About the author
This paper was written by W.Simpson.
Mr. Simpson runs the LogosWord Website. He reminds his readers that he is not a theologian, 'just a layman with a laptop and a growing bookshelf'.
These archives are open to the public for free. If you would like to contribute
something for the editor's efforts, however, there are several ways you can donate
online, helping him conquer some more of his reading list!
||Articles > Charismatic Theology > Maker of the Mind
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Footnotes
 I recognise that
this is a somewhat simplistic overview of the body of Christ.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that there are two basic attitudes
to the Bible which shape the way Christians view controversial
 Dr. Lee Spetner,
in his assault on the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, points
out that, just over half a century ago, the accepted scientific
opinion was that the universe was infinitely old, having no
beginning and thus requiring no cause. Spetner (a religious Jew)
observes that this theory “denied the Torah concept of
creation” and was rejected by Torah-scholars unanimously,
despite the weighty scientific arguments that were being made at
the time. However, science moved on, and the
“Big-Bang” theory eventually replaced the
infinite-age theory. Thus the basic position of the Torah
scholars (and Bible-believers in general) was vindicated. Lee
Spetner, Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of
 The above is
such an example. There are many others.
 C.S. Lewis, whom
I have quoted in this essay, though in many ways a great defender
of the faith against the liberalism and apostasy of his time,
accepted evolution as fact and sought to integrate it into the
Christian faith (see Mere Christianity, for example). I
think the fatal flaw in his reasoning was the common supposition
that the theory of evolution entails progress – that is,
climbing some sort of ladder. In actuality, there is nothing
purposive about it at all: Variations happen by chance. Those
variations that happen to produce an organism better in tune with
its local environment are preserved. But given a change in the
local environment, the same alterations may become equally
disadvantageous. No variation can be classified as
‘better’ in absolute terms, and the immergence of man
or intelligent life is not inevitable.
 An example of
this is the ‘NOMA’ philosophy proposed by the late
Stephen Jay Gould. Gould, a famous evolutionist (and an atheist),
claimed that religion and science are ‘non-overlapping
magisteria’ (NOMA), which apparently means that they can
both sit side by side. What it really seems to have meant is that
science is about objective facts and religion is all in your
 See C.S. Lewis,
Miracles, “The Cardinal Difficulty of
 Let me say from
the outset that this is not intended to be a comprehensive,
‘balanced’ teaching on what the Bible has to say
about the role of the mind in the life of the believer. When the
apostle Paul wrote, “For by grace you have been saved
through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of
God-- not because of works…”, (Eph. 2:8-9) and the
apostle James wrote, “You see that a person is justified by
what he does and not by faith alone” (Jam. 2:24), they were
both speaking into different situations with different audiences
in mind. Likewise, this paper has been written to respond to a
particular ‘need’ perceived in
Charismatic/Pentecostal circles. I wrote it to encourage myself
as much as anyone else! However, a different message with a
different emphasis may be needed for some Christians who have
reduced their Christian life to mere intellectualism. Such
believers would do well to ponder Dr. Jack Deere’s
“confessions” in Surprised by the Voice of
 See Ken Blue,
Authority to Heal, chp. 12, pgs 139-143.
 Paul, in wishing
that “your spirit and soul and body be preserved whole and
blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”
deliberately uses the singular rather than the plural form of the
verb tereo (be preserved) and the singular form of the
adjective holokrolos (whole) (1Thess. 5:23). This does not
imply a rejection of trichotomy or dichotomy as such, but it does
confirm that Paul conceived of man as an integrated
 I am not
suggesting that the particular theory of trichotomy which locates
the mind in the soul and distinguishes the soul from the spirit
is necessarily unbiblical. A holistic trichotomy that emphasises
unity is an adequate corrective for the anti-intellectual
tendencies of this theory in its more primitive manifestations.
Such a proposal exists in Man as Spirit, Soul and Body;
Trichotomy in Exchanged Life Counselling, by John
arguments have been made to explain away the fact that spirit and
soul are presented as separate in these verses. It is beyond the
scope of this paper to address them here.
 John Cooper,
Body, Soul & Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and
the Monism-Dualism Debate. As cited in Horton, Stanley
(Editor), Systematic Theology (from a Pentecostal
Perspective), chp. 15, Divine Healing
 I have often
met the following basic formulation in Charismatic teaching:
God’s thoughts flow from the mind of God to the Spirit of
God, to the spirit of man, to the mind of man.
 Another false
division has been made between ‘heart’ and
‘mind’. See for example Luke 5:22 and Mark
 Gordon D. Fee
and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its
 Marvin R.
Wilson, Our Father Abraham. As cited by Joe McIntyre,
Healing in our Redemption
 Larry Taylor,
Do Full-Gospel Ministers Need Theology?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | FootnotesDisplay full article
User Contributed Comments
Monday 16th of May 2005
Many of the arguments between secularists,scientists and 'fundementalist' christians seem to revolve around the Old Testament and are often carried out at the exclusion of delivering the Gospel of Christ. Surely our role as Christians is the delivery of the Gospel of Christ rather than entering into contention about the nature of Old testament writing which is quite often the preferred arena of the secular and the scientists.
Powered by Your Comments.