Category Archives: Uncategorized

What is a Covenant and what covenants do we see in Scripture? This survey, complied by Jack Kettler

In Reformed Theology, the idea of covenant is the interpretive grid for understanding the Scriptures and the idea of covenant plays a central role in Reformed theology. Said another way, Reformed theology sees the idea of covenant as the model for understanding how God works with man in Scripture. In short, covenant theology is the idea that God enters into a contract or agreement with mankind. In this survey of Reformation thinking on God’s covenants, we will look at a number of leading theologians that will prove to be valuable indeed.

To start, let’s consider:

“ALL GOD’S dealings with men have had a covenant character. It hath so pleased Him to arrange it, that he will not deal with us except through a covenant, nor can we deal with Him except in the same manner. Adam in the garden was under a covenant with God and God was in covenant with Him.”1

Francis Turretin (1623-1687) was professor of theology at Geneva and a outstanding Reformed theologian:

“A covenant denotes the agreement of God with man by which God promises his goods (and especially eternal life to him), and by man, in turn, duty and worship are engaged…This is called two‐sided and mutual because it consists of a mutual obligation of the contracting parties: a promise on the part of God and stipulation of the condition on the part of man.”2

Herman Witsius, was a Dutch theologian, pastor, and a leading professor of the seventeenth century:

“A covenant of God with man, is an agreement between God, about the way of obtaining consummate happiness; including a commination of eternal destruction, with which the contemner of the happiness, offered in that way, is to be punished.”3

Charles Hodge, (1797-1898), an American Presbyterian theologian’s thoughts on the Covenant from his systematic theology:
1. The Plan of Salvation is a Covenant
The plan of salvation is presented under the form of a covenant. This is evident,—
First, from the constant use of the words בְּרִית and διαθήκη in reference to it. With regard to the former of these words, although it is sometimes used for a law, disposition, or arrangement in general, where the elements of a covenant strictly speaking are absent, yet there can be no doubt that according to its prevailing usage in the Old Testament, it means a mutual contract between two or more parties. It is very often used of compacts between individuals, and especially between kings and rulers. Abraham and Abimelech made a covenant. (Genesis 21:27.) Joshua made a covenant with the people. (Joshua 24:25.) Jonathan and David made a covenant. (1 Samuel 18:3.) Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David. (1 Samuel 20:16.) Ahab made a covenant with Benhadad. (1 Kings 20:34.) So we find it constantly. There is therefore no room to doubt that the word בְּרִית when used of transactions between man and man means a mutual compact. We have no right to give it any other sense when used of transactions between God and man. Repeated mention is made of the covenant of God with Abraham, as in Genesis 15:18; 17:13, and afterwards with Isaac and Jacob. Then with the Israelites at Mount Sinai. The Old Testament is founded on this idea of a covenant relation between God and the theocratic people.
The meaning of the word διαθήκη in the Greek Scriptures is just as certain and uniform. It is derived from the verb διατίθημι, to arrange, and, therefore, in ordinary Greek is used for any arrangement, or disposition. In the Scriptures it is almost uniformly used in the sense of a covenant. In the Septuagint it is the translation of בְּרִית in all the cases above referred to. It is the term always used in the New Testament to designate the covenant with Abraham, with the Israelites, and with believers. The old covenant and the new are presented in contrast. Both were covenants. If the word has this meaning when applied to the transaction with Abraham and with the Hebrews, it must have the same meaning when applied to the plan of salvation revealed in the gospel.
Secondly, that the plan of salvation is presented in the Bible under the form of a covenant is proved not only from the signification and usage of the words above mentioned, but also and more decisively from the fact that the elements of a covenant are included in this plan. There are parties, mutual promises or stipulations, and conditions. So that it is in fact a covenant, whatever it may be called. As this is the Scriptural mode of representation, it is of great importance that it should be retained in theology. Our only security for retaining the truths of the Bible, is to adhere to the Scriptures as closely as possible in our mode of presenting the doctrines therein revealed.
[…]

3. Parties to the Covenant
At first view there appears to be some confusion in the statements of the Scriptures as to the parties to this covenant. Sometimes Christ is presented as one of the parties; at others He is represented not as a party, but as the mediator and surety of the covenant; while the parties are represented to be God and his people. As the old covenant was made between God and the Hebrews, and Moses acted as mediator, so the new covenant is commonly represented in the Bible as formed between God and his people, Christ acting as mediator. He is, therefore, called the mediator of a better covenant founded on better promises.
Some theologians propose to reconcile these modes of representation by saying that as the covenant of works was formed with Adam as the representative of his race, and therefore in him with all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation; so the covenant of grace was formed with Christ as the head and representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father. This simplifies the matter, and agrees with the parallel which the Apostle traces between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-21, and 1 Corinthians 15:21,22, 47-49. Still it does not remove the incongruity of Christ’s being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant. There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ, the other between God and his people. These covenants differ not only in their parties, but also in their promises and conditions. Both are so clearly presented in the Bible that they should not be confounded. The latter, the covenant of grace, is founded on the former, the covenant of redemption. Of the one Christ is the mediator and surety; of the other He is one of the contracting parties.
This is a matter which concerns only perspicuity of statement. There is no doctrinal difference between those who prefer the one statement and those who prefer the other; between those who comprise all the facts of Scripture relating to the subject under one covenant between God and Christ as the representative of his people, and those who distribute them under two. The Westminster standards seem to adopt sometimes the one and sometimes the other mode of representation. In the Confession of Faith it is said,
“Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant [i.e., by the covenant of works], the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.”
Here the implication is that God and his people are the parties; for in a covenant the promises are made to one of the parties, and here it is said that life and salvation are promised to sinners, and that faith is demanded of them. The same view is presented in the Shorter Catechism, according to the natural interpretation of the answer to the twentieth question. It is there said,
“God having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.”
In the Larger Catechism, however, the other view is expressly adopted. In the answer to the question,
“With whom was the covenant of grace made?” it is said, “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as his seed.”4
Louis Berkhof, (1873 – 1957), was a Reformed theologian who is best known for his Systematic Theology. His comments on the Biblical definition of the Covenant will be of importance:

1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. The Hebrew word for covenant is always berith, a word of uncertain derivation. The most general opinion is that it is derived from the Hebrew verb barah, to cut, and therefore contains a reminder of the ceremony mentioned in Gen. 15:17. Some, however, prefer to think that it is derived from the Assyrian word beritu, meaning “to bind.” This would at once point to the covenant as a bond. The question of the derivation is of no great importance for the construction of the doctrine. The word berith may denote a mutual voluntary agreement (dipleuric), but also a disposition or arrangement imposed by one party on another (monopleuric). Its exact meaning does not depend on the etymology of the word, nor on the historical development of the concept, but simply on the parties concerned. In the measure in which one of the parties is subordinate and has less to say, the covenant acquires the character of a disposition or arrangement imposed by one party on the other. Berith then becomes synonymous with choq (appointed statute or ordinance), Ex. 34:10; Isa. 59:21 ; Jer. 31:36; 33:20; 34:13. Hence we also find that karath berith (to cut a covenant) is construed not only with the prepositions ’am and ben (with), but also with lamedh (to), Jos. 9:6 ; Isa. 55:3 ; 61:8 ; Jer. 32:40. Naturally, when God establishes a covenant with man, this monopleuric character is very much in evidence, for God and man are not equal parties. God is the Sovereign who imposes His ordinances upon His creatures.

2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In the Septuagint the word berith is rendered diatheke in every passage where it occurs with the exception of Deut. 9:15 (marturion) and I Kings 11:11 (entole). The word diatheke is confined to this usage, except in four passages. This use of the word seems rather peculiar in view of the fact that it is not the usual Greek word for covenant, but really denotes a disposition, and consequently also a testament. The ordinary word for covenant is suntheke. Did the translators intend to substitute another idea for the covenant idea? Evidently not, for in Isa. 28:15 they use the two words synonymously, and there diatheke evidently means a pact or an agreement. Hence there is no doubt about it that they ascribe this meaning to diatheke. But the question remains, Why did they so generally avoid the use of suntheke and substitute for it a word which denotes a disposition rather than an agreement? In all probability the reason lies in the fact that in the Greek world the covenant idea expressed by suntheke was based to such an extent on the legal equality of the parties, that it could not, without considerable modification, be incorporated in the Scriptural system of thought. The idea that the priority belongs to God in the establishment of the covenant, and that He sovereignly imposes His covenant on man was absent from the usual Greek word. Hence the substitution of the word in which this was very prominent. The word diatheke thus, like many other words, received a new meaning, when it became the vehicle of divine thought. This change is important in connection with the New Testament use of the word. There has been considerable difference of opinion respecting the proper translation of the word. In about half of the passages in which it occurs the Holland and the Authorized Versions render the word “covenant,” while in the other half they render it “testament.” The American Revised Version, however, renders it “covenant” throughout, except in Heb. 9:16,17. It is but natural, therefore, that the question should be raised, What is the New Testament meaning of the word? Some claim that it has its classical meaning of disposition or testament, wherever it is found in the New Testament, while others maintain that it means testament in some places, but that in the great majority of passages the covenant idea is prominently in the foreground. This is undoubtedly the correct view. We would expect a priorily that the New Testament usage would be in general agreement with that of the Septuagint; and a careful study of the relevant passages shows that the American Revised Version is undoubtedly on the right track, when it translates diatheke by “testament” only in Heb. 9:16,17. In all probability there is not a single other passage where this rendering would be correct, not even II Cor. 3:6,14. The fact that several translations of the New Testament substituted “testament” for “covenant” in so many places is probably due to three causes: (a) the desire to emphasize the priority of God in the transaction; (b) the assumption that the word had to be rendered as much as possible in harmony with Heb. 9:16,17; and (c) the influence of the Latin translation, which uniformly rendered diatheke by “testamentum.”5

Herman Ridderbos is considered one of the twentieth century’s most influential New Testament Reformed theologians. His views of covenant, will likewise be of importance:

“In the Septuagint διαθηκη is regularly used as the translation of the covenant of God (berith), rather than the apparently more available word συνθηκη. In this there is already an expression of the fact that the covenant of God does not have the character of a contract between two parties, but rather that of a one-sided grant. This corrresponds with the covenant-idea in the Old Testament, in which berith, even in human relations, sometimes refers to a one-party guarantee which a more favored person gives a less favored one (cf. Josh. 9:6, 15; 1 Sam. 11:1; Ezek. 17:13). And it is most peculiarly true of the divine covenantal deed that it is a one-party guarantee. It comes not from man at all, but from God alone. This does not rule out the fact, of course, that it involves religious and ethical obligation, namely that of faith and obedience (Gen. 17:9-10), and that thus the reciprocal element is taken up in the covenant. Still, such an obligation is not always named, and there is no room to speak at all of a correlation, in the sense that each determines and holds in balance the terms of the other, between the promise of God and the human appropriation of it. It is not the idea of parity, or even that of reciprocity, but that of validity which determines the essence of the covenant-idea. God’s covenant with Noah, for example, lays down no stipulations, and it has the character of a one-party guarantee. It does of course require the faith of man, but is in its fulfillment in no respect dependent on the faith, an it is validly in force for all coming generations, believing and unbelieving (cf. Gen. 9:9). And in the making of the covenant with Abraham, too, in Gen. 15, the fulfillment of the law is in symbolical form made to depend wholly upon the divine deed. Abraham is deliberately excluded — he is the astonished spectator (cf. Gen. 15:12, 17). True, in the Sinaitic covenant, the stipulations which God lays down for his people sometimes take the form of actual conditions, so that the realization of the promise is conditioned by them (cf. Lev. 26:15 ff. and Deut. 31:20), but this structural change in the covenant-revelation can be explained in connection with the wider promulgation — it is to extend to the whole nation of Israel — of the covenant, by means of which the covenant-relationship takes on a wider and more external meaning. It comprises not merely the unconditional guarantee of God to those who walk in the faith and obedience of their father Abraham: it also lays down a special bond constituted by the offer of salvation, on the one side, and by responsibility, on the other side, for those who will not appear to manifest a oneness with their spiritual ancestor. Meanwhile, of course, the fact remains that in all the different dispensations of the covenant of grace, God’s unconditional promise to Abraham constitutes its heart and kernel. Consequently, when the “new covenant” (Jer. 31:33) is announced, one thing is expressly made clear: namely, that the disposition which is indispensable for the human reception of the covenant-benefits will itself be granted as the gift of God Himself. In other words, that very thing which in the Sinaitic covenant was so plainly set down as a condition, belongs in the new covenant to the benefits promised by God in the covenant itself. The New Testament concept of διαθηκη lies quite in the line of that development, particularly as Paul thinks of it, as is evident in [Galatians 3 and 4], and in such a place as Rom. 9. That New Testament concept points to a salvation whose benefits are guaranteed by God and as a matter of fact are actually given, because in Christ and through Him the conditions of the covenant are fulfilled.”6

