In this study, we will look at transgenderism. We hear the term in the
media; see characters in movies and the children in fed gov schools are
being indoctrinated into its acceptance. Restrooms in many places are
now so-called gender neutral. Going into a restroom is now left up to a
person’s personal assessment of what their sex is. This new standard of
individual subjective assessment of sexual status is problematic.
Past societal norms are being bludgeoned apart by the new social
justice warriors. States, fed gov agencies are in full swing behind
eradicating the biblical norms and the past moral consensus. The only
standard used is that of the individual or who can scream the loudest on
a college campus. This standard of subjective individualism as the
interpretive norm is full-blown autonomous humanism.
The Bible God’s revelation to man is the only objective standard for determining right and wrong.
Hence, as in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures,
lexical data, and commentary evidence and confessional support for the
glorifying of God in how we live.
Transgenderism:
Transsexualism, also known as transgenderism, Gender Identity Disorder
(GID), or gender dysphoria, is a feeling that your
biological/genetic/physiological gender does not match the gender you
identify with and/or perceive yourself to be. Transsexuals/transgenders
often describe themselves as feeling “trapped” in a body that does not
match their true gender. They often practice transvestism/transvestitism
and may also seek hormone therapy and/or gender reassignment surgery to
bring their bodies into conformity with their perceived gender. *
Is there a societal event that has triggered the transgender movement?
In the modern era, it may very well be that feminism is partially the
cause of gender confusion. Feminism would be a cause because of
feminism’s idea of radical equality and its corollary that there is no
male supremacy by a man over a woman. This assertion is speculative;
nevertheless, ideas have consequences, and there can be a causal
connection, for example, legalized abortion and the progression to calls
for infanticide.
Transgenderism a biblical evaluation:
Transgenderism must be dealt with primarily as an issue of biblical
conformity. Besides the sinful nature, one should not rule out factors
such as fed gov school indoctrination, media propaganda, side effects of
pharmaceutical drugs, imbalanced diets. In addition, sexual molestation
as a young person by an adult and hormone therapies as possible
contributing factors to gender confusion. These possible extenuating
factors in no way lessens the requirement of biblical fidelity on the
part of individuals. It is possible that someone can struggle with
gender confusion without becoming transsexual.
The Bible does
not directly mention the word transgenderism. The passage referred to
most often is Deuteronomy 22:5 in discussions of transgenderism. This
passage is undoubtedly relevant to the issue of transgenderism. 1
Corinthians 6:9 is also uniquely important passage as will be seen. In
the additional biblical passages consulted in this study, it is evident
that men and women are distinguished clearly in Scripture, and this fact
most certainly has to bear on the subject.
What do the Scriptures say?
This distinction between men and women is seen right from the beginning:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27)
As said, the passage most often referred to is:
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man; neither
shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are an
abomination unto the LORD thy God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)
From the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on this section of Scripture:
“De 22:5-12. The Sex to Be Distinguished by Apparel.
5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither
shall a man put on a woman’s garment—Though disguises were assumed at
certain times in heathen temples, it is probable that a reference was
made to unbecoming levities practiced in common life. They were properly
forbidden; for the adoption of the habiliments of the one sex by the
other is an outrage on decency, obliterates the distinctions of nature
by fostering softness and effeminacy in the man, impudence and boldness
in the woman as well as levity and hypocrisy in both; and, in short, it
opens the door to an influx of so many evils that all who wear the dress
of another sex are pronounced ‘an abomination unto the Lord.’” (1)
In the Gospel of Mark, we see confirmation of the creational norm:
“But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)
Apostolic directives to husbands and wives add further confirmation:
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For
the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the
church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in
everything.” (Ephesians 5:22–24)
“Likewise, ye wives, be in
subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they
also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives.” (1
Pet 3:1)
A Pauline message to churches concerning apostolic instructions that also distinguish the sexes:
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also
saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their
husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
(1 Corinthians 14:34, 35)
“A bishop then must be blameless, the
husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to
hospitality, apt to teach.” “Let the deacons be the husbands of one
wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” (1 Timothy 3:2,
12)
“That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in
faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in
behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much
wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be
sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet,
chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the
word of God be not blasphemed. Young men likewise exhort to be sober
minded.” (Titus 2:2–6)
Paul continues, and exhorts Timothy to
esteem and reassure older men as fathers, younger men as brothers, older
women as mothers, and younger women as sisters:
“Rebuke not an
elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; the
elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.” (1
Timothy 5:1–2).
The next two passages assume that we can distinguish men and women:
“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.” (1 Peter 3:1).
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a
woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence.” (1 Timothy 2:11, 12)
Men and women, distinguished in worship:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered,
dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with
her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if
she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be
shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her
be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as
he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was
the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause
ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman
without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is
the man also by the woman, but all things of God. Judge in yourselves:
is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” (1 Corinthians
11:4-13)
Comments:
Thus far, it is clear that the
Scriptures give no support for transgenderism as an accepted Christian
lifestyle. God created both men and women; they have different roles in
marriage and the church.
A conclusion thus far:
“It is
significant that Genesis 1:26–28 appoints the binary categories male and
female using the anatomical (rather than social) terms of gender: “male
(zakar) and female (neqebah) he created them” (v. 27). We believe this
is done because it is the anatomical sex of the individual, which
indicates his or her gender calling. The social role of manhood (Heb.,
’ish) or womanhood (Heb., ’ishah) is determined by the person’s
anatomical sex.” (2)
The warnings of judgment in Scripture:
“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of
their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who
changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this
cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did
change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise
also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust
one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and
receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”
(Romans 1:24-27)
As mentioned at the start, 1 Corinthians 6:9 is particularly relevant:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” (1 Corinthians
6:9)
Regarding the word effeminate:
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:
1 Strong’s Number: g3120 Greek: malakos
Effeminate: “soft, soft to the touch” (Lat., mollis, Eng., “mollify,” “emollient,” etc.), is used
(a) of raiment, Mat 11:8 (twice); Luke 7:25;
(b) metaphorically, in a bad sense, 1Cr 6:9, “effeminate,” not simply
of a male who practices forms of lewdness, but persons in general, who
are guilty of addiction to sins of the flesh, voluptuous. (3)
Strong’s Concordance 3120 malakos:
malakos: soft, effeminate
Original Word: μαλακός, ή, όν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: malakos
Phonetic Spelling: (mal-ak-os’)
Short Definition: soft, effeminate
Definition: (a) soft, (b) of persons: soft, delicate, effeminate.
Some Bible translations connect the word effeminate with homosexuality. For example:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.” (1 Corinthians 6:9
ESV)
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual
acts.” (1 Corinthians 6:9 Berean Study Bible)
Comments:
For those identifying as transgender, the Bible categorizes it under the
general heading of homosexuality. Two points, first, this passage from 1
Corinthians is listed under the heading of a biblical warning. Second,
all must heed the warning to flee from sexual immorality.
There
is hope for those struggling with these types of temptations as seen in
Paul’s writing in the past tense wording used in the next passage.
“And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified,
but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of
our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11)
For those struggling with transgenderism, there is hope. You are not alone. Everyone is to flee from sexual sins.
“Flee from sexual immorality (porneia). Every other sin a person
commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins
against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18ESV)
Strong’s Concordance on fornication, sexual immorality:
porneia: fornication 4202
Original Word: πορνεία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: porneia
Phonetic Spelling: (por-ni’-ah)
Short Definition: fornication, idolatry
Definition: fornication, whoredom, met: idolatry.
The word porneia is broader than fornication, and includes
homosexuality, adultery, transgenderism and other sexual sins. The
transgender individual is to “flee from sexual immorality” just like the
apostle calls everyone. The Scriptures give no support for anyone
living in any type of sexual immorality.
As seen from the Bible
passages covered in this study, men and women are differentiated, and
God has ordained these differences. Therefore, someone struggling with
gender confusion needs to come to terms with created personhood and
God’s purposes.
Confessional support for the above exposition.
The Westminster Larger Catechism Question 139:
Question139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
Answer. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the
neglect of the duties required,1 are, adultery, fornication,2 rape,
incest,3 sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;4 all unclean imaginations,
thoughts, purposes, and affections;5 all corrupt or filthy
communications, or listening thereunto;6 wanton looks,7 impudent or
light behaviour, immodest apparel;8 prohibiting of lawful,9 and
dispensing with unlawful marriages;10 allowing, tolerating, keeping of
stews, and resorting to them;11 entangling vows of single life,12 undue
delay of marriage,13 having more wives or husbands than one at the same
time;14 unjust divorce,15 or desertion;16 idleness, gluttony,
drunkenness,17 unchaste company;18 lascivious songs, books, pictures,
dancings, stage plays;19 and all other provocations to, or acts of
uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.20
Scriptural proofs:
1 Proverbs 5:7: And now, O sons, listen to me, and do not depart from the words of my mouth.
2 Hebrews 13:4: Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the
marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and
adulterous. Galatians 5:19: Now the works of the flesh are evident:
sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality.
3 2 Samuel 13:14: But he
would not listen to her, and being stronger than she, he violated her
and lay with her. 1 Corinthians 5:1: It is actually reported that there
is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even
among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.
4 Romans 1:24,
26-27: Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to
impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. … For
this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women
exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and
the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed
with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and
receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. Leviticus
20:15-16: If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death,
and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and
lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely
be put to death; their blood is upon them.
5 Matthew 5:28: But I
say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has
already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 15:19: For out
of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality,
theft, false witness, slander. Colossians 3:5: Put to death therefore
what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil
desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
6 Ephesians 5:3-4:
But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be
named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness
nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead
let there be thanksgiving. Proverbs 7:5, 21-22: To keep you from the
forbidden woman, from the adulteress with her smooth words. … With
much seductive speech she persuades him; with her smooth talk she
compels him. All at once he follows her, as an ox goes to the slaughter,
or as a stag is caught fast.
7 Isaiah 3:16: The LORD said:
Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched
necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go,
tinkling with their feet. 2 Peter 2:14: They have eyes full of adultery,
insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts
trained in greed. Accursed children!
8 Proverbs 7:10, 13: And
behold, the woman meets him, dressed as a prostitute, wily of heart. …
She seizes him and kisses him, and with bold face she says to him.
9 1 Timothy 4:3: Who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods
that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe
and know the truth.
10 Leviticus 18:1-21: Click to read passage.
Mark 6:18: For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you
to have your brother’s wife. Malachi 2:11-12: Judah has been faithless,
and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem. For Judah
has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married
the daughter of a foreign god. May the LORD cut off from the tents of
Jacob any descendant of the man who does this, who brings an offering to
the LORD of hosts!
11 1 Kings 15:12: He put away the male cult
prostitutes out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers
had made. 2 Kings 23:7: And he broke down the houses of the male cult
prostitutes who were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove
hangings for the Asherah. Deuteronomy 23:17-18: None of the daughters of
Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall
be a cult prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or
the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God in payment for
any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:29: Do not profane your daughter by making her a
prostitute, lest the land fall into prostitution and the land become
full of depravity. Jeremiah 5:7: How can I pardon you? Your children
have forsaken me and have sworn by those who are no gods. When I fed
them to the full, they committed adultery and trooped to the houses of
whores. Proverbs 7:24-27: And now, O sons, listen to me, and be
attentive to the words of my mouth. Let not your heart turn aside to her
ways; do not stray into her paths, for many a victim has she laid low,
and all her slain are a mighty throng. Her house is the way to Sheol,
going down to the chambers of death.
12 Matthew 19:10-11: The
disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it
is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive
this saying, but only those to whom it is given.”
13 1
Corinthians 7:7-9: I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his
own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried
and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.
But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is
better to marry than to burn with passion. Genesis 38:26: Then Judah
identified them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I did not
give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not know her again.
14
Malachi 2:14-15: But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was
witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been
faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did
he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And
what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in
your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.
Matthew 19:5: And said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his
mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?
15 Malachi 2:16: “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces
her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence,
says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not
be faithless.” Matthew 5:32: But I say to you that everyone who divorces
his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit
adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
16 1 Corinthians 7:12-13: To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if
any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live
with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is
an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce
him.
17 Ezekiel 16:49: Behold, this was the guilt of your sister
Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous
ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. Proverbs 23:30-33: Those who
tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. Do not look at
wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly.
In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Your eyes
will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things.
18
Genesis 39:19: As soon as his master heard the words that his wife
spoke to him, “This is the way your servant treated me,” his anger was
kindled. Proverbs 5:8: Keep your way far from her, and do not go near
the door of her house.
19 Ephesians 5:4: Let there be no
filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place,
but instead let there be thanksgiving. Ezekiel 23:14-16: But she carried
her whoring further. She saw men portrayed on the wall, the images of
the Chaldeans portrayed in vermilion, wearing belts on their waists,
with flowing turbans on their heads, all of them having the appearance
of officers, a likeness of Babylonians whose native land was Chaldea.
When she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in
Chaldea. Isaiah 23:15-17: In that day Tyre will be forgotten for seventy
years, like the days of one king. At the end of seventy years, it will
happen to Tyre as in the song of the prostitute: “Take a harp; go about
the city, O forgotten prostitute! Make sweet melody; sing many songs,
that you may be remembered.” At the end of seventy years, the LORD will
visit Tyre, and she will return to her wages and will prostitute herself
with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth. Isaiah
3:16: The LORD said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk
with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes, mincing
along as they go, tinkling with their feet. Mark 6:22: For when
Herodias’s daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his
guests. And the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you wish,
and I will give it to you.” 1 Peter 4:3: For the time that is past
suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality,
passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry.
20 2 Kings 9:30: When Jehu came to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it. And
she painted her eyes and adorned her head and looked out of the window.
Jeremiah 4:30: And you, O desolate one, what do you mean that you dress
in scarlet, that you adorn yourself with ornaments of gold, that you
enlarge your eyes with paint? In vain you beautify yourself. Your lovers
despise you; they seek your life. Ezekiel 23:40: They even sent for men
to come from afar, to whom a messenger was sent; and behold, they came.
For them you bathed yourself, painted your eyes, and adorned yourself
with ornaments.
Never forget:
“Study to shew thyself
approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 157.
2. North America, Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
Gender as Calling: The Gospel & Gender Identity (Kindle Locations
388-392). Crown & Covenant Publications. Page Location 385 Kindle
Edition.
3. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New
Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p.
349.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the
Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the
Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book
defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That
Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
This booklet offers an introduction to the development of the
transgender movement and its terminology, a critique of the philosophies
that undergird it, and a loving, biblical response. Purchase at https://www.crownandcovenant.com/product_p/ds536.htm also available at Amazon in the Kindle format.
Shew me thy ways, O LORD, teach me thy paths. Psalm 25:4 by Jack Kettler
In this study, we will look at how to learn God’s ways! This involves
understanding or knowledge. What does the knowledge of God produce in
our lives?
As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, commentary evidence for glorifying God in how we live.
Definition:
Question: What does the Bible say about knowledge?
Answer: The word knowledge in the Bible denotes an understanding, a
recognition, or an acknowledgment. To “know” something is to perceive it
or to be aware of it. Many times in Scripture, knowledge carries the
idea of a deeper appreciation of something or a relationship with
someone. The Bible is clear that the knowledge of God is the most
valuable knowledge a human being can possess. *
Scriptural passage that instructs us concerning knowledge:
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD, teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
KJV Lexicon
Shew
yada` (yaw-dah’)
to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of
senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially me
thy ways
derek (deh’-rek)
a road (as trodden); figuratively, a course of life or mode of action, often adverb O LORD
Yhovah (yeh-ho-vaw’)
(the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God — Jehovah, the Lord. Teach
lamad (law-mad’)
to goad, i.e. (by implication) to teach (the rod being an Oriental
incentive):(un-) accustomed, diligently, expert, instruct, learn,
skillful, teach(-er, -ing).me thy paths
‘orach (o’-rakh)
a well-trodden road; also a caravan — manner, path, race, rank, traveler, troop, (by-, high-)way.
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on Psalms 25:4 is clear and concise:
Show me thy ways, O Lord, Either those which the Lord himself took and
walked in; as those of creation and providence, in which he has
displayed his power, wisdom, and goodness; and which are desirable to be
known by his people, and require divine instruction and direction; and
particularly his ways of grace, mercy, and truth, and the methods he has
taken for the salvation of his people, both in eternity and in time; or
those ways which he orders and directs his people to walk in; namely,
the paths of duty, the ways of his worship and ordinances; a greater
knowledge of which good men desire to have, as well as more grace to
enable them to walk more closely and constantly in them; teach me thy
paths; a petition the same with the other, in different words. (1)
Comments:
The Psalmist asks the Lord to show him and teach him His ways and
paths. This petition involves attaining the knowledge of God. Obtaining
God’s knowledge leads us to meditate upon His Word, fear God’s name,
which then leads to adoration of God’s person and His works.
The Psalmist makes this clear in the next three passages:
“Teach me thy way, O LORD; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear thy name.” (Psalm 86:11)
“I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.” (Psalm 119:15)
“Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.” (Psalm 119:34)
As seen in the above passages, the Bible speaks of knowledge and the
understanding of God’s Word. This acquired knowledge produces action or a
response in the lives of believers, i.e., “walk in thy truth,” “respect
thy ways,” and “I shall keep thy law.”
The next passage makes clear; believers are too always to grow in both grace and knowledge:
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)
“To him be glory both now and forever. Amen” is a doxology or a
scriptural formula of praise to God. This praise to God is the fruit of
the knowledge of God.
How can anyone read the above Psalms and
not believe that God is speaking to us in the Scriptures in response to
our petitions, imparting knowledge to us with real words that are
understandable and bear fruit in the lives of believers?
With
this said, it could be a conclusion to this study. Instead, we can use
what we have seen thus far as a springboard to dig deeper into the study
of knowledge.
The study of the topic knowledge is more in-depth
than might be expected. In the philosophical world, philosophers
attempt to understand the mechanism of how acquiring knowledge happens
in a human mind. This would be through the study of epistemology. In
this type of study, you would learn about empiricism, rationalism, and
scripturalism.
In theological liberalism or Neo-orthodoxy, the
pursuit of knowledge does not involve accepting the Scriptures literally
or seeking the historical truth. When someone speaks of encountering
God, this may be a tip-off that a Neo-orthodox liberal has been met. For
the Neo-orthodox, the word of God is experienced or encountered and is
not connected to the actual historical events mentioned in the texts of
Scripture. Said another way, in Neo-orthodoxy, the Bible is not
understood to be an objective text given by God in history about real,
historical events. Instead, Neo-orthodoxy uses the scriptures in a
non-literal sense as a jumping off point to encounter the wholly other
God. With its non-literal view of Scripture, Neo-orthodoxy is very
mysterious, endlessly subjective, and dangerously unbiblical.
What is a biblical doctrine of knowledge?
In this study, we will look at two theologians whose articles, deal
with the range of knowledge and in particular, knowledge of God that we
learn about in Scripture. The first essay will contrast biblical,
historical knowledge with the Neo-orthodox theory of knowledge. Also,
this article will also deal with epistemology. As will be seen, the
truth of Scripture will shine brighter when contrasted with an error.
Presumably, knowledge, if it be defined at all, means the possession of
truth by a mind. The problems that an analysis of knowledge entails are
enormous.
1. Biblical usage.
The Bible frequently
commends knowledge and wisdom: “The Lord is a God of knowledge” (1 Sam
2:3). “Have they no knowledge, all the evil doers who… do not call upon
the Lord?” (Ps 14:4). “Teach me good judgment and knowledge.” (Ps
119:66). “Take my instruction instead of silver, and knowledge rather
than choice gold.” (Prov. 8:10). “By his knowledge shall the righteous
one, my servant, make you free: (John 8:32). “Now I know in part; then I
shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.” (1 Cor.
13:12). Asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in
all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Col 1:9). “We know that the Son
of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is
true” (1 John 5:20). One may note relative to this last verse that the
so-called epistle of love uses the word “know” thirty times in its five
chapters, not counting words like “understand”, “teach”, “see”, “hear”,
“believe”, and “truth”, all of which have to do with knowledge.
In view of the misapprehensions of some immature Christians, what the
Bible does not say also should be pointed out. Nowhere does the
Scripture modify the high value it places on knowledge by deprecating
“mere” human reason. Reason and knowledge are integral parts of the
image of God in which man was created. In the OT the term “heart”
designates the mind, intellect, or reason in about three-fourths of its
750 occurrences. Examples are: “The Lord said in his heart….” (Gen 8:21)
(obviously he did not say in his emotions); “I will raise up for myself
a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and
mind” (1 Sam 2:35); “Make the heart of this people fat….lest they
….understand with their hearts” (Isa 6:10); “He has shut …their minds
[KJV hearts] so that they cannot understand. No one considers” [KJV
“none calleth to mind”] (Isa 44:18, 19). In both cases, the same Hebrew
word is used.
Granted that the mind or heart of man can be and is
sinful, as some of these verses plainly indicate, the antithesis
between the heart and the head, along with the suggestion that the
intellect is evil but the emotions are free from sin, is nevertheless a
distortion of the Scriptural view of man.
Although the Heb. and
the Gr. verbs for knowing usually bear the most ordinary meaning,
exemplified when one says that he knows that David was king of Israel
and that Paul was an apostle, they can also be used in other senses,
some of which are sources of confusion in theology and philosophy.
The sense in which the words are used to designate sexual intercourse,
as in Genesis 4:1, “Now Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and
bore Cain,” is a sense that causes no confusion. We simply note the
usage and pass on.
Confusion, however, may arise from another
meaning which also has no place in epistemology, for in addition to
knowing that David was a king, the verb also means to choose, to select,
and therefore to approve. When Psalm 1:6 says that “the Lord knows the
way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish,” it is not
reflecting on divine omniscience. In the ordinary sense God knows the
way of the wicked as He knows everything else. Here the word is used in
the sense of approval. Similarly, when Amos 3:2 says “You only have I
known of all the families of the earth,” the prophet is not denying that
God knew the Egyptians and Canaanites. This verse is no denial of
omniscience. Here the verb means to choose or elect.
This usage,
so clear in the OT, causes some theological confusion when NT material
is discussed. Those who reject the doctrines of predestination or
unconditional election try to base salvation on foreseen faith and
election of foreknowledge. Such a view is inconsistent with the meaning
of the words. In 1 Peter 1:2, where the RSV gives the correct sense,
“chosen and destined by God,” the KJV has the more literal tr. “elect
according to the foreknowledge of God.” In 1 Peter 1:20 the KJV vs. the
same word “foreordained.” Similarly Romans 8:29 does not speak of the
mere knowing ahead of time, as Eng. usage would lead one to expect, as
if God looked ahead into an independent and undetermined future and
discovered (If anything undetermined could be discovered) what was going
to happen; rather, foreknowledge means foreordination.
In
addition to the above source of theological confusion, there is an
alleged usage that causes philosophical confusion. Or, perhaps, it may
be said that a certain philosophical confusion tries to construe
knowledge in a still different sense. Some devout and fairly orthodox
theologians, and in general the neo-orthodox thinkers insist that there
is a radical difference between knowing a proposition and knowing a
person, or between knowledge “about” and knowledge “by acquaintance.”
According to the neo-orthodox position God does not reveal truths that
can be intellectually apprehended, but He reveals Himself in a direct
encounter or confrontation. Now, insofar as support for this view is
sought in the different compounds of γινώσκω or in the other verbs οιδα,
ειδεναι and επισταμαι, the attempt is a failure. Kittel’s Wörterbuch
under the entry γινώσκω states that this knowledge “is achieved in all
the acts in which a man can attain knowledge, seeing and hearing, in
investigating and reflecting….also personal acquaintance….Whatever can
be the object of enquiry can be the object of γινώσκω.” Kittel continues
by noting that Gnostic γνωσις is no different except as to the object.
And in the LXX γινώσκω and ειδεναι both tr. the one Heb. verb ידע Kittel
is replete with all the lexicographical details, none of which are of
any help in epistemology.
2. Faith and knowledge.
Noting
the usage of the word knowledge in its ordinary meaning offers little
aid in solving problems of theology and philosophy. One such problem is
the distinction between knowledge and faith. “Knowledge puffs up, but
love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1), does not at first sight agree with the
praises of knowledge quoted earlier; yet the following verses indicate
that the knowledge referred to is either mistaken opinion or a true
proposition so misapplied and conjoined with error that the combination
is false. Some commentators explain v.1 as ironical.
A similar
explanation is required to understand the Christian opposition to
Gnosticism. This religion in the early centuries, using Christian
terminology, made salvation depend on knowledge, and, by implication,
not on faith. The great objection to Gnosticism, however, is not a
repugnance to knowledge as such. The real objection was twofold. First,
the Gnostic tenets amounted to a texture of superstitious mythology.
Second, even if the Gnostics had propounded a true science of astronomy,
such knowledge could not save. Salvation depends on faith in Christ.
What then is the relation between faith and knowledge? Protestants have
traditionally analyzed faith into knowledge, assent, and trust. This
analysis is not as simple as it seems. Knowledge in this context
apparently refers only to understanding (not believing) the meaning of a
proposition. Of course one can understand the meaning of false
propositions, such as, David was king of Tyre; but undoubtedly true
propositions are intended because assent to or belief in a false
proposition would be error, not knowledge.
Note that this last
instance of the word knowledge does not bear the same meaning it bears
in the analysis. In the analysis, knowledge occurs as distinct from
assent, as a separate element in faith; but if knowledge is defined as
the minds possession of truth, there can be no knowledge apart from
assent. This is one difficulty. Furthermore, worse, the element of
trust, which Protestants emphasize, defies all explanation and remains
in utter confusion. Illustrations, such as actually depositing money in a
bank rather than merely believing that the bank is sound, depend on a
physical action, in addition to the mental act of believing. Such
additional external action is inappropriate to represent the thoroughly
inner mental act of faith. Knowledge is an integral part of faith, and
not its antithesis.
3. Epistemology.
(a) Philosophical.
The main problem of knowledge, which is the crucial question in all the
history of philosophy, concerns knowledge in its most ordinary sense. We
say we know that two and two are four, that the earth revolves around
the sun, or at least that a bright disk appears in the sky, and perhaps
that God exists and stealing is immoral. Epistemology is a theory of how
one can know anything. This question is not explicitly discussed in the
Bible; but answers to it, however obtained, have a profound influence
on theological formulations.
Since the matter is extremely technical and difficult, some simplification is necessary.
Systems of philosophy generally can be divided into two groups:
empirical philosophies are exemplified by Aristotle, Aquinas, Hume, and
the contemporary schools of Pragmatism and logical Positivism-the second
group comprises the rationalistic or idealistic philosophies,
exemplified by Plato, Augustine, Anselm, Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel. The
first group exhibits serious divergencies, for Aristotle and Logical
Positivism are rather far apart; but differences within the second group
are perhaps even greater.
Empiricism is the view that all
knowledge is based on experience alone. Experience has not always been
restricted to the five senses, though this is a common form of the
principle; but the Epicureans stressed the experience of pain, the
Sophists acknowledged the experience of dreams and hallucinations (a
fact Descartes and other rationalists use in opposition), others admit
aesthetic experience-coining the word aesthetics from the Gr. word for
sensation, and, finally Schleiermacher, the founder of modernism, and
contemporary liberalism develop religion and theology out of religious
experience. Sensation, however, remains basic in all forms of
empiricism.
Rationalism (idealism is not a good name, for
Berkeleyan idealism is completely empirical) holds that all or at least
some knowledge is a priori, innate, rational, non-sensuous.
Plato
taught that the soul before birth is in contact with the ideal objects
of knowledge, and that here on earth we remember what we previously
knew. Spinoza taught that without the aid of sensation, doubtful aid
because it is the source of error, all knowledge can be deduced from
definitions by logic alone. Even the existence of God, as Anselm taught
earlier, can be demonstrated from the definition that God is the
all-perfect Being: if He did not exist, He would not be all-perfect.
Kant said that the mind at birth is furnished with the a priori
(independent of experience) intuitions of space and time, and a set of
twelve a priori categories. Neither of these by themselves, and much
less sensations by themselves, are knowledge, but when sensory material
is arranged and ordered by these a priori forms, the combination is
knowledge. Finally, the dialectic of concepts of the last philosopher
listed, Hegel, is just too complicated to characterize in any space.
Two lines of procedure are now necessary: one should evaluate the merit
of each of these main divisions of philosophy, and one should attempt
to determine which, if either, the Bible favors.
The first is a
task for the professional philosopher. Some considerations, however, may
be mentioned, which must be taken into account.
All philosophy,
all theology, and all common conversation must make use of so-called
abstract concepts. In philosophy the terms substance, cause, quality,
relation find a necessary place; in theology there is sin and
righteousness, atonement and justification, and so on; in common speech
too one talks about causes and relations as well as about truth and
falsity, times and places, cats and dogs.
Rationalism
specifically asserts the reality of such concepts. These are the objects
of knowledge that constitute Plato’s World of Ideas. Philo Judaeus and
Augustine make them the content of the Divine Mind. Thus far,
rationalism makes philosophy, theology, and conversation possible.
Although nominalists such as Roscellinus and Occam assert that concepts
refer to no reality whatever, that they are mere sounds in the air
without meaning, and thus make philosophy and ordinary conversation both
impossible, still the major empiricists try to explain the genesis of
concepts. Aristotle attempted to abstract them from sensory experience.
The concepts were somehow in the visible objects and could be detached,
or abstracted by imagination and intellect. The British empiricists
build up concepts by adding and subtracting particular sensations. Thus
they claim to make knowledge possible.
The question, of course,
is whether or not concepts can in fact be abstracted from sensations.
Plato denied it. Further, even the abstraction of such “empirical”
concepts as cat and dog depends on a theory of visual imagery that
introspective psychology cannot sustain. It is all the more difficult to
see how normative concepts such as justice, can be derived from purely
factual material.
Kant forcefully extended this argument in
opposition to Hume. Knowledge, Kant insisted, contains necessary and
universal judgments, such as two and two are, are always, and must be
four, and, all pendulums always must swing in a certain way. Note
definitely that when the law of the pendulum was formulated, the
scientists thought that all pendulums in the past have swung and all
future pendulums will swing just as described. But experience does not
extend to all past pendulums, and with even greater clarity it does not
extend to any future pendulums. Experience gives neither universality
nor necessity.
Similarly, normative moral principles can never be
derived from experience. We see acts of honesty and instances of theft.
The two are equally in experience. Experiences can never determine that
theft is wrong or that honesty is right.
