Category Archives: Uncategorized

Are you a god now, or in the future? An analysis of John 10:34 by Jack Kettler

In this study we will look at John 10:34, then consult cross references, interlinear and commentary evidence, followed with comments and interaction with various theologians.

“Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34)

The reader is exhorted to follow the pattern of Scripture:

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

Cross References:

“I said, “You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.” (Psalm 82:6)

“If he called them gods to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)

Related passages, dealing with the consequences of sin and pride:

“The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die!’ “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” (Genesis 3:4-6)

“The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. So, the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.” (Genesis 3:21-24)

“I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” (Isaiah 14:14)

“I will be like the Most High,” said the Chaldean king. And God said to him: “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” (Isaiah 14:15)

“Son of man, say to the leader of Tyre, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Because your heart is lifted up and you have said, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods in the heart of the seas’; Yet you are a man and not God, although you make your heart like the heart of God.” (Ezekiel 28:2)

“Wicked men exalt themselves, thinking they are like God. God’s judgement against this pride is certain: Therefore, thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.” (Ezekiel 28:6-7)

John 10:34 Interlinear:
Jesus Ἰησοῦς iēsous 2424 Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr. of Hebrew origin Yehoshua
answered ἀπεκρίθη apekrithē 611 to answer from apo and krinó
them, “Has it not been 1510 I exist, I am a prol. form of a prim. and defective verb
written γεγραμμένον gegrammenon 1125 to write a prim. verb
in your Law, νόμῳ nomō 3551 that which is assigned, hence usage, law from nemó (to parcel out)
I SAID, 3004 to say a prim. verb
YOU ARE GODS’? Θεοί theoi 2316 God, a god of uncertain origin

Commentary Evidence:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

(34) Is it not written in your law? —Comp. Note on John 8:17. The passage here quoted is in Psalm 82:6, but the term “Law” is here used in a wide sense for the whole of the Old Testament. There are other examples of this usage in John 7:49; John 12:34; John 15:25; Romans 3:19; 1Corinthians 14:21.

I said, Ye are gods? —In the Hebrew of the Psalm, as in the Greek here, the pronoun is emphatic. “I myself said, Ye are gods?” The words are probably to be understood in the Psalm as spoken by God, who sits in judgment on the judges whom He had appointed, and gives the name of “gods” (Elohim) as representing Himself. See Exodus 4:16; Exodus 7:1; Exodus 18:15; Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8; Exodus 22:28; Deuteronomy 1:17; 1Samuel 28:13; Psalm 8:5; Psalm 45:6; and comp. Perowne’s Notes on Psalms 82, and article “God,” in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopœdia, Ed. 3, vol. ii., p. 144 et seq. (1)

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:

Jesus answered them – The answer of Jesus consists of two parts. The first John 10:34-36 shows that they ought not to object to his use of the word God, even if he were no more than a man. The second John 10:37-38 repeats substantially what he had before said, left the same impression, and in proof of it he appealed to his works.
John 10:34
In your law – Psalm 82:6. The word “law” here, is used to include the Old Testament.

I said – The Psalmist said, or God said by the Psalmist.

Ye are gods – This was said of magistrates on account of the dignity and honor of their office, and it shows that the Hebrew word translated “god,” אלהים ̀elohiym, in that place might be applied to man. Such a use of the word is, however, rare. See instances in Exodus 7:1; Exodus 4:16. (2)

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:

“Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law. In the law which was given unto them, of which they boasted, and pretended to understand, and interpret, even in Psalm 82:6; for the law includes not only the Pentateuch, but all the books of the Old Testament: it is an observation of one of the Jewish doctors (t), that

“with the wise men of blessed memory, it is found in many places that the word law comprehends the Prophets and the Hagiographa.”’

Among which last stands the book of Psalms; and this may be confirmed by a passage out of the Talmud (u); it is asked,

“from whence does the resurrection of the dead appear, ‘out of the law?’”

It is answered,

“as it is said in Psalm 84:4, “Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, they will still praise thee, Selah; they do praise thee”, it is not said, but “they will praise thee”; from hence is a proof of the resurrection of the dead, “out of the law”.”’

The same question is again put, and then Isaiah 52:8 is cited, and the like observation made upon it. Moreover, this is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when they introduce another citing a passage of Scripture thus (w), “is it not written in your law”, Deuteronomy 4:9, “only take heed to thyself”, &c. so here the Scripture follows,

I said, ye are gods? which is spoken to civil magistrates, so called, because of their authority and power; and because they do, in some sort, represent the divine majesty, in the government of nations and kingdoms. Many of the Jewish writers, by “gods”, understand “the angels”. The Targum paraphrases the words thus:

“I said ye are accounted as angels, as the angels on high, all of you;”’

and to this sense some of their commentators interpret it. Jarchi’s gloss is, ye are gods; that is, angels; for when I gave the law to you, it was on this account, that the angel of death might not any more rule over you: the note of Aben Ezra is, “and the children of the Most High”: as angels; and the sense is, your soul is as the soul of angels: hence the (x) Jew charges Christ with seeking refuge in words, that will not profit, or be any help to him, when he cites these words, showing that magistrates are called gods, when the sense is only, that they are like to the angels in respect of their souls: but let it be observed, that it is not said, “ye are as gods”, as in Genesis 3:5, but “ye are gods”; not like unto them only, but are in some sense gods; and besides, to say that they are like to angels, with respect to their souls, which come from above, is to say no more of the judges of the earth, than what may be said of every man: to which may be added, that this objector himself owns, that judges are called “gods”, as in Exodus 22:9; the cause of both parties shall come before “the judges”; and that even the word is used in this sense in this very psalm, from whence these words are cited, Psalm 82:1, “he judgeth among” “the gods”; and both Kimchi and Ben Melech interpret this text itself in the same way, and observe, that judges are called gods, when they judge truly and aright: all which is sufficient to justify our Lord in the citation of this passage, and the use he makes of it.

(t) R. Azarias in Meor Enayim, c. 7. fol. 47. 1.((u) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 91. 2.((w) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 32. 2.((x) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 51. p. 440, 441. (3)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

34. in your law] ‘Law’ is here used in its widest sense for the whole of the Old Testament; so also in John 12:34 and John 15:25; in all three places the passage referred to is in the Psalms. Comp. John 7:19, 1 Corinthians 14:21. The force of the pronoun is, ‘for which you profess to have such a regard:’ comp. John 8:17. On the Greek for ‘is it written’ see on John 2:17.

I said, Ye are gods] The argument is both à fortiori and ad hominem. In the Scriptures (Psalm 82:6) even unjust rulers are called ‘gods’ on the principle of the theocracy, that rulers are the delegates and representatives of God (comp. Exodus 22:28). If this is admissible without blasphemy, how much more may He call Himself ‘Son of God.’

34–38. Christ answers the formal charge of blasphemy by a formal argument on the other side. (4)

The issue at stake, can a man become a god?

I’ve ran into a number of nice young people over the years from a unique American religion based in Utah who have told me they hope to become a god someday like the god they worship, who they say rules over planet Earth. When asking what in the Bible would give them such an idea, I am referred to John 10:34 for proof of this. After researching the text, cross references, numerous commentaries and lexical evidence, I am perplexed on how the passage in John would give any support for such a notion.

Right on the surface of this passage you have a verb tense problem. The verb tense, “ye are” is present tense. If these young people are correct in citing this passage, it would seem to be saying that you are a god right now. None of these young people would admit that they were a god now. If the verb tense was “ye will be gods” (future tense) it would have a little more surface plausibility. However, when looking at the overall context involving human judges, this passage has nothing to say about becoming a god sometime in the future or now.

For example, Jesus in John 10:34 is quoting the Old Testament and the quotation is dealing with human judges. This passage is referring to Psalm 82:6-7, which speaks about human judges who would “die like men.” These judges are going to die like men, in other words, they are mere human men and not God. Whoever is teaching these young people that this passage in John could support such a notion as becoming a god in the future is woefully ignorant of the most basic knowledge of biblical hermeneutics, grammatical historical interpretation and knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages.

A Strong Warning!

Satan’s ploy to Eve in the garden of Eden was that she would be “like God.” This is a deceitfully false expectation, namely, that men can become like God.

Dr. James White, in his book Is the Mormon my Brother? shows the larger preceding context that will help in the understanding of John 10:34, when he writes:

John chapter ten is one of the most beautiful in all of Scripture, for it speaks of the Lord Jesus’ relationship to His people in the terms of the Shepherd and His sheep. In the midst of talking about the glorious salvation that belongs to those who know and trust Christ, Jesus asserts that He and the Father are one in their bringing about the final and full salvation of all those who are given by the Father to the Son (vv. 28-30). When the Lord says, “I and the Father are one,” (5)

In agreeing with Dr. White, I will add that in these verses leading up to John 10:34, you see the working out of salvation for those people given to the Son by the Father. It would not follow contextually or logically that Jesus would then launch into some fragmented disconnected message telling people that people that they are going to become future gods in verse 34. Salvation is not becoming a god, it is from sin and death. Those redeemed by the blood of the Lamb “of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” will be before the throne of God singing eternal praises to God. (Revelation 7:9-10) The creator/creature distinction will be true in eternity.

Satan has always lied about men becoming like God. For example, Geerhardus Vos writes:

“For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Vos goes on to show more of the Satan’s accusation: “God is one whose motives make His word unreliable. He lies from selfishness.” (6)

From Charles Hodge’s (part 2) Anthropology, CHAPTER VII. The Fall, we learn more:

The Nature of the Temptation.

“The first address of the tempter to Eve was designed to awaken distrust in the goodness of God, and doubt as to the truth of the prohibition. “Hath God indeed said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” or, rather, as the words probably mean, “Has God said, ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?” The next address was a direct assault upon her faith. “Ye shall not surely die;” but on the contrary, become as God himself in knowledge. To this temptation she yielded, and Adam joined in the transgression. From this account it appears that doubt, unbelief, and pride were the principles which led to this fatal act of disobedience. Eve doubted God’s goodness; she disbelieved his threatening; she aspired after forbidden knowledge.” (7)

From The Fall of Man by J. Gresham Machen we see the lie about becoming God:

“Then at last there comes a direct attack upon the truthfulness of God. “Thou shalt surely die,” said God: “Ye shall not surely die,” said the tempter. At last the battle is directly joined. God, said the tempter, has lied, and He has lied for the purpose of keeping something good from man. “Ye shall not surely die,” said the tempter: “for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4-5).” (8)

In Conclusion:

John 10:34 quoting Psalm 82:6 does not suggest that men are Gods or will ever be God. It refers explicitly to the fact that God has appointed judges to act in an honorable Godly manner in the exercise of their God appointed duties.

Man, in his fallen nature has an evil desire to be like God. This is the pride of pride! We should desire as the Scripture instructs us in the next two texts.

“For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” (Matthew 23:12)

“Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time.” (1 Peter 5:6)

God determines what is right or wrong, not man. In the beginning, God had Adam and Eve depend on Him for interpretation of creation. This includes every fact, which to be true, must be a God interpreted fact. In the fall man, became the would-be determiner or measure of all things, the essence of humanism. Man rebelled against his dependence on God and declared his independence or autonomy. When fallen man places his interpretation upon a fact, there is no certainty that it is true.

Satan offered to Adam and Eve the lie of self-determination. Satan’s deception was that man would appropriate God’s place, determining for himself what was right and what was wrong. In his rebellion, man rejected God’s standards for right and wrong. Instead of God and His Word being the standard, now man in his fallen sinful pride, claimed to be the standard.

Consistently throughout Scripture, the lie and seduction of wanting to be God is condemned throughout!

No, John 10:34 provides no hope for man to become God. We agree with the Psalmist whom Jesus quotes for the end of the matter.

“But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.” (Psalm 82:7)

Trust God’s Word, not man’s word:

“It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” (Psalm 118:8)

“Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” (Jeremiah 17:5)

“He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.” (Proverbs 28:26)

Food for Thought:

“The charge has been made that it is an a priori procedure to bring in God at the beginning of the process of knowledge. This too is a charge that acts as a boomerang. A priori reasoning is reasoning that does not start with the facts. Now antitheism has arbitrarily taken for granted that God is not a fact, and that if he is a fact that fact does not have any bearing upon the other facts. This we must hold to be an a priori procedure. We hold that the so-called “facts” are wholly unintelligible unless the supreme fact of God be brought into relation with them. We are willing to start with any fact as a proximate starting point, but refuse to admit before the investigation has begun that there can be no such fact as God.” Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, Chapter 15 The Method of Christian Theistic Epistemology

“The method of reasoning by presupposition may be said to be indirect rather than direct. The issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to “facts” or “laws” whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to debate. The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point required to make the “facts” and “laws” intelligible. The question is as to what the “facts” and “laws” really are. Are they what the non-Christian methodology assumes that they are? Are they what the Christian theistic methodology presupposes they are?” Cornelius Van Til, Apologetics, Chapter 4 The Problem of Method

“The Bible is the Word of God in such a way that when the Bible speaks, God speaks.” – B. B. Warfield

“We cannot use our thoughts and feelings as a standard: only God’s Word is the test.” – R. J. Rushdoony

“Man’s mind is like a store of idolatry and superstition; so much so that if a man believes his own mind it is certain that he will forsake God and forge some idol in his own brain.” – John Calvin

“The Bible is the only force known to history that has freed entire nations from corruption while simultaneously giving them political freedom.” – Vishal Mangalwadi

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). “To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen” (Romans 16:27). “heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28, 29).

Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, John, Vol.1, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p.475.

2. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, John, p.1229.

3. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, John, 9 Volumes, John, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, pp. 370-371.

4. Contributors, John James Stewart Perowne, Joseph Armitage Robinson, Frederic Henry Chase, Reginald St. John Parry Cambridge, Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges, John, (Harvard Depository) p. 222-223.

5. James R. White, Is the Mormon my Brother,?(Minneapolis, Minnesota, Bethany House Publishers), pp. 155-158.

6. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans), p. 35.

7. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans), p. 128.

8. J. Gresham Machen, The Christian View Of Man, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Banner of Truth), p. 165.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

Scripture Matters
Reasoning with the Mormons with special guest Jack Kettler
Copy and past the following link into your browser.

God Bless, Jack

Genesis 1:1; A Study of God’s Creation Work. How was it done?                                               by Jack Kettler

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

Christians maintain that this verse in Genesis tells us that God created the universe out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo, Latin). In this study we will explore the word create (bara) in Genesis 1:1. Some of this study will be technical as we will consult lexical evidence. As an aside, some of the commentary evidence in this study will also deal with how we are to understand God (Elohim, Hebrew) in Genesis. The diligent should not pass over this material on Elohim.

Lexical Evidence

Let’s first breakdown this verse in Genesis chapter one from http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/1-1.htm:

bə-rê-šîṯ בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית          In the beginning    Noun

bā-rā בָּרָ֣א                                               created                                               Verb

’ĕ-lō-hîm; אֱלֹהִ֑ים          God                                                   Noun

’êṯ אֵ֥ת   –           Acc

haš-šā-ma-yim הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם  the heavens            Noun

wə-’êṯ וְאֵ֥ת        and      Acc

ā-’ā-reṣ. הָאָֽרֶץ׃                                       the earth                                             Noun

It is helpful to see the word create and its Hebrew rendering בָּרָ֣א and the transliteration bā-rā or bara.

From Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance on bara:

choose, create creator, cut down, dispatch, do, make fat

A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes) — choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat). (1)

Some more helpful Strong’s references:

Hebrew Old Testament; Scriptures for ‘bara’ meaning ‘to create’ בָּרָא Strong’s 1254; from the Hebrew dictionary p. 23.

Greek New Testament; Scriptures for ‘ktizo’ meaning ‘to create’ κτίζω Strong’s 2936; from the Greek dictionary p. 44.

Regarding bara, we see from Brown-Driver-Briggs:

1. בָּרָא₅₃ verb shape, create (compare Arabic probably loan-word, form, fashion by cutting, shape out, pare a reed for writing, a stick for an arrow, but also , create; Phoenician הברא CIS^{i. 347} incisor, a trade involving cutting; Assyrian barû, make, create, COT^{Gloss &} Hpt KAT^{2Gloss 1} but dubious; Sabean ברא found, build, DHM^{ZMG 1883, 413, synonym} בנה; Ba^{ZA. 1888, 58}, compare Assyrian banû, create, beget, with change of liquid; Aramaic בְּרָא, , create) —

Qal Perfect Genesis 1:1 19t.; Imperfect יִבְרָא Genesis 1:21,27; Numbers 16:30; Infinitive בְּראֹ Genesis 5:1; Imperative בְּרָא Psalm 51:12; Participle בּוֺרֵא Isaiah 42:5 10t.; suffix בֹּרַאֲךָ Isaiah 43:1; בּוֺרְאֶיךָ Ecclesiastes 12:1; — shape, fashion, create, always of divine activity, with accusative of thing, seldom except in P and Isa². (2)

Scriptural Evidence from the Old Testament:

Before God created the universe, nothing else existed except God Himself. He created the universe ex nihilo Genesis 1:1.

“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth… For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” (Psalm 33:6, 9)

The two verses from Psalm 33 seem straight forward enough. There is no indication of pre-existing matter in view textually.

A Scripture in Isaiah will shed light on the use of bara that we see in Genesis?

Isaiah 45:7 is important because of the Hebrew words bara, asah and yatsar appear in this passage which makes it important in interpreting other passages. As said, this verse provides important information to gain a correct understanding of bara in Genesis 1:1.

“I form (yatsar, formed) the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create (bara) evil: I the LORD do (asah, to accomplish) all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)

God says that He creates (bara) evil in this verse. This may be a of shock to some readers. We will leave the exegesis of this passage for a future study. Right now, we are concerned with idea of God creating (bara) the physical world and if this implies pre-existent matter or not. Is evil material? Keep in mind, we are not talking about the physical manifestation of evil, but the idea and reality of evil. Did God use pre-existing material to create evil?

Why is it important that God created the entire universe out of nothing? This is important and means that there is no matter in the universe that is eternal. If so, the status of the matter would on equal footing with God since they would both share an attribute of eternality. In Mormon theology for example, matter is actually more eternal than the Mormon god who was at one time a boy before he became the Mormon god.

God alone inhabits eternity and is separate from the creation, which means He is transcendent. He is not to be confused with the creation. This is seen in:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9)

In Christ’s Church, the members have differing gifts. Some are pastors and teachers. Some teachers God has raised up who can read the original languages of the Bible and understand the syntax of the ancient languages. Consult the following passages regarding teaching and teachers; Romans 12:7; 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11.

A commentary is like an in-depth Bible study. We should not be afraid of commentaries. There are good commentaries and bad commentaries. We need to use discernment. We should be like the Bereans and search the scriptures to see what is in harmony with Scripture. “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11 0

Commentary Evidence

It would be helpful now to survey some commentary evidence on Genesis 1:1 from Calvin’s commentary on Genesis:

“In the beginning. To expound the term “beginning,” of Christ, is altogether frivolous. For Moses simply intends to assert that the world was not perfected at its very commencement, in the manner in which it is now seen, but that it was created an empty chaos of heaven and earth. His language therefore may be thus explained. When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste. He moreover teaches by the word “created,” that what before did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term ytsr, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or forms but vr’, (bara,) which signifies to create. Therefore his meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. Hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity; and who gather nothing else from the narration of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments, and received a form of which it was before destitute. This indeed was formerly a common fable among heathens, who had received only an obscure report of the creation, and who, according to custom, adulterated the truth of God with strange figments; but for Christian men to labor (as Steuchus does) in maintaining this gross error is absurd and intolerable. Let this, then be maintained in the first place, that the world is not eternal but was created by God. There is no doubt that Moses gives the name of heaven and earth to that confused mass which he, shortly afterwards, (Genesis 1:2.) denominates waters. The reason of which is, that this matter was to be the seed of the whole world. Besides, this is the generally recognized division of the world.

God. Moses has it Elohim, a noun of the plural number. Whence the inference is drawn, that the three Persons of the Godhead are here noted; but since, as a proof of so great a matter, it appears to me to have little solidity, will not insist upon the word; but rather caution readers to beware of violent glosses of this kind. They think that they have testimony against the Arians, to prove the Deity of the Son and of the Spirit, but in the meantime they involve themselves in the error of Sabellius, because Moses afterwards subjoins that the Elohim had spoken, and that the Spirit of the Elohim rested upon the waters. If we suppose three persons to be here denoted, there will be no distinction between them. For it will follow, both that the Son is begotten by himself, and that the Spirit is not of the Father, but of himself. For me it is sufficient that the plural number expresses those powers which God exercised in creating the world. Moreover I acknowledge that the Scripture, although it recites many powers of the Godhead, yet always recalls us to the Father, and his Word, and spirit, as we shall shortly see. But those absurdities, to which I have alluded, forbid us with subtlety to distort what Moses simply declares concerning God himself, by applying it to the separate Persons of the Godhead. This, however, I regard as beyond controversy, that from the peculiar circumstance of the passage itself, a title is here ascribed to God, expressive of that powers which was previously in some way included in his eternal essence.” (3)

Now we will look at Keil and Delitzsch OT Commentary regarding Genesis:

“The Creation of the World – Genesis 1:1-2:3

The account of the creation, its commencement, progress, and completion, bears the marks, both in form and substance, of a historical document in which it is intended that we should accept as actual truth, not only the assertion that God created the heavens, and the earth, and all that lives and moves in the world, but also the description of the creation itself in all its several stages. If we look merely at the form of this document, its place at the beginning of the book of Genesis is sufficient to warrant the expectation that it will give us history, and not fiction, or human speculation. As the development of the human family has been from the first a historical fact, and as man really occupies that place in the world which this record assigns him, the creation of man, as well as that of the earth on which, and the heaven for which, he is to live, must also be a work of God, i.e., a fact of objective truth and reality. The grand simplicity of the account is in perfect harmony with the fact. “The whole narrative is sober, definite, clear, and concrete. The historical events described contain a rich treasury of speculative thoughts and poetical glory; but they themselves are free from the influence of human invention and human philosophizing” (Delitzsch)…. The biblical account of the creation can also vindicate its claim to be true and actual history, in the presence of the doctrines of philosophy and the established results of natural science. So long, indeed, as philosophy undertakes to construct the universe from general ideas, it will be utterly unable to comprehend the creation; but ideas will never explain the existence of things. Creation is an act of the personal God, not a process of nature, the development of which can be traced to the laws of birth and decay that prevail in the created world. But the work of God, as described in the history of creation, is in perfect harmony with the correct notions of divine omnipotence, wisdom and goodness.” (4)

From this above citation we learn that Genesis account of creation is sober history. Now Keil and Delitzsch will exegete this verse:

“’In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’ – Heaven and earth have not existed from all eternity, but had a beginning; nor did they arise by emanation from an absolute substance, but were created by God. This sentence, which stands at the head of the records of revelation, is not a mere heading, nor a summary of the history of the creation, but a declaration of the primeval act of God, by which the universe was called into being. That this verse is not a heading merely, is evident from the fact that the following account of the course of the creation commences with w (and), which connects the different acts of creation with the fact expressed in Genesis 1:1, as the primary foundation upon which they rest. בּרשׁיח (in the beginning) is used absolutely, like ἐν ἀρχῇ in John 1:1, and מראשׁיח in Isaiah 46:10. The following clause cannot be treated as subordinate, either by rendering it, “in the beginning when God created …, the earth was,” etc., or “in the beginning when God created…(but the earth was then a chaos, etc.), God said, Let there be light” (Ewald and Bunsen). The first is opposed to the grammar of the language, which would require Genesis 1:2 to commence with הארץ ותּהי; the second to the simplicity of style which pervades the whole chapter, and to which so involved a sentence would be intolerable, apart altogether from the fact that this construction is invented for the simple purpose of getting rid of the doctrine of a creatio ex nihilo, which is so repulsive to modern Pantheism. ראשׁיח in itself is a relative notion, indicating the commencement of a series of things or events; but here the context gives it the meaning of the very first beginning, the commencement of the world, when time itself began. The statement, that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, not only precludes the idea of the eternity of the world a parte ante, but shows that the creation of the heaven and the earth was the actual beginning of all things. The verb בּרא, indeed, to judge from its use in Joshua 17:15, Joshua 17:18, where it occurs in the Piel (to hew out), means literally “to cut, or new,” but in Kal it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used for the creation of man (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:1-2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Numbers 16:30) or of that of grace (Exodus 34:10; Psalm 51:10, etc.). In this verse, however, the existence of any primeval material is precluded by the object created: “the heaven and the earth.” This expression is frequently employed to denote the world, or universe, for which there was no single word in the Hebrew language; the universe consisting of a twofold whole, and the distinction between heaven and earth being essentially connected with the notion of the world, the fundamental condition of its historical development (vid., Genesis 14:19, Genesis 14:22; Exodus 31:17). In the earthly creation this division is repeated in the distinction between spirit and nature; and in man, as the microcosm, in that between spirit and body. Through sin this distinction was changed into an actual opposition between heaven and earth, flesh and spirit; but with the complete removal of sin, this opposition will cease again, though the distinction between heaven and earth, spirit and body, will remain, in such a way, however, that the earthly and corporeal will be completely pervaded by the heavenly and spiritual, the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth, and the earthly body being transfigured into a spiritual body (Revelation 21:1-2; 1 Corinthians 15:35.). Hence, if in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, “there is nothing belonging to the composition of the universe, either in material or form, which had an existence out of God prior to this divine act in the beginning” (Delitzsch). This is also shown in the connection between our verse and the one which follows: “and the earth was without form and void,” not before, but when, or after God created it. From this it is evident that the void and formless state of the earth was not uncreated, or without beginning. At the same time it is obvious from the creative acts which follow (vv. 3-18), that the heaven and earth, as God created them in the beginning, were not the well-ordered universe, but the world in its elementary form; just as Euripides applies the expression οὐρανὸς καὶ γαῖα to the undivided mass (οπφὴμία), which was afterwards formed into heaven and earth.” (4)

Now we will look at the Pulpit Commentary in regards Genesis verse one. The reader will do well to work through this rather lengthy quote:

“Verse 1. – In the beginning, Bereshith, is neither “from eternity,” as in John 1:1; nor “in wisdom” (Chaldee paraphrase), as if parallel with Proverbs 3:19 and Psalm 104:24; nor “by Christ,” who, in Colossians 1:18, is denominated ἀρχὴ; but “at the commencement of time.” Without indicating when the beginning was, the expression intimates that the beginning was. Exodus 20:11 seems to imply that this was the initiation of the first day’s work. The formula, “And God said,” with which each day opens, rather points to ver. 3 as its proper terminus a quo, which the beginning absolute may have antedated by an indefinite period. God Elohim (either the highest Being to be feared, from alah, to fear, – Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Keil, Oehler, &c., or, more probably, the strong and mighty One, from aul, to be strong – Gesenius, Lange, Tayler Lewis, Macdonald, Murphy, &c.) is the most frequent designation of the Supreme Being in the Old Testament, occurring upwards of 2000 times, and is exclusively employed in the present section. Its plural form is to be explained neither as a remnant of polytheism (Gesenius), nor as indicating a plurality of beings through whom the Deity reveals himself (Baumgarten, Lange), nor as a plural of majesty (Aben Ezra, Kalisch, Alford), like the royal “we” of earthly potentates, a usage which the best Hebraists affirm to have no existence in the Scriptures (Macdonald), nor as a cumulative plural, answering the same purpose as a repetition of the Divine name (Hengstenberg, Dreschler, and others); but either

(1) as a pluralis intensitatis, expressive of the fullness of the Divine nature, and the multiplicity of the Divine powers (Delitzsch, Murphy, Macdonald); or,

(2) notwithstanding Calvin s dread of Sabellianism, as a pluralis trinitatis, intended to foreshadow the threefold personality of the Godhead (Luther, Cocceius, Peter Lombard, Murphy, Candlish, &c.); or

(3) both. The suggestion of Tayler Lewis, that the term may be a contraction for El-Elohim, the God of all superhuman powers, is inconsistent with neither of the above interpretations That the Divine name should adjust itself without difficulty to all subsequent discoveries of the fullness of the Divine personality and nature is only what we should expect in a God-given revelation. Unless where it refers to the angels (Psalm 8:5), or to heathen deities (Genesis 31:32; Exodus 20:3; Jeremiah 16:20), or to earthly rulers (Exodus 22:8, 9), Elohim is conjoined with verbs and adjectives in the singular, an anomaly in language which has been explained as suggesting the unity of the Godhead. Created. Bara, one of three terms employed in this section, and in Scripture generally, to describe the Divine activity; the other two being yatzar, “formed,” and asah, “made” – both signifying to construct out of pre-existing materials (cf. for yatzar, Genesis 2:7; Genesis 8:19; Psalm 33:15; Isaiah 44:9; for asah, Genesis 8:6; Exodus 5:16; Deuteronomy 4:16), and predicable equally of God and man. Bara is used exclusively of God. Though not necessarily involved in its significance, the idea of creation ex nihilo is acknowledged by the best expositors to be here intended. Its employment in vers. 21, 26, though seem ugly against, is really in favor of a distinctively creative act; in both of these instances something that did not previously exist, i.e. animal life and the human spirit, having been called into being. In the sense of producing what is new it frequently occurs in Scripture (cf. Psalm 51:12; Jeremiah 31:12; Isaiah 65:18). Thus, according to the teaching of this venerable document, the visible universe neither existed from eternity, nor was fashioned out of pre-existing materials, nor proceeded forth as an emanation from the Absolute, but was summoned into being by an express creative fiat. The New Testament boldly claims this as a doctrine peculiar to revelation (Hebrews 11:3). Modern science explicitly disavows it as a discovery of reason. The continuity of force admits of neither creation nor annihilation, but demands an unseen universe, out of which the visible has been produced “by an intelligent agency residing in the unseen,” and into which it must eventually return (‘The Unseen Universe,’ pp. 167, 170). Whether the language of the writer to the Hebrews homologates the dogma of an “unseen universe” (μὴ φαινομένον), out of which τὸ βλεπόμενον γεγονέναι, the last result of science, as expressed by the authors of the above-named work, is practically an admission of the Biblical doctrine of creation. The heavens and the earth (i.e. mundus universus – Gesenius, Kalisch, &c. Cf. Genesis 2:1; Genesis 14:19, 22; Psalm 115:15; Jeremiah 23:24. The earth and the heavens always mean the terrestrial globe with its aerial firmament. Cf. Genesis 2:4; Psalm 148:13; Zechariah 5:9). The earth here alluded to is manifestly not the dry land (ver. 10), which was not separated from the waters till the third day, but the entire mass of which our planet is composed, including the superincumbent atmosphere, which was not uplifted from the chaotic deep until the second day. The heavens are the rest of the universe. The Hebrews were aware of other heavens than the “firmament” or gaseous expanse which over-arches the earth. “Tres regiones,” says Poole, “ubi ayes, ubi nubes, ubi sidera.” But, beyond these, the Shemitie mind conceived of the heaven where the angels dwell (1 Kings 22:19; Matthew 18:10), and where God specially resides (Deuteronomy 26:15; 1 Kings 8:30; Psalm 2:4), if, indeed, this latter was not distinguished as a more exalted region than that occupied by any creature – as “the heaven of heavens,” the pre-eminently sacred abode of the Supreme (Deuteronomy 10:14; 1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 105:16). The fundamental idea associated with the term was that of height (shamayim, literally, “the heights” – Gesenius, Furst). To the Greek mind heaven meant “the boundary” (οὑρανος, from ὁρος – Arist.), or, “the raised up” (from ὀρ – to be prominent – Liddell and Scott). The Latin spoke of “the con cavity” (coelum, allied to κοῖλος, hollow), or “the engraved” (from coelo, to engrave). The Saxon thought of “the heaved-up arch.” The Hebrew imagined great spaces rising tier upon tier above the earth (which, m contradistinction, was named “the flats”), just as with regard to time he spoke of olamim (Gr. αἰῶνες). Though not anticipating modern astronomical discovery, he had yet enlarged conceptions of the dimensions of the stellar world (Genesis 15:5; Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah 31:37; Amos 9:6); and, though unacquainted with our present geographical ideas of the earth’s configuration, he was able to represent it as a globe, and as suspended upon nothing (Isaiah 40:11; Job 26:7-10; Proverbs 8:27). The connection of the present verse with those which follow has been much debated. The proposal of Aben Ezra, adopted by Calvin, to read, “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was” is grammatically inadmissible. Equally objectionable on the ground of grammar is the suggestion of Bunsen and Ewald, to connect the first verse with the third, and make the second parenthetical; while it is opposed to that simplicity of construction which pervades the chapter. The device of Drs. Buckland and Chalmers, so favorably regarded by some harmonists of Scripture and geology, to read the first verse as a heading to the whole section, is exploded by the fact that no historical narration can begin with “and.” To this Exodus 1. It is no exception, the second book of Moses being in reality a continuation of the first. Honest exegesis requires that ver. I shall be viewed as descriptive of the first of the series of Divine acts detailed in the chapter, and that ver. 2, while admitting of an interval, shall be held as coming in immediate succession – an interpretation, it may be said, which is fatal to the theory which discovers the geologic ages between the creative beginning and primeval chaos.” (5)

New Testament Evidence

The New Testament is the ultimate Divine commentary on the Old Testament. In the New Testament there are verses that teach that God created the world out of nothing. This confirms the teaching in the Old Testament on creatio ex nihilo. For example, John 1:3 says that “all things were made by him (ἐγένετο, egeneto) and without him was not anything made that was made.”

“All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” (John 1:3)

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary has important information on this passage from John:

3. All things, &c.—all things absolutely (as is evident from Joh 1:10; 1Co 8:6; Col 1:16, 17; but put beyond question by what follows).

without Him was not anything—not one thing.

made—brought into being.

that was made—This is a denial of the eternity and non-creation of matter, which was held by the whole thinking world outside of Judaism and Christianity: or rather, its proper creation was never so much as dreamt of save by the children of revealed religion.” (6)

Also, consider Barnes’ Notes on the Bible in dealing this passage:

“All things – The universe. The expression cannot be limited to any part of the universe. It appropriately expresses everything which exists – all the vast masses of material worlds, and all the animals and things, great or small, that compose those worlds. See Revelation 4:11; Hebrews 1:2; Colossians 1:16.

Were made – The original word is from the verb “to be,” and signifies “were” by him; but it expresses the idea of creation here. It does not alter the sense whether it is said “‘were’ by him,” or “were ‘created’ by him.” The word is often used in the sense of “creating,” or forming from nothing. See James 3:9; and Genesis 2:4; Isaiah 48:7; in the Septuagint.” (7)

The next New Testament verse is from Colossians:

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.” (Colossians 1:16)

In Colossians 1:16 we read that all things were created by Him and for Him, which is to say, the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, note, there is no indication of pre-existing matter in view in these texts we are surveying. A concept of pre-existing matter has to be smuggled or read into the text.

More on the Colossians passage from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

“16. For—Greek, “Because.” This gives the proof that He is not included in the things created, but is the “first-begotten” before “every creature” (Col 1:15), begotten as “the Son of God’s love” (Col 1:13), antecedently to all other emanations: “for” all these other emanations came from Him, and whatever was created, was created by Him.

by him—rather as Greek, “in Him”: as the conditional element, pre-existent and all-including: the creation of all things BY Him is expressed afterwards, and is a different fact from the present one, though implied in it [Alford]. God revealed Himself in the Son, the Word of the Father, before all created existence (Col 1:15). That Divine Word carries IN Himself the archetypes of all existences, so that “IN Him all things that are in heaven and earth have been created.” The “in Him” indicates that the Word is the ideal ground of all existence; the “by Him,” below, that He is the instrument of actually realizing the divine idea [Neander]. His essential nature as the Word of the Father is not a mere appendage of His incarnation, but is the ground of it. The original relation of the Eternal Word to men “made in His image” (Ge 1:27), is the source of the new relation to them by redemption, formed in His incarnation, whereby He restores them to His lost image. “In Him” implies something prior to “by” and “for Him” presently after: the three prepositions mark in succession the beginning, the progress, and the end [Bengel].

all things—Greek, “the universe of things.” That the new creation is not meant in this verse (as Socinians interpret), is plain; for angels, who are included in the catalogue, were not new created by Christ; and he does not speak of the new creation till Col 1:18. The creation “of the things that are in the heavens” (so Greek) includes the creation of the heavens themselves: the former are rather named, since the inhabitants are more noble than their dwellings. Heaven and earth and all that is m them (1Ch 29:11; Ne 9:6; Re 10:6).

invisible—the world of spirits.

thrones, or dominions—lordships: the thrones are the greater of the two.

principalities, or powers—rather, “rules, or authorities”: the former are stronger than the latter (compare Note, see on [2402] Eph 1:21). The latter pair refer to offices in respect to God’s creatures: “thrones and dominions” express exalted relation to God, they being the chariots on which He rides displaying His glory (Ps 68:17). The existence of various orders of angels is established by this passage.

all things—Greek, “the whole universe of things.”

were—rather, to distinguish the Greek aorist, which precedes from the perfect tense here, “have been created.” In the former case the creation was viewed as a past act at a point of time, or as done once for all; here it is viewed, not merely as one historic act of creation in the past, but as the permanent result now and eternally continuing.

by him—as the instrumental Agent (Joh 1:3).

for him—as the grand End of creation; containing in Himself the reason why creation is at all, and why it is as it is [Alford]. He is the final cause as well as the efficient cause. Lachmann’s punctuation of Col 1:15-18 is best, whereby “the first-born of every creature” (Col 1:15) answers to “the first-born from the dead” (Col 1:18), the whole forming one sentence with the words (“All things were created by Him and for Him, and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist, and He is the Head of the body, the Church”) intervening as a parenthesis. Thus Paul puts first, the origination by Him of the natural creation; secondly, of the new creation. The parenthesis falls into four clauses, two and two: the former two support the first assertion, “the first-born of every creature”; the latter two prepare us for “the first-born from the dead”‘; the former two correspond to the latter two in their form—”All things by Him … and He is,” and “By Him all things … and He is.” (8)

Another important New Testament passage is from Hebrews:

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Hebrews 11:3)

Matthew Poole’s Commentary provides insight into this passage from Hebrews 11:3:

“This proves the second part of faith’s description, Hebrews 11:1, that it is the evidence of things not seen; for by it only we understand the creation, which no eye saw. It is the same Divine faith as described before, but as evidencing invisible truths, it communicates a marvellous light to the understanding, and leaves real impressions of it from the word of God, whereby it arriveth unto a most certain knowledge of what is above the power of natural reason to convey, and gives a divine assent to it, such its as is real, clear, sure, and fruitful, different from that of the Gentiles, Romans 1:19-23.

The worlds; touv aiwnav the word noteth sometimes ages, Luke 16:8; the garb and corrupt habit of men who live in them, Ephesians 2:2; eternity: but there, as Hebrews 1:2, it is a word of aggregation, signifying all kinds of creatures, with their several places, times, and periods; things celestial, terrestrial, and subterrestrial; angels, men, and all sorts of creatures, together with all the states and conditions in which they were made.

Were framed by the word of God; heaven, earth, and seas, with all their hosts of creatures, the visible creation and the invisible world, were put into being and existence, placed in their proper order, disposed and fitted to their end, by the mighty word of God: Trinity in Unity the Creator, his powerful fiat, without any pain, or trouble, or assisting causes, instantly effected this miraculous, glorious work; He spake, and it was done, Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14, &c.; Psalm 33:6,9.

So that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear; the visible world, and all visible in it, were made all of nothing; this reason could never digest. All was produced of that formless, void, dark chaos which was invisible, Genesis 1:2; which void, formless, dark mass itself, was made of no pre-existent stuff, matter or atoms, but of nothing; which differenceth the operative power of God from that of all other agents. See Genesis 1:1 Psalm 89:11,12 Psa 148:5,6, &c.; Isaiah 42:5 45:12,18.” (9)

Unfriendly Christian critic, Bertrand Russell, in his A History of Western Philosophy, in the section dealing with Plato’s Cosmogony, (branch of metaphysics) has this to say:

“Thus, it appears that Plato’s God, unlike the Jewish and Christian God, did not create the world out of nothing, but rearranged preexisting material.” (10)

It appears that Russell, even though a declared enemy of Christianity has some honesty in dealing with Christian theological positions. Was Bertrand Russell was mistaken in his assessment of the Christian doctrine of creation being different from Platonism? It is important to note that Russell includes Judaism along with Christianity in being separate from Platonism regarding the creation of the world. This is an instance of citing a critic in defense of the biblical teaching that God creatio ex nihilo the world.

A Philosophical Analysis of Creation and What the Alternative is:

Rationalism and the Chain of Being

By R. J. Rushdoony

January 01, 1998

Very early, a deadly notion from Hellenic rationalism entered into the Christian church, namely, the transfer of the idea of the good from ethics to metaphysics. In terms of this, sin became a thinness of being. In the supposed Great Chain of Being, sin was at the bottom of the chain. Instead of being moral opposites, good and evil were metaphysical opposites. Gnosticism carried this notion to strange and fantastic conclusions. In scholastic philosophy, evil is seen as a thinness of being, and, for Dante, in The Divine Comedy in the last round of the ninth circle of hell, where Lucifer is, all are ice-bound.

There is a world of danger in this view, because the concept of the Great Chain of Being means a continuity of being; it means that both God and man share a common being and therefore are open in their rationality one to another. In terms of Biblical faith, there are two kinds of being, created and uncreated, creation and the God of creation. The mind of God is uncreated, man’s mind is created. Because man is a creature in all his being, he bears the stamp of the Creator, even to his image (Gen. 1:26-28). Man’s being is discontinuous with God’s while imaging it with respect to God’s communicable (but not incommunicable) attributes.

To return to the notion that sin and virtue are metaphysical facts, this means that sin leads a person into a thinness of being, and then into virtual or actual non-being. This idea is a useful one for those who wish to dispose of Hell: those in Hell are fading away in their being into non-being and are destined to disappear. But sin is not a slenderness of being but the willful transgression of the law of God. Sin is thus not the metaphysical wasting away of man but his moral rebellion against God and his law. It is a moral, not a metaphysical, declension.

This Hellenic view has important considerations for rationalism. The rationalist does not self-consciously accept all aspects of his Hellenic inheritance. Being non-historical in his approach, he assumes that his reason has all the attributes that philosophy in his day ascribes to it. It is, for example, a shock to read Aristotle after Aquinas and to realize that the Aristotle we know is a very different person from the ancient Greek, a somewhat distant relative, in fact.

In either an early or a later form, however, rationalism presupposes a continuity of being between God, or the ultimate ideas or forms, and the mind of man. It is this impersonal continuity of being that is the mainstay of rationalism and its source of truth. The rationalist does not posit a discontinuity, and, with the rare one who might, he does not see this human rationality as fallen. To do so would destroy his rationalism.

Now if there is a stream of continuity in all of history, that stream, will, in its pseudo-Christian forms, absorb the incarnation of Jesus Christ into its continuity. The results of this absorption are startling. The historical Jesus becomes less important than his continuity in some mystical form. This can take several forms. The sacrament of communion can outweigh the historical atonement. Salvation, instead of being from sin, becomes deification, theosis. The historical incarnation in the person of Jesus Christ is seen as continuing mystically in his church, and so on and on. In Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism, we have varying forms of these beliefs. They represent the transmutation of Christianity from a Hebraic to an alien form. The necessity of Scripture gives way to alien and rationalistic premises which insist on the necessity of the church.

In the Greek Chain of Being idea, human autonomy is possible in a way that it is not under the doctrine of creation. Creationism sees the creation of man and of all things else as declaring the total and absolute dependence of all things on God. Having been created out of nothing, and having brought nothing to their making, all creatures are totally dependent on God and totally subject to his sovereign predestinating will. In the Great Chain of Being, all creatures and beings share in God’s divinity and are aspects of a common being. Men can rise or fall on the Great Chain of Being, and man’s use of Reason determines his status. Man is thus essentially autonomous, and he can rise or fall in the chain as his Reason determines. The determining force is thus not the personal God but a common and impersonal Reason, available alike to God and to man.

The universe of the Great Chain of Being is open in that there is no absolute and determining God over all. Predestination then cannot be a seriously held idea if one is logical. It is an open universe in that man’s Reason can penetrate all things determinatively. The rational is the real in this kind of world. But it is a closed world to the God of Scripture, because he is excluded in the name of rationality from the spheres of philosophy and history. Rationalism can “prove” God but its god is always a dead one, a figment of man’s imagination and Reason. In the earlier years of modern philosophy, men sought to “prove” the existence of God. The logic of their thinking came into focus with Hegel and after Hegel, the philosopher in his thinking as the actual God of being. Nietzsche clearly saw himself as the new god but apparently did not like what he saw!

1. J. Rushdoony

Rev. R.J. Rushdoony (1916–2001), was a leading theologian, church/state expert, and author of numerous works on the application of Biblical law to society. He started the Chalcedon Foundation in 1965. His Institutes of Biblical Law (1973) began the contemporary theonomy movement which posits the validity of Biblical law as God’s standard of obedience for all. He therefore saw God’s law as the basis of the modern Christian response to the cultural decline, one he attributed to the church’s false view of God’s law being opposed to His grace. This broad Christian response he described as “Christian Reconstruction.” He is credited with igniting the modern Christian school and homeschooling movements in the mid to late 20th century. He also traveled extensively lecturing and serving as an expert witness in numerous court cases regarding religious liberty. Many ministry and educational efforts that continue today, took their philosophical and Biblical roots from his lectures and books.

Learn more at: https://chalcedon.edu/

For more additional research that is relevant our study, the serious reader should download a copy of:

CREATION EX NIHILO OR EX MATERIA? A CRITIQUE OF THE MORMON DOCTRINE OF CREATION by Paul Copan                                                                                                                               Published in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 9/2 (Summer 2005): 32-54.

Copy and paste the next link into your browser to get the Paul Copan article:

Click to access critique-of-the-mormon-doctrine-of-creation.pdf

In conclusion, the Westminster Confession of Faith on Creation:

Chapter 4 – Of Creation.

Section 1.) It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (1) for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, (2) in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good. (3)

(1) Heb 1:2; Jn 1:2,3; Ge 1:2; Job 26:13; Job 33:4 (2) Ro 1:20; Jer 10:12; Ps 104:24; Ps 33:5,6 (3) Heb 11:3; Col 1:16; Ac 17:24

————————————

Section 2.) After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, (1) with reasonable and immortal souls, (2) endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image, (3) having the law of God written in their hearts, (4) and power to fulfill it; (5) and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. (6) Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; (7) which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures. (8)

(1) Ge 1:27 (2) Ge 2:7; Ecc 12:7; Lk 23:43; Mt 10:28 (3) Ge 1:26; Col 3:10; Eph 4:24 (4) Ro 2:14,15 (5) Ecc 7:29 (6) Ge 3:6; Ecc 7:29 (7) Ge 2:17; Ge 3:8,9,10,11,23 (8) Ge 1:26,28

 

Notes:

1. James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, (Nashville, Tennessee, Crusade Bible Publishers), p. 225.
2. Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson), p.135.
3. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Genesis, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), pp. 69, 70.
4. Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament Genesis, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted 1985), pp.37, 38; 46, 47.
5. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Genesis, Vol. I., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), pp. 2-3.
6. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, John (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1026.
7. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, John, p. 1021.
8. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, John (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1316.
9. Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), p. 860.
10. Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, (New York, New York, Simon and Schuster), p. 144.

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). “To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen” (Romans 16:27). “heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28, 29).

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

I was searching on amazon last night and realized that former Mormon—now presuppositional apologist Jack Kettler (one of my all-time favorite Christian apologists) has finally written a book on Mormonism! I remember reading his many articles on how to witness to Mormons and present a thoroughly biblical refutation of Mormonism years ago. I remember being blown away by his level of knowledge and discernment regarding LDS teachings, and his insight on how to refute it lovingly. They were by far the best refutations of LDS theology and philosophy I’ve ever seen. This is especially important for me since I have LDS family and friends that desperately need to see the errors of Joseph Smith and the LDS leadership through the ages, and who desperately need the true Jesus.

I’m very excited about this book.

Thank you, brother Jack, for your contribution to this much needed area of apologetics and evangelism. I’ll be counting the days till it arrives in the mail and am anxious to devour it.

God bless you, brother—and to Him be all the glory! Colin Lawson

My interview on Generation Radio with Kevin Swanson regarding my book on Mormonism is now live.

Click on the sermon audio link to listen to the program. There is some news and introductory material first.

http://www.thereligionthatstartedinahat.com/

By The People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission A review by Jack Kettler

By The People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission
by Charles Murray
Crown Forum, New York

Charles Murray is the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His first work was published in 1984, Losing Ground and in 2012, Coming Apart.

What others are saying:

“By the People is a study in contradictions. It is simultaneously depressing and inspiring, technical and profound, infuriating and charming, but always compelling. Charles Murray plays the role of a liberty-loving Lenin asking the question, ‘What is to be done?’ To this end, he offers a practical guide to repairing our broken constitutional order. It is that rarest of books: a populist manifesto grounded in fact and logic.” – Jonah Goldberg

“A road map to recapture true American exceptionalism. With passion, brilliance, and a keen sense of the radical essence of what America means, Murray dismisses what passes for political debate today and offers an audacious plan to restore the liberty our founders bequeathed to us.” – Edward Crane, president emeritus, Cato Institute

“Liberty without permission? Selective civil disobedience? I’m in! At first I balked, but Murray makes a convincing case that a Madison Fund might scrape away the sclerosis of the suffocating state. As usual, his original arguments expand the way I think. When law is so complex that it’s indistinguishable from lawlessness, when the tax code is 4 million words long, something like systematic disobedience is badly needed.” – John Stossel

By The People is logically divided into three parts:

Part 1 Coming To Terms With Where We Stand
Part 2 Opening a New Front
Part 3 A Propitious Moment

In part I, Murray chronicles our broken Constitution, and our lawless legal system to lay the ground work for what follows. Murray notes; “Civil law that is sufficiently arbitrary and capricious is indistinguishable from lawlessness.” (36) He follows with; “Law that is sufficiently complex in indistinguishable from lawlessness.” (37) He continues; “Law that is sufficiently discretionary is indistinguishable from lawlessness.” (41) And finally he says; “Law that permits the state to take private property without compensation, or to force the transfer of private property to other private individuals, is indistinguishable from lawlessness.” (44)

In part II Murray sets forth and lays down ground rules for selective civil disobedience. He creatively comes up with a workable reasonable way to capitalize on public support to engage in selective resistance to bureaucratic over reach and tyranny. Establishing what he calls the Madison fund is a concrete effective way to fund resistance to fed gov tyranny. While it is true the fed gov has deep pockets, Murray demonstrates that each fed gov regulatory agency has limited resources when coming to number of attorneys. (142) This means there are limits to how many cases an agency like the EPA can try and prosecute. Murray’s proposals are well thought out and clearly within the tradition of the Jeffersonian doctrine of nullification.

In part III Murray provides hope for a return to relief from bureaucratic tyrannical overreach.

In Murray’s work you will learn how far our government is systemically broken. We’ve all heard about legislation and how it could not make it out of committee or the speaker or majority leader will not allow a bill come up for a vote. Murray introduces the reader to the corrupt practice of the “tollbooth” and how it works. (93) In short, no legislation moves without money being extorted to fund political campaigns. This happens no matter which party is in power.

In addition, Murray demonstrates how persuasive and corrupt the lobbying system works and how it is near to impossible to reform. When moving from a congressional staff position into lobbyist work is called “cashing in.” (92) Out of touch politicians have no incentive to reform this corruption because they believe that cannot attract quality staffers unless they have the opportunity making a financial killing by working for foreign interests instead of American interests.

This book is truly and eye opener. It certainly deserves wide distribution since it provides serious proposals to reclaim liberty. That battle will not be easy since in the words of Milton Friedman: “Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.”

Mr. Kettler is the owner of the website Undergroundnotes where his political and theological articles can be read.

An Earnest Plea to Latter-day-Saints
http://www.lds.video/

This video/streaming presentation is much more than a Presbyterian response to the accusation of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church that the Presbyterian Church was not true.

This presentation is a thorough-going penetration and analysis of Mormon theology with a careful meticulous response to Mormon truth claims.

The presentation is divided into two logical parts:

Part One: An examination of the History of the Mormon Church. In this section, polygamy is covered along with blacks and the priesthood, prophecies, the Mormon war in Missouri and Mountain Meadow Massacre.

Part Two: An examination of the LDS and the Bible. In this section, the doctrine of the Godhead and the doctrine of salvation are covered, along with the last judgement and the false restored gospel of Mormonism.

This the finest video/streaming presentation on Mormonism I have ever seen. It most certainly deserves wide distribution and viewing. The biblical references used in this presentation to counter Mormon claims, clearly expose and refute the false gospel of Mormonism. This presentation would be perfectly suited for an adult Sunday School class or preparation material for those with a burden to share the good news with the LDS people.

This presentation was produced by Christ Presbyterian Church, A Congregation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Salt Lake City, Utah. If the reader is ever in Salt Lake City on the Lord’s Day, they would be blessed to attend Christ Presbyterian Church for worship.

Christ Presbyterian Church website:
http://www.gospelutah.org/home.html

Christ Presbyterian Church sponsored debates:
http://www.gospelutah.org/debates.html

The Ancient Paths website; a gold mine of information:
http://www.ancientpaths.tv

A review by Jack Kettler, Author of The Religion That Started in A Hat: A Reference Manual for Christians Who Witness to Mormons.

Jeff Beck; The Legend, Still Standing Strong: Loud Hailer (2016) a review by Jack Kettler

Geoffrey Arnold “Jeff” Beck (born 24 June 1944) now 72 is an English rock guitarist. In Beck’s early career he formed The Jeff Beck Group and Beck, Bogert & Appice. In March of 1965, Beck joined The Yardbirds to succeed Eric Clapton as the lead guitar player.

The musical genres Beck has mastered are: Pop/Rock; Blues; Jazz; Fusion. He is a true guitar virtuoso. Not only is Beck a virtuoso on the guitar, he is superior auto hot rod mechanic and builder. See his crazy about cars (2 parts). Today, many of Jeff’s musical contemporaries can barely stand up, yet Beck is standing strong and is good as ever.

If you are a Beck fan, you will not be disappointed in Jeff’s latest studio recording, Loud Hailer. Jeff has an ability to re-cast himself, break new musical ground and surround himself with fresh faces and extraordinary talent. This is most certainly the case with Beck collaborating with co-guitarist Carmen Vandenberg and on vocals, Rosie Bones. Loud Hailer was produced by Beck, along with Filippo Cimatti. Also appearing on the CD are drummer Davide Sollazzi and bass player Giovanni Pallotti.

Loud Hailer as the title indicates is music to be played loud! Jeff’s masterful guitar wizardry is interspersed throughout the recording and featured front stage and center. Beck is touring the U.S this summer with blues legend Buddy Guy. I have tickets to see him in Denver the first part of August. I hope Rosie and Carmen are with him and they perform some of the material on this recording. I am proud to have Loud Hailer in my music collection.

The Reluctant Road Warrior: The adventures of a Silicon Valley engineer in the U.S. and abroad

By Dan P. Bullard
San Bernardino, CA
ISBN-13: 978-1523900077
A review by Jack Kettler

Having done a fair amount of business traveling, I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

First off, a little respecting Mr. Bullard’s resume. Mr. Bullard has worked in the Automated Electronic Test business. He has written programs in C, C++, Pascal and other languages that test devices such as Op Amps, V/F convertors, MEMS accelerometers, PC Video chips (RAMDACs, Video Accelerators, etc), automotive chips and wireless devices like TV tuners. He has specialized in analog and mixed signal testing, memory tests, analog with laser trim and RF test as well as plain old digital test. Mr. Bullard is an award winning technical instructor for many years before doing programming. In addition, Mr. Bullard is a patented inventor.

Mr. Bullard’s book while covering several technical issues remains easily readable to those not familiar with Silicon Valley technology. The book is informative on the global competition and network of high tech engineering companies. What makes this book uniquely special are the entertaining stories of travel, hotels, restaurants, good food, bad food, work colleagues, conflicts challenges and successes.

Mr. Bullard is semi-retired, enjoying life exploring the Columbia River in a houseboat. Mr. Bullard lives free, everyday. If you need a break from your normal reading schedule, do yourself a favor and enjoy this book.

Who are the Good Followers of Mohammad? By Jack Kettler

A true Muslim and one who represent true Islam, are ones who follows and obeys Allah’s words from the Koran completely. In Islam, the prophet Muhammad is the greatest example for the faithful to follow. It is a basic principle of Islam to please Allah that a Muslim must follow the example of the prophet Mohammad.

He [Mohammad] demonstrated good examples in all aspects of life, Allah says: ‘You have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day and who engages much in the praise of Allah.’ (Koran, 33:21)

The astute reader will notice the fallacy of circular reasoning at the foundation of Koranic thinking.

How does a Muslim know how to be a good Muslim? Consider:

Those who deny Allah and His Messenger and those who seek to separate Allah from His messenger saying, “We believe in some, but reject others,” therefore seeking a middle ground, these are truly unbelievers. And for the unbelievers We have prepared a disgraceful punishment. But those who believe in Allah and His messenger and make no distinction between them, they will be rewarded by Him. Allah is forgiving and merciful! (Koran 4:150)

You have an excellent example in Allah’s Messenger for those of you who put your hope in Allah and the Last Day and who praise Allah continually. And when the believers saw the confederates they said, “This is what Allah and His Messenger promised us, and Allah and His Messenger spoke the truth,” and this served to increase their faith and devotion. (Koran 33:21)

In light of the above two citations from the Koran one can ascertain, the Prophet Muhammad is the perfect leader and it is the obligation of every Muslim to imitate him. The faithful follower is “to make no distinction Allah and His messenger.”

So it is natural for a Muslim to ask: what did Mohammad do, or what would Mohammad do? If Muhammad practiced it and Muhammad is the perfect example of Allah, the conclusion is, the good Muslim must follow Mohammad’s example.

Jesus said: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19)

In a similar way, we learn from the following verses i the Koran what is expected of the faithful Muslim:

The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption, making mischief in the land is murder, execution, crucifixion, the cutting off of hands and feet on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. That is their degradation and disgrace in this world. And a great torment of an awful doom awaits them in the hereafter. Except for those who repent (and become Muslims) before you overpower them and they fall into your control. (Koran 5:33)

Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other. (Koran 5:5)

Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’ (Koran 8:7)

So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief ) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world). (Koran 8:39)

The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy. (Koran 8:59)

Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war. (Koran 9:5)

Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission. (Koran 9:29)

Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you. (Koran 9:123)

When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam. (Koran 47:4)

The modern day media is constantly droning on about moderate and radical Muslims. This distinction completely misses the point when trying to understand Islam. The real question is, who are faithful or unfaithful followers of Allah and his prophet Mohammad?

The doctrine of abrogation:

Another thing the present day media miss in understanding Islam is their doctrine of abrogation.

Basically what this means when dealing with Koranic teaching is that when the two passages are in dispute, the later takes precedence. The earlier passages would still be true, but the more recent takes priority.

The moderate or peaceful Koranic passages occur before Mohammad conquered Mecca. When Mohammad was at a disadvantage, he made treaties and alliances and spoke of peace and tolerance. After he became more powerful he began uttering the verses of the sword and went back or broke his alliances. Some Muslim get stuck in earlier parts of the Koran, while other keep reading and find instruction for war against the infidels.

What about taqiyya in Islam?

Lying to non-believers that are permitted, which is known as taqiyya. This typically is to advance the cause of Islam for the purpose of gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

Some examples:

“…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (Koran 9:3)

A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among those who are not believers. (Koran 40:28)
And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers. The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. (Koran 3:54)

If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for saying that Muslims are not allowed to be deceitful and lie.
The so-called moderate or peaceful Muslims are basically irrelevant in the war that being waged against the non-Muslim world by the so-called radical Muslims. The moderate Muslims for a large part are just by-standers. This is not an unusual phenomena. In the past, not all Germans were Nazis. The problem is not with the by-standers, they are not trying to kill us. And for the most part, the Muslim by-standers do nothing to stop the faithful followers of Mohammad.

For those threatened by followers of Mohammad, what do we do?

For non-Muslims or so-called infidels in American the problem is political Sharia Islam, which is a subversive ideology and falls under the constitutional warning to be on guard against enemies both foreign and domestic. As an enemy by its very nature, its goal is to subvert constitutional freedoms in the Bill of Rights and install a foreign legal system. For example, Sharia law forbids anyone to speak ill of the false prophet of Islam under penalty of death. How will that work with the 1st Amendment? Therefore, Sharia Islam should be banned and its adherents expelled from the country.

We are facing the determined evil from evil men. Let’s consider the following thoughts:

According the Egyptian Press, narcissist Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Obama) is a member of the the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization. Many members of the Muslim Brotherhood are a part of His administration. His brother, Malik Obama, is an investment advisor for the Muslim Brotherhood.
“The Muslim Brotherhood builds Islamic Centers across America to be the “axis” of their Movement to “supply (their ) battalions.” These Centers are not simply places of worship. On the contrary their own documents say it is a place for all activity surrounding the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission here and the place from which they will launch their military assault at “Zero Hour.”1

1. John Guandolo, “Jihadi Raising a Jihadi Generation: Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in America,” (Kepanto Publishing, Vienna, Virginia), p. 21. This information should at the very minimum, warrant a Congressional investigation.

Some interesting thoughts and descriptions of Islam:

“Mahomet established a religion by putting his enemies to death; Jesus Christ by commanding his followers to lay down their lives.” – Blaise Pascal

“I would never regard Islam with anything but horror and fear because it is fundamentally committed to conquering the world for Islam… it is, I think, best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism. Between the New Testament and the Qur’an there is (as it is customary to say when making such comparisons) no comparison. Whereas markets can be found for books on reading the Bible as literature, to read the Qur’an is a penance rather than a pleasure. There is no order or development in its subject matter…. The Prophet, though gifted in the arts of persuasion and clearly a considerable military leader, was both doubtfully literate and certainly ill-informed about the contents of the Old Testament and about several matters of which God, if not even the least informed of the Prophet’s contemporaries, must have been cognizant… one thing I’ll say in this comparison is that, for goodness sake, Jesus is an enormously attractive charismatic figure, which the Prophet of Islam most emphatically is not.” – former atheist, Anthony Flew

“Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was – and it remains – incapable of adapting itself to civilization. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.” – Andre Servier

“If the people of this religion [Islam] are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.” – Abu Bakr Muhammad al-Razi

“I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” – Winston Churchill

Mohammad instructs his faithful followers:

Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. (Sura 9:123, 66:9)
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. (Sura 9:29)
Strike off the heads of infidels in battle. (Sura 47:4)
If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him. (al-Bukhari 9:84:57)
Never be a helper to the disbelievers. (Sura 28:86)
Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them. (Sura 2:191)

In contrast, the words of Jesus:

If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to them the other. (Matthew 5:39)
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matthew 5:44)
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. (Matthew 5:7)
Blessed are the peacemakers. (Matthew 5:9)
Forgive and you shall be forgiven. (Matthew 6:14)
Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. (Luke 6:27-36)

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.