The Canards of Unbelief

The Canards of Unbelief by Jack Kettler

This study will look at a few examples of usual canards that non-believers try to pass off as reasons they do not go to church or for not believing in the truth claims of the Christian Faith. The approach in this study will be one that utilizes the Socratic technique of questioning as a response to the non-believers when they pull these canards out of the grab bag of excuses.

The three questions of the Socratic technique:

1. What do you mean?

This question forces a person to define their terminology and gets beyond surface language similarity.

2. How do you know that?

This question forces the person to give reasons for their definitions. Are they parroting things that they heard out of the grab bag of excuses?

3. What are the implications of this viewpoint?

This question makes a person look to the conclusion of where their position leads. Are they logically consistent or contradictory? Are their conclusions biblical?

In canards 1-5, the reader will get to see how to apply these questions to real-life situations.

The example of Jesus asking questions:

As in the case of Christ, sometimes it is better to ask counter questions. In other words, question the questioner.

Jesus asked questions as a response, which get right to the heart of an issue.

In Matthew, we read how the Herodians, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus with a series of questions. Instead, Jesus caught them with His counter questions.

“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him, the son of David. He saith unto them, how then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.” (Matthew 22:41-46)

Synonyms of canard; exaggeration, fabrication, falsehood, untruth, rumor

Canard 1:

“The church is full of hypocrites.”

What do you mean by hypocrite? How do you know that the church is full of hypocrites? Does a personal observation support this contention? If so, explain. Are other organizations full of hypocrites? If so, how does this affect how you live?

Canard 2:

“Christians are always judging other people.”

What do you mean by judging or judgment? How do you know that this is true? Can you provide a personal example of Christians judging? Do you never make judgments? Are all judgments wrong? Were the Nazi’s wrong to kill the Jew? Is that a judgment? Do you ever say that things are right or wrong? Why, since this is judging? How can you live without making judgments?

Canard 3:

“I do not like organized religion. I have a personal relationship with God that can take place in the mountains.”

What do you mean by organized? How do you know your assertion is true regarding personal as opposed to organized? Have you ever been a member of organized religion? If so, when and where?

So you do like something that is organized. Why is disorganized better? Do you like organized sports or disorganized sports?

What do you mean by a personal relationship with God? How do you define God? How do you know that God approves of your approach? How often do you go into the mountains to worship God?

Canard 4:

“The church is a business.”

How do you define business? How do you define religion or church? Can a church and business have similarities and yet be different? Is your assertion that the church is a business a personal observation? Are you saying that all businesses are wrong or just churches?

Canard 5:

“The church is backward, and it is not relevant for today.”

What do you mean by backwards or relevant? How do you know that the church is not relevant? In what way is the church not relevant? Is this assertion from personal experience?

Are all ideas and practices from the past discredited? How so? What about Plato’s Republic, and Aristotelian ethics?

The goal of questioning the questioner is to cut to the chase so to speak and get to the important aspect of the canard, and exposing the canard for what it is, namely, an excuse for unbelief.

The Socratic questioning process must be done with sensitivity. You are not trying to win an argument and make someone look bad. Sometimes it is helpful to ask the questions in the third person. For example, “what if someone asked you, ‘How do you know the church is full of hypocrites?’” The first person can be viewed as a more direct and personal challenge. Depending on the person, this could be threatening to cause the person to become defensive. If this happens, remind the individual it was they who made the accusation about the church.

The gospel in a nutshell:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” (1Corinthians 15:1-4 ESV)

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Romans 13 and the Limits of submission to the Church or State

Romans 13 and the Limits of submission to the Church or State                   by Jack Kettler

The following essay will touch on the issue of submission to the State or Church. It will be argued that there are limits to submission to both entities in the created order. Are the Church co-equal in God’s created order? Is the State above the Church or visa versa?

In Scripture, there are commands to submit to the State, (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14), and Church (Matthew 18:15–17; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 13:17).

Are these commands absolute?

Starting with the Church:

In Hebrews, 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them…” Church membership vows show the seriousness of this.

For example, in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) membership vow number five says:

“Do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?”

The Marks of a True Church:

  • The gospel is preached
  • The sacraments are administered biblically
  • Church discipline practiced

If the Church fails in these three, Church members must follow the process outlined in Matthew 18:15-17 to resolve disputes. If the Church’s is unfaithful to the above bullet points, members are freed from their vows and can conclude that the said Church is no longer the Church, and may depart.

On a much larger scale, this is what happened in the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, it must be admitted that there are limits to submission to a Church. The Church may cease to be the Church because of apostasy. For example, there is the Church of Thyatira that tolerated apostasy in Revelation 2:18-29.

Now to consider the State:

Principally, Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14 are the key texts that require submission to State authority.

Considering the Romans 13 text:

“1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” (Romans 13:1-7)

God ordains the State like the Church, and submission is required. Does this section in Romans 13 require Christians to submit to totalitarian Nazi-like governments? If so, does this mean Christians must turn their Jewish neighbors over to the authorities? If the passage teaches this, it seems to end up in contradiction to other passages like “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself” (Mark 12:31). Turning a neighbor over to psychotic Nazi Gestapo killers is not loving them. If a representative of the State rapes or murders someone, are these same representatives immune from prosecution?

In Romans 13:7 of the text, it says “all their dues…” Is the word “due” a subtle qualifier? Were Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot “due” honor? These named leaders came into power via revolution and political subterfuge. It is true that no one rules without God’s providential control. It is also true that even a corrupt government is better than complete anarchy.

Is this section of Romans a complete treatise on civil government? Does this passage allow for the development of democratic forms of government influenced by the whole orb of biblical teaching and mechanisms that hold representatives of the State accountable and liable to prosecution for crimes committed by them? Does the development of theology stop at this point in redemptive history? This question is not about an open canon. It is about the application of Scripture-based upon a more excellent knowledge of the whole of Scripture.

In verse 4 of Romans 13, the duties of the State are seen, namely “to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Verse 6 says, “…for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

Marks of the God-ordained State:

  • God’s ministers are ordained and not a terror to good works.
  • Continual executing wrath against evildoers.
  • Because of fear of God’s ministers, evil is deterred.

Evil must be defined biblically, or the word evil is arbitrary has no meaning. In the present-day, are representatives of a State a terror to good works or not? Is the State continually attending to executing wrath against evildoers? Is evil dissuaded or encouraged by these rulers. Have State representatives become a terror to good works? If Romans 13:1-7 teach unlimited submission to the State, this is a perfect proof text for the divine right of Kings.

What if the State stops executing wrath against evildoers and turns its guns on the Church becoming a terror to Christ’s Church, verse 3? Verses four and six spell out specific duties of government ministers. It must be concluded that Roman 13:1-7 does not require unlimited to the State any more than to the Church. The bullet points of the State’s responsibility are qualifiers like those that the Church has.

State power is not unlimited any more than Church power is:

Can the State fail like a Church?  If so, does this free a citizen from a pledge of unlimited submission? If the State can fail like an apostate Church, a citizen, and more importantly, a true Church of Christ must have recourse to address or ignore a Statist decree when the State is no longer fulfilling its duty as a punisher of evildoers. If a Statist decree is based upon a provable lie, must a Christian submit? If living under a monarchy, waiting for the next election will not work.

There are tensions and potential conflicts between Romans 13:1-7 and Acts 5:29. As asked previously, is Romans 13:1-7 absolute and a treatise on Church, State, and the individual’s relations with the State? In chapter three, Daniel and his friends chose God over the Babylonian tyrants. Do these texts from Daniel and Acts contradict Roman 13? If not, then there is biblical precedent for rejecting the unlimited submission view to the State.

In the Old Testament, there was the prophet, priest, and king. These offices were combined and fulfilled in the person of Lord Jesus Christ. God’s governing power was separated in the Old Testament. In the New Testament revelation, the Church of Christ is given far more prominence than the State. Nevertheless, based upon one section of Scripture in Romans 13, the State is elevated above the Church, and the Church is to submit without question. This could be described as the superiority of the State over the Church doctrine. If this is true, what happened to the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Examples from history:

In Scotland, John Knox challenged the civil authorities’ who were influenced by the corrupt Church of his day by holding services on weekdays to counter what the Romanist priests spoke about on Sundays. His rebuke to England in (1554) led to the development in theology known as resistance to tyrants. He defended the right and duty of the common people to resist if State officials ruled contrary to Scripture. Knox even said, “Resistance to tyranny is a duty to God.” It seems that Knox is in conflict with Romans 13 if an unlimited view of submission to the government is taken. If there are limits on the application to Romans 13, then Knox was justified. If not, then Knox is wrong and must be judged as misinterpreting Scripture.

The Calvinist Connection by David Kopel,” from the Independence Institute:

“In the American colonies, the hotbed of revolution was New England, where the people were mainly Congregationalists–descendants of the Calvinist English Puritans. The Presbyterians, a Calvinist sect, which originated in Scotland, were spread all of the colonies, and the network of Presbyterian ministers provided links among them. The Congregationalist and Presbyterian ministers played an indispensible role in inciting the American Revolution.

To understand why they were so comfortable with revolution, it helps to look at the origins of Calvinist resistance theory, from its tentative beginnings with Calvin himself, to its full development a few decades later.

Born in 1509, John Calvin was a small child in France when the Reformation began. By 1541, he had been invited to take permanent refuge in Geneva, which provided a safe haven for the rest of his life. Geneva was a walled city, and constantly threatened by the Catholic Duke of Savoy and others. Pacifism was never a realistic option for Calvin, or any of the Swiss Protestants.

