August 3, 2024 · 3:49 pm

Can materialistic evolution account for human consciousness?

Can materialistic evolution account for human consciousness?                  By Jack Kettler                                               

This essay will consider how “you” became “you” and the evolutionist as a metaphysician.    

What exactly is self-consciousness?

When considering human consciousness, it is not an abstract concept. It is how each individual has an identity that is distinguished from others. Human consciousness is self-awareness.  

Consider this about Self-Consciousness:

“Human beings are conscious not only of the world around them but also of themselves: their activities, their bodies, and their mental lives. They are, that is, self-conscious (or, equivalently, self-aware). Self-consciousness can be understood as an awareness of oneself. But a self-conscious subject is not just aware of something that merely happens to be themselves, as one is if one sees an old photograph without realising that it is of oneself. Rather a self-conscious subject is aware of themselves as themselves; it is manifest to them that they themselves are the object of awareness. Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my”, terms that each of us uses to refer to ourselves as such.” (1)                   

Can materialistic evolution account for human consciousness? This question probes the intersection of evolutionary theory and the nature of consciousness. Evolutionary theory aims to explain the development of physical life forms, a process known as “natural selection.” However, it is unclear how this theory can account for non-physical entities such as consciousness, which is commonly understood to be an immaterial aspect of human existence. If consciousness is purely physical, it would be reduced to electrical and chemical interactions in the brain, a perspective that raises questions about the nature of thought, communication, and the orderly structure of human consciousness.

The theory that human consciousness is merely the result of random electrical and chemical reactions in the brain leads to numerous logical and mathematical inconsistencies. This perspective, often associated with a strict materialist view, suggests that thoughts and consciousness are solely the product of physical processes in the brain.

However, this idea raises significant questions about the nature of thought, communication, and the apparent orderliness of human consciousness. Consider the following:

1.      Orderly Thought and Communication: If thoughts are random, it would be mathematically improbable for them to consistently produce coherent and meaningful communication. The complexity of language and the structured nature of thought suggest a level of organization that is not easily reconciled with randomness. The probability of random electrical and chemical reactions consistently producing orderly thought is infinitesimally small, suggesting that there must be some underlying organizing principle at work.

2.      Information Theory: Information theory, a branch of applied mathematics, provides a framework for quantifying the amount of information in a signal or message. In the context of human consciousness, the amount of information conveyed in thoughts and communication is significant. If thoughts were random, the amount of information they contain would be minimal, contradicting the observed complexity and richness of human thought.

3.      Complexity and Emergence: The brain’s complexity, with its billions of neurons and trillions of synaptic connections, is often cited as evidence of its ability to produce consciousness. However, complexity alone does not guarantee consciousness’s emergence. The mathematical probability of random interactions between neurons leading to consciousness’s emergence is also very low.

4.      Computational Model: A computational model of the brain suggests that it functions like a computer, processing information and producing output. However, if the brain’s output (thoughts and consciousness) were random, it would be equivalent to a computer producing random outputs, which is not a realistic or useful model.

5.      The Turing Test: The Turing Test, a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human, provides a framework for evaluating the nature of consciousness. If human consciousness were merely random electrical and chemical reactions, it would be difficult to explain how a machine could be programmed to pass the Turing Test, as random processes would not consistently produce intelligent behavior.

Thus far, the theory that human consciousness is the result of random electrical and chemical reactions leads to numerous logical and mathematical absurdities. The complexity of thought, the information conveyed in communication, the emergence of consciousness, the computational model of the brain, and the Turing Test all suggest that there must be more to human consciousness than randomness.

The consciousness dilemma:

The existence of consciousness presents a dilemma for the evolutionist, particularly if consciousness is non-material. Materialism, which posits that everything is physical, struggles to explain the emergence of non-material entities like logic, ethics, mathematics, and science. The mechanisms by which consciousness arises within a purely physical framework remain unclear and are often the subject of metaphysical speculation. Consciousness, as a non-physical phenomenon, is not quantifiable in the way physical entities are, making it difficult to integrate into an evolutionary framework.

Self-consciousness, a central aspect of human identity, further complicates the issue. Each individual’s self-awareness distinguishes them from others, and this personal consciousness is not merely an abstract concept but a fundamental aspect of human experience. The evolutionist’s claim that human consciousness evolves daily, akin to ongoing macroevolution, is difficult to reconcile with the observable world. If consciousness is evolving daily, it implies a miraculous, almost personified evolution, which contradicts the scientific premise that phenomena must be observable and measurable.

Thus far, it is seen that the evolutionist’s attempt to explain consciousness through materialistic evolution often relies on metaphysical speculation rather than empirical evidence. This approach blurs the lines between science and religion, as it requires a leap of faith in the unseen. The evolutionist’s reliance on non-observable phenomena challenges the scientific method and highlights the philosophical and religious underpinnings of their arguments.

Materialistic evolution cannot account for human consciousness due to the following logically structured reasons:

1.      Non-Physical Nature of Consciousness: Materialistic evolution is designed to explain the development of physical life forms. However, consciousness is understood to be an immaterial aspect of human existence. If consciousness is purely physical, it would be reduced to electrical and chemical interactions in the brain, which does not adequately explain the complexities of thought, communication, and the orderly structure of human consciousness.

2.      Emergence of Non-Material Entities: Materialism, which posits that everything is physical, struggles to explain the emergence of non-material entities like logic, ethics, mathematics, and science. These entities are fundamental to human consciousness and cannot be explained through physical interactions alone.

3.      Mechanisms of Consciousness: The mechanisms by which consciousness arises within a purely physical framework remain unclear and are often the subject of metaphysical speculation. Consciousness, as a non-physical phenomenon, is not quantifiable in the way physical entities are, making it difficult to integrate into an evolutionary framework.

4.      Self-Consciousness: Each individual’s self-awareness distinguishes them from others, and this personal consciousness is not merely an abstract concept but a fundamental aspect of human experience. Materialistic evolution struggles to explain how individual consciousness evolves daily, akin to ongoing macroevolution, which is difficult to reconcile with the observable world.

5.      Leap of Faith: The evolutionist’s attempt to explain consciousness through materialistic evolution often relies on metaphysical speculation rather than empirical evidence. This approach blurs the lines between science and religion, as it requires a leap of faith in the unseen. The evolutionist’s reliance on non-observable phenomena challenges the scientific method and highlights the philosophical and religious underpinnings of their arguments.

In conclusion, materialistic evolution cannot account for human consciousness due to its inability to explain the non-physical nature of consciousness, the emergence of non-material entities, the mechanisms of consciousness, the nature of self-consciousness, and its reliance on metaphysical speculation rather than empirical evidence.

The above study expands on the essay “Can evolution account for human consciousness?” It was also Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Note:

1.      Principal Editor: Edward N. Zalta, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Self-Consciousness,” (First published Thu Jul 13, 2017; substantive revision Tue May 12, 2020).

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

August 2, 2024 · 3:50 pm

How is Jesus, prophet, priest, and king? 

