Two Ai engines look at the Clark Van Til controversy

ChatGPT: An Introduction to The Clark Van Til Controversy 

The Clark-Van Til Controversy was a significant theological and philosophical dispute within American Presbyterian circles, particularly involving the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), in the mid-20th century. This controversy centered on issues of epistemology (the study of knowledge) and apologetics (defense of the faith), specifically focusing on the ideas and teachings of two prominent figures: Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til.

Gordon H. Clark (1902–1985) was a philosopher and theologian known for his defense of presuppositional apologetics and a rationalist approach to faith, emphasizing the role of logical consistency within Christian doctrine. He believed that the Bible provides a system of propositional truths that can be logically understood and defended.

Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987), on the other hand, was a Reformed theologian and apologist who is often credited with developing the approach known as presuppositional apologetics. Van Til argued that Christian apologetics should start with the presupposition that the Christian faith is true and that the Bible is the ultimate authority. He emphasized the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews, arguing that without the Christian God, it is impossible to make sense of any aspect of reality.

The controversy essentially began in the 1940s, reaching a peak in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when Clark applied for ordination in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Van Til and others opposed Clark’s ordination, raising concerns about Clark’s views on the incomprehensibility of God and the nature of human knowledge. They argued that Clark’s rationalist approach underestimated the effect of sin on human reason and did not adequately account for the qualitative difference between God’s knowledge and human knowledge.

Supporters of Clark, meanwhile, felt that Van Til’s approach led to a form of skepticism or irrationalism because, in their view, it suggested that human beings could not really know anything about God in a propositional or logical sense due to the Creator-creature distinction.

The debate led to a series of charges and counter-charges, discussions, and presbytery meetings within the OPC. Ultimately, the controversy resulted in Clark leaving the OPC for the United Presbyterian Church in the USA. Although the immediate conflict subsided, the Clark-Van Til Controversy left a lasting impact on Reformed and Presbyterian circles, contributing to ongoing discussions about the nature of divine revelation, the relationship between faith and reason, and the methodologies of Christian apologetics.

A Summary of Van Til’s case against Clark:

Cornelius Van Til’s case against Gordon Clark centered on deep philosophical and theological differences regarding the nature of God’s knowledge compared to human knowledge, the comprehensibility of God, and the method and foundation of Christian apologetics. Van Til’s critique of Clark can be summarized in several key points:

1.      The Incomprehensibility of God: Van Til emphasized the Creator-creature distinction, arguing that God’s knowledge is qualitatively different from human knowledge. While humans can know truly because of God’s revelation, they cannot know exhaustively or in the same manner as God knows. Van Til was concerned that Clark’s emphasis on logic and propositional revelation reduced the transcendence of God, making God’s knowledge too similar to human knowledge.

2.      The Role of Human Reason: Van Til argued that sin affects all aspects of human existence, including reason. Therefore, human reasoning must be subordinate to Scripture, which is the self-revelation of God. Van Til worried that Clark placed too much confidence in human reason, suggesting that Clark’s approach could lead to rationalism, where reason becomes the judge over Scripture, rather than Scripture guiding and correcting reason.

3.      Presuppositional Apologetics: Van Til is known for his presuppositional approach to apologetics, which argues that all reasoning is based on foundational presuppositions or basic beliefs. For Christians, the presupposition is the truth of the Bible and the existence of the triune God. Van Til contended that Clark’s approach did not adequately acknowledge the importance of presuppositions in apologetics, potentially leading to an approach where Christian and non-Christian thought could be mixed.

4.      The Noetic Effects of Sin: This term refers to the impact of sin on the human mind (“noetic” comes from the Greek word for “mind”). Van Til maintained that sin deeply affects human cognition, including the ability to reason. He was concerned that Clark’s system did not fully account for this, potentially leading to an overconfidence in human cognitive abilities post-fall.

5.      Apologetic Methodology: Van Til criticized Clark for what he saw as a reliance on human logic to validate the truths of Christianity. In contrast, Van Til advocated for an approach that begins with the acknowledgment of God’s revelation in Scripture as the foundation for all knowledge. He believed that apart from this starting point, no true knowledge is possible, and apologetics must therefore begin with the assertion of biblical truth rather than an attempt to prove biblical truth using autonomous human reason.

In essence, Van Til’s critique was rooted in a concern for maintaining a robust doctrine of God’s transcendence, the authority of Scripture, and the implications of sin on human cognition. He feared that Clark’s approach compromised these principles, potentially leading to a form of Christianity that was too reliant on human wisdom rather than divine revelation.

A Summary of Clark’s defense against Van Til’s charges:

Gordon Clark’s defense against Cornelius Van Til’s charges was multifaceted, addressing the philosophical, theological, and methodological critiques leveled against him. While deeply respectful of the Reformed tradition from which both he and Van Til came, Clark maintained that his approach was both faithful to Scripture and logically coherent. His defense can be summarized along several lines:

1.      The Intellectibility of Divine Revelation: Clark argued that if God has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity, then the revelation He provides must be intelligible to human beings. This does not imply that humans can fully comprehend God or possess exhaustive knowledge of Him, but rather that what God has chosen to reveal can be understood truly. Clark maintained that divine revelation in Scripture is propositional in nature and can be logically apprehended and articulated.

2.      The Role of Logic and Reason: Clark defended the use of human logic and reason, arguing that logic is not a human invention but reflects the very nature of God’s own thoughts. He contended that logic is the way in which truth is necessarily structured, and since God is truth, our logical efforts, when properly applied to God’s revelation, do not distort truth but rather affirm and elucidate it. For Clark, to argue against the use of logic in theology was to undermine the possibility of any true theological knowledge.

3.      Presuppositions and Faith: While Van Til criticized Clark for supposedly not giving enough weight to presuppositions, Clark argued that acknowledging the truth of Scripture as a foundational presupposition does not exclude the use of reason and logic in understanding and defending the faith. Clark believed that starting with faith in the biblical God and His revelation does not lead to a circular argument but rather provides the only basis for a coherent worldview and epistemology.

4.      The Noetic Effects of Sin: Although Clark agreed with Van Til that sin affects the entire human being, including the intellect, he argued that the light of divine revelation is sufficient to renew the mind and enable it to know God truly. Clark emphasized the sufficiency of Scripture to overcome the noetic effects of sin, arguing that the Holy Spirit enables believers to understand and believe the truth.

5.      Epistemology and Apologetics: Clark maintained that a Christian epistemology must start with the axiom that the Bible is the Word of God. From this starting point, Christians can use logical deduction to arrive at other truths. Clark’s apologetic method involved demonstrating the consistency and coherence of the Christian worldview as derived from Scripture, contrasting it with the inconsistency and ultimate irrationality of non-Christian worldviews.

Clark’s defense was fundamentally a plea for the primacy of Scripture interpreted in a logically coherent manner, asserting that this approach does not diminish the transcendence of God but rather honors Him as the ultimate source of all truth. He argued for a rational Christianity that is fully committed to the authority of Scripture and equipped to engage the world of ideas.

In the opinion of ChatGPT, who made the more compelling case, Clark or Van Til?

As an AI developed by OpenAI, I don’t have personal opinions or beliefs. However, I can provide an analysis based on the arguments and discussions surrounding the Clark-Van Til controversy, highlighting the strengths and criticisms of both positions. The assessment of who made the more compelling case often depends on one’s philosophical presuppositions, theological convictions, and what one believes the role of reason and revelation to be in the Christian faith.

Clark’s Position:

·         Clark argued for the primacy of Scripture, asserting that the Bible contains propositional truth that can be known and understood logically by humans. His defense emphasized the importance of human reason in understanding divine revelation.

·         Clark’s approach appeals to those who emphasize the clarity of Scripture and the ability of human beings, aided by the Holy Spirit, to comprehend biblical truths.

·         Critics of Clark, however, might argue that his approach overemphasizes human reason and potentially underestimates the noetic effects of sin (the impact of sin on the human mind).

Van Til’s Position:

·         Van Til emphasized the Creator-creature distinction, arguing that God’s knowledge is qualitatively different from human knowledge, and that human knowledge is always analogical or correspondent to, but never identical with, divine knowledge.

·         He advocated for presuppositional apologetics, which starts with the assumption of the truth of Christian theism and the authority of the Bible. This approach is praised for its commitment to the sovereignty of God even in the realm of human knowledge and its critique of autonomous human reason.

·         Critics of Van Til might argue that his approach could lead to a form of fideism, where faith is upheld as irrational or beyond reason, and that it might not provide a sufficient basis for engaging with non-believers who do not share the same presuppositions.

Assessment:

The debate between Clark and Van Til touches on profound and complex issues in Christian epistemology and apologetics. Each side raises important considerations about the relationship between faith and reason, the nature of divine revelation, and how best to defend the Christian faith.

Those leaning towards a rationalist approach might find Clark’s emphasis on logical consistency and the comprehensibility of divine revelation more compelling.

In contrast, those who prioritize the sovereignty of God in all areas, including human knowledge, and are cautious of the capabilities of fallen human reason, might lean towards Van Til’s presuppositional framework.

Ultimately, the assessment of who made the more compelling case might depend on one’s theological and philosophical starting points. Both Clark and Van Til sought to defend the Christian faith and uphold the authority of Scripture, but they did so in markedly different ways that have influenced subsequent generations of theologians and apologists.

The Clark-Van Til controversy was a significant theological and philosophical debate within American Presbyterian circles, particularly among those associated with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and later impacting the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The controversy primarily revolved around issues of epistemology, the doctrine of God, and apologetic methodology, peaking in the 1940s. Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til were the central figures in this debate, each advocating distinct views on how humans know God and the nature of divine revelation.

Gordon Clark Supporters:

1.      John Robbins – An economist, theologian, and a prolific writer, Robbins was a staunch supporter of Clark’s philosophical and theological views. He played a crucial role in publishing Clark’s works and defending his legacy through The Trinity Foundation.

2.      Carl F. H. Henry – While not directly involved in the controversy, Henry’s evangelical rationalism and high view of Scripture aligned more closely with Clark’s emphasis on propositional revelation than with Van Til’s presuppositional approach.

3.      Ronald H. Nash – A philosopher and theologian, Nash was influenced by Clark’s rationalist approach to Christianity and defended similar positions in epistemology and ethics.

Cornelius Van Til Supporters:

1.      Greg Bahnsen – Perhaps Van Til’s most famous student, Bahnsen became a leading figure in presuppositional apologetics, vigorously defending and advancing Van Til’s approach in both academic and popular settings.

2.      John Frame – While Frame introduced some modifications to Van Til’s thought, his work in apologetics and theology has been deeply influenced by Van Til’s presuppositionalism. Frame has been a key figure in articulating and defending Van Til’s ideas to later generations.

3.      K. Scott Oliphint – A professor of apologetics and systematic theology, Oliphint is known for his work in defending and further developing Van Til’s presuppositional approach, particularly his emphasis on the importance of a proper understanding of God’s revelation in apologetics.

The Clark-Van Til controversy highlighted deep divisions over how the Reformed tradition should approach theology, apologetics, and the relationship between faith and reason. Supporters on both sides have continued to develop and refine these ideas, influencing Reformed and evangelical thought in significant ways.

Grok: An Introduction to The Clark Van Til Controversy:

The Clark Van Til controversy revolves around the ideas and debates between two prominent Christian philosophers, Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til. Both of these men were influential in the 20th century and contributed significantly to the field of Christian philosophy and apologetics. The controversy arose from their differing views on epistemology (the study of knowledge) and the relationship between reason and revelation.

Gordon Clark, a Calvinist philosopher, argued for a rationalist approach to Christianity, emphasizing the role of logic and reason in understanding God and His revelation. Clark believed that human beings could have certain knowledge of God and His existence through the use of logic and the study of Scripture. He placed a high value on the use of reason and logic in understanding and defending the Christian faith.

Cornelius Van Til, on the other hand, was a Dutch Reformed philosopher and theologian who is best known for his development of presuppositional apologetics. Van Til argued that human beings, due to their sinful nature, could not have certain knowledge of God through the use of reason alone. He believed that the only way to truly understand God and His revelation was through the lens of Scripture, which he saw as the ultimate authority.

The controversy between Clark and Van Til began in the mid-20th century and continued for several decades. Their differing views on the role of reason and revelation in understanding God led to a number of debates and discussions within the Christian community. While both men had their supporters, the controversy ultimately helped to shape and refine the field of Christian philosophy and apologetics.

In conclusion, the Clark Van Til controversy is an important chapter in the history of Christian philosophy and apologetics. It highlights the different approaches to understanding God and His revelation, and serves as a reminder of the importance of engaging with and debating ideas in order to better understand our faith.

A Summary of Van Til’s case against Clark:

Cornelius Van Til, a Dutch Reformed philosopher and theologian, developed a unique approach to Christian apologetics known as presuppositional apologetics. His method emphasized the role of presuppositions, or the underlying assumptions, in shaping one’s understanding of the world. In contrast, Gordon Clark, a Calvinist philosopher, advocated for a more rationalist approach to Christian apologetics, emphasizing the use of logic and reason in understanding and defending the Christian faith.

Van Til’s main arguments against Clark’s approach were as follows:

1.      The noetic effects of sin: Van Til believed that human beings, due to their sinful nature, were unable to reason properly and objectively about God. He argued that the noetic effects of sin (the effects of sin on the human mind) led to a distortion of reason and understanding. As a result, Van Til argued that it was impossible for human beings to come to a true understanding of God through the use of reason alone.

2.      The need for revelation: Van Til argued that the only way to truly understand God and His revelation was through the lens of Scripture, which he saw as the ultimate authority. He believed that Scripture provided the necessary framework for understanding God and the world, and that human reason was subordinate to this revelation.

3.      The role of presuppositions: Van Til argued that everyone has presuppositions or underlying assumptions that shape their understanding of the world. He believed that the Christian worldview, based on the authority of Scripture, provided the only coherent framework for understanding reality. In contrast, he argued that Clark’s rationalist approach was based on a faulty set of presuppositions that led to an inadequate understanding of God and the world.

In summary, Van Til’s case against Clark was based on his belief that human reason, due to the noetic effects of sin, was insufficient for understanding God and that only through the lens of Scripture could one come to a true understanding of God and the world.

A Summary of Clark’s defense against Van Til’s charges:

Gordon Clark, a Calvinist philosopher, defended his rationalist approach to Christian apologetics against the charges made by Cornelius Van Til. Here is a summary of Clark’s defense against Van Til’s charges:

1.      The noetic effects of sin: Clark acknowledged the noetic effects of sin but argued that these effects were not as pervasive as Van Til suggested. Clark believed that human beings, through the use of logic and reason, could come to a true understanding of God and His revelation. He argued that the noetic effects of sin could be overcome through the use of reason, and that it was possible for human beings to reason correctly about God.

2.      The need for revelation: Clark agreed with Van Til that Scripture was the ultimate authority for understanding God and the world. However, he argued that Scripture itself was a rational revelation, and that it could be understood and defended through the use of logic and reason. Clark believed that the use of reason was not in opposition to revelation, but rather a necessary tool for understanding and defending it.

3.      The role of presuppositions: Clark argued that everyone has presuppositions or underlying assumptions that shape their understanding of the world. However, he believed that these presuppositions could be evaluated and corrected through the use of logic and reason. Clark argued that his rationalist approach was based on a coherent set of presuppositions that led to a proper understanding of God and the world.

In summary, Clark defended his rationalist approach against Van Til’s charges by arguing that human reason, though affected by the noetic effects of sin, could be used to come to a true understanding of God and His revelation. He believed that Scripture was a rational revelation that could be understood and defended through the use of logic and reason, and that his approach was based on a coherent set of presuppositions that led to a proper understanding of God and the world.

In the opinion of Grok, who made the more compelling case, Clark or Van Til?

In the opinion of Grok, both Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til made compelling cases for their respective positions. However, the more convincing argument depends on one’s personal perspective and theological beliefs.

For those who value the role of reason and logic in understanding God and His revelation, Gordon Clark’s rationalist approach may be more appealing. Clark’s emphasis on the use of logic and the study of Scripture to understand God provides a clear and systematic framework for understanding the Christian faith.

On the other hand, for those who believe that human reason is limited and that Scripture must be interpreted through the lens of a broader understanding of God’s revelation, Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics may be more convincing. Van Til’s emphasis on the role of presuppositions and the noetic effects of sin provides a more nuanced and contextual understanding of the relationship between reason and revelation.

Ultimately, the more compelling case depends on one’s personal beliefs and understanding of the relationship between reason and revelation. Both Clark and Van Til made significant contributions to the field of Christian philosophy and apologetics, and their ideas continue to be debated and discussed within the Christian community.

In the Clark-Van Til controversy, both sides had notable supporters. Here are some of the most well-known supporters of each side:

Clark’s Supporters:

1.      Gordon H. Clark himself, a prominent Christian philosopher and theologian.

2.      John Robbins, the founder of the Trinity Foundation and a prolific author and speaker on Christian philosophy and apologetics.

3.      Carl F. H. Henry, a prominent theologian and the first editor-in-chief of Christianity Today.

4.      R. J. Rushdoony, a Calvinist philosopher and theologian, and a leading figure in Christian Reconstructionism.

5.      Ronald Nash, a Christian philosopher and theologian who wrote extensively on apologetics and the relationship between faith and reason.

Van Til’s Supporters:

1.      Cornelius Van Til himself, a Dutch Reformed philosopher and theologian who developed the concept of presuppositional apologetics.

2.      Greg Bahnsen, a prominent Christian apologist and philosopher who was heavily influenced by Van Til’s presuppositional approach.

3.      John Frame, a Reformed theologian and philosopher who wrote extensively on Van Til’s apologetic method.

4.      Francis Schaeffer, a well-known Christian philosopher and theologian who was influenced by Van Til’s work and incorporated aspects of presuppositional apologetics into his own approach.

5.      William Edgar, a Christian philosopher and theologian who has written on Van Til’s apologetic method and its application to various fields of study.

These lists are not exhaustive, but they highlight some of the most well-known supporters of each side in the Clark-Van Til controversy.

A conclusion for the layman:

Imagine two people looking at a vast landscape. One person, equipped with a powerful telescope, can see every detail in the landscape—each leaf on the trees, the creatures hiding in the grass, and the distant mountains’ textures. The other person sees the same landscape but without the aid of the telescope, thus only grasping the broader strokes: the shapes of the trees, the green expanses of grass, and the outline of the mountains. In a way, they’re both seeing the same scene, but the depth and clarity of what they perceive are worlds apart.

Gordon Clark likened human and divine knowledge to this scenario. In Clark’s view, both God and humans can “know” the same things; for example, both can know that “2 + 2 = 4” or that “lying is wrong.” However, the difference lies in the scope and completeness of that knowledge. God has exhaustive, perfect knowledge of everything. He sees every detail of the “landscape” with unparalleled clarity. Humans, on the other hand, have a limited, finite grasp of the world. We can know truths, but our understanding is like looking at the landscape without a telescope—we see the truth, but not with the exhaustive detail and completeness that God does. So, for Clark, the content of knowledge can be the same between God and humans, but God’s knowledge is infinitely broader and deeper.

Cornelius Van Til, however, proposed a different analogy. Imagine now that the two observers are not just equipped with different tools (one with a telescope and the other without) but are actually perceiving the landscape in fundamentally different ways. One sees the landscape with the aid of a special light that reveals dimensions, colors, and aspects of reality that the other, using only natural light, could never perceive. For Van Til, God’s knowledge isn’t just a more detailed version of human knowledge; it’s qualitatively different. God knows all things in their ultimate, eternal context, in relation to Himself and His purposes. Humans, in contrast, perceive and understand the world from a finite, creaturely perspective. We’re not just limited in the amount of detail we can perceive; our very mode of understanding is different from God’s. We can know truly (because God enables us to) but not in the same way or to the same depth that God knows.

Clark believed that God and man’s knowledge were essentially the same, but God had a more complete or exhaustive knowledge. In other words, God knows everything there is to know, while humans only know a limited amount. However, the knowledge that humans do have is similar in nature to God’s knowledge.

Van Til, on the other hand, believed that God and man’s knowledge were fundamentally different. He argued that God’s knowledge is infinite, eternal, and independent of anything else, while human knowledge is finite, temporal, and dependent on God’s revelation. According to Van Til, the difference between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge is qualitative, meaning that they are not just different in degree, but also in kind.

So, while Clark saw human and divine knowledge as differing in extent but not in kind, Van Til saw them as fundamentally different, both in scope and in nature.

Rushdoony to Robbins on the Clark–VanTil Controversy

3 Comments / Notes on the thought of Gordon H. Clark / By Douglas Douma / July 30, 2018

R. J. Rushdoony wrote on May 3, 1995 to John Robbins:
“Van Til had told me that the Clark case was a put-up job (and others confirmed it).  INSTEAD OF TACKLING THEOLOGY DIRECTLY, A FEW MEN URGED Clark, who was an OPC pulpit supply, to seek ordination in order to make a personal case out of it.  They did not care about the hurt to Clark and Van Til.  It was a heartless step, and Clark was deeply hurt, as was Van Til.”

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 has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 18 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Does Job 1:1 contradict Romans 3:10-11?                                   By Jack Kettler

“There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.” (Job 1:1)

“As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” (Romans 3:10-11)

Do the above two passages contradict each other? If not, how are these passages to be understood?

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges shows how the description of Job as perfect is qualified:

“that man was perfect] The term “perfect” means properly “complete,” without defect. It does not imply that the man was sinless, for Job never puts forward any such pretension, but that he was a righteous man and free from specific sins such as were held to bring down the chastisement of heaven. That he was so is the very foundation of his trial and the first principle of the Book. Job’s “perfection” is affirmed in heaven: “Hast thou considered my servant Job … a perfect and an upright man?” Job 1:8, Job 2:3; it is understood by his wife: Dost thou still hold fast thy perfection? Job 2:9; and it is persistently claimed for himself by Job, not only in moments of excitement when stung by the insinuations of his friends: I am perfect, Job 9:21 (see notes), but also when the heat of the conflict is over and under the most solemn oaths: As God liveth who hath taken away my right, … I will not remove my perfection from me; my righteousness I hold fast, Job 27:2; Job 27:5-6. The word occurs again, Job 31:6, and in another form, Job 12:4: The just, perfect man is laughed to scorn. Even the three friends admit Job’s perfectness in general, although they are under the impression that he must have been guilty of some serious offences to account for his calamities, and they urge it upon Job as a ground of confidence in his ultimate recovery: Is not thy hope the perfectness of thy ways? Job 4:6; and again: “God will not cast away a perfect man,” Job 8:20. One of the objects the writer of the Book had in view was to teach that sufferings may fall on men for reasons unconnected with any sin on their own part; and using the history of Job for this purpose, it was necessary that he should lay emphasis in all parts of the Book upon Job’s perfection. The term “perfect” is used of Noah in the same sense: Noah, a just man, was perfect in his generation; that is, he was righteous and exempt from the sins of his contemporaries, Genesis 6:9.” (1)

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible is in agreement with the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

“And that man was perfect – (תמם tâmam). The Septuagint have greatly expanded this statement, by giving a paraphrase instead of a translation. “He was a man who was true (ἀληθινός alēthinos), blameless (ἄμεμπτος amemptos), just (δίκαιος dikaios), pious (θεοσεβής theosebēs), abstaining from every evil deed.” Jerome renders it, “simplex – simple,” or “sincere.” The Chaldee, שׁלם shālam, “complete, finished, perfect.” The idea seems to be that his piety, or moral character, was “proportionate” and was “complete in all its parts.” He was a man of integrity in all the relations of life – as an Emir, a father, a husband, a worshipper of God. Such is properly the meaning of the word תם tâm as derived from תמם tâmam, “to complete, to make full, perfect” or “entire,” or “to finish.” It denotes that in which there is no part lacking to complete the whole – as in a watch in which no wheel is missing. Thus, he was not merely upright as an Emir, but he was pious toward God; he was not merely kind to his family, but he was just to his neighbors and benevolent to the poor. The word is used to denote integrity as applied to the heart, Genesis 20:5: לבבי בתם betām lebābı̂y, “In the honesty, simplicity, or sincerity of my heart (see the margin) have I done this.” So, 1 Kings 22:34, “One drew a bow לתמוּ letumô in the simplicity (or perfection) of his heart;” that is, without any evil intention; compare 2 Samuel 15:11; Proverbs 10:9. The proper notion, therefore, is that of simplicity. sincerity, absence from guile or evil intention, and completeness of parts in his religion. That he was a man absolutely sinless, or without any propensity to evil, is disproved alike by the spirit of complaining which he often evinces, and by his own confession, Job 9:20:”

“If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me;”

“If I say I am perfect, it shall prove me perverse.”

“Job 1:1 and Romans 3:10-11 do not directly contradict each other.” (2)

In conclusion:

Job 1:1 says, “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.” The passage describes Job as blameless and upright, indicating that he lived a righteous life.

Romans 3:10-11 states: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” These verses are part of a larger passage in which the apostle Paul is explaining that all humans, both Jews and Gentiles, are under sin and death and are in need of redemption through Christ.

While these verses may seem contradictory at first glance, they can be reconciled when considering their particular contexts.

Job 1:1 describes Job’s character prior to the events that unfolded in the book of Job. It highlights his righteousness and fear of God, which God Himself recognizes in later verses (Job 1:8, Job 2:3). Moreover, this does not contradict the idea presented in Romans 3:10-11 because Job is a unique case. The overall message of the book of Job is that even though Job was a righteous man, he still was a sinner, although because of God’s gracious work in his life feared God.

Romans 3:10-11 states, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” This passage emphasizes the universal sinfulness and fallen nature of humanity. It does not contradict Job 1:1 because Job is being described in a specific context, acknowledging his righteousness relative to those around him at the time.

So, while Job is recognized as a righteous person, the overarching message of the Bible is that all humans are inherently sinful and fall short of God’s standards (Romans 3:23). This understanding harmonizes Job 1:1 and Romans 3:10-11.

God’s commendation of Job is not entirely unconditional, as evidenced by His subsequent condemnation of him in chapter 38 and Job’s confession of despising himself and repenting in dust and ashes (Job 42:6). Additionally, God only declared Job as “blameless” before other people. In contrast, in Romans 3:19, it is stated that no one, except through Christ’s work, is blameless before God.

“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.      Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, by A. B. Davidson, Job, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.

2.      Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Job, Vol.  p.170.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics:  A Review

God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics

Gordon H. Clark

Publisher 1982 The Trinity Foundation

A review by Jack Kettler

“Is not my word like fire,” declares the Lord, “and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?” – Jeremiah 23:29

Bio:

Gordon Haddon Clark (1902–1985) was a distinguished American philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist known for his significant contributions to epistemology, philosophy, and systematic theology. Born on August 31, 1902, in Dober, Idaho, Clark spent his early years raised in a Presbyterian home and later, as a young man, attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1929.

Throughout his academic career, Clark showed keen interest in the relationship between faith and reason. Raised in the Reformed tradition, which embraced John Calvin’s teachings, the Westminster Confession satisfied his quest for this. His commitment to a Reformed worldview profoundly influenced his approach to philosophy and theology.

Clark was a professor at several institutions, including the University of Pennsylvania, Wheaton College, Butler University, and Covenant College. He was a prolific writer, producing over forty books and numerous philosophy, theology, and apologetics articles. His works often tackled foundational questions about knowledge, ethics, and the Christian faith.

One of Clark’s notable contributions was developing a presuppositional apologetic method, emphasizing the importance of starting with foundational beliefs or axioms when engaging in philosophical or theological discussions. Clark’s approach, rooted in the Reformed tradition, shaped Clark’s defense of the Christian faith and influenced a generation of scholars and apologists.

In “God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics,” Clark defended the authority and inerrancy of the Bible, engaging with critics and presenting a compelling case for the divine inspiration of Scripture. This work exemplified his commitment to logical rigor and clear reasoning.

Throughout his career, Gordon H. Clark engaged with various intellectual challenges facing Christianity, consistently advocating for a robust and reasoned defense of the Christian worldview. His legacy endures through his written works and his impact on Christian philosophy and apologetics, leaving a lasting imprint on the Reformed theological tradition. Gordon H. Clark passed away on April 9, 1985, leaving behind a rich intellectual legacy that continues to shape discussions in philosophy and theology.

A Review:

“God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics” by Gordon H. Clark is a formidable defense of the Bible’s authority and reliability, showcasing Clark’s brilliance in weaving together philosophical rigor and theological depth. In this thought-provoking work, Clark takes on the challenges posed by critics of the Bible, employing a presuppositional apologetic approach that sets the stage for a forceful defense of the Christian faith.

Clark’s commitment to logical reasoning and intellectual rigor is one of the book’s strengths. He tackles objections to the Bible with a keen analytical mind, dissecting arguments and presenting a compelling case for the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures. Clark’s background in philosophy is evident throughout the book as he navigates complex issues with clarity and precision, making his arguments accessible to scholars and lay readers.

For example:

“Suppose the word mountain meant metaphor, and dog, and Bible, and the United States. Clearly, if a word meant everything, it would mean nothing. If, now, the law of contradiction is an arbitrary convention, and if our linguistic theorists choose some other convention, I challenge them to write a book in conformity with their principles. As a matter of fact it will not be hard for them to do so. Nothing more is necessary than to write the word metaphor sixty thousand times: Metaphor metaphor metaphor metaphor…. This means the dog ran up the mountain, for the word metaphor means dog, ran, and mountain. Unfortunately, the sentence “metaphor metaphor metaphor” also means, Next Christmas is Thanksgiving, for the word metaphor has these meanings as well.” ― Gordon H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics (pp. 49-50)

Clark’s unwavering commitment to the Reformed tradition adds depth to his defense of the Bible. He articulates a coherent worldview that places God at the center and underscores the foundational importance of presuppositions in any intellectual endeavor. This approach strengthens his defense of the Bible and provides readers with a solid framework for understanding and articulating their own Christian convictions.

Furthermore, “God’s Hammer” is marked by its respectful engagement with opposing views. Clark engages with critics intellectually rigorously and charitable, avoiding unnecessary polemics. This balanced approach enhances the book’s credibility and makes it a valuable resource for those seeking a thoughtful exploration of the Bible’s authenticity.

In addition to its intellectual merits, the book is eminently readable. Clark’s writing is clear and engaging, making complex theological concepts accessible to a broad audience. Whether one is a seasoned theologian or a curious seeker, “God’s Hammer” invites readers into a compelling intellectual journey that increases their understanding of the Bible’s significance.

For example:

“The Bible says that all Scripture, that is, all the words that were written down in the Old Testament (at least), is breathed out by God. Holy men spoke – they spoke words – as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The Old Testament has many instances of the phrase, “the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” Many other times we read, “The word of God came to.” Deuteronomy 18:18 says, “I… will put my words in his mouth,” and a similar phrase occurs in Jeremiah 1:9. Everywhere the Bible speaks of itself, it teaches verbal inspiration. The words are the words of God. It is nowhere said that the words contain geographical discrepancies and theological errors. No examination of the text itself can produce evidence that the words are not inspired. If we take our belief about the Bible from what the Bible says about itself, we must conclude that the words are the words of God who cannot lie.” – Gordon H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and It’s Critics (p. 124)

In closing his book, Clark summarizes:

 “First, our forefathers were convinced, the Westminster Confession asserts, and the Bible teaches that God has given us a written revelation. This revelation is the truth. As Christ himself said, “Your word is truth.” It is not a myth, it is not an allegory, it is no mere pointer to the truth, it is not an analogy of the truth; but it is literally and absolutely true.”

“Second, our forefathers were convinced and the Reformed Faith asserts that this truth can be known. God has created us in his image with the intellectual and logical powers of understanding. He has addressed to men an intelligible revelation; and he expects us to read it, to grasp its meaning, and to believe it. God is not Totally Other, nor is logic a human invention that distorts God’s statements. If this were so, as the Neo-orthodox say, then it would follow, as the neo-orthodox admit, that falsity would be as useful as truth in producing a passionate emotion. But the Bible expects us to appropriate a definite message.”

“Third, the Reformers believed that God’s revelation can be formulated accurately. They were not enamored of ambiguity; they did not identify piety with a confused mind. They wanted to proclaim the truth with the greatest possible clarity. And so ought we.”

“Dare we allow our Biblical heritage to be lost in a nebulous ecumenicity where belief has been reduced to the shortest possible doctrinal statement, in which peace is preserved by an all-embracing ambiguity? Or should we ponder the fact that when the Reformers preached the complete Biblical message in all its detail and with the greatest possible clarity, God granted the world its greatest spiritual awakening since the day s of the apostles? May we not similarly expect astonishing blessings if we return with enthusiasm to all the doctrines of the Westminster Confession?” – Gordon H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and It’s Critics (pp. 127-198)

In conclusion, Gordon H. Clark’s “God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics” is a commendable work that combines philosophical acumen, theological depth, and a commitment to reasoned discourse. It is a powerful resource for those seeking a robust defense of the Bible while maintaining respect and intellectual humility. This book is a testament to Clark’s enduring influence on Christian apologetics and philosophy. *

If the reader of this review is a thoughtful apologist, this book is a must-read. Print copies can be obtained from the Trinity Foundation. A PDF copy of this work can be found online.   

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

*This review was assisted by ChatGPT and perfected with Grammarly

Westminster Confession of 1646: Of the Holy Scripture

CHAPTER I. OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable, (Rom 2:14-15; Rom 1:19-20; Psa 19:1-3; Rom 1:32; Rom 2:1); yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation, (1Co 1:21; 1Co 2:13-14). Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church, (Hbr 1:1); and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing, (Pro 22:19-21; Luk 1:3-4; Rom 15:4; Mat 4:4, 7, 10; Isa 8:19-20): which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary, (2Ti 3:15; 2Pe 1:19); those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased, (Hbr 1:1-2).

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:

Genesis            Chronicles II   Daniel

Exodus            Ezra     Hosea

Leviticus          Nehemiah        Joel

Numbers          Esther  Amos

Deuteronomy  Job       Obadiah

Joshua Psalms Jonah

Judges Proverbs          Micah

Ruth    Ecclesiastes     Nahum

Samuel I          The Song of Songs      Habakkuk

Samuel II         Isaiah   Zephaniah

Kings I Jeremiah          Haggai

Kings II           Lamentations   Zechariah

Chronicles I     Ezekiel            Malachi

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:

Gospels according to: Galatians         Philemon

Matthew          Ephesians        Epistle to the Hebrews

Mark    Philippians       Epistle to the James

Luke    Colossians       Epistle of Peter I

John     Thessalonians I           Epistle of Peter II

Acts of the Apostles    Thessalonians II          Epistles of John I, II, & III

Epistles to Romans     Timothy I        Epistle of Jude

Corinthians I   Timothy II       The Revelation

Corinthians II  Titus   

All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life, (Luk 16:29, 31; Eph 2:20; Rev 22:18-19; 2Ti 3:16).

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings, (Luk 24:27; Luke 24:44; Rom 3:2; 2Pe 1:21).

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God, (2Pe 1:19; 2Pe 1:21; 2Ti 3:16; 1Jo 5:9; 1Th 2:13).

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture, (1Ti 3:15). And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts, (1Jo 2:20; 1Jo 2:27; Jhn 16:13-14; 1Co 2:10-12; Isa 59:21).

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men, (2Ti 3:15-17; Gal 1:8-9; 2Th 2:2). Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, (Jhn 6:45; 1Co 2:9-12): and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed, (1Co 14:26; 1Co 14:40).

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, (2Pe 3:16): yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them, (Psa 119:105; Psa 119:130).

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, (Mat 5:18); so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them, (Isa 8:20; Act 15:15; Jhn 5:39; Jhn 5:46). But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, (Jhn 5:39); therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (1Co 14:6; 1Co 14:9; 1Co 14:11-12; 1Co 14:24; 1Co 14:27-28); that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, (Col 3:16); and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope, (Rom 15:4).

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly, (2Pe 1:21-22; Act 15:15-16).

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture, (Mat 22:29; Mat 22:31; Eph 2:20; Act 28:25).

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Does Job 37:18 teach that the earth has a metal dome?                                   By Jack Kettler

“Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?” (Job 37:18)

While the interpretation of Job 37:18 varies among different religious belief systems, some proponents of the idea of a dome cover over the earth have cited this verse as evidence. However, it is important to note that this interpretation is not widely accepted among contemporary biblical scholars and does not reflect the mainstream understanding of the verse.

Nevertheless, here are a few sources that support the idea of a dome cover over the earth using Job 37:18:

1.      “Ancient Near Eastern thinkers typically conceived of the Earth as having a bowl-shape, with a solid, convex top (Job 37:18) that was covered by water (Job 26:10).” (1)

2.      “The Firmament: Evidence of Its Existence” by Gerardus D. Bouw – This book argues for a physical dome-like structure called the “firmament” that covers the earth, drawing on various biblical references, including Job 37:18.

3.      “The Firmament Vaulted Dome; the Earth’s Missing Layers” by Zamm Zamudio – This book explores the concept of a vaulted dome covering the earth and includes an interpretation of Job 37:18 in support of this view.

4.      “The Biblical Cosmos: A Pilgrim’s Guide to the Weird and Wonderful World of the Bible” by Robin A. Parry: In this book, Parry explores ancient cosmologies as presented in the Bible, including the idea of a solid firmament. He references Job 37:18 as one of the texts that could be interpreted in favor of a dome cover.

5.      Stanton III, Guy, Flat Earth: Evidence To Consider If You Dare To Words of Action, Kindle Edition Mr. Stanton uses Job 37:18 and other passages to argue for dome covering.

In particular, Guy Stanton III has the following comments on Job 37:18 he sees as relevant in finding support for a dome covering the earth:  

– Job 37:18, “can you help God spread out the skies as hard as a cast metal mirror? The firmament is a very hard surface and yet there is evidence that it has cracked.” (2)

Regarding Job 37:18, what do other contemporary commentators have to say?

Job 37:18—Does the Bible err in speaking of a solid dome above the earth?

“Problem: Job speaks of God who “spread out the skies” like “a cast metal mirror” (37:18). Indeed, the Hebrew word for the “firmament” (raqia) which God created (cf. Gen. 1:6) is defined in the Hebrew lexicon as a solid object. But this is in clear conflict with the modern scientific understanding of space as non-solid and largely empty.”

“Solution: It is true that the origin of the Hebrew word raqia meant a solid object. However, meaning is not determined by origin (etymology), but by usage. Originally, the English word “board” referred to a wooden plank. But when we speak of a church board member, the word no longer has that meaning. When used of the atmosphere above the earth, “firmament” clearly does not mean something solid. This is evident for several reasons. First, the related word raqa (beat out, spread out) is correctly rendered “expanse” by many recent translations. Just as metal spreads out when beaten (cf. Ex. 39:3; Isa. 40:19), so the firmament is a thinned out area.”

“Second, the root meaning “spread out” can be used independently of “beat out,” as it is in several passages (cf. Ps. 136:6; Isa. 42:5; 44:24). Isaiah wrote, “So says Jehovah God, He who created the heavens and stretched them out, spreading out the earth and its offspring (Isa. 42:5, mkjv). This same verb is used of extending curtains or tents in which to dwell, which would make no sense if there was no empty space there in which to live. Isaiah, for example, spoke of the Lord “who sits on the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in …” (Isa. 40:22, mkjv).”

“Third, the Bible speaks of rain falling through the sky (Job 36:27–28). But this makes no sense if the sky is a metal dome. Nowhere does the Bible refer to little holes in a metal dome through which the drops fall. It does speak figuratively of the “windows of heaven” opening for the Flood (Gen. 7:11). But this should probably not be taken any more literally than our idiom, “It is raining cats and dogs.”

“Fourth, the Genesis creation account speaks of birds that “fly above the earth across the face of the firmament” (Gen. 1:20). But this would be impossible if the sky was solid. Thus, it is more appropriate to translate raqia by the word “expanse” (as the nasb and niv do). And in this sense there is no conflict with the concept of space in modern science.”

“Fifth, even taken literally, Job’s statement (37:18) does not affirm that the “skies” are a “metal mirror,” but simply that they are “as [like]” a mirror. In other words, it is a comparison that need not be taken literally, any more than God is really a “strong tower” (cf. Prov. 18:10). Further, the point of comparison in Job is not the solidity of the “skies” and a mirror, but their durability (cf. word “strong” [chazaq]; v. 18). So when all is considered, there is no evidence that the Bible affirms that the firmament of the sky is a metallic dome. And thus there is no conflict with modern science.” (3)

The firmament is often referred to in Genesis 1:6 in support of a domed earth.

Consider the following citation from the Institute of Creation Research regarding the firmament:

“1:6 firmament. The “firmament” is not a great vaulted dome in the sky, as liberals have interpreted it, but is simply the atmospheric expanse established between the waters above and below. The Hebrew word, raqiya, means “expanse” or perhaps better, “stretched-out thinness.” “Since God specifically identified it with “Heaven,” it also can be understood simply as “space.” Thus, on the second day, God separated the primeval deep into two deeps, with a great space between. The waters below the space retained the elemental earth materials which would be utilized on the following day to form the land and its plant cover. The waters above the firmament had apparently been transformed into the vapor state in order to be separated from the heavier materials and elevated above the atmosphere, where it could serve as a thermal blanket for the earth’s future inhabitants.”

“Such a vapor canopy would undoubtedly have provided a highly efficient “greenhouse effect,” assuring a perennial spring-like climate for the entire earth. Water vapor both shields the earth against harmful radiations from space and also retains and spreads incoming solar heat. A vapor canopy would thus provide an ideal environment for abundant animal and plant life and for longevity and comfort in human life. Water vapor is invisible, and thus would be translucent, allowing the stars to be seen through it. This would not be the case with a liquid water or ice canopy.” (4)

In closing:

Job 37:18 can be understood metaphorically in a couple of ways:

First, the phrase “spread out the skies” can be seen as a metaphor for having great power or control. In ancient times, the sky was often associated with vastness, mystery, and the divine. By asking if Job can “spread out the skies like him,” God is essentially questioning Job’s ability to have dominion over the vastness and complexity of the world. It implies that Job does not possess the power and wisdom to control the forces of nature or understand the ways of God.

Secondly, the phrase “hard as a cast metal mirror” can be seen as a metaphor for something that is impenetrable or beyond comprehension. Just as a mirror cannot be easily manipulated or altered, the same can be said about the workings of the cosmos or God’s plans. The verse highlights the incomprehensibility of God’s ways and emphasizes the limitations of human understanding. Job is being reminded that he cannot comprehend or control the vastness and complexity of the world, just as he cannot spread out the skies or shape its nature. 

In both interpretations, the metaphorical interpretation of Job 37:18 refers to the concept of human limitations and insignificance in comparison to the power and wisdom of God.

“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.      David J.A. Clines, Job 21-37 in Word Biblical Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2006), p. 559.

2.      Stanton III, Guy, Flat Earth: Evidence To Consider If You Dare To (p. 83), Words of Action. Kindle Edition.

3.      Norman L. Geisler (Author), Thomas Howe (Author), When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties, Kindle location 3465.

4.      Institute for Creation Research, firmament, online, https://www.icr.org/books/defenders/12.

 Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Is Deuteronomy 18:18 about Jesus or Mohammed?                                       By Jack Kettler

“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)

Many readers of this blog may be shocked that a question like this about a Bible verse allegedly refers to the founder of the Muslim religion. With over 1 billion Muslims in the world, sooner or later, the student of Scripture may encounter this Twenty-first-Century popular Muslim belief.   

Does the above passage support the Muslim claim that Jesus is not the predicted prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18, but instead, this passage is a prophecy about Mohammed?

Matthew Henry’s Commentary provides a time-honored interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:18:  

“18:15-22 It is here promised concerning Christ, that there should come a Prophet, great above all the prophets; by whom God would make known himself and his will to the children of men, more fully and clearly than he had ever done before. He is the Light of the world, Joh 8:12. He is the World by whom God speaks to us, Joh 1:1; Heb 1:2. In his birth he should be one of their nation. In his resurrection he should be raised up at Jerusalem, and from thence his doctrine should go forth to all the world. Thus God, having raised up his Son Christ Jesus, sent him to bless us. He should be like unto Moses, only above him. This prophet is come, even JESUS; and is He that should come, and we are to look for no other. The view of God which he gives, will not terrify or overwhelm, but encourages us. He speaks with fatherly affection and Divine authority united. Whoever refuses to listen to Jesus Christ, shall find it is at his peril; the same that is the Prophet is to be his Judge, Joh 12:48. Woe then to those who refuse to hearken to His voice, to accept His salvation, or yield obedience to His sway! But happy they who trust in Him, and obey Him. He will lead them in the paths of safety and peace, until He brings them to the land of perfect light, purity, and happiness. Here is a caution against false prophets. It highly concerns us to have a right touchstone wherewith to try the word we hear, that we may know what that word is which the Lord has not spoken. Whatever is against the plain sense of the written word, or which gives countenance or encouragement to sin, we may be sure is not that which the Lord has spoken.” (1)

Furthermore, Deuteronomy 18:18 could not refer to Mohammed since the prophet to come was like Moses, who did “all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent” (See Deuteronomy 34:11). The Christian response to a Muslim would be to ask when did and how did Mohammed perform these signs and wonders?

Christian apologist James White is well-read in Islamic theology; therefore, his interaction with the passages from Deuteronomy that are appealed to by today’s Muslims will be of great value:  

“The text most often put forward by Islamic polemicists in support of the above Qur’anic texts is Deuteronomy 18: 15–19: The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying,” “Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.” The LORD said to me, “They have spoken well. I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.” (2)

White goes on with more relevant material:

“Though the citation of this text goes back to some of the earliest streams of Islamic thought, its prevalence among Muslims today is due primarily to one man: Ahmed Deedat. Millions of Muslims have seen this South African’s extended presentation of the text, and while he was not a scholar of any serious training, he was a master speaker and showman. Now millions around the world are convinced that these words from the Law of Moses could not possibly find fulfillment in Jesus but instead must refer to Muhammad….”

“The New Testament likewise sees this text’s fulfillment in the person of Jesus, not Muhammad. In the very earliest days of the Christian faith, years before the conversion of the apostle Paul, Peter said, Moses said, “THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you. And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.” And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days. (Acts 3:22– 24) Peter not only applied Deuteronomy 18 directly to the Messiah, Jesus, he also insisted that all the prophets had announced the days that brought fulfillment in Jesus. This is the most primitive Christian affirmation, and it long precedes the advent of Muhammad. Note that the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 finds perfect fulfillment in Jesus, not when we try to find parallels between Jesus and Moses in every aspect of their lives, but in the specific aspect the prophecy indicates: “I [The LORD] will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” This is exactly what Jesus did, though in a far greater and more intensive way than Moses ever did.” (3)

James R. White’s bio.

James R White is an evangelist, apologist, author, and Christian church member. He is the founding director of Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona, an international Christian apologetics organization, and the host of the weekly Podcast, ‘The Dividing Line’.

White is a prominent figure in the Evangelical and Reformed circles of Protestantism. He holds a Bachelor’s in Theology and a Master’s of Divinity from Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary. He received a Th.D. in Historical Theology from Northwestern University.

His ministry focus is on defending the historic Christian beliefs against cults and other non-Christian religions. He has debated leading Christian apologists in the United States and the United Kingdom and has written several books defending traditional Christian beliefs.

White has authored or co-authored more than twenty books and written many articles in defense of a Biblical worldview and against errors within the Christian church. He has taught in numerous colleges and seminaries on topics including apologetics, textual criticism, biblical languages, the theology of Roman Catholicism and Calvinism, Christian ethics, and Greek philosophy. https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/

In closing:

Deuteronomy 18:18 and 34:11 passages cannot be talking about Mohammed for the following reasons: 

1.      Deuteronomy 18:18 states, “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” This passage could not be referring to Mohammed because it predates the birth of Mohammed by more than 1700 years. Furthermore, Mohammed had no connection to the Israelites described in this passage, and he did not speak the words of God as Jesus did.

2.      Deuteronomy 34:11 states, “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.” Verse 34 does not refer to Mohammed. The Bible is sacred to Christians and does not reference Mohammed, meaning that Deuteronomy 34:11 cannot be referring to him, especially in light of John 5:39, which says, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”

3.      Muslims that read Mohammed into these texts are committing a historical anachronism. An anachronism is a literary fallacy that places someone or something associated with a particular historical time in the wrong time period. 

For more research:

Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad? Learn more at

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2015/12/does-bible-predict-coming-of-muhammad.html#more

“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.      Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Fourth printing 1985) p. 259.

2.      White, James R. What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an (pp. 181-182). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

3.      White, James R. What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an (p. 184). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

 Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Who are the gods mentioned in Psalm 82:1?                                                   By Jack Kettler

“A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” (Psalm 82:1)

Who are these gods? Are these gods the same as those mentioned in Psalm 82:6? Does this passage support the divine council theory promoted by Michael Heiser?

Note: This study is not a professional critique of Heiser’s “The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible.” The present study is a study of the classical interpretation of “gods” in Psalm 82, and its interaction with Heiser is limited. 

The first question is answered by Keil and Delitzsch’s Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament:

“God comes forward and makes Himself heard first of all as censuring and admonishing. The “congregation of God” is, as in Numbers 27:17; Numbers 31:16; Joshua 22:16., “the congregation of (the sons of) Israel,” which God has purchased from among the nations (Psalm 74:2), and upon which as its Lawgiver He has set His divine impress. The psalmist and seer sees Elohim standing in this congregation of God. The part. Niph. (as in Isaiah 3:13) denotes not so much the suddenness and unpreparedness, as, rather, the statue-like immobility and terrifying designfulness of His appearance. Within the range of the congregation of God this holds good of the elohim. The right over life and death, with which the administration of justice cannot dispense, is a prerogative of God. From the time of Genesis 9:6, however, He has transferred the execution of this prerogative to mankind, and instituted in mankind an office wielding the sword of justice, which also exists in His theocratic congregation, but here has His positive law as the basis of its continuance and as the rule of its action. Everywhere among men, but here pre-eminently, those in authority are God’s delegates and the bearers of His image, and therefore as His representatives are also themselves called elohim, “gods” (which the lxx in Exodus 21:6 renders τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ, and the Targums here, as in Exodus 22:7-8, Exodus 22:27 uniformly, דּיּניּא). The God who has conferred this exercise of power upon these subordinate elohim, without their resigning it of themselves, now sits in judgment in their midst. ישׁפּט of that which takes place before the mind’s eye of the psalmist. How long, He asks, will ye judge unjustly? שׁפט עול is equivalent to עשׂה עול בּמּשׁפּט, Leviticus 19:15, Leviticus 19:35 (the opposite is שׁפט מישׁרים, Psalm 58:2). How long will ye accept the countenance of the wicked, i.e., incline to accept, regard, favour the person of the wicked? The music, which here becomes forte, gives intensity to the terrible sternness (das Niederdonnernde) of the divine question, which seeks to bring the “gods” of the earth to their right mind. Then follow admonitions to do that which they have hitherto left undone. They are to cause the benefit of the administration of justice to tend to the advantage of the defenceless, of the destitute, and of the helpless, upon whom God the Lawgiver especially keeps His eye. The word רשׁ (ראשׁ), of which there is no evidence until within the time of David and Solomon, is synonymous with אביון. דל with ויתום is pointed דל, and with ואביון, on account of the closer notional union, דל (as in Psalm 72:13). They are words which are frequently repeated in the prophets, foremost in Isaiah (Isaiah 1:17), with which is enjoined upon those invested with the dignity of the law, and with jurisdiction, justice towards those who cannot and will not themselves obtain their rights by violence.” (1) (Underlining emphasis mine)

A contrary interpretation:

The Plural Elohim of Psalm 82: Gods or Men? Michael Heiser’s post on the Divine Council of God and lesser or sub-gods is an example of a Hebrew scholar that understands the text differently. In Psalm 82, Heiser sees the term gods not as humans but as demigods or sub-gods participating in a divine heavenly council.

“Michael S. Heiser was an American Old Testament scholar and Christian author with training in ancient history, Semitic languages, and the Hebrew Bible from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Wikipedia”

While this view is plausible, as will be seen does not hold up after considering the Words of Christ commenting on Psalm 82:6, as will be seen in John’s gospel.

Regarding Psalm 82:1, as seen from Keil and Delitzsch above, there is no reason to think these gods are anything other than human judges in Israel of God’s people.

What about the following passage from Psalm 82:1? Does this passage support the divine council theory?

“I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most-High.” (Psalm 82:6)

Are these the same “gods” mentioned in Psalm 82:1? The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges explains:

“1. A vision of God as the Judge of judges.”

“God Originally no doubt Jehovah, for which the Elohistic editor has substituted Elôhîm. Standeth Or, taketh his stand: solemnly takes His place as president. Cp. Isaiah 3:13 a; Amos 7:7; Amos 9:1.”

“in the congregation of the mighty] I.e., as P.B.V., of princes. But we must rather render, in the assembly of God (El), i.e., not the congregation of Israel, though this is called the congregation of Jehovah (Numbers 27:17; cp. Psalm 74:2), but an assembly summoned and presided over by God in His capacity of Almighty Ruler.”

“he judgeth &c.] In the midst of gods (Elôhîm) will he judge. According to the view adopted above, the judges and authorities of Israel are meant by gods. It might indeed be supposed that the poet intended to represent God as holding His court surrounded by angels, like an earthly king in the midst of his courtiers (cp. 1 Kings 22:19; Job 1:2); and so probably the Syriac translator understood the verse: “God standeth in the assembly of the angels, and in the midst of the angels will He judge.” But Elôhîm can hardly have a different meaning from that which it has in Psalm 82:6, where it clearly refers to the judges who are put on their trial; and the address in Psalm 82:2 would be unintelligible if the persons addressed had not already been mentioned.” (2)

If the divine council theory is to hold up, the Scriptures must consistently view the Hebrew word “gods” as demigods rather than humans. 

What did Jesus believe since he quoted Psalm 82:6? The Words of Christ settle the debate in John’s gospel.

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

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

“34-36. Is it not written in your law—in Ps 82:6, respecting judges or magistrates.”

“Ye are gods—being the official representatives and commissioned agents of God.” (3)

While the divine council theory is a possible translation, Jesus in John’s gospel quotes Psalm 82 and provides the New Testament commentary that overrides the divine council theory, particularly in John 10:34, as seen above.

As stated, the divine council theory is a belief within some religions that a group of deities meets regularly to discuss and debate various issues. Moreover, the idea of a divine council is problematic because of the following passages:

“Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counseller hath taught him?” (Isaiah 40:13)

“For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?” (Romans 11:34)

Commenting on Romans 11:34, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible says:

“For who hath known? … – This verse is a quotation, with a slight change, from Isaiah 40:13, “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counselor hath taught him?” It is designed to express the infinite wisdom and knowledge of God, by affirming that no being could teach him, or counsel him. Earthly monarchs have counsellors of state, whom they may consult in times of perplexity or danger. But God has no such council. He sits alone; nor does he call in any or all of his creatures to advise him. All created beings are not qualified to contribute anything to enlighten or to direct him. It is also designed to silence all opposition to his plans, and to hush all murmurings. The apostle had proved that this was the plan of God. However mysterious and inscrutable it might appear to the Jew or the Gentile, yet it was his duty to submit to God, and to confide in his wisdom, though he was not able to trace the reason of his doings.” (4)

In addition, Vincent’s Word Studies says:

“From Isaiah 40:13. Heb., Who hath measured the Spirit? Though measured may be rendered tried, proved, regulated. Compare the same citation in 1 Corinthians 2:16. This is the only passage in the Septuagint where ruach spirit is translated by νοῦς mind. Known (ἔγνω) may refer to God’s γνῶσις knowledge and ways in Romans 11:33; counselor to His wisdom and judgments. No one has counseled with Him in forming His decisions.” (5)

Another significant reason to understand the understanding of the Hebrew word for “gods” being human representatives is that the following texts absolve God of contradiction:

“Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)

“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.” (Isaiah 45:18)

If the above two passages from Isaiah are true, the divine council theory cannot be true since this would make Isaiah guilty of equivocation.

Have other theologians in church history agreed with Heiser’s Council of gods theory?

Some theologians in church history have suggested the existence of multiple divine beings, including Polytheism (the belief in multiple deities), Dualism (the belief in two competing divine forces), and Christian Henotheism (the belief in one supreme deity with lesser gods subordinate to him). A prominent example is the late third-century theologian Origen of Alexandria, who stated in his Commentary on John that the term “gods” in certain passages of Scripture should be taken literally. He argued that “it is better to accept that there is a Christ the Lord of Hosts, a God of Sabaoth, and also another god in relation to whom he is called Lord,” referring to the distinctions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Origen is not the same as Heiser’s Council of gods theory since he did not further distinguish between Elohim as a plural form of God and YHWH as a singular form. However, other early Christian theologians, including Aphrahat, Eusebius, and Ambrose, have expressed similar ideas. However, these assertions have never become mainstream Christian doctrine and are still the subject of some debate within certain Christian circles. *

In closing, the correct methodology:

The New Testament revelation completes the Old Testament revelation and is an inspired commentary on the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament is incomplete without the New, and the New Testament stands upon the foundation of the Old and presupposes knowledge of the Old.

In short, since Heiser’s council of gods is distinctively new in Church history, the burden of proof rests with those who follow Heiser requires the daunting task of showing that two millennia of Church theologians have been mistaken in their exegesis of critical texts. The present writer a convert from Mormonism and is especially sensitive to theological innovators that have allegedly stumbled on interpretations of Scriptures that have been missing for two thousand years. 

Being a new theory does not necessarily make it wrong. It does carry a special burden of proving that the Church’s best theologians have been wrong. Furthermore, the magnitude of a textual discovery that invalidates all previous theological interpretations seems to this writer extremely dubious. Moreover, Heiser seems to have turned the Old Testament into an elaborate cosmic game of thrones.    

Christ’s authority in the New Testament is the interpretive grid to understand the Old Testament.        

Furthermore, as seen above, the divine council theory fails under the weight of the divine commentary of the New Testament as the interpretive grid to understand the Old Testament, which is a hermeneutical issue of enormous importance. Not being an expert on Heiser’s methodology, in this writer’s opinion, he seems to have things reversed, using obscure texts in the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament.  

“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.      Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament Psalms, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted 1985), p.402-403.

2.      Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, by y A. F. Kirkpatrick (editor), Psalms, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.

3.      Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 437.

4.      Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Romans, p. 2292.

5.      Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in The New Testament, (Mclean, Virginia, Macdonald Publishing Company), p. 132.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

*This paragraph is written with the assistance of ChatGPT

For more research:

The divine council theory of Dr. Michael S. Heiser is a complex and often controversial interpretation of the Biblical text. Dr. Heiser’s view of the divine council attempts to explain the concept of God as an assembly of divine beings ruling over various supernatural and earthly realms. Heiser argues that these divine beings are tasked with carrying out God’s will. Drawing from ancient Near Eastern texts, Heiser claims that the divine council belief can also be found in the Old Testament and that the New Testament authors borrowed from this understanding.

However, the theory has been subject to several criticisms:

One of the major problems is the lack of concrete evidence to support Heiser’s assertions. Heiser relies heavily on the writings of liberal critical scholars and ancient texts but does not make an effort to provide concrete examples of the evidence in the Bible itself, which makes it difficult for the uninitiated to evaluate the claims of Heiser without obtaining a greater grasp of the interpretations proposed by other conservative scholars.

An Evaluation of Heiser’s Divine Council Theology

Dr. Jordan B Cooper

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNKkhcLfKtI Dr. Cooper is a Lutheran systematic theologian.

An Alternative to Heiser’s Divine Council Theology

Dr. Jordan B Cooper

“Recently, The Bible Project started a series on spiritual beings. The third video in the series spoke of The Divine Council, a hypothesis that has been propagated, most notably, by Dr. Michael Heiser. In fact, Heiser was credited as a Script Consultant at the end of the video. It is my position that this theological perspective is not only incorrect, but also an affront to the splendor and glory of God.” – Jeremy Howard

https://www.jeremyhoward.net/2019/04/the-divine-council-myth-part-1.html

https://www.jeremyhoward.net/2019/04/the-divine-council-myth-part-2.html

https://www.jeremyhoward.net/2019/04/the-divine-council-myth-part-3.html

https://www.jeremyhoward.net/2019/04/the-divine-council-myth-part-4.html