South End
Church of Christ

4001 Taylor Blvd
Louisville, KY 40215

 

Is It Just Semantics?
Bob Myhan

If we are going to “do Bible things in Bible ways and call Bible things by Bible names” let us do it. Words have meaning. We are not limited to just those words found in the Bible, but also to the ideas represented by the words in the Bible. More often than not, when concerned brethren try to warn others about this or that rising error, the response is something like, “It’s just semantics.” While this may be true in many cases, it is not true in every case. Please consider the following.

“Semantics is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers like words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotation. Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used for understanding human expression through language. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of programming languages, formal logics and semiotics. The word semantics itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language for denoting a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal enquiries, over a long period of time, most notably in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols used in agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts. Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, and proxemics have semantic content, and each comprises several branches of study. In written language, things like paragraph structure and punctuation bear semantic content; other forms of language bear other semantic content” (http://www.definitions.net/definitions/Semantics).

One example of a true semantic disagreement would be when one translation of Mark 16:16 says “he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (KJV) and another says “he who shall believe and be immersed shall be saved” (Living Oracles). They are saying the same thing since baptism is immersion. Another example would be one translation of Acts 2:38 saying baptism is “for the remission of sins” (KJV) while another says baptism is “unto the remission of sins” (ASV).

However, when one translation of Acts 2:38 says “unto the remission of your sins” (ASV) and another says “to show that you have received forgiveness for your sins” (NLT), this is not semantics. They are not saying the same thing at all. It is not a matter of “you say po-TAY-to and I say po-TAH-to.” One of them is wrong! According to the ASV, the people on Pentecost needed to have their sins remitted; hence the command to be baptized “unto the remission.” But the NLT implies that the people had already received forgiveness for their sins. (Notice that just two verses later Peter says to “save yourselves from this crooked generation” showing that the people had not been saved and could not have already received forgiveness for their sins).

Another example of a disagreement that is not merely semantics is the Penal Substitution Atonement Theory. First, it is called a theory for a reason — it originated in the mind of man and not in the mind of God! Now, either Jesus died on the cross as our substitute or He did not. The implication of His dying on the cross as our substitute is that it was originally our place to die on the cross. But dying on a cross was never instituted by God as punishment for sin. The punishment for sin is spiritual death, not physical death. This realization has led many who hold the above theory to state that Jesus died spiritually prior to dying physically. This is not semantics! It is error plain and simple.  

In a recent Facebook post, a certain woman preacher was called a heretic for teaching that Jesus became sin. And so she is. And yet some among churches of Christ now teach the same thing! Why are they not heretics? Is it permissible to teach heresy just because one is a member of the Lord’s church?

The heresy under consideration in the previous paragraph is Calvinism. Calvinists would not agree with these brethren in everything, of course, but Calvinists do not always agree among themselves. There are Calvinists who insist on immersion and Calvinists who allow sprinkling and/or pouring water upon the subject. But they are no less Calvinists for this disagreement.

Yes, some are preaching that Jesus suffered the penalty for sin and this is not semantics. Did He receive the wages of sin? If so, we will not receive them, no matter how we live our lives. If not, how was He then our substitute? He died so that we might be forgiven but He was not punished in our place, i.e., as our substitute. Again, that is not semantics. That is ERROR! 

   

 


The contents of this site are Copyright of South End Church of Christ except where noted. © 2009 all rights reserved.
All content may be reproduced as long as content is not edited.