How is Jesus, prophet, priest, and king?                                                   By Jack Kettler

Introduction:

The Scriptures are foundational to the Christian faith. These divinely inspired texts provide a narrative of God’s interactions with humanity, culminating in the revelation of God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.

The offices of prophets, priests, and kings are significant roles in the Old Testament that Christ fulfills in the New Testament. The prophet was a messenger of God, communicating divine truth and guidance to the people. The priest was the mediator between God and humanity, offering sacrifices and prayers on behalf of the community. The king was the ruler of the nation, exercising authority and power over the people.

Christ fulfilled these roles in a unique and ultimate way. As a prophet, Christ revealed the truth about God and His plan of salvation, teaching with authority and wisdom. As a priest, Christ offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for sin, satisfying the demands of divine justice and reconciling humanity to God. As a king, Christ established God’s kingdom on earth, exercising authority and power over all creation and ruling as the head of His church.

In fulfilling these roles, Christ demonstrated His divine nature and His mission to redeem humanity from sin and death. His prophetic teachings guide believers in the path of righteousness, His priestly sacrifice provides forgiveness and reconciliation, and His kingship assures believers of God’s sovereign rule and protection.

Christ as a prophet:

Christ, as the anointed one, fulfills the role of a prophet in several ways. As a prophet, Christ is tasked with the divine mission of revealing God’s message to humanity and guiding them toward salvation.

Scriptural references to Christ as a prophet include Deuteronomy 18:15-18, where Moses states:

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.”

This prophecy is interpreted as referring to Jesus Christ.

Christ’s prophetic role is also evident in His teachings and actions, which are characterized by wisdom, authority, and a deep understanding of God’s will. For instance, in Matthew 7:28-29, it is written that the crowds were amazed at His teaching, for He taught as one who had authority, not as their scribes.

Christ’s prophetic mission is further underscored in His role as the Messiah, the one who would deliver humanity from sin and death. His sacrificial death and resurrection are viewed as the realization of Old Testament prophecies about the arrival of a savior.

In conclusion, Christ fulfills the role of a prophet by revealing God’s will, teaching with authority, and, most importantly, fulfilling the prophecies about the Messiah.

Christ is a priest:

Christ executes the office of a priest primarily through His sacrificial death on the cross and His ongoing intercession on behalf of believers. His continuous intercession provides believers with a sense of support and care, knowing that He is always there for Them.

Scriptural references supporting Christ’s priestly role include Hebrews 9:11-14, which states:

“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

Additionally, Christ’s ongoing intercession is highlighted in Hebrews 7:25, where it is written:

“Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.”

Christ’s priestly office is also closely linked to His role as the mediator between God and humanity, as He alone is able to bridge the gap between the divine and the human, offering Himself as the ultimate sacrifice and interceding on behalf of believers before the throne of God.

Christ is a king:

Christ executes the office of a king by fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, who would come as a descendant of David to establish God’s kingdom on earth. This is evident in His role as the ruler and shepherd of God’s people, exercising authority and power over all creation.

Scriptural references supporting Christ’s kingship include Psalm 2:6-9, where it is written:

“But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain. I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”

Additionally, Christ’s kingship is highlighted in His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where He is hailed as the Son of David and the King of Israel (Matthew 21:1-11).

This event is a fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, which states:

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

Christ’s kingship is also evident in His resurrection and ascension, where He is exalted to the right hand of God and given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18; Philippians 2:9-11). This authority is exercised through His church, which He builds and rules as the head of the body (Ephesians 1:22-23).

In summary, Christ executes the office of a king by fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, exercising authority and power over all creation, and ruling as the head of His church.

In closing:

From the Westminster Catechism:

Question 24. How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet?

Answer 24. Christ executeth the office of a prophet, in revealing to us, by his word and Spirit, the will of God for our salvation. (1)

(1) John 1:18; I Peter 1:10-12; John 15:15; 20:31.

Q. 25. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest?

A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, (68) and reconcile us to God, (69) and in making continual intercession for us. (70)

(68) Isaiah 53; Acts 8:32-35; Hebrews 9:26-28; Hebrews 10:12

(69) Romans 5:10-11; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Colossians 1:21-2

(70) Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 9:24

Question 26. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?

Answer 26. Christ executeth the office of a king, in subduing us to himself, (1) in ruling (2) and defending us, (3) and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies. (4)

(1) Acts 15:14-16. (2) Isa. 33:22. (3) Isa. 32:1-2. (4) I Cor. 15:25, Ps. 110.

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

July 12, 2024 · 4:29 pm

What does Jesus mean by hate in Luke 14:26?

What does Jesus mean by hate in Luke 14:26?                                               By Jack Kettler

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

The above passage from Luke has perplexed many young Christians. How is this passage to be understood, and in particular, what is meant by hate? Is it literal?

A Reformed theological exegesis of Luke 14:26:

Luke 14:26 presents a complex and often misunderstood passage where Jesus declares, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” This statement seems to contradict the broader biblical commandment to honor one’s parents and love one’s neighbor. However, a Reformed theological exegesis of this verse suggests a deeper meaning.

In Reformed theology, the term “hate” in this context does not imply a sinful emotion of hostility or anger but rather a relative comparison in terms of loyalty and devotion. Jesus is not advocating for actual hatred or disregard of family or self, but emphasizing the radical commitment required to follow Him.

This interpretation aligns with the Reformed understanding of God’s call’s supremacy and discipleship’s radical nature. Jesus’ words in Luke 14:26 echo His earlier statement in Matthew 10:37, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” The point is not that one should actually hate family members or oneself but that one’s allegiance to Christ must be absolute, surpassing all other loyalties.

This interpretation is also consistent with the Reformed emphasis on the sovereignty of God and the total depravity of man. Reformed theology teaches that man is so corrupted by sin that he cannot come to Christ unless God first regenerates him. In this light, the call to hate one’s family and oneself can be seen as a call to renounce one’s own sinful nature and to rely completely on God’s grace, a comforting truth for all believers.

The exegesis is stated in logical form:

Premise 1: Reformed theology interprets the term “hate” in Luke 14:26 as a relative comparison of loyalty and devotion rather than a sinful emotion of hostility or anger.

Premise 2: Jesus emphasizes the radical commitment required to follow Him, surpassing all other loyalties.

Premise 3: This interpretation aligns with the Reformed understanding of God’s supremacy and the radical nature of discipleship.

Premise 4: Reformed theology teaches that man is so corrupted by sin that he cannot come to Christ unless God first regenerates him.

Conclusion: A Reformed theological exegesis of Luke 14:26 understands Jesus’ words as a call to absolute, radical commitment to Christ, surpassing all other loyalties, consistent with Reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty, human depravity, and the radical nature of discipleship.

In summary:

A Reformed theological exegesis of Luke 14:26 understands Jesus’ words not as a call to actual hatred but as a call to absolute, radical commitment to Christ, surpassing all other loyalties. This interpretation is consistent with Reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty, human depravity, and the radical nature of discipleship.

