I often peruse my Facebook wall for anything interesting…and many times my curiosity is piqued by a particular theological or philosophical statement. My early Sunday morning ventures dissected paths with this recent FB Reformed Presbyterian Fundamentalist friend, Nick Batzig.
Say hi to Nick: “Hi Nick!” Pleasant looking lad. Very smart. Very Reformed.
Nicholas Batzig
Rev. Nicholas T. Batzig is minister of New Covenant Presbyterian Church (a church plant of the PCA) in Richmond Hill, Ga. He is a contributor to Feeding on Christ and Christ the Center, a weekly Reformed podcast.
So, I come across this post of Nick’s and it captures my interest and sparks a discussion of sorts. It’s typical of how these sorts of discussions usually go when you apply Critical Thinking to dogmatic Sacred Cows. I find this convo noteworthy enough to post for your reading pleasure and consideration. Here it is, unedited and in its entirety:
Nick Batzig:
37 minutes ago near Richmond Hill, GA
“It is only because the author assumes his readers have assimilated the gist of this teaching that he expects
his appeal to come with convincing force to them. They would understand that Jesus Christ must indeed be the same yesterday and today and forever because they remembered who Jesus Christ was and in what terms he had been described to them in almost every sentence of the epistle.” – Geerhadus Vos on Hebrews 13:8
Alex Joye Grenier:
Hmmm, I’ve always had a tough time with the presupposition that “Jesus is the same, yesterday. today and forever” as if Jesus never changed in any way or never changed his mind or approached major issues differently etc. We have what we assume is “Jesus” as OT Theophany appearing in the Garden to Adam and Eve, appearing to Moses, appearing to Jacob “face to face” etc to avoid a contradiction in the NT that states “no one has seen God at any time” (ergo OT “God” and “Lord” is Jesus and not God the Father or there is a biblical contradiction). So, Jesus then gave Moses the Levitical Law (and even if one doesn’t accept the Jesus Theophany position, Trinitarians must accept that Jesus is also God and equally responsible for giving the Levitical Law to Moses) and the Levitical Law commands to kill rebellious children with stones, permits slavery, permits concubines (sex slaves) and commands the execution of women with stones for adultery, permits selling your daughter into slavery etc. Then in the NT, Jesus states, “I give you a new law, love your enemies…be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect” which implies God now loves his enemies. So, it appears that Jesus and God or Jesus-God has ‘changed’…from OT “smite thine enemy!” to “love your enemy!” but Revelation then changes back to Jesus on the White Horse smiting his enemies with a sword “until the blood is bridle high”…so Jesus seems to change quite a bit…
23 minutes ago · Edited · Like
Nick Batzig:
Here is the rest of what Vos says in that paragraph: “They would understand that Jesus Christ must indeed be the same yesterday and today and forever because they remembered who Jesus Christ was and in what terms he had been described to them in almost every sentence of the epistle. He was the Son of God, the effulgence of the Father’s glory, the very image of his substance. To him the author had applied the words of the 102nd Psalm: “Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands: they shall perish; but thou remainest. And they all shall wax old as cloth a garment, and as a mantle shalt thou roll them up. But thou art the same and thy years shall not fail” (vv. 26,27). To him therefore belongs the attribute of unchangeableness that is inherent in the conception of divinity itself. Indeed the very form of the words–the same, yesterday and today and forever–reminds us most vividly of the New Testament Apocalypse gives of God himself as the one that is and that was and that is to come who fills with his being all the possible categories of time because he is eternal; and also it reminds us of that other no less sublime description which we find in the same book of both God and Christ himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Christ belongs throughout the epistle to the heavenly world in which everything bears the character of the unchangeable, the abiding. In this respect, the teaching of the epistle stands nearest to our Lord’s own teaching concerning himself in the fourth gospel where also the emphasis is continually thrown on this–that Jesus is from above and not from beneath and that consequently he is free from all the relativities and imperfections and vicissitudes that necessarily belong to everything earthly. Christ is the truth, the reality of God incarnate, and therefore we can sustain to him the same religious relationship, address to him the same religious trust that we sustain and address to God.”
23 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
I would recommend the whole sermon as it is one of the finest on this passage I’ve read http://t.co/yPIE10hLvM
23 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
If Jesus is not the same, then He may change. I don’t want Him to change. I can’t risk that His love for me might change.
22 minutes ago · Like · 1
Nick Batzig:
Additionally, here is something I wrote years ago to help explain the relationship between the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant and the fulfillment they find in Christ in the New http://feedingonchrist.com/…/
21 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
Alex, Jonathan Edwards’ sermon on Heb. 13:8 is extremely helpful on this too http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/thesame.htm
20 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
Well, God ‘repented’ (changed his mind) according to the bible. There appears to be many contradictions and paradoxes. I actually hope God/Jesus is truly “love” and truly “good” and truly a God of forgiveness and truly loves his enemies as we are commanded to do in the NT. I don’t understand why an all powerful almighty God would be bound by some weird Eternal Contract that forces him to torment most of humanity in hell forever with no end…even though most of humanity has never been presented with a “correct” Christian gospel message.
19 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
Nick, yes I used to be Reformed and I’ve read much from Edwards, I just now disagree with his positions.
18 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
That’s a semi-pelagian understanding of that passage. God uses anthropomorphic language to prove the point of His displeasure with our rebellion. “I the LORD do not change” (Mal. 3:6).
18 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
God’s repentance means He turned around in the direction He was going. That does not mean He changed His mind, merely that His actions appear at odds with what He was doing previously. He is not a mummy.
18 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
No, it’s more of a Universal Reconciliation position.
17 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
“He turned around in the direction He was going. That does not mean He changed His mind” I guess, if you redefine the term, but then you neuter the meaning of the word for the rest of its use throughout the bible.
16 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
Words are defined by their context
16 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
Context is defined by the individual.
16 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
Respectfully, no. Context is self defining
15 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
How so?
15 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
If communication has any meaning, then it means what the communicator intends. We might misunderstand, or the communicator might mistakenly communicate, but the intent is what the words mean.
15 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
So, who was the original communicator in the Hebrews passage?
14 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
Those who hear must seek to ascertain what was intended
14 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
I would only answer your statement about not understanding why an all powerful God would send people to hell forever by telling you what Anselm told his disciple, “You have not yet adequately come to understand what your sin deserves.” One sin against …See More
13 minutes ago · Like · 1
Tom Martin:
Well, Hebrews is anonymous. I think it was the apostle Paul.
13 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
OK, then how can you ask Paul or Anonymous what they intended by every word and nuance?
13 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
Alex, maybe the God you have formed in your own mind will change from his universal salvation and consume you in His wrath. What makes you think he won’t?
12 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
We can’t ask them. We must exercise our talents to decipher the meaning of the context. This is possible, by the grace of God.
12 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
…you must rely on a particular Group’s Hermeneutic and you must rely on the consensus opinion of a particular set of gurus of a particular sect or denomination.
12 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
that’s a cop out
11 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
True. The question is, do I have the right heremenuetic
11 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
“We can’t ask them. We must exercise our talents to decipher the meaning of the context. This is possible, by the grace of God.” Yes, that’s very subjective and very individual in nature.
11 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
Hermeneutic is very subjective.
11 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
We believe that the Reformed have the right hermeneutic.
11 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
I don’t want to read a passage objectively; I want to know what it means.
11 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
Words have meaning
10 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
Yes, I know you do. And, the other 9,000 (James White’s number) to 30,000 Christian* denominations who differ on all sorts of “this is what the bible says!” apply different hermeneutics and even applying what some would call a Reformed Hermeneutic many arrive at different opinions of “this is what the text means!”
10 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
Sure. You could say, “That’s just your interpretation;” to which I would say, “It is. Is it the right one.” You’re doing precisely the same thing. Subjective interpretations do not change the fact that there is an objective meaning in the Scriptures.
10 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
Whether or not I believe Hebrews, we know what its author meant and I believe it
9 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
No, we don’t really know for sure.
9 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
Gents. I have a sermon to preach about the unchangeable Lord Jesus Christ for the building up of believers. I have to bail on this discussion.
9 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
We can make some assumptions, draw some conclusions, but to be intellectually honest, we really haven’t much of a clue.
9 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
With due humility, I know (at least partly) what it means. It means that the God-man Jesus is unchangeable.
8 minutes ago · Like · 1
Alex Joye Grenier:
The text seems to contradict your position of “unchangeable”. God seems to have Free Will and the ability to change his mind if he wants to.
8 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
God is not capricious
7 minutes ago · Like
Tom Martin:
He is infinitely wise and patient in His judgments
7 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
It also means that His once-for-all sacrifice for our sin continues to be acceptable to God for us and that His intercession on the throne of God never ceases for those for whom He died.
7 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
OK, so Jesus paid the penalty for sin, so it’s all good.
6 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
Yes, Limited Atonement, Jesus only died for the Elect.
6 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
…I don’t agree with that position any longer.
6 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
Alex, have you read the Vos sermon I posted or any of the lengthier comments I have made, or do you just like to see your own comments being posted on my FB wall?
5 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
Yes and no.
5 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
5 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
It caught my attention and sparked some comments from me which led to a discussion.
4 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
I answered your initial comment with several resources that suitably answer it and your ignored them and proceeded to argue. This is not a discussion.
3 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
No, the appeal to the fool passages is usually a form of ad hominem and not very constructive. The bible also states you have to become a fool to be wise so there is another example of competing narrative.
3 minutes ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
Jesus calls people fools in the Bible, but I guess you think he changed.
3 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
Nick, you assume I am not familiar with what you appealed to and I am. I used to be reformed and have already read the stuff, it doesn’t suitably answer my questions IMO or I wouldn’t be continuing the discussion.
2 minutes ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
Yes, Jesus called the Pharisees “you fools!” and Jesus also said that you would be in danger of the fire of hell if you called your brother “you fool!”
about a minute ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
…another competing narrative.
about a minute ago · Like
Nick Batzig:
Alex, please stop writing on my FB wall.
about a minute ago · Like
Alex Joye Grenier:
Okey doke. Have a good day.
a few seconds ago · Like
…and then the thread was removed, but to his credit, Nick did not zap me from being a facebook friend. Thanks to Nick and to Tom for the discussion. I think it highlights and illustrates some major blind spots in conservative Fundamentalism…this guru from the Reformed wing of that Tent.
What say you? Does God have free will (God being Jesus and God the Father, remember Trinitarians, you assert they are the same essence, different persons). Did Jesus “change” from the Old Testament to New Testament and then back again in Revelation? What does it mean to “love your enemies”?