Calvin always believed that governments should be chosen by the people. He described the Hebrews as extremely foolish for jettisoning their free government and replacing it with a hereditary monarchy. He also came to believe that kings and princes were bound to their people by covenant, such as those that one sees in the Old Testament.

In Calvin’s view, which was based on Romans 13, the governmental duties of “inferior magistrates” (government officials, such as mayor or governors, in an intermediate level between the king and the people) required them to protect the people against oppression from above. Calvinism readily adopted the Lutheran theory of resistance by such magistrates.

In a commentary on the Book of Daniel, Calvin observed that contemporary monarchs pretend to reign “by the grace of God,” but the pretense was “a mere cheat” so that they could “reign without control.” He believed that “Earthly princes depose themselves while they rise up against God,” so ‘it behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them.’”

See the link below for Kopel’s complete essay.

Is Calvin, when saying, “…it behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them” in violation of Romans 13? Calvin must be understood in the context of this saying his doctrine of the civil magistrates and separation of powers of the magistrates. Calvin’s view of the separation of powers is also seen in his view of the Church government, which likewise separates Church power.

The Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, theologically, are historical examples of God-given rights that the individual possesses recognized by the State.

From the Library of Congress:

“[The] Magna Carta exercised a strong influence both on the United States Constitution and on the constitutions of the various states. However, its influence was shaped by what eighteenth-century Americans believed Magna Carta to signify. Magna Carta was widely held to be the people’s reassertion of rights against an oppressive ruler, a legacy that captured American distrust of concentrated political power. In part because of this tradition, most of the state constitutions included declarations of rights intended to guarantee individual citizens a list of protections and immunities from the state government. The United States also adopted the Bill of Rights, in part, due to this political conviction.”

Despite this development in the area of civil rights, according to some and their interpretation of Romans 13, the Magna Carta, American War for Independence, and the Bill of Rights never should have happened or only did so in violation of Romans 13.

“Sphere Sovereignty” a solution:

Sphere sovereignty (Dutch: souvereiniteit in eigen kring), also known as differentiated responsibility, is the concept that each sphere (or sector) of life has its own distinct responsibilities and authority or competence, and stands equal to other spheres of life. – Wikipedia

Is Abraham Kuyper’s “Sphere Sovereignty,” which involves a separate sphere for the Church, State, Family, and Work Biblical? If so, can “sphere sovereignty,” resolve the conflict between present-day God-ordained institutions?

Present-day Church/State relations:    

Currently, there is a purported virus pandemic. In the United States, some individual states have locked down Churches from holding worship services and placed stringent rules to be followed subject to threats of fines and imprisonment.

Under the guise of the pandemic, the State has moved against the Church in an unprecedented way in some of these United States to restrict the Church from its activities, including weddings, funerals, communion services, and baptisms. In some States, congregants are urged to wear masks and not get to close to each other. Unknown unelected faceless health experts limit the number of congregants permitted to attend Church.

If John Calvin’s view of differing levels and separation of powers in the magistrates is right, Christians can dispute a lower magistrate by appealing to a higher power. In States that have overreached into Church affairs, legal action should be taken against the State. The application of these alleged pandemic rules vary from State to State, are inconsistent and discriminatory. In Colorado, for example, Pot shops were deemed essential, and Church services were not. Pot shops remained open, and Church services were canceled.

Are there limits on the local State and Federal State?

Can a State tax the Church? Does Romans 13:1-7 sanction a tax by the State upon the Church? Can a State ban particular food like pork from a Church dinner under the guise of good health or not offending Muslims? Can a State prohibit congregants from carrying concealed firearms to Church? Can a State forbid the Church to teach that homosexuality is a sin? Can a State require congregants to dress in clown costumes at Church because people wearing clown costumes have not contracted a yearly virus or flue at the same rate as others in society?

Romans 13:1-7 is not an end-all debate treatise on the power of the State. The passage allows for doctrinal impute from other Scriptures. This means that the doctrine of accountability or liability applies to the State as well as the Church. Both the State and the Church can fail.

There is not unlimited immunity for either sphere. A priest who molests a child can be prosecuted, as well as a civil magistrate who commits the same crime, can also be. The examples of John Knox and John Calvin cannot be ignored. If Knox was justified in his description of Queen Mary as a monstrous woman tyrant, it could be concluded that a civil magistrate may also be.

Romans 13:1-7 cannot be interpreted in isolation; it must be qualified in some sense. The Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7 must not be apart from the totality of Scripture. As will be seen, there are other Scriptural considerations that limit the divine right of Kings’ interpretation of Romans 13. In light of the totality of Scripture, the believer is not required such absolute submission to the State, and neither is the Church.

Francis Schaeffer: A Christian Manifesto; Chapter 7: The Limits of Civil Obedience

Thinking to the bottom line:

  1. What is the final relationship to the state on the part of anyone whose base is the existence of God? Those in our present material-energy, chance oriented generation have no reason to obey the state except that the state has the guns and has the patronage.
  2. Has God set up an authority in the state that is autonomous from Himself?

God has ordained the state as a delegated authority; it is not autonomous. Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:13-17 [Comment: Sovereignty (ultimate authority) is an inescapable concept. Autonomy is the view that man is either above the law or lives apart from it.]

Historical examples of civil disobedience by Christians:

  1. William Tyndale, the English translator of the Bible, was condemned as a heretic, tried and executed in 1536.
  2. John Bunyan, a Nonconformist clergyman who was arrested for preaching without a license and failing to attend the Church of England, wrote Pilgrim’s Progress in his jail cell.

In almost every place where the Reformation had success, there was some form of civil disobedience or armed rebellion:

  1. Spanish Netherlands: Battle of Leyden, 1574 [The Dutch led by William the Silent won their independence as the United States of the Netherlands].
  2. Sweden: Gustavus Vasa broke Sweden off from Denmark and established the Lutheran church in 1527.
  3. Denmark: The Protestant party of the nobility overthrew the Catholic dynasty in 1536.
  4. Germany: Martin Luther was protected by the Duke of Saxony against the political and military power of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. The Peace of Augsburg of 1555 established the ruler’s religion in the German states. The Counter-Reformation led to the Thirty Years War. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) ratified the Peace of Augsburg.
  5. Switzerland: Cantons established Protestantism by vote of the community.
  6. Scotland: John Knox openly defied the authorities by holding services on weekdays to refute what the priests preached on Sundays. His Admonition to England (1554) developed a theology of resistance to tyranny. He upheld the right and duty of the common people to resist if state officials ruled contrary to the Bible. [“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God”] (1)


The notes in the 1559 Geneva Bible said Kings were not to be obeyed if they violated God’s law.

For example, the margin notes for Daniel 6:22 imply that the King’s commands are to be disobeyed if they conflict with the law of God:

“For he [Daniel] disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in order to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonored.” (2)

If the State, by its actions, declares itself God, is submission (Romans 13:1-7) still required? If so, would not submission be breaking the commandment against worshiping false gods?

“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

The Ninth Commandment:

How is law broken? Those who conceal the truth or openly lie, who formulate a conspiracy, or who spin the truth violate this commandment.

The Westminster larger catechism:

  1. 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
  2. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own,[864]especially in public judicature;[865]giving false evidence,[866]suborning false witnesses,[867] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;[868] passing unjust sentence,[869] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;[870]forgery,[871] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[872] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,[873] or complaint to others;[874] speaking the truth unseasonably,[875] or maliciously to a wrong end,[876] or perverting it to a wrong meaning,[877] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;[878] speaking untruth,[879] lying,[880] slandering,[881] backbiting,[882] detracting, tale bearing,[883] whispering,[884] scoffing,[885] reviling,[886]rash,[887] harsh,[888] and partial censuring;[889] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;[890] flattering,[891] vain-glorious boasting;[892] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;[893] denying the gifts and graces of God;[894] aggravating smaller faults;[895] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;[896] unnecessary discovering of infirmities;[897] raising false rumors,[898] receiving and countenancing evil reports,[899] and stopping our ears against just defense;[900] evil suspicion;[901] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[902] endeavoring or desiring to impair it,[903] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;[904]scornful contempt,[905] fond admiration;[906] breach of lawful promises;[907] neglecting such things as are of good report,[908] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.[909]

Believing a lie is a sin. God says, “I hate and detest falsehood.” (Psalm 119:163) The catechism speaks of “receiving and countenancing evil reports.” Receiving or believing a lie is a violation of the commandment and applies to both theological and political lies.

Theological and Political lies:

Teaching the Arian or Polytheism doctrines, which are lies, is sin. Believing these lies is sinful also. Politicians routinely speak lies when advocating the redistributing income from one group of citizens to another or promoting sexual deviancy in government indoctrination centers, i.e., public schools.

Not only is it a sin to teach and speak political lies, but it is also a sin to believe political heresies under the ninth commandment. Lies are lies. Teaching and believing lies are breaking the commandment. The ninth commandment has both a positive and a negative aspect to it.

“Thou shall not lie,” the ninth commandment and “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29)

This means when wicked rulers commanded believers to violate God’s law, believers must follow God and are free from unlimited submission. In addition, with the Bible in their hand, believers can call political leaders to repentance.