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

July 5, 2024 · 4:03 pm

Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism saves?

Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism saves?                                                   By Jack Kettler

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21)

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8)

Does Peter contradict Paul? Are believers saved by baptism or grace?

No, Peter does not contradict Paul. Both passages address different aspects of salvation.

In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter emphasizes the role of baptism as a symbol of salvation. He says that the act of baptism itself does not save us, but it is a sign or symbol of the salvation that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. The “answer of a good conscience toward God” refers to the faith and repentance that are necessary for salvation.

In Ephesians 2:8, Paul emphasizes the role of grace in salvation. He says that salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned by our own works. Faith is the means by which we receive this gift of salvation.

Both passages emphasize different aspects of the same truth: salvation is a gift from God, received by faith in Jesus Christ, and symbolized by baptism.

An Introduction:

Reformed theologians typically interpret 1 Peter 3:21 to mean that baptism is a sign and seal of salvation rather than a requirement for salvation. This interpretation is based on several key points:

1.      The context of 1 Peter 3:20-21: The passage refers to the salvation of Noah and his family in the ark during the flood. The ark is seen as a type or figure of baptism, and the water of the flood is a type of the water of baptism. Just as the ark saved Noah and his family, this is how baptism saves believers. However, the Reformed view emphasizes that it is not the physical act of baptism that saves, but the faith in Christ symbolized by baptism.

2.      The phrase “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” indicates that the physical act of baptism itself does not remove sin or save. Rather, it is the “answer of a good conscience toward God” that saves through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

3.      The emphasis on faith: Reformed theologians often point out that the New Testament consistently emphasizes faith, not baptism, as the means of salvation. For example, Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

4.      The analogy with the Lord’s Supper: Reformed theologians often draw an analogy between baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Just as the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper symbolize Christ’s body and blood but do not actually become them, this is how the water of baptism symbolizes the washing away of sin but does not actually accomplish this.

Here is a logical representation of the passage:

1.      The example of Noah’s preservation in the flood is a figure (type) of our baptism.

2.      Our baptism does not save us by the physical act of washing away the filth of the flesh.

3.      Our baptism saves us by providing an appeal to God with a good conscience.

4.      This appeal to God with a good conscience is made possible by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

5.      The resurrection of Jesus Christ, which demonstrates his power and authority, is the means by which he defends and preserves us today.

In logical form:

∀x (x is saved by baptism ↔ x appeals to God with a good conscience)

∀x (x appeals to God with a good conscience ↔ x is preserved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ)

In summary:

Reformed theologians believe that 1 Peter 3:21 teaches baptism as a sign and seal of salvation but not a requirement for salvation. The passage compares the salvation of Noah and his family in the flood to the salvation of believers through baptism. It emphasizes that baptism, like the flood, is a type or figure of salvation, but the faith and repentance symbolized by baptism will save believers, not the physical act of washing. The passage also highlights the role of grace in salvation, stating that it is a gift from God that cannot be earned by our own works.

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

June 29, 2024 · 3:58 pm

This is not fair, cries the Arminian

This is not fair, cries the Arminian                                                                    By Jack Kettler

“Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.” (Romans 9:20-23)

How is the objection to God’s sovereign choices answered?

Paul, in Romans 9:20-23, answers the objector. Unfortunately, many Christians do not like the answer that Paul provides. The following study will explore Paul’s answer in greater detail.

The passage from Romans 9:20-23 presents a profound defense of God’s sovereign right to elect some to salvation while passing over others. Paul, in his wisdom, anticipates an objection from his audience, asking who they are to question God’s actions (v. 20). Paul then employs a powerful metaphor of a potter and clay to illustrate the unfathomable authority God holds over His creation (v. 21). Just as a potter has the right to shape and use clay as he sees fit, so too does God have the right to create and use people as He chooses (v. 21).

Moreover, in v. 21, Paul uses the argument from the lesser to the greater, suggesting that if a potter has the power to shape and mold his clay as he pleases, then surely God, the creator of all things, has even greater power to form and order his creatures as he sees fit. The authority of God over his creations far surpasses that of a potter over his clay. Unlike the potter, who did not create the clay, both the clay and the potter were made by God. This implies that there is no difference in the material or substance out of which the potter creates various vessels, just as there is no difference in the nature of mankind. All are born into the same corrupt state, both those who are chosen and those who are rejected, those who become vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath. The text also expresses that, as the potter forms vessels of honor or dishonor, of nobler or viler use, from the same lump of clay, according to his will, without needing to justify his actions to his creations, so God may choose some and reject others, without being accountable to his creatures. The potter does not take anything away from the clay, regardless of the form he gives it; similarly, the Creator does no wrong to the creature, no matter how he disposes of it.

Summarizing Paul’s thought thus far:

1.      He thereby manifesteth his great displeasure against sin and his power to take vengeance on sinners. Seeing:

2.      He bears long with them in their sins; exerciseth great patience towards them in the midst of their provocations, giving them space to repent if they call or will. And seeing:

3.      They are vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction, partly by themselves and their own sensual courses, partly by God’s righteous judgment, who gives them up thereunto.

Next, Paul proceeds to describe two types of vessels that God has created: those prepared for destruction and those prepared for glory (v. 22). The former are described as ‘vessels of wrath,’ while the latter are ‘vessels of mercy.’ This distinction is not based on merit or demerit in the vessels themselves but on God’s divine will and purpose (v. 23), reassuring us of His perfect plan.

In these verses (22-23), a response is provided to the objection raised in Romans 9:19 concerning God’s right and power to dispose of his creatures as he sees fit, akin to a potter’s treatment of his clay. The apostle anticipates potential accusations of tyranny and partiality against God and offers justification for his disparate treatment of different individuals.

The reasons for God’s actions are outlined as follows:

1.      By taking a severe course with some, God demonstrates his intense displeasure against sin and his ability to exact vengeance upon sinners.

2.      He exhibits remarkable patience towards these individuals, tolerating their transgressions and allowing them to repent if they choose to do so.

3.      These individuals are described as vessels of wrath, destined for destruction, due to their own sinful actions and God’s righteous judgment, which has left them in such a state.

The passage concludes with Paul emphasizing that God has endured the vessels of wrath with much patience, a testament to His boundless mercy, allowing them to remain in their state of sin for a time in order to display His wrath and power (v. 22). This is done so that He might make known the riches of His glory to the vessels of mercy, whom He has prepared for glory from the beginning (v. 23).

In summary, the passage teaches that God’s election of some to salvation and passing over of others is a sovereign act that is not based on human merit or demerit. It is a manifestation of His perfect justice and mercy, and it ultimately glorifies His name and displays His power and wrath against sin.

On an emotional level, how, according to Reformed theology, does one respond to someone who says, “I did not ask to be created?”

Reformed theology suggests that while a person didn’t ask to be created, their existence is part of a divine plan. So, instead of focusing on the fact that an individual didn’t get a say in being born, maybe consider that they are here for a reason.