The Significance of the Abrahamic Covenant seen in Genesis 15:17 from Keil and Delitzsch:

“When the sun had gone down, and thick darkness had come on (היה impersonal), “behold a smoking furnace, and (with) a fiery torch, which passed between those pieces,” – a description of what Abram saw in his deep prophetic sleep, corresponding to the mysterious character of the whole proceeding. תּנּוּר, a stove, is a cylindrical fire-pot, such as is used in the dwelling-houses of the East. The phenomenon, which passed through the pieces as they lay opposite to one another, resembled such a smoking stove, from which a fiery torch, i.e., a brilliant flame, was streaming forth. In this symbol Jehovah manifested Himself to Abram, just as He afterwards did to the people of Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire. Passing through the pieces, He ratified the covenant which He made with Abram. His glory was enveloped in fire and smoke, the produce of the consuming fire, – both symbols of the wrath of God (cf. Psalm 18:9, and Hengstenberg in loc.), whose fiery zeal consumes whatever opposes it (vid., Exodus 3:2). – To establish and give reality to the covenant to be concluded with Abram, Jehovah would have to pass through the seed of Abram when oppressed by the Egyptians and threatened with destruction, and to execute judgment upon their oppressors (Exodus 7:4; Exodus 12:12). In this symbol, the passing of the Lord between the pieces meant something altogether different from the oath of the Lord by Himself in Genesis 22:16, or by His life in Deuteronomy 32:40, or by His soul in Amos 6:8 and Jeremiah 51:14. It set before Abram the condescension of the Lord to his seed, in the fearful glory of His majesty as the judge of their foes. Hence the pieces were not consumed by the fire; for the transaction had reference not to a sacrifice, which God accepted, and in which the soul of the offerer was to ascend in the smoke to God, but to a covenant in which God came down to man. From the nature of this covenant, it followed, however, that God alone went through the pieces in a symbolical representation of Himself, and not Abram also. For although a covenant always establishes a reciprocal relation between two individuals, yet in that covenant which God concluded with a man, the man did not stand on an equality with God, but God established the relation of fellowship by His promise and His gracious condescension to the man, who was at first purely a recipient, and was only qualified and bound to fulfil the obligations consequent upon the covenant by the reception of gifts of grace.”7

Puritan, John Gill says this on the Abrahamic Covenant:

“God made a covenant with Abram, as appears from Genesis 15:18; and, as a confirmation of it, passed between the pieces in a lamp of fire, showing that he was and would be the light and salvation of his people, Abram’s seed, and an avenger of their enemies; only God passed between the pieces, not Abram, this covenant being as others God makes with men, only on one side; God, in covenanting with men, promises and gives something unto them, but men give nothing to him, but receive from him, as was the case between God and Abram: however, it is very probable, that this lamp of fire consumed the pieces, in like manner as fire from heaven used to fall upon and consume the sacrifices, in token of God’s acceptance of them.”8

The following is an excellent overview of Covenant theology and the covenants from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Theological covenants

The nature of God’s covenantal relationship with his creation is not considered automatic or of necessity. Rather, God voluntarily condescends to establish the connection as a covenant, wherein the terms of the relationship are set down by God alone according to his own will.

In particular, covenant theology teaches that God has established one, eternal covenant, under different administrations.[1] Having created man in His image as a free creature with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, God entered into a covenant of works whereby the mandate was “do this and live” (Romans 10:5, Galatians 3:12). “Like Adam, they have trespassed the covenant” (Hosea 6:7) is the classic reference to the covenant of works; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24 the reference that explains God’s work of redemption in the Covenant of Grace.[2]

Covenant of redemption

The covenant of redemption is the eternal agreement within the Godhead in which the Father appointed the Son Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit to redeem his elect people from the guilt and power of sin. God appointed Christ to live a life of perfect obedience to the law and to die a penal, substitutionary, sacrificial death (see penal substitution aspect of the atonement) as the covenantal representative for all who trust in him. Some covenant theologians have denied the intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption, or have questioned the notion of the Son’s works leading to the reward of gaining a people for God, or have challenged the covenantal nature of this arrangement. Those who have upheld this covenant point to passages such as Philippians 2:5-11 and Revelation 5:9-10 to support the principle of works leading to reward; and to passages like Psalm 110 in support that this is depicted in Scripture as a covenant .

Covenant of works

The covenant of works was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam who represented all mankind as a federal head. (Romans 5:12-21) It promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. Adam, and all mankind in Adam, broke the covenant, thus standing condemned. The covenant of works continues to function after the fall as the moral law.

Though it is not explicitly called a covenant in the opening chapters of Genesis, the comparison of the representative headship of Christ and Adam, as well as passages like Hosea 6:7 have been interpreted to support the idea. It has also been noted that Jeremiah 33:20-26 (cf. 31:35-36) compares the covenant with David to God’s covenant with the day and the night and the statutes of heaven and earth which God laid down at creation. This has led some to understand all of creation as covenantal: the decree establishing the natural laws governing heaven and earth. The covenant of works might then be seen as the moral law component of the broader creational covenant. Thus the covenant of works has also been called the covenant of creation, indicating that it is not added but constitutive of the human race; the covenant of nature in recognition of its consonance with the natural law in the human heart; and the covenant of life in regard to the promised reward.

Covenant of grace

The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a “seed” of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace.

The covenant of grace became the basis for all future covenants that God made with mankind such as with Noah (Genesis 6, 9), with Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17), with Moses (Exodus 19-24), with David (2 Samuel 7), and finally in the New Covenant founded and fulfilled in Christ. These individual covenants are called the biblical covenants because they are explicitly described in the Bible. Under the covenantal overview of the Bible, submission to God’s rule and living in accordance with his moral law (expressed concisely in the Ten Commandments) is a response to grace – never something which can earn God’s acceptance (legalism). Even in his giving of the Ten Commandments, God introduces his law by reminding the Israelites that he is the one who brought them out of slavery in Egypt (grace).

Adamic covenant

Covenant theology first sees a covenant of works administered with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Upon Adam’s failure, God established the covenant of grace in the promised seed Genesis 3:15, and shows his redeeming care in clothing Adam and Eve in garments of skin — perhaps picturing the first instance of animal sacrifice. The specific covenants after the fall of Adam are seen as administered under the overarching theological covenant of grace.

Noahic covenant

The Noahic covenant is found in Genesis 8:20-9:17. Although redemption motifs are prominent as Noah and his family are delivered from the judgment waters, the narrative of the flood plays on the creation motifs of Genesis 1 as de-creation and re-creation. The formal terms of the covenant itself more reflect a reaffirmation of the universal created order, than a particular redemptive promise.

Abrahamic covenant

The Abrahamic covenant is found in Genesis chapters 12, 15, and 17. In contrast with the covenants made with Adam or Noah which were universal in scope, this covenant was with a particular people. Abraham is promised a seed and a land, although he would not see its fruition within his own lifetime. The Book of Hebrews explains that he was looking to a better and heavenly land, a city with foundations, whose builder and architect is God (11:8-16). The Apostle Paul writes that the promised seed refers in particular to Christ (Galatians 3:16).

The Abrahamic covenant is

1. Exclusive: It is only for Abraham and his (spiritual) descendants. Genesis 17:7
2. Everlasting: It is not replaced by any later covenant. Genesis 17:7
3. Accepted by faith, not works: “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. “Genesis 15:6
4. The external sign of entering into the Abrahamic covenant was circumcision. Genesis 17:10, but it has to be matched by an internal change, the circumcision of the heart. Jeremiah 4:4
5. According to Paul, since the Abrahamic covenant is eternal, the followers of Christ are “children of Abraham” and therefore part of this covenant through faith. “Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.” Galatians 3:7
6. Paul makes it clear that baptism is the external sign of faith in Christ (“…you were baptized into Christ…”), and that through faith in Christ the believer is part of the Abrahamic covenant (“Abraham’s seed”). This provides the basis for the doctrine that baptism is the New Testament sign of God’s covenant with Abraham.

Galatians 3:26 “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Mosaic covenant

The Mosaic covenant, found in Exodus 19-24 and the book of Deuteronomy, expands on the Abrahamic promise of a people and a land. Repeatedly mentioned is the promise of the Lord, “I will be your God and you will be my people” (cf. Exodus 6:7, Leviticus 26:12), particularly displayed as his glory-presence comes to dwell in the midst of the people. This covenant is the one most in view by the term Old Covenant.

Although it is a gracious covenant beginning with God’s redemptive action (cf. Exodus 20:1-2), a layer of law is prominent. Concerning this aspect of the Mosaic Covenant, Charles Hodge makes three points in his Commentary on Second Corinthians: (1) The Law of Moses was in first place a reenactment of the covenant of works; viewed this way, it is the ministration of condemnation and death. (2) It was also a national covenant, giving national blessings based on national obedience; in this way it was purely legal. (3) In the sacrificial system, it points to the Gospel of salvation through a mediator.

Davidic covenant

The Davidic covenant is found in 2 Samuel 7. The Lord proclaims that he will build a house and lineage for David, establishing his kingdom and throne forever. This covenant is appealed to as God preserves David’s descendants despite their wickedness (cf. 1 Kings 11:26-39, 15:1-8; 2 Kings 8:19, 19:32-34), although it did not stop judgment from finally arriving (compare 2 Kings 21:7, 23:26-27; Jeremiah 13:12-14). Among the prophets of the exile, there is hope of restoration under a Davidic king who will bring peace and justice (cf. Book of Ezekiel 37:24-28).

New Covenant

The New Covenant is anticipated with the hopes of the Davidic messiah, and most explicitly predicted by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 31:34). At the Last Supper, Jesus alludes to this prophecy, as well as to prophecies such as Isaiah 49:8, when he says that the cup of the Passover meal is “the New Covenant in [his] blood.” This use of the Old Testament typology is developed further in the Epistle to the Hebrews (see especially chs. 7-10). Jesus is the last Adam and Israel’s hope and consolation: he is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17-18). He is the prophet greater than Jonah (Matt 12:41), and the Son over the house where Moses was a servant (Hebrews 3:5-6), leading his people to the heavenly promised land. He is the high priest greater than Aaron, offering up himself as the perfect sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 9:12, 26). He is the king greater than Solomon (Matthew 12:42), ruling forever on David’s throne (Luke 1:32). The term “New Testament” comes from the Latin translation of the Greek New Covenant and is most often used for the collection of books in the Bible, can also refer to the New Covenant as a theological concept.

Covenantal signs and seals In Reformed theology, a sacrament is usually defined as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.[3] Since covenant theology today is mainly Protestant and Reformed in its outlook, proponents view Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the only two sacraments in this sense, which are sometimes called “church ordinances.” Along with the preached word, they are identified as an ordinary means of grace for salvation. The benefits of these rites do not occur from participating in the rite itself (ex opere operato), but through the power of the Holy Spirit as they are received by faith.

The above outline is online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

References from Wikipedia:

1. Westminster Confession of Faith. vii, 5,6.
2. M. E. Osterhaven, “Covenant Theology” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter Elwell, ed. 279-80.
3. Westminster Confession of Faith”. Ch. XXVII Sec. 1.

