Intellectual development is perhaps the most neglected aspect of Christian sanctification. Being the very foundation of spiritual growth, failure in this area undermines the entire enterprise of discipleship. Worse than being neglected, intellectualism is maligned as an obstacle to conversion and an enemy of spiritual progress. One preacher said, "An intellectual spirit is deadly." This contradicts "the first and greatest commandment" of loving God with all our mind (Matthew 22:37-38). One can hardly love God with all of his mind or intellect in a non-intellectual way.
An intellectual spirit is only deadly to the irrational mysticism of the above preacher. Rather, one of our most urgent tasks is to recover a spirit of biblical intellectualism. Destructive to the spiritual life is the unbiblical content of one's thinking, not thinking itself. "The new self," according to Colossians 3:10, "is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator." Peter makes Christian knowledge the foundation of "life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3). In the following discussion we will focus our attention on Romans 12:1-2, from which we may derive information concerning the role and development of the intellect as it pertains to the Christian life:
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Commentators express a typical distinction between doctrine and application, or theory and practice, when they say that Paul begins to set forth in Romans 12 the practical application of the doctrinal expositions that precede it. However, one should not make a strict dichotomy between doctrine and application, especially when referring to biblical content. As with the preceding chapters, Romans 12-16 also teach doctrines – only doctrines about different things.
The word "therefore" signifies that the content of these later chapters follow from the previous ones. "God's mercy" refers to the salvation that God has extended toward his elect. Paul now appeals to the believers for a proper response. The proper response to the saving grace of God is to pursue sanctification, part of which is "to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God." The word "offer" is a technical term for presenting Levitical sacrifices. Differing from the Old Testament sacrifices is that we are to present our own bodies as "living sacrifices," as opposed to the slain animals of previous times. Such sacrifices, of course, provide no redemptive value, but are rather our response to what Christ has done.
In the context of explaining the redemptive work of Christ and our relation to it, Paul states, "count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (v. 11). "Therefore," he adds, "do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires" (v. 12). Sanctification involves "[putting] to death the misdeeds of the body" (8:13). The same word translated "offer" appears in verse 13, which says, "Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness."
Chrysostom says, "How can the body become a sacrifice? Let the eye look on no evil, and it is a sacrifice. Let the tongue utter nothing base, and it is an offering. Let the hand work no sin, and it is a holocaust.1 But more, this suffices not, but besides we must actively exert ourselves for good; the hand giving alms, the mouth blessing them that curse us, the ear ever at leisure for listening to God." To offer our bodies as "instruments of righteousness" is "pleasing to God."
Paul says that this is a "spiritual act of worship." These words deserve close attention. They are sometimes misinterpreted, and their significance often left undetected. The word rendered "spiritual" is logikos, which is best translated "rational" instead. Several modern translations have "spiritual" (NIV, NASB, NCV, CEV, ESV), so as to emphasize the idea of spiritual worship "in the sense of being inward as opposed to a matter of external rites."2
Some scholars contend that logiken in this verse is almost synonymous to pneumatikos, or "spiritual." However, the pneuma word group is common in the Pauline corpus, whereas logikos occurs only here.3 That is, Paul intends the meaning that logikos conveys. The most accurate translation is probably "rational service," as in Schreiner.4 But The Jerusalem Bible and the translation by Ronald Knox help emphasize the intellectual nature of Paul's exhortation to worship: "…worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings"; "…this is the worship due from you as rational creatures." The Latin Vulgate has rationabile.5
As Thayer says, the term denotes "the worship which is rendered by the reason or soul."6 Wuest gives a more theological interpretation and writes, "Israel preached the gospel through the use of object lessons, the Tabernacle, Priesthood, and Offerings. The Church preaches the same gospel in abstract terms."7 Under the new covenant, we render not to God ceremonial worship, but as is consistent with rational beings, intellectual worship – worship that is performed by and stemming from the mind, even as it affects bodily conduct.
This is not to say that Old Testament worship was non-intellectual. The ceremonial laws were precise, prescribing procedures for many activities from the sacred to the mundane. However, even then the Old Testament gives great emphasis to the intellect and doctrines, as one may note from the repeated commands to teach, hear, and meditate the words of Scripture.