In conclusion:

Theological lies and political lies are both lies. The elders of the Church must protect the flock from lies from arising within the Church, and State. Exposing theological lies can be technical. The same is true with political lies like stealing from your neighbors or the advocacy of baby killing, i.e., abortion. The standard for exposing lies are the Scriptures.

Therefore, Church leaders, just as well as Political leaders, are not due unlimited submission.

If this is not true, then be the first on your block to turn in your Jewish or other politically incorrect neighbors. Stop homeschooling your children. Turn them over to the State for indoctrination into abominable sexual practices. Be sure to line up your children to get the latest vaccines derived from aborted fetal stem cell lines along with a good combination of toxic metals. If absolute submission were what must be followed, many of our fellow citizens would still be slaves according to race.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)


  1. Francis Schaeffer: Vol. 5, A Christian Manifesto; Chapter 7: The Limits of Civil Obedience, (Westchester, Illinois, Crossway Books), pp. 467-474.
  2. Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization, (Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson), 156.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at:

For more study:

Romans 13: Reading an Abused Text of Scripture Rightly

The Biblical Doctrine of Government by R. J. Rushdoony

The Calvinist Connection by Dave Kopel

The Calvinist Connection by Dave Kopel

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Church Membership, a Scriptural Primer

Church Membership, a Scriptural Primer by Jack Kettler

This study will cover the issue of church membership. Is it biblical? What texts of Scripture are used to support church membership? Can arguments be deduced from Scripture in support of registered church membership? These questions will be considered in this study primer.

In the Westminster Confession of Faith (1:6) [1] we read:

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”


The biblical basis for enrolled church membership in the New Testament can be deduced scripturally by the existence of church government, the exercise of church discipline, and sharing exhortations for edification, the giving of tithes and offerings, and submission to those that rule over you, i.e., elders.

First, what is the church?

KJV Dictionary Definition: church:


1. A house consecrated to the worship of God, among Christians; the Lord’s house. This seems to be the original meaning of the word. The Greek, to call out or call together, denotes an assembly or collection. But, Lord, a term applied by the early Christians to Jesus Christ; and the house in which they worshipped was named from the title. So church goods, bona ecclesiastica; the Lords day, dies Dominica.

2. The collective body of Christians, or of those who profess to believe in Christ, and acknowledge him to be the Savior of mankind. In this sense, the church is sometimes called the Catholic or Universal Church.

3. A particular number of christens, united under one form of ecclesiastical government, in one creed, and using the same ritual and ceremonies; as the English church; the Gallican church; the Presbyterian church; the Romish church; the Greek church.

4. The followers of Christ in a particular city or province; as the church of Ephesus, or of Antioch.

5. The Disciples of Christ assembled for worship in a particular place, as in a private house. Col. 4.

6. The worshipers of Jehovah or the true God, before the advent of Christ; as the Jewish church.

7. The body of clergy, or ecclesiastics, in distinction from the laity. Hence, ecclesiastical authority.

8. An assembly of sacred rulers convened in Christ’s name to execute his laws.

9. The collective body of Christians, who have made a public profession of the Christian religion, and who are united under the same pastor; in distinction from those who belong to the same parish, or ecclesiastical society, but have made no profession of their faith.

A description of church membership:

Membership in a local church consists of a believer making a public covenant with a particular group of believers. This covenant involves a commitment to worship the Lord corporately, edifying fellow believer by exhortations, praying for the fellow saints, the giving of tithes and offerings to support God’s Church and the expansion of His kingdom.

Church membership is based upon, and its roots found in the Old Testament:

Israel kept detailed genealogies, which are seen in several Old Testament books. These genealogies were written rolls used to establish membership in Israel.

The Levitical priesthood:

Priests could only be from the tribe of Levi and descendants of Aaron. If a man could not prove his genealogical record, he was incapable to serve as a priest.

For example:

“These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.” (Ezra 2:62)

Registration records were crucial to making this determination.

Additional textual records kept in the Old Testament:

“The LORD records as he registers the peoples, ‘this one was born there.’ Selah” (Psalm 87:6 ESV)

In Psalm 86:6, it says the LORD registers, the peoples. This does not mean that human scribes were not used.

“My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and who give lying divinations. They shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 13:9)

As seen in Ezekiel 13:9, it was a fearful thing not be enrolled in the register of Israel.

“Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.” (Malachi 3:16)

The “Book of Remembrance” in Malachi the records or registers of those that fear the Lord are written.

This tradition of registering or enrolling continues in the New Testament:

Both Matthew and Luke record the genealogies of Christ.

“To be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.” (Luke 2:5 ESV)

Strong’s Lexicon on Luke 2:5 and registering:

[He went there] to register

ἀπογράψασθαι (apograpsasthai)

Verb – Aorist Infinitive Middle

Strong’s Greek 583: From apo and grapho, to write off, i.e., enroll.

Unless the New Testament sets aside an Old Testament practice, we are to presume it is still required. Registering and being enrolled in Israel was the norm as it is for the New Testament Church.

The church assembles:

“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” (Hebrews 10:25)

If there were no membership records, how could it be known who was forsaking the church fellowship? Facial recognition and mental remembering are fraught with errors.

How to we recognize those who have this authority? Can this recognition happen apart from being registered in a local church?

“And to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect.” (Hebrews 12:23 ESV)

Strong’s Concordance Hebrews 12:23 and enrolled:

apographó: to copy, enroll

Original Word: ἀπογράφω

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: apographó

Phonetic Spelling: (ap-og-raf’-o)

Definition: to copy, enroll

Usage: I enroll, inscribe in a register; mid: I give my name for registration (or census-taking).

Hebrews speaks of those enrolled in the heavenly roll. Should not there be a corresponding earthly roll? The earthly roll would not be completely accurate because the “tares and wheat dwelling together” see Matthew 13:24-30. This imperfection of the earthly roll is no reason not to do it. The advantages of an earthly roll are seen in church elections of officers, approval of church operating budgets, participation in the sacraments, and church discipline, etc.

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Hebrews 13:17)

How could it be known whom the people to submit to are? Is submission due to anyone who calls himself an elder? How would the elders know who oversight is due? A membership roll eliminates problems like these.

How does someone become an elder in the church?

“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.” (1Timothy 5:17)

Eldership indicates that there is a localized community of believers. It also means that there is a way for the gifts and talents of members to be recognized and ordination of deacons and elders to take place.

The process in Presbyterian polity happens like this:

1. The session (a body of elected elders) identifies a need for a church office to be filled.

2. The session (a body of elected elders) calls on the congregation to identify and choose competent candidates. It is the church’s solemn approval of and public attestation to a man’s inward call, his gifts, and his calling by the church.

3. The session (a body of elected elders) prays and lays hands on the elected nominees ordaining them into office. Ordination shall be performed by the body, which examines the candidate. In the case of elders and deacons, this would be the ordained elders of the local church, i.e., the session.

Records were kept in the early church:

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41)

The early church was numbered (Acts 1:15; 4:4; 16:5) someone did the counting, and it can be seen right in Scripture that the numbers were written down.

An example of a selection process that happened in a church gathering:

“And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch.” (Acts 6:5)

Strong’s Concordance on Acts 6:5 and chose:

eklegó: to select

Original Word: ἐκλέγομαι

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: eklegó

Phonetic Spelling: (ek-leg’-om-ahee)

Definition: to select

Usage: choose, elect, select.

As the Strong entry notes, electing was not a foreign concept. Choosing or selecting involves an election process.

Criteria set by the church to support widows:

“Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man…” (1Timothy 5:9)

Someone had to evaluate the cases appealed to the church. A church large enough to have such concerns is a church that is developed beyond an evangelistic outreach meaning there had to be elected church officers.

How are the church sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper to be carried out without a defined membership?

In Reformed churches, only pastors and elders administrate the sacraments. They attempt to safeguard the Lord’s table that only those who are biblically eligible are included. Eldership requires oversight responsibilities.

How would church discipline take place as outlined by Matthew without a defined membership?

“Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglects to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.” (Matthew 18:15-17)

It is logically impossible to reconcile the doctrine of discipline and its application, where there is no defined membership. The rights of an accused should be protected, meaning that some things must be done in confidence, similar to a closed executive session. It is not fair to the accused to have visitors from off the street come in participate hearing of charges and joining with the congregants to determine the validity of accusations.

How can an excommunicated person be “taken away from among you” in 1Corinthians 5:2?

Church discipline implies there is some recognizable way to remove an unrepentant sinner from the church. The discipline process must be recorded for future review. In some cases, the excommunicated party repents and is re-admitted to the church. If many years go by before this happens, there may be new elders who are unfamiliar with the church’s previous actions. Therefore, written records are imperative.

The removing of the person from the roll and then announcing it to the church is for members only. Without formal membership, credible discipline that preserves confidentiality is impossible. Without formal membership and confidentiality during the discipline process, the process may be nothing more than hearsay or slander. False accusations are real.

Slander is evil, which is Paul says:

“Slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents.” (Romans 1:30 ESV)

What does to “those inside the church mean”?

“For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” (1Corinthians 5:12 ESV)

How can it be determined who is inside the church unless there is a membership roll? To be enrolled in the membership, some type of minimally credible confession of faith is necessary.

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:19)

The Book of Life in John’s Revelation records all people considered righteous before God.

As Revelation notes, God keeps a roll.

In closing:

The people of Israel were numbered and enrolled. Why it is even questioned that this same practice would not be carried over into the New Covenant people of God is disconcerting. Arguments deduced from Scripture in this primer have been numerous.

Paul directs the church:

“Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.” (Acts 6:3)

The apostolic “appointing” is the conclusion of a process that includes the congregation. Moreover, the Bible says that the “whole congregation” selected the “Seven” and brought them to the apostles (Acts 6:5-6).

A one-person rule type figure usually leads churches that do not have an enrolled membership with requirements that translate into membership privileges such as voting rights for officers and finances. Sometimes this phenomenon is called the Moses model of church government. The Moses model of church government is unknown in the New Testament. Elders, not one-person rule churches in the New Testament.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at:


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Herman Bavinck b. 1854 – d. 1921

Herman Bavinck b. 1854 – d. 1921

Herman Bavinck (13 December 1854, Hoogeveen, Drenthe – 29 July 1921, Amsterdam) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and churchman. He was a significant scholar in the Calvinist tradition, alongside Abraham Kuyper and B. B. Warfield. Notable work four volume Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1 Prolegomena; Vol. 2 God and Creation; Vol. 3 Sin and Salvation; Vol. 4 Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. From Wikipedia

Herman Bavinck quotes:

“The resurrection is the fundamental restoration of all culture.” – Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation

“And these two things, the love of God and Christ’s satisfaction, had to and could go hand in hand because we were simultaneously the object of his love as his creatures and the object of his wrath as sinners.” – Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ

“Without revelation religion sinks back into a pernicious superstition.” – Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation

“The cross is the divine settlement with the divine condemnation of sin.” – Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation

“The task of dogmatics is precisely to rationally reproduce the content of revelation that relates to the knowledge of God.” – Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics : Volume 1: Prolegomena

“The more deeply we live, the more we feel in sympathy with Augustine, and the less with Pelagius.” – Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation

“Thus the true, the good and the beautiful which ethical culture seeks can only come to perfection when the absolute good is at the same time the almighty, divine will, which not only prescribes the good in the moral law, but also works it effectually in man himself. The heteronomy of law and the autonomy of man are reconciled only by this theonomy.” – Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation

“Revelation in nature and revelation in Scripture form, in alliance with each other, a harmonious unity which satisfies the requirements of the intellect and the needs of the heart alike.” – Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation

“We have no historical testimony to the development of polytheism into pure monotheism;” – Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation

“If the moral law or the ideal good indeed exists outside of us, then it must be grounded in and be one with the Godhead.” – Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation

“By banishing metaphysics, materialism has no longer an ethical system, knows no longer the distinction between good and evil, possesses no moral law, no duty, no virtue, and no highest good.” – Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation

Learn more at

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way…

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way… By Jack Kettler

“Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.” (Psalm 2:12 ESV)

What does Kiss mean in the passage? In addition, who is the Son? In Psalm 2:7 we learn who the Son is:

“I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” (Psalm 2:7 ESV)

From Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on Psalm 2:7 we learn who the Son is:

“2:7-9 – The kingdom of the Messiah is founded upon an eternal decree of God the Father. This our Lord Jesus often referred to, as what he governed himself by. God hath said unto him, Thou art my Son, and it becomes each of us to say to him, Thou art my Lord, my Sovereign’. The Son, in asking the heathen for his inheritance, desires their happiness in him; so that he pleads for them, ever lives to do so, and is able to save to the uttermost, and he shall have multitudes of willing, loyal subjects, among them. Christians are the possession of the Lord Jesus; they are to him for a name and a praise. God the Father gives them to him, when, by his Spirit and grace, he works upon them to submit to the Lord Jesus.” (1)

Various translations of Psalms 2:12:

Submit to God’s royal son… (New Living Translation)

Do homage to the Son… (New American Standard Bible)

Show respect to his son… (Contemporary English Version)

Pay homage to the Son… (Christian Standard Bible)

Kiss the Chosen One… (Young’s Literal Translation)

From Strong’s Lexicon:


נַשְּׁקוּ־ (naš·šə·qū-)

Verb – Piel – Imperative – masculine plural

Strong’s Hebrew 5401: 1) to put together, kiss 1a) (Qal) to kiss 1b) (Piel) to kiss 1c) (Hiphil) to touch gently 2) to handle, be equipped with 2a) (Qal) to be equipped

From KJV today:

The KJV translates “נשׁקו־בר (nashku bar)” as “kiss the son.” The meaning of the verb “נשׁקו (nashku)” is not so much in dispute. “Kiss” is the literal translation (Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions) and “do homage” is a paraphrase of “kiss.” The idea is that kissing demonstrates the subject’s reverence towards the master. The KJV keeps the literal rendering.

Kiss from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance:

armed men, rule, kiss, that touched

A primitive root (identical with nasaq, through the idea of fastening up; compare chazaq, chashaq); to kiss, literally or figuratively (touch); also (as a mode of attachment), to equip with weapons — armed (men), rule, kiss, that touched.

Synonyms for the various translations of nashaq:

Submit – yield, give way, back down, bow, defer, agree, consent, accede, conform, acquiesce, comply, and accept

Homage – respect, honor, tribute, allegiance, devotion, loyalty, praise

Respect – esteem, regard, and acclaim, admiration, appreciation, estimation, favor, popularity, recognition, veneration, awe, reverence, deference, honor, praise, homage

Kiss – endearment, salutation, salute, homage

Son in Psalm 2:7 from Strong’s Concordance:

ben: son

Original Word: בֵּן

Part of Speech: Noun Masculine

Transliteration: ben

Phonetic Spelling: (bane)

Definition: son

The Son in Psalm 2:12 from Strong’s Lexicon:

the Son,

בַ֡ר (ḇar)

Noun – masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 1248: 1) son, heir

What is the difference between ben and bar in verse 7 and 12?

Both do indeed mean “son” or “son of.” But “ben” בן is Hebrew and “bar” בר is Aramaic. … Bar is Aramaic, and Ben is Hebrew. Bar-Mitzvah comes from the Aramaic. The Bar-Mitzvah is the religious ceremony of initiation for a Jewish boy who has reached the age of 13 and is ready to observe religious principles and worthy to take part in community worship.

Two significant Cross References for Psalms 2:12:

“And they said to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb.” (Revelation 6:16 Berean Study Bible)

“Be merciful to me, O God; be merciful to me, for in you my soul takes refuge; in the shadow of your wings I will take refuge, till the storms of destruction pass by.” (Psalm 57:1 ESV)

If you refuse to do “Homage” or to “Kiss” the Son of God, you will experience the warning spelled out in the passage, “…lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled.” (ESV)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Psalm 2:12:

“Kiss, in token of your subjection and adoration; whereof this was a sign among the Eastern nations, as is manifest both from Scripture, as 1 Samuel 10:1 1 Kings 19:18 Hosea 13:2, and from heathen authors. Submit to his person and government.

The Son, to wit, the Son of God, as appears from Psalm 2:7, called here the Son, by way of eminency, and in a singular manner; which agrees much better to Christ than to David, who is never particularly called by this name.

And ye perish from the way, i.e. be taken out of the way by death or destruction; or, perish out of the way, i.e. by losing the right way, by taking wrong and evil courses, the end of which will be your certain and utter ruin; or, for the way, i.e. for your evil way or manner of living, for your perverse and foolish course of opposing my Son instead of submitting to him. Or, in (which particle is oft. understood) the way, i.e. in your wicked way or course, in the midst of your plots and rebellions against him; and so you will die in your sins, as it is expressed, John 8:24, which is a sad aggravation of their death, and therefore here fitly proposed as a powerful argument to dissuade them from such dangerous and destructive courses.

But a little, i.e. the least degree, of his anger is very terrible, much more the heat and height of it, caused by such a desperate provocation as this is. Or, for his wrath will be kindled shortly, or suddenly, or within a very little time, as this word is used, Psalm 81:14 Song of Solomon 3:4 Isaiah 26:20. His patience will not last always, but will shortly be turned into fury; and therefore take heed that you neither deny nor delay subjection to him, but speedily comply with his offers and commands before it be too late.

They that put their trust in him; who put themselves under his power and protection, believing in him, and expecting safety and happiness from him; which cannot with any colour be applied to David, who always dissuades all men from putting their trust in princes, or in any men or thing besides or below God, Psalm 20:7 44:6 62:6-8 118:8 146:3, and every where; and therefore it would very ill have become him to invite others to put their trust in him. And he is pronounced cursed that trusteth in man, Jeremiah 17:5. But Christ is every where propounded as an object of trust, not only in the New Testament, but also in the Old, as Isaiah 28:16; and therefore they are most truly and fitly said to be

blessed that put their trust in him. Under which sentence the contrary is implied, that they are most cursed and miserable creatures that provoke and oppose him; and so cursed and miserable that David dreaded the very thoughts and mention of it, and therefore expresseth it by the contrary and blessed condition of his friends and subjects. And such-like significations of the miseries of sinners by the blessedness of others opposed to them we have Matthew 23:39 Revelation 14:13.” (2)

Why the translation of nashaq, Kiss?

“In favor of the traditional translation are the context of the psalm (submission to the Lord and to the anointed), the proposal by Delitzsch that the sequence bar pen (“Son, lest”) avoids the dissonance of ben pen (KD, 1:98), and the suggestion by Craigie that the usage of the Aramaism may be intentionally directed to the foreign nations (Psalms 1-50, p. 64).” (3)

In closing, consider John Calvin on Psalm chapter 2:12:

“Psalm 2:12

12. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when [29] his wrath is kindled in a moment. O blessed are all who put their trust in him.

David expresses yet more distinctly what kind of fear and service God requires. Since it is the will of God to reign by the hand of his Son, and since he has engraved on his person the marks and insignia of his own glory, the proper proof of our obedience and piety towards him is reverently to embrace his Son, whom he has appointed king over us, according to the declaration,

“He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent him,” (John 5:23)

The term kiss refers to the solemn token or sign of honor which subjects were wont to yield to their sovereigns. The sum is that God is defrauded of his honor if he is slot served in Christ. The Hebrew word vr Bar, signifies both a son and an elect person; but in whatever way you take it, the meaning will remain the same. Christ was truly chosen of the Father, who has given him all power, that he alone should stand pre-eminent above both men and angels. On which account also he is said to be “sealed” by God, (John 6:27) because a peculiar dignity was, conferred upon him, which removes him to a distance from all creatures. Some interpreters expound it, kiss or embrace what is pure, [30], which is a strange and rather forced interpretation. For my part, I willingly retain the name of son, which answers well to a former sentence, where it was said, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

What follows immediately after is a warning to those who despise Christ, that their pride shall not go unpunished, as if he had said, As Christ is not despised without indignity being done to the Father, who hath adorned him with his own glory, so the Father himself will not allow such an invasion of his sacred rights to pass unpunished. And to teach them to beware of vainly deceiving themselves with the hope of a lengthened delay, and from their present ease indulging themselves in vain pleasures, they are plainly told that his wrath will be kindled in a moment. For we see, when God for a time connives at the wicked, and bears with them, how they abuse this forbearance, by growing more presumptuous, because they do not think of his judgments otherwise, than according to sight and feeling. Some interpreters, I know, explain the Hebrew word kmt, Camoat, which we have rendered, in a moment, in a different way, namely, that as soon as God’s wrath is kindled in even a small degree, it will be all over with the reprobate. But it is more suitable to apply it to time, and to view it as a warning to the proud not to harden themselves in their stupidity and indifference, nor flatter themselves from the patience of God, with the hope of escaping unpunished. Moreover, although this word appears to be put for the purpose of giving a reason of what goes before, [31] namely, why those who refuse to kiss the Son shall perish, and although the Hebrew word ky, ki, signifies more frequently for than when, yet I am unwilling to depart from the commonly received translation, and have thought it proper to render the original word by the adverb when, which denotes both the reason and time of what is predicated. Some explain the phrases, to perish from the way, as meaning, a perverse way, or wicked manner of listing. Others resolve it thus, lest your way perish, according to that saying of the first psalm, the way of the ungodly shall perish. But I am rather inclined to attach to the words a different meaning, and to view them as a denunciation against the ungodly, by which they are warned that the wrath of God will cut them off when they think themselves to be only in the middle of their race. We know how the despisers of God are accustomed to flatter themselves in prosperity, and run to great excess in riot. The prophet, therefore, with great propriety, threatens that when they shall say, Peace and safety, reckoning themselves at a great distance from their end, they shall be cut off by a sudden destruction, (1 Thessalonians 5:3)

The concluding sentence of the psalm qualifies what was formerly said concerning the severity of Christ; for his iron rod and the fiery wrath of God would strike terror into all men without distinction, unless this comfort had been added. Having, therefore discoursed concerning the terrible judgment which hangs over the unbelieving, he now encourages God’s faithful and devout servants to entertain good hope, by setting forth the sweetness of his grace. Paul likewise observes the same order, (2 Corinthians 10:6) for having declared that vengeance was in readiness against the disobedient, he immediately adds addressing himself to believers “When your obedience is fulfilled.” Now, we understand the meaning of the Psalmist. As believers might have applied to themselves the severity of which he makes mention, he opens to them a sanctuary of hope, whither they may flee, in order not to be overwhelmed by the terror of God’s wrath; [32] just as Joel (Joel 2:32) also after having summoned the ungodly to the awful judgment-seat of God, which of itself is terrible to men, [33] immediately subjoins the comfort, Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. For it appears to me that this exclamation, Blessed are all they that put their trust in him, [34] should be read as a distinct sentence by itself. The pronoun him may be referred as well to God as to Christ, but, in my judgment, it agrees better with the whole scope of the psalm to understand it of Christ, whom the Psalmist before enjoined kings and judges of the earth to kiss.”

Calvin’s Footnotes:

[29] Ou, car son, or, for his. — Fr. Marg.

[30] The word vr, Bar, which here signifies son, is also sometimes used to denote pure, as it is in Job 11:4, Psalm 24:4 and Psalm 73:1. In this former sense it is a Chaldee word, in the latter it is a Hebrew one. This rendering, of which Calvin disapproves, is substantially that of the Septuagint, which reads, draxasthe paideias, literally, lay hold upon instruction. But as the Arabic version of the Psalms, which generally follows the Septuagint, has used here (and in many other places, where the Septuangint has paideias) a word which signifies not only instruction, but good morals, virtue, Street thinks that the authors of the Septuangint, by paideias, meant good morals, or virtue in general, and that they understand vr, Bar, as a general expression for the same thing. The Chaldee, Vulgate, and Ethiopic version, also render vr, Bar, by a word meaning doctrine or discipline. “This is a remarkable case,” says Dr. Adam Clark, “and especially that in so pure a piece of Hebrew as this poem is, a Chaldee word should have been found, vr, Bar, instead of vn, Ben, which adds nothing to the strength of the expression, or the elegance of the poetry. I know that vr, Bar, is also pure Hebrew as well as Chaldee; but it is taken in the former language in the sense of purifying, the versions probably understood it so here. Embrace that which is pure, namely, the doctrine of God.”

[31] Pour rendre raison du precedent ascavoir pour quoy c’est qu’ila periront. — Fr.

[32] Pour n’estre point accablez de la frayeur d’ire de Dieu. — Fr.

[33] Qui de soy est espouvantable aux hommes — Fr.

[34] The word ‘sry, ashre, which occurs in the beginning of the psalm, is also used here; and therefore, the word may be rendered, O the blessednesses of all those who put their trust in him.” (4)


1. Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary, Psalms, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 798.

2. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol. 2, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 4.

3. Willem A. VanGemeren, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1991), p. 72.

4. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Psalms, Volume 1V, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), pp. 24-25.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at:

For more study:


Interlinear Greek • Interlinear Hebrew • Strong’s Numbers • Englishman’s Greek Concordance • Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance • Parallel Texts

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Abraham Kuyper

Abraham Kuijper (/ˈkaɪpər/; Dutch: [ˈaːbraːɦɑm ˈkœypər]; 29 October 1837 – 8 November 1920), publicly known as Abraham Kuyper, was Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905, an influential neo-Calvinist theologian and also a journalist. He established the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, which upon its foundation became the second largest Reformed denomination in the country behind the state-supported Dutch Reformed Church.

In addition, he founded a newspaper, the Free University of Amsterdam and the Anti-Revolutionary Party. 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.[1] 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 organizations. From Wikipedia

Abraham Kuyper quotes:

“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

“When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.” – Abraham Kuyper

“Whatever man may stand, whatever he may do, to whatever he may apply his hand – in agriculture, in commerce, and in industry, or his mind, in the world of art, and science – he is, in whatsoever it may be, constantly standing before the face of God. He is employed in the service of his God. He has strictly to obey his God. And above all, he has to aim at the glory of his God.” – Abraham Kuyper

“The question is not if the candidate’s heart is favorable to Christianity, but if he has Christ as his starting point even for politics, and will speak out His name!” – Abraham Kuyper

“The Holy Scripture is like a diamond: in the dark it is like a piece of glass, but as soon as the light strikes it the water begins to sparkle, and the scintillation of life greets us.” – Abraham Kuyper

“Every State-formation, every assertion of the power of the magistrate, every mechanical means of compelling order and of guaranteeing a safe course of life is therefore always something unnatural;” – Abraham Kuyper

“All authority of governments on earth originates from the Sovereignty of God alone.” – Abraham Kuyper

“Calvinism has a sharply-defined starting-point of its own for the three fundamental relations of all human existence: viz., our relation to God, to man, and to the world. For our relation to God: an immediate fellowship of man with Eternal, independently of priest or church. For the relation of man to man: the recognition in each person of human worth, which is his by virtue of his creation after the Divine likeness, and therefore of the equality of all men before God and his magistrate. And for our relation to the world: the recognition that in the whole world the curse is restrained by grace, that the life of the world is to be honored in its independence, and that we must, in every domain, discover the treasure and develop the potencies hidden by God in nature and in human life.” – Abraham Kuyper

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Jesus, “It is written” and Paul, “Do not go beyond what is written”

Jesus, “It is written” and Paul, “Do not go beyond what is written” By Jack Kettler*

When Jesus and the apostle Paul declared the above, they are referring to Scripture. Our Lord, followed by the apostle Paul, is setting forth the written Scriptures as the highest authority.

As in previous studies, definitions will be looked at along with scriptures, commentary evidence, and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how to live.



Also called: Holy Scripture, Holy Writ or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments


The Scriptures as God speaking:

The apostle Paul in the book of Romans, says, “For the Scripture saith.” It is significant to note when one consults Isaiah 28:16 whom the apostle is quoting, one finds that it is God speaking. Scripture references itself to reinforce its authority.

Looking at the text in Isaiah that Paul is quoting:

“Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isaiah 28:16)
(Underlining emphasis is mine throughout this study)

Another example of this is in Romans:

“For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” (Romans 9:17)

Was God speaking or the Scriptures? If there is any doubt, we know for sure after reading Exodus 9:16 that it is God speaking, whereas, Romans says, “the Scripture saith.”

Again, looking at the text, Paul is quoting from Exodus. Notice the personal pronouns:

“And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.” (Exodus 9:16)

Therefore, God and the Scriptures are so closely identified as to be synonymous. In essence, we learn from these examples, “thus saith the Lord God” and the phrase “the Scriptures saith” can be and are used interchangeably.

Part 1, Jesus “it is written:”

The importance of the written Scriptures:

Christ’s view of Scripture:

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

The Scriptures to be written down:

God’s Word was to be written down and set forth as truth that is superior to the oral traditions and the utterances of men. The inscription of God’s Word is the prima facie blueprint that is outlined in the Scriptures.

The inscription of God’s Word gives us an objective divine standard to determine the truth.

Observe the clear commands that are outlined in God’s Word about this:

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning…” (Romans 15:4)

“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord… And he [Moses] took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people…” (Exodus 24:4, 7)

“Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come forever and ever.” (Isaiah 30:8)

“Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.” (Jeremiah 36:2)

“Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersover thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou have good success.” (Joshua 1:7-8)

“And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.” (Habakkuk 2:2)

“Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, what thou seest, write in a book and send it unto the seven churches…” (Revelation 1:11)

God’s Word was to be written down so that His people could know how to live in a way pleasing to Him and be able to know right from wrong. Apart from the objective written standard of Scripture, man is left with his own subjective opinions or the subjective opinions of others.

Because of Scriptural authority, the biblical writers, appeal to what had been written:

A few examples are:

“Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerrubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God.” (Ezra 3:2)

“But he answered and said, It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4)

“For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” (1Corinthians 1:19)

“Because it is written, be ye holy; for I am holy.” (1Peter 1:16)

When Jesus says, “it is written,” or “have ye not read” it was the end of the debate for Him. In Matthew 4:10, Christ used this very phrase when He rebuffed Satan during the wilderness temptation. Indeed, Jesus used “it is written” to preface His teaching or to end an argument numerous times.

Moreover, there is not one example in Scripture where Christ’s human opponents questioned the authority of Scripture after Jesus used this argument. Jesus used the Scriptures as the final court of appeal. Christ and the apostle Paul viewed the written Scripture as authoritative and cited them frequently.

Our Lord’s appeal to “it is written” is repeated in Matthew 4:4; 21:13; Mark 9:12; John 8:17. The phrase “it is written” is a reference to the Word of God. In addition, when Jesus quotes the Old Testament or says, “it is written,” this should inspire confidence in the Scriptures because Furthermore, Jesus is establishing the Scriptures as God’s highest authority.

In fact, doing a word search on “It is written” you find:

“it” AND “is” AND “written” occurs 311 times in 93 verses in the KJV.

In addition, there are numerous places where Christ and the apostles quote the Old Testament directly. For example, in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24. In Hebrews 1:5, the writer is mentioning Psalms 2:7.

The irrefutable apologetic, the Scriptures:

Additionally, in Acts 18:24, 28, we learn of Apollos who was “mighty in the Scriptures” and convinced the Jews publicly that Jesus was Christ from the Scriptures. Apollos’s method sheds important light on how important the Scriptures are. Apollos did not use testimonials or new revelations to convince the Jews; he used the Scriptures as his apologetic.

Seeing this apologetic pattern in Scripture:

“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27)

“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they, which testify of me.” (John 5:39)

“Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.” (Acts 26:22)

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, [Paul most certainly is including the New Testament writings here] and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2Timothy 3:16)

The word “inspired” comes from a Greek word meaning “God-breathed.” Peter uses the same Greek word for “Scripture” (γραφὴ) to describe the writings of the apostle Paul (γραφὰς plural form of the same word) in 2Peter 3:16.

Part 2, Paul “Do not go beyond what is written:”

In light of the above on the Scriptures, consider Paul’s unequivocal declaration:

“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” (1Corinthians 4:6 ESV)

In the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on First Corinthians, Leon Morris makes the following comment about the 1Corinthians 4:6 passage:

“‘not go beyond what is written’ was a catch-cry familiar to Paul and his readers, directing attention to the need for conformity to Scripture.” (1)

We can learn more about what Paul means by the phrase “not to beyond what is written” from Simon J. Kistemaker:

“b. Learning. “That from us you might learn not to go beyond what is written.” Scholars have spilled much ink in an effort to explain this part of the text. A few examples show various ways to translate this phrase:

“That you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (NKJV)

“May you learn from us not to go beyond what is set down” (NAB)

“So that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written’ ” (NIV)

“You may be taught the truth of the words, ‘Nothing beyond what is written’ ” (Cassirer)

These examples reveal not so much different translations of the Greek text as differences in understanding the text itself. Some scholars are of the opinion that the words “not to go beyond what is written” are an unintelligible gloss that should be deleted. But there is no textual evidence to substantiate the claim that these words are a gloss. Furthermore, omission of these words makes the verse itself incoherent. Most scholars think that these words “are evidently a proverb or a principle in proverbial form.” It may have been a saying that was current in the political arena of Paul’s day and served to promote unity. Paul, say these scholars, uses a maxim familiar in Corinthian circles to urge an end to the divisions in the church and to foster unity.

Nonetheless, when Paul borrows the phrase what is written, is he referring to the Old Testament Scriptures? Presumably, yes! The proverb itself must convey a message, which in the context of the two epistles to the Corinthians signifies the Scriptures. And in these letters, the Greek word gegraptai (it is written) frequently introduces quotations from the Scriptures. Paul quotes repeatedly from the books of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. In total, there are seventeen Old Testament quotations in I Corinthians and ten in II Corinthians.

Paul’s stern warning to the Corinthians not to go beyond what is written appropriates additional meaning in chapter 10. After citing a few incidents from the history of the people of Israel, he asserts: “Now these things happened to them as a warning and were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (10:11). It would indeed be too restrictive to limit Paul’s warning “not to go beyond what is written” to the six Scripture passages, he has quoted in the first three chapters of I Corinthians (1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20). Conclusively, Paul refers to the entire Old Testament revelation.” (2)

Simon J. Kistemaker most certainly makes a convincing case that phrase from the apostle Paul is referring to is the written Scriptures.

Concluding Comments:

When Jesus said, “it is written,” He established beyond all doubt that the Scriptures are the Word of God. In addition, in this study, a pattern is seen that when we read “the Scriptures saith” it is identical to God speaking. When Jesus rebuked Satan said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve’” (Matthew 4:10).

In Matthew 4:11 we read “Then the devil left him…” Jesus vanquished the Devil by His appeal to the authoritative Word of God.

As seen, there is a clear pattern in Scripture of appealing to what had been previously written. This pattern establishes a normative rule for using the Scriptures to determine the truth. Therefore, using the Scriptures to interpret the Scriptures and allowing them to be the highest or final court of appeal is biblical and it is the duty of God’s people to submit to their authority. This is so because when the Scriptures speak, it is God speaking!

Therefore, when Jesus said, “It is written,” this confines the debate to the Scripture. Likewise, as Paul has said, we are “Do not to go beyond what is written” establishes the parameters of the debate.

In closing, Chapter I. – Of the Holy Scripture – Westminster Confession of Faith:

“I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

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

Of the Old Testament

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, 2 Samuel, I Kings, 2 Kings, I Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Of the New Testament

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, I Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, 2 Peter, First, Second, and Third Epistles of John, Jude, Revelation

All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

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

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword…” (Hebrews 4:12)


1. Leon Morris, The Tyndale New Testament Commentary 1Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Inter-Varsity Press, and Eerdmans, 1983), p. 78.

2. Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, 1Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1986), p. 134-135.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at:

* The above article has been adapted from the book The Religion That Started in a Hat By Jack Kettler

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Kettler Dispatch Re: Francis A. Schaeffer

Francis A. Schaeffer b. 1912 – d. 1984

Francis August Schaeffer was an American evangelical theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. He is best known for co-founding the L’Abri community in Switzerland with his wife Edith Schaeffer, née Seville. Wikipedia


“We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“I am convinced that when Nietzsche came to Switzerland and went insane, it was not because of venereal disease, though he did have this disease. Rather, it was because he understood that insanity was the only philosophic answer if the infinite-personal God does not exist.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow from within or come from outside, eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state. No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have real absolute by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes and who speak out and act upon that absolute.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us to do as absolutes, which are sinful – which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these things the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“To make no decision in regard to the growth of authoritarian government is already a decision for it.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“The moral absolutes rest upon God’s character. The moral commands He has given to men are an expression of His character. Men as created in His image are to live by choice on the basis of what God is. The standards of morality are determined by what conforms to His character, while those things which do not conform are immoral.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society, the way that a child catches the measles. But people with understanding realize that their presuppositions should be *chosen* after a careful consideration of which worldview is true.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“If man is not made in the image of God, nothing then stands in the way of inhumanity. There is no good reason why mankind should be perceived as special. Human life is cheapened. We can see this in many of the major issues being debated in our society today: abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, the increase of child abuse and violence of all kinds, pornography …, and the routine torture of political prisoners in many parts of the world, the crime explosion, and the random violence which surrounds us.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“When a man comes under the blood of Christ, his whole capacity as a man is refashioned. His soul is saved, yes, but so are his mind and his body. True spirituality means the lordship of Christ over the total man.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“‎People have presuppositions… By ‘presuppositions’, we mean the basic way that an individual looks at life – his worldview. The grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. A person’s presuppositions provide the basis for their values- and therefore the basis for their decisions.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“In face of this modern nihilism, Christians are often lacking in courage. We tend to give the impression that we will hold on to the outward forms whatever happens, even if God really is not there. But the opposite ought to be true of us, so that people can see that we demand the truth of what is there and that we are not dealing merely with platitudes. In other words, it should be understood that we take this question of truth and personality so seriously that if God were not there we would be among the first of those who had the courage to step out of the queue.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow from within or come from outside, eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state. No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have a real absolute by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes and who speak out and act upon the absolute. This was the issue with the early church in regard to the Roman Empire, and though the specific issue will in all probability take a different form than Caesar-worship, the basic issue of having an absolute by which to judge the state and society will be the same.” – Francis Schaeffer in How Should We Then Live?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Images and Worship a primer


Images and Worship a primer By Jack Kettler

Images and Worship, a primer. This brief study will look at images of God in Worship, images to enhance Worship, images, and art that would distract from worship. In addition to its brevity, this primer is designed to provoke thought and discussion.

As in previous studies, definitions will be looked at along with scriptures, commentary evidence, and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how to live.

Images of God in Worship:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, (temuna) or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them …” (Exodus 20:4 ESV)

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance

“image, likeness, similitude

Or tmunah {tem-oo-naw’}; from miyn; something portioned (i.e. Fashioned) out, as a shape, i.e. (indefinitely) phantom, or (specifically) embodiment, or (figuratively) manifestation (of favor) – image, likeness, similitude.”

Therefore, watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female…” (Deuteronomy 4:15-16 ESV)

What is a graven image?

It is a carved idol or representation of a god used as an object of Worship. An image would include pictures.

From Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament on Deuteronomy 4:16:

“In the words, “The day (היּום, adverbial accusative) “that thou stoodest before Jehovah thy God at Horeb,” etc., Moses reminds the people of the leading features of those grand events: first of all of the fact that God directed him to gather the people together, that He might make known His words to them (Exodus 19:9.), that they were to learn to fear Him all their life long, and to teach their children also (יראה, inf., like שׂנאה, Deuteronomy 1:27); and secondly (Deuteronomy 4:11), that they came near to the mountain which burned in fire (cf. Exodus 19:17.). The expression, burning in fire “even to the heart of heaven,” i.e., quite into the sky, is a rhetorical description of the awful majesty of the pillar of fire, in which the glory of the Lord appeared upon Sinai, intended to impress deeply upon the minds of the people the remembrance of this manifestation of God. And the expression, “darkness, clouds, and thick darkness,” which is equivalent to the smoking of the great mountain (Exodus 19:18), is employed with the same object. And lastly (Deuteronomy 4:12, Deuteronomy 4:13), he reminds them that the Lord spoke out of the midst of the fire, and adds this important remark, to prepare the way for what is to follow, “Ye heard the sound of the words, but ye did not see a shape,” which not only agrees most fully with Exodus 24, where it is stated that the sight of the glory of Jehovah upon the mountain appeared to the people as they stood at the foot of the mountain “like devouring fire” (Deuteronomy 4:17), and that even the elders who “saw God” upon the mountain at the conclusion of the covenant saw no form of God (Deuteronomy 4:11), but also with Exodus 33:20, Exodus 33:23, according to which no man can see the face (פּנים) of God. Even the similitude (Temunah) of Jehovah, which Moses saw when the Lord spoke to him mouth to mouth (Numbers 12:8), was not the form of the essential being of God which was visible to his bodily eyes, but simply a manifestation of the glory of God answering to his own intuition and perceptive faculty, which is not to be regarded as a form of God which was an adequate representation of the divine nature. The true God has no such form which is visible to the human eye.” (1)

Making images of God are forbidden in all forms.

What about pictures of Christ, are they forbidden?

Images of Christ by James Durham

“And if it be said man’s soul cannot be painted, but his body may, and yet that picture representeth a man; I answer, it doth so, because he has but one nature, and what representeth that representeth the person; but it is not so with Christ: his Godhead is not a distinct part of the human nature, as the soul of man is (which is necessarily supposed in every living man), but a distinct nature, only united with the manhood in that one person, Christ, who has no fellow; therefore what representeth him must not represent a man only, but must represent Christ, Immanuel, God-man, otherwise it is not his image. Beside, there is no warrant for representing him in his manhood; nor any colourable possibility of it, but as men fancy; and shall that be called Christ’s portraiture? would that be called any other man’s portraiture which were drawn at men’s pleasure, without regard to the pattern? Again, there is no use of it; for either that image behooved to have but common estimation with other images, and that would wrong Christ, or a peculiar respect and reverence, and so it sinneth against the commandment that forbiddeth all religious reverence to images, but he being God and so the object of worship, we must either divide his natures, or say, that image or picture representeth not Christ.” (2)

Pictures of Christ by Loraine Boettner

“Closely akin to the use of images is that of pictures of Christ. And these, we are sorry to say, are often found in Protestant as well as Roman Catholic churches. But nowhere in the Bible, in either the Old or New Testament, is there a description of Christ’s physical features. No picture of Him was painted during His earthly ministry. The church had no pictures of Him during the first four centuries. The so-called pictures of Christ, like those of Mary and the saints, are merely the production of the artist’s imagination. . . . No picture can do justice to his personality, for he was not only human, but divine. And no picture can portray his deity. All such pictures are fatally defective. . . . For most people the so-called pictures of Christ are not an aid to worship but rather a hindrance, and for many they present a temptation to that very idolatry against which the Scriptures warn so clearly.” (3)

In light of the above, it can be said:

1. Pictures of Christ have no semblance to the way He actually looked. Christ’s glory cannot be captured in a picture, so they are necessarily inaccurate and false.

2. Since no one knows what Christ looked like, all pictures of Him are necessarily false.

3. Furthermore, since an imaginary picture of Christ cannot capture His deity, they are false.

The “Iconoclastic Council,” of 754 decreed that because Christ is God and man in one Person, it is not possible to make a true picture of Him, and thus that all pictures of Christ are idolatrous, whether venerated or not.

What about images of saints to enhance Worship? Can this be justified?

“…beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female …” (Deuteronomy 4:16 ESV)

In some churches, you find statues or pictures of Mary, Joseph, and the Apostles. The churches that have statues usually hold to the doctrine of special sainthood of the apostles and others. Prayers asking for intercession are offered to these special saints. From one Roman Catholic website, it says, “Praying to the saints is praying to God, in a fundamental way.” This website goes on and says, “The authors of the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium (“light of the nations”) noted that it was important that we “suppliantly invoke” the saints and “have recourse to their prayers…”

Prayers for the intercession of the saints is a doctrine also held by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Eastern Orthodox Churches do not have statues. Instead, they use pictures called Icons, which are supposedly windows into heaven.

Do statues and pictures of the special saints used to facilitate divine intercession fall under the condemnation of Deuteronomy 4:16?

To answer this question, consider:

The Church of England’s “Thirty-Nine Articles” denounce the “invocation of saints” as “a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God” (Article XXII).

In answer to the question, yes pictures and statues that aid in or facilitate prayers to God or the saints violate Deuteronomy 4:6.

Can a church have pictures and statues not of God for decoration similar to stained glass windows or stylish carpets? Possibly, but the consideration of distraction from the preaching can be a real danger. Ugly carpeting and stained glass windows while not forbidden can be causes of distraction. If not for Worship, why there be a statue or picture of a saint placed in the sanctuary?

Are there Scriptural approved visual representations for Worship?

The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are visual representations of the gospel.

Can images and art distract from Worship? The danger of emotional experience:

Art and music can most certainly stimulate emotions. Emotional stimuli is not necessarily bad. However, do intensified emotions indicate something spiritual is happening? Not necessarily. Can emotions be confused with the movement of the Holy Spirit? Is so, then there is a danger of outside stimuli that can move the emotions and be confused with the work of the Holy Spirit?

Consider the dangers of visual stimuli in Worship:

“To my mind this means that we should avoid introducing other media in our sermons. If we are tempted to use them to aid our communication, we should understand that we are making our own job harder, not easier. If people’s brains are trained to love images and videos and want to click on to more and more of them, then the last thing we should do in the middle of our sustained preaching is to turn on that desire, to remind them of what they are missing, to set alongside our verbal the stimulus of the visual. This can only make it harder for people to listen after the image, not easier.” (4)

It times past there was much more concern about visual and emotional stimuli that could interfere with gospel preaching. The next entry shows historically how a safeguard was put in place to prevent this.

One paragraph from “Why a Genevan Robe?” By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon:

“The Genevan Robe aids the congregation in being reminded as to what is taking place – it is the elevation of the Word of God. As Paul states in 1Thessalonians 2:13, “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.” The Genevan Robe emphasizes the importance of heeding the Word of God, instead of worrying about how the pastor looks this week. Allow this example to make the point – after a service that I attended in a church I was visiting, I overheard two women talking immediately after the service. At first, I thought that these women were going to make a comment about the sermon that had been given. Instead, they began talking about something quite different. One woman said, “Didn’t the pastor look wonderful today?” The other responded (truly) by saying, “Yes, the crease in his pants is always so perfect.” I was taken back. Instead of concentrating on the Word of God being preached, these women (and it could have just as easily been the men) commented on how good the pastor looked that day. The personality, clothing, and demeanor of the pastor should not reflect the manner in which he dressed that day in a nice suit, but rather the Word of God should be the focal point where attention should be called. The Genevan Robe aids in the congregation’s focus on the Word of God, and is a lawful distraction from the personality, demeanor and clothing of the preacher who is standing in the pulpit to deliver that Word.” (5)

Historically some of the Puritans used the Geneva Robe and a hat to mask the preacher’s apparel and appearance. All the congregants saw was the minister’s face and his mouth moving to proclaim the Word of God. All attention was to be directed to the Word of God and not the man delivering the message.

A summary of Reformed Catechisms on images of God:

Lord’s Day 35 (Heidelberg Catechism, 1563)

96. Q. What does God require in the second commandment?

A. That we in no wise make any image of God, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his word.

97. Q. May we, then, not make any image at all?

A. God neither can nor may be visibly represented in any way. As for creatures, though they may be visibly represented, yet God forbids us to make or have any likeness of them in order to worship them or serve God by them.

98. Q. But may not images be tolerated in the churches as books for the laity?

A. No; for we must not be wiser than God, who will not have his people taught by dumb images, but by the living preaching of his word.

Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed. (Westminster Larger Catechism, 1647.)

It can be concluded that:

· All images of God and Christ in any form are forbidden

· Images and statues of the saints to facilitate Worship is forbidden

· All outside visual and emotional stimuli to effect Worship is dangerous

In closing, questions for discussion:

Can a musical performance at church cause an emotional response on the part of some in the audience, rather than a conversion based on the preaching of the gospel? If so, is this a danger? Can music and images to be used to get people to come to church? If so, is this a danger? What about images and art in general? For example, would it be wrong to look at a Leonardo Da Vinci painting of Christ in a museum? Does the regulative principle of Worship extend into private life? If so, would it be wrong to listen to instrumental music in the home?


1. Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Deuteronomy, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted 1985), p. 311-312.

2. James Durham, The Law Unsealed, or, A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments, (Glasgow. Printed by John Bryce), p. 89.

3. Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing CO. signed copy 1984), p. 284.

4. Garry Williams, The World in the Church: A Distracted World, a Distracted Church? October 2015

5. Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, Why a Genevan Robe?


“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ephesians chapter 5, a devotional summary

Ephesians chapter 5, a devotional summary by Jack Kettler

As in previous studies, scriptures, commentary evidence, will be looked at for the purpose to glorify God in how to live.

Demonstrating Christ’s Love Ephesians 5:1, 2:

“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children” (5:1).

“And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (5:2).

Flee from sexual immorality Ephesians 5:3-5:

“But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints” (5:30).

Cross References to verse Ephesians 5:3

“Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a man can commit is outside his body, but he who sins, sexually sins against his own body.” (1Corinthians 6:18)

“Put to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry.” (Colossians 3:5)

From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on Ephesians 5:3:

“But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness … The apostle proceeds to dehort from several vices, which are unbecoming the dear children and followers of God; and which the love of Christ should constrain them to avoid: the first of these, which is simple “fornication”, is the sin which is committed between single or unmarried persons; and is contrary to the law of God, is a work of the flesh, and is against a man’s own body; it renders persons unfit for church communion, brings many temporal calamities upon them, and exposes them to divine wrath, and excludes from the kingdom of heaven, without repentance; and the reason why it is so often taken notice of is, because it was very frequent among the Gentiles, and not thought criminal: “all uncleanness” takes in adultery, incest, sodomy, and every unnatural lust; and “covetousness” seems not so much to design that sin which is commonly so called, namely, an immoderate desire after worldly things, as a greedy and insatiable appetite after the above lusts:

let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; that is, neither one or other of them; the sense is, that they should not be committed; so that there might be no occasion to speak of them, even though with abhorrence, as if there were no such vices in being; and much less should they be named with pleasure, and pleaded for: for thus it becomes such who are set apart by God the Father, whose sins are expiated by the blood of Christ, and whose hearts are sanctified by the Spirit of God; who profess the Gospel of Christ, and have a place and a name in God’s house, better than that of sons and daughters.” (1)

“Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving” (5:4).

“For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (5:5).

Living in Christ’s Grace Ephesians 5:6-14:

“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (5:6).

“Therefore do not become partners with them” (5:7);

“for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light” (5:8)

“(for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true),” (5:9)

“and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord” (5:10).

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (5:11).

“For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret” (5:12).

“But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible” (5:13),

“for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you” (5:14).

Living with Christ’s wisdom Ephesians 5:15-17:

“Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise” (5:15),

“making the best use of the time, because the days are evil” (5:16).

5:17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Warning against drunkenness and exhortation to praise God Ephesians 5:18-21:

“And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit” (5:18),

Cross References to Ephesian 5:18

“Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray by them is not wise.” (Proverbs 20:1)

“Those who linger over wine, those who go to taste mixed drinks.” (Proverbs 23:30)

“Do not gaze at wine while it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly.” (Proverbs 23:31)

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Ephesians 5:18:

“(18) Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess. —From the general idea of reckless levity, St. Paul passes on to the special sin of drunkenness, as not (like gluttony) primarily a gratification of the appetite, but as a reckless pursuit of excitement at all costs—glorified as an excitement of emotion, and even of wit and intellect, in such contemporary writers as Horace, and actually confused, as in the Dionysiac or Bacchanalian frenzy, with a divine inspiration. How necessary the admonition was we see by the directions as to the choice of clergy in the Pastoral Epistles (1Tim. 3:28; Titus 1:7; Titus 2:3); the more necessary, because (as 1Timothy 5:23 shows) the right use of wine was recognised. Hence St. Paul emphatically brands drunkenness as “excess,” a word properly signifying “recklessness”—“incapable of saving,” or denying itself anything, and naturally passing through this want of self-restraint into profligacy—rightly translated “riot” in Titus 1:6, 1Peter 4:4, as the corresponding adverb is rendered “riotous living” in Luke 15:13. For drunkenness is at once the effect and cause of utter recklessness. It is the effect of a self-abandonment, by which the sensual or passionate elements of the nature are stimulated to frenzy, while the self-controlling judgment is drugged to sleep. It is the cause of yet greater recklessness: for as these passions and appetites become jaded, they need stronger and stronger stimulants, till the whole nature, bodily and mental, is lost in delirium or stupor.

But be filled with the Spirit.—The antithesis is startling, but profoundly instructive. To the artificial and degrading excitement of drunkenness St. Paul boldly opposes the divine enthusiasm of the Spirit, one form of which was scoffingly compared to it on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:13). He is not content with warning us of its ruinous excess, or urging the strictness of stern self-restraint. Drunkenness comes from an unnatural craving for excitement, stimulated by unwholesome conditions of life, physical and mental. He would satisfy the craving, so far as it is natural, by a divine enthusiasm, brighter and stronger than even duty to God and man, breaking out in thanksgiving, adoration, and love.” (2)

“addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart” (5:19),

“giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:20),

“submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21).

Exhortations to Wives and Husbands Ephesians 5:22-33:

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (5:22).

Cross References to Ephesians 5:22

“Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” (Colossians 3:18)

“Wives, in the same way, submit yourselves to your husbands, so that even if they refuse to believe the word, they will be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.” (1Peter 3:1)

From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Ephesians 5:22:

“22. (Eph. 6:9.) The Church’s relation to Christ in His everlasting purpose, is the foundation and archetype of the three greatest of earthly relations, that of husband and wife (Eph. 5:22-33), parent and child (Eph. 6:1-4), master and servant (Eph. 6:4-9). The oldest manuscripts omit “submit yourselves”; supplying it from Eph. 5:21, “Ye wives (submitting yourselves) unto your own husbands.” “Your own” is an argument for submissiveness on the part of the wives; it is not a stranger, but your own husbands whom you are called on to submit unto (compare Ge 3:16; 1Co 7:2; 14:34; Col 3:18; Tit 2:5; 1Pe 3:1-7). Those subjects ought to submit themselves, of whatever kind their superiors are. “Submit” is the term used of wives: “obey,” of children (Eph. 6:1), as there is a greater equality between wives and husbands, than between children and parents.

as unto the Lord—Submissiveness is rendered by the wife to the husband under the eye of Christ, and so is rendered to Christ Himself. The husband stands to the wife in the relation that the Lord does to the Church, and this is to be the ground of her submission: though that submission is inferior in kind and degree to that which she owes Christ (Eph. 5:24).”(3)

“For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior” (5:23).

“Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands” (5:24).

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (5:25),

Cross References to Ephesians 5:25

“Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.” (Colossians 3:19)

“Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as a delicate vessel and with honor as fellow heirs of the gracious gift of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.” (1Peter 3:7)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Ephesians 5:25:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, viz. with a sincere, pure, ardent, and constant affection. As they resemble Christ in the honour they have of being the heads of their wives, so they must likewise in performing the duty of loving them, under which all matrimonial duties are comprehended.

And gave himself for it; whereby he testified the greatness of his love.” (4)

“that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word” (5:26),

“so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (5:27).

“In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself” (5:28).

“For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church” (5:29),

“because we are members of his body” (5:30).

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (5:31).

“This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (5:32).

“However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” (5:33).

All Scriptures from the English Standard Version (ESV)


1. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Ephesians, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 105-106.

2. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Ephesians, Vol. 3, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 50.

3. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1295.

4. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 677.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at:

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized