstinence" theology, that marginalizes Matthew 25 in favor of establishing Christian enclaves where we can all be holy together until Jesus comes and beams up the righteous to heaven before firebombing everyone who doesn't agree with me on "the essentials."
Oh, I see you are only talking about "republican" members.
Nope. I'm talking about Christians on both sides of that aisle, who believe that the way to usher in the kingdom of God is by exerting political power over their enemies. There are just as many "democratic" believers in California who spent millions of dollars fighting against Prop 8 in order to defend their constituency's right to marry.
I believe we should defend every one's God given right , and their constitutional right to make their own mistakes. but I am a democrat, so that is understandable.
But I would still like to see Jay's list.
Laymond–you are a Democrat?!
Brother, you are truly an enigma! 🙂
I'd consider two of the biggest lies to be the conventional wisdom on how a Christian should help the poor (contribute more money at church) and how we should evangelize (contribute more money at church).
Laymond is an OLD-SCHOOL Democrat, not one of these touchy-feely bunny-kissing New Democrats.
Nick, I do not object to your deffinition. 🙂
If we could all get back to being LBJ democrats, and R.Reagan republicans, we could bring the country back. But I guess that is just a dream of mine.
Jay, you wrote, "before our salvation, our minds were debased." You then added that after salvation, God "goes to work renewing our minds so that they won't be debased anymore."
But wouldn't the lost sinner who hears the gospel of his salvation and believes and repents be said to be having his mind renewed? If so, who would you say is responsible for the renewing? His own "debased" self, the Holy Spirit, or who? If his mind was really so debased without the Spirit, what caused him to want to obey God so much?
And if he can want to, and in fact obey God with his current mind….why the need to change it? Why would the guy who wants to and who does obey God on his own, need to have his mind changed? Seems that he would simply need to keep on doing whatever it is he was doing that made him so want to please and obey God in the first place…
One those "whose hearts have been opened" can understand God's truth. I have talked to men who claimed to be agnostics and athesists who knew the words of the Bible well but had no understanding of it's message.
It is the work of the Spirit in us that makes us able to know truth and then teaches it to us.
"13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. 14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one." (1 Cor 2:13-15
This passage is very clear, the natural (unsaved) person is not able to understand the things of the Spirit of God. They are foolishness to him.
There are many men who have good morals, attand church faithfully, and do all the right stuff but are only religious and not saved. They can only see the surface of a text and completely miss the meaning of it. God's truth does not depend on human wisdom but rather the Spirit of God interprets truth to those who are spiritual (saved).
Once I read this passage many years ago I immediately understood why some people just never seem to get it.
Royce
Royce,
If the unsaved person "is not able to understand the things of the Spirit of God," then how does the unsaved person ever understand and be saved? If there are some people who are genuinely unable to understand the things of God until and unless God himself "opens up their unsaved hearts"….who's fault is it then in the case of all the people whos hearts God has never oppened?
I believe the passage you wrote about (1 Cor. 2:14), has been characteristically misapplied. I believe one commentator who wrote that "the natural man is the man of natural mentioned by the apostle in the preceding first chapter of Corinthians, in contrasting hman philosephy with devine revelation. The man of natural knowledge cannot receive the things of revelation through his human chanels of information or knowledge. The chemist, the geologist, the astronomer, and all scientists are are classifications of the natural man. The chemist cannot receive the things of revelation through the chemical experiments of his laboratory; the astronomer, peering through his telescope into the heavens, may ascertain things astronomical and astrophysical, but he cannot receive through his telescope the knowlege that belongs to the revealed things of the Spirit. The natural man is the the man of natural knowledge which Paul declared could not receive nor ascertain through his natural means of knowledge the things whithin the sphere of revelation and inspiration.
He added, "the (Calvinistic) debaters in past years used this Corinthian passage as an argument of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the unspiritual or unregenerated man, to remove his sinful nature, so that by regeneration he could understand the spiritual things….The apostles conclusion in the last two verses of the chapter is evidence that he was contrasting the the realm of natural knowledge with the sphere of divine revelation: "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged by no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."
It cannot mean that the "natural man" is every "unsaved man" and that such persons just CANNOT understand the things of God. Otherwise, why even teach lost people the gospel and act as though anyone of them can actually understand and obey said gospel should they simply choose to…if in fact they cannot?
Hank,
Are you serious, or do you just like to be disagreeable? Somehow after reading lots of stuff you have asked Jay I think it is the later.
This passage is as plain as the nose of your face. You can try to make it mean something other than what it means but it says what it says and is harmony with Paul's revelation in the early chapters of Romans.
I have no intention of getting in to a lengthy dialog with you. Jay has already demonstrated that is not very helpful.
Royce
Hank, not that it is any business of mine, how you spend your time, but you are wasting it on trying to convince Royce, believe me I know. Royce is a calvinist anyway you want to put it. It never occurs to them that the "natural man, and the spiritual man" dwell within the same body.And the message is that the spiritual man will be saved, and the natural man will die. But no where does Jesus say the natural man must die before he can be acceptable to God.I can't see where Paul said that either if interpreted correctly.
A person of Calvinistic leanings told me once that it was his privilege to judge me without having to bear my judgement. His proof was “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged by no man."
I told him I didn't believe Paul was referring to him, but he was not convinced. I could be wrong, but I believe I have seen that same high opinion of himself in Mr. Ogle over the past, and maybe in this conversation.
Royce said "This passage is very clear, the natural (unsaved) person is not able to understand the things of the Spirit of God. They are foolishness to him." and "Once I read this passage many years ago I immediately understood why some people just never seem to get it.
Royce,
I was simply hoping for you to answer the obvious questions stemming from what you had written. Your decision to ignore them and to instead accuse me of being disagreeable, is telling.
At least Jay (when not ill and/or overloaded) actually addresses my questions, deeming them fair and reasonable. If you don't feel like explaining and clarifying whatever it is you write here…then, why even write it?
But, its not too cool to just "write and run" bro.
Nick,
Humility, integrity, community … I'm liking it.
Yes, you can't know the truth if you're not living the truth. The truth isn't merely some set of issues to have the right positions on. The truth is rebirth, renewal — indeed, a metamorphosis — in Jesus by the power of the Spirit.
And I'm big believer in community hermeneutics. I teach my thoughts in Bible class and let the class critique, deepen, and shape my ideas. I do the same thing here. There's nothing like iron sharpening iron to improve your thinking.
Theodore and Laymond,
I've been writing for 3 1/2 years about lies that need to be exposed and defeated.
/index-under-construction/c…
/index-under-construction/c…
/index-under-construction/t…
/index-under-construction/t…
/index-under-construction/t…
Etc. etc.
Regarding Christendom more broadly, consider —
/index-under-construction/t… and the recent review of Hunter's To Change the World: /2010/06/to-change-the-worl… ff
and /index-under-construction/t…
That's not intended to be a comprehensive list, but it should be a good start.
Hank,
"Debased" is adikimos, literally meaning "not meeting the test." The word was originally used of coins or other metal, meaning debased, that is, not sufficiently pure.
(Pro 25:4 ESV) Take away the dross from the silver, and the smith has material for a vessel;
The word came to be used metaphorically of moral impurity, but the root is one of impurity, not total depravity in the Calvinistic sense. Paul isn't saying here that the mind cannot accept Jesus until regenerated by the Spirit. There are verses from which that might be argued, but this isn't among them.
Paul is simply arguing in Rom 1:28 that the minds of the worldly are impure or don't meet God's test. He then encourages Christians to let God work in them to renew their minds.
I think it's a mistake to read 16th Century controversies into the lesson. Paul wasn't arguing prevenient grace or total depravity. He was just pointing out that (per passages in Deu, Eze, and Jer as well as Ps 51) that God himself works in our minds to renew them, and we must submit to his working within us.
His language is entirely consistent with the Law and the Prophets. And, personally, I'd rather read these passages through the eyes of Moses, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah than Calvin and Arminius.
Is the unsaved "dead", as Paul consistently taught or not? I think he is. He is an enmity with God, cannot understand the things of God, and until such time as God does a work of grace in his heart he will continue in his blindness.
When the murderers of Jesus and others listened to the first gospel message, (death, burial, and resurrection foreordained by God) they were "pricked" in their hearts. Did they do that to themselves, or did the Holy Spirit convict them?
Jesus said that when He (Holy Spirit) comes one of the things he will do is convict, or convince people of their sins. (John 16:8) He will also convince them of Jesus righteousness and the judgement of those who reject Him. God is sovereign and grants repentance to whom He wills.
To me, it is a safe place to be, to not try to play God. God is not a heavenly porter, standing at attention to react to whatever we mere mortals decide to do on a given occasion.
Salvation is either of God, is wrought by Him, and happens at His initiative, or there is no salvation. One of the most religious and moral men of Jesus' day, Nicodemus, was told by Jesus that something was lacking. Nicodemus was religious but lost, and so are many today, who by the way are not near the man Nicodemus was.
Am I a Calvinist? More so than Armenian. I don't hold to limited atonement, so I guess I am not a real Calvinist. I don't have a card. I certainly don't believe the atonement Jesus made depends on the whims of fallen, sinful, ungodly, men but upon the mercy and Grace of God.
Everyone is free to study and come to their own conclusions, and that even goes for me doesn't it?
Royce