Or,

According to Reformed theology, a person’s response to being created without consent might be acknowledging the mystery of existence and God’s sovereignty. It’s like being handed a script for a play you didn’t audition for. One can either spend the whole performance complaining about the part they were given or make the most of it and try to understand God’s plan.

A theological response:

A Reformed theologian would likely respond to this objection by emphasizing God’s absolute sovereignty over all of His creation. According to the Reformed view, God is the ultimate authority and the source of all existence. As such, He has the right to create and to do with His creation as He sees fit.

In response to the objection that one did not ask to be created, a Reformed theologian might point to the passage from Romans 9:20-23, which states that the created thing (i.e., the person) has no right to question the Creator. Just as a potter has the right to shape and use the clay as he sees fit, so too does God have the right to create and use people as He chooses.

Furthermore, a Reformed theologian might argue that the objection misunderstands the nature of God’s sovereignty. God’s sovereignty does not depend on the consent or approval of His creatures. Rather, it is an inherent aspect of His being as the omnipotent Creator.

In short, a Reformed theologian would likely respond to this objection by affirming the absolute sovereignty of God and emphasizing that His right to create and to elect some to salvation while passing over others does not depend on the consent or approval of His creatures.

Two Principles, Sovereignty and Responsibility:

The first theological principle posits that from the beginning of time, God has predestined a group of individuals from the entirety of fallen humanity for His own purpose without considering any inherent merit of those chosen. This divine selection is not based on personal worthiness but on God’s sovereign will. Moreover, God ensures this chosen group’s salvation through the atonement of their sins by Jesus Christ and by exerting His authority to overcome their resistance and lead them to faith.

The second principle underscores that individuals who ultimately face damnation and separation from God do so as a consequence of their own culpable pride and sinfulness. No innocent individuals are condemned; all who are lost have willfully turned away from the evident manifestations of God’s power and glory in nature and the gospel. Those who genuinely seek salvation through Christ are not denied it. No one is held accountable for failing to acknowledge, believe, or obey a truth that was inaccessible to them. All instances of damnation and judgment are a direct result of conscious rebellion against the revealed knowledge of God.

In conclusion, Paul’s argument in Romans 9:20-23 can be stated in logical form as follows:

Premise 1: God is the creator and has the right to use his creation as he sees fit.

Premise 2: Humans are part of God’s creation and, therefore, subject to his will.

Premise 3: It is not appropriate for the created (humans) to question the creator (God).

Conclusion: Therefore, it is not appropriate for humans to question God’s actions or decisions.

The argument can be further broken down as follows:

1.      God has the right to use his creation as he sees fit (implied in the potter-clay analogy).

2.      Humans are part of God’s creation.

3.      Therefore, God has the right to use humans as he sees fit.

4.      It is not appropriate for the created (humans) to question the creator (God).

5.      Therefore, it is not appropriate for humans to question God’s actions or decisions.

This logical form captures the essence of Paul’s argument, which is based on the sovereignty of God and the relationship between the creator and the created.

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

June 21, 2024 · 3:07 pm

The believer’s eternal security is guaranteed by their justification

The believer’s eternal security is guaranteed by their justification.               By Jack Kettler

A comprehensive exploration of the doctrine and its profound implications is not only beneficial but crucial to fully comprehend the assertion in this study’s title. It’s not uncommon to encounter those whose understanding of justification is lacking. For instance, some may interpret justification as “just as if I never did it.” While this interpretation holds truth, it only scratches the surface of the profound riches of Christ’s grace in justification.

To start, scratching the surface:

Justification is an act of God’s free grace. It’s not about infusing righteousness into us, but rather God pardoning our sins and accepting us as righteous because of Christ’s work. Moreover, it’s not for anything we’ve done or will do but for Christ’s sake alone. This is an improvement on the above simplistic view.

Explaining the doctrine of justification:  

The phrase “Simul Justus Et Peccator” is a Latin expression commonly associated with Reformed theology, particularly in the context of the Protestant Reformation. It translates to “simultaneously justified and sinner” in English. This concept captures a key aspect of a Reformed understanding of the Christian’s state before God and what it means to be justified.

The English word justification comes from the Latin word justificare. Luther saw in Scripture that being justified involved the believer being made righteous by Christ’s righteousness, not our own. Hence, it is called justitia alienum, a foreign or alien righteousness, a righteousness that belongs to someone else, namely, Christ. Christ’s righteousness is credited to us through the instrumentality of faith, which is a gracious gift as seen in Ephesians 2:8.

In Reformed theology, “Simul Justus Et Peccator” emphasizes a paradoxical tension in a believer’s life. It acknowledges that, through faith in Christ, a person is justified before God and declared righteous on account of Christ’s atonement for their sins. Justification is seen as an act of God’s grace, not based on human merit but on the imputed righteousness of Christ. Moreover, this justification is a one-time event. This will become clear as the study unfolds.

However, at the same time, believers continue to grapple with their sinfulness. The phrase underscores the ongoing reality of human sinfulness and the struggle against sin that Christians experience throughout their lives. Despite being justified in the sight of God, believers still contend with the effects of sin in their daily lives.

In summary, “Simul Justus Et Peccator” encapsulates the Reformed theological understanding that believers are both justified before God through faith in Christ and, at the same time, continue to struggle with sin as they await the full realization of their redemption. It reflects the tension between the already accomplished justification and the ongoing process of sanctification in the Christian life.

Scriptural proof for the phrase “Simul Justus Et Peccator:”

The phrase “Simul Justus Et Peccator” is not explicitly found in the Bible but is a theological concept derived from biblical teachings. The idea behind the phrase is rooted in various passages that highlight the tension between justification and the ongoing reality of sin in a believer’s life.

Common Bible verses that are often referenced in support of this concept:

1.      Romans 3:23-24: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”

Romans 3:23-24 emphasizes the universal reality of sin but also points to justification through God’s grace in Christ.

2.      Romans 7:14-25: “For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”

In Romans 7:14-25, the Apostle Paul describes his ongoing struggle with sin while acknowledging his deliverance through Jesus Christ.

3.      Philippians 3:12-14: “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus..”

Paul in Philippians 3:12-14 acknowledges that he is not yet perfect but continues to press on toward Christ, indicating an ongoing process.

4.      1 John 1:8-10: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

This passage from 1 John 1:8-10 underscores the need for ongoing confession of sin and the assurance of forgiveness through Christ.

Justification is a Forensic Declaration:

The Protestant doctrine of Justification is forensic because it involves God declaring sinners righteous based on Christ’s righteousness rather than their own merit or works. This declaration is a legal, judicial act of God, not a process of making the sinner righteous over time, such as the infused righteousness scheme, which confuses justification and sanctification.

Scriptural support for a forensic declaration includes:

1.      Romans 3:21 – 24: “But now apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

2.      Romans 4:2-8 – “If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.’”

3.      Romans 5:1 – “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

4.      Galatians 2:15 – 16: “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.”

5.      Ephesians 2:8-9 – “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”

These passages show that justification is a declaration of God based on faith in Christ, not on the sinner’s own works or merit. This declaration is a one-time event; to maintain otherwise opens the door to complete nonsense and contradictions.

An important further clarification:

Justification is a free act of God. What sins are considered when someone receives this declaration of justification? Are only past sins up until the present considered when the recipient is declared just, or are all of a person’s past, present, and future sins considered?

According to Reformed theology, when someone receives the declaration of justification, all of their sins are considered—past, present, and future. This is often referred to as the “full, free, and irrevocable” nature of justification.

Reformed theologians emphasized that justification is not a process such as sanctification but a one-time declaration by God based on Christ’s finished work on the cross. This means that when a person is justified, all of their sins—past, present, and future—are forgiven and covered by Christ’s righteousness. At this point, the diligent student can see that justification and the believer’s security are inseparable. Security follows from justification. 

This understanding is rooted in passages like Romans 8:1, which states, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Reformed theologians interpret this to mean that once a person is in Christ, they are forever free from condemnation, regardless of their future sins.

To review, Reformed theology teaches that when a person receives the declaration of justification, all of their sins—past, present, and future—are forgiven and covered by Christ’s righteousness, which guarantees their eternal security.

The Reformed doctrine of eternal security, often referred to as the “perseverance of the saints,” holds that once a person is truly saved, they cannot lose their salvation. This doctrine is based on several key points:

1.      God’s Sovereignty: Reformed theology emphasizes God’s sovereignty in salvation. If God has chosen someone for salvation, He is believed to ensure their perseverance until the end.

2.      The Power of Christ’s Death: The doctrine of eternal security is closely tied to the belief that Christ’s death is fully atoned for the sins of those who believe in Him. Since Christ’s sacrifice is considered sufficient and complete, it would be inconsistent for a believer to lose their salvation.

3.      The Seal of the Holy Spirit: The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit indwells believers and acts as a seal, guaranteeing their inheritance in Christ. This is seen as proof that a believer cannot lose their salvation, as the Spirit’s presence is a permanent mark of God’s ownership.

4.      The Nature of Faith: In Reformed theology, faith is not seen as something that can be lost or abandoned by the believer but rather as a gift from God that is preserved by Him.

5.      The Promises of Scripture: The doctrine of eternal security is supported by various Bible passages that promise the believer’s security. For example, John 10:28-29 states that no one can snatch believers out of the Father’s hand.

In summary, the Reformed doctrine of eternal security holds that once a person is truly saved, they are eternally secure in Christ, and their salvation cannot be lost. This is based on the belief in God’s sovereignty, the power of Christ’s death, the sealing of the Holy Spirit, the nature of faith, and the promises of Scripture.

Justification from the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 11:

“I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.

III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification,  yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.

VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.”

The Westminster Confession of Faith, a foundational document for many Protestant denominations, affirms the eternal security of believers in the following statement:

“They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.” This quotation is found in the chapter “Of the Perseverance of the Saints,” specifically in section 1.

The Confession teaches that believers who have been chosen by God, called by Him, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit will not ultimately fall away from their faith but will continue in their spiritual journey and be saved eternally.

The Golden Chain of Salvation:

The “Golden Chain of Salvation” in Romans 8:29-30 refers to a sequence of five actions of God in the process of salvation:

1.      Foreknowledge (Romans 8:29)

2.      Predestination (Romans 8:29)

3.      Calling (Romans 8:30)

4.      Justification (Romans 8:30)

5.      Glorification (Romans 8:30)

These verses in the King James Version read as follows:

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Romans 8:29)

“Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Romans 8:30)

In Review:

In theological terms, the doctrine of justification refers to the act by which God declares a sinner righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. It is a legal or forensic term, meaning that God declares the sinner to be not guilty and righteous, not because of any righteousness of their own, but because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them.

The significance of justification being a past-tense event lies in its finality and completeness. When a person places their faith in Jesus Christ, they are immediately and fully justified. This means they are forgiven of all their sins – past, present, and future – and declared righteous in God’s sight. This justification is not a process that happens over time but a once-for-all event.

This doctrine is important because it emphasizes God’s grace in salvation. It is not something that we can earn or work towards, but a free gift that is given to us by God’s grace alone. It also provides assurance of salvation, as it is not based on our own performance or worthiness but on the finished work of Christ on the cross.

In summary, the fact that the believer’s justification is a past-tense event underscores the completeness and finality of God’s forgiveness and righteousness in the believer’s life and the assurance of salvation that comes from God’s grace alone.

Romans chapter 8, verses 29 and 30. As you know, these verses are what we’re calling “God’s golden chain of salvation,” and there are five links in this golden chain of salvation. It begins in eternity past in verse 29. It extends into time and then into eternity’s future in verse 30.

In closing, true justification guarantees the eternal security of believers, logically stated:

Premise 1: True justification is a forensic declaration by God that a person is righteous based on their faith in Christ.

Premise 2: God’s declarations are true and cannot be revoked or contradicted.

Premise 3: A person who is truly justified has been declared righteous by God and has been given eternal life.

Conclusion: Therefore, true justification guarantees the eternal security of believers, as God’s declaration of their righteousness cannot be revoked, and they have been given eternal life.

Justification and the believer’s eternal security are inseparably linked. If you have been justified, you will be glorified!    

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

June 13, 2024 · 3:13 pm

An Exegesis of John 6:44

An Exegesis of John 6:44                                                                                      by Jack Kettler

“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.” (John 6:44)

Regarding verse 44, it can be said:

In the Gospel of John, chapter 6, verse 44, one encounters a profound and theologically rich passage that has been a subject of intense debate among scholars and theologians for centuries.

This verse, in its original Greek, reads:

“Παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ μου ἐστιν ἐξελθεῖν, καὶ ἥξει πρὸς με”

Which can be translated into English as:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

This verse is part of Jesus’s larger discourse, commonly known as the “Bread of Life Discourse,” in which he discusses the nature of salvation, the role of faith, and the relationship between the Father and the Son.

From a Reformed theological perspective, John 6:44 is often interpreted in light of the doctrine of predestination, which posits that God chose certain individuals for salvation before the world was created. This view is grounded in the belief that human beings cannot come to God on their own accord due to their fallen nature.

In John 6:44, the Greek verb “ἑλκύω” (helkúō), translated as “draws” in most English translations, is significant. The term can carry the connotation of “pulling” or “dragging,” which some Reformed theologians interpret as implying a strong, irresistible action on the part of God. This interpretation aligns with the Reformed understanding of God’s sovereign grace in salvation, where God initiates and ensures the completion of the process.

The verse also emphasizes the role of the Father in the salvation process. It suggests that the Father “draws” people to Jesus, implying a divine initiative that precedes and enables human response. This aligns with the Reformed doctrine of “monergism,” which posits that salvation is entirely a work of God, with no cooperation or contribution from the human side.

Furthermore, John 6:44 is often connected with John 6:37, which states:

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me, I will never drive away.” (John 6:37)

This verse reinforces the idea that the Father’s “drawing” is a sovereign act that results in the individual coming to Jesus. Thus, the “coming” to Jesus is seen as a result of the Father’s drawing, not as a condition for it.