Jesus declares in John 4:23, "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." That New Testament believers are to worship "in spirit and truth" – both words relating to the intellect – does not mean that those who worshiped under the Old Testament did it in flesh and falsehood! The Old Testament religion was already the most intellectually rigorous among the various ancient worldviews.
The New Testament does not teach a different gospel, but it is a new and superior administration of the Abrahamic covenant. We need to repeat this often, since much of popular preaching makes false distinctions between the two Testaments, with disastrous results. In any case, this new administration liberates us from the Old Testament ceremonial practices since Christ has fulfilled them. Now we are free under the new covenant to worship God even more as rational beings; therefore, preaching, studying, and thinking receive preeminence in the process sanctification.
Romans 12:1 stands against the anti-intellectualism of the modern church, which encourages believers to remain as little children without understanding. Thus, contemporary preaching emphasizes the practical and procedural, rather than the doctrinal and theological. The result is that we have several generations of Christians that do not know much about the Bible at all.
That we are to think of ourselves as rational creatures produces some important ramifications. If the essence of our nature is rationality, then a program of spiritual development must take this into account so that it treats human beings as rational creatures – it will first deal with the mind, the thoughts of the individuals. A program of spiritual growth must first target the mind. This is what we find in verse 2: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."
I took a course in college on sociobiology. The subject presupposes biological evolution and applies it to human thought and culture. From the assumption that human beings are descendants of animals, and are animals, it observes and extends the social behavior of animals to explain human behavior. For example, E. O. Wilson attempts to account for altruism and religion using the theory of evolution.8
One of the essay questions on the final exam was, "How has this course changed your view of human nature?" Part of my answer read, "Only an idiot would let a 100-level course in undergraduate biology change something as important as his view on human nature. It would be like taking a semester of German or Spanish and then immediately adopting it as one's primary language."
Yet such morons abound. With no more than a most elementary understanding of evolutionary theory, and sometimes not even that, they rely on it as one of the most basic principles that govern their thinking. In a speech at the American Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson said, "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence."9
If the public is guilty of believing the scientists without examining the evidence, the scientists are in turn guilty of suppressing evidence contrary to their theories:
It is…right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine that they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.10
Many Christians, affected by an anti-intellectual secular philosophy, are also ignorant of the major tenets of their faith, and this reveals their disobedience to biblical instructions. However, evolutionists do not believe in an omnipotent Spirit who converts the fundamental commitments of the chosen ones so that they may assent to the truth and be saved. The Christian worldview permits one to convert to the faith without a thorough understanding of the entire system, since it is the sovereign God who exercises irresistible power on the will of man by means of the gospel message. Nevertheless, Scripture commands the diligent study of the word of God to gain a comprehensive intellectual understanding of the Christian faith.
The unbeliever cannot justify a change in fundamental commitment based on an undergraduate course in biology, especially those who pride themselves on being rational and scientifically minded. To demand one argument for evolution citing actual evidence for the theory is often sufficient to silence many lay evolutionists. Many of them cannot even explain the theory of evolution, let alone provide evidence in support of it. However, they claim to revere only science, and will believe nothing without evidence.
But the point that I wish to emphasize is that the question on the final exam implied an agenda to alter or shape the thinking of the students. "How has this course changed your view of human nature?" betrays an intention and expectation that the content of the course would change one's view of human nature. The professor wished to work out some of evolution's implications for human behavior so that the students would think and act more consistently with evolutionary theory.
In the words of René Dubos: "Evolutionary concepts are applied also to social institutions and to the arts. Indeed, most political parties, as well as schools of theology, sociology, history, or arts, teach these concepts and make them the basis of their doctrines. Thus, theoretical biology now pervades all of Western culture indirectly through the concept of progressive historical change."11 Julian Huxley likewise writes, "The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as…linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process."12 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin declares that evolution is "a general condition to which all theories, all systems, all hypotheses must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true."13
Evolution is a theory concerning human origins that produces ramifications in subjects outside of biology. Due to its wide acceptance, it has affected secular theories on psychology, education, criminology, and many other areas of study. Huxley believes that evolution is an "all-pervading process." However, if the theory is false, then the secular theories deduced from it can only be all-pervasive nonsense. Besides his optimistic view of evolution cited in the previous paragraph, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin also says, "[Evolution is] above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience."14 It cannot be verified or falsified. But this is not very "scientific," is it?15 Imagine the ridicule if a Christian were to make the same claim regarding supernatural creation.
