Knowledge of God in Gospel Truth

A Call for Christian Rationality

2009-01-17T19:40:00.000-08:00

W. Gary Crampton

We live in a day when the Apostle Paul’s sermon on Mar’s Hill to the first century philosophers concerning the worship of an unknown god (Acts 17) is all too relevant. Our age is awash in irrationalism; it may even be the “age of irrationalism.” And far too many in allegedly Christian circles are espousing an irrational theology in the name of Christ. Nonsense, as C. S. Lewis once predicted, has come. Twenty-three years ago John Robbins correctly assessed the situation:

There is no greater threat facing the true church of Christ at this moment than the irrationalism that now controls our entire culture. [Totalitarianism], guilty of tens of millions of murders, including those of millions of Christians, is to be feared, but not nearly so much as the idea that we do not know and cannot know the truth. Hedonism, the popular philosophy of America, is not to be feared so much as the idea that logic-“mere human logic,” to use the religious irrationalists’ own phrase-is futile.(1)

How did we get where we are? How did irrationalism become so predominant even in allegedly Christian circles? It did not happen overnight. The failure of seventeenth century Rationalism and Galileo’s (1564-1642) questioning of the Roman Church-State’s official position on geocentricity fostered a spirit of skepticism. Who are we to believe on this subject - the Roman Church-State or Galileo (science)? How do we know? Is there truly a God who has created all things? If so, how can we be sure? Into this debate stepped David Hume (1711-1776).

Being an empiricist, Hume denied that reason can ever give us knowledge of the external world, including God. But he also showed, perhaps reluctantly, that sense experience cannot yield such knowledge either. Observation is unreliable. Causal relationships are never observed. Neither can we know the continuing reality of the self, for we have no experience of it. And, of course, no experience can ever prove that the God of Scripture exists.

David Hume created what Ronald Nash referred to as a “Gap.” “Hume’s Gap,” wrote Nash, “is the rejection of the possibility of a rational knowledge of God and objective religious truth.” (2) According to Hume, man can have no knowledge of the transcendent. Any belief in God, therefore, must be irrational. Knowledge and faith have nothing in common.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) acknowledged that reading David Hume awakened him from his “dogmatic slumbers.” Kant attempted to go beyond rationalism and empiricism by claiming that all human knowledge begins with sense experience (content), but in itself, sense experience is not sufficient to give us knowledge. The content needs a form or structure. Kant taught that this form is supplied by the mind, in apriori categories of understanding. But since men can never know what cannot first be experienced, knowledge cannot extend beyond the phenomenal world. The real world, Kant’s “noumenal world,” “things in themselves” rather than “things as they appear,” therefore, can never be known. Thus, Kant constructed a “wall” between the immanent and the transcendent, and God is unknowable. (3)

It is ironic that Kant believed that this agnosticism was an aid to Christianity. He had “denied knowledge in order to make room for faith.” Belief in God was still possible, but not on rational grounds. Like Hume before him, with Kant there is nothing in common between Christian faith and knowledge. (4)

G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) attempted to correct the errors of Kant. Whereas Kant had asserted with certainty that the real world could not be known, Hegel pointed out the absurdity of affirming the unknowable. He constructed a system of Idealism in which unity and plurality are rationally blended together. For Hegel, “the real is the rational and the rational is the real.” All things, persons and objects, participate in the Absolute Mind or Spirit (Geist). Thought and being, essence and existence, are one and the same. As Hegel developed it, his philosophy is a form of pantheism. And in Hegel’s pantheistic philosophy, a problem exists. One cannot know anything without knowing everything; “the truth is the whole.” But since we do not know everything, we do not know anything. Once again, we are left in a state of skepticism. Hegel cannot justify knowledge. (5)

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), like Karl Marx, another irrationalist, was a student of Hegel. He strongly reacted against his teacher’s System. Reality, said Kierkegaard, cannot be obtained by reason. The real is not the rational. Truth is not something that can be taught; it cannot be communicated in a rational fashion. Truth does not exist in the form of propositions; it is inward and purely subjective. If one is going to know the real, he must grasp it by means of a “leap of faith.” That is, he must make a commitment to that which is irrational. For Kierkegaard, faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Knowledge is personal and passionate; it is anti-intellectual. God and truth exist only for one who leaps. (6)

Irrationality also passed into the realm of theology through the liberals Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889), both of whom rejected the idea of God’s transcendence. God, they averred, is exclusively immanent. And being totally immanent, God is unable to speak divine truth to man. Hence, Schleiermacher and Ritschl both rejected revealed theology and the primacy of the intellect.

Schleiermacher, sometimes called the father of liberalism, taught that the essence of religion is to be found, not in knowledge, but in experience: the “feeling of absolute dependence.” For Schleiermacher, God is unknowable to the human mind. To find God one must look within and experience Him. Ritschl, on the other hand, averred that the essence of true religion is ethics. A system of propositional truth is unattainable. Christianity needs to recognize that all knowledge has to do with value judgments, ethical decisions.(7)

Both of these immanentistic theologians denied an infallible standard by which to judge all things. By rejecting the divine propositional revelation of Holy Scripture, they cut the jugular of Christian theism. Man is left without an epistemic base. How does one know what he must “feel”? What is the standard of “ethics” by which man is to live? Schleiermacher and Ritschl leave men without answers. But to the irrational mindset, this is not a problem. In such an anti-system, what does it matter?

In the twentieth century, the Swiss Neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) condemned the immanentism of Schleiermacher and Ritschl as a denial of the Christian faith. Barth taught the divine transcendence of God, to the exclusion of His immanence. According to Barth, God is so transcendent that He is “wholly other.” The Swiss theologian went so far as to deny not only natural theology, but general revelation as well. God can be known only through His self-revelation. (8)

But to Barth, and Emil Brunner (1889-1966) as well, God’s self-revelation is not to be found in the propositional statements of Scripture. In Neo-orthodoxy, revelation is non-propositional. Revelation is an event; it is an encounter; it is something that happens. Revelation is not objective; it is subjective.

According to Barth and Brunner, the Bible is not the Word of God in the usual sense; neither does it contain the Word of God. Rather, the Bible is a book that is full of errors. It contains errors of fact, doctrine, and logic. The Bible is merely a pointer to the Word, which is Jesus Christ. Christ is the only true revelation of God to man. The Bible, then, points to Christ. And when God makes Himself known to man through the fallible Biblical witness, then the “Christ event” occurs. Communication of truth takes place only in the personal divine-human encounter.(9)

Lamentably, irrationalism has greatly affected the visible church. The Charismatic movement is just one example of this. The primacy of the intellect and of truth has been replaced with emotionalism, ecstatic utterances, incoherent experiences, and anti-doctrinal statements (e.g., “give me Jesus, not exegesis”). Faith has nothing to do with thought, let alone logic. All too frequently we encounter what Ronald Nash referred to as “the religious revolt against logic.” (10)Augustine had claimed that God thinks logically, and that logic has been divinely ordained to be trusted and used by man as God’s image bearer, but much of alleged modern day “evangelicalism” demurs. Logic is not to be trusted. Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) is an example of one such thinker. Van Til maintained that there is no point at which man’s logic and knowledge are the same as God’s. Due to this lack of a point of contact, logical paradox must exist in Scripture. (11)Van Til went so far as to say that “all teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory.” (12)Van Til’s irrational thought opened the door to all sorts of theological and philosophical errors in putatively Reformed circles. (13)

Donald Bloesch is a contemporary theologian who has attempted to find a middle ground between Neo-orthodoxy, on the one hand, and “right wing” orthodoxy on the other hand. He claims to have a very high view of Scripture. He denounces liberalism, for example, and calls for a creedal theology based upon Holy Scripture. He insists on the primacy of Scripture over “religious experiences,” and he denies that the Apocrypha and church tradition have an equal standing with the Bible. But even though Bloesch attempts to remove himself from the Neo-orthodox camp, his writings betray him. The shadow of Karl Barth looms large across the pages of his works. And one of the points at which he finds himself in agreement with Barth is in his rejection of the trustworthiness of logic. For example, Bloesch is quick to take issue with the belief that human logic is identical with divine logic, that is, that God thinks the syllogism Barbara. Dr. Bloesch says we must never equate the two. He openly warns against “reducing the message of faith to axioms of logic.” (14)

Gordon Clark corrected this error when he wrote:

To avoid this irrationalism...we must insist that truth is the same for God and man. Naturally, we may not know the truth of some matters. But if we know anything at all, what we must know must be identical with what God knows. God knows all truth, and unless we know something God knows, our ideas are untrue. It is absolutely essential, therefore, to insist that there is an area of coincidence between God’s mind and our mind. (15)

Dr. Clark was not denying that there is a difference in the degree of God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge. God always knows more propositions than man. What Dr. Clark asserted is that there is a point where God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge are identical. There must be a point at which the mind of man coincides with the mind of God. Without this, man could never know any truth.

Hume’s Gap reappears in the philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) and a number of his followers (the Amsterdam Philosophy group). These philosophers emphasize the transcendence of God to the point of erecting a “boundary” which exists between God and man. The laws of logic are valid only on man’s side of the boundary. (16)If there were such a Dooyeweerdian boundary, of course, God could never reveal anything to His creatures, and man could never know anything about God, including the notion of the boundary. Dooyeweerd influenced Van Til greatly, and through Van Til, his many disciples.

Another contemporary theologian of irrationalism is John Frame, formerly of Westminster Seminary, now of Reformed Seminary in Orlando, Florida. Professor Frame would have us believe that “Scripture, for God’s good reasons, is often vague.” Therefore, wrote Frame, “there is no way out of escaping vagueness in theology.” He continued:

Scripture does not demand absolute precision of us, a precision impossible for creatures.... Indeed, Scripture recognizes that for sake of communication, vagueness is often preferable to precision.... Nor is theology an attempt to state truth without any subjective influence on the formulation. Such “objectivity,” like “absolute precision,” is impossible and would not be desirable if it could be achieved. (17)

Apparently clear and precise theology is a perspective that Professor Frame’s “Perspectivalism” cannot accommodate. But is it true that “Scripture, for God’s good reason, is often vague?” Not according to Reformed orthodoxy, which holds to the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1:7) says it this way:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

All things in Scripture are not equally clear to all, the Confession says, but it never asserts that they are vague or imprecise or confused. It says different readers will be puzzled by some things that other readers will find to be clear. The problem is with our understandings, not with Scripture.

Vagueness in theology, which is what Frame is defending, is not something to be applauded. Obscurity is not a virtue. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). He does not speak to us in vague, illogical, paradoxical statements, as the Van Tilian school asserts. He reveals himself to us in rational, propositional statements that can be understood. The Bible is a divine revelation that God intends us to understand. Obviously, if it cannot be understood, if we cannot understand it, then it is not a revelation. But David writes: “The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes” (Psalm 19:8). John writes: “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true” (1 John 5:20). The Psalmist knows more than his teachers, more than the ancients, because he knows God’s Word (Psalm 119:99-100). The triune God of Scripture is a God of truth: Father (Psalm 31:5); Son (John 14:6); and Holy Spirit (1 John 5:6). The Bible refers to Christ as logic, wisdom, and reason incarnate (John 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30; Colossians 2:3). Logic is the way God thinks, and the laws of logic are eternal principles. Because man is an image bearer of God, these laws are part of man. There must be, then, a point of contact between God’s logic (and knowledge), and man’s.

Carl Henry wrote:

The insistence on a logical gulf between human conceptions and God as the object of religious knowledge is erosive of knowledge and cannot escape a reduction to skepticism. Concepts that by definition are inadequate to the truth of God cannot be made to compensate for logical deficiency by appealing either to God’s omnipotence or to His grace. Nor will it do to call for a restructuring of logic in the interest of knowledge of God. Whoever calls for a higher logic must preserve the existing laws of logic to escape pleading the cause of illogical nonsense. (18)

What I am pleading for is a return to the Christian rationality of Augustine, Calvin, Clark, and the best of the Puritans. Such a system does not exalt the human mind as autonomous; rather, it affirms Biblical revelation as axiomatic. The divine revelation of Holy Scripture is a rational revelation. It is internally self-consistent. It is non-contradictory and non-paradoxical. Christian rationality reasons from revelation, not to it or apart from it. The Christian faith is intellectually defensible. In fact, as John Robbins has stated, “it is the only intellectually defensible system of thought,” (19) for the God of Scripture “has made foolish the wisdom of this world” (1 Corinthians 1:20).

1 John W. Robbins, The Trinity Manifesto, 1978.

2 Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 22. Dr. Robbins had used this phrase in his 1974 book Answer to Ayn Rand to refer to the logical gap between the is and the ought by which Hume destroyed all theories of natural moral law, secular and religious. (See page 136.) Perhaps other writers use the phrase in still other senses.

3 Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (The Trinity Foundation, 2000), 309-328.

4 Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 25-28.

5 Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation (The Trinity Foundation, 1995), 63-68.

6 Clark, Thales to Dewey, 377-382.

7 Colin Brown, Philosophy & the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1968), 108-116, 154-155.

8 See Gordon H. Clark, Karl Barth’s Theological Method (The Trinity Foundation, 1997).

9 Robert L. Reymond, Introductory Studies in Contemporary Theology (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 91-153.

10 Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 91-101.

11 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 95-110.

12 Cited in John W. Robbins, Cornelius Van Til: The Man and the Myth (The Trinity Foundation, 1986), 25; see also W. Gary Crampton, Why I Am Not a Van Tilian, The Trinity Review, September 1993.

13 See John W. Robbins. Marstonian Mysticism, The Trinity Review, January/February 1980, reprinted in Against the World, The Trinity Foundation, 1996.

14 Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration, & Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 121, 293, 298; see W. Gary Crampton, The Neo-orthodoxy of Donald Bloesch, The Trinity Review, August 1995.

15 Gordon H. Clark, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy (The Trinity Foundation, 1993), 76-77.

16 Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 96-99.

17 John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), 226, 307. These thoughts are echoed by Professor Vern Poythress of Westminster Seminary, and Clark’s comments on them may be found in Clark Speaks from the Grave, The Trinity Foundation, 1986.

18 Cited in Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 95.

19 John W. Robbins, The Trinity Manifesto, 1978.

Words

2009-01-17T18:09:00.000-08:00

John W. Robbins

Editor's note: This is Dr. Robbins' Commencement Address at the 70th Commencement of Faith Theological Seminary, Baltimore, Maryland, May 19, 2007.

President Manohar, distinguished Faculty of Faith Theological Seminary, honored Guests, Graduates, Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today as the commencement speaker for the 70th graduating class of Faith Theological Seminary. Thank you very much for inviting me to address you.

As an institution, Faith Theological Seminary has had a long, productive, and colorful history. Its sons include some of the prominent names of American Protestantism of the 20th Century: the prolific apologist Francis Schaeffer; Kenneth Kantzer, editor of Christianity Today; Vernon Grounds and Gordon Lewis of Denver Seminary; and many lesser known scholars and writers.

But more important than its past is its promise for the future. It is my prayer that Faith Seminary will flourish so long as and only so long as it believes and teaches the whole counsel of God. In an age in which many Christian churches and institutions have departed from the faith and are striving for the acceptance, respect, and admiration of the world, it is crucial for those that have not fallen away to remain steadfast in the Lord, always abounding in his work. One thing America does not need is another apostate seminary; it has hundreds of them already.

Commencements are festive occasions on which schools invite guests to visit and address their faculty and graduates. These commencement speakers - and there have been millions of them over the centuries - are expected to do certain things: First, they are expected to tell jokes and anecdotes, and humor has its place, even in Scripture; second, they are supposed to tell the graduates how wonderful they are, and genuine achievements are not to be overlooked; and, finally, they are expected to tell graduates to go out and make a difference in the world. I propose to do none of those things this afternoon. Let me explain why.