Several supporting passages in agreement with John 6:44:

1.      Ephesians 1:5 – “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.”

2.      Romans 8:29-30 – “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son… Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified.”

3.      Ephesians 1:11 – “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

4.      Romans 11:2 – “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.”

5.      1 Peter 1:2 – “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”

6.      Ephesians 1:4 – “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.”

7.      Romans 8:30 – “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified.”

8.      2 Timothy 1:9 – “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”

9.      Ephesians 1:11 – “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

10.  Romans 9:11 – “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.”

In conclusion, from a Reformed theological perspective, John 6:44 is a crucial verse that underscores God’s sovereign grace in salvation. It highlights the divine initiative in drawing people to Jesus and the monergistic nature of the salvation process. While this interpretation has been the subject of much debate, it remains a foundational aspect of Reformed Soteriology.

A real-world example of the above exegesis from John 6:44: 

C.S. Lewis’s quote about being brought to the faith “kicking and screaming” is:

“In the Trinity Term of 1929, I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.”

Lewis made this statement in his autobiography Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. He described his conversion as reluctant, feeling he was:

“dragged into the kingdom kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape.”

Whether or not one’s conversion was like Lews’ or not John Bunyan’s allegorical Holy War is relevant and instructive:

John Bunyan’s The Holy War, published in 1682, is a complex and layered allegory that explores the spiritual journey of the human soul through the metaphor of a besieged city. The narrative unfolds in the town of Mansoul, which is initially under the rule of King Shaddai but is later captured by the forces of Diabolus. The story traces Mansoul’s struggle under Diabolus’s rule and its eventual liberation by the army of Emanuel, a figure representing Christ.

Bunyan’s allegory operates on multiple levels. On the surface, it is a dramatic tale of a city’s fall and redemption. However, beneath this narrative lies a deeper, more personal allegory reflecting Bunyan’s spiritual journey and understanding of the Christian faith. The characters and events in the story are symbolic representations of spiritual and psychological states. For example, the town of Mansoul represents the human soul, while Diabolus and Emanuel represent the forces of evil and good, respectively.

Bunyan’s use of allegory in The Holy War is sophisticated and multi-layered, allowing him to explore complex theological and psychological concepts in a narrative form. Through his characters and their experiences, Bunyan illustrates the battle between good and evil, the nature of sin and redemption, and the role of faith in the Christian life.

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

June 7, 2024 · 8:16 pm

Hebrews 6:4 Exegeted

Hebrews 6:4 Exegeted                                                                                      by Jack Kettler

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost.” (Hebrews 6:4)

From a Reformed theological perspective, Hebrews 6:4 is a challenging and often debated passage. The verse can be understood in parts: ‘For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.’

Reformed theologians generally interpret this passage in the context of the broader argument of the book of Hebrews, which is to warn against apostasy and encourage perseverance in the faith. The author is addressing a group of Jewish Christians who were tempted to return to Judaism and abandon their faith in Christ.

The key phrase in verse 4 is “if they fall away.” Reformed theologians generally understand this phrase to refer to a hypothetical situation rather than an actual event. In other words, the author is not saying that genuine believers can lose their salvation, but rather that if such a thing were possible (which it is not), it would be impossible to be restored to repentance.

Reformed theologians also emphasize the severity of the sin of apostasy. The author compares it to crucifying Christ again and putting Him to an open shame. This is a strong warning against turning away from the faith and highlights the seriousness of the sin of apostasy.

Several Reformed theologians who can be referenced in defense of the above interpretation of Hebrews 6:4 include:

·         John Calvin – The Institutes of the Christian Religion

·         R.C. Sproul – The Holiness of God

·         Wayne Grudem – Systematic Theology

·         Michael Horton – The Christian Faith

·         Herman Bavinck – Reformed Dogmatics

·         Louis Berkhof – Systematic Theology

·         John Owen – The Death of Death in the Death of Christ

·         Francis Turretin – Institutes of Elenctic Theology

These theologians provide a Reformed perspective on the passage and can be appealed to in defense of the above interpretation.

To make a logical argument that this interpretation is required to avoid contradictions with other portions of scripture, the following should be considered:

1.      The context of the passage: The passage in Hebrews 6:4-6 is part of a more extensive section (Hebrews 5:11-6:20) that addresses the need for spiritual maturity and perseverance in the faith. The author warns against falling away from the faith and emphasizes the importance of moving forward in spiritual growth.

2.      The use of conditional language: The passage uses conditional language (“if they fall away”) to describe the impossibility of being restored to repentance. This suggests that the author is presenting a hypothetical scenario rather than stating a certainty.

3.      The broader biblical teaching on salvation: The Bible consistently teaches that salvation is a gift of God’s grace, received through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9). It also teaches that true believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit and are kept secure in Christ (Ephesians 1:13-14; John 10:28-29). If the passage in Hebrews 6:4-6 were interpreted to mean that true believers can lose their salvation, it would contradict these clear biblical teachings.

4.      The nature of God’s love and grace: The Bible teaches that God’s love and grace are unconditional and unchanging (Romans 8:38-39; Hebrews 13:8). If the passage in Hebrews 6:4-6 were interpreted to mean that God’s love and grace can be lost or forfeited, it would contradict these teachings.

5.      The need for a consistent hermeneutic: A consistent hermeneutic (method of interpretation) is essential for understanding the Bible correctly. If the passage in Hebrews 6:4-6 were interpreted to mean that true believers can lose their salvation, it would require an inconsistent hermeneutic that contradicts Scripture’s clear teachings on salvation, God’s love and grace, and the perseverance of the saints.

6.      Considering these points, we can make a logical numbered argument that interpreting Hebrews 6:4-6 as a hypothetical warning against apostasy, rather than a statement that true believers can lose their salvation, is required to avoid contradictions with other portions of Scripture.

Additional thoughts:

In Hebrews 6:4, the term “enlightened” describes a person exposed to the gospel’s truth to a certain degree. However, this enlightenment does not necessarily equate to a true conversion or salvation.

Think of it like this: just because someone has tasted a delicious meal doesn’t mean they’ve eaten the whole thing and are now nourished by it. Similarly, just because someone has been exposed to the light of the gospel doesn’t mean they’ve fully embraced it and been transformed by it.

True conversion involves more than intellectual understanding or emotional experience; it requires genuine repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. So, while enlightenment is a good start, it’s different from being truly saved.

In other words, enlightenment is like a spark that can ignite a fire, not the fire itself. True conversion is the fire that burns within, fueled by the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.

In conclusion:

From a Reformed theological perspective, Hebrews 6:4 is a hypothetical warning against apostasy and a solid encouragement to persevere in the faith. The passage does not teach that genuine believers can lose their salvation but rather that the sin of apostasy is a serious and shameful act that should be avoided at all costs.

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

June 5, 2024 · 4:04 pm

Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism saves?

Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism saves?                                                           by Jack Kettler

“Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation:

Acts 2:38 in the King James Version (KJV) reads: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

In this passage, Reformed theologians argue that the Greek grammar does not support the interpretation that baptism is necessary for salvation. The key phrase in question is “for the remission of sins” (Greek: εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν).

The Greek preposition “εἰς” (eis) is often translated as “for” or “unto,” but it can also carry the meaning of “because of,” “on the basis of,” or “on account of.” Reformed theologians argue that the latter interpretation is more consistent with the overall context of Scripture. They believe that the phrase “εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν” should be understood as “on the basis of the remission of sins,” indicating that baptism is a response to the forgiveness of sins rather than a prerequisite for it.

Additional reasons why the interpretation that this passage does not teach that baptism is required for salvation:

The passage is teaching with a view to receiving forgiveness of sins rather than making baptism itself the requirement for forgiveness. In other passages, Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, not by works such as baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16).

There are examples in Scripture of people being forgiven and receiving the Holy Spirit before being baptized, such as Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48).

The immediate context of Acts 2:38 is Peter’s call for repentance (v. 38), which is consistently taught as the prerequisite for salvation (e.g., Mark 1:15, Luke 24:47, Acts 3:19).

So, a more likely interpretation is that Peter was calling the people to repent (turn from sin to Christ in faith) and then be baptized as a public identification with Christ and His forgiveness, rather than saying baptism itself is what grants forgiveness. Baptism is an important step of obedience, but Scripture seems to present it as a subsequent act that symbolizes the inward reality of salvation by faith, not as the means of achieving it.

Furthermore, Reformed theologians point to other passages in Scripture that emphasize salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:28). They argue that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality, a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and the forgiveness of sins, rather than a means of obtaining salvation.

1.      If baptism is required for salvation, as some interpretations of Acts 2:38 suggest, salvation depends on the individual’s specific action or work.

2.      The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone, as taught in Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 3:28, emphasizes that salvation is a gift of God’s grace and not earned by works.

3.      If salvation depends on baptism, it contradicts the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone, as it introduces a requirement for salvation based on an individual’s work.

4.      Therefore, if Acts 2:38 teaches that baptism is required for salvation, it teaches a works-based salvation, which is inconsistent with the broader biblical teaching on salvation by grace through faith alone.

One classical commentary that refutes the idea that Acts 2:38 teaches that baptism is required for salvation is John Calvin’s commentary on Acts 2:38. Calvin, a prominent figure in the Protestant Reformation, argues that the phrase “for the remission of sins” should be understood as “because of the remission of sins.”

Calvin writes:

“Be baptized every one of you. Although in the text and order of the words, baptism doth here go before remission of sins, yet doth it follow it in order, because it is nothing else but a sealing of those good things which we have by Christ that they may be established in our consciences; therefore, after that Peter had intreated of repentance, he calleth the Jews unto the hope of grace and salvation; and, therefore, Luke well afterwards, in Paul’s sermon, joineth faith and repentance together in the same sense, wherein he putteth forgiveness of sins in this place, and that for good considerations; for the hope of salvation consisteth in the free imputation of righteousness; and we are counted just, freely before God, when he forgiveth us our sins. And as I said before, that the doctrine of repentance hath a daily use in the Church so must we think of the forgiveness of sins, that the same is continually offered unto us; and surely it is no less necessary for us during the whole course of our life, than at our first entrance into the Church, so that it should profit us nothing to be once received into favor by God, unless this embassage should have a continual course; be-reconciled unto God, because

“he which knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Corinthians 5:20.)

Moreover, the Papists do so corrupt this other part of the gospel, that they quite exclude the remission of sins, which was to be obtained by Christ. They confess their sins are freely forgiven in baptism, but they will have them redeemed with satisfactions after baptism; and although they mix the grace of Christ together therewithal, yet because they inwrap the same in men’s merits, they do by this means overthrow the whole doctrine of the gospel; for, first, they take from men’s consciences the certainty of faith; that done, forasmuch as they part the forgiveness of sins between the death of Christ and our satisfactions, they do altogether deprive us of Christ’s benefit. For Christ doth not reconcile us unto God in part, but wholly, neither can we obtain remission of sins by him, unless it be whole and perfect. But the Papists are much deceived therein, who restrain baptism unto the nativity and former life, as if the signification and force thereof did not reach even unto death.

Let us know, therefore, that forgiveness of sins is grounded in Christ alone, and that we must not think upon any other satisfaction [127] save only that which he hath performed by the sacrifice of his death. And for this cause, as we have already said, doth Peter express his name, whereby he doth signify unto us, that none of all these things can be rightly taught, unless Christ be set in the midst, to the end the effect of this doctrine may be sought in him. That needeth no long exposition where he commandeth them to be baptized for the remission of sins; for although God hath once reconciled men unto himself in Christ” by not imputing unto them their sins,” (2 Corinthians 5:19,) and doth now imprint in our hearts the faith thereof by his Spirit; yet, notwithstanding, because baptism is the seal whereby he doth confirm unto us this benefit, and so, consequently, the earnest and pledge of our adoption, it is worthily said to be given us for the remission of sins. For because we receive Christ’s gifts by faith, and baptism is a help to confirm and increase our faith, remission of sins, which is an effect of faith, is annexed unto it as unto the inferior mean. Furthermore, we must not fetch the definition of baptism from this place, because Peter doth only touch a part thereof. Our old man is crucified by baptism, as Paul teacheth, that we may rise unto newness of life, (Romans 6:4, 6.) And, again, we put on Christ himself, (1 Corinthians 12.) and the Scripture teacheth every where, that it is also a sign and token of repentance, (Galatians 3:27.) But because Peter doth not intreat in thin place openly of the whole nature of baptism, but speaking of the forgiveness of sins, doth, by the way, declare that the confirmation thereof is in baptism, there doth no inconvenience follow, if ye do omit the other part. [128]

In the name of Christ. Although baptism be no vain figure, but a true and effectual testimony; notwithstanding, lest any man attribute that unto the element of water which is there offered, the name of Christ is plainly expressed, to the end we may know that it shall be a profitable sign for us then, if we seek the force and effect thereof in Christ, and know that we are, therefore, washed in baptism, because the blood of Christ is our washing; and we do also hereby gather, that Christ is, the mark and end whereunto baptism directeth us; wherefore, every one profiteth so much in baptism as he learneth to look unto Christ. But here ariseth a question, Whether it were lawful for Peter to change the form prescribed by Christ? The Papists do think, at least feign so, and thence do they take a color of liberty to change or abrogate the institutions of Christ. They confess that nothing ought to be changed, as touching the substance, but they will have the Church to have liberty to change whatsoever it will in the form. But this argument may easily be answered. For we must first know that Christ did not indite and rehearse unto his apostles magical words for enchanting, as the Papists do dream, but he did, in few words, comprehend the sum of the mystery. Again, I deny that Peter doth speak in this place of the form of baptism; but he doth simply declare that the whole strength [129] of baptism is contained in Christ; although Christ cannot be laid hold on by faith without the Father by whom he was given us, and the Spirit by the which he reneweth and sanctifieth us. The answer consisteth wholly in this, that he intreateth not in this place of the certain form of baptizing, but the faithful are called back unto Christ, in whom alone we have whatsoever baptism doth prefigure unto us; for we are both made clean by his blood, and also we enter into a new life by the benefit of his death and resurrection.

Ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. Because they were touched with wondering when they saw the apostles suddenly begin to speak with strange tongues, Peter saith that they shall be partakers of the same gift if they will pass over unto Christ. Remission of sins and newness of life were the principal things, and this was, as it were, an addition, that Christ should show forth unto them his power by some visible gift. Neither ought this place to be understood of the grace of sanctification, which is given generally to all the godly. Therefore he promiseth them the gift of the Spirit, whereof they saw a pattern in the diversity of tongues. Therefore this doth not properly appertain unto us. For because Christ meant to set forth the beginning of his kingdom with those miracles, they lasted but for a time; yet because the visible graces which the Lord did distribute to his did shoe, as it were in a glass, that Christ was the giver of the Spirit, therefore, that which Peter saith doth in some respect appertain unto all the whole Church: ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. For although we do not receive it, that we may speak with tongues, that we may be prophets, that we may cure the sick, that we may work miracles; yet is it given us for a better use, that we may believe with the heart unto righteousness, that our tongues may be framed unto true confession, (Romans 10:10,) that we may pass from death to life, (John 5:24) that we, which are poor and empty, may be made rich, that we may withstand Satan and the world stoutly. Therefore, the grace of the Spirit shall always be annexed unto baptism, unless the let be in ourselves.” (1)

Calvin explains that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality, a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and the forgiveness of sins, rather than a means of obtaining salvation. This interpretation is consistent with the broader Reformed understanding of salvation by grace through faith alone.

In summary, Reformed theology interprets Acts 2:38 in light of the broader biblical teaching on salvation, arguing that the Greek grammar supports the understanding that baptism is a response to the remission of sins rather than a prerequisite for it.

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1.      John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Acts, Volume 18, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), pp. 116-121.

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

June 1, 2024 · 4:09 pm

John 1:1, an Exegesis

John 1:1, an Exegesis                                                                                      by Jack Kettler

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

John 1:1 is a cornerstone of Christian theology, as it introduces the concept of the “Word” (Greek: Logos) as a divine entity that coexisted with God from the very beginning. Breaking it down grammatically and biblically, one finds:

1.      “In the beginning” – This phrase echoes the opening of Genesis, suggesting a cosmic, timeless context. It implies that the Word existed before the creation of the world.

2.      “Was” – The verb “was” (Greek: ἦν, eimi) is in the imperfect tense, indicating continuous existence. It emphasizes the eternal nature of the Word.

3.      “The Word”- The Greek term “Logos” (λόγος) is rich in meaning. It can refer to the spoken word, reason, or an underlying principle or logic. John’s Gospel refers to the preexistent Christ, who embodies God’s wisdom and creative power.

4.      “With God” – The preposition “with” (Greek: πρός, pros) suggests a close, intimate relationship between the Word and God. It implies a distinction of persons within the Godhead, yet a unity of essence.

5.      “And the Word was God”- This phrase affirms the Word’s deity. The absence of the definite article before “God” (Greek: θεός, theos) is grammatically significant. It suggests that the Word shares the same divine nature as God without implying that the Word is a separate god.

Biblically, this verse establishes Jesus as the pre-existent, divine Word who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). It sets the stage for the rest of the Gospel, which proclaims Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, the source of life and light, and the Savior of the world.

The Arian Heresy:

The Arian heresy refers to a theological controversy that arose in the early Christian Church, named after its most prominent proponent, Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria in the early 4th century. At the heart of the controversy was the nature of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Arius taught that Jesus Christ, the Son, was not co-eternal with God the Father. He argued that the Son was created by the Father, and therefore, there was a time when the Son did not exist. In Arius’ view, the Son was a created being, divine in nature but not equal to the Father.

This view starkly contrasted with the traditional Christian belief, which held that the Son was co-eternal with the Father and fully divine, a belief encapsulated in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Arian heresy was condemned as a heresy at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where the Council Fathers affirmed the full divinity of the Son and formulated the Nicene Creed, which states that the Son is “of one substance with the Father.”

The Arian controversy had significant implications for the development of Christian theology. It forced the Church to clarify and define its understanding of the Trinity and the nature of Christ, leading to the formulation of doctrines that are still central to Christian theology today.

A modern-day example of Arianism:

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, commonly known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, interprets John 1:1 as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This interpretation is based on a particular reading of the Greek text and has been a point of significant theological debate.

Biblical scholars have criticized this interpretation for several reasons:

1.      Greek Grammar: The Watchtower’s translation hinges on the absence of the definite article “the” (Greek: ὁ, ho) before “God” (Greek: θεός, theos) in the phrase “the Word was God.” However, Greek grammar does not require the definite article to denote a definite noun. The absence of the article here is more likely a stylistic choice to emphasize the nature of the Word rather than to diminish its divinity.

2.      Contextual Analysis: The Watchtower’s interpretation ignores the broader context of John’s Gospel, which consistently presents Jesus as divine. For example, John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God,” and John 10:30, where Jesus states, “I and the Father are one.”

3.      Historical Context: The early Christian Church universally accepted Christ’s deity. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation is a relatively recent development, first appearing in their New World Translation of the Bible in 1950.

4.      Biblical Theology: The doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons in one divine essence, is a central tenet of orthodox Christianity. The Watchtower’s interpretation contradicts this doctrine by suggesting that Jesus is a lesser deity, or “a god,” rather than being fully divine.

In conclusion, the Watchtower’s interpretation of John 1:1 is not accepted among biblical scholars and theologians. It is seen as a misinterpretation that stems from a particular theological perspective rather than a careful reading of the Greek text and its broader biblical context.

Additionally, the Granville Sharp Rule, named after the English theologian and scholar Granville Sharp, is a grammatical principle applied to the translation of New Testament Greek. It is used to determine the relationship between two nouns in a sentence when they are connected by the conjunction “and” (Greek: καί, “kai”). The rule states that when two singular common nouns are used to describe a person, and those two nouns are joined by the conjunction “and,” and the definite article (Greek: ὁ, “ho”) precedes the first noun, but not the second, then both nouns refer to the same person.

This rule is significant in New Testament studies, particularly in discussions regarding the deity of Christ. It has been applied to several verses, notably Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, to argue that Jesus is explicitly referred to as “God” in these texts. For example, in Titus 2:13, the phrase “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” is translated from Greek as “τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.” According to the Granville Sharp Rule, since “God” and “Savior” are both preceded by the definite article “the” (in the genitive case), they refer to the same person, Jesus Christ, who is thus identified as “God” and “Savior.”

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 placed 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 the 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.”

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler, a respected author and has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active members of the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,