From the Westminster Confession and Larger Catechism:

Covenant of Works:

The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised
to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal
obedience. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 7.2)

Of God’s Covenant with Man:

God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his
posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the
fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and
ability to keep it. (WCF, 19.1 Law of God)
The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his
posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and
fell with him in that first transgression. (Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 22)

Covenant of Grace:

Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was
pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely
offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that
they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal
life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 7.3)

Of God’s Covenant with Man:

This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in
reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance,
with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed. (WCF, 7.4)

God does not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell
by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works; but of his
mere love and mercy delivers his elect out of it, and brings them into an estate of
salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace. (Westminster Larger Catechism, Questions 30)

In conclusion, God’s Word is profitable for doctrine (2Timothy 3:16). The study of Scriptural theology is the most important that we can ever do. By God’s grace, may we be ever diligent!

Notes:

1. The Blood of the Everlasting Covenant, A Sermon (No. 273) Delivered on Sabbath Morning, September 4th, 1859, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0277.htm
2. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, translated by G. M. Giger (Phillipsburg, 1992), Locus 8, Q3, para 3 (1.574).
3. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Reformation Heritage Books, reprinted 2010), p. 45.
4. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1982), pp. 354-358
5. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1949), pp. 262,263.
6. Herman Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 130-31.
7. Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans), Reprinted 1986, p. 216,217.
8. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments 9 Volumes, John, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 286,287.

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com
where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 30 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur.

Jack Kettler
5 Star Presidential Director and
Top 20 Global Business Builder Award Winner!
Curious, for an automatic e-mail reply go to: Jack@KettlerWellness.com

In the Scriptures, do we see a connection between the drawing of the Father and those who believe in Christ? This a simple yes or no question. The way you answer this all depends on your view of the fall of man, and man’s sin, and your understanding of God’s grace. To start, we will take a brief excursus, looking at some important passages from Scripture and some comments from two notable individuals from church history.

Man’s fallen state according to the following Scriptures:

Genesis 6:5
Psalms 14:2-3
Isaiah 64:6
Isaiah 65:12
Jeremiah 13:23; 17:9
Mark 7:21-23
John 14:17
Romans 3:9-18
Romans 3:23
Romans 5:12, 14-19
Romans 8:7
Ephesians 2:1-5
Titus 1:15
1 John 1:8

This list of Scriptures is far from complete, but they do without a doubt, indite man for his rebellion against God, and establish the fact, that man is dead in his sins and trespasses. For another study dealing with the fall of man, the reader should consult: All of Mankind: Dead in Sin!

Can sinners come to Christ in their own strength?

In the following quotes from Martin Luther from his Bondage of the Will, he is responding to the Dutch humanist, Erasmus, from Rotterdam. Erasmus’ argued in support of man’s natural ability to obey the gospel and keep God’s commands. Erasmus believed that all of God’s commands, if they were to be obeyed, established that man had “free-will” or natural ability to keep God’s law. This is the typical Arminian humanistic reasoning. The humanist is offended to think that God would expect or require man to do something he did not have the natural ability to do. Never mind that man lost this though Adam’s sin, and our own wicked rejection of His law Word.
“Let all the ‘free-will’ in the world do all it can with all its strength; it will never give rise to a single instance of ability to avoid being hardened if God does not give the Spirit, or of meriting mercy if it is left to its own strength.”1

“But if the foreknowledge and omnipotence of God are conceded, it naturally follows by irrefutable logic that we were not made by ourselves, nor live by ourselves, nor do anything by ourselves, by his omnipotence. Seeing that He foreknew that we should be what we are, and now makes us such, and moves and governs us as such, how, pray, can it be pretended that it is open to us to become something other than that which He foreknew and is now bringing about? So the foreknowledge and omnipotence of God are diametrically opposed to our ‘free-will’…This omnipotence and foreknowledge of God, I repeat, utterly destroy the doctrine of ‘free-will.’”2

“’Free-will’ is nothing but the slave of sin, death and Satan, not doing anything, nor able to do or attempt anything, but evil!”3

Is Luther correct or Erasmus? That is a question our Arminian friends should ask themselves, hopefully after reading Luther’s book, The Bondage of the Will. The Scriptures on man’s fallen state listed above, make clear, the desperateness of the human condition. Luther was exactly right in his debate with Erasmus.

The reader can get a copy of Luther’s De Servo Arbitrio “On the Enslaved Will” or “The Bondage of Will” in a PDF format at: http://undergroundnotes.com/graphics2/luther_arbitrio.pdf

How exactly do men come to Christ, if their condition is hopeless and they are dead in their sins?

“They must be brought unto Christ, yea, drawn unto him; for. Men, even the elect, have too many infirmities to come to Christ without help from heaven; inviting will not do.”4

Because of the hopelessness of the human condition, the sinner’s only way out, is for God’s grace to make him alive in Christ. Regeneration is our only hope, and it will require God’s action to quicken us. Our three passages in John chapter 6 will therefore be of great comfort to God people.

Scripture and Reformed Commentary:

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out… No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day… And he said, Therefore said I to you, that no man can come to me, except it were given to him of my Father.” John 6:37,44,65

Key word phrase, “shall come” in John 6:37:

πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει καὶ τὸν
NAS: gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes
KJV: giveth me shall come to me;
INT: to me will come and him that

hékó: to have come, be present
Original Word: ἥκω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: hékó
Phonetic Spelling: (hay’-ko)
Short Definition: I have come, am present
Definition: I have come, am present, have arrived.
– Strong’s Concordance

Key word “draw” in John 6:44:

helkó: to drag
Original Word: ἑλκύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: helkó
Phonetic Spelling: (hel-koo’-o)
Short Definition: I drag, draw, pull, persuade
Definition: I drag, draw, pull, persuade, unsheathe.
– Strong’s Concordance

One of the purposes of this study is to see the connection between the “All that the Father giveth” to Christ in 6:37 are the same ones that come to Christ because the “Father which hath sent me draw him” in 6:44. It is surprising that many Christians miss this. I suspect it because of prior theological commitment. (emphasis mine)

Calvin’s commentary on John is brilliant. Calvin’s commentaries are the the gold standard on which all modern commentaries have been measured. Let us consider Calvin on John:

37. All that the Father giveth me. That their unbelief may not detract anything from his doctrine, he says, that the cause of so great obstinacy is, that they are reprobate, and do not belong to the flock of God. His intention, therefore, in distinguishing here between the elect and the reprobate is, that the authority of his doctrine may remain unimpaired, though there are many who do not believe it. For, on the one hand, ungodly men calumniate and utterly despise the word of God, because they are not moved by reverence for it; and, on the other hand, many weak and ignorant persons entertain doubts whether that which is rejected by a great part of the world be actually the word of God. Christ meets this offense, when he affirms, that all those who do not believe are not his own, and that we need not wonder if such persons have no relish for the word of God, but that it is embraced by all the children of God. In the first place, he says, that all whom the Father giveth him come to him; by which words he means, that faith is not a thing which depends on the will of men, so that this man and that man indiscriminately and at random believe, but that God elects those whom he hands over, as it were, to his Son; for when he says, that whatever is given cometh, we infer from it, that all do not come. Again, we infer, that God works in his elect by such an efficacy of the Holy Spirit, that not one of them falls away; for the word give has the same meaning as if Christ had said, “Those whom the Father hath chosen he regenerates, and gives to me, that they may obey the Gospel.”

And him that cometh to me I will not cast out. This is added for the consolation of the godly, that they may be fully persuaded that they have free access to Christ by faith, and that, as soon as they have placed themselves under his protection and safeguard, they will be graciously received by him. Hence it follows, that the doctrine of the Gospel will be salutary to all believers, because no man becomes a disciple of Christ who does not, on the other hand, feel and experience him to be a good and faithful teacher

44. No man can come to me, unless the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. He does not merely accuse them of wickedness, but likewise reminds them, that it is a peculiar gift of God to embrace the doctrine which is exhibited by him; which he does, that their unbelief may not disturb weak minds. For many are so foolish that, in the things of God, they depend on the opinions of men; in consequence of which, they entertain suspicions about the Gospel, as soon as they see that it is not received by the world. Unbelievers, on the other hand, flattering themselves in their obstinacy, have the hardihood to condemn the Gospel because it does not please them. On the contrary, therefore, Christ declares that the doctrine of the Gospel, though it is preached to all without exception, cannot be embraced by all, but that a new understanding and a new perception are requisite; and, therefore, that faith does not depend on the will of men, but that it is God who gives it.

Unless the Father draw him. To come to Christ being here used metaphorically for believing, the Evangelist, in order to carry out the metaphor in the apposite clause, says that those persons are drawn whose understandings God enlightens, and whose hearts he bends and forms to the obedience of Christ. The statement amounts to this, that we ought not to wonder if many refuse to embrace the Gospel; because no man will ever of himself be able to come to Christ, but God must first approach him by his Spirit; and hence it follows that all are not drawn,but that God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected. True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has formed their hearts to obey him.

65. Therefore have I told you. He again states that faith is an uncommon and remarkable gift of the Spirit of God, that we may not be astonished that the Gospel is not received in every place and by all. For, being ill qualified to turn to our advantage the course of events, we think more meanly of the Gospel, because the whole world does not assent to it. The thought arises in our mind, How is it possible that the greater part of men shall deliberately reject their salvation? Christ therefore assigns a reason why there are so few believers, namely, because no man, whatever may be his acuteness, 174can arrive at faith by his own sagacity; for all are blind, until they are illuminated by the Spirit of God, and therefore they only partake of so great a blessing whom the Father deigns to make partakers of it. If this grace were bestowed on all without exception, it would have been unseasonable and inappropriate to have mentioned it in this passage; for we must understand that it was Christ’s design to show that not many believe the Gospel, because faith proceeds only from the secret revelation of the Spirit.

Unless it be given him by my Father. He now uses the word give instead of the word which he formerly used, draw; by which he means that there is no other reason why God draws, than because out of free grace he loves us; for what we obtain by the gift and grace of God, no man procures for himself by his own industry.5

Excerpts from Matthew Henry’s Commentary:

Verses 36-46 – The discovery of their guilt, danger, and remedy, by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, makes men willing and glad to come, and to give u every thing which hinders applying to him for salvation. The Father’ will is, that not one of those who were given to the Son, should be rejected or lost by him. No one will come, till Divine grace has subdued, and in part changed his heart; therefore no one who comes will ever be cast out. The gospel finds none willing to be saved in the humbling, holy manner, made known therein; but God draws with his word and the Holy Ghost; and man’s duty is to hear and learn; that is to say, to receive the grace offered, and consent to the promise. None hath seen the Father but his beloved Son; and the Jews must expect to be taught by his inward power upon their minds, and by his word, and the ministers whom he sent among them.6

In commenting on verse 37, the Puritan theologian, John Gill says:

All that the Father giveth me,…. The “all” design not the apostles only, who were given to Christ as such; for these did not all, in a spiritual manner, come to him, and believe in him; one of them was a devil, and the son of perdition; much less every individual of mankind: these are, in some sense, given to Christ to subserve some ends of his mediatorial kingdom, and are subject to his power and control, but do not come to him, and believe in him: but the whole body of the elect are here meant, who, when they were chosen by God the Father, were given and put into the hands of Christ, as his seed, his spouse, his sheep, his portion, and inheritance, and to be saved by him with an everlasting salvation; which is an instance of love and care on the Father’s part, to give them to Christ; and of grace and condescension in him to receive them, and take the care of them; and of distinguishing goodness to them: and though Christ here expresses this act of his Father’s in the present tense, “giveth”, perhaps to signify the continuance and unchangeableness of it; yet he delivers it in the past tense, in John 6:39, “hath given”; and so all the Oriental versions render it here. And it certainly respects an act of God, antecedent to coming to Christ, and believing in him, which is a fruit and effect of electing love, as is clear from what follows:

shall come unto me; such who are given to Christ in eternal election, and in the everlasting covenant of grace, shall, and do, in time, come to Christ, and believe in him to the saving of their souls; which is not to be ascribed to, any power and will in them, but to the power and grace of God. It is not here said, that such who are given to Christ have a “power” to come to him, or “may” come if they will, but they shall come; efficacious grace will bring them to Christ, as poor perishing sinners, to venture on him for life and salvation:

and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out; such who come to Christ in a spiritual manner, and are brought to believe in him truly and really, he not only receives kindly, but keeps and preserves them by his power, and will not cast them out, or thrust them from him into perdition: the words are very strongly and emphatically expressed in the original, “I will not, not, or never, never, cast out without”; or cast out of doors. Christ will never cast them out of his affections; nor out of his arms; nor out of that family that is named of him; nor out of, and from his church, which is his body, and of which they are members; nor out of a state of justification and salvation; and therefore they shall never perish, but have everlasting life. The three glorious doctrines of grace, of eternal election, efficacious grace in conversion, and the final perseverance of the saints, are clearly contained in these words.

On verse 44 John Gill makes the following observations:

No man can come to me,…. That is, by faith, as in John 6:35; for otherwise they could corporeally come to him, but not spiritually; because they had neither power nor will of themselves; being dead in trespasses and sins, and impotent to everything that is spiritual: and whilst men are in a state of unregeneracy, blindness, and darkness, they see no need of coming to Christ, nor anything in him worth coming for; they are prejudiced against him, and their hearts are set on other things; and besides, coming to Christ and believing in Christ being the same thing, it is certain faith is not of a man’s self, it is the gift of God, and the operation of his Spirit; and therefore efficacious grace must be exerted to enable a soul to come to Christ; which is expressed in the following words, except the Father which hath sent me, draw him: which is not to be understood of moral persuasion, or a being persuaded and prevailed upon to come to Christ by the consideration of the mighty works which God had done to justify that he was the true Messiah, but of the internal and powerful influence of the grace of God; for this act of drawing is something distinct from, and superior to, both doctrine and miracles. The Capernaites had heard the doctrine of Christ, which was taught with authority, and had seen his miracles, which were full proofs of his being the Messiah, and yet believed not, but murmured at his person and parentage. This gave occasion to Christ to observe to them, that something more than these was necessary to their coming to him, or savingly believing in him; even the powerful and efficacious grace of the Father in drawing: and if it be considered what men in conversion are drawn off “from” and “to”, from their beloved lusts and darling righteousness; to look unto, and rely upon Christ alone for salvation; from that which was before so very agreeable, to that which, previous to this work, was so very disagreeable; to what else can this be ascribed, but to unfrustrable and insuperable grace? but though this act of drawing is an act of power, yet not of force; God in drawing of unwilling, makes willing in the day of his power: he enlightens the understanding, bends the will, gives an heart of flesh, sweetly allures by the power of his grace, and engages the soul to come to Christ, and give up itself to him; he draws with the bands of love. Drawing, though it supposes power and influence, yet not always coaction and force: music draws the ear, love the heart, and pleasure the mind. “Trahit sua quemque voluptas”, says the poet. The Jews have a saying (t), that the proselytes, in the days of the Messiah, shall be all of them, , “proselytes drawn”: that is, such as shall freely and voluntarily become proselytes, as those who are drawn by the Father are. And I will raise him at the last day; See Gill on John 6:40; compare with this verse John 6:40.

And on verse 65, Gill says:

And he said, therefore said I unto you,…. Referring to John 6:44, where the substance of what is here said, is there delivered; though the Ethiopic version reads, therefore I say unto you, what follows:

that no man can come to me, except it be given him of my Father; which is the same, as to be drawn by the Father; for faith in Christ is the gift of God, and coming to him, is owing to efficacious grace, and is not the produce of man’s power and freewill.7

Some excerpts from RC Sproul concerning John 6:44:

“First, we notice that Jesus said “no one.” This is a universal negative statement. It does not mean that some cannot come unless the Father draws them. It means absolutely no one can come unless God does something first. Mankind is so depraved in fallen-ness that, apart from the irresistible grace of God, no one would ever turn to Christ.

Second, we notice that Jesus said “can.” Remember the difference between the words can and may. Can means “is able,” while may means “has permission.” Jesus is not saying that no one has permission to come to him. Rather, he says that no one is able to come to him. This is the biblical doctrine of man’s total inability.

Third, we notice the word “unless.” This introduces an exception. Apart from this exception, no one would ever turn to Christ.

Finally we come to the word “draw.” Some have said that draw only means “woo” or “entice.” That is not the case, however. In James 2:6 we read, “Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?” In Acts 16:19 we find, “They dragged them into the marketplace.” The same Greek word is used in all three verses. Obviously, enticement is not in view here in John 6:44. Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says that the word translated draw in John 6:44 means “to compel by irresistible authority.” It was used in classical Greek for drawing water from a well. We do not entice or persuade water to leave the well; we force it against gravity to come up by drawing it. So it is with us. We are so depraved that God must drag us to himself.”8

Summary of Being Drawn by the Father in: John 6:37, 44, 65:

We see that no one can come to Christ without being “drawn” in John 6:44.
“Draw” is equivalent to “compel” as seen in James 2:6, and Acts 16:19.
In John 12:32, when it says draw “all men,” this means all types of men, Gentiles and Jews.
It is clear that all who are “drawn,” will come as seen in John 6:37.
Moreover, no one who comes “will I cast out” as seen in John 6:37.
Therefore, those who are “drawn,” were “given” faith in John 6:65.
And finally, not all believe, because not all were “given” in John 6:65.

Notes:

1. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, (Old Tappan, New Jersey, Fleming H. Revell Company) 1957, p.202.
2. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, (Old Tappan, New Jersey, Fleming H. Revell Company), 1957, p.216,217.
3. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, (Old Tappan, New Jersey, Fleming H. Revell Company), 1957, p.301.
4. John Bunyan,The Works of John Bunyan, Volume 1-3, (Sovereign Grace Publishers, Incorporated), 2001. Volume 1, 209/419.
5. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, John, Volume XV1I, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), pp.251-257,276.
6. Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, Fourth printing 1985) pp. 1951-1955.
7. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments 9 Volumes, John, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, pp.215,216,221,222,234.
8. RC Sproul, Chosen By God, (Tyndale House, Wheaton, Illinois), 1986, pp.67-69.

Let it be widely proclaimed:

Psalm 110 A Psalm Of David.

1The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
2The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. 3Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth. 4The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” 5The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. 6He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. 7He will drink from a brook beside the way; therefore he will lift up his head.

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, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

John 1:1 and the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by Jack Kettler 2012

“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” John 1:1 The New World Translation (underlining emphasis mine)

Is this above quoted translation of John 1:1 accurate? For one thing, if this translation were accurate, the New Testament here would be in contradiction to the rest of Scripture and would be teaching polytheism. Why? Because the passage would be talking about two distinct Gods. The verse would be saying that there exists in the beginning, God, and one with god, the Word, thus equaling two Gods.

Many people are long-familiar with the following translation:

“and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 King James Version

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

“En archE en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos” Greek transliteration

“IN beginning was the word and the word was toward the God and God was the word” Literal Greek

Who is responsible for this translation of John 1:1 and the New World Translation of the whole Bible and were they qualified to do so?

The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Jehovah’s Witnesses has never made public the names of the translators. According to former members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization, the members of the translation committee were Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization), Frederick W. Franz (Vice-President), George D. Gangas, and Albert D. Schroeder. According to Raymond V. Franz, the “principal translator of the Society’s New World Translation” was Frederick W. Franz.” Also, according to Raymond V. Franz, Frederick W. Franz, was the only one with even a limited knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt a translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for a mere two years in the University of Cincinnati and was self-taught in Hebrew.1

An initial response to the horrific mis-translation of the Scriptures by this group:

According to Dr. Anthony A. Hoekema:

“Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself.”2

Dr. Anthony A. Hoekema was Professor of Systematic Theology, at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan and the author of one of the most highly respected reference works on the cults including a section on the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Let now look at what a number of Greek scholars think about The New World translation of John 1:1:

Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Jehovah’s Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):
“A shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.’”
“But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.”
“I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as the Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures…. It is a distortion–not a translation.”
“The translators of the New World Translation are ‘diabolical deceivers.’”

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):
“A frightful mistranslation.” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.”

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:
“This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article ‘a’ means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase ‘the Word was a god.’”

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:
“The Jehovah’s Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:
“I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”

Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:
“I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah’s Witnesses…I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language.”

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:
“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ‘…the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:
“Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase ‘And the Word was God.’ Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…’a god’ would be totally indefensible.”

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:
“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. ‘My Lord and my God.’ – John 20:28”

Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:
“The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word “THEOS” is places at the beginning for emphasis.”

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:
“No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as ‘the Word was a god.’ There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct….I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian.”

Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:
“With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek.” [Responsible for the Good News Bible – The committee worked under him.]

Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):
“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word…in the third clause ‘the Word’ is declared to be ‘God’ and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”

Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):
“So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth.”

But Wait, there is one translation that agrees with the New World Translation:

It is Johannes Greber’s bible. This one “bible” translates John 1:1 as “the Word was a god” Who is Johannes Greber? Greber was a Catholic priest who became a spiritualist. He claimed to get his “translation” as a spirit medium with help from God’s Spirit World.

In addition to his translation of the New Testament, Greber wrote another book titled, “Communication with the Spirit World,” published in 1932, containing 432 pages which details his experiences as a medium. For example, the Johannes Greber Foundation describing Greber’s method of translation, goes as follows: “At times he was give the correct answers in large illuminated letters and words passing before his eyes. Other times he was given the correct answers during prayer meetings. His wife, a spirit medium of God’s Spirit world was often instrumental in conveying the correct answer from God’s Messenger to Pastor Greber.” * (underlining emphasis mine)

The Jehovah’s Witnesses excitedly referenced for a number of years Greber’s New Testament translation until they found out about Greber’s occultic connections. Then they wisely deleted all references to Greber’s material from their publications, thus proving that “even a broken clock is right, twice a day.”

* Greber’s occultic method of translating reminds one of how Joseph Smith would supposedly translate the Book of Mormon from his golden plates. According to David Whitmer one of the three witnesses to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”5 (underlining emphasis mine)

What do true scholars say about the proper translation of John 1:1?

A.T. Robertson, a renowned scholar of the Greek New Testament:

And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of the Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.3

Benjamin B. Warfield professor of theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921 said:

“And the Word was with God.” The language is pregnant. It is not merely coexistence with God that is asserted, as of two beings standing side by side, united in local relation, or even in a common conception. What is suggested is an active relation of intercourse. The distinct personality of the Word is therefore not obscurely intimated. From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow: He who in the very beginning already “was,” “was” also in communion with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was nevertheless not a seperate being from God: “And the Word was” –still the eternal “was” –”God.” In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God whom He is “with,” He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this God. The predicate “God” occupies the position of emphasis in this great declaration, and is so placed in the sentence as to be thrown up in sharp contrast with the phrase “with God,” as if to prevent inadequate inferences as to the nature of the Word being drawn even momentarily from that phrase. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God’s coeternal fellow, but the eternal God’s self.4

In closing, the Jehovah’s Witnesses can be described as a revival of the Arian heresy, although their errors are even more dangerous than the Arians of old. Their chief heresy is Christological in nature, namely, that Jesus is related to God as his son, but he is not fully divine. Arius who started this heresy was a presbyter in the church of Alexandria. Arius concluded that Jesus Christ the Son of God was a small god and a created being. As seen with John 1:1 these modern day Arians take not only this passage but every passage in Scripture that affirms the deity of Christ or the Trinity and purposely mis-translate it.

The Apostle Paul speaks to this heresy when he says:

“But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:2 (underlining emphasis mine)

Notes:

1. Raymond V. Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983), p. 50.
2. Hoekema, Anthony, The Four Major Cults (Exeter: Paternoster, 1963), p. 208, 209.
3. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (B & H Publishing Group, Vol. 5, 1973), p. 4,5. Also see: A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 767-768.
4. Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1950), p. 53.
5. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, (Richmond, Missouri, 1887), p. 12.

See this writer’s The Triune Nature of God and the Deity of Christ at:
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/triune.htm

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 30 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Permission is hereby granted to reprint this article as long as my web site is retained in the biographical information.

Jack Kettler
Top 20 Global Business Builder Award Winner!
Curious, for an automatic e-mail reply go to: Jack@KettlerWellness.com

Is Faith the Gift of God in Ephesians 2:8? By Jack Kettler 2012

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” (NASB)

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -” (NIV)

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:” (KJV)

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,” (NKJV)

It seems to me that a common reading of the passage leads one to the conclusion that the apostle is referring to faith as the gift of God. If not faith, what was Paul referring to when he said: “and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God?” This we will seek to determine in the following study.

An objection to connecting the word “faith” with being the “gift” of God:

There are those who object and say the Ephesians passage does not teach that “faith” is the gift of God and argue that the pronoun “that” (touto) is neuter in gender, and the word “faith” (pistis) is feminine. The argument says that the general rule in Greek grammar is that the gender and number of the pronoun should be the same as its antecedent. When there is no clear antecedent, then is is argued “that” (touto) should be connected to the word “saved” or the idea of salvation and would excluded “faith” to be understood as “the gift of God” in Ephesians 2:8.1

We can agree that there is a general grammatical rule regarding pronouns and antecedents. We cannot agree that there are no exceptions to this rule. As will be seen from commentary evidence, there are a number of exceptions to this rule. In the case of Ephesians 2:8, there is a clear antecedent in the verse and it is precisely the word “faith.” Can the above mentioned general grammatical rule prohibit the connection between “faith” being the “gift of God” be answered with certainty?

The Objection Answered

In sharp contrast to those who object, Robert L. Reymond in his New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith says:

Even though “faith” is a feminine noun in the Greek and “this” [NIV] is a neuter demonstrative pronoun, it is still entirely possible that Paul intended to teach that “faith,” the nearest possible antecedent, is the antecedent of the pronoun “this,” and accordingly that saving faith is the gift of God. It is permissible in Greek syntax for the neuter pronoun to refer antecedently to a feminine noun, particularly when it serves to render more prominent the matter previously referred to (see, for example, ‘your salvation [. . . soterias], and this [. . . touto] from God’ – Phil. 1:28; see also 1 Cor. 6:6, 8)2

Contemporary theologian R. C. Sproul concurs and has this to say:

The rules of Greek syntax and grammar demand that the antecedent of “that” be the word “faith.” Faith is not something we conjure up in our own effort, or the result of the willing of the flesh. Faith is a result of the Spirit’s sovereign work of regeneration.3

Christian philosopher and commentator Gordon Clark agrees:

Grammatically, neuter demonstrative pronouns, even in the more precise classical Greek, often refer to feminized nouns, especially to abstract feminine nouns. Hence it is false to say that touto [that] cannot mean faith.”…The Arminian ungrammatical and illogical interpretation now says something like this: “ you are saved by faith ; your salvation is a gift from God , your salvation is not of works .” But this is both weak and redundant . Compare it with the Calvinistic , logical , and grammatical interpretation: “ you have been saved by grace through faith; even that faith is not of your origination; faith too is a gift of God .”4

More from Gordon Clark on this:

At a certain graduation ceremony I heard a seminary president misinterpret this verse. His misinterpretation did not succeed in ridding the verse of the idea that faith is the gift of God, though that was presumably his intention. He based his argument on the fact that the word faith in Greek is feminine, and the word that in the phrase, “and that not of yourselves,” is neuter.

Therefore, he concluded, the word that cannot have faith as its antecedent. The antecedent, according to this seminary president, must be the whole preceding phrase: “For by grace are you saved through faith.” Now, even if this were correct, faith is still a part of the preceding phrase and is therefore a part of the gift. Taking the whole phrase as antecedent makes poor sense. To explain that grace is a gift is tautologous. Of course, if we are saved by grace, it must be a gift. No one could miss that point. But Paul adds, “saved by grace, though faith,” and to make sure he also adds, and that, that is, faith, is not of yourselves.

But what of the president’s remark that faith is feminine and that is neuter? Well, of course, these are the genders of the two words; but the president did not know much Greek grammar. In the case of concrete nouns, for example, the mother, the ship, the way, the house, the relative pronoun that follows is ordinarily feminine; but what the president did not know is that abstract nouns like faith, hope, and charity use the neuter of the relative pronoun. As a matter of fact, even a feminine thing, a concrete noun, may take a neuter relative (see Goodwin’s Greek Grammar 1022). The moral of this little story confirms the original Presbyterian policy of insisting upon an educated ministry. Here was a seminary president distorting the divine message because of ignorance of Greek – or, more profoundly, as I have reason to believe from some of his publications, because of a dislike of divine sovereignty.

A. T. Robertson in his A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page 704, lists six exceptions to the common rule that adjectives agree in gender with their nouns: Acts 8:10, Jude 12, 2 Peter 2:17, 1 Peter 2:19, 1 Peter 2:19, 1 Corinthians 6:11 and 10:6. These include masculine pronouns with feminine nouns, neuter adjective with feminine nouns, and neuter adjective with masculine nouns. The most interesting in the present connection is 1 Peter 2:19, where twice there is a neuter demonstrative with a feminine noun, thus paralleling Ephesians 2:8. I dutifully report that Robertson strangely asserts that the neuter demonstrative in Ephesians 2:8 does not refer to the noun faith. He gives neither a grammatical nor a theological reason for this assertion.5

What do other Reformed Commentators have to say:

English Baptist pastor, and renowned Biblical scholar Dr. John Gill says:

through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; salvation is through faith, not as a cause or condition of salvation, or as what adds anything to the blessing itself; but it is the way, or means, or instrument, which God has appointed, for the receiving and enjoying it, that so it might appear to be all of grace; and this faith is not the produce of man’s free will and power, but it is the free gift of God; and therefore salvation through it is consistent with salvation by grace; since that itself is of grace, lies entirely in receiving grace and gives all the glory to the grace of God: the sense of this last clause may be, that salvation is not of ourselves; it is not of our desiring nor of our deserving, nor of our performing, but is of the free grace of God: though faith is elsewhere represented as the gift of God, John 6:65 and it is called the special gift of faith, in the Apocrypha:

“And blessed is the eunuch, which with his hands hath wrought no iniquity, nor imagined wicked things against God: for unto him shall be given the “special gift of faith”, and an inheritance in the temple of the Lord more acceptable to his mind.’” (Wisdom 3:14)

—– (I asked the following question from a Greek and Hebrew professor:

“In this verse, to what does the word “that” refer to? Adam Clarke, Wesley & company say that it is neuter plural and “Faith” is feminine hence it cannot refer to faith, (Such an admission would destroy their theological system.) However “Grace” is also feminine as is “Salvation”.”’

His reply was:

“Here you ask a wonderful theological/exegetical question to which I can only give an opinion, and not a definitive answer. The problem is that there is NO precise referent. Grace is feminine. Faith is feminine. And even Salvation (as a noun) is feminine. Yet it must be one of these three at least, and maybe more than one, or all three in conjunction. Since all three come from God and not from man, the latter might seem the more likely. However, it is a tautology to say salvation and grace are “nor of yourselves,” and in that case it certainly looks more like the passage is really pointing out that man cannot even take credit for his own act of faith, but that faith was itself created by God and implanted in us that we might believe (i.e. the normal Calvinistic position). In which regard the whole theological issue of “regeneration preceding faith” comes into play. So, that is basically my opinion, though others obviously disagree strenuously, but from an exegetical standpoint, the other positions have to explain away the matter of the tautology.”’6

Dutch Commentator, William Hendriksen writes:

8. Reflecting on what he has just now said about grace, and repeating the parenthetical clause of verse 5b, the apostle says, For by grace59
59 The original has τῇ γὰρ χάριτι. Note the anaphoric use of the article. This is very common in Greek. See Gram. N.T., p. 762. Some translate: “this grace.” Gram. N.T. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research

you have been saved.… For explanation see on verse 5. He continues: through faith; and this not of yourselves, (it is) the gift of God …
Three explanations deserve consideration:

(1) That offered by A. T. Robertson. Commenting on this passage in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 525, he states, “Grace is God’s part, faith ours.” He adds that since in the original the demonstrative “this” (and this not of yourselves) is neuter and does not correspond with the gender of the word “faith,” which is feminine, it does not refer to the latter “but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.” Even more clearly in Gram.N.T., p. 704, he states categorically, “In Eph. 2:8 … there is no reference to διὰ πίστεως [through faith] in τοῦτο [this], but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before.”

Without any hesitancy I answer, Robertson, to whom the entire world of New Testament scholarship is heavily indebted, does not express himself felicitously in this instance. This is true first because in a context in which the apostle places such tremendous stress on the fact that from start to finish man owes his salvation to God, to him alone, it would have been very strange, indeed, for him to say, “Grace is God’s part, faith ours.” True though it be that both the responsibility of believing and also its activity are ours, for God does not believe for us, nevertheless, in the present context (verses 5–10) one rather expects emphasis on the fact that both in its initiation and in its continuation faith is entirely dependent on God, and so is our complete salvation. Also, Robertson, a grammarian famous in his field, knew that in the original the demonstrative (this), though neuter, by no means always corresponds in gender with its antecedent. That he knew this is shown by the fact that on the indicated page of his Grammar (p. 704) he points out that “in general” the demonstrative “agrees with its substantive in gender and number.” When he says “in general,” he must mean, “not always but most of the time.” Hence, he should have considered more seriously the possibility that, in view of the context, the exception to the rule, an exception by no means rare, applies here. He should have made allowance for it.60
60 Though Lenski calls Robertson’s statement (“Grace is God’s part, faith ours”) careless, his own explanation (op.cit., p. 423), in which he likewise bases everything on the fact that τοῦτο is neuter but πίστις feminine, is basically the same as that of Robertson.

Finally, he should hare justified the departure from the rule that unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise the antecedent should be looked for in the immediate vicinity of the pronoun or adjective that refers to it.

(2) That presented, among others, by F. W. Grosheide. As he sees it, the words “and this not of yourselves” mean “and this being saved by grace through faith is not of yourselves” but is the gift of God. Since, according to this theory — also endorsed, it would seem, by John Calvin in his Commentary — faith is included in the gift, none of the objections against theory (1) apply with respect to theory (2).
Does this mean then that (2) is entirely satisfactory? Not necessarily. This brings us to
(3) That defended by A. Kuyper, Sr. in his book Het Werk van den Heiligen Geest (Kampen, 1927), pp. 506–514.

Dr. Kuyper is, however, not this theory’s sole defender, but his defense is, perhaps, the most detailed and vigorous. The theory amounts, in brief, to the following: Paul’s words may be paraphrased thus, “I had the right to speak about ‘the surpassing riches of his grace’ for it is, indeed, by grace that you are saved, through faith; and lest you should now begin to say, ‘But then we deserve credit, at least, for believing,’ I will immediately add that even this faith (or: even this exercise of faith) is not of yourselves but is God’s gift.”

With variations as to detail this explanation was the one favored by much of the patristic tradition. Supporting it were also Beza, Zanchius, Erasmus, Huigh de Groot (Hugo Grotius), Bengel, Michaelis, etc. It is shared, too, by Simpson (op. cit., p. 55) and by Van Leeuwen and Greijdanus in their commentaries. H. C. G. Moule (Ephesian Studies, New York, 1900, pp. 77, 78) endorses it, with the qualification, “We must explain τοῦτο [this] to refer not to the feminine noun πίστις [faith] precisely, but to the fact of our exercising faith.” Moreover, it is perhaps no exaggeration to say that the explanation offered is also shared by the average man who reads 2:8 in his A.V. or A.R.V. Salmond, after presenting several grounds in its favor, particularly also this that “the formula καὶ τοῦτο might rather favor it, as it often adds to the idea to which it is attached,” finally shies away from it because “salvation is the main idea in the preceding statement,” which fact, of course, the advocates of (3) would not deny but do, indeed, vigorously affirm, but which is not a valid argument against the idea that faith, as well as everything else in salvation, is God’s gift. It is not a valid argument against (3), therefore.

I have become convinced that theory (3) is the most logical explanation of the passage in question. Probably the best argument in its favor is this one: If Paul meant to say, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this being saved is not of yourselves,” he would have been guilty of needless repetition — for what else is grace but that which proceeds from God and not from ourselves? — a repetition rendered even more prolix when he now (supposedly) adds, “it, that is, salvation, is the gift of God,” followed by a fourth and fifth repetition, namely, “not of works, for we are his handiwork.” No wonder that Dr. A. Kuyper states, “If the text read, ‘For by grace you have been saved, not of yourselves, it is the work of God,’ it would make some sense. But first to say, ‘By grace you have been saved,’ and then, as if it were something new, to add, ‘and this having been saved is not of yourselves,’ this does not run smoothly but jerks and jolts.… And while with that interpretation everything proceeds by fits and starts and becomes lame and redundant, all is excellent and meaningful when you follow the ancient interpreters of Jesus’ church.”61
61 As to grammar, from the works of Plato, Xenophon, and Demosthenes several instances of the use of τοῦτο to indicate a masculine or feminine antecedent are cited by Kuyper. He also quotes the following from a Greek Grammar: “Very common is the use of a neuter demonstrative pronoun to indicate an antecedent substantive of masculine or of feminine gender when the idea conveyed by that substantive is referred to in a general sense.” The quotation is from the work of Kühnhert, Ausführliche Grammatik der Griech. sprache (Hanover, 1870), Vol. II, p. 54.

This, it would seem to me also, is the refutation of theory (1) and, to a certain extent, of theory (2).

Basically, however, theories (2) and (3) both stress the same truth, namely, that the credit for the entire process of salvation must be given to God, so that man is deprived of every reason for boasting, which is exactly what Paul says in the words which now follow, namely, 9, 10. not of works, lest anyone should boast. This introduces us to the subject:

Works in relation to our salvation

(1) Rejected
As a basis for salvation, a ground upon which we can plead, works are rejected. “Not the labors of my hands can fulfil thy law’s demands.” In this connection it must be remembered that the apostle is not thinking exclusively or even mainly of works in fulfilment of the Mosaic law, by means of which the Jew, unconverted to Christ, sought to justify himself. Surely, also by such “works of the law” “no flesh will be justified in his sight” (Rom. 3:20; cf. Gal. 2:16). But in view of the fact that Paul was addressing an audience consisting mostly of Christians from the Gentile world it is clear that he wishes to emphasize that God rejects every work of man, be he Gentile, Jew, or believer in his moments of spiritual eclipse, every work on which any man bases his hope for salvation. If, then, salvation is completely from God, “who spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32), every ground of boasting in self is excluded (Rom. 3:27; 4:5; I Cor. 1:31). When the Lord comes in his glory, those at his left hand will do all the boasting (Matt. 25:44; cf. 7:22); those at his right hand will be unable even to recall their good deeds (Matt. 25:37–39).

Now all boasting is excluded,
Unearned bliss is now my own.
I, in God thus safely rooted,
Boast in sovereign grace alone.
Long before my mother bore me,
E’en before God’s mighty hand
Out of naught made sea and land,
His electing love watched o’er me.
God is love, O angel-voice,
Tongues of men, make him your choice.62
62 This is the product of my attempt to translate into English, with retention of meter, the first stanza of the beautiful Dutch hymn “Alle roem is uitgesloten.”7

The Principal of Princeton Theological Seminary between 1851 and 1878, And Presbyterian Systematic Theologian Charles Hodge says:

Vs. 8, 9. These verses confirm the preceding declaration. The manifestation of the grace of God
is the great end of redemption. This is plain, for salvation is entirely of grace. Ye are saved by
grace; ye are saved by faith and not by works; and even faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of
God. We have then here a manifold assertion, affirmative and negative, of the gratuitous nature of
salvation. It is not only said in general, ‘ye are saved by grace,’ but further that salvation is by faith,
i. e. by simply receiving or apprehending the offered blessing. From the very nature of faith, as an
act of assent and trust, it excludes the idea of merit. If by faith, it is of grace; if of works, it is of
debt; as the apostle argues in Rom. 4, 4. 5. Faith, therefore, is the mere causa apprehendens, the
simple act of accepting, and not the ground on which salvation is bestowed. Not of works. The
apostle says works, without qualification or limitation. It is not, therefore, ceremonial, as
distinguished from good works; or legal, as distinguished from evangelical or gracious works; but
works of all kinds as distinguished from faith, which are excluded. Salvation is in no sense, and in
no degree, of works; for to him that worketh the reward is a matter of debt. But salvation is of grace
and therefore not of works lest any man should boast. That the guilty should stand before God with
self-complacency, and refer his salvation in any measure to his own merit, is so abhorrent to all
right feeling that Paul assumes it (Rom. 4, 2) as an intuitive truth, that no man can boast before
God. And to all who have any proper sense of the holiness of God and of the evil of sin, it is an
intuition; and therefore a gratuitous salvation, a salvation which excludes with works all ground
of boasting, is the only salvation suited to the relation of guilty men to God.

The only point in the interpretation of these verses of any doubt, relates to the second clause.
What is said to be the gift of God? Is it salvation, or faith? The words καὶ τοῦτο only serve to render
more proninent the matter referred to. Compare Rom. 13, 11. 1 Cor. 6, 6. Phil. 1, 28. Heb. 11, 12.
They may relate to faith (τὸ πιστεύειν), or to the salvation spoken of (σεσωσμένους εἶναι). Beza,
following the fathers, prefers the former reference; Calvin, with most of the modern commentators,
the latter. The reasons in favour of the former interpretation are, 1. It best suits the design of the
passage. The object of the apostle is to show the gratuitous nature of salvation. This is most
effectually done by saying, ‘Ye are not only saved by faith in opposition to works, but your very
faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.’ 2. The other interpretation makes the passage
tautological. To say: ‘Ye are saved by faith; not of yourselves; your salvation is the gift of God; it
is not of works,’ is saying the same thing over and over without any progress. Whereas to say: ‘Ye
are saved through faith (and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God), not of works,’ is not
repetitious; the parenthetical clause instead of being redundant does good service and greatly
increases the force of the passage. 3. According to this interpretation the antithesis between faith
and works, so common in Paul’s writings, is preserved. ‘Ye are saved by faith, not by works, lest
any man should boast.’ The middle clause of the verse is therefore parenthetical, and refers not to
the main idea ye are saved, but to the subordinate one through faith, and is designed to show how
entirely salvation is of grace, since even faith by which we apprehend the offered mercy, is the gift
of God. 4. The analogy of Scripture is in favor of this view of the passage, in so far that elsewhere
faith is represented as the gift of God. 1 Cor. 1, 26-31. Eph. 1, 19. Col. 2, 12, et passim.8

John Calvin’s comments should be noted:

8. For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.

Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain undiminished. When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that claiming nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation.9

My thoughts on Faith being the Gift of God:

God graciously gives the gift of faith. I am saved by grace and even my faith is a gift. Ephesians 2:8 says: “and that not of yourselves”. What is not of yourselves? Faith! Did I choose Christ and exercise faith? Yes, but why? Who gets the glory? Christ? Or me? Why did I choose to believe? Ephesians 1: 4,5 supplies us the answer. “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Was this salvation in my hands to choose or reject? If this were the case, then could I not glory in and of myself? How can that be so? Because I would have done something others had not done.

The following verse tells us that predestination is:

“according to the good pleasure of his will.” “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” Romans 9:16. The doctrine of predestination more than any other teaching of scripture takes salvation out of man’s hands and places it in God’s control. Men do not like God’s control. The cause of God’s choosing or predestination is found in Him. If we insist that we played a part in God’s choice, then human merit is brought into the picture. Salvation then
becomes synergistic rather than monergistic. Biblical salvation is monergistic. Christ alone, by his complete and finished work saves the sinner. Within a synergistic scheme, salvation becomes a cooperative effort. My work takes away from the work of Christ. How? I made a contribution. I played a part in my salvation. If I was not willing, then God could not save me. A synergistic scheme of salvation not only steals Christ’s glory, it limits God’s power. God can only do what we allow him to do within this type of system.

In conclusion, it seems to me as the above commentators have very aptly pointed out, that “faith” is the gift of God and exactly what the apostle is teaching, namely, “faith” is not of ourselves, it is the “gift of God.” This interpretation removes all grounds of man’s boasting.

Thus, we can confess by the grace of God that: “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.

Notes:

1. William D. Mounce, The Basis of Biblical Greek, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 2nd edition, 1993), p. 111).
2. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, New York, 2nd edition, 1998), p. 732.
3. R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books, 1997), p. 156.
4. Gordon Clark, Ephesians, (Jefferson, Maryland, Trinity Foundation, 1985), p. 73, 74.
5. Gordon Clark, Biblical Predestination, (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing CO., Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1969), pp. 102,103.
6. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments 9 Volumes, Ephesians, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs, 2011), pp. 39,40.
7. William Hendriksen, New Testament commentary, Galatians and Ephesians, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 120-124.
8. Charles Hodge, Commentary on Ephesians, (The Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, reprinted 1991), pp. 76-78.
9. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Ephesians, Volume XX1, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, Reprinted 1979), p. 227.

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 30 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Permission is hereby granted to reprint this article as long as my web site is retained in the biographical information.

Jack Kettler
Top 20 Global Business Builder Award Winner!
Curious, for an automatic e-mail reply go to: Jack@KettlerWellness.com

The Danger of Subjectivism in the life of the Christian by Jack Kettler 2012

Subjectivity can be defined as judgments that are based on individual experiences and feelings instead of outside facts. For the Christian, outside facts are as The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”

In subjectivism, individuals are governed by emotions, feelings, intuition and mystical experiences. Subjectivism is often manifested when you hear something along the lines of, “I feel” instead of “I know.” As stated above, the Christian should be governed by the teaching of Scripture. The Christian should always ask, what does God say about this in Scripture? If not using Scripture as the standard, nothing about how the Christian should live, can be known for certain. The Christian will be plagued by an inability to make Biblically based decisions if subjectivity is allowed creep in. We want to know what God’s Word says for our lives and act accordingly.

Enter Postmodernism:

Postmodernism, is basically a new expression of subjectivism, that has become theoretical to many disciplines, including literature, art, economics, philosophy and theology. Similar to subjectivism, postmodernism relies on feelings and experience over objective Biblical principles. In postmodern subjectivism, a person’s feelings mistakenly define what is thought to be true. Postmodernism can be described as a dressed up sophisticated form of subjectivity. In addition, postmodernism is influenced by relativism. Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute truth. Anytime relativism is attached to a philosophical system, it is only a matter of time until skepticism takes over. Some try and escape this by embracing various forms of mystical irrationalism. At the end of the day, mystical irrationalism is like being lost in a bottomless ocean.

Rather than using the objective standard of Scripture, one manifestation of the guiding principle of the postmodern subjectivist has become the “feeling right about it” approach to arriving at truth for life decisions. Using the “feeling right” approach as the guiding principle is nothing more than emotions or personal feelings influencing decisions. It is not honoring to God to lay at His feet (figuratively) our feelings and emotions and attribute them to Him in the area of guidance and understanding truth. Tragically, the claim of “feeling right” has been used as a pretext for all manner of Biblical mis-interpretation and false applications. For example, many professed Christians “feel” it is alright to have sex outside of marriage. Or, it does not matter where you worship as long as you worship somewhere (like at home watching football or fishing in the mountains).

The Danger of Subjectivity in Bible Interpretation:

Biblical objectivity is undermined when subjective experiences and feelings influence the interpretation of the Scriptures. When letting a subjective experience or feeling influence the understanding of Scripture, it is not surprising that sound doctrine will give way to interpretations of Scripture that are influenced by these self-same experiences and feelings. One can easily see the circular reasoning that plagues this approach. In the area of understanding Biblical truth, for the subjectivist, the Bible is interpreted in such a fashion as to support his experience oriented interpretations of the Bible. Thus, the subjectivist assumes this must be what the Bible teaches since they have felt it, saw it, or experienced it. This is nothing more than a dangerous subjectivist circle of interpretation. The role of Scripture and experience are reversed, experience and feelings thus gaining the upper hand. This is nothing more than reading into Scripture what you want it to say rather than submitting to the teachings of Scripture.

The Inherent Contradiction of Postmodern Subjectivism:

Postmodern subjectivism has a problem with the certainty of knowledge given its dependence on experience and feelings which differ from person to person. An insurmountable problem is that when the subjectivist postmodernist says, “there is no such thing as absolute truth.” A statement like this crumbles because of its own internal self-refuting contradiction. “There is no absolute truth” is clearly a statement asserting absolute truth. We can then ask; is your assertions true that there is no “absolute truth?” We can also ask; is your truth relative or does it even exist? Is such a concept such as relative truth, true? If truth is relative, all we have are arbitrary social conventions and it would make no difference if some slime told other slim to sit on the back of the bus. Even the postmodern subjectivist lives in such a way that evidences they believe in some kind of truth. All human beings talk about right and wrong. Why attempt to find truth if it doesn’t exist? The non-Christian may very well conclude that riotous living is the best choice. The Christian has a better way.

The Christian believes that Biblical truth is the basis for determining right from wrong. If truth does not exist, neither would right or wrong. Talking about evil and morality from a consistent postmodern subjectivist point of view would be nothing more than irrational nonsense. Silence is their only consistent option. This is impossible, thus, their position is refuted. The subjectivist philosophy rejects the certainty of truth and ends up with internally self-refuting contradictions. Moreover as already alluded to, Biblically speaking, holding philosophical beliefs that contain internally self-refuting contradictions is an expression of irrationalism.

How do we protect ourselves against subjectivism?

As Christians, we need to be aware of our world-view. How do we do this? As Christians we need to be epistemologically self-conscious. Epistemology is the study of how we know things. There are generally understood to be three types or theories of gaining knowledge, 1. empiricism (a view that experience, especially the senses is the only source of knowledge), 2. rationalism (a view that appeals to man’s independent reason as a source of knowledge) and 3. dogmatism, or scripturalism (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles, in the Christian case, the Bible). It is easy to see that the first position mentioned, empiricism is inherently plagued by subjectivism given its dependence on experience. The second position is nothing more than fallen man asserting his autonomy. We need to understand and hold to a distinctively Christian theory of knowledge as spelled out in the third position.

The Guiding Principle in Layman’s terms:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:2 (NIV)

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11 (NIV)

Jesus promises we can can arrive at a knowledge of the truth in John 7:17. We can “know the truth” if we seek after the truth by searching the Scriptures. See John 8:31-32. We know from Scripture that God reveals truth. See my Pagan Philosophy, Unbelief, and Irrationalism at:
http://www.contra-mundum.org/essays/kettler/jk_pagan.pdf and
The Importance and Necessity of Special Revelation at Contra Mundum. at:

Click to access jk_pagan2.pdf

The Bible is our All-Sufficient Rule for Faith and Practice:

For those who challenge us we should always say; show me that this is what the Scripture teaches, I am not persuaded by experience or feelings. Only God’s inspired Word not mis-interpreted because of feelings, experiences or hunches.

The principle of Romans 12:2 should always be at work, with our minds being transformed by the Word of God. Additionally, we need to be reminiscent of Acts 17:11 and follow the example of the Bereans, evaluating every new teaching, every new thought, every new experience with Scripture. We should never let our experiences and feelings interpret Scripture for us. On the contrary, we must change and conform ourselves to Christ, we interpret our experiences and feelings in harmony with Scripture. Following this principle, will protect us from the dangers of subjective mis-interpretation of the Bible.

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 30 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Permission is hereby granted to reprint this article as long as my web site is retained in the biographical information.

Jack Kettler
5 Star Presidential Director and
Top 20 Global Business Builder Award Winner!
Curious, for an automatic e-mail reply go to: Jack@KettlerWellness.com

Challenging unbelief and exposing self-refuting contradictions by Jack Kettler 2012

Positions claiming absolute certainty:

Consider the assertion: “there is no God.”

First, the Christian must point out that the unbeliever has not looked and cannot look everywhere for God. The unbeliever would have to possess the divine attributes of omniscience and omnipresence in order to make an assertion of this nature with any credibility. Moreover, since the unbeliever is finite, he cannot be certain of his assertion because proof for God’s existence may be in a place where he has not looked. Therefore, the unbeliever has no ground to claim his assertion is correct because he in reality cannot be absolutely sure about his assertion. The unbeliever is basically saying; “You can’t know anything for sure.” The unbeliever cannot be sure of his own assertion without contradicting himself. Said another way the unbeliever is saying; “You can’t know anything for certain.” You reply by asking, are you certain of that? As you have just seen, the unbeliever has refuted himself.

The following comments by Cornelius Van Til on atheism are most instructive:

Even making the statement “God does not exist” would be impossible if God did not exist. No statement can be made about chaos, abstract plurality. Without any order to the world, words would never have a consistent meaning. “This is x” would be equivalent to “This is not x.” “God does not exist” would be equivalent to “God does exist.” The words “God,” “does,” “not,” and “exist” would suffer the same possibility of becoming their opposites, or anything else; nor would there be any relationship between any of the words. To say that God does not exist is to make a universal negative claim, yet on the basis of a plurality that excludes all unity, universal claims are not possible. On the other hand, on the basis of an abstract unity as ultimate, no words would have any content. Once again, “is” would be equivalent to “is not.” All would be a blank. God, as a concrete universal, must exist in order for the statement “God does not exist” to be intelligible. Antitheism presupposes theism. One must stand upon the solid ground of theism to be an effective antitheist. Finally, agnosticism is morally self-contradictory since it pretends to be very humble in its insistence that it makes no sweeping conclusions, while as a matter of fact it has mad a universal negative conclusion in total reliance upon itself. The “natural man” is at enmity against God.1

Positions claiming absolute uncertainty:

“We cannot know whether God exists or not.”

The Christian must show the unbeliever that though his position may seem safe and neutral on the surface, it is actually a bold statement about God and His world. The assertion is claiming that God has not made himself known in a way that should be accepted by everyone. The Christian must respond by explaining to the unbeliever that he has not searched everywhere to see if there is any clear evidence for God’s existence. Moreover, the unbeliever is in reality unable to look everywhere without possessing divine attributes. The unbeliever is basically saying; “There is no certainty.” He cannot be certain of that without contradicting himself? Therefore, the unbeliever cannot be sure about his agnosticism and therefore, his position and objection is not valid. Again, as you have just seen, the unbeliever has refuted himself.

Cornelius Van Til speaking of Agnosticism says:

[Agnosticism] is, in the first place, psychologically self-contradictory upon its own assumptions. Agnosticism wants to hold that it is reasonable to refrain from thorough epistemological speculations because they cannot lead to anything. But in order to assume this attitude, agnosticism has itself made the most tremendous intellectual assertion that could be made about ultimate things. In the second place, agnosticism is epistemologically self-contradictory on its own assumptions because its claim to make no assertion about ultimate reality rests upon a most comprehensive assertion about ultimate reality. . . . the alternative is not between saying something about ultimate reality or not saying anything about it, but that the alternative is rather between saying one thing about it or another. Every human being, as a matter of fact, says something about ultimate reality.

It should be noted that those who claim to say nothing about ultimate reality not only do say something about it just as well as everybody else, but they have assumed for themselves the responsibility of saying one definite thing about ultimate reality. They have assumed the responsibility of excluding God. We have seen again that a God who is to come in afterward is no God at all [i.e. a God that is not sovereign over all existence – M.W.]. Agnosticism cannot say that it is open-minded on the question of the nature of ultimate reality. It is absolutely closed-minded on the subject. It has one view that it cannot, unless its own assumption be denied, exchange for another. It has started with the assumption of the non-existence of God and must end with it. Its so-called open-minded attitude is therefore a closed-minded attitude. The agnostic must be open-minded and closed-minded at the same time. And this is not only a psychological self-contradiction, but an epistemological self-contradiction. It amounts to affirmation and denial at the same time. Accordingly, they cancel out one another, if there is cancellation power in them. . .

Incidentally, we may point out that, in addition to being psychologically and epistemologically self-contradictory, the agnostic is morally self-contradictory. His contention was that he is very humble, and for that reason unwilling to pretend to know anything about ultimate matters. Yet he has by implication made a universal statement about reality. He therefore not only claims to know as much as the theist knows, but he claims to know much more. More than that, he not only claims to know much more than the theist, but he claims to know more than the theist’s God. He has boldly set bare possibility above the theist’s God and is quite willing to test the consequences of his action. It is thus that the hubris of which the Greeks spoke so much, and upon which they invoked the wrath of the gods, appears in new and seeming innocent garb.2

As seen in the above self-referential statements by unbelievers asserting total certainty or agnostics in arguing for total uncertainty, we see that their statements are self-refuting. It is amazing to see how many times these kinds of statements are made by unbelievers.

Some of the numerous examples and responses to self refuting contradictions made by modern day unbelievers and irrationalists:

“Only knowledge that can be empirically verified is true.” Can you empirically verify that statement?

“There are no absolute truths.” Is that statement absolutely true?

“All truth is relative.” Is the supposed truth you just asserted relative?

“You should be skeptical of everything.” Should we be skeptical of that statement?

“You ought not judge.” Is that a judgment you just asserted?

The folly of modern unbelieving assertions about reality are best summed up by Van Til:

“Modern science boldly asks for a criterion of meaning when one speaks to him of Christ. He assumes that he himself has a criterion, a principle of verification and of falsification, by which he can establish for himself a self-supporting island floating on a shoreless sea. But when he is asked to show his criterion as it functions in experience, every fact is indeterminate, lost in darkness; no one can identify a single fact, and all logic is like a sun that is always behind the clouds.”3

Also, it problematic for non-believers, when they assert moral absolutes and omniscient statements within the framework of a materialistic system that does not allow absolutes. When finite man without Biblical authority asserts moral absolute omniscient statements, it is indefensible. Moreover, it should be noted the absurdity of atheism’s claim when asserting, “there is no God.” The absurdity is this; it is impossible to prove a universal negative. And furthermore, when the atheist asserts that “there is no God.” When using the second question of the Socratic technique, “how do you know that?” reveals the failure of this unverifiable claim. With that, we can dismiss the non-believer’s demand for verification, which they always demand of Christians. In regards to the agnostic claims of ignorance concerning the existence of God, it should be noted that this claim of ignorance is not an argument against the existence of God. Rather, it is a sign of epistemological bankruptcy and what could be described as a deficiency of knowledge.

Unbelievers argue in ways that are truly rational only on the basis of the Christian world-view:

We cannot do without God any more when we wish to know about physics or psychology than when we wish to know about our soul’s salvation. Not one single fact in this universe can be known truly by man without the existence of God. Even if man will not recognize God’s existence, the fact of God’s existence none the less accounts for whatever measure of knowledge man has about God….Now if every fact of the universe is created by God, and if the mind of man and whatever the mind of man knows is created by God, it goes without saying that the whole fabric of human knowledge would dash to pieces if God did not exist and if all finite existence were not revelational of God.4

In closing, as Van Til observes:

It is the firm conviction of every epistemologically self-conscious Christian that no human being can utter a single syllable, whether in negation or affirmation, unless it were for God’s existence. Thus the transcendental argument seeks to discover what sort of foundations the house of human knowledge must have, in order to be what it is.5

Van Til goes on to say:

We must point out that reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well… It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions.6

To see the transcendental apologetic in an actual debate listen to the Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein: titled “The Great Debate” on atheism versus the existence of God at:

Both men are now deceased. Gordon Stein at the time was the top debater for atheism. In this debate, Greg Bahnsen demolishes and totally upends Gordon Stein. It is well worth your time to listen to this.

Download books by Cornelius Van Til on PDF’s at:

Van Til PDF’s

See Van Til’s Why I believe in God

See my The Importance and Necessity of Special Revelation at:

Click to access jk_pagan2.pdf

Let it be widely known that:

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…” Psalm 14:1

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Psalm 19:1

Notes:

1. Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970), xii.
2. Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970) pp. 213,214.
3. Cornelius Van Til, Christian-Theistic Evidences (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1976), pp. 147-48.
4. Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1978), 14.
5. Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970) p. 11.
6. Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), p. 204).

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 30 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Permission is hereby granted to reprint this article as long as my web site is retained in the biographical information.

Jack Kettler
5 Star Presidential Director and
Top 20 Global Business Builder Award Winner!
Curious, for an automatic e-mail reply go to: Jack@KettlerWellness.com

Scriptural Authority, the Old Testament and Biblical Considerations:                      2011 By Jack Kettler                                  

The authority of Scripture flows from the fact that it is God’s Word. As will be shown in this study, the Scriptures declare themselves to be God’s Word. It follows necessarily, that the Scriptures are authoritative. We will also see clear Biblical evidence that the people of Israel had an objective written Scriptural canon and the importance of this to safe guard against false teachers.

The prophet Isaiah declares the power of God’s Word when it is sent forth:

 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:11 David in the Psalms further confirms this truth:

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. And, …The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. Psalms 33:6, 11

Not only is God and His Word irresistible when sent forth, it is important to see at the start of this study just how closely God is identified with the Scriptures.

Consider this example from the book of Romans:

 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 10:11
The apostle Paul in the book of Romans says, “For the scripture saith.” It is significant to note, when you consult Isaiah 28:16 whom the apostle is quoting, you find that it is God speaking.

To establish this further:

 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isaiah 28:16

And then in Romans we also read:
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Romans 9:17
Was God speaking or the Scriptures? If there is any doubt, we know for sure after reading Exodus 9:16 that it is God speaking whereas, Romans says, “the scripture saith.” Therefore, it is clear that God and the Scriptures are so closely identified as to be synonymous. In essence, we learn from these examples, “thus saith the Lord God” and the phrase “the Scriptures saith” can be and are used interchangeably.

As stated at the beginning, it should be obvious from the Biblical passages seen thus far, that God’s Word is inseparable from His authority. His Word conveys His authority. A real issue today is one of authority. What role does the Bible have? False religious leaders attack the reliability of the Bible in order to subordinate people to their own authority. The pattern is always the same; the claim is “the Bible is not sufficient.”

The attacks upon Biblical authority and sufficiency are sometimes very subtle, although at times bold claims are made about alleged missing or corrupted parts of the Scriptures. You supposedly need their leaders, traditions, books, or special insights to make up for the missing or unclear parts of the Bible.

The Scriptures declare God to be Sovereign or the absolute ruler over all. God has either preserved His Word from corruption or He has not. These are the only two choices. It is evident from the Scriptures that God has the power to preserve His Word from corruption as evidenced by the testimony of the Scriptures themselves.

Since the Christian recognizes the authority of Scripture we will examine what God has revealed in the Bible about his Word. The Bible provides a powerful testimony concerning itself. God has clearly spoken in the Bible. We can have the utmost confidence in Scripture.

The Biblical view of the Old Testament Scriptures:

The Scriptural passages in this section of the present study give Biblical rationale for putting confidence in the Word of God. The passages cited in this section from the Old Testament clearly teach that the Old Testament itself is the Word of God. The New Testament passages cited in this section clearly refer to the Old Testament as Scripture or the very Word of God. Because of this, there is no reason to doubt that the Old Testament is the Word of God.

The following five passages speak of the Word of God:

 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandment of the Lord your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psalm 119:105

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded. Proverbs 13:13

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever. Isaiah 40:8

We see that these five passages set God’s Word apart from the writings of men, by the fact that God’s words are “pure,” “a lamp and light,” and are “eternal.” If you despise the Word by rejecting or altering it you will be destroyed. What man can claim this about his writings? Not one!
And furthermore, when reading the Old Testament there is no mistaking that God is speaking to man. Beginning in Genesis 1:3 you have the phrase “And God said.” or the similar phrase “And the Lord said.” Exodus 32:9. In addition, you have God speaking using the familiar terminology “Thus saith the Lord” or “saith the Lord” in places such as Genesis 22:16; Exodus 5:1; all the way to Malachi 1:2. In the prophets we read passages like “And say, Here ye the word of the Lord” Jeremiah 19:3. There are many variations of these above phrases. In fact, there are many hundreds of Old Testament passages like this, which establish the divine authenticity of the Old Testament.
How does the New Testament view the Old? For the remainder of this study we will see a consistent New Testament testimony.

Consider the importance of the following New Testament verse:

 These were more noble minded 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

This should be the practice of all believers. The believers in Berea used the Scriptures as a test for the truth or falsity of a given message and are commended for this practice. In this particular instance, the Bereans were commended for examining even the Apostle Paul’s message. Surely, this gives the individual Christian the basis for questioning church doctrine if not established Biblically. In regards to the above passage, it should be noted that this verse from Acts 17:11 deals primarily with the Old Testament Scriptures, since at this stage in redemptive history the New Testament was in the process of being given and complied. Because of this, we can infer that the Old Testament is the Word of God. It was the Old Testament that was searched by the Bereans to see if Paul’s message was true.

Consider the words of Christ himself when speaking of the Old Testament Scriptures:

 …the Scripture cannot be broken. John 10:35

This passage speaks directly of the Old Testament but goes beyond them and refers to the New Testament as well. If the Scriptures “cannot be broken,” then we are to bind ourselves to its teaching. Unquestionably, according to our Lord here in John’s gospel the Scriptures are set forth as the highest court of appeal.

How did the Old Testament prophecy of Scripture come?

The Apostle Peter teaches that the Scriptures came from God as the Spirit of God moved holy men to speak:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. II Peter 1:20,21

In this passage, Peter clearly sets the Old Testament apart from human writings. The apostle Paul says the same thing when he tells us that it was the “oracles” or the very Word of God, which was committed to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. Consider Paul’s germane teaching:

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3:2

We also find that the word translated “oracles” occurs in the New Testament several more times. For example, in Acts 7:38, Hebrews 5:12, and 1 Peter 4:11 we see “oracles” mentioned. These examples are all referring to the Scriptures as being that which was spoken by God.

In the next passage from Luke, Jesus is referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. How did Christ view these Scriptures? To begin with, Jesus establishes His identity from the Scriptures. And secondly, He did not believe any portions of Scripture had disappeared or existed in some separate body of oral traditions as evidenced by the phrase “in all the Scriptures.”

Christ appealing to an objective body of writings:

 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27

Along this same line, after Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah in Luke 4:18,19 He says:

And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears. Luke 4:21

Not only does Christ identify Isaiah’s writing as Scripture he goes on later in Luke 16:30,31 to show the importance of Scriptural testimony as over against even a miracle such as someone returning from the dead. This is significant because it sets forth the Scriptures as more important than experience.

Consider another important passage from Luke:

 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. Luke 16:29

This passage reinforces the authority of the Old Testament, because Moses and the prophets spoke the Word of God with finality and we are told to “hear them.” At this point because of the relevance of the above passage it would be good to note the necessity of using the Scriptures to interpret experience. This is of the utmost importance. Many people use experience and emotions or feelings to interpret the Bible without even realizing it.

The careful reader of God’s Word should use the grammar and historical context when interpreting the Scriptures. You should not come to the text with preconceived ideas that may color your interpretation. People whom claim to have had spiritual experiences often fall into the trap of allowing the experience to influence their understanding of a particular text of Scripture. The experience in effect governs the interpretation the Scripture and inevitably leads to error.

We see more of Christ’s view of Scripture in the gospel of John: “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God” 5:18. In this passage Jesus responds to the Jew’s attempt to kill him because of His claim of Deity by appealing to the Old Testament Scripture again: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” John 5:46,47.

The crux of Christ’s argument is an admonition to search the Old Testament Scriptures, which further establishes their credibility and authority. Hopefully this important affirmation by the Saviour concerning the authority of the Old Testament Scripture is not overlooked.

It is significant to see how Jesus makes this connection:

 Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

In this passage from John, Jesus tells the disciples about one of the most important testimonies of the Scriptures, namely, how His person and work are inseparably connected to the Scriptures. More will be said later on the importance of this.

We should note how God speaking in and through the Scriptures, directs His people to study the Scriptures in order to gain patience, comfort, and hope. The apostle Paul gives the believer assurance by clearly referring to the Old Testament Scriptures as the place to obtain these very things.

Consider this statement of the apostle Paul, which confirms this:

 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience

and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Romans 15:4

It should be established beyond any doubt that the New Testament consistently calls the Old Testament the Scriptures or in other words, the Word of God. Another issue that needs to be addressed is whether Old Testament people of God had possession of the Scriptures in a identifiable or recognizable form. It should be noted that the Scriptures were read and studied in the synagogues of ancient Israel. The people of Israel were to commit God’s Word to memory and teach it to their children and write them on the door-posts of their houses. This command of God has tremendous implications in the life of every day believers.

Consider God’s Command:

 And these words, which I commanded thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. Deuteronomy 6:6-9

This verse shows us that there was a daily ongoing reading and teaching of the Scriptures, which created a deep respect in Israel for the Word of God. There was a reverence for God’s Word in Israel. In fact, Israel has been known as “people of the book.” As God spoke in the Old Testament, these words were recorded and faithfully transcribed to preserve this Word for proceeding generations. This preservation is evidenced by the fact that the Scriptures were read in the synagogues of Israel. Christ himself read and taught the Word in the synagogues. Luke 4:16-21

The astute reader will notice that Jesus “closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister.” Jesus was demonstrating that Israel had the Word of God in written form. Israel did not just have fragments of God’s Word; they had a recognizable body of writing. So it is not surprising in Luke’s gospel we see clear indication for the Old Testament authoritative books, or the canon of Scripture that existed in Christ’s day:

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Luke 24:44

This verse refers to the three sections of the Old Testament canon. The Old Testament canon consisted of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings in which the Psalms was a part. There was clearly, a distinguishable structure and list of authoritative books in the Old Testament at this point in redemptive history.

In the following passage we find more proof that establishes a distinguishable written canon of Scripture in Christ’s day:

 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation. From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation. Luke 11:50,51

This passage sets the time frame for Old Testament prophetic revelation between the death of Abel in Genesis 4:8 and Zechariah’s death. The death of Zechariah is recorded in II Chronicles 24:20,21. At first sight this seems to present a problem because of the order of our modern Bibles. It would seem to exclude any Old Testament books following II Chronicles. In Christ’s day the canon of the Old Testament had the book of Chronicles, which was not then divided, placed out of historical order in the Jewish canon and was found after Ezra and Nehemiah, thus making it the last book of the Jewish canon. So according to this order, Zecharias was the last sufferer at the hands of the Old Testament religious apostates.

The testimony of the Scriptures stands sure. That testimony is that the Old Testament is the Word of God. It can be said with certainty; there was indeed a distinguishable Old Testament written canon of Scripture in Christ’s day. The importance of a recognizable written canon of Scripture possessed by the Old Testament people of God cannot be underestimated in its importance. An objective body of canonical writings is far superior to an undetermined fluctuating oral tradition, or dubious so-called additional books of revelation.

Hopefully, those who have attempted to cast doubt on the Scriptural canon and its binding authority so that they can attempt to establish new revelations allegedly found in additional books previously missing or a secondary sources of divine revelation, such as an alleged body of “sacred tradition” will not miss this. Christ fully accepted the canon as it stood in His day, on that account of His Words “the Scripture cannot be broken.” John 10:35

In conclusion, to doubt the divine authenticity of the Old Testament is to doubt Christ. The Old Testament people of God knew that they possessed the Word of God, and consequently, were careful in handling the texts of Scripture. The New Testament people of God were no less careful. There is no indication that the Word of God mentioned in this study was anything other than the Scriptures, which are recorded in our Bibles.

This is why we declare:

 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the Word that I have spoken, the same [Christ’s Word] shall judge him in the last day. John 12:48