I have in my possession hundreds of pages of additional quotations that can embarrass the evolutionists, but since it is not my aim to refute the theory here, I must refer the reader to my other writings. Now, evolution is one of the major secular and anti-biblical theories that seeks to capture our minds. The point is that non-Christians adopt ludicrous fundamental principles to eliminate the God of the Bible as the determiner and explanation of all human thought and experience. They opt for unbiblical – and therefore false – principles from which to construct their worldviews.
Regeneration is a radical reconstruction of the personality and intellect after which one assumes biblical authority as his first principle. However, much of the false ideas he has acquired prior to conversion remain, causing his thoughts and behavior to exhibit irreconcilable inconsistencies with his new fundamental commitment. The process of sanctification is therefore first an intellectual development, through which we discard unbiblical ideas, such as evolution and its implications, and make our thoughts and actions conform to the word of God.
Whether they are anti-Christian scientific theories or autonomous standards of morality, Paul commands his readers to throw off the unbiblical intellectual mold into which the world attempts to shape us. This is his prescription for the Christian life: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." In other words, stop thinking like non-Christians, and start thinking like Christians.
The second part of verse 2 says, "Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will." This follows from the first part of the verse that teaches the renewal of the mind. An anti-intellectual spirit stifles Christian thinking, and therefore destroys one's ability "to test and approve what God's will is." Many people claim they wish to know the will of God, but failing to follow Paul's instruction, they misunderstand the very nature of God's will and how he reveals it to us. Mysticism may be more spectacular and romantic, but it is also the unbiblical and lazy way of pursuing God.
Spiritual transformation entails the total rejection of secular thinking, adopting the Christian worldview in its entirety, and working out its implications for every area of thought and life. Then, Paul says, we will be able to "test and approve" what the will of God is. The way to know God's will is therefore to develop intellectual discernment. Paul does not say that the knowledge of God's will comes from an inner intuition or impression, or a "still, small voice." Rather, he says to train ourselves to think like Christians, so that we may test something to see if it is God's will, and if so we will approve of the thought or action in question.
The final portion of verse 2 is often misinterpreted. Some have made it to say that there is a range of possibilities within the plan of God so that even if one fails to attain his perfect will, one may perhaps remain in his "permissive" will. This interpretation takes the three adjectives – good, pleasing, and perfect – as indicating increasing proximity to that which is the perfect will of God. However, grammatical considerations dictate that one translate the verse in a way that applies the adjectives equally to the will of God. That is, the will of God is good, pleasing, and perfect.
That God has a permissive will is an invention of certain theologians who wish to harmonize scriptural data with their unbiblical systems of theology. Those who disobey God obtains comfort from this theory, since at least they consider themselves as operating under his permissive will. Such an interpretation also helps preserve the false doctrine of human autonomy. However, God does not "permit" anything, as if the universe can exist and function apart from him. If God does not decree an event, it can never occur. This is true whether we are speaking of the death of a sparrow, or a thought in the human mind.
Romans 12:1-2 prescribes for us the basic structure that must characterize any program of Christian development. We must think of ourselves as rational creatures, so that every strategy designed to increase godliness must first target our minds by communicating the divine precepts of God in Scripture. A primary agenda of sanctification is to remove any remnant of unbiblical thinking from our minds, replacing it with the biblical worldview and its implications. Familiarity with Scripture produces intellectual discernment, by which we are able to test any proposed course of action, so that if it passes the test, to approve of it as the way that God would have us follow. Accordingly, an anti-intellectual spirit is deadly because it spurns the biblical way to attain spiritual maturity.
Endnotes: