In the book of Romans, Paul declares the following concerning man’s condition: “As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one…that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (Romans 3:10, 19). Paul explains that this is a fallen man’s condition. Paul says: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). The sinner had earned the wages of death. God, in His mercy, gives sinners the gift of eternal life. The only thing that a sinner has earned and deserves is death. Eternal life came as a gift. One thing is certain: there was and is absolutely nothing in the sinner that caused God to give the sinner this gift. Jesus Christ gets all the glory and praise.
The believer should now attempt to do as the writer of Hebrews sets forth: “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2). The believer looks to Jesus by giving him the glory. God gives sinners the gift of faith. Believers are saved by grace, and even faith is a gift. Ephesians 2:8 says: “and that not of yourselves.” What is not of yourselves? Faith! Did the sinner choose Christ and exercise faith? Yes, but why? Who gets the glory? Christ? Or the sinner? Why did the sinner choose to believe? Ephesians 1:4, and verse 5 supplies the answer.
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Was this salvation in the sinner’s hands to choose or reject? If this were the case, then the sinners could glory in themselves. How can that be so? Because the sinner would have done something others had not done. The following verse tells us that predestination is: “according to the good pleasure of his will.” “So, then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” (Romans 9:16).
More than any other teaching of Scripture, the doctrine of election takes salvation out of man’s hands and places it in God’s control. Men do not like God’s control. The cause of God’s choosing is found in Him. If one insists that one’s actions are part of God’s choice, human merit is brought into the picture. Salvation then becomes synergistic rather than monergistic. Biblical salvation is monergistic. Christ alone, by His complete and finished work, saved the sinner. Within a synergistic scheme, salvation becomes a cooperative effort. An individual’s work takes away from the work of Christ. How? The sinner contributed. The sinner played a part in salvation. If the sinner was not willing, then God could not save them. A synergistic scheme of salvation steals Christ’s glory and limits God’s power. God can only do what the sinner allows Him to do within this type of system. Again, the believer must confess by the grace of God that: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5).
Logical Argument:
Premise 1: The apostle Paul teaches in l Corinthians 15:1-4, Romans 3:10, and Romans 6:23 that all humanity is fallen and deserving of death due to sin.
Premise 2: The gift of eternal life is given to sinners by God’s mercy, and it is not something they have earned or deserve.
Conclusion: Therefore, salvation and eternal life are solely dependent on God’s grace and not on the actions or merit of the sinner.
The believer’s testimony must be, “To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever.
Amen”. Romans 16:27. heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28-29). Amen!
“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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937) was a prominent American theologian, New Testament scholar, and Presbyterian minister who played a crucial role in defending conservative Christianity during the early 20th century. Born on July 28, 1881, in Baltimore, Maryland, Machen demonstrated intellectual prowess from a young age.
Machen graduated from Johns Hopkins University in 1901 and later earned his Bachelor of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1905. He continued his studies in Europe, receiving a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Marburg in Germany. Machen’s theological education and exposure to European liberalism profoundly influenced his commitment to orthodox Christian doctrine.
In 1906, Machen joined the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary as an instructor in New Testament studies. Throughout his tenure, he staunchly defended the inerrancy of the Bible and the fundamentals of the Christian faith, resisting the encroachment of modernist and liberal theology at Princeton.
1929, Machen took a pivotal step by co-founding Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. This institution aimed to provide a robust theological education grounded in biblical orthodoxy. Machen’s commitment to sound doctrine and biblical authority also led him to be a key figure in forming the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in 1936, following his departure from the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
Machen’s most significant work, “Christianity and Liberalism,” published in 1923, remains a classic defense of the essential tenets of Christianity against the challenges posed by liberal theology. His writings, lectures, and sermons continue to influence scholars and pastors, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the historic Christian faith.
Tragically, J. Gresham Machen’s life was cut short when he passed away on January 1, 1937, at the age of 55. Despite his relatively brief time on earth, his legacy endures through the institutions he helped establish and the theological convictions he defended, marking him as a stalwart defender of biblical Christianity in the face of theological compromise.
A Review:
“Christianity and Liberalism” by J. Gresham Machen is a seminal work that stands as a formidable critique of theological liberalism and a robust defense of traditional, orthodox Christianity. Machen’s book, published in 1923, emerged amid the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, a time when the Christian Church in America was grappling with significant theological shifts.
Machen’s central thesis is clear and unyielding: Christianity and theological liberalism are not simply different expressions of the same faith but represent distinct religions with fundamentally incompatible beliefs. With eloquence and conviction, Machen argues that the essence of Christianity is grounded in the historic Christian faith, as revealed in the authoritative Scriptures. He identifies essential doctrines, such as the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, and the atonement, as non-negotiable tenets that distinguish genuine Christianity from its liberal counterpart.
For example, Machen explains it like this:
“It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.” (p. 28.)
One of the strengths of Machen’s argument lies in his ability to dissect the theological underpinnings of liberalism, exposing what he sees as a departure from essential Christian truths. He contends that theological liberalism, in its attempt to adapt to modern intellectual trends, has compromised the very heart of the Christian message. Machen’s critique is not merely a polemic against liberalism but a passionate defense of the historic Christian faith that has endured through centuries.
Another example of Machen’s analysis:
“At any rate, an attack upon Calvin or Turrettin or the Westminster divines does not seem to the modern churchgoer to be a very dangerous thing. In point of fact, however, the attack upon doctrine is not nearly so innocent a matter as our simple churchgoer supposes; for the things objected to in the theology of the Church are also at the very heart of the New Testament. Ultimately the attack is not against the seventeenth century, but against the Bible and against Jesus Himself.” (pp. 45-46.)
Machen’s writing is characterized by intellectual rigor and a deep commitment to the authority of Scripture. His engagement with the theological landscape of his time reveals a scholar unafraid to confront challenges to the faith while upholding the timeless truths of Christianity. The book serves as a historical artifact from a crucial period in American Christian thought and a timeless resource for those navigating the ongoing tension between orthodoxy and cultural adaptation.
Machen argues that theological liberalism represents a different religion from historic Christianity. He argues that theological liberalism, in its effort to conform to modern intellectual trends, has undermined the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. Machen asserts that true Christianity is grounded in the historic Christian faith as expressed in the Bible and that any departure from these foundational beliefs results in a fundamentally different religion.
Machen explains the difference:
“It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism, on the other hand, is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.” (p. 79.)
The book remains influential in discussions about the nature of Christianity and the challenges posed by theological liberalism. Machen’s work reflects a commitment to orthodox Christian theology and a concern for maintaining the integrity of the Christian faith in the face of various theological trends in his time.
One of Machen’s most significant insights is:
“The liberals constantly resort to a double use of language.” (p. 111.)
The double use of language by liberals was a trick they used to hide their real beliefs. The surface meaning words made it seem like they were historically orthodox. However, as Machen discovered, if one was able to break through the language barrier or the surface meaning of words, the liberal was exposed.
In conclusion, “Christianity and Liberalism” remains a significant and influential work, contributing to ongoing discussions about the nature of authentic Christianity and the challenges posed by theological liberalism. Machen’s unwavering defense of core Christian doctrines and his insistence on the distinctiveness of the Christian faith continue to resonate with readers interested in the intersection of theology, culture, and the enduring truths of the Christian tradition. The battle against theological liberalism never stops. Therefore, if the reader does not have a copy, order it today. 2023 marked the 100 year Anniversary of Machen’s book.
Notes:
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1923), pp. 28, 45-46, 79, 111.
* This review was assisted by CHATGPT and perfected by Grammarly.
H. L. Mencken (The Sage of Baltimore) on J. Gresham Machen PART ONE
Henry Louis Mencken was an American journalist, essayist, satirist, cultural critic, and scholar of American English. He commented widely on the social scene, literature, music, prominent politicians, and contemporary movements. Wikipedia
Published in 1931:
Thinking of the theological doctrine called Fundamentalism, one is apt to think at once of the Rev. Aimee Semple McPherson, the Rev. Dr. Billy Sunday and the late Dr. John Roach Straton. It is almost as if, in thinking of physic, one thought of Lydia Pinkham or Dr. Munyon. Such clowns, of course, are high in human interest, and their sincerity need not be impugned, but one must remember always that they do not represent fairly the body of ideas they presume to voice, and that those ideas have much better spokesmen. I point, for example, to the Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D.D. Litt.D., formerly of Princeton and now professor of the New Testament in Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. Dr. Machen is surely no mere soap-boxer of God, alarming bucolic sinners for a percentage of the plate. On the contrary, he is a man of great learning and dignity—a former student at European universities, the author of various valuable books, including a Greek grammar, and a member of several societies of savants. Moreover, he is a Democrat and a wet [against Prohibition], and may be presumed to have voted for Al [Smith] in 1928. Nevertheless, this Dr. Machen believes completely in the inspired integrity of Holy Writ, and when it was questioned at Princeton he withdrew indignantly from those hallowed shades, leaving Dr. Paul Elmer More to hold the bag.
I confess frankly, as a life-long fan of theology, that I can find no defect in his defense of his position. Is Christianity actually a revealed religion? If not, then it is nothing; if so, then we must accept the Bible as an inspired statement of its principles. But how can we think of the Bible as inspired and at the same time as fallible? How can we imagine it as part divine and awful truth and part mere literary confectionery? And how, if we manage so to imagine it, are we to distinguish between the truth and the confectionery? Dr. Machen answers these questions very simply and very convincingly. If Christianity is really true, as he believes, then the Bible is true, and if the Bible is true, then it is true from cover to cover. So answering, he takes his stand upon it, and defies the hosts of Beelzebub to shake him. As I have hinted, I think that, given his faith, his position is completely impregnable. There is absolutely no flaw in the arguments with which he supports it. If he is wrong, then the science of logic is a hollow vanity, signifying nothing.
His moral advantage over his Modernist adversaries, like his logical advantage, is immense and obvious. He faces the onslaught of the Higher Criticism without flinching, and he yields nothing of his faith to expediency or decorum. Does his searching of Holy Writ compel him to believe that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph, as Matthew says, and yet begotten by the Holy Ghost, as Matthew also says, then he believes it calmly and goes on. Does he encounter witches in Exodus, and more of them in Deuteronomy, and yet more in Chronicles, then he is unperturbed. Is he confronted, in Revelation, with angels, dragons, serpents and beasts with seven heads and ten horns, then he contemplates them as calmly as an atheist looks at a chimpanzee in a zoo. For he has risen superior to all such trivial details, the bane of less devout and honest men. The greater marvel swallows all the lesser ones. If it be a fact, as he holds, that Yahweh has revealed the truth to His lieges on this earth, then he is quite as willing to accept and cherish that truth when it is odd and surprising as when it is transparent and indubitable. Believing, as he does, in an omnipotent and omniscient God, maker of heaven and earth, he admits freely that God probably knows more than he himself knows, both of the credible and the incredible, though he is a member of both Phi Beta Kappa and the American Philological Association.
It must be plain that the Modernists are in a much weaker position. The instant they admit that only part of the Bible may be rejected, if it be only the most trifling fly-speck of the Pauline Epistles, they admit that any other part may be rejected. Thus the divine authority of the whole disappears, and there is no more evidence that Christianity is a revealed religion than there is that Mohammedanism is. It is idle for such iconoclasts to say that one man—usually the speaker—is better able to judge in such matters than other men, for they have to admit in the same breath that no man’s judgment, however learned he may be, is infallible, and that no man’s judgment, however mean he may be, is negligible. They thus reduce theology to the humble level of a debate over probabilities. Such a debate it has become, in fact, in the hands of the more advanced Modernists. No two of them agree in all details, nor can they conceivably agree so long as one man, by God’s inscrutable will, differs from all other men. The Catholics get rid of the difficulty by setting up an infallible Pope, and consenting formally to accept his verdicts, but the Protestants simply chase their own tails. By depriving revelation of all force and authority, they rob their so-called religion of every dignity. It becomes, in their hands, a mere romantic imposture, unsatisfying to the pious and unconvincing to the judicious.
I have noted that Dr. Machen is a wet. This is somewhat remarkable in a Presbyterian, but certainly it is not illogical in a Fundamentalist. He is a wet, I take it, simply because the Yahweh of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New are both wet—because the whole Bible, in fact, is wet. He not only refuses to expunge from the text anything that is plainly there; he also refuses to insert anything that is not there. What I marvel at is that such sincere and unyielding Christians as he is do not start legal proceeding against the usurpers who now disgrace the name. By what right does a Methodist bishop, in the face of John 2:1-11, Matthew 11:19 and Timothy 5:23, hold himself out as a follower of Jesus, and even as an oracle on Jesus’ ideas and desire? Surely there is libel here, and if I were the believer that Dr. Machen is I think I’d say that there is also blasphemy. I suggest formally that he and his orthodox friends get together, and petition some competent court to restrain the nearest Methodist congregation from calling itself Christian. I offer myself a witness for the plaintiffs, and promise to come well heeled with evidence. At worst, such a suit would expose the fraudulence of the Methodist claim and redound greatly to the glory and prosperity of the true faith; at best, some judge more intelligent and less scary than the general might actually grant the injunction.
H. L. MENCKEN’S OBITUARY OF MACHEN PART TWO
“Dr. Fundamentalis” (1)
The Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D. D., who died out in North Dakota on New Year’s Day, got, on the whole, a bad press while he lived, and even his obituaries did much less than justice to him. To newspaper reporters, as to other antinomians, a combat between Christians over a matter of dogma is essentially a comic affair, and in consequence Dr. Machen’s heroic struggles to save Calvinism in the Republic were usually depicted in ribald, or, at all events, in somewhat skeptical terms. The generality of readers, I suppose, gathered thereby the notion that he was simply another Fundamentalist on the order of William Jennings Bryan and the simian faithful of Appalachia. But he was actually a man of great learning, and, what is more, of sharp intelligence.
What caused him to quit the Princeton Theological Seminary and found a seminary of his own was his complete inability, as a theologian, to square the disingenuous evasions of Modernism with the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. He saw clearly that the only effects that could follow diluting and polluting Christianity in the Modernist manner would be its complete abandonment and ruin. Either it was true or it was not true. If, as he believed, it was true, then there could be no compromise with persons who sought to whittle away its essential postulates, however respectable their motives.
Thus he fell out with the reformers who have been trying, in late years, to convert the Presbyterian Church into a kind of literary and social club, devoted vaguely to good works. Most of the other Protestant churches have gone the same way, but Dr. Machen’s attention, as a Presbyterian, was naturally concentrated upon his own connection. His one and only purpose was to hold it [the Church] resolutely to what he conceived to be the true faith. When that enterprise met with opposition he fought vigorously, and though he lost in the end and was forced out of Princeton it must be manifest that he marched off to Philadelphia with all the honors of war.
II
My interest in Dr. Machen while he lived, though it was large, was not personal, for I never had the honor of meeting him. Moreover, the doctrine that he preached seemed to me, and still seems to me, to be excessively dubious. I stand much more chance of being converted to spiritualism, to Christian Science or even to the New Deal than to Calvinism, which occupies a place, in my cabinet of private horrors, but little removed from that of cannibalism. But Dr. Machen had the same clear right to believe in it that I have to disbelieve in it, and though I could not yield to his reasoning I could at least admire, and did greatly admire, his remarkable clarity and cogency as an apologist, allowing him his primary assumptions.
These assumptions were also made, at least in theory, by his opponents, and thereby he had them by the ear. Claiming to be Christians as he was, and of the Calvinish persuasion, they endeavored fatuously to get rid of all the inescapable implications of their position. On the one hand they sought to retain membership in the fellowship of the faithful, but on the other hand they presumed to repeal and reenact with amendments the body of doctrine on which that fellowship rested. In particular, they essayed to overhaul the scriptural authority which lay at the bottom of the whole matter, retaining what coincided with their private notions and rejecting whatever upset them.
Upon this contumacy Dr. Machen fell with loud shouts of alarm. He denied absolutely that anyone had a right to revise and sophisticate Holy Writ. Either it was the Word of God or it was not the Word of God, and if it was, then it was equally authoritative in all its details, and had to be accepted or rejected as a whole. Anyone was free to reject it, but no one was free to mutilate it or to read things into it that were not there. Thus the issue with the Modernists was clearly joined, and Dr. Machen argued them quite out of court, and sent them scurrying back to their literary and sociological Kaffeeklatsche. His operations, to be sure, did not prove that Holy Writ was infallible either as history or as theology, but they at least disposed of those who proposed to read it as they might read a newspaper, believing what they chose and rejecting what they chose.
III
In his own position there was never the least shadow of inconsistency. When the Prohibition imbecility fell upon the country, and a multitude of theological quacks, including not a few eminent Presbyterians, sought to read support for it into the New Testament, he attacked them with great vigor, and routed them easily. He not only proved that there was nothing in the teachings of Jesus to support so monstrous a folly; he proved abundantly that the known teachings of Jesus were unalterably against it. And having set forth that proof, he refused, as a convinced and honest Christian, to have anything to do with the dry jehad.
This rebellion against a craze that now seems so incredible and so far away was not the chief cause of his break with his ecclesiastical superiors, but it was probably responsible for a large part of their extraordinary dudgeon against him. The Presbyterian Church, like the other evangelical churches, was taken for a dizzy ride by Prohibition. Led into the heresy by fanatics of low mental visibility, it presently found itself cheek by jowl with all sorts of criminals, and fast losing the respect of sensible people. Its bigwigs thus became extremely jumpy on the subject, and resented bitterly every exposure of their lamentable folly.
The fantastic William Jennings Bryan, in his day the country’s most distinguished Presbyterian layman, was against Dr. Machen on the issue of Prohibition but with him on the issue of Modernism. But Bryan’s support, of course, was of little value or consolation to so intelligent a man. Bryan was a Fundamentalist of the Tennessee or barnyard school. His theological ideas were those of a somewhat backward child of 8, and his defense of Holy Writ at Dayton during the Scopes trial was so ignorant and stupid that it must have given Dr. Machen a great deal of pain. Dr. Machen himself was to Bryan as the Matterhorn is to a wart. His Biblical studies had been wide and deep, and he was familiar with the almost interminable literature of the subject. Moreover, he was an adept theologian, and had a wealth of professional knowledge to support his ideas. Bryan could only bawl.
IV
It is my belief, as a friendly neutral in all such high and ghostly matters, that the body of doctrine known as Modernism is completely incompatible, not only with anything rationally describable as Christianity, but also with anything deserving to pass as religion in general. Religion, if it is to retain any genuine significance, can never be reduced to a series of sweet attitudes, possible to anyone not actually in jail for felony. It is, on the contrary, a corpus of powerful and profound convictions, many of them not open to logical analysis. Its inherent improbabilities are not sources of weakness to it, but of strength. It is potent in a man in proportion as he is willing to reject all overt evidences, and accept its fundamental postulates, however unprovable they may be by secular means, as massive and incontrovertible facts.
These postulates, at least in the Western world, have been challenged in recent years on many grounds, and in consequence there has been a considerable decline in religious belief. There was a time, two or three centuries ago, when the overwhelming majority of educated men were believers, but that is apparently true no longer. Indeed, it is my impression that at least two-thirds of them are now frank skeptics. But it is one thing to reject religion altogether, and quite another thing to try to save it by pumping out of it all its essential substance, leaving it in the equivocal position of a sort of pseudo-science, comparable to graphology, “education,” or osteopathy.
That, it seems to me, is what the Modernists have done, no doubt with the best intentions in the world. They have tried to get rid of all the logical difficulties of religion, and yet preserve a generally pious cast of mind. It is a vain enterprise. What they have left, once they have achieved their imprudent scavenging, is hardly more than a row of hollow platitudes, as empty as [of] psychological force and effect as so many nursery rhymes. They may be good people and they may even be contented and happy, but they are no more religious than Dr. Einstein. Religion is something else again–in Henrik Ibsen’s phrase, something far more deep-down-diving and mudupbringing, Dr. Machen tried to impress that obvious fact upon his fellow adherents of the Geneva Mohammed. He failed–but he was undoubtedly right.
Baltimore Evening Sun (January 18, 1937), 2nd Section, p. 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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
How many will be saved, few or many? By Jack Kettler
It is readily admitted that this is somewhat of an impossible question. Nevertheless, believers should be prepared for the times in God’s providence when one meets a non-believing skeptic.
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there at: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)
Matthew Poole’s Commentary on this text is fairly typical and orthodox:
“Ver. 13,14. Our Saviour having in this sermon delivered many hard sayings to flesh and blood, here obviates a twofold temptation they might have to neglect of them:
1. From their difficulty.
2. From the paucity of them who live according to these rules.”
“He here compares heaven to a house, a stately house, into which a”
“strait gate leadeth to a city, the way to which is a narrow way. There is nothing more ordinary in holy writ, than to call a common course of men’s actions a way. It is also compared to a gate. The sum of what our Saviour here saith is this: There are but two ultimate ends of all men, eternal destruction and eternal life. The course that leadeth to destruction is like a broad way that is obvious to all, and many walk in that. That course of life and actions which will bring a man to heaven is strait, unpleasing to flesh and blood, not at all gratifying men’s sensitive appetites, and narrow, (the Greek is, afflicted), a way wherein men will meet with many crosses and temptations; and there are but a few will find it. You must not therefore wonder if my precepts be hard to your carnal apprehensions, nor be scandalized though you see but few going in the right road to the kingdom of heaven.” (1)
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14)
“Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” (Luke 13:23-24)
The above passages indicate that the number saved will be “few.”
What about the passages that argue otherwise? For example:
“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.” (Matthew 13:31–32)
“After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.” (Revelation 7:9)
Consulting Matthew Poole’s Commentary again:
“If we inquire who these were, we are told, Revelation 7:14, by the best Interpreter: These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, & c. So that they do not seem to be the one hundred and forty-four thousand mentioned for preservation in and from the evil, Revelation 7:4, but such as had escaped, or were not in or going into tribulation, but come out. The number of the former was determined; it is said of these, it could not be numbered. These were glorified ones, not militant; they”
“stood before the throne, and the Lamb, clothed with white robes; clothed in the habits of such as amongst the Romans had fought, and conquered, and triumphed; and to this end they are said to have carried palms, the ensigns of victory, in their hands.” (2)
In the above two passages, the number of those who obtain salvation is many or so large that they cannot be numbered.
How can one explain the apparent contradiction between Matthew 7:14, which says “few,” and Revelation 7:9, which says “a great multitude, which no man could number,” to a skeptic?
Not a contradiction at all,contrasting the two gates:
One way to explain this apparent contradiction to a skeptic is to point out that the use of the word “few” in Matthew 7:14 is likely referring to the number of people entering God’s kingdom who are on the narrow path. In contrast, Revelation 7:9 is likely referring more broadly to all those who will be found in the kingdom of God one day, including those who will be saved through accepting Jesus’ sacrifice and those who will be saved through good works. The Bible says in Matthew 25:41 that many people will be cast out into the abyss of darkness and judged accordingly. A skeptic could better understand the difference between the “few” and the “great multitude” in both passages by emphasizing the contrast between these two groups.
Said another way:
The apparent contradiction between Matthew 7:14 and Revelation 7:9 resolves around the fact that these two passages refer to two different groups of people. Matthew 7:14 speaks of the “few” that will find the narrow gate to Heaven, while Revelation refers to a great multitude, which no man could number, of people who will enter the gates of Heaven. In other words, while the number of those that will enter Heaven through the narrow gate is small compared to all of humanity, a great number will enter through the gates of Heaven once they have been saved.
Therefore, the gate to heaven is narrow. However, when human history is complete, and everyone has come through heaven’s gate, this side of heaven in totality, the number of saints from Adam to the 2nd Coming will be innumerable.
In conclusion:
No need to doubt. The believer can be certain that all of God’s elect will be saved since He is all-powerful and actively works for the best of those who love Him.
Romans 8:28-30 approves this:
“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 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. 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.”
Therefore, the sanctified believer will be included in that innumerable multitude pictured in Revelation 7:9.
“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:
Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 31.
Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Revelation, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 968.
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.
What is the time of Jacob’s trouble? By Jack Kettler
“Alas! for that day isgreat, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.” (Jeremiah 30:7)
How does the believer understand this text? Is the time of Jacob’s trouble referring to a past or future fulfillment? Many prophetic speculators place the time of “Jacob’s trouble” into the future. However, what did “Jacob’s trouble” mean to Jeremiah’s contemporaries?
Typical of the futuristic prophetic speculators, one can find the following, “This prophecy of unprecedented difficulty for Jacob’s descendants will be fulfilled just before the second coming of Jesus Christ.” (Life, Hope & Truth website – Church of God, a Worldwide Association, Inc.)
The three following commentary entries will answer how the people of Jeremiah’s day understood what he was saying.
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary:
“30:1-11 Jeremiah is to write what God had spoken to him. The very words are such as the Holy Ghost teaches. These are the words God ordered to be written; and promises written by his order, are truly his word. He must write a description of the trouble the people were now in, and were likely to be in. A happy end should be put to these calamities. Though the afflictions of the church may last long, they shall not last always. The Jews shall be restored again. They shall obey, or hearken to the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of David, their King. The deliverance of the Jews from Babylon, is pointed out in the prophecy, but the restoration and happy state of Israel and Judah, when converted to Christ their King, are foretold; also, the miseries of the nations before the coming of Christ. All men must honour the Son as they honour the Father, and come into the service and worship of God by him. Our gracious Lord pardons the sins of the believer, and breaks off the yoke of sin and Satan, that he may serve God without fear, in righteousness and true holiness before him all the remainder of his days, as the redeemed subject of Christ our King.” (1)
Clarke’s Commentary:
“Verse Jeremiah 30:7. Alas! for that day is great — When the Medes and Persians with all their forces shall come on the Chaldeans, it will be the day of Jacob’s trouble-trial, dismay, and uncertainty; but he shall be delivered out of it-the Chaldean empire shall fall, but the Jews shall be delivered by Cyrus. Jerusalem shall be destroyed by the Romans, but the Israel of God shall be delivered from its ruin. Not one that had embraced Christianity perished in the sackage of that city.” (2)
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
“7. great—marked by great calamities (Joe 2:11, 31; Am 5:18; Zep 1:14).
none like it … but he shall be saved — (Da 12:1). The partial deliverance at Babylon’s downfall prefigures the final, complete deliverance of Israel, literal and spiritual, at the downfall of the mystical Babylon (Re 18:1-19:21).” (3)
After consulting commentary entries, the following can be said:
Though some scholars suggest a future fulfillment of Jeremiah 30:7, from a conservative theological viewpoint, there is a solid argument to be made that the passage points to fulfillment in the past. For example, Jeremiah 30:7 says, “Alas! For that day is so great there is none like it; and it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.” Theologians have noted the urgency in the passage, highlighting the current and inescapable nature of the “trouble” facing Jacob. Furthermore, many believe the passage is inherently prophetic in nature, with completion that has already come. Therefore, from a conservative theological standpoint, Jeremiah 30:7 points to fulfillment in the past rather than at some future point in time.
In closing:
A devotional from J. C. Philpot’s Daily Portions:
“Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it–it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.” Jeremiah 30:7
“This “day of trouble” is when sin is laid as a heavy burden upon a man’s conscience; when guilt presses him down into the dust of death, when his iniquities stare him in the face, and seem more in number than the hairs of his head; when he fears he shall be cast forever into the bottomless pit of hell, and have his portion with the hypocrites.”
“This “day of trouble” is not literally a day, a portion of time meted out by the rising or setting sun, a space of twenty-four hours. The hands of a clock, or the shadow of a dial, cannot regulate spiritual troubles. A day here means a season, be it long or short; be it a day, week, month, or year. And as the season cannot be measured in length, so the trouble cannot be measured in depth.”
“The only wise God deals out various measures of affliction to his people. All do not sink to the same depth, as all do not rise to the same height. All do not drink equally deep of the cup; yet all, each in their measure, pass through this day of trouble, wherein their fleshly religion is pulled to pieces, their self-righteousness marred, their presumptuous hopes crushed, and they brought into the state of the leper, to cry, “Unclean, unclean.” Until a man has passed through this day of trouble, until he has experienced more or less of these exercises of soul, and known guilt and condemnation in his conscience; until he has struggled in this narrow pass, and had his rags of creature righteousness torn away from him, he can know nothing experimentally of the efficacy of Jesus’ atoning blood, nor feel the power of Christ’s resurrection.”
Fulfilled prophecy has long been seen as a sign of strength in one’s faith and a way of conveying the power of God’s plan. It is also more likely to be seen as uplifting and empowering than unfulfilled future speculative prophecy, as fulfilled prophecy proves the reliability of religious teachings. Furthermore, fulfilled prophecy can create a sense of hope and understanding that the world is directed by divinely inspired commands, thereby assuring the believer in trying times.
“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, Concise Commentary, Jerimiah, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 1250.
2. Clarke, Adam, Commentary on Jeremiah 30,The Adam Clarke Commentary, https: // www .studylight.org/commentaries/eng/acc/jeremiah-30 .html. 1832.
3. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 632.
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.
Evaluating the Omnipotence Paradox by Jack Kettler
The omnipotence paradox asks if it is possible for an all-powerful God to make something that He cannot do. Scripture makes it clear that while God is indeed all-powerful, He cannot do certain things because they go against His nature. For example, He cannot lie, be tempted by evil, or stop being God. God’s power does not always mean that He can do anything. Some things are impossible or violate His nature as God. Thus, the idea of creating a rock so heavy as to defy His power is impossible and goes against the very definition of God as omnipotent.
The “paradox” of God creating a stone so big that He cannot lift fails to take into account that God’s omnipotence is inextricably linked to His divine nature. God’s power and abilities are unlimited, yet still exist within the confines of His eternal nature. His nature defines His limits or lack thereof. As such, the question of creating a stone too heavy for Him to lift is an impossibility. Moreover, the paradox is a sophomoric word game trick that ignores established definitions in His revealed Word.
One can object to the omnipotence paradox because it confuses the true meaning of “omnipotence.” Unfortunately for the atheist, his understanding of this term differs from the theist’s, thus obscuring the fundamental premise of the paradox. This disparity in understanding undermines the logic of the paradox, thus creating a nonsensical debate.
A brief definition of Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence:
Omnipotence means that God is in total control of Himself and His creation. Omniscience means that he is the ultimate criterion of truth and falsity so that his ideas are always true. Finally, omnipresence means that since God’s power and knowledge extend to all parts of his creation, he himself is present everywhere.
Without using established definitions, those promoting the above Omnipotence paradox have failed to prove anything except their own ignorance.
One response given to the above paradox is by Augustine of Hippo:
According to Augustine:
“But assuredly He is rightly called omnipotent, though He can neither die nor fall into error. For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.” (1)
Augustine’s answer to the Omnipotence paradox is that God is called omnipotent because He can do whatever He wishes. However, the fact that He is omnipotent means He cannot do certain things like die or make mistakes. In other words, His omnipotence does not extend to changing certain core aspects of His character.
The Problem of Evil is a more serious example of an Omnipotent paradox.
Regarding this paradox, Gordon H. Clark stated:
“Man is responsible because God calls him to account; man is responsible because the supreme power can punish him for disobedience. God, on the contrary, cannot be responsible for the plain reason that there is no power superior to him; no greater being can hold him accountable; no one can punish him; there is no one to whom God is responsible; there are no laws, which he could disobey.”
“The sinner therefore, and not God, is responsible; the sinner alone is the author of sin. Man has no free will, for salvation is purely of grace; and God is sovereign.” (2)
The above citation was Clark’s proposed solution to the problem of evil. God is, in fact, the ultimate cause of sin rather than the proximate cause. Nonetheless, He is not evil, for He committed no sin. Moreover, He is not responsible for sin, for there is no one to whom He is accountable. God is just, for whatever He does is just. The sinner is responsible for his sin. Therefore, the creature has no right to stand in judgment over his Creator.
Calvin, in his Institutes (III, xxiii, 8 & II, iv. 3), makes a convincing statement regarding this paradoxical dilemma:
“Here they have recourse to the distinction between will and permission. By this they would maintain that the wicked perish because God permits it, not because he so wills. But why shall we say “permission” unless it is because God so wills? Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition, in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that “the will of God is the necessity of things,” and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass.” (3)
According to systematic theologian Charles Hodge, the best method of dealing with the question of God’s Omnipotence and sin is stated:
“To rest satisfied with the simple statements of the Bible. The Scriptures teach, (1) That the glory of God is the end to which the promotion of holiness, and the production of happiness, and all other ends are subordinate. (2) That, therefore, the self-manifestation of God, the revelation of his infinite perfection, being the highest conceivable, or possible good, is the ultimate end of all his works in creation, providence, and redemption. (3) As sentient creatures are necessary for the manifestation of God’s benevolence, so there could be no manifestation of his mercy without misery, or of his grace and justice, if there were no sin.”
“As the heavens declare the glory of God, so He has devised the plan of redemption, To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places, might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God,” (Eph. 3:10). The knowledge of God is eternal life. It is for creatures the highest good. And the promotion of that knowledge, the manifestation of the manifold perfections of the infinite God, is the highest end of all his works. This is declared by the Apostle to be the end contemplated, both in the punishment of sinners and in the salvation of believers. It is an end to which, he says, no man can rationally object.”
“What if God, willing to shew his wrath (or justice), and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering 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,” (Rom. 9:22, 23). Sin, therefore, according the Scriptures, is permitted, that the justice of God may be known in its punishment, and his grace in its forgiveness. And the universe, without the knowledge of these attributes, would be like the earth without the light of the sun.” (4)
In closing:
WCF CHAPTER 5 Of Providence 5.4:
“4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.”
God foreknows and foreordains everything, including evil; nevertheless, he is not the author of sin. Everything He does is right simply because He does it, and whom does He give account? Will it be you, O man? If there is a standard above God that He is accountable to, then He is not God. The reader may not like this conclusion on an emotional level, yet it answers the paradox.
Let it be said:
“God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Romans 3:4)
“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:
Augustine, City of God, Book XII, Ch.5, sec.8, page 434.
Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation, (The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland), p.241
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics, XX-XXI, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960) Book III, xxiii, 8 & II, iv. 3 p. 956.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), p. 435.
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.
Why does Romans 8:24 say believers are saved by hope instead of grace? By Jack Kettler
“For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hopes for?” (Romans 8:24)
How does the believer understand this text? In other passages from Scripture, the Apostle Paul teaches the believer is saved by grace alone in Ephesians 2:8-9.
Why does Romans 8:24 not contradict Ephesians 2:8-9:
Romans 8:24 states, “For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he can see?” Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”
These verses do not contradict each other because Romans 8:24 refers to believer’s hope in spiritual salvation, while Ephesians 2:8-9 refers to grace, which is the means by which believers are saved. In Romans 8:24, Paul says that the believer’s hope for salvation is not based on what he can see but is based on faith in God and His promises. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul is saying that faith in God is necessary to receive salvation, and it is a gift God gives as the result of grace rather than works. Both passages talk about salvation but from different perspectives.
Next, two commentary entries will support this.
First, from the Pulpit Commentary:
“Verses 24, 25. – For by (or, in) hope we were saved; not are saved, as in the Authorized Version. The aorist ἐσώθημεν, like ἐλάβετε in ver. 15, points to the time of conversion. The dative ἐλπίδι, which has no preposition before it, seems here, to have a modal rather than medial sense; for faith, not hope, is that whereby we are ever said to be saved. The meaning is that when the state of salvation was entered upon, hope was an essential element in its appropriation. A condition, not of attainment, but of hope, is therefore the normal condition of the regenerate now; and so, after shortly pointing out the very meaning of hope, the apostle enforces his previous conclusion, that they must be content at present to wait with patience. But hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Now comes in a further thought, and a very interesting one. Romans 8:24.” (1) (underlining emphasis mine)
As seen from the original Greek, the important point is, “in hope we were saved; not are saved.”
Next, from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:
“24. For we are saved] Lit., and better, we were saved; at the time of our deliverance from darkness into light.”
“by hope] “Hope” has the article in the Gr.—If our English Version is retained, the meaning will be that our conversion was effected, in one sense, by the discovery of “the hope laid up in heaven” for the justified. But the connexion of salvation with faith is so marked and careful in N. T. doctrine that it seems far more likely that the true version (equally proper in grammar) is, we were saved in hope; i.e. when we believed we accepted a salvation whose realization was future, and could therefore be enjoyed only in the hope we felt in view of it.—“Salvation” here is used (as e.g. 1 Peter 1:5,) for the crown of the saving process; final glory.”
“hope that is seen] i.e. “the hoped-for object, once seen, (as present,) ceases ipso facto to be hoped for.” (2)
The Strong’s Lexicon supports the above two commentators:
“we were saved;”
ἐσώθημεν (esōthēmen)
“Verb – Aorist Indicative Passive – 1st Person Plural”
“Strong’s Greek 4982: To save, heal, preserve, rescue. From a primary sos; to save, i.e. Deliver or protect.”
At the beginning, it was asked why does Romans 8:24 say believers are saved by hope instead of grace?
Romans 8:24 says believers are saved by hope because hope is essential to faith. It is through hope that believers know the promises of God will be fulfilled and through faith that believers accept God’s grace as the means of salvation. In other words, it is through faith in God’s promise to save them through grace that believers are saved. Without hope, believers have nothing to rely upon for their salvation. As seen above, a better translation from Greek that captures the tense better is “we were saved in hope,” a completed action.
Moreover, hope is an essential factor in faith because it provides assurance that, even if believers cannot see the answer to prayers or the fulfillment of wishes in the present, the believer can trust that God will provide in the future. Believers hope in faith that God will be faithful to accomplish His promises, no matter how impossible they may seem. Therefore, believers can confidently rely on God and His promises, knowing He will provide beyond the believer’s expectations.
In closing:
From J. C. Philpot’s Daily Portions May 17:
We are saved by hope.” Romans 8:24
“What is the meaning of being saved by hope? It does not mean saved ‘actually,’ but ‘instrumentally’; not saved as regards our eternal security, but as regards our ‘experience of salvation.’ By hope we are instrumentally saved from despair, saved from turning our backs upon Christ and the gospel, saved from looking to any other Savior, or any other salvation; and especially saved from making this world and this life our happiness and home, as waiting patiently for what we see not, even the redemption of our body.
Now it is by hope that we hang upon and cleave to the Lord Jesus, and thus by this grace we abide in him. It is therefore spoken of as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, and which enters into that which is within the veil. What holds the ship firm in the storm, and prevents it falling upon the rocks? The anchor! The ship abides firm as long as the anchor holds. So, by hope the soul abides in Christ. He is within the veil; we are outside, and, it may be, tossed up and down on a sea of doubt and fear, distress and anxiety, and yet there is a bond of union between him and us firmer than the Atlantic Cable.
NOTE: “Atlantic Cable”: A transatlantic telecommunications cable is a submarine communications cable connecting one side of the Atlantic Ocean to the other. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, each cable was a single wire.”
“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:
H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Romans, Vol. 18., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 211.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, by H. C. G. Moule, Romans, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version
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 is the man mentioned in Isaiah 32:2? By Jack Kettler
“And a man shall be as a hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.” (Isaiah 32:2)
Who is this man the prophet references? Why do some translations not even mention this man?
For example:
Many translations render the passage this way, “Each one will be like a shelter…”
The reason some translations do not mention the man in Isaiah 32:2 is that the text of the original Hebrew is somewhat ambiguous. As s result, the phrase used to refer to this man can be interpreted in multiple ways. Some translations consider the phrase to be a metaphor, referring to a potential leader, while others interpret it as a literal reference to a specific man.
From Strong’s Lexicon:
“Each
אִ֥ישׁ (’îš)
Noun – masculine singular”
“Strong’s Hebrew 376: 1) man 1a) man, male (in contrast to woman, female) 1b) husband 1c) human being, person (in contrast to God) 1d) servant 1e) mankind 1f) champion 1g) great man 2) whosoever 3) each (adjective)”
Why is there ambiguity about whom the man is mentioned in Isaiah 32:2? Isaiah 32:1 says, “Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.” Commentators see that it is King Hezekiah in this passage. Therefore, it would seem natural to see that the man in verse 32 is also King Hezekiah.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible sees verses 1 and 2 as speaking of the same person, namely, Hezekiah:
“And a man – That is, evidently, the man referred to in the previous verse, to wit, Hezekiah.”
“Shall be as an hiding-place from the wind – A place where one may take refuge from a violent wind and tempest (see the note at Isaiah 25:4).” (1)
Barnes is on solid ground contextually to see both passages referring to Hezekiah.
In contrast, the Pulpit Commentary says:
“Verse 2. – A man shall be as an hiding-place from the wind, etc. Modern critics mostly render, “each man” – i.e. the king, and each of his princes. But it is, to say the least, allowable – with Vitringa and Kay – to regard the word as referring to the king only (comp. Zechariah 6:12, where ish, a man, is used in the same vague way of One who is clearly the Messiah). There was never but one man who could be to other men all that is predicated in this verse of the “man” mentioned (comp. Isaiah 25:4, where nearly the same epithets are predicated of God). A covert; i.e. a protection against Divine wrath. Such is Messiah in his mediatorial character. Rivers of water; i.e. refreshing and invigorating (comp. Isaiah 55:1; John 4:14; John 7:37). The shadow of a great rook. At once refreshing and protecting (see Isaiah 25:4). Isaiah 32:2.” (2)
MacLaren’s Expositions concur with the Pulpit Commentary:
Isaiah – THE HIDING – PLACE – Isaiah 32:2.
“And I, for my part, have no hesitation in saying that the only reference of these words which gives full value to their wealth of blessing, is to regard them as a prophecy of the man-Christ Jesus; hiding in whom we are safe, ‘coming’ to whom we ‘never thirst,’ guarded and blest by whom no weariness can befall us, and dwelling in whom this weary world shall be full of refreshment and peace!” (3)
The choice between Hezekiah and Christ is not contradictory in Isaiah 32:2. Granting that Isaiah 32:2 is referencing Hezekiah, can the text still point forward in history to Christ, thus, making Hezekiah be a type of Christ?
Yes, Isaiah 32:2 can still point forward in history to Christ while referencing Hezekiah. The passage speaks of a man who will lead with justice and righteousness, just as Jesus did. Some can see Hezekiah’s humble and faithful leadership as a type of the way that Christ leads us.
In closing:
From J. C. Philpot’s Daily Portions May 16:
“And a MAN shall be as a hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest.” (Isaiah 32:2)
“Who is this man? Need I ask the question? Is there not a response in every God-fearing breast? It is the man Christ Jesus–the man who is God’s fellow. How blessed it is to have a scriptural and spiritual view of the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ, to see him not merely as God, truly essential God, one in essence, glory, and power with the Father and the blessed Spirit, but also man, made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted.”
“And what a suitability there is in the humanity of the Lord Jesus, when we view it in union with this glorious Deity! As man he suffered, as man he bled, as man he died, as man he stands a Mediator for his fellow men between God and man; as man, he has an affectionate, compassionate, sympathizing heart for human distress; as man, he obeyed the law in every particular; as man, he bore all the sufferings of humanity, and thus became the Brother born for adversity, flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone; yet perfectly pure, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and now exalted higher than the heavens.”
“But what beauty, grace, glory, and suitability do we see in the man Christ Jesus, until he is revealed to the soul by the blessed Spirit? None! It is the Spirit who takes the humanity of Christ Jesus and shows it to the eye of faith. And this humanity he shows not as mere humanity, but as in union with, though distinct from, his eternal Deity. O this blessed man! — this man of sorrows; this suffering, agonizing, crucified man. View him on the cross, bleeding for your sins; and then lift up your eyes and see him as the same man at the right hand of God. This was Stephen’s dying sight just before he passed into his presence–Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:56).”
“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. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Isaiah, Vol. 7 p. 766.
2. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Isaiah, Vol. 10., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 522.
3. MacLaren’s Expositions of Holy Scripture, Isaiah, Study Light .org
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.
Studies in the Sovereignty Of GodVolume 1 Number 1
Studies in the Sovereignty of God Volume 1 Number 1
In this study, numerous Scriptures will be looked at that prove that God is sovereign.
The Sovereignty of God teaches that all things are under His absolute rule and control. Without fear of contradiction, it can be said, God works all things according to the counsel of His own will. His plans and purpose are never frustrated. The Sovereignty of God may be defined as the exercising of His absolute control and the outworking of both His revealed and hidden will. God’s sovereignty means that He is the ultimate Ruler who governs all the affairs of the universe both great and small.
The subject of God’s Sovereignty is a doctrine that should humble all men. No doctrine of Scripture exalts or glorifies the LORD as does the teaching of His Sovereignty.
Under various headings, it will be seen that Scriptures establish God’s Sovereignty. His Sovereignty extends to every conceivable area of life and governance of the universe. The format of this study, first a Scripture will be listed followed by a commentary entry both contemporary and classical.
The Sovereign Will of God:
The Divine Sovereign Will of God over His creation. One can see in the following passages God’s sovereignty in the preservation of His creation.
“Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth; in the seas, and all deep places.” (Psalms 135:6)
“6) Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places. His will is carried out throughout all space. The king’s warrant runs in every portion of the universe. The heathen divided the great domain; but Jupiter does not rule in heaven, nor Neptune on the sea, nor Pluto in the lower regions; Jehovah rules over all. His decree is not defeated, his purpose is not frustrated: in no one point is his good pleasure set aside. The word “whatsoever” is of the widest range and includes all things, and the four words of place which are mentioned comprehend all space; therefore the declaration of the text knows neither limit nor exception. Jehovah works his will: he pleases to do, and he performs the deed. None can stay his hand. How different this from the gods whom the heathen fabled to be subject to all the disappointments, failures, and passions of men! How contrary even to those so called Christian conceptions of God which subordinate him to the will of man, and make his eternal purposes the football of human caprice. Our theology teaches us no such degrading notions of the Eternal as that he can be baffled by man. “His purpose shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure.” No region is too high, no abyss too deep, no land too distant, no sea too wide for his omnipotence: his divine pleasure travels post over all the realm of nature, and his behests are obeyed.” (1) Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Treasury of David Volume 2, (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), p. 193.
“O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel.” (Jeremiah. 18:6)
“6) Refuting the Jews’ reliance on their external privileges as God’s elect people, as if God could never cast them off. But if the potter, a mere creature, has power to throw away a marred vessel and raise up other clay from the ground, a fortiori God, the Creator, can cast away the people who prove unfaithful to His election and can raise others in their stead (compare Isa 45:9; 64:8; Ro 9:20, 21). It is curious that the potter’s field should have been the purchase made with the price of Judas’ treachery (Mt 27:9, 10: a potter’s vessel dashed to pieces, compare Ps 2:8, 9; Re 2:27), because of its failing to answer the maker’s design, being the very image to depict God’s sovereign power to give reprobates to destruction, not by caprice, but in the exercise of His righteous judgment. Matthew quotes Zechariah’s words (Zec 11:12, 13) as Jeremiah’s because the latter (Jer 18:1-19:15) was the source from which the former derived his summary in Zec 11:12, 13 [Hengstenberg].” (2) Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 618.
“John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.” (John 3:27)
“Well, saith John, I see a man can receive (that is, perceive) nothing, except it be given him from heaven. The labour of ministers if all lost labour, unless the grace of God make it effectual. Men do not understand that which is made most plain, nor believe that which is made most evident, unless it be given them from heaven to understand and believe it.” (3) Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, Fourth printing 1985) p. 1932.
“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” (Revelation 4:11)
“All the praises, homages, and acknowledgments of all the creatures is thy due; as thou art he who gavest the first being to all creatures, and therefore gavest it them, that they might praise, honour, serve and obey thee.” (4) Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, Fourth printing 1985), p. 1932.
Andrew A. Snelling, B.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D. (Geology), was for many years a Geologist, Senior Research Scientist, and Editor of the CEN Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation) at Creation Science Foundation (now Creation Ministries International), Brisbane, Australia. From 1998, he worked for the Institute for Creation Research, USA, where he was an Associate Professor of Geology. Since 2007, he worked for Answers in Genesis USA.
Andrew completed a Bachelor of Science with degree in Applied Geology with First Class Honours at The University of New South Wales in Sydney. He graduated with a Doctor of Philosophy (in geology) at The University of Sydney for his thesis entitled A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia.
What others are saying:
Those who support Snelling’s work view ‘The Genesis Flood Revisited” as a valuable resource, reaffirming their belief in a literal interpretation of the biblical flood account. They appreciate Snelling’s scientific arguments, which they feel validate the accuracy and historicity of the Genesis flood narrative.
A Review:
Title: A Masterful Reexamination of the Genesis Flood: An Indispensable Resource for Biblical Creationists
In 1974, this writer read the original Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. It was one of several factors that opened a thirst for apologetics.
Without fear of contradiction, “The Genesis Flood Revisited” by Andrew A. Snelling is a well-researched book that provides a comprehensive and scientific examination of the biblical flood account. The book is an invaluable resource for young-earth creationists seeking to solidify their beliefs and understand events in the Old Testament, along with New Testament confirmation of these events.
“The Genesis Flood Revisited” is generally suitable for readers of varying levels of scientific knowledge, although some sections are rather technical. If some book sections are too technical, the reader can pass over them. The book is truly encyclopedic.
Snelling’s book is in the eight by 11 format and is massive, totaling 670 pages. On pages 641 to 670, Snelling treats the reader to numerous charts and figures, enabling the reader to visualize some of the technical concepts in the book. This reviewer has both the hardback and the Kindle editions. The Kindle version may be a solution for those on a tight budget.
As seen in the bio, Snelling is a highly respected geologist with extensive experience in the field. Snelling challenges conventional scientific interpretations while presenting a compelling case for the legitimacy of the Genesis flood account.
One of the book’s major strengths is Snelling’s ability to integrate biblical scholarship with geological evidence. He expertly navigates through the complex field of flood geology and demonstrates how the Earth’s geological features can be explained within the framework of a cataclysmic global flood. Snelling convincingly demonstrates from Scripture and the geological record the case for a universal flood as opposed to a local flood in Chapter Fourteen.
This reviewer is particularly interested in how Snelling explains in Chapters 99 and 100 ‘The Radioactive Methods for Dating Rocks” and “The Assumptions of Radioactive Dating.” In dealing with this topic, he addresses common arguments by skeptics and presents compelling counterarguments supported by scientific data. Additional dating issues are covered in Chapters 101 through 106.
Another area covered is in Section X, Chapters 113 through 126, “Problems For Biblical Geology Solved —Formations Implying Slow Deposition.” Snelling consistently approaches the subject matter with scientific rigor. In addition, Snelling’s attention to detail and comprehensive analysis makes his work difficult to dismiss, even by those who hold opposing views.
The author convincingly defends Creation in Six 24-hour days. He does so in the following paraphrase and summary that this reviewer gleaned from the book:
1. The use of the word “Yom” in the Hebrew Old Testament outside Genesis 1 is principally understood as literal 24-hour days. In over 2000 instances, “Yom” almost always refers to a typical day.
2. The phrase “and there was evening and there was morning” is consistently linked to each of the six creation days in Genesis 1. This phrase strongly suggests a regular 24-hour day cycle.
3. The sequential numbering of the days in Genesis 1 further supports the interpretation of literal 24-hour days. Each day is numbered from the first to the sixth, indicating a clear progression of time.
4. The creation account was written in a narrative form, not as a poetic or figurative piece, which suggests the author intended to convey a literal understanding of the creation days.
5. Exodus 20:11 reaffirms a literal interpretation of the creation days. In the Ten Commandments, God commands the Israelites to remember the Sabbath day by working for six days and resting on the seventh day, in alignment with the six-day creation account of Genesis. This commandment implies that the creation days are the same 24-hour days we experience.
6. The astrological markers used: In the creation account in Genesis, the word “Yom” is consistently followed by numerical modifiers such as “first day,” “second day,” and so on (Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13). This pattern suggests that “Yom” should be understood as literal 24-hour days, as opposed to more extended periods of time.
7. The Hebrew language: The Hebrew word “Yom” has a consistent and primary usage throughout the Old Testament to refer to a literal, 24-hour day. In fact, out of the 2,301 times the word is used in the Old Testament, “Yom” overwhelmingly refers to a literal day. It would be inconsistent to interpret “Yom” differently in the context of the creation account.
8. The Sabbath commandment: In Exodus 20:8-11, God declares that the Israelites are to remember and keep the Sabbath day holy. The commandment explicitly states that they are to work for six days and rest on the seventh, just as God worked for six days and rested on the seventh, which suggests a parallel between the days of creation and the days of the week, implying that the days of creation were literal 24-hour days.
9. The narrative structure of Genesis: The creation account in Genesis is written in a straightforward narrative style, using the phrase “And there was evening and there was morning” to describe each day of creation, which this phrase is consistently used throughout the Bible to indicate the passing of a 24-hour day.
10. The purpose of the creation account: The purpose of the creation account is to provide a foundation for understanding God’s work in creating the world. Interpreting the “Yom” as literal 24-hour days aligns with the straightforward reading of the text and allows for a clear understanding of God’s creative activity.
In conclusion:
“The Genesis Flood Revisited” leaves no subject untouched. It is a valuable and comprehensive exploration of foundational events in the Bible and deserves recognition as an important contribution to the ongoing interchange between science and faith. As said in the title of this review, Snelling’s book is truly “masterful” and a fitting tribute to the original Genesis Flood book. Snelling’s book is also a testament to fifty years of hard work in researching and understanding the scientific and geological work involved. The book is a cause for celebration!
End of Review.
“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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
A Flight from Reality, Impotent “Upper Story” Pietism, a Hellenistic Dreamworld by Jack Kettler
In this study, the author borrows from Francis A. Schaeffer’s use of the expressions “upper story” and “lower story.” The phrases will not be used in the same way Schaeffer used them. Schaeffer used them as a divide between the rational as opposed to rationalism. In this study, the terms will use the terminology of Greek Platonic dualism with its ideas/forms invisible/visible motif.
Greek dualism can manifest itself in Christianity as false piety, seeking to escape the material world. The “upper story,” in contrast to the “lower story,” is where the pietist seeks to find a spiritual flight or withdrawal from the world or from what is called dead orthodoxy. There are many manifestations of Pietism, making it sometimes difficult to identify. Some religious groups have elements of Pietism, whereas others are fully committed.
As explained below in the entertaining article “The Nine Spiritual Laws of White-Wine Pietism,” Pietism can be fashionable and worldly. The Pietism explained in this article is a flight from doctrinal confessional Christianity. White-Wine Pietism is an open game for satire like that used in the long-running show South Park. Other expressions of Pietism can be seen in groups that embrace escapist eschatology, like Dispensationalism, where phrases such as “why polish the brass on a sinking ship?” are commonly heard. Regardless of its form, Pietism ultimately results in a withdrawal from society and can be seen as a way to escape from reality.
Brief definitions, a contrast:
Pietism stresses personal prayers and meditations over religious formality, doctrinal orthodoxy, and Christian political activism.
Whereas,
Piety, conversely, is the quality of being sanctified and reverent, strived for by all believers.
For those wanting a hilarious and accurate look at Pietism, the film Babette’s Feast is excellent! It is a thoroughly enjoyable film and won an Oscar. There are many manifestations of Pietism in the film. The present study will focus on the extreme dichotomy between the spiritual and material, as seen in some groups influenced by Pietism. The use of false Pietism terminology is an essential qualification of this study. True Piety is something to be practiced and sought after by all Christians.
In Pietism, Christians strive to escape to the pure spiritual “upper story” world and not be contaminated by the “lower story” or sinful material world. In Pietism, there is a spiritual/material or upper story/lower story divide. In Pietism, the material world is sinful and hopeless, “why polish brass on a sinking ship.” Because of this pessimism, the pietist must escape. Sometimes, this dualism comes in the form of the “Higher Life movement,” where the experiential takes precedence over doctrinal confessions. Historically, one aspect of this dualism manifested itself in the monkish life, for all practical purposes, navel-gazing. Today, many have heard the phrase that a person can be so spiritually minded that they are no earthly good. The “cultural mandate,” developed by Abraham Kuyper, is missing in many pietistic circles.
Worldviews:
Hebraic thinking posited a unified view of man and God’s world. The spiritual and material were not in conflict. There was one world, and it was God’s world. God was concerned with how humanity lived in the world. Hence, God’s law is a guidepost or instruction manual on how to live in the real world. God instructed Israel on how to worship Him. It involved the real world. For example, tithes were brought to worship with material things such as grain, oil, and animals. Inheritance laws and instruction for education are important. The correct doctrine is important; false prophets were condemned.
The Western world and its legal tradition are built upon this Hebraic thinking. Considering the birth of Christianity, Christ did not repudiate this viewpoint. He encouraged it. Jesus did not repudiate God’s law. See Matthew 5:17. God’s law was not a manual to escape this world but to provide Godly order in society. Today, this worldview is called the Judeo/Christian worldview.
Pietism is often manifested as a detachment from the material world and its concerns. In some cases of Pietism, the dichotomy between the spiritual and material reveals itself as some things are spiritual and others are not. For example, prayer meetings are on a superior level than engaging in Christian political activity. Biblically, these two activities should not be juxtaposed.
The Roots of False Pietism:
In Greek philosophy, the spiritual/material dualism is seen in the writings of Plotinus, the third great master of Hellenistic thought.
Plotinus argues that the material world is evil, and the goal is to escape to a higher level.
Plotinus, in his first Ennead, puts it this way:
“Since Evil is here, “haunting this world by necessary law,” and it is the Soul’s design to escape Evil, we must escape hence. But what is this escape? “In attaining Likeness to God,” we read. And this is explained as becoming just and holy, living by wisdom, the entire nature grounded in Virtue…. And elsewhere he [Plato] declares all the virtues without exception to be purifications…. The solution is in understanding the virtues and what each has to give: thus the man will learn to work with this or that as every several need demands. And as he reaches to loftier principles and other standards these in turn will define his conduct: for example, Restraint in its earlier form will no longer satisfy him, he will work for the final disengagement; he will live no longer, the life of the good man such as Civic Virtue commends but, leaving this beneath him, will take up instead another life, that of the Gods….What art is there, what method, what discipline to bring us there where we must go?” (1)
The final goal for Plotinus is as follows in the second Ennead:
“There is another life emancipated, whose quality is progression towards the higher realm, towards the good and divine, towards that Principle which no one possesses except by deliberate usage but so may appropriate, becoming each personally, the higher, the beautiful, the Godlike.” (2)
According to Plotinus, one must seek disengagement and leave things beneath us. The “higher realm” or the “upper story” is essential.
In general, in Pietism, the goal is similar to Plotinus that is to escape to the higher spiritual realm:
The goal of the pietistic Christian is to escape worldliness. To accomplish this, Pietism turns inward in order to flee this world. Pietism can be described as quietism and retreatism; in other words, an escape. Pietism is quiet and has nothing to say as society degenerates other than escape or retreat. The problem is, eventually, there is nowhere to hide. Another danger of a pietistic higher life movement, as it is sometimes known, can include a downplaying of the importance of doctrine. For example, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals find common ground in the “upper story” tongue-speaking movement.
Observations on Pietism:
“Nietzsche may have been accurately describing the feeble pietism that surrounded him, the saccharine portraits of Jesus from childhood, but he could not have been more incorrect in his analysis that as a religion of the “sick soul,” the preaching of Christ was simply a message of resignation to the powers and principalities. On the contrary, it was the most radical renunciation of the herd mentality that keeps us addicted to the power brokers of this age.” – Michael S. Horton has been the J. Gresham Machen Professor of Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California.
“Prayer and action … can never be seen as contradictory or mutually exclusive. Prayer without action grows into powerless pietism, and action without prayer degenerates into questionable manipulation.” – Henri Nouwen was a Dutch Catholic priest, professor, writer, and theologian.
“The doctrine of vocation or calling gained currency as men began to take time and history seriously. If the goal of the Christian life is a Neoplatonic flight from this world, then pietism has effectively undermined the doctrine of non-ecclesiastical callings. To speak of having a calling is usually to speak of the clergy and clerical office.” – R. J. Rushdoony was an Armenian-American Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian.
“The purely emotional form of Pietism is, as Ritschl has pointed out, a religious dilettantism for the leisure class.” – Max Weber was a German sociologist, historian, jurist, and political economist, who is regarded as among the most influential theorists of the development of modern Western society.
Karl Barth describes Pietism as a phenomenon that promotes individualism rather than social-mindedness. If this is true, on the surface, Pietism may appear to be God-centered, when in reality, it may be man-centered under cover of religiosity.
Barth referring to a pietist named Gerhard Tersteegen, whom he had sympathy:
“For him, the world was only a deafening noise from which one must escape!” (3)
Karl Barth was a Swiss Reformed theologian. Barth is best known for his commentary on The Epistle to the Romans. Also noteworthy was his involvement in the Confessing Church, including his authorship of the Barmen Declaration.
“As one white-wine pietist told me recently: “Who cares how many natures Christ has? It’s enough to just love Jesus.” The point regularly made by white-wine pietists is that the quest for theological depth, clarity, and maturity lead one away from Jesus Christ and the Scriptures and frustrate the work of the Holy Spirit.”
2. Subjectivity is spiritual.
“White-wine pietists encourage people to look inside themselves to their very core. Here one finds purity of motive, willingness to follow God, good thoughts, marital fidelity, and truth-telling. To the extent these qualities do not exist in one’s heart, the more one must strive to obtain them through various well-tested ladders of ascent (for example, fasting, accountability groups, a “discipleship” relationship, prayer, and displaying “integrity” in one’s profession). While the Reformation identifies the heart as the problem, white-wine pietists see it as the answer.”
3. Liturgy dulls.
“White-wine pietists distrust ordered worship – it shackles the heartfelt response. These pietists in confessional churches incessantly clamor to “update” worship so that the “spirit can lead.” Thus Lutherans, for example, now experience the strange phenomenon of having an Amy Grant song in the middle of a “modified” Divine Service. In response to questions about this dubious practice, a white-wine pietist told me roughly the following: “We’ve been doing this liturgy-thing for years and nobody knows what they are saying anymore. It’s only meaningful and alive to you because it’s new to you. Anyway, the liturgy is a sixteenth-century German invention. Frankly, it’s all rote and boring to us (and too hard to understand) and to our children. By the way, can you believe how the public schools dummy down to the lowest common denominator? It is scandalous!” The result is that we now have more user-friendly services because the historical (and thus liturgical) service doesn’t “work” for white-wine pietists who have specialized needs within varying age groups, as well as soccer games at 12:10 P.M. on Sunday.”
“Pastors of white-wine pietists are encouraged to use their word processors on Thursday night to rearrange the liturgy in order to “surprise” victims on Sunday morning. Unfortunately, evangelicals coming to the Reformation come precisely to get away from “surprises.” (A “surprise” on Sunday morning is usually prefaced with the “worship leader” asking: “Does anyone have something that they would like to share this morning?”) The stability of an historic liturgy and its constant reminder each Sunday that we are in need of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins is what I, for example, found so utterly compelling about the Lutheran Church. Instead, white-wine pietists encourage services that end up being cheesy, mid-1970s praise meetings (but without bell-bottom pants) that eclipse the gospel, promote a theology of glory, and teach the congregation that they don’t “participate” unless they’re up front with the white-wine Yuppie “leadership team” doing piano bar music.”
4. The Sacraments are scary.
“White-wine pietists neither promote nor defend growth in and by the sacraments. Why? Because the objective forgiveness of sins in the means of grace is gospel through and through. White-wine pietists drink from the chalice of the law and either turn sacraments into ordinances or downplay their centrality in the Christian life (“once a month is more than enough – and why not do it on Sunday night so it is less time-consuming?”).”
5. Catechesis is for teenagers or intellectuals.
“The new white-wine pietists (like their forefathers) disdain the systematic learning of Christian doctrine. Catechesis, it is thought, smells of Rome, and we all know how little good catechism class does them, right? There is the perception among white-wine pietists in confessional churches that confirmation classes are to be endured and that works like Luther’s Small Catechism are to be thankfully put on the shelf at the end of the eighth grade. The concept of a thorough theological education from the earliest grades through adulthood is gone. Pietism has killed it. White-wine pietists keep the coffin nailed shut.”
“Vacuous Sunday school curricula that catechizes one in the theology of glory (with no emphasis, of course, on the sacraments) are brought in wholesale and fed to the children. Youth rallies stress the inner spiritual life over objective growth in faith through the means of grace (word and sacrament). Yet no one understands why kids are leaving confessional churches in droves for the evangelical movement as soon as they get to college. Of course, they are! Why stay? Johnny Angel goes to college and soon realizes that the evangelical parachurch organizations and other non-denominational Bible churches do a theology of glory with more enthusiasm and quality. The very churches that bemoan declining membership have set the next generation up for the completely logical next step.”
6. Small groups promote “real” growth and “accountability.”
“I thought I had left the horizontal approach to Bible study back with my white-wine pietist past. Not so. The Relational Bible Study School of Theology is being resuscitated by the new white-wine pietists operating in confessional churches. The result is an erosion of confidence in the value of corporate worship tied in with the worship of all Christians throughout time, in the sacraments and the word as the only sure means of growth in the Christian life, and in the liturgy as both cross-and counter-cultural.”
“Pietism created The Horizontal School of Theology. That school will never support an emphasis on confessional orthodoxy or on sacramental corporate worship. Small groups within churches that do not foster commitment to corporate worship and thus to the means of grace are enemies of the cross of Christ. The premise of such groups is that word and sacrament are not enough to meet individual felt needs. Everyone is different, so everyone must be met on a different level. Some have daily sins to confess and to be absolved from and some don’t. All have something different they need or want from the church salad bar on Sunday morning. This is a malignant American individualism, and it smells of Lucifer’s droppings.”
7. Doctrinal hymns are elitist, but praise choruses edify.
“As the white-wine-pietist son of a Lutheran minister told me recently, the first priority should be on whether the song can be sung easily and only then should one focus on the text of the song. Since the key is to experience God directly, immediately, and quickly (like an Egg McMuffin), the easiest way is by using the ubiquitous Maranatha praise book dearly cherished at the local McChurch.”
“It is known among trained musicians that within certain groups simply playing certain chords will immediately elicit the response of closed eyes or raised hands (somewhat like Pavlov’s dogs salivating at the ringing of a bell). It has nothing to do whatsoever with any content that is being sung – it is simply a matter of musical form eliciting a certain emotional response. Because of their abject ignorance of doctrine, the new white-wine pietists disparage the historic hymnody of the church and encourage a musical style that allows them to put one arm around their girl-friend and the other in the air. While Bach signed his works with “Soli Deo Gloria,” the music of white-wine pietism is signed with the godly reminder that it is “used by permission only, Big Steps 4 U Music, License #47528695, copyright 1986, administered by Integrity Hosanna Music, Incorporated.”
“The hymns of the Reformation are often theologically dense and difficult to sing. They can elicit an emotional response too, such as contrition, falling prostrate in fear of God, or despairing of the merit of one’s good works. The impression is given that because there is a language and style to learn, and that it is difficult, it is not worth making the effort. If I had listened to this kind of advice during the first year of law school, I would never have become a lawyer. To those who say you can put any content to any praise chorus and get the appropriate result, I respond: Then why don’t we put the content of Luther’s catechetical hymn “From Depths of Woe I Cry to Thee” to the Beach Boys’ “Fun, Fun, Fun ‘Til Daddy Takes the T’ Bird Away?”
8. The Holy Spirit hates apologetics.
“White-wine pietists despise apologetics, because it deals with rational argumentation, and pietists distrust the mind. The heart promotes worship while the mind just gets in the way. The new white-wine pietists are no different from their sixteenth-century predecessors (and Luther’s nemeses) the so-called “Zwickau Prophets,” Carlstadt and Muenzer – they put the head and the heart at war with one another. While we would gladly agree that no human effort (intellectual or otherwise) can ever be attributed as the cause of regeneration or saving faith, Scripture calls us to give a defense of the hope that is within. This takes work, study, and contact with the objections of unbelievers. White-wine pietists don’t do well in these waters, though to their credit they often socialize well with unbelievers. It is easier to attack apologetics as trying to “argue people into the kingdom” than it is to do serious, time-consuming study. Historically, pietism has ignored and disdained apologetics, placing it in tension with the “testimony from the heart.” Historically, pietism has ignored and disdained apologetics, placing it in tension with the “testimony from the heart.”
“The new white-wine pietists, unlike their fundamentalist forefathers, do go into the marketplace to “win the lost.” But their method of winning the lost is presenting a theology of glory based on their “lifestyle of integrity,” their “model family,” or by showing unbelievers how “tight” their “fellowship group” is. Mormons and all other moralists or anyone else with their lives halfway together, however, should be profoundly unimpressed. A reasoned and vigorous (and thus apostolic) defense of the cross is simply gone. In fact, it is arrogantly mocked as a strictly unspiritual endeavor. The “good news” preached by the new white-wine pietists is never really that good, because the bad news of the law is never fully grasped or preached in its awful severity.”
9. Growth in faith comes through obedience to the law.
“This is the central theological sulfur of all strains of pietism. The Reformation in general, and Luther in particular, were emphatic that the prime function of the law was to slay and kill Adam, the first pietist. Growth in the Christian life is a growth in grace – that is, a growth in the life and salvation given by Christ and springing out of the daily forgiveness of sins. A focus on the forgiveness of sins will always push a person to the means of grace, where a holy God promises and delivers that forgiveness. The new white-wine pietist, true to his origins, has an individualistic and pragmatic interest in the church. Pietists interest themselves in the work of the church to the extent that it fosters relationships, love for God “fellowship,” a growing commitment to small groups, and access to God unencumbered by the means of grace or by liturgy, in favor of more emotional worship.” (4)
Gary North explains the helplessness of Pietism when it comes to real-world issues:
“Christian pietists who self-consciously, religiously, and confidently deny that Christians should ever get involved in any form of public confrontation with humanism, for any reason, have recognized this weakness on the part of antinomian Christian activists. They never tire of telling the activists that they are wasting their time in some “eschatologically futile reform program.” Such activism is a moral affront to the pietists. Those of us who have repeatedly marched in picket lines in front of an abortionist’s office have from time to time been confronted by some outraged Christian pietist who is clearly far more incensed by the sight of Christians in a picket line than the thought of infanticide in the nearby office. ‘Who do you think you are?” we are asked. “Why are you out here making a scene when you could be working in an adoption center or unwed mothers’ home?” (These same two questions seem equally appropriate for the pietist critic. Who does he think he is, and why isn’t he spending his time working in an adoption center or an unwed mothers’ home?) … The pietistic critics of activism also understand that in any direct confrontation, Christians risk getting the stuffings – or their tax exemptions – knocked out of them. They implicitly recognize that a frontal assault on entrenched humanism is futile and dangerous if you have nothing better to offer, since you cannot legitimately expect to beat something with nothing.” (5)
More on the dangers of Pietistic dualism in Churchianity or Christianity Part 6-retreatism pietism Churchianity and the recovery of Christianity:
“All dualism since Ockham, and especially as expressed in pietism, has had the cultural effect of weakening the church and strengthening the state. With its retreat inward, pietism was completely unable to combat the forces of the Enlightenment, just as Lutheranism was found powerless with the rise of the Third Reich. The Enlightenment perspective saw the state, not the church, as the truly universal institution; the church was the area of private faith, whereas the state was the realm of reason. The state would therefore assert itself as the new arbiter of order. Given pietism’s primary concern for ‘spiritual life,’ it did not contest this claim. The same is true of modern evangelical pietism. It has allowed the state to move into and control most of life, and we have given up the majority of that ground uncontested. While on the one hand emphasising the church and spiritual life, pietism actually allows the church to become an essentially peripheral institution, irrelevant to life in the world… An immediate offspring of this dualism and pietism is retreatism.” (6)
In the real world:
When the state asserts its authority over the church, for instance, the pietists are not up for the fight. Because of its withdrawal from society, Pietism creates a power vacuum that the state will gladly rush in to fill. Sadly, in Pietism, political action is viewed with suspicion because of its dependence upon Greek Platonic dualism. Escape to the “upper story” is an escape to nowhere. Additionally, as noted by Plotinus, “There is another life emancipated, whose quality is a progression towards the higher realm.” In other words, the invisible and the world of ideas is superior to the visible and the imperfect world of forms. The problem with this is that it is fiction.
Jesus did not limit the Christian life to only private worship or gospel preaching.
“Your kingdom comes, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” (Mathew 6:10)
God’s world is a unified whole, not Greek “upper story,” or “lower story” dualism.
Retreating and evacuating is a methodology for losing culturally in history. Andrew Sandlin has noted this when he quotes Winston Churchill:
“Wars are not won by evacuations…. We shall fight on the beaches, and we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” – Winston Churchill
Bio: Andrew Sandlin is a Christian minister, cultural theologian, and author; the founder and president of the Center for Cultural Leadership in Coulterville, California; ana a faculty member at Blackstone Legal. – Wikipedia
Thank God that Churchill was not a pietist. Churchill’s call to battle helped save Western Civilization. Thankfully, most Christians during the War for Independence were not Pietists. During the War for Independence, in the English parliament, the conflict was sometimes referred to as the Presbyterian revolt or that the colonies followed the Presbyterian parson, John Witherspoon.
In conclusion, it can be said that the philosophical positions advanced by the Greeks influenced the areas of epistemology, ontology, ethics, and teleology. The Greek influence is a sufficient explanation for positions that some Western religions and philosophies have adopted. Regrettably, this includes Pietism.
These Greek concepts have influenced present-day Pietism. While admitting that Pietism may not be aware of the source of some of its positions, it nevertheless is dependent upon Greek philosophical ideas, namely, fleeing to the “upper story.”
Mark Rushdoony describes what has been the result of Pietism in our culture:
“Pietism, in fact, saw Christianity as a retreat from earthly, worldly concerns, which it increasingly abandoned.” (7)
The present reign of the Lord Jesus Christ is not Pietism:
“For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” (1 Corinthians 15:25)
According to Paul in 1 Corinthians, this reign is a present reality and will climax in the Second Coming.
Jesus did not teach, “Do not waste your time polishing the brass on a sinking ship.” Not only is this contrary to Christ’s present reign, but it is implicitly bad eschatology.
Christ reigns in both the upper and lower stories. In both the invisible and visible. In the world of ideas and forms. Anything less is a truncated Christianity. Christians must engage the culture and transform it.
The cultural mandate:
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)
“In the total expanse of human life, there is not a single square inch of which the Christ, who alone is sovereign, does not declare, ‘That is mine!’” Abraham Kuyper
Christians must proclaim the Lordship of Christ over every aspect of life and culture, not flee to the “upper story.”
The reader should consult Messiah the Prince, by William Symington, to learn more about Christ’s present reign and the implications for the present world.
Escaping Cultural Relevance by Gary North:
“Here is a major dilemma for the modern church:”
“Christians confidently affirm that “the Bible has answers for all questions.” But one question is this: What relevance should Christianity have in culture? Modern antinomian Christians emphatically deny the judicial foundation of Christianity’s cultural relevance in history: biblical law and its biblically mandated sanctions.”
“Most Christians prefer pietism to cultural relevance, since civil responsibility accompanies cultural relevance.”
“They seek holiness through withdrawal from the prevailing general culture.”
“This withdrawal has forced them to create alternative cultures – ghetto cultures – since there can be no existence for man without culture of some kind.”
“Mennonites have achieved a remarkable separation from the general culture, though not so radical as tourists in Amish country like to imagine, by abandoning such modern benefits as electricity in their homes and the automobile.”
“But they travel in their buggies on paved highways, and they use electricity in their barns.”
“They are always dependent on the peace-keeping forces of the nation.”
“Pietistic Christians have longed for a similar separation, but without the degree of commitment shown by the Amish.”
“They send their children into the public schools, and they still watch television.”
“The result has been catastrophic: the widespread erosion of pietism’s intellectual standards by the surrounding humanist culture, and the creation of woefully third-rate Christian alternatives.”
“The ultimate form of personal Christian withdrawal from culture is mysticism: placing an emotional and epistemological boundary between the Christian anger the world around him.”
“But there is a major theological risk with all forms of theistic mysticism.”
“The proponents of theistic mysticism again and again in history have defined mysticism as union with God.”
“But their primary motive is to escape social responsibility and social ethics.”
“By defining mysticism as metaphysical rather than ethical, mystics have frequently come to a terribly heretical conclusion: their hoped-for union with God is defined as metaphysical rather than ethical.”
“They seek a union of their being with God.”
“The mystic’s quest for unity with God denies the Bible’s ultimate definition of holiness: the separation of God from the creation.” (8)
In closing, Bavinck’s Critique of Pietism:
“Like so many other efforts at reforming life in Protestant churches, Pietism and Methodism were right in their opposition to dead orthodoxy. Originally their intention was only to arouse a sleeping Christianity; they wished not to bring about a change in the confession of the Reformation but only to apply it in life. Yet, out of an understandable reaction, they frequently went too far in this endeavor and swung to another extreme. They, too, gradually shifted the center of gravity from the objective to the subjective work of salvation. In this connection it makes essentially no difference whether one makes salvation dependent on faith and obedience or on faith and experience. In both cases humanity itself steps into the foreground. Even though Pietism and Methodism did not deny the acquisition of salvation by Christ, they did not use this doctrine or relate it in any organic way to the application of salvation. It was, so to speak, dead capital. The official activity of the exalted Christ, the Lord from heaven, was overshadowed by the experiences of the subject. In Pietism, instead of being directed toward Christ, people were directed toward themselves. They had to travel a long road, meet all sorts of demands and conditions, and test themselves by numerous marks of genuineness before they might believe, appropriate Christ, and be assured of their salvation. Methodism indeed tried to bring all this—conversion, faith, assurance—together in one indivisible moment, but it systematized this method, in a most abbreviated way, in the same manner as Pietism. In both there is a failure to appreciate the activity of the Holy Spirit, the preparation of grace, and the connection between creation and re-creation. That is also the reason why in neither of them does the conversion experience lead to a truly developed Christian life. Whether in Pietistic fashion it withdraws from the world or in Methodist style acts aggressively in the world, it is always something separate, something that stands dualistically alongside the natural life, and therefore does not have an organic impact on the family, society, and the state, on science and art. With or without the Salvation Army uniform, Christians are a special sort of people who live not in but outside the world. The Reformation antithesis between sin and grace has more or less made way for the Catholic antithesis between the natural and the supernatural. Puritanism has been exchanged for asceticism. The essence of sanctification now consists in abstaining from ordinary things.” (9)
As noted by Bavinck says pietistic, “Christians are a special sort of people who live not in but outside the world.” Thus, in Pietism, platonic dualism manifests itself, and to use Schaeffer’s terminology, they attempt to live in the “upper story.”
Pietism, like any other movement, has its own set of dangers that can negatively impact escapists. One significant danger is its emphasis on personal piety and individual spiritual growth. While striving for personal holiness is commendable, focusing solely on one’s spiritual journey can lead to a self-centered mindset. Pietistic escapists who become engrossed in their quest for personal perfection may lose sight of the communal aspect of faith, failing to recognize the importance of serving others and engaging in the greater world. As a result, the dangers of Pietistic escapism lie in the potential alienation from society and the neglect of social responsibilities that are essential for a mature and meaningful biblical faith.
In the past, Christians built schools, hospitals, orphanages and participated in society at every level. Today, not so much; instead, one hears about not polishing brass on a sinking ship, an ultimate expression of cultural pietistic escapism. Pietism is widespread, along with rampant prophetic speculation. With ten million and millions more illegal/migrants overrunning the country, arguing about when and if there is a pretribulation rapture almost rises to the definition of insanity.
And finally, a Role Model:
“There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” – Abraham Kuyper
“Abraham Kuyper, 29 October 1837 – 8 November 1920) was the Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905, an influential Calvinist theologian and a journalist. He established the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, which upon its foundation became the second largest Calvinist denomination in the country behind the state-supported Dutch Reformed Church.”
“In addition, he founded the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Anti-Revolutionary Party, and a newspaper. In religious affairs, he sought to adapt the Dutch Reformed Church to challenges posed by the loss of state financial aid and by increasing religious pluralism in the wake of splits that the church had undergone in the 19th century, rising Dutch nationalism, and the Arminian religious revivals of his day which denied predestination. He vigorously denounced modernism in theology as a fad that would pass away. In politics, he dominated the Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP) from its founding in 1879 to his death in 1920. He promoted pillarisation, the social expression of the anti-thesis in public life, whereby Protestant, Catholic and secular elements each had their own independent schools, universities and social organisations.” – Wikipedia
“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:
Plotinus, The Six Enneads, Vol. 17 of Great Books of the Western World, Trans. by S. Mackenna and P.S. Page, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), pp. 1.2, 1; p. 6. 1. 2, 3; p. 7. 1. 2, 7; p. 10. 1. 3, 1; p. 10.
Plotinus, 2.3, 9; p. 45.
Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth and the Pietists: The Young Karl Barth’s Critique of Pietism & Its Response, (Wipf and Stock (June 15, 2016), p. 19.
Craig Parton, The nine spiritual laws of white wine pietism, Intrepid Lutherans, https:// vdma. wordpress.com /2010/11/18/the-nine-spiritual-laws-of-white-wine-pietism/
Gary North, Tools of Dominion, (Tyler, Texas, Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), p. 15.
Christian Concern, Churchianity or Christianity part 6-retreatism pietism churchianity and the recovery of Christianity, online resource, https: // Christian concern. com/
Dualism, Rev. Mark R. Rushdoony is president of Chalcedon and Ross House Books. He is also editor-in-chief of Faith for All of Life and Chalcedon’s other publications. https:// sites. Google. com/site/world view address/clients/dualism
Gary North, Leviticus: An Economic Commentary; Introduction, (Tyler, TX, Institute for Christian Economics, 1994), p. 2-3.
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ, trans. H. Bolt, Editor J. Vriend, translator, Vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 3.567–68.
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.
The Religion That Started in a Hat 