I have not come to entertain you. As an entertainer, I leave a lot to be desired. And if it is entertainment you want, you would have been much better served by hiring some local Maryland talent than by summoning me all the way from Tennessee. I hope you were not misled into thinking that all Tennesseans are entertainers, simply because our state has produced many famous entertainers, such as Tennessee Ernie Ford, Dolly Parton, Steve Green, Peyton Manning, just about every country singer you can name, and last but not least, Vice President Al Gore, who was recently awarded an Oscar by the entertainment industry. Mr. Gore has been entertaining the nation for decades; his recognition by Hollywood is long overdue.

Further, I have not come here to praise you; those who know you much better than I, can and will praise you more credibly, more sincerely, and more thoroughly than I could. Achievements such as yours are not to be ignored or overlooked; and that is why the Seminary has gone to great trouble to honor you today.

Finally, I have not come to unctuously exhort you to "think positively" and to "make a difference in the world." This spring thousands of commencement speakers will be urging millions of graduates to "make a difference" in their communities, their nations, and the world. Now, any fool can make a difference. In November 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald made a difference in the world when he murdered President John Kennedy. In 1848 two unknown writers, one a recent Ph.D. in Germany and the other an English businessman, made a difference in the world when they published The Communist Manifesto. And just last month, an English major at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University made a difference in his community by murdering 32 students and professors, the latest and worst mass murder at an American government institution.

Of course, someone will say, they mean make a difference for good. But the problem with many commencement speakers is that their messages, while entertaining and flattering, are vague and vacuous when it comes to telling graduates what good is. They tell young people to make a difference in their communities, but they cannot offer anything more than humor, bromides, and unsupported personal opinion as guidance. It would appear that most of them have nothing of substance to say, and so hide that fact behind a screen of humor and flattery. And it is true: Apart from the Word of God, commencement speakers can offer no sound ethical guidance to graduates at all. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and in the absence of that fear, wisdom cannot even begin.

I can still remember my various graduation exercises - from high school, college, and graduate school. But I cannot remember a single thing the commencement speakers said. Thirty years from now, you may not remember a single thing I say here today either. As an idealistic young man I wanted my life to count for something, to mean something. I know you want your lives to count for something, too. And that is what I wish to speak to you about today - not my own opinions on how to make your life count for something, but what God, that is, Scripture, says about the matter.

In the Scriptures, you might be surprised to learn, there are several graduation addresses. Of course, we know of no Christian seminaries in the first century; the churches themselves were the institutions of learning. When Paul rented a house in Rome and lectured on theology for two years, everyone was welcome to attend his lectures. The church, as Paul wrote in his first letter to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of the truth. And it is in the church that we find the best commencement addresses.

In that same letter, the elderly Paul, an apostle, officer, and principal teacher of the first generation of the church, who expected soon to depart from his body in order to be present with his Lord, tells the young Timothy, an officer and teacher of the second generation of the church, how to be a good servant of Jesus Christ: "If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good servant of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed" (1 Timothy 4:6).

Please notice Paul's emphasis: In this one short sentence he mentions instruction, teaching, words, and doctrine. "If you instruct the brethren," he begins. The primary and essential purpose of the church and church officers is instruction, that is, teaching, communicating information from one person to another. Today, seminaries, churches, and churchgoers believe that a good pastor is a spellbinding orator, an entertainer, an effective fundraiser, a compassionate social worker, a proficient business manager, a discussion facilitator, a worship leader, a pal for young people, and an all-round cheerleader.

But Paul says a good pastor is an instructor, a teacher. That is why he tells Timothy that Elders must be married men who are able to teach. In his list of qualifications for Elders, Paul says not a word about being able to play the piano, guitar, or organ; nor about being proficient at raising money, organizing soup kitchens, nor capturing audiences with eloquent speeches.

Paul has much more to say to Timothy and to us: "If you instruct the brethren in these things...." A good servant of Jesus Christ must be an instructor, but not simply an instructor: He must be an instructor in a certain subject, namely, "these things." Since Paul writes these words in the fourth chapter of 1 Timothy, the things to which he refers are all the doctrines he has mentioned and will mention in his letter: things such as the purpose of the law; the Gospel; rules for godly worship; civil duties; qualifications for both orders of permanent church officers, Elders and Deacons; warnings against false doctrine, false teachers, and apostates; and so on. His concern is that the brethren be taught, and that they be taught the whole counsel of God. This means that Christianity is taught, not caught. Christianity is words; it is doctrine. It is a religion of knowledge and of the mind. It is completely and thoroughly rational. It is not a religion of the senses, the will, the imagination, or the emotions. Pagan religions appeal to the senses, the will, the imagination, and the emotions. They have cunningly devised fables, pomp and processions, icons, statues, rituals, bells, wonders, mysteries, and incense; but Christianity is not paganism.

A few churches and pastors admit that teaching is important, but they do not want to be restricted in what they teach. Paul's language is restrictive: If you instruct the brethren in "these things" - the doctrines Paul has written about, the doctrines of Scripture - you will be a good servant of Jesus Christ. But today many pastors and churches prefer to teach other things: psychology and sociology, socialist economics, Thomistic philosophy, evidentialist apologetics, and church tradition. They are not good servants of Jesus Christ. One must neither add to nor subtract from the Word of God in one's preaching.

Paul adds that if Timothy teaches all these things to the brethren, he will be a good servant of Jesus Christ, "nourished by the words of faith...." A good Christian servant, the Holy Spirit says, is nourished by words. In order to instruct the brethren, the good servant must read the words of Scripture, study them, meditate on them, and organize them into sermons and essays, perhaps even into books. He must, that means, be a systematic theologian. Paul tells Timothy to "give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.... Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you" (1 Timothy 4:13-16).

These commands to pay attention - to focus - on reading, on exhortation, and on doctrine are central to the work of a Christian pastor. Without this focus, he ceases to be a Christian pastor. If his mind wanders, he ceases to be a Christian pastor. The command to meditate immediately follows the command to focus, and Biblical meditation does not mean emptying the mind of thought, as it does in pagan religions; it means filling the mind with God's thoughts, which are revealed only in Scripture. By focusing on Scripture, one fills one's mind with God's thought, and by meditating on those thoughts, one grows in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Christianity is not an anti-intellectual religion, as pagan religions are. The Bible commands us to seek and to love the truth, to memorize, to understand, and to believe the words that God has written for our learning in the Scriptures.

"Meditate on these things," Paul commands, the same things that the good servant must teach the brethren. "Give yourself entirely to them" - please notice that word "entirely" - that is, avoid merely human philosophies, traditions, practices, and ideas, and think about the doctrines that God has revealed. This is not a command to avoid gainful employment, as some commentators have suggested - keep in mind that Paul himself was a tentmaker and was not violating this commandment - it is a command to find the source of all your thinking in Scripture alone, to recognize Scripture as the only source of truth and knowledge. It is this truth, this Christian doctrine, Paul says, echoing James, that is able to save your soul. There is no salvation apart from the intellectually understood and believed Biblical doctrine. Christ is the Truth, and unless we understand and believe the truth, we are not part of Christ.

Today there are many seminary professors, church teachers, and churchgoers who express their revulsion to doctrine and words. Truth is personal, not propositional, they whine. Religion is encounter and relationship, not information and belief. Words, they say, are dead. Doctrine is head knowledge, not heart knowledge. What we need, they say, is feelings and actions, not words. We need to feel dependent, or awe-struck, or loved.

The Bible, from beginning to end, opposes such anti-intellectualism and irrationalism. Jesus says that Heaven and Earth will pass away, but his words will never pass away: They are eternal (Matthew 24:35). Peter confesses that Jesus alone has the words of eternal life (John 6:68). Please notice that it is the words that give eternal life. The words give life because they are life: Jesus says "my words are Spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). Nowhere in the Bible does Peter or anyone else say that Jesus has the feelings of eternal life, and nowhere does Jesus or anyone else in the Bible command anyone to seek heart knowledge rather than head knowledge. In fact, the Bible says the heart is the head: It is the heart that thinks, remembers, believes, plans, and reasons. Writing to Timothy, the Apostle Paul says that it is the words of the faith - the revealed words - that "nourish" the good servant of Jesus Christ. All the sheep, those in the pews as well as those in the pupits, the ordained as well as the unordained, are nourished, fed, by the words of truth. That is why Christ repeatedly told Peter to "Feed my sheep." Feeding is a figure of speech that means "teach." It is only words that nourish.

In chapter 6 of First Timothy, Paul repeats his statements to make them even more emphatic: "If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing...." Those who do not consent to wholesome words, Paul writes, are arrogant know-nothings. If Paul were writing his epistles in the 21st Century, rather than the first, he would undoubtedly be harassed by the ecclesiastical thought police and subjected to church discipline for being harsh and unloving. So we must decide who is right, the Apostle Paul, who tells us that we need words and doctrine, that is, truth; or contemporary teachers who tell us what what we need are rituals, relationships, feelings, sincerity, and a warm heart. The Apostle Paul tells us what Christianity is; anything else is not Christianity.

These words in Scripture and my words to you make it clear that your job, as Christians and as graduates of Faith Theological Seminary, is not to "make a difference" in your community or in the world, but to accurately and boldly teach the words of God. While Paul's words are directed primarily to church officers, they apply to all Christians. Paul says that "If anyone" - anyone, he says - "teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words,...he is proud, knowing nothing." If you are not an Elder or never become an Elder, you are still under divine obligation to teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In your conversations with your neighbors, speak the words of truth. In teaching your children, speak the words of truth. In writing a letter to the newspaper, write the words of truth. It is truth, the words of God, which never fails to accomplish its purpose, which never returns empty. It is that truth that will change the world, not you. You are only a vessel, only an instrument, of God's truth. It is only in speaking the words of truth that your life will count for something. Paul puts it this way in 1 Corinthians 15: "Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." Your labor is not in vain, if and only if it is in the Lord.

In his various addresses in Scripture, the Apostle Paul never urges anyone to "make a difference" in their world; he always commands them to proclaim the revealed words of Scripture accurately, boldly, and clearly - to do the work of the Lord. Because churches and churchmen today despise the intellect and hate knowledge, they deny the power of God's words and the power of the Gospel. They have a form of godliness but deny the power of godliness, which is the Gospel. Paul wrote to the Romans: "I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16). Paul understood something that many, even most, church officers and churchgoers do not understand: It is the Gospel alone that changes individuals and societies for the better. Christ said, "Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matthew 6:33). There is no other way, and you have no other mandate.

In Acts 20 we read that Paul summoned the Elders of the Ephesian church together for a meeting in Miletus. He opened the meeting by reviewing what he had done in Ephesus, "serving the Lord with all humility." What form did that service take? Did Paul do any of the things that churches today consider to be service to the Lord? He did not. Paul tells us: "I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks." Paul "kept back nothing" - he taught the whole counsel of God. He taught both publicly and privately. He taught both Jews and Gentiles. He taught God's words despite "tears and trials and plotting of the Jews." Now Paul was on his way to Jersualem, the stronghold of the hostile Jewish establishment, and he does not know what will happen to him there, except that the Holy Spirit has warned him of chains and tribulations. Paul has called the Ephesian Elders together to tell them good-bye, and how he says it is instructive for us all. Paul writes: "And indeed now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God."

Paul makes it emphatically clear that the first duty of the Christian is to teach the words of truth. He makes it clear that he is innocent of the blood of all men because he had taught the whole counsel of God to all men, both Jews and non-Jews. This means, among other things, that if you wish to be innocent of the blood of all men, you also must declare the whole counsel of God to all men. One becomes a good pastor by teaching the whole counsel of God, and one becomes guilty by failing to teach it. It is the duty of the church officer, the Christian teacher, to teach the entire counsel of God. Because Paul has declared God's whole counsel, and because the Ephesians have received it, they are now responsible for declaring it. Therefore, Paul begins his next sentence with a "Therefore":

"Therefore," Paul writes, "take heed to yourselves" - notice that the Bible endorses rational self-interest - "and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood." The church is not the domain of its officers; it is the purchase and property of Christ, and officers are responsible for taking care of it, not lording it over Christ's sheep. They are to feed them: to teach them the words of truth.

Because truth and words are so important, Paul warns the Ephesian Elders in the most graphic language about false teachers: "I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock." Paul says he knows this. Not only has he already encountered and confronted false teachers in the churches, but the Holy Spirit has warned him about what will happen after his decease. Outsiders will come into the church, pretending, of course, to be sheep, and they will destroy the flock. They will teach false doctrines, confuse the sheep, and divide the flock. The Bible has many warnings about false teachers, false prophets, and wolves in the churches. Virtually every book of the Bible contains some such warning. But it is rare today to hear any warning in the churches about false teaching, and still rarer to hear false teaching and false teachers identified by name. Today such behavior is regarded as harsh and unloving. But what is unloving is failing to warn the sheep about false teachers and false teaching.

Paul warns the Ephesians that the danger is not just from newcomers: "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." These perverse men are already in the church, Paul warns, and they will teach false doctrine, confuse the sheep, and draw away the disciples after them. In his letters Paul names names of false teachers who have opposed him. But he realizes that the problem of false teachers will be a continuing problem in the churches, and that good pastors will always have the duty, not only of teaching of the truth, but also of discerning falsehood and warning the sheep against false teachers.

Today the churches have been inundated by false teaching: Roman Catholicism is flourishing with more than one billion souls under its control; earlier this month the president of the Evangelical Theological Society became a Roman Catholic. Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement, which deny the Biblical and Reformational doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide, are leading 600 million more souls to Hell. Eastern Orthodoxy, with its doctrine of theosis, fatally deceives 350 million more. Liberalism and Neo-orthodoxy, tracing their roots to Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, and Barth, devour hundreds of millions more souls. Here in the United States a new movement, the Emergent Church, draws its inspiration from medieval Romanism and mysticism. All of these false religions - all of which profess to be Christian - have many things in common, and those things all depend on one fundamental idea: a rejection of the words of God. From outright and blatant denials of Scripture to subtle attacks on words and language as being incapable of expressing divine truth, these false teachings disparage words and propositions, and praise paradox, mystery, action, feelings, images, and institutions.

Please note that Paul's warning to the Ephesians is about false teachers in the churches. In his last words to them, he tells them what he deems most important. He does not mention those who oppose the faith outside the churches; he does not mention philosophers or vociferous atheists or other organized religions, or even tyrannical rulers. Paul sees the greatest threat to the church as being the threat from within, the threat from those who are church members and church leaders. The greatest threat, he says, is that the words of truth will be perverted, corrupted, and twisted by teachers in the church itself. Today the churches have reversed Paul's concern and warning, for they focus on threats without and ignore the threats within. They focus on atheism and humanism within the public schools, on the actions of government, on political and social issues. When they do address doctrinal issues, the threat, they say, is always outside their church. It is difficult to remember the last time anyone was tried for any error in a Baptist or Presbyterian church.

In his valedictory address to the Ephesians, Paul's sole concern is for the purity of the preaching in the churches. Paul realizes that it is the Word of God that is powerful, that it is the Gospel that grants eternal life, and that if the Word of God is preserved in its purity, then it will not only protect the church but will act as salt in society. But if the Word of God is lost or perverted, then there is no hope, no matter how many rallies are organized, petitions signed, or political actions Christians take.

"Therefore," Paul commands the Ephesians, "watch." Watch out for the wolves, watch out for the false doctrine, protect the sheep from every teaching that is not Biblical. Equip the sheep to recognize the false doctrine and the savage wolves on their own. "Remember," Paul says, "that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears." Paul taught the whole counsel of God as if the lives of men depended on it - precisely because they did.

In our profoundly anti-intellectual age, many in the churches no longer believe that the eternal destinations of men - their everlasting happiness or misery - depend on what they think. Instead, the anti-intellectuals tell us that the destiny of men depends on the group to which they belong, how they behave, or what they feel. God, they tell us, would not send anyone to Hell for making a mistake in theology. If the person is sincere, then God will save him. If a person sincerely believes that Mary is co-Redemptrix, or that Venus is a Goddess, or that Mohammad or Benedict XVI is a prophet, God will forgive him. C. S. Lewis, for example, taught that all sincere worship, even that directed to an idol, is honored by God. His many disciples teach the same. But God and Paul command us to understand and believe the words of God. It was not Paul's tears that saved the Ephesians, but the words from God that Paul spoke to them - the eternal words of eternal life that are able to save your souls also.

In his intercessory prayer in John 17, Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I have glorified you on the Earth. I have finished the work which you have given me to do." What was this work, and how did Christ glorify God on the Earth? Christ himself explains: "I have given to them the words which you have given me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from you; and they have believed that you sent me.... I have given them your Word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."

Jesus' assigned work was to give the disciples the words which he had received from the Father. That is how he glorified God on the Earth, and that is the only way you can glorify God on the Earth. The glorification of God is the proclamation of his words - accurately, boldly, clearly, and completely.

God's words have been written in the Bible alone. We do not find them in philosophy, or in science, or in poetry. We do not learn them from the sky, or from fossils, or from our neighbors. Because the Bible alone has the words of knowledge, the words of eternal life, your first duty is to give attention to the Scriptures. Read them constantly; read the Bible from cover to cover. In this way, as Paul says, you will save both yourself and those who hear you teach. Second, when you read Christian books, read them carefully. Most books that claim to be Christian today are not. They are subtle, and sometimes blatant, attacks on Christianity. Consign to the flames any book that says words, understanding, and the mind are of secondary importance. Third, read sound Christian books, and recommend them to others. I can recommend no author more highly than the late Dr. Gordon Clark, for he clearly saw the importance of words. He wrote more than 40 books in both theology and philosophy, and the guiding principle in them all is that the Bible alone is the words of God, the only source of truth and knowledge. It is that truth alone that is powerful to save souls and transform societies. Fourth, equip those who hear you to understand and teach the Scriptures clearly. If, after 10 years of laboring in a certain church there is no one there capable of filling your shoes, you need to re-think what you are doing. Paul spent only three years in Ephesus, and he left behind a flourishing church and many Elders. Rather than continuing the Roman Catholic model of one priest in one parish, we need to recognize that the goal of a pastor is to teach the men in the congregations to be pastors, to equip them for the work of the ministry. Much more teaching than one man can do is needed in every congregation.

If you do not do these things, you will be good for nothing, and your life will be wasted. But if you do these things, Paul writes, you will be a good servant of Jesus Christ. May God bless you and keep you as teach.

At Least Finish the Sentence

2009-01-17T15:51:00.000-08:00

Scott Price

Comparing Scripture with Scripture in its context we learn what God has to say to His church. Many times as people, especially preachers are making some point they force their interpretation by failing to teach it in the context in which they are drawing from. The easiest way to see this often is they do not even finish the sentence that they are reading from.

At Least Three Examples:

Genesis 4:3-4a (KJV) v-3) And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4) And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel.........

In trying to put emphasis on the sinner and by double talk at the same time claiming God is not a respecter of persons the Arminian will say that God saw Abel's meritorious actions. The context of this Scripture as well as the whole word of God places preeminence on the Lord Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God, the only Acceptable Offering. We are accepted, yes, but how? We are only accepted in the Beloved (Eph 1:6).

Read the rest of the sentence:
4 b) and to his offering: 5) But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

Deuteronomy 29:29 (KJV) v-29a) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God:......

Many times when people are lazy or shallow they lean heavily on the first part of this verse and claim that things are unclear. Most of those times people use this verse to actually hide behind because a text somewhere else is offensive to them or else exposes another error in their man-made theology. It is a convenient verse to run to cover for, as a cloak of false humility and appearance of mystery when the information they are trying to suppress is often times blatantly woven or revealed throughout the Scripture as a whole.

Read the rest of the sentence:
29b) but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Acts 2:39 (KJV) 39a) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off,........

I have seen some preachers use this to say that God promises salvation to all without exception and that God is desiring the salvation of all without exception saying that God promises it to all. God is not a wimp who tries to save people and fails. He is NOT frustrated. His grace is irresistible as the Spirit of God works in the elect the same power that it took to raise Christ from the dead is the same power God uses to work in His people in regeneration and conversion (Eph 1:19-23). This is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16-17). This promise is only to those who the Lord calls by His gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

Read the read of the sentence:
39b) even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

There are many more examples in the Bible that folks twist or sweep under the carpet. We must not take things out of context to mold a system that tastes better than the sweet honey of God's word. He is Truth. Submit to His way.

Trend, or Consensus Theology?

2009-01-17T15:47:00.000-08:00

Scott Price

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today and forever" Hebrews 13:8

The doctrine of the cross of Christ, a message that contains an automatic offense within it, is not a trendy message. It is not a widely accepted record of truth that many would seek to meditate upon, let alone promote and defend. In the vast majority of "evangelical" churches the message is seldom mentioned and when it is it is perverted in most cases. The original, true message of Christ crucified is unchanging just like Christ Himself. This attribute of both the character of Christ as God-Man and His gospel is just one area that bolsters our assurance and brings a flood of joy to our minds.

The way for an ever-evolving false gospel to continue is to dress up the same old lie in new clothes. There are many trends in theology, many issues that do not amount to much. These trends and issues are a distraction from Christ and His gospel. Of course this is the very purpose. They do make for a good means for false prophets to increase their cash flow on book sales though. This is the bad theology and doctrines contained in the false gospel that form the most widely accepted message of the masses or sort of a "mob rules" mentality. It is a so-called "truth" that is considered relative and not absolute and unchanging.

Some of the members of the larger churches or even others from the outside looking in at them have said of a particular church, "How can 10,000 people be wrong?". They would do well to heed the words of our Savior who said, "With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible." That verse was speaking of even the few who are being saved, the same few who enter in at the strait (compressed or narrow) gate. This is the remnant who over the generations end up totaling a number that no man can number who will surround the throne of the unchanging Lamb of God to worship at His feet. It will be no hobby or trend, but will be the desire of his or her heart for eternity.

Friends, the gospel is not a message of consensus, but rather a message that we all are wrong about by nature until God's grace turns our world on its head to see His Son, by His work, being the only way of acceptance before God. It is a message that drives and molds us, not us molding it. We obey it not it obeying us. We submit to it, not it submitting to us. It is the glorious essence heart of the gospel that stops all boasting in the sinner and brings honor to Christ as Lord. "But God be thanked, that you were the servants of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you" Romans 6:17

The Truth is More Important Than We Are

2009-01-17T15:45:00.000-08:00

Scott Price

The truth is eternal! Since it is eternal we could easily spend our entire lives dedicated to the truth. If this is the case it goes without saying that this little article is not an exhaustive explanation of truth or what should be done with it. When I say "truth" I refer to both the Christ Himself (spelled with a capital T in truth) and the message of the gospel, which is the record of both His blessed Person and glorious work. Christ cannot be separated from His gospel. The gospel is even called "the gospel of Christ" in the Scripture. This gospel is called "the doctrine of Christ" in II John 9. So, what I am also getting at is Christ cannot be separated from His doctrine, which describes Him. This doctrine, coupled with the fact that Christ Himself is the Word of God, simply stated: Christ is the ultimate authority is expressing in all forms of communication He chooses, that He is who He says He is. In the wisdom of God, Christ has always been the One designated to speak for God in all forms sovereignly chosen by God.

The truth of God in Christ, the gospel, is older than us. We as mere sinful creatures are just a speck in time, much less in eternity. Collectively, all together, at our best, we are vanity (Psalm 39:5). We do not contribute to the formation or creation of truth. It did not originate with any of us. Man does not or even has had individually or collectively the wisdom to think up any truth contained in God's gospel. We cannot add to or improve the truth. This truth has been passed to His present people from the Prophets, to the Apostles, and now to us. They received the truth from Christ, who is Truth. Is our preaching and teaching better than the Apostles? Can we improve on their doctrine, which is recorded in the inspired word of God? We better not! It would be different or in other words it would be new. The truth is old and unchanging. Anything new in the arena of truth is not the truth, but rather is a lie!

We owe allegiance to truth and the God of all truth. The truth is more important than we are. We are to conform ourselves to the truth otherwise we lie. We are to arrange our lives and prioritize them in reference to the truth so as to live for and serve the truth. We are NOT to change the truth, stretch the truth, bend the truth, twist the truth, embellish the truth, take from or add to the truth, hide the truth, ignore the truth, make the truth unclear or undefined, make lite of the truth, or take credit for the truth. BUT, on the other hand we ARE TO desire the truth, seek the truth, submit to the truth, obey the truth, study the truth, promote the truth, defend the truth, proclaim the truth, explain the truth, and we will do these things if we love the truth.

If we can remember these principles, which are only derived from the word of God and operate on them, I believe it would help us to be humble, think properly, and honor the truth of the only, exclusive God of all truth. Remember truth of this short sentence: THE TRUTH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WE ARE. Do you believe that? My prayer is that you know, believe, obey, and love the truth.

Jesus Christ the Lord, Truly Remarkable

2009-01-17T15:34:00.000-08:00

Scott Price

When the average person claiming to be a "Christian" is asked about Jesus Christ, seemingly they do not have much to say about Him. They feel more comfortable talking about social and political issues. This Jesus they claim to have for a Savior seems not to merit very many remarks from them. If given a piece of paper and locked in a room to write on the subject of Jesus Christ the Lord, would they be able to fill up the page?

The question raised in the Scripture, "What think ye of Christ", is a vital one. What remarks could be made concerning the Lord Jesus Christ? He is true remarkable! The definition of remarkable is: worthy of being remarked or noticed, being uncommon, wonderful, notable, and extraordinary. To remark means -- to mark notably or noticeable and to distinguish as such. It is a mention of that which deserves attention. Here is clearly where we start to see what a person sees as important in there life. Christ Himself conveyed the idea that what is in the heart of a person could be evidenced by what comes out of our mouths (remarks). Does Jesus Christ attract your attention? Do you find Him notable, extraordinary or wonderful?

Christ is remarkably central in everything in time and before time, visible and invisible. He has preeminence in all things. He is a never-ending fountain springing up forever. In Him are all the treasures of wisdom. He is Life. He is the living Word. He is Truth. He is Lord and Savior. Christ is all. It says in John 21:25; "And there are so many other things that Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." There are plenty of remarks that can be made on both the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ that there are not enough hours in the day or years in our life to adequately do it.

Do you know Him?

The Scripture says; "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3). Has He revealed Himself to you through the gospel of free grace? Do you know "the doctrine of Christ"? Theology is the study of God. Are you a theologian, a studier of God? Have you been taught of God by the power of His Spirit? Do you desire to know Him more? Do you see Him as notable and distinguished from all other gods or idols?

Do you think about Him?

I did not ask this time what you thought about Him but rather do you think about Him. Today the art of meditation or reflection is almost gone. Our society, through the media, views things in sound bites. People get bored easy and have short attention spans. There are millions of distractions in the world to be caught up in. Our society for the most part puts a low priority on the action of thought and some would consider it laziness or even a waste of time. The most important subject to think about, Christ, is lost when our attention is directed in other areas. Is Christ important enough, uncommon enough, notable enough, or distinguished enough to warrant time to think on Him? We have to know Him first, then to think about him to be more apt to remark on Him.

Are you prepared to remark on Him?

The Scripture says; "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (I Peter 3:15). This is not a mere suggestion. It is not directed only to the "clergymen". The job of those pastoring the church is to teach and equip the church body to fulfill this purpose of remarking on Him for the furtherance of the gospel and the edification of the church. This verse tells every last one of God's people they are to be prepared to remark on Christ.

A gospel ministry is built around remarking on Christ. In other words, there is no end to the gospel ministry and there is no fear of running out of things to remark on. Our manual is the Scripture, the Bible, which is the very word of God. It is what God Himself has remarked on the Person and work of Christ. Our thoughts and remarks must reflect His. The more we immerse ourselves in His word, the more we will find the ease of remarking on the Lord Jesus Christ. If you do not know Him do not remark on Him. But if you do know Him, think on Him, and continuously and increasingly be prepared to remark on Him. This is our responsibility as God's people and we should strive to increase in all these areas. The more we do these things the more remarkable He will be to us. For sure He is truly remarkable.

Stand in Awe of Him

“Stand in awe and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed and be still.” Psalm 4:4

To be in awe of the Lord is to see who He is in His majesty, holiness, righteousness, justice, wrath, hatred, grace, mercy, love, faithfulness, unchangeableness, His sovereign power, omnipresence, knowledge, wisdom, and whatever else He reveals to us. It is to stand in utter reverence and honor of this exclusive God and only Savior. The one way this is seen is through a revelation of Christ in the gospel of grace, by the Holy Spirit of God.

This world is totally blind to the awesomeness of God Almighty. This is very easy to detect simply because of their lack of description of Him. Their view of God is shallow. They cannot advance much beyond what they have projected in their own imagination. When we boil it down using the Scripture as our source, we must conclude the world and it’s religious system has missed Christ altogether. The religious Jews in the days of Christ boasted of their family bloodline, their connection to their father Abraham and seemed to consider that more awesome than Christ, the great “I AM”, who was standing in front of them in the flesh. They rejected Christ, the God-Man. He was the same God, Jehovah of the Old Testament, awesome in every way. They were blind because of their self-righteousness, their system, their formal ritual and liturgy thinking they knew better than this simple man named Jesus hailing from Nazareth. As a result they rejected the only Person who was their only hope in what they needed; JUSTIFICATION before an awesome God. Today we have the very same thing. Even the word “awesome” itself has lost it’s meaning. It has become weak and unimpressive, with no effect left to it. Cars, clothes, sports, and even sinful humans have been labeled as awesome. This title should be reserved to God Almighty alone.

Notice what the text says; “…commune with your own heart upon your bed and be still.” There is not much quiet, still, thinking or meditating going on today concerning who God is, who man is, and who Christ is. The rat race of our day keeps the weak, sinful mind occupied to the point where it never still. But thank God He stops His people in their tracks to be absolutely still long enough to reveal His awesomeness in the Lord Jesus Christ as both a just God and Savior. God reveals the most awesome work by the most awesome Person that ever lived, as He finished the perfect work of redemption of the cursed tree at Calvary. Be still some more, again and again. Be still everyday and rest every moment in Christ Jesus the Righteous One alone.

The Gospel, The Converting Power of God

2009-01-14T19:51:00.000-08:00

Scott Price

"For I not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes,..." Romans 1:16 (MKJV)

Sometimes men look at vital things way out of focus. When it comes to issues of the gospel ministry and those involved, some turn it into a popularity contest. If you remember in the book of First Corinthians, Paul warned the people of their spiritual immaturity for playing preacher favorites; "....there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you say; I am of Paul, and I am of Appolos, and I am of Christ. Is Christ divided, was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (I Cor 1:11b-13).

Paul's concern was for the glory of God in the gospel of Christ. His focus was always off of man. Notice what he said in Galatians 1:10-12, "For now do I persuade men or God, or do I seek to please men?, for if I yet pleased men I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren that the gospel that was preached after me was not after man. For neither received it from man, neither was I taught it from man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ."

People sometimes put focus on man rather than Christ. Even God's people, in their immaturity at times do this. Some of God's people have put preachers to such an elevated level; they seem to think they are above error. Some preachers themselves even tend to drift into this attitude. These things are unhealthy for the body of Christ. Some would even dare to go as far as dressing the "clergy" up in funny, plush, colorful outfits and giving them titles like "Reverend". These things are the residue left over from people who have wrong ideas about where the primary emphasis should be in the setting for worship. Even the way the church buildings and how the furnishings inside are set up, tend to give away the warped focus of what is of primary importance.

When it comes to the conversion of souls God indeed does use the means of preaching to communicate His gospel to His people. For the past two decades I have had exposure to sovereign grace ministries world-wide and have noticed a great deal of them put more emphasis on the preaching of the gospel, than the gospel of Christ itself. This is not a riddle, hair splitting, or me being picky. The Scripture no doubt does endorse, promote, encourage, and command preaching of the gospel, and shows it's vital part in conversion and the edification and growth of God's saints after conversion. The point not to be missed here is; the focus is not to be on who is preaching, or even the preaching itself, but rather what, or more appropriately WHO is being preached.

Paul also said, "For I am determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" I Cor 2:2. The gospel itself, by the power of the Spirit is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe. The question for starters is, do preachers make people believe? Another question to consider is; do preachers say anything different than Christ and the Apostles have said? Have they improved on what Christ and the Apostles have said? Can they? Are preacher’s feet so beautiful (Rom 10:15) that they feel they need to be bowed down to and perhaps have their feet kissed like people do the Pope? Kiss the Son! (Psalm 2:12).

Thank God for preachers. Thank God for preaching. Thank God for the gospel. Thank God for Christ who is the living Word/Gospel of God. Thank God for the Spirit who opens our eyes in regeneration so that we may see Christ. Let us continue to operate in the ministry of the gospel with our eyes on Christ, not on man. This should be our constant prayer since we are weak and often times tend to lean on the "arm of the flesh", thinking our way is better than God's way. The focus is Christ, not our spin on Him our fancy or glorious presentation of Him is. Christ must increase and we must decrease. Men are frail sinners. Pray for those that labor in the word. It is not an easy task. Follow them as they follow Christ.

Hearing The Voice of Christ In the Word of God
"My sheep hear My voice and I know them and they follow Me." John 10:27

Jesus Christ, the God-Man, speaks to His sheep directly by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the means of the word of God (the gospel). Christ Himself is the Word and is also the Truth. He is the language or logic of God. When His sheep are called by the gospel, they follow Christ, the Shepherd. The children of God do not hear an audible voice, but rather the truth of the gospel shines through to the mind of the hearer as it is preached. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). It does not matter who is preaching it as long as it is preached. Be not confused hear and think I mean to say God converts a soul with a different or false gospel. The Lord only uses His truth in salvation (Rom 1:16-17, John 8:32).

The point is that it is the message that counts, not the messenger. The messenger does not improve the message by crafty speech, or fancy words (I Cor 1:12-31). It is not the delivery style of the messenger that matters. The truth of the gospel concerning Christ's Person and work is the issue. The Scripture says we only plant or water in evangelism and God alone gives the increase (I Cor 3:7). This is the wisdom of God in the conversion of His people. We should be careful to follow through on His command of the great commission to preach the gospel to all without exception and expect God to call out His sheep by name from the rest of the world.
What About Words in Black?

In case some reading this do not know, many Bible versions print the actual words that Christ spoke in red to distinguish them. These are called "Red Letter Editions". We often here folks say that words in the Bible printed in red are more important, somehow more special, or carry more authority than the rest of the Scripture when compared to the words printed merely in black. In some cases such ideas have come even from grace preachers. Let us look at this issue briefly to gather a greater appreciation for the God's word as a whole.

1) All of the Scripture is the word of God. It all carries authority. What Moses, Isaiah or John penned they wrote not of their own authority. The Apostle Paul did not create his own theology and doctrine. Peter's wittings do not have more or less authority than Isaiah, Paul, John, or Jesus. All the Scripture is given by inspiration of God, thus the whole Bible is the word of God. The words in black actually harmonize with the words in red because they all came from the inspiration of the same God.

2) The sum of all Scripture testifies of red; The life giving red blood of Christ. The whole Bible's message can be condensed down to the gospel of the Cleansing Stream of a one Blood Sacrifice, the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the gospel of grace. All the writers of Scripture wrote under inspiration and they all had one thing in common: Jesus Christ the Lord crucified, the central and preeminent theme of all Scripture.
Do not confuse the consistent message that points everything to Christ alone, the One who shed His precious blood. Life is in the merit of His blood alone. He Himself is The Word of God and letter's color makes no difference. Hear Him. Worship Him, even using the means of the words in black. The words, no matter what color, give all the glory to Him. Do not discredit God by downgrading or looking lower on the words in black. Meditate of them and thank Him instead!

Where is the Authority?
“..... when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at His doctrine: For He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." Matthew 7:28-29

Many times since being converted I have been asked by a variety of folks: "What are you anyway?", referring to what denomination I was. People want to make a blanket judgment on you based on what denominational heading you fall under rather than what gospel you believe. Even my children have asked me what they should tell their friends at school "what we are" when they are asked. Folks also might ask if I am licensed to preach when they hear I am a minister, or if I am an "ordained" minister. Most of these people usually want to know under want authority we are operating under. We see what a lack of license or authority from the state church did for men like John Bunyan in the 1600's........ jail time, around 12 years of it.
Does authority to preach the gospel of Christ and Him crucified come from the state, a denominational headquarters or a religious hierarchy? Do we have to show a hand-me-down church pedigree from a "mother church" that links back to the apostles with no breaks in the chain, one church birthing another church? Is that where authority comes from? Most that claim to have such a chain, and many do, have many false gospel patches holding that chain together.

The Roman Catholics are the biggest boasters of such a system of authority, claiming Peter was the first Pope which links all the way to the present, anti-christ spirit of Pope John Paul. In this system the Scriptures, the very word of God, takes a back seat to the "authority of the church." Just what or where is the beginning or fountainhead of truth and what or where does the authority come from to declare it?

The word of God, wherein is contained the gospel of God's free grace is the only authority needed to declare the gospel. The authority is in the message, which concerns the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ! The authority is not in the messenger or who ordains the messenger but in the gospel message itself. The message is not bound to ecclesiastical bodies, committees, or governments. "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation...." Romans 1:16.

In the type of Baptist background I was involved with in my younger days (from birth to 3 months after my conversion at age 23) was called "Landmarkism". They had this idea that they were the only ones who had the only authority to preach, baptize, and have the Lord's Supper, as well as any other church function. Shortly after my conversion (from listening to the gospel on tape from preachers in various parts of the country and getting one-on-one preaching from a man in our church who was on his way out) there arose a situation that made me take a stand for the gospel in a way that made me leave. I found sadly that these specific type Baptists would rather have fellowship with anyone who agreed with their church doctrine, even if they were Arminian!

The Scripture as a whole tells us judge by the gospel. If we know Arminianism (salvation by works in part plus grace) is a false gospel we cannot have any religious fellowship with Arminians at all. What was confusing and inconsistent was, they would promote sovereign grace Baptists that has already died like A.W. Pink, C.H. Spurgeon, Dr. John Gill, and others in sermon quotes and in their newsletters, bulletins, etc., who would not agree at all with their church doctrine. But these Landmark Baptists, while claiming to hold to the doctrines of sovereign grace, would never have fellowship with any other sovereign grace Baptists who were presently living who had the same church views as Gill, Pink, and others.

The authority is in the gospel message. It is our starting point and basis of fellowship (Phil 1:5). No gospel, no salvation. No gospel, no fellowship. Who cares if a person agrees with me on church doctrine but rejects the gospel? Do I have any ground of fellowship with such a person who believes a false gospel? Of course not! The same goes with eschatology or political views. I cannot look past their false gospel and fellowship on the basis of secondary items.

I believe in Presuppositionalism (presupposing that what the Bible says is true simply because it is God's word) and I can go ahead and rely on the Bible for my authority rather than ecclesiastical bodies. The church has it's place and I am a loyal member of one, but if a church has no true gospel that church has not authority at all, none. In other words I do not have to go on an exhaustive hunt through church history to seek confidence that I am linked to the apostles when I see clearly that I presently hold to the very same gospel they did. Should I spend years studying fossils, dinosaurs, and archeology, so I can have confidence the Evolutionists are not right? No! God says they are wrong and that's what counts. Same goes with the gospel and my confidence in the authority of it.

No gospel, no authority. If I have the same gospel as the prophets of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ, and the apostles of the New Testament then that is enough authority for me. Denominational names or titles mean nothing. The gospel of Christ that glorifies the only true God is what matters and that is where the authority is vested. God's gospel is not bound and should not be hoarded or suppressed. It is absolute truth on it's own. His gospel is an everlasting gospel that is more powerful and even more important than we are. We do not give it authority but it is where the authority is. Thank God for this truth. Many have been burned at the stake for it, under various denominational titles and some even in simply nameless churches and fellowship groups that met in caves or houses throughout history. Many times they were hunted down and killed by self-righteous religious men who claimed to have the only authority, but hated the gospel God's people believed.

God is the author of the everlasting gospel and the author has the authority. In what authority do you trust, that which comes from man or that which comes from God and His gospel?

In Full Support of "Negative" Campaign Ads
Do not get too excited. I am not talking politics here. The Scripture, God's inspired and holy word, has in it negative campaign ads. These come in the form of warnings and expose', contrasting light and darkness. It is no accident that God does this on purpose for His glory. He is wise in the use of warnings and exposing. These Biblical contrasts are embraced and loved by the minds of God's people. The challenge and charge of every gospel preacher is to do the very same thing God does in His word. But in a day of "political correctness" even among those who claim to hold to the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace there is a disdain of God's servants when they expose error. It gets folks nervous, especially those who tiptoe and tolerate Arminianism as a legitimate gospel and count themselves and family members saved under such a false gospel. Remember God's ways are not ours. Salvation is of the Lord. It is now and always was because it is authors by the God who cannot lie and does not change.

Glorifying the Word of the Lord
"And when the Gentiles heard this they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48

The Problem
Man, mis-handling the Bible, would have the word of the Lord and the glory of it to take a back seat to man's opinion about it. Man will distract their listeners from very simple and clear teachings of the word of God, while claiming to protect the "spiritual aspect" of their gospel. They divorce the mind or intellect from their religion, fearing that any thing that leads to rational thinking with the intellect is contrary to faith. They deny the clear promises of God like "..but those things which are revealed belong unto us and our children forever...." in the latter half of Deut 29:29.

This emphasis leads to vague, cloudy, uncertain, undefined, shallow, relative, and irrational teachings that keep people in the dark. This mind-set seemingly has become their pride and comfort zone. Many have written us here to say that our doctrine is too dogmatic and that nothing can be that certain, clear, and sure. They say we have nailed things down too tight and we are too black or white. In doing this they invent paradox and mystery where it is not, in order to make excuses for their love of the non-existent "gray areas".

These problems are clearly seen in false religion but too many times we find these ideas creeping in the back door of our true gospel churches. Unless these bad teachings are exposed for what they are, in time will gather speed and strength doing much harm. The negative results are many, primarily lack of growth, edification, and assurance, not to mention a too small of a view of God's precious promises and the power of His truth.

A Call for Clarity
God's people are called to sound a clear, distinct declaration as we sound the warning trumpet (I Corth 14:8). We are not to have people walk away after hearing us and say, "I wonder what he meant by that?" Some preachers and theologians preach many, many times and still people wonder if they believe in a particular and effectual atonement. I see this quite often. This is one reason why I do not get too thrilled over John Calvin. Many books have been written on the topic of whether or not Calvin believed and taught universal atonement or limited atonement. My point here is, if he was clear enough about this very important topic then there would be no question or wondering about it.

The word of the Lord (or the gospel), which our text above mentions, is clear. If it seems cloudy, it is because man has made it cloudy by adding to or taking away from it. Many think if we can just trim off the rough edges of the gospel of absolute free grace of salvation conditioned on Christ alone, it will be a little easier for others to swallow. There are various techniques they use to do this. They think the offense of the cross can be cloaked, talked around, tamed down, or distracted from. The offense of the cross must stand! Man's problem by nature is bad enough and many make it worse by seeking to put mystery where mystery is not since the Bible contains clear written truths.

The word of the Lord preached, heard, and understood by the power of the Spirit always results in an effectual work that "glorifies the word of the Lord." A message void of the offense of the cross will result in the glory of man. There you find a false gospel.

Man's Natural Ways Fall Short
There are at least four types of revelation:

1) God in creation.
2) Law written on the conscience.
3) Written word of God can be read and heard using human knowledge.
4) Supernatural and spiritual revelation of God to the sinner as the sinner finally sees, understands, and believes the gospel (word) through the new birth.

Men and women by nature cannot believe the gospel by looking at the stars no matter what claims televangelist D. James Kennedy makes. People do not believe the gospel as a result of introspection or feelings of guilt by their natural conscience. Man is blind in his natural state and cannot see or understand the shining light of God's word, so as to convert him. Man, through his own wisdom and understanding cannot find God by searching as if He could finally merit salvation by study. That would be salvation conditioned on another work of man.

The Lord has a very high view of His word. He delights to have His word seen and glorified, and that is exactly what He does for all His children as He reveals Himself to them in a sovereign work in the new birth. After that, mystery and ignorance which was there before hearing and believing the gospel, is gone by God's revelation of His word to their minds
(I Corth 2:7-16, II Corth 4:3-6, Eph 1:9, I John 5:20).

Lazy Man's Mysticism
Some of the biggest offenders of the teaching of the word being glorified is the Hyper-Calvinist who claims most of the elect will be regenerated and go to heaven without believing the gospel. How then the word of the Lord be glorified in their hearts. These people are those that are anti-evangelistic and anti-missionary. They deny the responsibility and/or accountability of all who hear the gospel to believe it. They claim the gospel is only for temporal joy in this lifetime and plays no part as a means used in eternal salvation. These people take their mystical religion further and claim a child of God can have no certainty or assurance of salvation. Their conclusion on assurance is a by-product of rejecting the word of God.

Contrary to what they say, the Bible says that these things (gospel doctrine in God's word) are written that you may know you have eternal life (I John 5:13). Many religions that claim to fall under the category of evangelical Christian despise doctrine, theology, knowledge, understanding, dogmatism, orthodoxy, definitions, rationality, distinctions, explanations, assurance, absolute truth, or anything else that lends itself to be concise or clear. All these things seem to eventually flush out the ignorant hypocrite and expose him or at least challenges him to think more than he wants to. When they are made to think they call us hateful for clearing away the smoke and haze to get to the bottom of important gospel issues.

Many of these are professional clergymen who attended schools, full of teachers that are fools. They passed their hatred for the clear truth to young impressionable minds, molding an ignorant student who is uncertain of things but is trained to pass it down. The blind are leading the blind and mass-producing false prophets to preach false gospels. So, we see two extremes of fools. One is a sophisticated and wrongly educated fool and the other is a stupid fool who looks at nothing objectively and suppresses knowledge that might pass anywhere near his highly guarded small intellect. Both seem quite satisfied and proud of their style of foolishness as they elevate their form of mysticism over the clear biblical revelation of God's word. In both these camps sincerity replaces truth and man's wisdom is seen to be the height of foolishness.

The Various Ways
God is glorified in, by, and through His word. God has ordained that His word be declared, proclaimed, spoken, read, taught, explained, written, and dispensed to benefit His purpose. We are take advantage of every known means to communicate the word of God. This glory spoken of in our text is specifically revealed to our heart (mind, will, and affection) as the gospel comes in the power of the Spirit (II Corth 4:6).

Mystical based religions would have you believe the head and the heart are two different things. Nonsense! In this separation, an excuse has been made for the acceptance of false gospels and a blurring of the distinct lines God has drawn in His word concerning what the gospel is and what it is not. Those promoting this idea say that a person believes with their heart but does not understand it in their head. Are they saying a person's head is not a part of a person that matters? Are they saying that things go on in the heart that by-pass the head? Are they saying the head does not take in spiritual things as God works in the heart? Do they mean mind when they say head? Do they mean a person does not exercise their mind when their believe? The vital question is what does this wrong separation of head/heart do to the relationship and importance that God, in His word, puts on knowledge and understanding? The answer to this question has a direct effect on our topic of glorying in the word of the Lord. The idea of this separation is everywhere in society but seems to have a stronghold in religion.

We know the Holy Spirit is the one who gives a spiritual understanding so that we may know God (I John 5:20). It is nice to be at least intellectually understood by the English words that come from your mouth that go to the ear of the one you are preaching to and they realize that what you are telling them is altogether something distinctly different then what they already believe. They may not believe what you are saying but at least you have told it to them clear enough that they see a difference. If they believe a false gospel and do not see a difference in your gospel then you need to lovingly highlight those differences until they at least hear the meanings of the words you are saying. Are you too ashamed of the truth to make distinctions?
God in His wisdom has seen fit to use His word, His gospel, and His doctrine. He reveals things in His word about Himself and what He has done. Not just general things only, but specifics that relate to His glorious redemptive character as He saves sinners in a just and holy manner. His signature is spelled out all through the pages of His word. His name is declared and defined throughout His word in relation to what He has done as well as who He is. His word is important to Him because it is His record about Himself. His word shows things about Him that cannot be seen anywhere else. "Thus saith the Lord" is not just space-filling words. He is the Word made flesh. Never downplay, discredit, and dishonor His word or doctrine. Have you glorified His word? Has God been glorified in your heart through His word?
His Name Demands His Person and Work to be Undivided

For years I have heard many accuse some preachers of preaching the WORK of Christ more than or opposed to the PERSON of Christ and vise-versa. The Lord Jesus Christ is undivided in His Person and work the proof of this is His very Name(s). His names are in direct reference to His work. So, in other words, when Christ is referred to by one of His names it referrers to this specific Person doing a specific work, which His Name defines.

Lord
He of course is Lord in His Divine nature as being the eternal Son of God, but His Lordship in reference to His work is one of being a Mediator. He reigns by virtue of His Person and work as a Mediator of the New Covenant. Grace reigns through righteousness and He who established a perfect righteousness is considered King of Righteousness. One of His names is "The Lord Our Righteousness". Now this is a no-brainer to say His name is related to with His work.

Jesus
In the Old Testament the name Joshua, who was a type of Christ, in Hebrew means Savior or deliverer. In the New Testament we have the Name of Jesus, which means the same thing. In Matthew 1:21 it says: "You shall call His name Jesus because He shall save His people from their sins". If He did not have the purpose to do that work He would not have that name.

Christ
God chose, anointed, and sent the Son of God to do a specific work. He is the Anointed Messiah chosen and sent of God. That is what His Name means. He mentioned all throughout His earthly ministry that "His time" or "hour" was not come yet. But finally the most important event in history happened as the Scripture says: "The hour is come". The Lord Jesus Christ would voluntarily mount the cross to finish the work in victory, showing the full splendor of His Name!
Let us not say His person and work is separated. He was named after what He came to do. We worship Him as a result. Thank Him for His grace and be determined NOT to know anything except Christ AND Him crucified!

Very Important Question About Distinctions
I was recently asked a very important question from someone who was not a member of our congregation about our church's distinctives and thought I would share it with folks. I also sent it to as many in my area who claim to believe and preach "sovereign grace" in the Cincinnati area:

The question: "What is the different about what Gospel of Grace Church believes than any other church in the greater Cincinnati area who claim to believe in the doctrines of God's free and sovereign grace?"

The answer: The major difference that I can speak to is on the "offense of the cross". We believe and teach that the gospel only allows one righteousness and actually opposes and does not tolerate any other forms of righteousness. We boldly and openly reject all false gospels of Pelegianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, Freewillism, or any other form of self-righteous, works-religion and readily defend the one and only true gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation. The only acceptable righteousness that meets the perfect standard of God is the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ imputed and received by God-given faith. This righteousness is worked out, established and brought in solely by the Lord Our Righteousness, Christ Jesus Himself. He did this in His effectual life and death as the Covenant Surety and Representative of His elect people. This enables God to be both a just God and Savior, the Just and justifier of those who trust His Blessed Son.

To tolerate any other message is to void the offense and allow sinners to boast and glory in some merit of their own. Since God will not share His glory with another we are careful to maintain the truth as it is in Christ, as God gives us the grace to do so. We do not claim conversion under a false gospel, but call for repentance of such blasphemous ideas. This specifically means to claim our former religion under a false gospel, before hearing and believing the authentic gospel, as dung and filthy rags and we look to Christ alone as our only hope. This is Biblical conversion.
That is the major difference between us and any so-called "sovereign grace church" in the greater Cincinnati area: We cannot compromise in the area of the offense of the cross. It boils down to Christ and Him crucified effectually as our only glory VS all other false ways being tolerated or accepted as legitimate forms of Christianity. By God's grace GGC will continue to deliver this message with the utmost love and care for souls. If there is any other church in our area within comfortable driving distance that holds to these blessed truths it is news to me. As pastor of GGC in Ross, our church longs for the day to find such an individual or group to fellowship with in the Cincinnati area.

Knowledge - "More, More About Jesus"

2009-01-14T19:45:00.000-08:00

Scott Price

"And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding" Jer 3:15

The Scriptures are often twisted by preachers to the detriment of many of God's sheep. Some preachers hold their congregation back from progressing in knowledge in fear of the potential risk that they will become "puffed up". Is that risk a real threat? Have we not met people in different congregations who are hard to deal with because they are know-it-alls and as a result are not pleasant to be around? Yes, these people do exist in some places. But should we, as the old saying goes, "throw the baby out with the bath water"? If we look at God's word as a whole, comparing Scripture with Scripture, we very quickly find a preponderance of texts exhorting us to progress in the area of knowledge rather than staying stagnant or ignorant in our life and walk of faith.

Besides the clear testimony of Scripture, which, by the way is enough, but also from our experience in times past, the joy of our minds being enlightened by the knowledge given by the means of God's word should be an incentive to progress in knowledge. When we see glimpses of our Lord Jesus Christ as our minds are exercised in meditation of the gospel throughout our lives is the best part. This results in edification and worship. God is says in John chapter 4 to even seek worshippers who worship Him in Spirit and in truth. So, if this is the case what do you think would be a good means for the Spirit of God to use to spur on worship in the hearts of God's people, ignorance or knowledge?

The Scripture says people who are those who are perishing think the gospel is foolishness (I Cor 1:18) and that they have not received the "love of the truth that they might be saved" (II Thes 2:10. Do you think God's sheep are hungering for the knowledge of their Savior? Is not this their food for life, the truth as it is in Christ? As the old hymn goes, "More about Jesus would I know". Give us Christ else we die! In this land of famine why on earth would people who claim to believe God's gospel of free and sovereign grace ever, ever want to stunt the growth of God's sheep by withholding or slowing the process of knowledge? Is it like the Dark Ages where the information was bond up and hoarded? Truth is only profitable for God's people if it passes through their mind and sticks there in the form of growth in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Ignorance is NEVER bliss.

Just as the old satanic idea of doubting one's salvation being somehow humility, the same goes with the halting of knowledge. Being "puffed up" is definitely sin. Let's not starve the church because some are puffed up. God gives grace to His people to see that He is the One who makes people to differ. God gives wisdom as He gives knowledge. As God's people we cannot take the place of God. He alone can make people utilize knowledge properly. We are not to try to be grand puppet masters of people's minds. This is not the mission of the church. God will deal with the folks who are puffed up. Do not join the other side of the war thinking you are helping God weed out the puffed up people but at the same time starving out the hungry. "For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, pulling down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought into the obedience of Christ...." II Cor 10:4-5 (MKJV). Ignorance kills!

Preach and promote the knowledge of Christ and His gospel using whatever means available and necessary. This should be the unceasing effort of the church. Spread the knowledge far and wide of the Savior who this world is so ignorant of. The same Savior who the church is panting for the knowledge of like the deer that pants, thirsty by the brook. Let the church have a bountiful gospel buffet to feed on. Let us progress (grow; a mathematical idea) in knowledge of the Truth. I wish it were not the case but I actually heard a "sovereign grace preacher" on tape, say that you can get too much gospel. There is no excuse whatsoever for the promotion of ignorance. It only takes an elementary reading of God's word to see the trouble folks get in for two things: Not knowing and not remembering what you know. Oh that God would give us the maximum dose of the knowledge of His Son! Is God's church hungry for Him or not? Can you over-eat in this case? You cannot get too much gospel, ever.

Loving Him More as We Know Him Better

"We love Him because He first loved us" is a verse we often quote. God gives us the desire, the will, the ability, to love Him by giving us an understanding of who He is and what He has done for us in His Son, Jesus Christ the Lord. This cannot be said of the non-elect, who hates God. If God loved them, they would true love Him since His love is always effective. Do you see the effect of God's love to His people? It is effectual, in that it is more than words that says He loves, but rather ACTION. This action was displayed in choosing the His people, not conditioned on anything in them or even any future performance by them, but for Christ's sake alone (Rom 9:11 & Eph 1:4-6).

The effect of God's love does not stop at this Covenant of Grace, wherein the promise is that salvation is conditioned on Christ alone as their Representative and Surety. The effect of His love goes to provide what His holiness demands from all His people: Absolute perfect satisfaction to law and justice and the establishment of a flawless righteousness by Jesus Christ, that is imputed to the elect's account and justifies them before God Almighty, forever.

The effect does not stop there but extends to the work of the Spirit of God in regeneration and conversion through the means of the gospel of free grace. This is where we actually experience the fruit and effect of Christ's life and death for us as God dispenses the spiritual gifts from the Spirit that were merited by Christ. We are given knowledge of Him in the gospel. We are given eyes to see and ears to hear, a renewed mind. We are given an understanding that we may know Him. It is impossible to love Him if we do not know and understand who He is and what He did. We are given faith to trust and lean on Him for our righteousness, peace, assurance, and completeness.

The effect of His love never stops but takes us to the state of glorification where we shall see Him face to face. He insures we will be finally delivered from even the very presence of sin, and not having sickness and sorrow anymore. The more we learn of Him in His word and His gospel the more we love Him. Thank God for this means He has given us to increase our love for our Savior. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. For it is written, The just shall live by faith. Make continual use of the gospel, the gift He has given us to help us see Him clearly and love Him dearly.

The Doctrine of Christ Crucified

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ, he has both the Father and the Son" II John 9

In a day when thinking, especially on spiritual things is unpopular, Mystics calling themselves preachers have been the means to further blind the minds of modern churchgoers. This goes beyond not defining, being cloudy, not explaining, passing over or leaving out certain Biblical teachings on purpose, but even all the way to making definite and dogmatic statements that would totally divorce the doctrine of the death of Christ from the gospel itself. How can someone fall for such a deception? How can some preachers from all over the world who would even call themselves "Sovereign Grace Preachers" fall for such a thing? How can they disconnect the very Person of Christ from His glorious work? It is a constant struggle and battle to exhort, teach, warn, etc., God's people about the bombardment of these evil things.

Many today in so-called "Christianity" deny that the Scripture is the infallible and inspired word of God. This is the first step down the road to swallowing just about anything that comes along. Where then is their basis for believing something? They become their own standard implying they are wiser than God. Those who do at least claim the Scripture is the very word of God often wrestles it to their own destruction. This too is an indication that implies they think they are wiser than God. Yet another type are those who hear it, CLAIM to believe it but fold under pressure because it is not the popular view to hold and they compromise to avoid persecution.

The offense of the cross, which is the result of the clear gospel preaching of the effectual redemption of the elect by God's Christ, encapsulates the focal point of what really matters. It keeps the main thing being the main thing. The main thing is the glory of God in the death of Christ. It is simply the magnification of the redemptive glory of God by the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ in the salvation of sinners. It is the message that honors His love and at the same time magnifies His justice. It is a message that excludes all boasting without exception. It is a message that holds in place the preeminence of Christ making sure that from start to finish that salvation is of the Lord. It is a message that looks at grace as it opposes and excludes works for salvation. It shows the Righteousness of God in Christ as opposed to all other forms of righteousness. It corners and flushes out humanistic doctrines that men have invented. It cuts the wicked throat with the Sword of the Lord of false gospels such as Pelagianism, Arminism, Freewillism, and any other doctrinal thief that attempts to rob the Lord of His glory.

Most all the doctrinal wickedness can be summed up in the satanic stronghold of Universal Atonement. Denominations small and large are dominated by this lie of a failed "Christ". Most of you already know this to be true. But the problem comes when people tolerate Satan's lie to legitimize their seniority in religion as a whole and count themselves saved when they believed such God-dishonoring garbage. God is not impressed at all. The pride of man to include a few extra decades onto their supposed conversion by claiming hope in such a wicked message speaks volumes of what they really of God in the first place. They have, in the end, divorced, the glorious, effectual and victorious death of Christ from the gospel itself. O how freewill dumbs down the heart and mind to fool itself. God sees the heart. Repent now if this describes you. Join us in the stand against the popular "gospel" which is no gospel.

A Reasonable Gospel

2009-01-10T10:32:00.000-08:00

Scott Price

"Come now, and let us reason together says the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be like crimson, they shall be as wool" Isaiah 1:18

The gospel is made to be the most reasonable and logical message that God's people have ever heard in their life. The gospel, used by the Spirit of God, is a message that is clear to them, trust worthy, backed with promises from the God who cannot lie, based on unchanging, absolute truth that is used to actually convert the soul. The Spirit convinces the elect of the doctrinal truths of the gospel and the converted sinner now understands and loves the truth and has his assurance of salvation strengthened in this gospel as he lives by faith (Rom 1:17, Heb 6:13-20, II Peter 1:2-10).

God uncovers the mystery of the gospel by revealing it to us and gives us an understanding that we might know Him (Matt 11:25-27, John 17:3, I Cor 2:10, II Cor 4:6, Eph 1:18, Phil 3:8, I John 5:20). God must give us a spiritual capacity to know and understand because since the sin of Adam, Man has lost his ability to receive spiritual things (II Cor 2:14). Before God gives His people spiritual life, faith and understanding they are in a state of condemnation and have no understanding of the value of the object of faith, Christ Jesus the Righteous. Before faith is given, the sinner has natural prejudices against God and His only way of salvation by the merits of Christ. The sinner is too busy comparing himself with other people (II Cor 10:12) instead of comparing himself God's only standard which is Christ and His perfect obedience. Without fail they are trusting in the way that seems right to them and are going about to establish a righteousness of their own (Prov 14:12, Rom 10:2-3). God's way is unreasonable and not logical to the spiritually dead sinner and he is hostile toward God's gospel of grace.

Jesus Christ is the logic/language-Living Word of God in the person of the God-man Mediator. Who He is and what He has done for salvation is made real to us by knowledge and revelation, then the dullness and ignorance gap is filled and supplied with the most wisdom ever put together: the gospel of God's free grace in Christ. Faith is NOT a blind leap into the darkness of ignorance, but rather is something God gives us to hold on to all that is true, clear, reasonable, logical, and trust worthy. Let us not muddy the waters by promoting ignorance, doubt, unreasonableness, paradox, and vagueness where scripture does not (Prov 1:22). Thank God for His irresistible, converting, sovereign grace!

Putting the Puzzle of Doctrine and Theology Together

2009-01-10T10:31:00.002-08:00

Scott Price

When I listen to music I really think about it in separate parts, then as a whole. When I hear a song I first notice the beat because I am a drummer. The next time I hear it, in no particular order, I pick out the bass guitar, rhythm guitar, lead guitar, keyboards, lead vocals, back up vocals, etc., and listen to see their separate contribution to the song. Then when you hear the whole band play and contribute all at the same time it can be understood and appreciated very much. It takes discernment to identify the different instruments. Give that a try sometime and you will be surprised at the increased quality of listening pleasure.

The same goes for doctrine and theology. When we are seeking to prove a point, for example; the fact that salvation is eternal and it cannot be lost. You should not just give a list of 101 verses that say once saved always saved. The best thing to do is use theological concepts and whole doctrines. The way to prove how a person is eternally secure is to show how a person is saved in the first place. This would be done by showing justification, imputation, propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, election, etc. These doctrines contain all those 101verses, only not isolated from theological concepts. This takes spiritual discernment.

Our society likes things quick and convenient. Goofy ideas like the "Romans Road", the "Altar Call", the "Sinner's Prayer", "Smile God Loves You" bumper stickers, are all a result of today's pop tart (with icing & sprinkles) gospel. It fast and convenient but is it good for you? They do not want to be bothered with doctrine or theology but only point to their "Jesus Fish" emblem or "What Would Jesus Do" T-shirt, with their cross necklace on the outside of it.

May God deliver this generation from such shallow nonsense and cause them to worship the only true God who is both just and the justifier of His people. I pray God would sent a revival in the land that would overturn the idols of self righteous, works religion and reveal a gospel with some substance (doctrine) that shows how God is glorified and honored in salvation by the accomplished death and established righteousness of His Son. Let the sweet sound of the gospel flow and let us enjoy every part together as a whole.

The Vital Importance of Knowing God

2009-01-10T10:31:00.001-08:00

Scott Price

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." John 17:3

The only true God of the Scriptures with all His wonderful character attributes loves to reveal Himself to His people using the means of the gospel by the power of the Spirit. He does on the other hand hide Himself from the non-elect. Both the revealing and hiding of Himself are done sovereignly. Those whom He has loved, chosen, and Christ died for are called and this is where the vital importance of knowing God comes into action.

As we said, the way He reveals Himself is through gospel by the power of the Spirit of God. The gospel of grace contains doctrine and theology that declares, defines, and explains how the LORD Jesus Christ came into the world by means of the virgin birth and was made flesh to become the God-man Mediator so He could obey, honor, fulfill and magnify the law as a Representative for the elect. He then went to the cross to die a substitutionary death for the elect as He took on their sin, in this being a satisfactory sacrifice to the Father to reconcile His people, allowing God to be both a just God and a Savior. This was specifically done in the merit of Christ bringing in an everlasting righteousness that He earned that can be imputed to His people and is the ground of their justification.

God cannot be known except through this gospel revelation, which He says is the power of God unto salvation. The view of God in the conscience is not enough. The view of God in creation is not enough. The combined views of creation and conscience are not enough either. God is revealed in all His redemptive glory and majesty in the gospel of grace. The unregenerate have dull ears and cannot hear to be converted until the Spirit of God gives them ears to hear and eyes to see. In other words He calls them by the gospel and gives them an understanding so that they will know the God of the gospel. They are made willing to come to God through Christ by the blessed gifts of faith and repentance.

God does not teach that ignorance is bliss. Ignorance is our enemy. Knowledge of Him is what we desperately need. Knowledge about both the Person and work of Jesus Christ the LORD is what we lack by nature. When God gives us an understanding and we seek Him by faith, Christ is OUR Wisdom as well as our Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption. Knowing Him is an important part of God's wise purpose in salvation. This is how God is glorified in the hearts of His people when they see Him as He reveals Himself in the gospel of grace. His people submit to Him as King and their LORD in salvation....THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. God's throne is in their heart. We thank God for this knowledge and understanding through the operation of the Holy Spirit by His revelation.

Doctrine

2009-01-10T10:29:00.000-08:00

Scott Price

The following is a quote taken from Dr. John Robbins forward to Dr. Gordon H. Clark's book, Faith and Saving Faith, on page vi-vii:

"The difference between Judas and the other disciples is not that they had a "personal" relationship with Jesus and he did not, but that they believed, that is, assented to certain propositions about Jesus, while Judas did not believe those propositions. Belief of the truth, nothing more or less, is what separates the saved from the damned. Those who maintain that there is something more than belief, are, quite literal, beyond belief." Jan 31, 1983

Several things run through my mind when the issue of conversion is brought up. One is the idea of what is called "cold, dead, orthodoxy, or doctrine". There is no such thing! People may be cold and dead but not truth or true doctrine. Do a word study on the word "doctrine" and you'll soon find it is vital and that God holds it in high regard.

Secondly, people say you arrive at doctrine through Christ not Christ through doctrine. My question is how can a person come to Christ unless they are taught certain doctrines about this Christ. Can a person savingly come to a christ who is not God, who is a sinner, who did not resurrect, who did not bear their sins on the tree, who did not come in the flesh, who is a bastard child of a Roman solider, etc.? You cannot just go up to a person who knows nothing about Christ and tell them to believe on Christ and let that person fill in his own blanks. The blanks are DOCTRINE and God uses doctrine as a means so faith can logically, rationally, intellectually willingly, lovingly, irresistibly, grab a hold of the Christ DOCTRINALLY explained. Of course this will not happen until the Holy Spirit reveals this Christ spiritually and grants faith to the person.

These same folks cry that you must trust Christ not doctrine. You must believe in HIM, not doctrine ABOUT him. The above explanation should take care of the same argument. Some of these statements are made by people too lazy to put forth their effort to try to insure their congregations any doctrinal purity. Maybe some do not want their "authority" challenged when doctrinal details are questioned.

Some of the time people giving these arguments say it is their job only to declare the gospel and not their job to explain it. Without explanation of the gospel there will be much trouble. People will be free to develop their own perverted conclusions if there are no barriers doctrinally explained to guide them. The Spirit of God uses means to convert sinners. In other words they need to know what the gospel is NOT as well as what gospel is.

Part of what the gospel is NOT is salvation by going about to establish a righteousness of your own. This is something that is missing today: a repentance of self-righteousness. If the imputed righteousness of the LORD JESUS CHRIST (HIM) is the only ground of salvation that demands our justification then this means our own righteousness not only forms no part of the ground of our salvation but also must be hated and repented of.

Today in some Calvinistic circles self-righteousness is not exposed as evil but sometimes is encouraged through legalism. Touch not, taste not, handle not based assurance is promoted. Sincerity replaces doctrine. Unity replaces truth. Cute little sayings replace theology. Works get added to grace. Christ's character is dishonored. Man's pride is exalted. Dung and filthy rags somehow are now on the same playing field as grace. How did this happen? A disdain of the doctrine that we are supposed to promote and not suppress. It comes from trying to trim the sharp edges off the offense of the gospel by removing words such as "ALONE" from doctrinal statements.

Both salvation and true assurance is in the object of our faith, HIM AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Repent daily from all else as any hope of salvation or assurance and we will have the peace that only HE can give.

God and Logic

2009-01-10T10:19:00.000-08:00

Gordon H. Clark

In thinking about God, Calvinists almost immediately repeat the Shorter Catechism and say, “God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable.” Perhaps we do not pause to clarify our ideas of spirit, but hurry on to the attributes of “wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.” But pause: Spirit, Wisdom, Truth. Psalm 31:5 addresses God as “O Lord God of truth.” John 17:3 says,” This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God....” 1 John 5:6 says, “the Spirit is truth.” Such verses as these indicate that God is a rational, thinking being whose thought exhibits the structure of Aristotelian logic.

If anyone objects to Aristotelian logic in this connection-and presumably he does not want to replace it with the Boolean-Russellian symbolic logic-let him ask and answer whether it is true for God that if all dogs have teeth, some dogs-spaniels-have teeth? Do those who contrast this “merely human logic” with a divine logic mean that for God all dogs may have teeth while spaniels do not? Similarly, with “merely human” arithmetic: two plus two is four for man, but is it eleven for God? Ever since Bernard distrusted Abelard, it has been a mark of piety in some quarters to disparage “mere human reason”; and at the present time existentialistic, neo-orthodox authors object to “straight-line” inference and insist that faith must “curb” logic. Thus they not only refuse to make logic an axiom, but reserve the right to repudiate it. In opposition to the latter view, the following argument will continue to insist on the necessity of logic; and with respect to the contention that Scripture cannot be axiomatic because logic must be, it will be necessary to spell out in greater detail the meaning of Scriptural revelation.

Now, since in this context verbal revelation is a revelation from God, the discussion will begin with the relation between God and logic. Afterward will come the relation between logic and the Scripture. And finally the discussion will turn to logic in man.

Logic and God

It will be best to begin by calling attention to some of the characteristics the Scriptures attribute to God. Nothing startling is involved in remarking that God is omniscient. This is a commonplace of Christian theology. But, further, God is eternally omniscient. He has not learned his knowledge. And since God exists of himself, independent of everything else, indeed the Creator of everything else, he must himself be the source of his own knowledge. This important point has had a history.

At the beginning of the Christian era, Philo, the Jewish scholar of Alexandria, made an adjustment in Platonic philosophy to bring it into accord with the theology of the Old Testament. Plato had based his system on three original, independent principles: the World of Ideas, the Demiurge, and chaotic space. Although the three were equally eternal and independent of each other, the Demiurge fashioned chaotic space into this visible world by using the Ideas as his model. Hence in Plato the World of Ideas is not only independent of but also even in a sense superior to the maker of heaven and earth. He is morally obligated, and in fact willingly submits, to the Ideas of justice, man, equality, and number.

Philo, however, says, “God has been ranked according to the one and the unit; or rather even the unit has been ranked according to the one God, for all number, like time, is younger than the cosmos, while God is older than the cosmos and its creator.” This means that God is the source and determiner of all truth. Christians generally, even uneducated Christians, understand that water, milk, alcohol, and gasoline freeze at different temperatures because God created them that way. God could have made an intoxicating fluid freeze at zero Fahrenheit and he could have made the cow’s product freeze at forty. But he decided otherwise. Therefore behind 7the act of creation there is an eternal decree. It was God’s eternal purpose to have such liquids, and therefore we can say that the particularities of nature were determined before there was any nature.

Similarly in all other varieties of truth, God must be accounted sovereign. It is his decree that makes one proposition true and another false. Whether the proposition be physical, psychological, moral, or theological, it is God who made it that way. A proposition is true because God thinks it so.

Perhaps for a certain formal completeness, a sample of Scriptural documentation might be appropriate. Psalm147: 5 says, “God is our Lord, and of great power; his understanding is infinite.” If we cannot strictly conclude from this verse that God’s power is the origin of his understanding, at least there is no doubt that omniscience is asserted. 1 Samuel 2:3 says, “the Lord is a God of knowledge.” Ephesians 1:8 speaks of God’s wisdom and prudence. In Romans16: 27 we have the phrase, “God only wise,” and in 1 Timothy 1:17 the similar phrase, “the only wise God.” Further references and an excellent exposition of them may be found in Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God, chapters VIII and IX. From this distinguished author a few lines must be included here.

God knows himself because his knowledge with his will is the cause of all other things; ... he is the first truth, and therefore is the first object of his understanding.... As he is all knowledge, so he hath in himself the most excellent object of knowledge.... No object is so intelligible to God as God is to himself ... for his understanding is his essence, himself. God knows his own decree and will, and therefore must know all things.... God must know what he hath decreed to come to pass.... God must know because h willed them ... he therefore knows them because he knows what he willed. The knowledge of God cannot arise from the things themselves, for then the knowledge of God would have a cause without him.... As God sees things possible in the glass of his own power, so he sees things future in the glass of his own will.

A great deal of Charnock’s material has as its purpose the listing of the objects of God’s knowledge. Here, however, the quotations were made to point out that God’s knowledge depends on his will and on nothing external to him. Thus we may repeat with Philo that God is not to be ranked under the idea of unity, or of goodness, or of truth; but rather unity, goodness, and truth are to be ranked under the decree of God.

Logic Is God

It is to be hoped that these remarks on the relation between God and truth will be seen as pertinent to the discussion of logic. In any case, the subject of logic can be more clearly introduced by one more Scriptural reference. The well-known prologue to John’s Gospel may be paraphrased, “In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.... In logic was life and the life was the light of men.”

This paraphrase-in fact, this translation-may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person’s distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti-intellectualistic accusation of “reducing” God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.

Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic.

That Logic is the light of men is a proposition that could well introduce the section after next on the relation of logic to man. But the thought that Logic is God will bring us to the conclusion of the present section. Not only do the followers of Bernard entertain suspicions about logic, but also even more systematic theologians are wary of any proposal that would make an abstract principle superior to God. The present argument, in consonance with both Philo and Charnock, does not do so. The law of contradiction is not to betaken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.

For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on God’s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God’s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that God’s will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think.

As there is no temporal priority, so also there is no logical or analytical priority. Not only was Logic the beginning, but Logic was God. If this unusual translation of John’s Prologue still disturbs someone, he might yet allow that God is his thinking. God is not a passive or potential substratum; he is actuality or activity. This is the philosophical terminology to express the Biblical idea that God is a living God. Hence logic is to be considered as the activity of God’s willing.

Although Aristotle’s theology is no better (and perhaps worse) than his epistemology, he used a phrase to describe God, which, with a slight change, may prove helpful. He defined God as “thought-thinking-thought.” Aristotle developed the meaning of this phrase so as to deny divine omniscience. But if we are clear that the thought which thought thinks includes thought about a world to be created-in Aristotle God has no knowledge of things inferior to him-the Aristotelian definition of God as “thought-thinking-thought” may help us to understand that logic, the law of contradiction, is neither prior to nor subsequent to God’s activity.

This conclusion may disturb some analytical thinkers. They may wish to separate logic and God. Doing so, they would complain that the present construction merges two axioms into one. And if two, one of them must be prior; in which case we would have to accept God without logic, or logic without God; and the other one afterward. But this is not the presupposition here proposed. God and logic are one and the same first principle, for John wrote that Logic was God. At the moment this much must suffice to indicate the relation of God to logic. We now pass to what at the beginning seemed to be the more pertinent question of logic and Scripture.

Logic and Scripture

There is a minor misunderstanding that can easily be disposed of before discussing the relation of logic to the Scriptures. Someone with a lively historical sense might wonder why Scripture and revelation are equated, when God’s direct speech to Moses, Samuel, and the prophets is even more clearly revelation. This observation became possible simply because of previous brevity. Of course God’s speech to Moses was revelation, in fact, revelation par excellence, if you wish. But we are not Moses. Therefore, if the problem is to explain how we know in this age, one cannot use the personal experience of Moses. Today we have the Scripture. As the Westminster Confession says, “It pleased the Lord ... to reveal himself... and afterwards ... to commit the same wholly unto writing, which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.” What God said to Moses is written in the Bible; the words are identical; the revelation is the same.

In this may be anticipated the relation of logic to the Scripture. First of all, Scripture, the written words of the Bible, is the mind of God. What is said in Scripture is God’s thought. In contemporary religious polemics, the Biblical view of the Bible, the historic position of the Reformation, or-what is the same thing-the doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration is castigated as Bibliolatry. The liberals accuse the Lutherans and Calvinists of worshipping a book instead of worshipping God. Apparently they think that we genuflect to the Bible on the pulpit, and they deride us for kissing the ring of a paper pope.

This caricature stems from their materialistic turn of mind-a materialism that may not be apparent in other discussions-but which comes to the surface when they direct their fire against fundamentalism. They think of the Bible as a material book with paper contents and a leather binding. That the contents are the thoughts of God, expressed in God’s own words, is a position to which they are so invincibly antagonistic that they cannot even admit it to be the position of a fundamentalist.

Nevertheless we maintain that the Bible expresses the mind of God. Conceptually it is the mind of God, or, more accurately, a part of God’s mind. For this reason the Apostle Paul, referring to the revelation given him, and in fact given to the Corinthians through him, is able to say, “We have the mind of Christ.” Also in Philippians 2:5 he exhorts them,” Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” To the same purpose is his modest claim in 1 Corinthians 7:40, “I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” The Bible, then, is the mind or thought of God. It is not a physical fetish, like a crucifix. And I doubt that there has ever been even one hillbilly fundamentalist ignorant enough to pray to a black book with red edges. Similarly, the charge that the Bible is a paper pope misses the mark for the same reason. The Bible consists of thoughts, not paper; and the thoughts are the thoughts of the omniscient, infallible God, not those of Innocent III.

On this basis-that is, on the basis that Scripture is the mind of God-the relation to logic can easily be made clear. As might be expected, if God has spoken, he has spoken logically. The Scripture therefore should and does exhibit logical organization. For example, Romans 4:2 is an enthymematic hypothetical destructive syllogism. Romans 5:13 is a hypothetical constructive syllogism. 1 Corinthians 15:15-18 is a sorites. Obviously, examples of standard logical forms such as these could be listed at great length.

There is, of course, much in Scripture that is not syllogistic. The historical sections are largely narrative; yet every declarative sentence is a logical unit. These sentences are truths; as such they are objects of knowledge. Each of them has, or perhaps we should say, each of them is a predicate attached to a subject. Only so can they convey meaning.

Even in the single words themselves, as is most clearly seen in the cases of nouns and verbs, logic is embedded. If Scripture says, David was King of Israel, it does not mean that David was President of Babylon; and surely it does not mean that Churchill was Prime Minister of China. That is to say, the words David, King, and Israel have definite meanings. The old libel that Scripture is a wax nose and that interpretation is infinitely elastic is clearly wrong. If there were no limits to interpretation, we might interpret the libel itself as an acceptance of verbal and plenary inspiration. But since the libel cannot be so interpreted, neither can the Virgin Birth be interpreted as a myth nor the Resurrection as a symbol of spring. No doubt there are some things hard to be understood which the unlearned wrest to their own destruction, but the difficulties are no greater than those found in Aristotle or Plotinus, and against these philosophers no such libel is ever directed. Furthermore, only some things are hard. For the rest, Protestants have insisted on the perspicuity of Scripture.

Nor need we waste time repeating Aristotle’s explanation of ambiguous words. The fact that a word must mean one thing and not its contradictory is the evidence of the law of contradiction in all rational language. This exhibition of the logic embedded in Scripture explains why Scripture rather than the law of contradiction is selected as the axiom. Should we assume merely the law of contradiction, we would be no better off than Kant was. His notion that knowledge requires a priori categories deserves great respect. Once for all, in a positive way-the complement of Hume’s negative and unintentional way-Kant demonstrated the necessity of axioms, presuppositions, or a priori equipment. But this sine qua non is not sufficient to produce knowledge. Therefore the law of contradiction as such and by itself is not made the axiom of this argument.

For a similar reason, God as distinct from Scripture is not made the axiom of this argument. Undoubtedly this twist will seem strange to many theologians. It will seem particularly strange after the previous emphasis on the mind of God as the origin of all truth. Must not God be the axiom? For example, the first article of the Augsburg Confession gives the doctrine of God, and the doctrine of the Scripture hardly appears anywhere in the whole document. In the French Confession of 1559, the first article is on God; the Scripture is discussed in the next five. The Belgic Confession has the same order. The Scotch Confession of 1560 begins with God and gets to the Scripture only in article nineteen. The Thirty-Nine Articles begin with the Trinity, and Scripture comes in articles six and following. If God is sovereign, it seems very reasonable to put him first in the system.

But several other creeds, and especially the Westminster Confession, state the doctrine of Scripture at the very start. The explanation is quite simple: our knowledge of God comes from the Bible. We may assert that every proposition is true because God thinks it so, and we may follow Charnock in all his great detail, but the whole is based on Scripture. Suppose this were not so. Then “God” as an axiom, apart from Scripture, is just a name. We must specify which God. The best known system in which “God” was made the axiom is Spinoza’s. For him all theorems are deduced from Deus sive Natura. But it is the Natura that identifies Spinoza’s God. Different gods might be made axioms of other systems. Hence the important thing is not to presuppose God, but to define the mind of the God presupposed. Therefore the Scripture is offered here as the axiom. This gives definiteness and content, without which axioms are useless.

Thus it is that God, Scripture, and logic are tied together. The Pietists should not complain that emphasis on logic is a deification of an abstraction, or of human reason divorced from God. Emphasis on logic is strictly in accord with John’s Prologue and is nothing other than a recognition of the nature of God. Does it not seem peculiar, in this connection, that a theologian can be so greatly attached to the doctrine of the Atonement, or a Pietist to the idea of sanctification, which nonetheless is explained only in some parts of Scripture, and yet be hostile to or suspicious of rationality and logic which every verse of Scripture exhibits?

Logic in Man

With this understanding of God’s mind, the next step is the creation of man in God’s image. The non-rational animals were not created in his image; but God breathed his spirit into the earthly form, and Adam became a type of soul superior to the animals.

To be precise, one should not speak of the image of God in man. Man is not something in which somewhere God’s image can be found along with other things. Man is the image. This, of course, does not refer to man’s body. The body is an instrument or tool man uses. He himself is God’s breath, the spirit God breathed into the clay, the mind, the thinking ego. Therefore, man is rational in the likeness of God’s rationality. His mind is structured as Aristotelian logic described it. That is why we believe that spaniels have teeth. In addition to the well-known verses in chapter one, Genesis 5:1 and 9:6 both repeat the idea. 1 Corinthians 11:7says, “man ... is the image and glory of God.” See also Colossians 3:10 and James 3:9. Other verses, not so explicit, nonetheless add to our information. Compare Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 2:6-8, and Psalm 8. But the conclusive consideration is that throughout the Bible as a whole the rational God gives man an intelligible message.

It is strange that anyone who thinks he is a Christian should deprecate logic. Such a person does not of course intend to deprecate the mind of God; but he thinks that logic in man is sinful, even more sinful than other parts of man’s fallen nature. This, however, makes no sense. The law of contradiction cannot be sinful. Quite the contrary, it is our violations of the law of contradiction that are sinful. Yet the strictures which some devotional writers place on “merely human” logic are amazing. Can such pious stupidity really mean that a syllogism that is valid for us is invalid for God? If two plus two is four in our arithmetic, does God have a different arithmetic in which two and two makes three or perhaps five? The fact that the Son of God is God’s reason-for Christ is the wisdom of God as well as the power of God-plus the fact that the image in man is so-called “human reason,” suffices to show that this so-called “human reason” is not so much human as divine.

Of course, the Scripture says that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are not our ways. But is it good exegesis to say that this means his logic, his arithmetic, his truth are not ours? If this were so, what would the consequences be? It would mean not only that our additions and subtractions are all wrong, but also that all our thoughts-in history as well as in arithmetic-are all wrong. If for example, we think that David was King of Israel, and God’s thoughts are not ours, then it follows that God does not think David was King of Israel. David in God’s mind was perchance prime minister of Babylon.

To avoid this irrationalism, which of course is a denial of the divine image, we must insist that truth is the same for God and man. Naturally, we may not know the truth about some matters. But if we know anything at all, what we must know must be identical with what God knows. God knows all truth, and unless we know something God knows, our ideas are untrue. It is absolutely essential therefore to insist that there is an area of coincidence between God’s mind and our mind.

Logic and Language

This point brings us to the central issue of language. Language did not develop from, nor was its purpose restricted to, the physical needs of earthly life. God gave Adam a mind to understand the divine law, and he gave him language to enable him to speak to God. From the beginning, language was intended for worship. In the Te Deum, by means of language, and in spite of the fact that it is sung to music, we pay “metaphysical compliments” to God. The debate about the adequacy of language to express the truth of God is a false issue. Words are mere symbols or signs. Any sign would be adequate. The real issue is: Does a man have the idea to symbolize? If he can think of God, then he can use the sound God, Deus, Theos, or Elohim. The word makes no difference, and the sign is ipso facto literal and adequate.

The Christian view is that God created Adam as a rational mind. The structure of Adam’s mind was the same as God’s. God thinks that asserting the consequent is a fallacy; and Adam’s mind was formed on the principles of identity and contradiction. This Christian view of God, man, and language does not fit into any empirical philosophy. It is rather a type of a priori rationalism. Man’s mind is not initially a blank. It is structured. In fact, an unstructured blank is no mind at all. Nor could any such sheet of white paper extract any universal law of logic from finite experience. No universal and necessary proposition can be deduced from sensory observation. Universality and necessity can only be a priori.

This is not to say that all truth can be deduced from logic alone. The seventeenth-century rationalists gave themselves an impossible task. Even if the ontological argument be valid, it is impossible to deduce Cur Deus Homo, the Trinity, or the final resurrection. The axioms to which the apriori forms of logic must be applied are the propositions God revealed to Adam and the later prophets.

Conclusion

Logic is irreplaceable. It is not an arbitrary tautology, a useful framework among others. Various systems of cataloging books in libraries are possible, and several are equally convenient. They are all arbitrary. History can be designated by 800 as easily as by 400. But there is no substitute for the law of contradiction. If dog is the equivalent of not-dog, and if 2 = 3 = 4, not only do zoology and mathematics disappear, Victor Hugo and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe also disappear. These two men are particularly appropriate examples, for they are both, especially Goethe, romanticists. Even so, without logic, Goethe could not have attacked the logic of John’s Gospel (I, 1224-1237).

Geschrieben steht: “Im anfang war das Wort!”

Hier stockich schon! Wer hilft mir weiter fort?

Mir hilft der Geist! Auf einmal seh’ ich

Rath und schreib’getrost: “Im Anfang war die That!”

But Goethe can express his rejection of the divine Logos of John 1:1, and express his acceptance of romantic experience, only by using the logic he despises.

To repeat, even if it seems wearisome: Logic is fixed, universal, necessary, and irreplaceable. Irrationality contradicts the Biblical teaching from beginning to end. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not insane. God is a rational being, the architecture of whose mind is logic.

November/December 1980

In Defense of Theology

2009-01-10T10:15:00.000-08:00

Gordon H. Clark

Editor’s Note: The Trinity Foundation has just republished Dr. Gordon Clark’s 1984 book, In Defense of Theology. It is available from The Foundation for $9.95 plus shipping. We have included in this issue of The Trinity Review excerpts from Chapter 4, “Neo-orthodoxy,” as a sample of the contents of In Defense of Theology. We hope you will buy and study this book.

Contents

Foreword

1. Three Groups

2. Atheism

3. The Uninterested

4. Neo-Orthodoxy

5. Logic

6. The Fourth Group

Scripture Index

Index

4. Neo-orthodoxy

The third group, Neo-orthodox theologians and pastors, dominate the mainline churches in America and abroad. Because they are the spokesmen for contemporary religion, because they are in the church rather than outside it, many true Christians will have more contact with them than with atheistic scientism. Metaphorically, the defective but cleverly disguised portrait is on the front center of the counterfeit bill.

Neo-orthodox theology, or rather the Neo-orthodox lack of theology, though initiated by Kierkegaard about 1850, and brilliantly abetted by Martin Kähler just before 1900, and also by Martin Buber in the twentieth century, was not widely accepted here until Karl Barth’s writings became popular at the end of World War I. In an historical survey it would be proper to construct the discussion in chronological order; but there may be a pedagogical advantage in working it backward. Contemporary readers usually read contemporary writers who present slightly divergent views, or additional inferences beyond original material. Their views are often persuasive and deceptive. Therefore, it may be permissible to start with contemporary authors and by analysis work back to expose their often hidden assumptions.

A Religion of Experience

One very basic fact can hardly be hidden: Neo-orthodoxy is a religion of experience; not the sensory experience of the scientific secularists, but rather religious experience. This may sound similar to Schleiermacher and Modernism, but the comparison is misleading; for, although he depended on experience, his type of experience was different. Furthermore, Schleiermacher was confident that theology could be derived logically from that experience. Today, rationality and logic are rejected as irreligious – God cannot be understood by reasoned, logical thinking.

To insert an historical aside: We remind ourselves that, in contrast with Romanism, Reformation theology, as found in both Luther and Calvin, made no use of the cosmological argument; Neo-orthodoxy also violently rejects it. While natural theology professed to know a little about God, this new irrationalism insists that man cannot know God at all. Calvin and Barth agree on rejecting Thomistic arguments, but they distinctly disagree on logic: Calvin is praised, or even blamed, for being extremely logical, while modern men consider logic to be the work of the devil.

However, as indicated above, there is some pedagogical advantage in starting with the most recent forms of Neo-orthodoxy and proceeding backward to its origin and first principles. Even so, the basic principles are not hard to find in these contemporary authors, because, following Barth, they redefine the term theology. They reject the evangelical definition, but their language may sometimes be more deceptive than Barth’s. For example, Helmut Thielicke in The Evangelical Faith wrote, “To do theology is to actualize Christian truth, or, better, to set it forth in its actuality and to understand it afresh thereby. To that extent theology is by nature, and not merely in its pedagogical implications, historical. It has nothing to do with timeless truth or supra-temporal theology (theologia perennis).”

This paragraph is confusing. It either gives minor support to the accusation that Neo-orthodoxy is fundamentally irrational, or its idea is very poorly expressed. Does it mean merely that theologians, even Calvin and Hodge, sometimes make mistakes? If so, we can agree. Or does it mean that the works of Calvin and Hodge never have anything to do with timeless truth? The Bible too? If so, is Thielicke asserting dogmatically there is no timeless truth at all?

An author, like myself, must understand theology afresh. This is obvious, since understanding anything afresh is trivial, because so universal and obvious. My father knew some theology, and I was influenced by him in the books I read, along with other factors; but knowledge is not hereditary, so I had to begin anew. It does not follow that theology “has nothing to do with timeless truth.” The aim of every orthodox theologian is to arrive at timeless truths. In doing so, he will make mistakes. However, if he learns that God justifies some men by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, he has grasped a timeless truth. Even the mere historical statement that Christ died in the first half of the first century is a timeless truth. My learning it, the pedagogical implications, as Thielicke calls it, does not make it temporal, relative, or doubtful. It is the truth; and it is the truth we learn.

Thielicke’s meaning, I am convinced, is not exhausted in pedagogical trivialities. He has in mind a completely different idea of what theology, or at least Christian theology, is. He writes, “Part of the intellectual honesty of adult man is that in the area of faith he will accept no truth-claim that conflicts with scientific knowledge” (I, 66).

An immediate reply is that so-called scientific knowledge is no fixed irrevocable discovery. Virtually none of the physics I was taught in my undergraduate days is now defended in physics classes. Science is tentative: It is constantly changing. What is taught today will probably be discarded before the end of the century. The theories of light are a well-known example of scientific change. The theory of phlogiston is by now forgotten. Newtonian space and time have disappeared along with his theory of gravitation. Velocity, like the old grey mare, ain’t what she used to be. As Einstein has replaced Newton, so a succeeding genius will replace Einstein – as he himself knew so well. Therefore, Thielicke’s proposal to test every theological truth-claim by the physics of today is foolish. It is worse than foolish. The idea that science can decide in advance what God can and cannot reveal is utterly non-Christian. Furthermore, his branding Christians as dishonest because they believe God instead of swallowing the presently held laws of physics is arrogance.

A Religion of Irrationality

Another contemporary – he earned his Ph.D. as recently as 1954 – is Langdon Gilkey, whose Maker of Heaven and Earth will furnish samples of current Neo-orthodox views. He ridicules fiat creation by putting into the mouth of a child the supposedly stupid question, “On what day were crocodiles created?” Presumably he expresses his own view when he says, “creatio ex nihilo seemed to many intelligent Christians, as well as to secularists generally, to be one of those early mythological notions …which had no real value or validity for a modern man.” It is hard to suppose that Gilkey is not one of the “many people [who] reasoned…that if there was any one thing that modern science…had established beyond dispute, it was that the creation stories in the first chapters of Genesis were fables and nothing else.” This is surely his own view, for he continues, “In this particular argument about the early history of our world, scientific opinion was surely correct.” He probably does not apply to himself the criterion that “The first rule of philosophy requires us to cease talking of God as a personal being.” But at any rate, “We shall try to reinterpret the idea of creation so that it is not just an irrelevant dogma…but a symbol which points to…the potentialities of human life.” It seems he accepts Existentialism and “mysteries…[that] elude our easy intellectual grasp because they grasp us.” These “questions…are peculiarly ‘religious’…and are answered in terms of affirmation and trust, rather than in terms of proof and demonstration.”

Gilkey will give no reasons for his views: He will simply affirm them. I doubt that he can even affirm them, for affirmation requires intelligible language, rather than vague symbolism. His language is vague because he affirms that, “our answers to these questions must satisfy the mind with regard to validity. But…they stem from transforming experiences that are deeper than proof and demonstration.” The trouble with such language is, first, it does not estimate how much deeper the abyss of experience is than the profundity or sublimity of demonstration. Then, second, the language is confused because there can be no validity without demonstration, because validity is a relationship between a set of premises and a conclusion. No doubt these objections are too logical for an Existentialist.

The further one reads Gilkey’s book, the more evident is his irrationalism: “The theologian, however, is more apt to be wary of such demands for total coherence and final intelligibility…the incoherent and paradoxical, the intellectually baffling…character of our experience reflects not merely our lack of systematic thinking, but also the real nature of creaturehood.” Above it was said that Gilkey probably believed in some kind of God, and that he did not speak for himself; but now it becomes clear that if God is a personal being, he is an irrational person. He “created” the world that way. The real nature of creaturehood is incoherent; and as it is hard to suppose that a rational God should produce something essentially irrational, one wonders what sort of God Gilkey believes in. Gilkey insists, “To the religious person the philosophical demand for total coherence and intelligibility exposes a blindness…to the real incoherencies and contradictions of life” (37)....

Gilkey...continues with his theme and says, “It is therefore only by analogy and paradox, not by literal ‘language,’ that we can speak of God as our Creator and Lord” (349). But if Creator and Lord and God are analogical and paradoxical terms, without literal meaning, they can be nothing more than nonsense syllables. The origin of such insanity is in the work of Brunner, Barth, and Kierkegaard....

Twofold Truth

...James H. Cone has published three volumes, the last being God of the Oppressed. The title indicates and his content makes it certain that “Black theology” and other theologies are not the same. This resembles the medieval theory of twofold truth: What is true in philosophy is false in theology, and conversely. Cone’s “Black theology” resembles twofold truth; if, indeed, he would admit that there is any truth in theology. Cone is not greatly interested in the Bible – a particular form of sociology is his canon. If Cone is consistent, a wealthy American, a man of position like Abraham or Job, cannot have God’s truth. Slavery was reprehensible and injustices are still perpetrated against minorities; but this does not justify Cone’s proposition that “any theologian who fails to place that question at the center of his work has ignored the essence of the gospel.” For genuine Christians the essence or center of the Gospel is the atonement; the basis is the Trinity; and the only legitimate source is the Bible....

Neo-orthodoxy is fundamentally (that is, religiously) irrational. Furthermore, many ministers who have not completely deserted the evangelical position are nonetheless sporadically and inconsistently anti-logical. This is not to say that these men make mistakes in their argumentation. We all make mistakes – as Thielicke so carefully pointed out. The idea is, rather, these men deliberately deny the legitimacy of logic for at least some of their arguments. They positively and wittingly defend fallacies.

Brunner, who writes in a much more interesting and readable style than Barth, accepts from Ferdinand Ebner and Martin Buber – either of whom we might have discussed, though they antedate Brunner – the theory of twofold truth. It is not the medieval theory that what is true in philosophy may be false in theology and conversely; but that in general there is an “It-truth” and a “Thou-truth.” Thou-truth, or Du-Wahrheit, encounter, personal acquaintance, is not susceptible to any ordinary rational categories. Indeed, this personal truth is not information at all. Yet it seems to have to be some sort of content, since Brunner holds that it often conflicts with reason. In an unexplained way it informs us that we should not accept this or that valid syllogism. For example, although Brunner accuses Schleiermacher of contradicting himself – and therefore should be rejected – he also rebukes the evangelical theologians for logically deducing predestination from Romans 9. Election is illogical, he says. Logically, election implies a God who is not love. One cannot have both logic and a loving God. Calvin is logical, and therefore we must repudiate Calvinism. Calvin mistakenly thought that theology concerned “einsichtige Vernunftswahrheit.” Calvin was logical. Paul was illogical. Therefore it follows (by good logic?) that we should be illogical like Paul.

In Divine-Human Encounter Brunner teaches that an evil pagan Greek influence in the early church resulted in revelation being seen as a communication of truths. The subject-object relationship, which constitutes propositions, must be excluded from religion. Theological thinking must have subjects and objects, but we are concerned “not with theology but with the Word of God.” God “does not communicate something to me [that is, a truth] but Himself.” Even more clearly, “All words have only an instrumental value. Neither the spoken words nor their conceptual content [emphasis added] are the Word itself, but only its frame.” And finally, “God can…speak his Word to a man even through false doctrine….”

To prepare for the following analysis we need to take only two points from Barth’s works. First is his position on Scripture.... “we do the Bible a poor honor and one unwelcome to itself, when we directly identify it…with revelation itself.” Or, finally, “The prophets and apostles as such, even in their office…were actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word.”

The second point for the present purpose is his method for developing theology by means of fallacious reasoning. The crux of the matter, though stated in one complex sentence, is very clear. Of course, Barth gives other expressions of his method; he embraces paradox, refers to God as the Totally Other, and pretty much denies man is the image of God, as 1 Corinthians 11:9 says.

In stating the criteria of science, or Wissenschaft, from which theology must be separated, the first postulate is freedom from self-contradiction. Logic applies to science, but not to theology. He writes, “The very minimum postulate of freedom from contradiction is acceptable by theology only upon the very limited interpretation, by the scientific theorist upon the scarcely tolerable one, that theology will not assert an irremovability in principle of the “contradictions,” which it is bound to make good. But the propositions in which it asserts their removal will be propositions concerning the free actions of God, and so not propositions that “remove” the contradictions “from the world.”

Since these ponderous sentences are good examples of German theology, they must be “unpacked.” Freedom from contradiction, says Barth, is the bare minimum requirement in science. Granted. Science also has other requirements. But theology hardly acknowledges the necessity of being consistent. Its restrictions on the law of contradiction are barely tolerable to a scientist. The most Barth will grant to logic is that theology will not assert that contradictions are irremovable. There is at least a small possibility that contradictions perhaps can be avoided. But theology is not bound to make good on this admission. If theology thus asserts the possibility of avoiding self-contradiction, this assertion does not remove the contradictions “from the world” (so anyone could note their removal or understand their consistency?); they are only assertions that God is under no compulsion to do anything – he is free of all restraints (including the restraints of logic).

These sentences, which I hope I have correctly rephrased, even if the parentheses cannot be sustained, are a more extensive concession than is usual for Barth. In his earlier writings, for example in the periodical Zwischen den Zeiten, where the title ordinarily given to his views was “the theology of crisis,” Barth reveled in paradoxes. Theology was bursting with contradictions. Much later he acknowledged he overstated the principle of paradox, but simultaneously insisted that it was only an exaggerated use of them: Paradox was still a necessary part of theology.

The implications of this view, in both the logical implications and the historical results, are incredibly extensive. The visible church has frequently been plagued by pseudo-devout mystics who played their hunches. Careful thinking and dogmatic theology repelled them. For example, A. W. Tozer of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, whom many outside that denomination admired, urged his audiences to pay less attention to the actual words of Scripture, and, instead, search underneath them for the spiritual reality. Probably Tozer was not influenced by Barth; but Barth has influenced many who are personally not inclined to think logically....

Barth’s Position

The proper content of Christian language about God, he says, must be known humanly. Its conformity to Christ is neither obvious nor free from difficulties. Dogmatics receives the measure with which it measures in an act of human appropriation. This act has no surety for the correctness of the appropriation. Dogmatics is therefore not knowledge attained in a flash, which it would have to be to correspond to the divine gift. Results in dogmatics are invariably results of human efforts. Here we – Barth is still speaking – must also enter a caveat against the old Protestant tradition. The task of dogmatics is thus not merely the continuation, repetition, and transcription of already present “truths of revelation.” Then he adds, “In dogmatics it can never be a question of the mere combination, repetition, and summarizing of Biblical doctrine.”

This group of sentences, partly or fully quoted, combines a few thoughts, which are true, obvious, and trivial, with others that are not obvious in meaning and certainly not obviously true. One of the trivial truths is that man, being human, must know God humanly. Does Barth envisage the possibility that we could know God caninely? Another phrase is not an obvious truth because its meaning is not obvious: conformity of our language to Christ.
Would an example of this conformity be, “Christ was born in Bethlehem?” Since Barth does not believe in the bodily resurrection, I would surmise that for him Luke 24:3 and John 20:7 are not in conformity to Christ.

Another sentence, stated as a conclusion, but certainly no valid inference from what preceded, is verbatim, “The creaturely form which God’s revealing action comes to take in dogmatics is therefore not that of knowledge attained in a flash, which it would have to be to correspond to the divine gift, but a laborious advance from one partial insight to another, intending but by no means guaranteeing an ‘advance’!”

The end of this sentence seems to suggest...that nothing in dogmatics is true. No one needs to tell us that a laborious process may fail to guarantee an advance. Rather, the intended suggestion is that dogmatic labors never hit upon the truth; and this skeptical idea fits in well with Barth’s general position. But if we cautiously avoid what is only suggested and consider the actual sentence as written, a lesser flaw appears: It states as universally true what is true only in some instances. Must knowledge “corresponding to the divine gift” be “attained in a flash”? Must all “dogmatics” be a “laborious advance”? Neither seems to be true. No doubt Anselm meditated laboriously to find a better proof of God’s existence. Yet, I surmise – for on a much lesser scale it has happened to me also – that the ontological proof burst upon him like a flash of lightning after much rumbling in the thick clouds. But in other cases dogmatic knowledge is very slowly built up step by step. Hence, I affirm that dogmatic advance may be sudden or slow. Again, take Abraham as one example of knowledge by “divine gift.” When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham needed no long hours of puzzling to understand the meaning of the words. No doubt he was puzzled with respect to God’s purpose, but the meaning came in a flash. In this case Barth’s statement applies. But in other cases prophets received messages they did not understand, and instead of the knowledge coming in a flash, “the prophets have inquired and searched dilligently…searching what or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did signify.”...

It is interesting that Barth does not mention logical deduction from Scriptural statements. He is not very fond of logic; he prefers paradox. But in contrast, the Westminster Confession says, “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”.... For an evangelical, theology is not “the mere combination, repetition” of Biblical texts, but a summarizing and logical arranging of the main Scriptural doctrines.

The basic trouble with Barth, and with super-devout preachers who, though not consciously Neo-orthodox, separate God from man and make God “Totally Other,” is their repudiation of logic. Ignoring the Biblical proposition that man is God’s image, they have adopted the wrong epistemology.... Let them answer: Is it the correct method to begin with sensory experience and conclude with no God at all, or to begin with hunches and trances and conclude with an unknowable God? Liberal theologians are not disturbed when their experience leads them to contradict the Bible.... But the super-devout still hold the Bible in high esteem. But not in high enough esteem. Let them also answer: Can any of the content of Christianity, such as the doctrines of sin, atonement, and resurrection, be deduced or otherwise derived from any form of experience? Can they even be deduced from Scripture without using logic? The Christian needs a method that arrives at these doctrines. Absence of all method arrives at nothing. Even simple quotation is a method – albeit an inadequate one. Two methods result in a bifurcation that cannot be unified; with two methods there is no method for deciding which method to use and when. This makes theology schizophrenic.

This unpleasant schizophrenia is very clear in Barth and Brunner. When it pleases them...they will follow or take hints from the Bible; then “faith” (I have no idea what they mean by “faith”) curbs their logic. They reject some propositions though they are deduced by as good a logic and as necessary a consequence as those they accept. How then do these theologians know when to curb logic and accept paradox? No principle of logic commands us to abandon logic. Does “faith” so command? How? When? In what circumstances? If Brunner wants to reject the implications of Romans 9, cannot someone else reject the implications of John 3:16? There is no consistent justification for the introduction of inconsistency.

Looking For Good Theological Books?

2009-01-03T19:55:00.000-08:00

If you are looking for good theological and doctrinal books here are a few links to get you started. If you know of any others please let me know.

Thanks,
Scott Price

Solid Ground Christian Books http://www.solid-ground-books.com

Reformation Heritage Books http://www.heritagebooks.org

Gospel Mission Books http://gospelmissionbooks.com

Monergism Books http://www.monergismbooks.com

Reformed Free Publishing Association http://www.rfpa.org

Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service http://www.cvbbs.com

Sovereign Grace Publishers http://www.sgpbooks.com

Grace and Truth Books http://www.graceandtruthbooks.com

Still Water Revival Books http://www.swrb.com

Christian Focus Publications http://www.christianfocus.com

Evangelical Press http://www.epbooks.org

Trinity Book Service http://www.trinitybookservice.org

Crown & Covenant Publications http://www.crownandcovenant.com

Audubon Press http://audubonpress.com

Old Paths Publications http://www.oldpathspublications.org

Naphtali Press http://www.naphtali.com

Discerning Reader http://www.discerningreader.com

Backus Books http://www.backusbooks.com

Founders Press http://press.founders.org

Particular Baptist Press http://www.pbpress.org

The Baptist Standard Bearer http://www.standardbearer.org

South Woods Book Store http://www.southwoodsbookstore.com

Radio Bible & Book Room http://www.radiomissions.org

BiblicalBooks.com http://www.biblicaltheology.org

The Reformed Reader http://www.reformedreader.org

Christian Classic Ethereal Library http://www.ccel.org

Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com