Perhaps the simplest
example of an a priori category is that of unity. The concept of the
number one is essential, not only to mathematics, but also to all
learning; for learning could never proceed unless we could distinguish
one thing from another. Berkeley, the British empiricist, attempted to
base the idea of unity in sensation. The unit, he said, is just any one
thing you choose. You can count chairs or grains of sand. Thus we find
our unit in experience. Kant demolished Berkeley’s argument. First, the
empiricist misstated the problem, which is not the selection of a unit
from among other unities; the problem is the origin of the idea of
unity. Second, the idea of one must be present before we can identify a
chair or a grain of sand as one. the idea is not derived from the
experienced object. And, finally, no experienced object is strictly a
unity, since everything in space has parts. Therefore, the concept of
one must precede experience. These sample arguments must suffice to show
the philosophic advantages of rationalism, or a priorism, over
empiricism.
(b) Biblical. Does Scripture take sides in the
dispute between empiricism and rationalism? Obviously the Bible has no
such technical arguments as those found in Kant. Nevertheless the
prophets and apostles tell us something about the nature of man.
In the first place God created man in His own image. The animals were
not so created. The difference is that man is rational, and animals are
not. In Proverbs 7:22, 23 and Isaiah 56:10 the natural ignorance of
animals is used as a similitude to castigate the sinful ignorance of
men.
That knowledge is part of the image of God, and therefore
that at least some knowledge is non-empirical, is broadly hinted in
Colossians 3:10, where the effect of regeneration is the renewal of the
knowledge original in the divine image.
Further, Romans 1:32 and
2:14 show that even sin does not eradicate certain innate moral
knowledge. And with respect to sin, all the historical churches
acknowledge that a depravity of nature is inherited from Adam. This is
inconsistent with the view that the mind at birth is a blank sheet of
paper (Locke), or morally neutral (Aristotle), and requires the
admission of some sort of a priori. If therefore the more complex
matters of morality are innate, how can one deny that simpler principles
antecede experience? Scripture therefore seems to be on the side of a
priorism.
4. Neo-orthodoxy.
The discussion so far has
maintained the position that knowledge is commendable and is essential
to faith. Therefore religion, or at any rate Christianity, must hold
theology in high esteem. At various times, however, protests are made
against “cold” intellectualism or the pride of “mere” human reason.
Mystics have commended trances; others make religion essentially
emotional; and most recently neo-orthodoxy has enthroned paradox and
contradiction.
These modern theologians have arrived at their
position more by emotional reaction than by logic. They had been
educated under a combination of Scheiermacher and Hegel. This liberalism
looked on sin as a fast disappearing remnant of man’s animal ancestors.
The kingdom of God was equated with socialism and optimism flourished.
Then World War 1 revealed man’s depravity to Europeans, and World War II
to Americans. Machine guns and concentration camps liquidated the
utopian doctrine of man’s essential goodness and society’s progress.
Furthermore, Hegel’s rationalistic solution of all philosophic problems
was too neat, and therefore unreal. The great dialectic came to appear
as hollow word-play. Yet these theologians were equally unable to solve
the problems. They braved Socrates’ sad scorn of misologists and
declared that the problems of life are rationally insoluble. Life is a
deeper than logic. The universe and God Himself are self-contradictory.
We must make our decisions in the freedom of blind faith. Besides,
religion is not an intellectual matter anyhow: it is an experiential
encounter with God.
Emil Brunner states this position clearly.
Rejecting the idea that revelation is a communication of truth, Brunner
asserts that “All words have only an instrumental value. Neither the
spoken words nor their conceptual content are the Word itself, but only
its frame” (The Divine-Human Encounter, p. 110). He then adds that “God
can, when he wills, speak his Word to a man even through false doctrine”
(ibid. p. 117).
Karl Barth earlier, in his Romans, had made a
great deal of contradictions and insoluble paradoxes. Though later he
lost some of his exuberance, he still rejected logical consistency. The
latest edition of Church Dogmatics, in a section refuting a defense of
logical consistency, argues that “The very minimum postulate of freedom
from contradiction is acceptable by theology only upon the very limited
interpretation, by the scientific theorist upon the scarcely tolerable
one, that theology will not assert an irremovability in principle of the
‘contradictions’ which it is bound to make good” (Church Dogmatics, I,
i, p. 8). This sentence is obscure: it neither asserts nor denies that
contradictions are removable; it merely says that theology should not
assert their irremovability. What follows in the passage seems to let
the contradictions stand, for he says, “But the propositions in which it
asserts their removal will be propositions about the free action of
God, and so not propositions that ‘remove’ the contradiction from the
world.” Continuing to talk of coherence and systematization, Barth
insists that “The theologian ….should know what he is doing when he
transgresses them, and that as a theologian he cannot escape the
necessity of transgressing them.” Or, in very plain words, a theologian
must be incoherent.
Nevertheless the neo-orthodox school writes
theology, and Barth and Brunner have been esp. voluminous. But if they
do not recognize the necessity of being consistent, of what value can
their theology be? In principle, every one of their sentences is both
true and false. If we discard logic, then, when we believe that David
was king of Israel, nothing prevents us from believing at the same time
that David was not king of Israel. This would be simply the necessary
incoherence of theology.
In particular, the neo-orthodox
theologians, and some modernists as well, believe that God reveals
Himself through contradictory systems in the Bible. Brunner concocts a
remarkable conclusion that we could believe in the resurrection of
Christ, even if there were no reports, for the witness to the
resurrection is not that of eyewitnesses but of faith-witnesses. He
further makes Christ sinless but fallible. Then, again, when Paul speaks
of a time before Esau’s birth, he means the Edomites in the days of
Malachi. And, finally, “God and the medium of conceptuality exclude each
other” (cf. Paul King Jewett, Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation, p.
184 and passim).
If, now, all our theological talk is
self-contradictory, if faith must curb logic, and if God and thought are
mutually exclusive, then no knowledge of God is possible, and religion
must be emotional and experiential. But it will not be Christianity.
5. Knowledge of God.
In opposition to this neo-orthodoxy and to all other forms of thought
that deny God can be known, we are here conclude with what was strongly
hinted at the beginning of this article in its commendation of knowledge
in general. We shall simply add a few references to knowledge of God in
particular.
In the first place, all Scripture is inspired of God
and is profitable for doctrine The following vv. are some of those
which are most explicitly profitable for the doctrine of God. “In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth” introduces the concept
of creation and of God as creator. That this creation was decreed from
all eternity and is always controlled by providence is taught in
Ephesians 1;11, “The purpose of him who accomplishes all things
according to the counsel of his will, ” and in Daniel 4:35, “he does
according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of
the earth, and none can stay his hand,” and in many other passages. The
Bible also tells us that God exists in three persons; that God is
eternal, omniscient, and immutable.
That God can be known, that
man can entertain truth, that theology is possible, has been an unbroken
tradition among all Christians. To deprecate knowledge in favor of some
emotional upheaval, to repudiate logic and enthrone contradiction and
incoherence, to reduce the Biblical material to the status of a
symbolism that points uncertainly to an unknowable something or other,
is to abandon Christianity and commit intellectual suicide.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. S. Charnock, Discourses on the Existence and Attributes of
God (1680); Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (1780); B.B. Warfield,
Augustine’s Doctrine of Knowledge, in Studies in Tertullian and
Augustine (1921), and Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, in
Calvin and Calvinism (1930, 1931); P.K. Jewett, Emil Brunner’s Concept
of Revelation 91954); G.H. Clark Karl Barth’s Theological Method (1963). G.H. CLARK (2)
The Knowledge of God by Herman Bavinck
God is the highest good of man–that is the testimony of the whole
Scriptures. The Bible begins with the account that God created man after
His own image and likeness, in order that he should know God his
Creator aright, should love Him with all his heart, and should live with
Him in eternal blessedness. And the Bible ends with the description of
the new Jerusalem, whose inhabitants shall see God face to face and
shall have His name upon their foreheads.
Between these two
moments lies the revelation of God in all its length and breadth. As its
content this revelation has the one, great, comprehensive promise of
the covenant of grace: I will be a God unto thee, and ye shall be my
people. And as its mid-point and its high-point this revelation has its
Immanuel, God-with-us. For the promise and its fulfillment go hand in
hand. The word of God is the beginning, the principle, the seed, and it
is in the act that the seed comes into its full realization. Just as at
the beginning God called things into being by His word, so by His word
He will in the course of the ages bring into being the new heaven and
the new earth, in which the tabernacle of God shall be among men.
That is why Christ, in whom the Word became flesh, is said to be full of grace and truth (John 1:14).
He is the Word which in the beginning was with God and Himself was God,
and as such He was the life and the light of men. Because the Father
shares His life with Christ and gives expression to His thought in
Christ, therefore the full being of God is revealed in Him. He not only
declares the Father to us and discloses His name to us, but in Himself
He shows us and gives us the Father. Christ is God expressed and God
given. He is God revealing Himself and God sharing Himself, and
therefore He is full of truth and also full of grace. The word of the
promise, I will be a God unto thee, included within itself from the very
moment in which it was uttered, the fulfillment, I am thy God. God
gives Himself to His people in order that His people should give
themselves to Him.
In the Scriptures we find God constantly
repeating His declaration: I am thy God. From the mother-promise of
Genesis 3 :15 on, this rich testimony, comprehending all blessedness and
all salvation whatsoever, is repeated again and again, be it in the
lives of the patriarchs, in the history of the people of Israel, or in
that of the church of the New Testament. And in response the church
throughout the ages comes with the endless varieties of its language of
faith, speaking in gratitude and praise: Thou art our God, and we are
Thy people, and the sheep of Thy pasture.
This declaration of
faith on the part of the church is not a scientific doctrine, nor a form
of unity that is being repeated, but is rather a confession of a deeply
felt reality, and of a conviction of reality that has out of experience
in life. The prophets and apostles, and the saints generally who appear
before us in the Old and New Testament and later in the church of
Christ, did not sit and philosophize about God in abstracted concepts,
but rather confessed what God meant to them and what they owed to Him in
all the circumstances of life. God was for them not at all a cold
concept, which they then proceeded rationally to analyze, but He was a
living, personal force, a reality infinitely more real than the world
around them. Indeed, He was to them the one, eternal, worshipful Being.
They reckoned with Him in their lives, they lived in His tent, walked as
if always before His face, served Him in His courts, and worshiped Him
in His sanctuary.
The genuineness and depth of their experience
comes to expression in the language they used to express what God meant
to them. They did not have to strain for words, for their lips
overflowed with what welled up out of their hearts, and the world of man
and nature supplied them with figures of speech. God was to them a
King, a Lord, a Valiant One, a Leader, a Shepherd, a Savior, a Redeemer,
a Helper, a Physician, a Man, and a Father. All their bliss and
well-being, their truth and righteousness, their life and mercy, their
strength and power, their peace and rest they found in Him. He was a sun
and shield to them, a buckler, a light and a fire, a fountain and a
well-head, a rock and shelter, a high refuge and a tower, a reward and a
shadow, a city and a temple. All that the world has to offer in
discrete and sub-divided goods was to them an image and likeness of the
unfathomable fullness of the salvation available in God for His people.
Hence it is that David in Psalm 16:2 (according to a telling
translation) addresses Jehovah as follows: Thou art my Lord; I have no
higher good than Thou. Thus also Asaph sang in Psalm 73: Whom have I in
heaven hut Thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire beside Thee.
My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart,
and my portion forever. For the saint, heaven in all its blessedness and
glory would be void and stale without God; and when he lives in
communion with God he cares for nothing on earth, for the love of God
far transcends all other goods.
Such is the experience of the
children of God. It is an experience which they have felt because God
presented Himself to them for their enjoyment in the Son of His love. In
this sense Christ said that eternal life, that is, the totality of
salvation, consists for man in the knowledge of the one, true God and of
Jesus Christ whom He has sent.
It was an auspicious moment in
which Christ spoke those words. He stood at the point of crossing the
brook Kidron in order to enter the garden of Gethsemane and to suffer
the last struggle of His soul there. Before He proceeds to that point,
however, He prepares Himself as our High Priest for His passion and
death, and He prays the Father that the Father may glorify Him in His
suffering and after it, so that the Son in turn may glorify the Father
in giving out all those blessings which He is now about to achieve by
His obedience unto death. And when the Son prays in this way, He knows
of nothing to desire except that which is the Father’s own will and good
pleasure. The Father has given Him power over all flesh in order that
the Son should give eternal life to as many as the Father has given Him.
Such eternal life consists of nothing other than the knowledge of the
one, true God and of Jesus Christ who was sent to reveal Him (John
17:1-3). (3)
In closing:
It is well worth repeating Gordon Clark’s admonition in his concluding paragraph in his above article on knowledge.
“That God can be known, that man can entertain truth, that theology is
possible, has been an unbroken tradition among all Christians. To
deprecate knowledge in favor of some emotional upheaval, to repudiate
logic and enthrone contradiction and incoherence, to reduce the Biblical
material to the status of a symbolism that points uncertainly to an
unknowable something or other, is to abandon Christianity and commit
intellectual suicide.”
Therefore, the Christian can affirm:
“Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Psalms, 9
Volumes, Romans, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 284.
2. Merrill C. Tenney, editor, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of
the Bible, 5 Vol. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House,
1975), pp. 834-840.
3. Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1956), pp 24-26.
“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: http://www.thereligionthatstartedinahat.com/
Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism by Jack Kettler
In this study, we will seek to understand infralapsarianism and
supralapsarianism. This is a study in Reformed theology. This study will
deal with God’s eternal decrees involving predestination. Christians
that are not reformed also have theologies that attempt to understand
God’s eternal degrees. The serious reader should consult the Cannons of
Dort to see two competing systems in contrast.
The doctrine of
predestination more than any other teaching of Scripture takes salvation
out of man’s hands and places it in God’s control. The cause of God’s
choosing or election is found in God Himself. If a man insists that he
played a part in God’s choice, then human merit is brought into the
picture. Salvation then becomes synergistic (a cooperative effort)
rather than monergistic (God alone saves apart from man’s effort).
Biblical salvation is monergistic. Christ alone, by his complete and
finished work saves a fallen man. Within a synergistic scheme, salvation
becomes a mutual effort.
The words predestination and election
appear in the pages of Scripture. A Christian, therefore, must have an
understanding of passages that teach this. This study of
infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism will seek to clarify and help us
better understand the doctrine of grace seen in God’s election of
sinners. The goal of this study is to glorify God.
Therefore, we must start with the Scripture:
“My name is the LORD! I won’t let idols or humans share my glory and praise.” (Isaiah 42:8 CEV)
“Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world.” (Matthew 25:34)
“Moreover, whom he did
predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also
justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Romans 8:30)
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the
world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.”
(Ephesians 1:4)
“But we are bound to give thanks always to God
for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the
beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit
and belief of the truth.” (2 Thessalonians 2:13)
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
Definitions from two sources:
Infralapsarianism:
The view that in the plan made by God in eternity, his decree to permit
the fall logically preceded his decree of election, so that when God
chose some people to receive eternal life, he was choosing them from the
whole mass of humanity, all regarded as fallen creatures. *
Infralapsarianism:
An issue within Reformed theology dealing with what may have happened
in God’s mind regarding the logical order of His considering whom to
elect into salvation before the foundation of the world. The word means
“after the fall.” The position is that God first decided he would allow
sin into the world and second that he would then save people from it. By
contrast, the supralapsarian (“before the fall”) position holds that
God first decided that he would save some people and then second that he
would allow sin into the world. **
Supralapsarianism:
The
view that in the plan made by God in eternity, his decree of election
logically preceded his decree to permit the fall, so that when God chose
“some to receive eternal life and rejected all others,” he was
contemplating them as unfallen. *
Supralapsarianism:
An
issue within Reformed theology dealing with what may have happened in
God’s mind regarding the logical order of His considering whom to elect
into salvation before the foundation of the world. The word means
“before the fall.” This position holds that God first decided that he
would save some people and then second that he would allow sin into the
world. By contrast, the infralapsarian (“after the fall”) position is
the reverse in that it holds that God first decided he would allow sin
into the world and second that he would then save people from it. **
Scripture in support of infralapsarianism:
“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye
are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore
the world hateth you.” (John 15:19)
It will be good to look at John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on John 15:19:
“If ye were of the world … Belonged to the world, were of the same
spirit and principles with it, and pursued the same practices:
the world would love its own; for every like loves it’s like; the men of
the world love each other’s persons, company, and conversation:
but because ye are not of the world: once they were, being born into it,
brought up in it, had their conversation among the men of it, were
themselves men of carnal, worldly, principles and practices; but being
called by Christ, and becoming his disciples, they were no more of it;
and as he was not of the world, so they were not of it, though they were
in it. The Jews distinguish the disciples of the wise men, from, “the
men of the world” (u), pretending that they were not; but this is a
character that only belongs to the disciples of Christ, in consequence
of their being called by him out of it:
but I have chosen you out
of the world: which designs not the eternal election of them, but the
separation of them from the rest of the world in the effectual calling,
and the designation of them to his work and service:
therefore
the world hateth you; and since it was upon that account, they had no
reason to be uneasy, but rather to rejoice; seeing this was an evidence
of their not belonging to the world, and of being chosen and called by
Christ out of it.” (1)
The next passage:
“According as he
hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should
be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us
unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to
the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace,
wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” (Ephesians 1:4-6)
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on Ephesians 1:5 is particularly helpful:
Having predestinated us – On the meaning of the word here used, see the
notes at Romans 1:4, Romans 8:29 note. The word used πρωρίζω prōrizō
means properly “to set bounds before;” and then to “pre-determine.”
There is the essential idea of setting bounds or limits, and of doing
this beforehand. It is not that God determined to do it when it was
actually done, but that he intended to do it beforehand. No language
could express this more clearly, and I suppose this interpretation is
generally admitted. Even by those who deny the doctrine of particular
election, it is not denied that the word here used means to
“pre-determine;” and they maintain that the sense is, that God had
pre-determined to admit the Gentiles to the privileges of his people.
Admitting then that the meaning is to predestinate in the proper sense,
the only question is, “who” are predestinated? To whom does the
expression apply? Is it to nations or to individuals? In reply to this,
in addition to the remarks already made, I would observe,
(1) that there is no specification of “nations” here as such, no mention of the Gentiles in contradistinction from the Jews.
(2) those referred to were those included in the word “us,” among whom Paul was one – but Paul was not a heathen.
(3) the same objection will lie against the doctrine of predestinating
“nations” which will lie against predestinating “individuals.”
(4) nations are made up of individuals, and the pre-determination must have had some reference to individuals.
What is a nation but a collection of individuals? There is no such
abstract being or thing as a nation; and if there was any purpose in
regard to a nation, it must have had some reference to the individuals
composing it. He that would act on the ocean, must act on the drops of
water that make up the ocean; for besides the collection of drops of
water there is no ocean. He that would remove a mountain, must act on
the particles of matter that compose that mountain; for there is no such
thing as an abstract mountain. Perhaps there was never a greater
illusion than to suppose that all difficulty is removed in regard to the
doctrine of election and predestination, by saying that it refers to
“nations.” What difficulty is lessened? What is gained by it? How does
it make God appear more amiable and good?
Does it render him less
“partial” to suppose that he has made a difference among nations, than
to suppose that he has made a difference among individuals? Does it
remove any difficulty about the offer of salvation, to suppose that he
has granted the knowledge of his truth to some “nations,” and withheld
it from others? The truth is, that all the reasoning which has been
founded on this supposition, has been merely throwing dust in the eyes.
If there is “any” well-founded objection to the doctrine of decrees or
predestination, it is to the doctrine “at all,” alike in regard to
nations and individuals, and there are just the same difficulties in the
one case as in the other. But there is no real difficulty in either.
Who could worship or honor a God who had no plan, or purpose, or
intention in what he did? Who can believe that the universe was formed
and is governed without design? Who can doubt that what God “does” he
always meant to do?
When, therefore, he converts and saves a
soul, it is clear that he always intended to do it. He has no new plan.
It is not an afterthought. It is not the work of chance. If I can find
out anything that God has “done,” I have the most certain conviction
that he “always meant” to do it – and this is all that is intended by
the doctrine of election or predestination. What God does, he always
meant to do. What he permits, he always meant to permit. I may add
further, that if it is right to “do” it, it was right to “intend” to do
it. If there is no injustice or partiality in the act itself, there is
no injustice or partiality in the intention to perform it. If it is
right to save a soul, it was also right to intend to save it. If it is
right to condemn a sinner to we, it was right to intend to do it. Let us
then look “at the thing itself,” and if that is not wrong, we should
not blame the purpose to do it, however long it has been cherished.
Unto the adoption … – see John 1:12 note, Romans 8:15 note.
According to the good pleasure of his will – The word rendered “good
pleasure” – (εὐδοκία eudokia) – means “a being well pleased;” delight
in anything, favor, good-will, Luke 2:14; Philippians 1:15; compare Luke
12:32. Then it denotes purpose, or will, the idea of benevolence being
included – Robinson. Rosenmuller renders the phrase, “from his most
benignant decree.” The evident object of the apostle is to state why God
chose the heirs of salvation. It was done as it seemed good to him in
the circumstances of the case. It was not that man had any control over
him, or that man was consulted in the determination, or that it was
based on the good works of man, real or foreseen. But we are not to
suppose that there were no good reasons for what he has thus done.
Convicts are frequently pardoned by an executive. He does it according
to his own will, or as seems good in his sight.
He is to be the
judge, and no one has a right to control him in doing it. It may seem to
be entirely arbitrary. The executive may not have communicated the
reasons why he did it, either to those who are pardoned, or to the other
prisoners, or to anyone else. But we are not to infer that there was no
“reason” for doing it. If he is a wise magistrate, and worthy of his
station, it is to be presumed that there were reasons which, if known,
would be satisfactory to all. But those reasons he is under no
obligations to make known. Indeed, it might be improper that they should
be known. Of that he is the best judge. Meantime, however, we may see
what would be the effect in those who were not forgiven. It would
excite, very likely, their hatred, and they would charge him with
partiality or with tyranny. But they should remember that whoever might
be pardoned, and on whatever ground it might be done, they could not
complain.
They would suffer no more than they deserve. But what
if, when the act of pardon was made known to one part, it was offered to
the others also on certain plain and easy conditions? Suppose it should
appear that while the executive meant, for wise but concealed reasons,
to forgive a part, he had also determined to offer forgiveness to all.
And suppose that they were in fact disposed in the highest degree to
neglect it, and that no inducements or arguments could prevail on them
to accept of it. Who then could blame the executive? Now this is about
the case in regard to God, and the doctrine of election. All people were
guilty and condemned. For wise reasons, which God has not communicated
to us, he determined to bring a portion at least of the human race to
salvation. This he did not intend to leave to chance and hap-hazard. He
saw that all would of themselves reject the offer, and that unless some
efficient means were used, the blood of the atonement would be shed in
vain.
He did not make known to people who they were that he meant
to save, nor the reason why they particularly were to be brought to
heaven. Meantime he meant to make the offer universal; to make the terms
as easy as possible, and thus to take away every ground of complaint.
If people will not accept of pardon; if they prefer their sins; if
nothing can induce them to come and be saved, why should they complain?
If the doors of a prison are open, and the chains of the prisoners are
knocked off, and they will not come out, why should they complain that
others are in fact willing to come out and be saved? Let it be borne in
mind that the purposes of God correspond exactly to facts as they
actually occur, and much of the difficulty is taken away. If in the
facts there is no just ground of complaint, there can be none, because
it was the intention of God that the facts should be so. (2)
Scriptures in support of supralapsarianism:
“For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I
raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name
might be declared throughout all the earth. Thou wilt say then unto me,
why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O
man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say
to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter
power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour,
and another unto dishonour?” (Romans 9:17, 19-21)
Matthew Poole’s Commentary sums up Paul’s argument in Romans perfectly:
“He argueth from the less to the greater, that if a potter hath power
over his clay, to form it as he pleaseth, then God hath much more power
over his creatures, to form them or order them as he listeth. God’s
authority over his creature, is greater than that of a potter over his
clay. The potter made not his clay; but both clay and potter are made by
God. Here is something implied, that as there is no difference in the
matter or lump out of which the potter frameth diversity of vessels, so
there is no difference in mankind; all men are alike by nature, and in
the same corrupt state; both those who are elected, and those who are
rejected, that are made vessels of mercy, or vessels of wrath. And here
is this expressed, that as the potter maketh vessels of honour or
dishonour, of nobler or viler use, out of the same lump, as he listeth,
and is not bound to give a reason of his so doing to his pots; so God
may choose some, and reject others, and give no account thereof unto his
creatures. The potter takes nothing from the clay, of what form soever
he makes it; and the Creator doth no wrong to the creature, however he
doth dispose of it.” (3)
Loraine Boettner on INFRALAPSARIANISM AND SUPRALAPSARIANISM:
Among those who call themselves Calvinists there has been some
difference of opinion as to the order of events in the Divine plan. The
question here is, when the decrees of election and reprobation came into
existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallen? Were the
objects of these decrees contemplated as members of a sinful, corrupt
mass, or were they contemplated merely as men whom God would create?
According to the infralapsarian view the order of events was as follows: God proposed,
1. to create;
2. to permit the fall;
3. to elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out
of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the
Devil and the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their
sins;
4. to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was purchased by Christ.
According to the supralapsarian view the order of events was:
1. to elect some creatable men (that is, men who were to be created) to life and to condemn others to destruction;
2. to create;
3. to permit the fall;
4. to send Christ to redeem the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect
The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the
fall.
One of the leading motives in the supralapsarian scheme is
to emphasize the idea of discrimination and to push this idea into the
whole of God’s dealings with men. We believe, however, that
supralapsarianism over-emphasizes this idea. In the very nature of the
case this idea cannot be consistently carried out, e.g., in creation,
and especially in the fall. It was not merely some of the members of the
human race who were objects of the decree to create, but all mankind,
and that with the same nature. And it was not merely some men, but the
entire race, which was permitted to fall. Supralapsarianism goes to as
great an extreme on the one side as does universalism on the other. Only
the infralapsarian scheme is self-consistent or consistent with other
facts.
In regard to this difference Dr. Warfield writes: “The
mere putting of the question seems to carry its answer with it. For the
actual dealing with men which is in question, is, with respect to both
classes alike, those who are elected and those who are passed by,
conditioned on sin; we cannot speak of salvation any more than of
reprobation without positing sin. Sin is necessarily precedent in
thought, not indeed to the abstract idea of discrimination, but to the
concrete instance of discrimination which is in question, a
discrimination with regard to a destiny which involves either salvation
or punishment. There must be sin in contemplation to ground a decree of
salvation, as truly as a decree of punishment. We cannot speak of a
decree discriminating between men with reference to salvation and
punishment, therefore, without positing the contemplation of men as
sinners as its logical prius.”1
And to the same effect Dr. Charles Hodge says:
“It is a clearly revealed Scriptural principle that where there is no
sin there is no condemnation. . . . He hath mercy upon one and not on
another, according to His own good pleasure, because all are equally
unworthy and guilty . . . Everywhere, as in Romans 1:24, 26, 28,
reprobation is declared to be judicial, founded upon the sinfulness of
its object. Otherwise, it could not be a manifestation of the justice of
God.” 2
It is not in harmony with the Scripture ideas of God
that innocent men, men who are not contemplated as sinners, should be
foreordained to eternal misery and death. The decrees concerning the
saved ‘and the lost should not be looked upon as based merely on
abstract sovereignty. God is truly sovereign, but this sovereignty is
not exercised in an arbitrary way. Rather it is a sovereignty exercised
in harmony with His other attributes, especially His justice, holiness,
and wisdom. God cannot commit sin; and in that respect He is limited,
although it would be more accurate to speak of His inability to commit
sin as a perfection. There is, of course, mystery in connection with
either system; but the supralapsarian system seems to pass beyond
mystery and into contradiction.
The Scriptures are practically
infralapsarian, — Christians are said to have been chosen “out of” the
world, John 15:19; the potter has a right over the clay, “from the same
lump,” to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor,
Rom. 9:21; and the elect and the non-elect are regarded as being
originally in a common state of misery. Suffering and death are
uniformly represented as the wages of sin. The infralapsarian scheme
naturally commends itself to our ideas of justice and mercy; and it is
at least free from the Arminian objection that God simply creates some
men in order to damn them. Augustine and the great majority of those who
have held the doctrine of Election since that time have been and are
infralapsarians, — that is, they believe that it was from the mass of
fallen men that some were elected to eternal life while others were
sentenced to eternal death for their sins. There is no Reformed
confession which teaches the supralapsarian view; but on the other hand a
considerable number do explicitly teach the infralapsarian view, which
thus emerges as the typical form of Calvinism. At the present day it is
probably safe to say that not more than one Calvinist in a hundred holds
the supralapsarian view. We are Calvinists strongly enough, but not
“high Calvinists.” By a “high Calvinist” we mean one who holds the
supralapsarian view.
It is of course true that in either system
the sovereign choice of God in election is stressed and salvation in its
whole course is the work of God. Opponents usually stress the
supralapsarian system since it is the one which without explanation is
more likely to conflict with man’s natural feelings and impressions. It
is also true that there are some things here which cannot be put into
the time mould, — that these events are not in the Divine mind as they
are in ours, by a succession of acts, one after another, but that by one
single act God has at once ordained all these things. In the Divine
mind the plan is a unit, each part of which is designed with reference
to a state of facts which God intended should result from the other
parts. All of the decrees are eternal. They have a logical, but not a
chronological, relationship. Yet in order for us to reason intelligently
about them we must have a certain order of thought. We very naturally
think of the gift of Christ in sanctification and glorification as
following the decrees of the creation and the fall.
In regard to the teaching of the Westminster Confession, Dr. Charles Hodge makes the following comment:
“Twiss, the Prolocutor of that venerable body (the Westminster
Assembly), was a zealous supralapsarian; the great majority of its
members, however, were on the other side. The symbols of that Assembly,
while they clearly imply the infralapsarian view, were yet so framed as
to avoid offence to those who adopted the supralapsarian theory. In the
‘Westminster Confession,’ it is said that God appointed the elect unto
eternal life, and the rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the
unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or
withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power
over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath
for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.’ It is here
taught that those whom God passes by are ‘the rest of mankind’; not the
rest of ideal or possible men, but the rest of those human beings who
constitute mankind, or the human race. In the second place, the passage
quoted teaches that the non-elect are passed by and ordained to wrath
‘for their sin.’ This implies that they were contemplated as sinful
before this foreordination to judgment. The infralapsarian view is still
more obviously assumed in the answer to the 19th and 20th questions in
the ‘Shorter Catechism.’ It is there taught that all mankind by the fall
lost communion with God, and are under His wrath and curse, and that
God out of His mere good pleasure elected some (some of those under His
wrath and curse), unto everlasting life. Such has been the doctrine of
the great body of Augustinians from the time of Augustine to the present
day.” 3
Notes referenced in the article:
1. The Plan of Salvation, p. 28.
2. Systematic Theology, II, p. 318.
3. Systematic Theology, II, p. 317. (4)
Conclusions from the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology published by Baker:
Infralapsarianism, (Sublapsarianism)
(Lat. for “after the fall,” sometimes designated “sublapsarianism”). A
part of the doctrine of predestination, specifically that which relates
to the decrees of election and reprobation. The issues involved are
God’s eternal decrees and man’s will, how can the one be affirmed
without denying the other. If one argues for God’s predetermination of
mankind’s fate, this tends to deny mankind’s free will and threatens to
make God responsible for sin.
On the other hand, if one argues
for the freedom of mankind’s will, thus making man responsible for sin,
this can threaten the sovereignty and power of God since his decrees
then are contingent upon mankind’s decisions. The argument / dilemma is
not new. Pelagius and Augustine argued over the issue with the Synod of
Orange, 529, which sided with Augustine. In the Middle Ages, Duns Scotus
and William of Ockham questioned Augustine’s position. Luther and
Erasmus argued the issue in Freedom of the Will and Bondage of the Will.
Melanchthon got involved and was accused by Flacius of synergism, and
by the end of the sixteenth century the position of Arminius stirred the
controversy among the Reformed, who attempted to resolve the issue at
the Synod of Dort.
What is the order of the eternal decrees of God? Infralapsarians argue for this order:
(1) God decreed the creation of mankind, a good, blessed creation, not marred or flawed.
(2) God decreed mankind would be allowed to fall through its own self determination.
(3) God decreed to save some of the fallen.
(4) God decreed to leave the rest to their just fate of condemnation.
(5) God provides the Redeemer for the saved.
(6) God sends the Holy Spirit to effect redemption among the saved.
The key to the order of the decrees is that God decreed election to
salvation after the fall, not before; hence the name of the view
“infralapsarianism.” The supralapsarian view would offer an order in
which the decree for election and reprobation occurs before the
creation. Those on both sides of the issue cite weighty arguments for
their positions, quote Scripture as a foundation, and comb through
Augustine, Calvin, and others for support. Generally most Reformed
assemblies have refused to make either infra – or supralapsarianism
normative, although the tendency has been to favor the former without
condemning those who hold to the latter. R V Schnucker (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary) (5)
Supralapsarianism
The doctrine that God decreed both election and reprobation before the
fall. Supralapsarianism differs from infralapsarianism on the relation
of God’s decree to human sin. The differences go back to the conflict
between Augustine and Pelagius. Before the Reformation, the main
difference was whether Adam’s fall was included in God’s eternal decree;
supralapsarians held that it was, but infralapsarians acknowledged only
God’s foreknowledge of sin. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were agreed
that Adam’s fall was somehow included in God’s decree; it came to be
referred to as a “permissive decree,” and all insisted that God was in
no way the author of sin. As a result of the Reformers’ agreement, after
the Reformation the distinction between infra – and supralapsarianism
shifted to differences on the logical order of God’s decrees.
Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor at Geneva, was the first to develop
supralapsarianism in this new sense. By the time of the Synod of Dort in
1618 – 19, a heated intraconfessional controversy developed between
infra – and supralapsarians; both positions were represented at the
synod. Francis Gomarus, the chief opponent of James Arminius, was a
supralapsarian.
The question of the logical, not the temporal,
order of the eternal decrees reflected differences on God’s ultimate
goal in predestination and on the specific objects of predestination.
Supralapsarians considered God’s ultimate goal to be his own glory in
election and reprobation, while infralapsarians considered
predestination subordinate to other goals. The object of predestination,
according to supralapsarians, was uncreated and unfallen humanity,
while infralapsarians viewed the object as created and fallen humanity.
The term “supralapsarianism” comes from the Latin words supra and
lapsus; the decree of predestination was considered to be “above”
(supra) or logically “before” the decree concerning the fall (lapsus),
while the infralapsarians viewed it as “below” (infra) or logically
“after” the decree concerning the fall. The contrast of the two views is
evident from the following summaries.
The logical order of the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is:
(1) God’s decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others;
(2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated;
(3) the decree to permit the fall; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is:
(1) God’s decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race;
(2) the decree to permit the fall;
(3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
Infralapsarians were in the majority at the Synod of Dort. The
Arminians tried to depict all the Calvinists as representatives of the
“repulsive” supralapsarian doctrine. Four attempts were made at Dort to
condemn the supralapsarian view, but the efforts were unsuccessful.
Although the Canons of Dort do not deal with the order of the divine
decrees, they are infralapsarian in the sense that the elect are “chosen
from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault
from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction” (I, 7;
cf. I, 1). The reprobate “are passed by in the eternal decree” and God
“decreed to leave (them) in the common misery into which they have
willfully plunged themselves” and “to condemn and punish them
forever…for all their sins” (I, 15).
Defenders of
supralapsarianism continued after Dort. The chairman of the Westminister
Assembly, William Twisse, was a supralapsarian but the Westminister
standards do not favor either position. Although supralapsarianism never
received confessional endorsement within the Reformed churches, it has
been tolerated within the confessional boundaries. In 1905 the Reformed
churches of the Netherlands and the Christian Reformed Church in 1908
adopted the Conclusions of Utrecht, which stated that “our Confessional
Standards admittedly follow the infralapsarian presentation in respect
to the doctrine of election, but that it is evident…that this in no
wise intended to exclude or condemn the supralapsarian presentation.”
Recent defenders of the supralapsarian position have been Gerhardus Vos,
Herman Hoeksema, and G H Kersten. F H Klooster (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary) (6)
In closing:
From The Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 19. What is the misery of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. All mankind by their fall lost communion with God, are under his
wrath and curse, and so made liable to all the miseries of this life, to
death itself, and to the pains of hell forever.
Q. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God, having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity,
elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace to
deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into
an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.
“Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, John, 9
Volumes, Romans, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 504.
2. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Ephesians, pp. 3354-3356 .
3. Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible,
Romans, vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985),
p. 511.
4. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of
Predestination, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing CO. signed copy 1984), pp. 126-130.
5. Walter A. Elwell, Editor, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House), p. 560-561.
6. Walter A. Elwell, Editor, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House), p. 1059-1060.
“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: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
In this study, we will seek to understand how justification happens. The Latin phrase (simul justus et peccator) will be the springboard to help us understand the doctrine of justification. As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, commentary evidence and confessional support for the glorifying of God in how we live.
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
Definitions from two sources:
simul justus et peccator:
“Latin for “at the same time just and sinner,” a formula Martin Luther
used to communicate “the objective reality of justification by faith
alongside the Christian’s continual struggle against sin.” *
simul justus et peccator:
“‘Simil’ is the word from which we get the English ‘simultaneous;’ it
means ‘at the same time.’ ‘Justus’ is the Latin word for ‘just’ or
‘righteous.’ ‘Et’ simply means ‘and.’ ‘Peccator’ means ‘sinner.’ So,
with this formula, – ‘at the same time just and sinner’ – Luther was
saying that in our justification, we are at the same time righteous and
sinful. …He was saying that, in one sense, we are just. In another
sense, we are sinners. In and of ourselves, under God’s scrutiny, we
still have sin. But by God’s imputation of the righteousness of Jesus
Christ to our accounts, we are considered just.” See endnote 5
“Simul justus et peccator”—“Simultaneously righteous and sinner”
Scripture teaching
“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:5)
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on Romans 4:5 get this exactly right:
But to him that worketh not – Who does not rely on his conformity to
the Law for his justification; who does not depend on his works; who
seeks to be justified in some other way. The reference here is to the
Christian plan of justification.
But believeth – Note, Romans 3:26.
On him – On God. Thus, the connection requires; for the discussion has
immediate reference to Abraham, whose faith was in the promise of God.
That justifieth the ungodly – This is a very important expression. It implies,
(1) That people are sinners, or are ungodly.
(2) that God regards them as such when they are justified. He does not
justify them because he sees them to be, or regards them to be
righteous; but knowing that they are in fact polluted. He does not first
esteem them, contrary to fact, to be pure; but knowing that they are
polluted, and that they deserve no favor, he resolves to forgive them,
and to treat them as his friends.
(3) in themselves they are
equally undeserving, whether they are justified or not. Their souls have
been defiled by sin; and that is known when they are pardoned. God
judges things as they are; and sinners who are justified, he judges not
as if they were pure, or as if they had a claim; but he regards them as
united by faith to the Lord Jesus; and in this relation he judges that
they should be treated as his friends, though they have been, are, and
always will be, personally undeserving. It is not meant that the
righteousness of Christ is transferred to them, so as to become
personally theirs – for moral character cannot be transferred; nor that
it is infused into them, making them personally meritorious – for then
they could not be spoken of as ungodly; but that Christ died in their
stead, to atone for their sins, and is regarded and esteemed by God to
have died; and that the results or benefits of his death are so reckoned
or imputed to believers as to make it proper for God to regard and
treat them as if they had themselves obeyed the Law; that is, as
righteous in his sight; see the note at Romans 4:3. (1)
“Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.” (Romans 4:6)
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on Romans 4:6 is superb:
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man,…. the
apostle having instanced in Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation,
cites some passages from David, king of Israel, a person of great note
and esteem among the Jews, in favour of the doctrine he is establishing;
who in a very proper and lively manner describes the happiness of such
persons:
unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works. This
righteousness cannot be the righteousness of the law, or man’s
obedience to it; for that is a righteousness with works, is a man’s own,
and not imputed; and indeed is not a righteousness in the sight of God:
nor does man’s blessedness lie in, or come by it; no man is, or can be
instilled by it, nor saved by it, or attain to heaven and eternal
happiness by the means of it; but the righteousness here spoken of is
the righteousness of Christ, called the righteousness of God; and is
better than that of angels or men; is complete and perfect; by which the
law is honoured, and justice is satisfied. This is freely bestowed, and
graciously “imputed” by God. Just in the same way his righteousness
becomes ours, as Adam’s sin did, which is by imputation; or in the same
way that our sins became Christ’s, his righteousness becomes ours; and
as we have no righteousness of our own when God justifies us, this must
be done by the righteousness of another; and that can be done no other
way by the righteousness of another, than by imputing it to us: and
which is done “without works”; not without the works of Christ, of which
this righteousness consists; but without the works of the creature, or
any consideration of them, which are utterly excluded from
justification; for if these came into account, it would not be of grace,
and boasting would not be removed. Now such who have this righteousness
thus imputed to them, are happy persons; they are justified from all
sin, and freed from all condemnation; their persons and services are
acceptable to God; it will be always well with them; they are heirs of
glory, and shall enjoy it. (2)
Simul Iustus et Peccator from the Monergism web site:
To one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.
How is the Christian to see himself in this world? “Simul iustus et
peccator” – “At the same time righteous and a sinner.” Justification is
forensic. In Christ, we are declared, counted or reckoned to be
righteous when God imputes the righteousness of Christ (an “alien
righteousness”) to our account. Christ’s righteousness ascribed to the
redeemed individual without their personal merit. We are declared
righteous in Christ, it is imputed to us — it is counted as ours …
not infused in us. We are counted righteous in God’s eyes because of
Christ. But this does not make us righteous in ourselves. That will only
happen at our glorification when Christ transforms these bodies to be
sealed in righteousness. Justifying righteousness is something, which
always resides in the Person of Christ alone. The imputation of this
“alien” righteousness is the only means by which man can be acceptable
to God. As long as the Christian lives, he is guilty in himself, but “in
Christ” he is righteous and accounted precious.
Righteousness
through Christ is called an “alien” righteousness because it did not
generate from us. It is not our righteousness; it is his. It is an alien
righteousness because it came from without, and now it is in a foreign
land. It does not belong here; it is an alien righteousness. In Latin,
we call it simul iustus et peccator: simul, simultaneously; iustus,
just; et, and; peccator, sinful. That is me – simultaneously righteous
and sinful. That is my contribution to salvation — my sin! At the same
time that I am a sinner, God sees me as righteous because of the blood
of Jesus Christ. That is the message of outreach — it is the message of
salvation.
Righteousness comes in two ways: coram deo
(righteousness before God) and coram hominibus (before man). Instead of a
development in righteousness based in the person, or an infusion of
merit from the saints, a person is judged righteous before God because
of the works of Christ. But, absent the perspective of God and the
righteousness of Christ, based on one’s own merit—a Christian still
looks like a sinner. The declaration involves God imputing to the
believer’s “balance sheet” or account the alien righteousness of Christ.
The believer is not declared righteous by virtue of his own merit, but
on the basis of the merit of Christ. When united to Him, it is
justification, which becomes the foundation upon which the believer can
stand with confidence coram dei. The believer has no cause to fear in
the presence of God because of His acquittal. The believer has only and
always to look to the finished work of Christ on the Cross and hear
God’s declaration, “You are accepted.” Because of justification, the
believer does not fear God’s rejection because of the sin still present
in his/her life. God does not look at the sin in our life except through
the work of Christ. This tension is resolved in the Incarnate Christ,
crucified and now risen for the life of the world.
Eternal life
is Christ dwelling in His righteousness in the soul of the justified
person. So eternal life is union with Jesus Christ. And the word for
that union with him is faith. The sinners comes to him, rests in him,
trusts in him, is one with him, abides with him; and this is life
because it never ends. The united soul abides in the Vine eternally.
Weakness, sin, proneness to sin never brings separation, but only the
Father’s pruning, which cements the union even and ever tighter.
The Judge of all the earth declares us “not guilty” when we believe
because Christ was pronounced “guilty” for us on the cross. We are not
first made righteous, then declared righteous; we are declared righteous
by grace through faith in Christ, and then made righteous! When we
believe, God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us ‘as if’ it were our
own. However, it is HIS righteousness, that is why Paul says in Romans
1:17 that there is a righteousness that has been revealed from God, a
righteousness not of our own, but a righteousness revealed from God and
freely given to those who do not work, but to those who believe. In
light of the goodness and graciousness of God who was in Christ
reconciling the world to himself, we should daily repent of our own
self-righteousness (our works), the words imply a declaration and
pronouncement from the divine court of the believer’s right standing
with God. “Justification” in itself does not mean a change in the man,
but a declaration of how he appears in God’s sight.
Through faith
we run to Christ and hold fast to Him, who satisfied the law on our
behalf (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:10-13). In this way, we are accounted
righteous in the sight of God through faith alone, without doing the
works of the law. We are simul iustus et peccator.
Luther
recognized that even in a state of regeneration the believer still lives
in the world and still in fact does commit acts of sin. There is no
attempt to redefine sin to make it anything less than what it is. Rather
there is a stark recognition of the dialectic of the Christian’s
acceptance before God and the fact that he still sins. Luther’s phrase
to describe this condition was that the state of the Christian between
regeneration and ultimate glorification is simul iustus et peccator, at
once just (or justified) and sinner. This is not a condition that will
ever be transcended in this life. Rather, the believer must always rely
on the finished work of Christ for his/her acceptance before God. (3)
Justification
Definition of Justification
The establishment of a sinner in a righteous standing before God. The
verb dikaioo means “to declare or demonstrate to be righteous” (Matt.
11:19; 12:37; Luke 7:29; 10:29). The cognate nouns are dikaiosune (Rom.
1:17), dikaiosis (Rom. 4:25), and dikaioma (Rom. 1:32; 5:16, 18).
Dikaiosune is always translated “righteousness” and denotes a perfect
rectitude according to the standard of God’s character revealed in His
law. The phrase “the righteousness of God” may denote the divine
attribute of righteousness, or in the great soteriological teaching of
Romans, the righteousness God has provided to give His people a title to
eternal life (Rom. 3:22; 5:17, “the gift of righteousness”).
Dikaiosis is the action of declaring righteous, and dikaioma signifies
the verdict, the judgment handed down by God. Lenski states the
relationship between these two terms: dikaiosis is “a declaring
righteous (action)”; dikaioma is “a declaring righteous and thereby
placing in a permanent relationship or state even as the declaration
stands permanently (result).” The language of Scripture, therefore,
points to justification as God’s action in declaring His people
righteous and placing them in a state of legal perfection before His law
on the basis of the righteousness He provided freely for them in
Christ.
There is no more scriptural or succinct theological
definition of justification than that given by the Shorter Catechism:
“Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein He pardoneth all
our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the
righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone” (Q.
33; see Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. 11).
The Two Elements in Justification
The two elements in justification are pardon and imputed righteousness.
That is, the total obedience of Christ, both passive and active, avails
for the believer. The vicarious atonement of Christ pays the debt of
the believer’s sin, satisfies divine justice on his behalf, and renders
it possible for God to be just and yet to justify him (Rom. 3:26). The
imputed righteousness of Christ gives the believer “the adoption of
children” (Gal. 4:5) and the title to eternal life.
Characteristics of Justification
1. Justification is an act, not a process (Rom. 5:1). It is something
that has taken place in the justified, not something that is constantly
taking place.
2. It is an act of the free grace of God toward sinners who are personally guilty and deserving of His wrath (Rom. 3:25).
3. It is a forensic act. It describes a change in the legal standing of
the justified person. It does not describe the inner moral change God
effects in all those whom He saves (2 Cor. 5:21). This is a vital truth.
“God made him [Christ] to be sin for us” does not mean that Christ
became morally corrupted. It solely describes a forensic transaction.
Similarly, when as a result of that transaction we are “made the
righteousness of God in him,” there is no reference to an inner moral
change. It does not mean we are made morally sinless or pure. It means
that God has radically changed our legal standing before His law. Thus
justify means “to declare righteous,” not “to make righteous” (see Psa.
51:4). The statement in Rom. 5:19 that through Christ’s obedience “shall
many be made righteous” uses the verb kathistemi, which means,
“appoint, constitute.” It describes the place we occupy, not a
purification of our nature.
4. It is a just act, for it proceeds
on the ground of the imputed righteousness of Christ (Rom. 5:19). This
text makes it clear that the righteousness of Christ’s obedience in life
and death is imputed as the ground of justification. Christ is the
righteousness of the justified (1 Cor. 1:30; Jer. 23:6). This answers
the objection that unless justification is an actual infusion of grace
and moral purity, God would be lying to declare any man righteous. Paul
states bluntly that God “justifieth the ungodly” (Rom. 5:5), not the
godly, the sanctified. How can the God of truth declare the ungodly
righteous? By crediting all the perfect righteousness of Christ to their
account (see Imputation).
5. It is a once-and-for-all act. It can neither be reversed nor repeated (Heb. 10:2; Rom. 8:30).
6. It is equally complete in all the justified. It cannot be increased
or decreased (Rom. 5:19; 1 Cor. 1:30). All Christians are not equally
mature, or holy. But all believers are equally “justified from all
things” (Acts 13:39). They all have the same basis for their acceptance
by God, the righteousness of Christ.
7. It invariably leads to
glorification. No justified person can perish: “whom he justified, them
he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).
8. It is received by faith
without works (Rom. 3:20–22; 4:1–8, 24; 5:1; Gal. 3:5–12; see Sola
Fide). Some imagine that James contradicts this in James 2:18–26,
notably in verse 24, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified,
and not by faith only.”
There is no discrepancy between Paul and
James. There is a difference of emphasis in response to the particular
form of opposition each apostle was combatting. Paul was opposing the
legalist who taught justification by works. James was opposing the
antinomian (see Antinomianism) whose profession of justifying faith was
united to a life of blatant ungodliness. Paul teaches that we are
justified by faith as the sole instrument of reception, excluding works
or any mixture of faith and works. James teaches that the faith that
justifies is never alone. It is a living faith and therefore will
express itself in good works. Good works are the evidence of the reality
of justifying faith, not a substitute for it, a preparation for it, or
an addition to it. Buchanan in his Justification, terms justification
according to Paul actual justification, and justification according to
James declarative justification.
Confusion about Justification
The doctrine of justification lies at the very heart of all biblical
soteriology. Yet prior to the Reformation, confusion reigned on the
meaning of the term. Even in very early times, the legal aspect of
justification so clearly set forth in the NT was overlooked with the
result that it was common for justification to be confused with
regeneration or sanctification.
Justification Confused with
Regeneration. Thomas Aquinas set the standard for medieval views on the
subject. He taught that the first element in justification was the
infusion of grace, on the ground of which the second element, pardon for
sins, was given. Thus, the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification in
baptism was laid down. As Aquinas’ doctrine was developed, Rome came to
assert more and more blatantly that the justification received in
baptism could be increased or lost by human activity. This laid the
ground for the Tridentine decree that justification depends at least in
part upon personal merit.
Justification Confused with
Sanctification. Confounding justification and sanctification led to the
error of viewing justification as a process (e.g. , Canons and Decrees
of the Council of Trent, chap. 16, canon 24). This characteristic error
of Romanism has found acceptance in many other quarters. Many early
Anabaptists espoused it. To this day, it is the mark of all false
gospels to equate justification with sanctification as the basis of a
doctrine of salvation by works.
Distinctions Between Justification and Sanctification
Scripture carefully marks the difference between justification and sanctification. Berkhof notes:
“1. Justification removes the guilt of sin and restores the sinner to
all the filial rights involved in his state as a child of God, including
eternal inheritance. Sanctification removes the pollution of sin and
renews the sinner ever increasingly in conformity with the image of God.
“2. Justification takes place outside of the sinner in the tribunal of
God, and does not change his inner life, though the sentence is brought
home to him subjectively. Sanctification on the other hand, takes place
in the inner life of man and gradually affects his whole being.
“3. Justification takes place once for all. It is not repeated, neither
is it a process; it is complete at once and for all time. There is no
more or less in justification, man is either fully justified, or he is
not justified at all. In distinction from it, sanctification is a
continuous process, which is never completed in this life.
“4.
While the meritorious cause of both lies in the merits of Christ, there
is a difference in the efficient cause. Speaking economically, God the
Father declares the sinner righteous, and God the Holy Spirit sanctifies
him” (Systematic Theology, pp. 513, 514).
Justification the Same for OT and NT Believers
This justification is in all respects the same for believers under both
the Old and New Testaments (Gal. 3:9, 13, 14; Rom. 4:1–6, 16). Abraham
was justified on the very same ground and in the very same way as
believers in the NT . We are “blessed with faithful Abraham.” He is the
“father of all them that believe” (Rom. 4:11). David rejoiced in the
very same justification we enjoy (Ps. 32:1, 2; Rom. 4:6). The only
righteousness that ever gave any man a title to heaven is the
righteousness of Christ freely imputed to him and received by faith
alone.
Conclusion
Luther’s insight was accurate when he
declared the biblical doctrine of justification to be articulus
ecclesiae stantis aut cadentis, the article of faith that marks whether a
church is standing or falling. Paul realized its immense importance to
the entire gospel scheme and pronounced God’s curse on anyone, even an
angel from heaven, who preached any other gospel (Gal. 1:8, 9). This is
the gospel of which the apostle was “not ashamed … for it is the power
of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom. 1:16). (4)
Double Imputation by R. C. Sproul
“If any word was at the center of the firestorm of the Reformation
controversy and remains central to the debate even in our day, it is
imputation. …We cannot really understand what the Reformation was about
without understanding the central importance of this concept.”
“…If any statement summarizes and capture the essence of the Reformation
view, it is Luther’s famous Latin formula ‘simul justus et peccator.’
‘Simil’ is the word from which we get the English ‘simultaneous;’ it
means ‘at the same time.’ ‘Justus’ is the Latin word for ‘just’ or
‘righteous.’ ‘Et’ simply means ‘and.’ ‘Peccator’ means ‘sinner.’ So,
with this formula, – ‘at the same time just and sinner’ – Luther was
saying that in our justification, we are at the same time righteous and
sinful. …He was saying that, in one sense, we are just. In another
sense, we are sinners. In and of ourselves, under God’s scrutiny, we
still have sin. But by God’s imputation of the righteousness of Jesus
Christ to our accounts, we are considered just.”
“This is the
very heart of the gospel. In order to get into heaven, will I be judged
by my righteousness or by the righteousness of Christ? If I have to
trust in my righteousness to get into heaven, I must completely and
utterly despair of any possibility of ever being redeemed. But when we
see that the righteousness that is ours by faith is the perfect
righteousness of Christ, we see how glorious is the good news of the
gospel. The good news is simply this: I can be reconciled to God. I
can be justified, not on the basis of what I do, but on the basis of
what has been accomplished for me by Christ.”
“Of course,
Protestantism really teaches a double imputation. Our sin is imputed to
Jesus and his righteousness is imputed to us. In this twofold
transaction, we see that God does not compromise his integrity in
providing salvation for his people. Rather, he punishes sin fully after
it has been imputed to Jesus. This is why he is able to be both ‘just
and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ as Paul writes in
Romans 3:26. So my sin goes to Jesus and his righteousness comes to me.”
“This is a truth worth dividing the church.”
“This is the article on which the church stands or falls, because it is the article on which we all stand or fall.” (5)
From the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 11, Of Justification:
I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by
infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by
accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing
wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by
imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical
obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience
and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him
and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of
themselves, it is the gift of God.
In conclusion:
In
further reflection upon biblical justification, it involves
understanding the Hebrew verb tsayke, which both the Greek word dikaioun
and the Latin justificare refer, and is used in Scripture when dealing
with passages on forensic or declared judicial righteousness. The Hebrew
verb is forensic and means to absolve someone in a trial, or to hold or
to declare just, as opposed to the verb to condemn and to incriminate.
See Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 25:1; Job 9:3; Psalms 143:2; Proverbs
17:15; Luke 18:14, Romans 4:3-5; and Acts 13:39. The Scriptures are
unmistakable in establishing our justification because of how Christ
bore the wrath of God for us (see Romans 4:1-7). Justification does not
happen repeatedly. Christ has died once for all of our sins (not just
some), and the Father on our behalf accepted His death as our
substitute. It is a finished fact!
“Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Romans, p.2094.
2. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Romans, 9
Volumes, Romans, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 84.
4. Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms, (Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International), pp. 201-204.
5. R. C. Sproul, Excerpt from Are We Together? A Protestant
Analyzes Roman Catholicism (Sanford: Reformation Trust, 2012), 43-4.
“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: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
In this study, we will seek to understand anthropomorphisms and
theophanies. What are they? How to avoid pitfalls in the interpretation
of the Scriptures when anthropomorphism and theophanies are encountered
in the Bible. As in previous studies, we will look at definitions,
scriptures, commentary evidence and confessional support for the
glorifying of God in how we live.
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
Definitions from two sources:
Anthropomorphism:
Narrowly, the attribution of human form to God. More broadly, a
description of God using human categories; language that speaks of God
in human terms, ascribing human features and qualities to him. *
Anthropomorphism:
God relates to us in human terms. Anthropomorphism comes from two Greek
words: anthropos (man) and morphe (form). Therefore, an
anthropomorphism is when God appears to us or manifests Himself to us in
human form or even attributes to Himself human characteristics. **
Theophany:
A theophany is a visible manifestation of God usually restricted to the
Old Testament. God has appeared in dreams (Genesis 20:3-7; Genesis
28:12-17), visions (Genesis 15:1-21; Isaiah 6:1-13), as an angel
(Genesis 16:7-13; Gen 18:1-33), etc.
There is a manifestation
known as the Angel of the Lord (Judges 6:20f.) and seems to have
characteristics of God Himself (Genesis 16:7-9; Gen 18:1-2; Exodus
3:2-6; Joshua 5:14; Judges 2:1-5; Jdg 6:11). Such characteristics as
having the name of God, being worshiped, and recognized as God has led
many scholars to conclude that the angel of the Lord is really Jesus
manifested in the Old Testament. This does not mean that Jesus is an
angel. The word “angel” means messenger.
Other scriptures that
describe more vivid manifestations of God are Genesis 17:1; Gen 18:1;
Exodus 6:2-3; Exo 24:9-11; Exo 33:20; Numbers 12:6-8; Acts 7:2. **
What is a theophany?
A theophany is a manifestation of God in the Bible that is tangible to
the human senses. In its most restrictive sense, it is a visible
appearance of God in the Old Testament period, often, but not always, in
human form. ***
Scriptural examples of Anthropomorphisms:
Does God have hands?
“And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth
mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among
them.” (Exodus 7:5)
Does God have a face?
“And the soul
that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to
go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and
will cut him off from among his people.” (Leviticus 20:6)
Does God have feet?
“My foot hath held his steps, his way have I kept, and not declined.” (Job 23:11)
Does God have eyes and ears?
“The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry.” (Psalm 34:15)
Is God a bird?
“He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou
trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.” (Psalm 91:4)
Is Jesus a door?
“I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” (John 10:9)
Properly understanding anthropomorphic passages are important to avoid
errors in interpretation. A large Utah based religion interprets these
passages literally to teach that God exists in a corporeal and human
form. They would say God has feet, ears, eye, and hands and has a white
beard.
We see in Scripture something altogether different. For example, God says he is not a man:
“God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he
should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken,
and shall he not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19)
“I will not
execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy
Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee:
and I will not enter into the city.” (Hosea11:9)
In response to
these passages, the Utah based religion would say, “Yes it is true that
God is not a man, although he looks like a man.”
This response would be countered with what the Bible says in the next two verses:
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)
“Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see;
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:39)
Comments:
Not only is God not a man, “God is a Spirit.” Negatively, God says he
is not (a man) and positively, He says what He is (a Spirit)!
From the Pulpit Commentary on John 4:24:
Verse 24. – A still more explicit and comprehensive reason is given for
the previous assertion, based on the essential nature of God himself in
the fullness of his eternal Being. God is Spirit (Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός; cf.
John 1:1, Θεὸς η΅ν ὁ Λόγος, – the article indicates the subject, and the
predicate is here generic, and not an indefinite; therefore we do not
render it, “God is a Spirit”). The most comprehensive and far-reaching
metaphor or method by which Jesus endeavoured to portray the fundamental
essence of the Divine Being is “Spirit,” not body, not ὕλη, not κόσμος,
but that deep inner verity presented in self-conscious ego; the
substantia of which mind may be predicated, and all its states and
faculties. The Father is Spirit, the Son is Spirit, and Spirit is the
unity of the Father and the Son. St. John has recorded elsewhere that
“God is Light,” and “God is Love.” These three Divine utterances are the
sublimest ever formed to express the metaphysical, intellectual, and
moral essence of the Deity. They are unfathomably deep, and quite
inexhaustible in their suggestions, and yet they are not too profound
for even a little child or a poor Samaritaness to grasp for practical
purposes. If God be Spirit, then they who worship him, the Spirit, must
by the nature of the case, must by the force of a Divine arrangement,
worship him, if they worship him at all, in spirit and in truth. The
truth which our Lord uttered was not unknown in the Old Testament. (1)
Spirit – From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:
Spirit
[1, G4151, pneuma]
primarily denotes the wind (akin to pneo, “to breathe, blow”); also
“breath;” then, especially “the spirit,” which, like the wind, is
invisible, immaterial and powerful. The NT uses of the word may be
analyzed approximately as follows:
(a) the wind, John 3:8 (where marg. is, perhaps, to be preferred); Hebrews 1:7; cp. Amos 4:13, Sept.;
(c) the immaterial, invisible part of man, Luke 8:55; Acts 7:59; 1 Corinthians 5:5; James 2:26; cp. Ecclesiastes 12:7, Sept.;
(d) the disembodied (or ‘unclothed,’ or ‘naked,’ 2 Corinthians 5:3-4) man, Luke 24:37, Luke 24:39; Hebrews 12:23; 1 Peter 4:6;
(e) the resurrection body, 1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 3:18;
(f) the sentient element in man, that by which he perceives, reflects,
feels, desires, Matthew 5:3; Matthew 26:41; Mark 2:8; Luke 1:47, Luke
1:80; Acts 17:16; Acts 20:22; 1 Corinthians 2:11; 1 Corinthians 5:3-4; 1
Corinthians 14:4, 1 Corinthians 14:15; 2 Corinthians 7:1; cp. Genesis
26:35; Isaiah 26:9; Ezekiel 13:3; Daniel 7:15;
(h) the equivalent of the
personal pronoun, used for emphasis and effect: 1st person, 1
Corinthians 16:18; cp. Genesis 6:3; 2nd person, 2 Timothy 4:22; Philemon
1:25; cp. Psalms 139:7; 3rd person, 2 Corinthians 7:13; cp. Isaiah
40:13;
(i) character, Luke 1:17; Romans 1:4; cp. Numbers 14:24;
(j) moral qualities and activities: bad, as of bondage, as of a slave,
Romans 8:15; cp. Isaiah 61:3; stupor, Romans 11:8; cp. Isaiah 29:10;
timidity, 2 Timothy 1:7; cp. Joshua 5:1; good, as of adoption, i.e.,
liberty as of a son, Romans 8:15; cp. Psalms 51:12; meekness, 1
Corinthians 4:21; cp. Proverbs 16:19; faith, 2 Corinthians 4:13;
quietness, 1 Peter 3:4; cp. Proverbs 14:29
(k) the Holy Spirit, e.g., Matthew 4:1 (See below); Luke 4:18;
(l) ‘the inward man’ (an expression used only of the believer, Romans
7:22; 2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16); the new life, Romans
8:4-Romans 8:6, Romans 8:10, Romans 8:16; Hebrews 12:9; cp. Psalms
51:10;
(m) unclean spirits, demons, Matthew 8:16; Luke 4:33; 1 Peter 3:19; cp. 1 Samuel 18:10;
(n) angels, Hebrews 1:14; cp. Acts 12:15;
(o) divine gift for service, 1 Corinthians 14:12, 1 Corinthians 14:32;
(p) by metonymy, those who claim to be depostories of these gifts, 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 1 John 4:1-3;
(q) the significance, as contrasted with the form, of words, or of a
rite, John 6:63; Romans 2:29; Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6;
(r) a
vision, Revelation 1:10; Revelation 4:2; Revelation 17:3; Revelation
21:10.” * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp 204,205.]
(2)
See below in the for more study # area for a biblical and philosophical examination of does God have a body.
Anthropomorphisms from Nave’s Topical Bible:
(Figures of speech, which attribute human forms, acts, and affections to God)
In addition to the anthropomorphic passages, there are occurrences of
where God has revealed himself in human form. How do we explain this and
what does this mean? These appearances are called theophanies. This is a
new term. It is similar to an anthropomorphism.
Theophany from the Dictionary of Bible Themes:
1454 theophany
A temporary visible manifestation of the presence and glory of God.
This may be in natural phenomena such as cloud or fire, in human form or
in prophetic visionary experience.
God is manifested in nature
God’s presence in storms, thunder and lightning Ps 18:7-15; Ex 19:16
See also Ex 20:18; Job 37:5; Ps 29:3-9; Ps 77:18; Ps 97:4; Isa 30:27-33;
Am 1:2; Hab 3:11; Zec 9:14; Rev 11:19
God’s presence in volcanic phenomena Ex 19:18 See also Isa 30:33
God’s presence in earthquakes Isa 29:5-6 See also Jdg 5:4-5; Ps 77:18; Hab 3:6
Specific phenomena associated with the presence of God
Fire signifies God’s presence Ex 3:2 Fire in particular represents the
purity, holiness and unapproachability of God. See also Ex 13:21; Ex
19:18; Ex 24:17; Lev 9:24; Nu 14:14; Dt 4:11-12; Dt 5:4,22-26; Jdg
13:20-22; Ps 97:3; Joel 2:30
Smoke signifies God’s presence Ex 19:18 See also Ex 20:18; Ps 144:5; Isa 6:4; Isa 30:27; Joel 2:30; Rev 15:8
Cloud signifies God’s presence Ex 16:10 Cloud and smoke convey the
mystery and transcendence of God. See also Ex 13:21 God speaks to Moses
from the cloud: Ex 19:9; Ex 24:15-16; Ex 33:9; Ex 34:5; Dt 31:15
Lev 16:2; Nu 9:15-22; Nu 14:14; 1Ki 8:10-11; Eze 1:4; Eze 10:3-4 The
transfiguration of Jesus Christ: Mt 17:5 pp Mk 9:7 pp Lk 9:34-35
Rev 14:14-16
God is manifested in human or angelic form
Ge 16:7-13 See also Ge 18:1-22; Ge 32:24-30; Jos 5:13-15
God appears in prophetic visions
God appears on a throne Isa 6:1 John interprets this verse to refer to
Jesus Christ (Jn 12:41). See also Eze 1:26; Eze 10:1; Da 7:9; Rev 4:2;
Rev 20:11
God appears attended by angels and other heavenly beings Isa 6:2; Eze 1:5-18; Eze 10:9-13; Rev 4:6-11
God appears like, or with, precious stones Ex 24:10; Eze 1:26; Rev 4:3
Functions and effects of theophanies
Theophanies reveal God’s glory Eze 10:4 See also Ex 16:10; Ex 24:16; Ex
40:34-35; Lev 9:23-24; Nu 14:10; 1Ki 8:11; 2Ch 7:1-3; Ps 29:3,9; Ps
97:2-6; Eze 11:22-23
Theophanies bring judgment Isa 30:27 See also Nu 12:9-10; Ps 18:13-15
Theophanies arouse the fear of God Ex 19:16; Ex 20:18-20; Isa 6:5
Theophanies commission God’s servants Isa 6:8; Eze 1:28-2:1
Theophanies authenticate God’s servants Nu 12:5-8
See also
1045 God, glory of
1065 God, holiness of
1310 God as judge
1403 God, revelation
1469 visions
2595 incarnation
4060 nature
4140 angel of the Lord
4180 seraphim
4805 clouds
4826 fire
4851 storm
“And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give
this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared
unto him. And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of
Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west and Hai on the
east: and there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the
name of the Lord. And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the south.”
(Genesis 12:7-9)
There are other examples of theophanies in Genesis 18:1-33 and Genesis 32:22-30. (4)
Comments in conclusion:
The Bible uses many literary forms. For example, it uses genera’s such
as law, historical narrative, wisdom, poetical, gospel, didactic
letters, or epistles, predictive, and apocalyptic literature. When
reading poetical portions of Scripture, you should recognize the
difference from the didactic letters of Paul.
For example when you read:
“He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou
trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler” (Psalm 91:4).
In Psalm 91:4, you must understand the genera of literature as poetical and not interpret it literally. Whereas in contrast:
“Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more
shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God” (Romans 5:9 ESV).
This passage in Romans is straightforward doctrinal teaching and every reason to take the passage literally.
Hermeneutical safeguards
Grammatico-Historical-Hermeneutical Method:
What is the Grammatico-Historical-Hermeneutical Method? This method of
interpretation focuses attention not only on literary forms but also
upon grammatical constructions and historical contexts from which the
Scriptures were written. It is the literal school of interpretation.
Knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and history is crucial to this process. With
tools such as a Strong’s Concordance, any layman can utilize this
method.
Exegesis, the interpretive norm:
Exegesis (from
the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι’ to lead out’) is a critical
explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text.
Traditionally the term is used for exegesis of the Bible; however, in
contemporary usage, it has broadened to mean a critical explanation of
any text. The goal of biblical exegesis is to explore the meaning of the
text, which then leads to discovering its significance or relevance.
Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual
criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text,
but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural
backgrounds for the author, the text and the original audience. Other
analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present
in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in
the text itself.
Eisegesis, the interpretive danger:
Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς “into” and ending from exegesis from
ἐξηγεῖσθαι “to lead out”) is the process of misinterpreting a text in
such a way that it introduces one’s own ideas, reading into the text.
This is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis
draws out the meaning of the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads
his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be
objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as
highly subjective. An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an
eisegete, as someone who practices exegesis is known as an exegete.
Understanding the Bible is not that hard; The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike
clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16); yet those things which are necessary to be
known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded,
and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the
learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may
attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Ps. 119:105, 130).
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary,
John, Vol. 17, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company
reprint 1978), p.169-170.
2. W. E. Vine, An Expository
Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and
Bible House), p. 1075-1076.
3. Nave, Orville J. Nave’s Topical Bible “Entry for ‘Anthropomorphisms,’” Kindle p. 1799.
4. Martin H. Manser, Editor, Dictionary of Bible Themes, Kindle p. 6517.
5. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Unabridged, 1Volume, (Stief Books, 2017), p. 10-11.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report
and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO,
RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the
Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a
Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
A biblical and philosophical examination of does God have a body. #
From the Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas Question 3. The simplicity of God:
Article 1. Whether God is a body?
Objection 1. It seems that God is a body. For a body is that which has
the three dimensions. But Holy Scripture attributes the three dimensions
to God, for it is written: “He is higher than Heaven, and what wilt
thou do? He is deeper than Hell, and how wilt thou know? The measure of
Him is longer than the earth and broader than the sea” (Job 11:8-9).
Therefore God is a body.
Objection 2. Further, everything that
has figure is a body, since figure is a quality of quantity. But God
seems to have figure, for it is written: “Let us make man to our image
and likeness” (Genesis 1:26). Now a figure is called an image, according
to the text: “Who being the brightness of His glory and the figure,”
i.e. the image, “of His substance” (Hebrews 1:3). Therefore God is a
body.
Objection 3. Further, whatever has corporeal parts is a
body. Now Scripture attributes corporeal parts to God. “Hast thou an arm
like God?” (Job 40:4); and “The eyes of the Lord are upon the just”
(Psalm 33:16); and “The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength”
(Psalm 117:16). Therefore God is a body.
Objection 4. Further,
posture belongs only to bodies. But something which supposes posture is
said of God in the Scriptures: “I saw the Lord sitting” (Isaiah 6:1),
and “He standeth up to judge” (Isaiah 3:13). Therefore God is a body.
Objection 5. Further, only bodies or things corporeal can be a local
term “wherefrom” or “whereto.” But in the Scriptures God is spoken of as
a local term “whereto,” according to the words, “Come ye to Him and be
enlightened” (Psalm 33:6), and as a term “wherefrom”: “All they that
depart from Thee shall be written in the earth” (Jeremiah 17:13).
Therefore God is a body.
On the contrary, It is written in the Gospel of St. John (John 4:24): “God is a spirit.”
I answer that, It is absolutely true that God is not a body; and this can be shown in three ways.
First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is
evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (I:2:3), that God
is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that
God is not a body.
Secondly, because the first being must of
necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality. For although in any
single thing that passes from potentiality to actuality, the
potentiality is prior in time to the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely
speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality; for whatever is in
potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in
actuality. Now it has been already proved that God is the First Being.
It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality.
But every body is in potentiality because the continuous, as such, is
divisible to infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a
body.
Thirdly, because God is the most noble of beings. Now it is
impossible for a body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must
be either animate or inanimate; and an animate body is manifestly nobler
than any inanimate body. But an animate body is not animate precisely
as body; otherwise all bodies would be animate. Therefore its animation
depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation on
the soul. Hence that by which a body becomes animated must be nobler
than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a body.
Reply to Objection 1. As we have said above (I:1:9), Holy Writ puts
before us spiritual and divine things under the comparison of corporeal
things. Hence, when it attributes to God the three dimensions under the
comparison of corporeal quantity, it implies His virtual quantity; thus,
by depth, it signifies His power of knowing hidden things; by height,
the transcendence of His excelling power; by length, the duration of His
existence; by breadth, His act of love for all. Or, as says Dionysius
(Div. Nom. ix), by the depth of God is meant the incomprehensibility of
His essence; by length, the procession of His all-pervading power; by
breadth, His overspreading all things, inasmuch as all things lie under
His protection.
Reply to Objection 2. Man is said to be after the
image of God, not as regards his body, but as regards that whereby he
excels other animals. Hence, when it is said, “Let us make man to our
image and likeness”, it is added, “And let him have dominion over the
fishes of the sea” (Genesis 1:26). Now man excels all animals by his
reason and intelligence; hence it is according to his intelligence and
reason, which are incorporeal, that man is said to be according to the
image of God.
Reply to Objection 3. Corporeal parts are
attributed to God in Scripture on account of His actions, and this is
owing to a certain parallel. For instance the act of the eye is to see;
hence the eye attributed to God signifies His power of seeing
intellectually, not sensibly; and so on with the other parts.
Reply to Objection 4. Whatever pertains to posture, also, is only
attributed to God by some sort of parallel. He is spoken of as sitting,
on account of His unchangeableness and dominion; and as standing, on
account of His power of overcoming whatever withstands Him.
Reply
to Objection 5. We draw near to God by no corporeal steps, since He is
everywhere, but by the affections of our soul, and by the actions of
that same soul do we withdraw from Him; thus, to draw near to or to
withdraw signifies merely spiritual actions based on the metaphor of
local motion.
Article 2. Whether God is composed of matter and form?
Objection 1. It seems that God is composed of matter and form. For
whatever has a soul is composed of matter and form; since the soul is
the form of the body. But Scripture attributes a soul to God; for it is
mentioned in Hebrews (Hebrews 10:38), where God says: “But My just man
liveth by faith; but if he withdraw himself, he shall not please My
soul.” Therefore God is composed of matter and form.
Objection 2.
Further, anger, joy and the like are passions of the composite. But
these are attributed to God in Scripture: “The Lord was exceeding angry
with His people” (Psalm 105:40). Therefore God is composed of matter and
form.
Objection 3. Further, matter is the principle of
individualization. But God seems to be individual, for He cannot be
predicated of many. Therefore He is composed of matter and form.
On the contrary, Whatever is composed of matter and form is a body; for
dimensive quantity is the first property of matter. But God is not a
body as proved in the preceding Article; therefore He is not composed of
matter and form.
I answer that, It is impossible that matter should exist in God.
First, because matter is in potentiality. But we have shown (I:2:3)
that God is pure act, without any potentiality. Hence it is impossible
that God should be composed of matter and form.
Secondly, because
everything composed of matter and form owes its perfection and goodness
to its form; therefore its goodness is participated, inasmuch as matter
participates the form. Now the first good and the best—viz. God—is not a
participated good, because the essential good is prior to the
participated good. Hence it is impossible that God should be composed of
matter and form.
Thirdly, because every agent acts by its form;
hence the manner in which it has its form is the manner in which it is
an agent. Therefore whatever is primarily and essentially an agent must
be primarily and essentially form. Now God is the first agent, since He
is the first efficient cause. He is therefore of His essence a form; and
not composed of matter and form.
Reply to Objection 1. A soul is
attributed to God because His acts resemble the acts of a soul; for,
that we will anything, is due to our soul. Hence what is pleasing to His
will is said to be pleasing to His soul.
Reply to Objection 2.
Anger and the like are attributed to God on account of a similitude of
effect. Thus, because to punish is properly the act of an angry man,
God’s punishment is metaphorically spoken of as His anger.
Reply
to Objection 3. Forms which can be received in matter are individualized
by matter, which cannot be in another as in a subject since it is the
first underlying subject; although form of itself, unless something else
prevents it, can be received by many. But that form which cannot be
received in matter, but is self-subsisting, is individualized precisely
because it cannot be received in a subject; and such a form is God.
Hence it does not follow that matter exists in God. (5)
Polytheism and philosophical absurdities By Jack Kettler
In this study, we will seek to understand polytheism. First, is it
biblical? Second, is it a coherent metaphysical philosophy? As in
previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, commentary
evidence and confessional support for the glorifying of God in how we
live.
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
Definitions from two sources:
Polytheism:
Polytheism is the belief that there are many gods. Breaking the word
down, “poly” comes from the Greek word for “many,” and “theism” from the
Greek word for “God.” Polytheism has perhaps been the dominant theistic
view in human history. The best-known example of polytheism in ancient
times is Greek/Roman mythology (Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Poseidon,
etc.). The clearest modern example of polytheism is Hinduism, which has
over 300 million gods. Although Hinduism is, in essence, pantheistic, it
does hold to beliefs in many gods. It is interesting to note that even
in polytheistic religions; one god usually reigns supreme over the other
gods, e.g., Zeus in Greek/Roman mythology and Brahman in Hinduism. *
Polytheism:
The teaching that there are many gods. In the Ancient Near East, the
nation of Israel was faced with the problem of the gods of other nations
creeping into the theology of Judaism and corrupting the true
revelation of God. Baal was the god of rain and exercised a powerful
influence over the religion of many pagan cultures and even into the
Jewish community. This is so because rain was essential to survival.
Rain meant the crops would grow, the animals would have water, and the
people would be able to eat. If there was no rain, death prevailed. Such
visible realities as rain, drought, crops, and death often carried the
spiritual character of the nation of Israel into spiritual adultery:
worshiping other gods. The Bible does recognize the existence of other
gods, but only as false. **
In contrast, Monotheism:
The
belief that there is only one God in all places at all times. There were
none before God and there will be none after Him. Monotheism is the
teaching of the Bible. **
Scripture teaching against polytheism:
“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill
and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver
out of my hand.” (Deuteronomy 32:39 ESV)
“For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.” (Psalm 96:5)
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
From the Pulpit Commentary on Deuteronomy 6:4:
Verses 4-25. – THE FIRST AND GREAT COMMANDMENT. “In the fear of Jehovah
all true obedience is rooted (vers. 2, 3); for this is the first and
most intimate fact in the relation of Israel and Jehovah (Deuteronomy
5:26). But where the supreme fear of Jehovah hinders men from allowing
self to preponderate in opposition to God, there will be no stopping at
this renunciation of self-will, though this comes first as the negative
form of the ten commandments also shows, but there will come to be a
coalescence of the human with the Divine will; and this is love, which
is the proper condition of obedience, as the ten commandments also
indicate (Deuteronomy 5:10)” (Baumgarten). Verse 4. – Hear, O Israel:
The Lord our God is one Lord. This is an affirmation not so much of the
moneity as of the unity and simplicity of Jehovah, the alone God. Though
Elohim (plu.), he is one. The speaker does not say, “Jehovah is alone
God,” but “Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah” (comp. for the force of
אֶחָד, Exodus 26:6, 11; Ezekiel 37:16-19). Among the heathen there were
many Baals and many Jupiters; and it was believed that the deity might
be divided and communicated to many. But the God of Israel, Jehovah, is
one, indivisible and incommunicable. He is the Absolute and the Infinite
One, who alone is to be worshipped, on whom all depend, and to whose
command all must yield obedience (cf. Zechariah 14:9). Not only to
polytheism, but to pantheism, and to the conception of a localized or
national deity, is this declaration of the unity of Jehovah opposed.
With these words the Jews begin their daily liturgy, morning and
evening; the sentence expresses the essence of their religious belief;
and so familiar is it to their thought and speech that, it is said, they
were often, during the persecution in Spain, betrayed to their enemies
by the involuntary utterance of it. (1)
Comments:
Sh’ma
Israel Yehovah Eloheinu Yehovah Echad. These words can be translated
into English as, “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah [Yhvh], our God [Elohim], is
one [echad] Jehovah [Yhvh].”
“I am he: before me there was no God
formed. Neither shall there be after me, I, even I, am LORD, and beside
me there is no Saviour.” (Isaiah 43:10)
“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:6)
From Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on Isaiah 44:6:
And I am the last – In Isaiah 41:4, this is expressed ‘with the last;’
in Revelation 1:8, ‘I am Alpha and Omega.’ The sense is, that God
existed before all things, and will exist forever.
And besides me
there is no God – This is repeatedly declared (Deuteronomy 4:35,
Deuteronomy 4:39; see the note at Isaiah 43:10-12). This great truth it
was God’s purpose to keep steadily before the minds of the Jews; and to
keep it in the world, and ultimately to diffuse it abroad among the
nations, was one of the leading reasons why he selected them as a
special people, and separated them from the rest of mankind. (2)
“Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any?” (Isaiah 44:8)
“And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth:
for there is one God; and there is none other but he.” (Mark 12:32)
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in
sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and
that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are
called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and
lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by him.” (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers says this about 1 Corinthians 8:5 regarding “gods many”:
(5) For though there be. . . .—This is an hypothetic argument. “Be” is
the emphatic word of the supposition. Even assuming that there do exist
those beings which are called “gods” (we have a right to make such a
supposition, for Deuteronomy 10:17, Psalm 105:2-3, speaks of “gods and
lords” of another kind), the difference between the heathen, “gods many”
and the “lords and gods” of whom the Old Testament speaks, is that the
former are deities, and the latter only a casual way of speaking of
angels and other spiritual subjects and servants of the one God. This is
brought out in the following verse. (3)
Comment:
1
Corinthians 8:5 is a favorite proof text in support of multiple gods by a
large Utah based religion. As seen, Ellicott’s comments refute this
idea.
“Who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god
or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God,
proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4 ESV)
Comment:
Paul explains in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 clarifies what he means in 1
Corinthians 8:5. The gods mentioned in Corinthians are false gods and
not gods at all.
The next passage from James has tremendous apologetic value in defense of monotheism.
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19)
Comments:
James says even the devils believe in one God. The devils are not
polytheists. What does this say about people advancing the idea of many
gods? The devils faith in one God is not saving faith, yet it is a true
confession much like the demons that would acknowledge Christ when he
cast them out of the possessed. See Luke 4:41. If you are advancing the
idea that other gods exist, woe is you, do you really want the devil’s
minions to be a witness against you?
Consider Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on James 2:19:
Thou believest that there is one God,…. These words are a
continuation of the address of the man that has works, to him that
boasts of his faith without them, observing to him, that one, and a main
article of his faith, is, that there is one God; which is to be
understood in the Christian sense, since both the person speaking, and
the person spoken to, were such as professed themselves Christians; so
that to believe there is one God, is not merely to give into this
article, in opposition to the polytheism of the Gentiles, or barely to
confess the God of Israel, as believed on by the Jews, but to believe
that there are three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, and that these
three are the one God; wherefore this article of faith includes
everything relating to God; as to God the Father, his being and
perfections, so to Christ, as God, and the Son of God, and the Messiah,
&c. and to the Holy Spirit; and to believe all this is right:
thou doest well; for that there is but one God, is to be proved by the
light of nature, and from the works of creation and providence, and has
been owned by the wisest of the Heathens themselves; and is established,
by divine revelation, in the books both of the Old and of the New
Testament; what has been received by the Jews, and is well known by
Christians, to whom it is set in the clearest light, and who are assured
of the truth of it: but then
the devils also believe; the Arabic
version reads, “the devils likewise so believe”; they believe the same
truth; they know and believe there is but one God, and not many; and
they know that the God of Israel is he; and that the Father, Son, and
Spirit, are the one God; they know and believe him to be the most high
God, whose servants the ministers of the Gospel are; and they know and
believe that Jesus is the Holy One of God, the Son of God, and the
Messiah, Acts 16:17.
And tremble; at the wrath of God, which they
now feel, and at the thought of future torments, which they expect,
Mark 5:7 and which is more than some men do; and yet these shall not be
saved, their damnation is certain and inevitable, 2 Peter 2:4 wherefore
it follows, that a bare historical faith will not profit, and cannot
save any; a man may have all faith of this kind, and be damned; and
therefore it is not to be boasted of, nor trusted to. (4)
Polytheism by systematic theologian Charles Hodge:
“As the word implies, Polytheism is the theory which assumes the
existence of many gods. Monotheism was the original religion of our
race. This is evident not only from the teachings of the Scriptures, but
also from the fact that the earliest historical form of religious
belief is monotheistic. There are monotheistic hymns in the Vedas, the
most ancient writings now extant, unless the Pentateuch be an exception.
The first departure from monotheism seems to have been nature worship.
As men lost the knowledge of God as creator, they were led to reverence
the physical elements with which they were in contact, whose power they
witnessed, and whose beneficent influence they constantly experienced.
Hence not only the sun, moon, and stars, the great representatives of
nature, but fire, air, and water, became the objects of popular worship.
We accordingly find that the Vedas consist largely of hymns addressed
to these natural elements.
These powers were personified, and
soon it came to be generally believed that a personal being presided
over each. And these imaginary beings were the objects of popular
worship.
While the mass of the people really believed in beings
that were “called gods” (1 Cor. 8:5), many of the more enlightened were
monotheists, and more were pantheists. The early introduction and wide
dissemination of pantheism are proved from the fact that it lies at the
foundation of Brahminism and Buddhism, the religions of the larger part
of the human race for thousands of years.
There can be little
doubt that when the Aryan tribes entered India, fifteen hundred or two
thousand years before Christ, pantheism was their established belief.
The unknown, and “unconditioned” infinite Being, reveals itself
according to the Hindu system, as Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva,—that is, as
Creator, Preserver, and Restorer. These were not persons, but modes of
manifestation. It was in this form that the idea of an endless process
of development of the infinite into the finite, and of the return of the
finite into the infinite, was expressed. It was from this pantheistic
principle that the endless polytheism of the Hindus naturally developed
itself; and this determined the character of their whole religion. As
all that is, is only a manifestation of God, everything remarkable, and
especially the appearance of any remarkable man, was regarded as an
“avatar,” or incarnation of God, in one or other of his modes of
manifestation, as Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva. And as evil is as actual as
good, the one is as much a manifestation, or, modus existendi, of the
infinite Being as the other. And hence there are evil gods as well as
good. In no part of the world has pantheism had such a field for
development as in India, and nowhere has it brought forth its legitimate
effects in such a portentous amount of evil. Nowhere has polytheism
been carried to such revolting extremes.
Among the Egyptians,
Greeks, and Romans polytheism assumed a form determined by the character
of the people. The Greeks rendered it bright, beautiful, and sensual;
the Romans were more decorous and sedate. Among barbarous nations it has
assumed forms much more simple, and in many cases more rational.
In the Bible the gods of the heathen are declared to be “vanity,” and
“nothing,” mere imaginary beings, without power either to hurt or to
save. (Jer. 2:28; Isa. 41:29; Isa. 13:17; Ps. 106:28.) They are also
represented as δαιμόνια (1 Cor. 10:20). This word may express either an
imaginary, or a real existence. The objects of heathen worship are
called gods, even when declared to be nonentities. So they may be called
“demons,” without intending to teach that they are “spirits.” As the
word, however, generally in the New Testament, does mean “evil spirits,”
it is perhaps better to take it in that sense when it refers to the
objects of heathen worship. This is not inconsistent with the doctrine
that the gods of the heathen are “vanities and lies.” They are not what
men take them to be. They have no divine power. Paul says of the heathen
before their conversion, “ἐδουλεύσατε το̂ις φυσει μή οὐ̂σι θεοι̂ς”
(Gal. 4:8). The prevalence and persistency of Polytheism show that it
must have a strong affinity with fallen human nature. Although, except
in pantheism, it has no philosophical basis, it constitutes a formidable
obstacle to the progress of true religion in the world.” (5)
Comments:
Polytheism not only includes the worship of other gods, it includes the
mere belief that multiple gods exist. Monotheism and polytheism are
irreconcilable.
Not only is polytheism unbiblical, its ethics and metaphysics lead to unanswerable absurdities:
1. Are the gods finite, infinite, corporeal or incorporeal?
2. Did the gods evolve? Have they always been?
3. Are they like men?
4. Are they like the Greek and Roman gods?
5. How do the gods communicate with men?
6. Are they omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent?
7. If the gods are not omniscient, are they surrounded by ultimate mystery and contingency?
8. Are all the gods associated with this planet?
9. Are the gods scattered throughout the cosmos and other planets?
10. Are there laws or a law structure in the universe?
11. If so, where did these laws come from?
12. Did the gods create these laws?
13. Is the law structure higher than the gods are?
14. If so, what are the implications?
15. Is the law structure god?
16. Do the gods ever get together and vote on what the standards for men should be or for their own standards?
17. Do they have some kind of debating forum?
18. If they are like men, how do they travel? A space ship?
19. Do the gods communicate with each other? If so, how? An intergalactic phone service?
20. How do the gods define things like good and evil?
21. Do the gods define it, or is a law structure above the gods the source for definitions?
22. Can concepts such as good and evil exist in raw matter? In other
words, do concepts like good and evil have to exist in a mind?
23. If concepts such as good and evil must exist in a mind, and many
gods exist in the universe, would not the definition of good and evil be
very subjective, since there are many minds?
24. Do all the gods in the universe interpret things in the same way?
25. How could you know?
26. If you pick a particular god to follow, how do you know that this god is interpreting ethical ideas properly?
27. How do you know evil is not good? Can the gods help explain this?
28. Will the gods ever defeat evil in the universe?
29. Why have not the gods defeated it yet?
30. Are there evil gods in the universe?
31. If so, could they destroy or defeat the good gods?
32. The terms evil and good are relative in a universe populated with multiple gods, since not all gods may agree.
33. Can the gods articulate a coherent theory of knowledge?
34. Are the gods’ empiricists, rationalists?
35. How do the gods solve the “one and many” problem?
36. Is a counsel of multiple authoritative infallible gods logically coherent? How so?
37. In the world of men, can anyone know anything with certainty about the gods?
38. Are promoters of polytheism engaging in speculation or pure guesswork when making any declaration about the gods?
39. Are assertions about the gods verified, empirically, rationally,
by a vote, just believe the assertions, a holy man from India knows,
listen to him or doing yoga (yoke with Brahmin) or mediate long enough
to learn the answers?
In closing:
In polytheistic systems,
there can be no certain standards. Ethics, logic and science would be
relative to the authority of each different god or a group of god’s
alliance. Polytheism cannot escape manifesting itself in multiple
contradictory definitions in regards to ultimate reality. In trying to
ascertain answers to the above questions, it is apparent that polytheism
is absurd and can say nothing with certainty in the area of science,
logic and ethics. Polytheism therefore is irrational.
In contrast, Christian Monotheism solves “The One and Many Problem”:
The “One and Many Problem” is another dilemma for polytheists. Is
reality ultimately one or many? If reality is ultimately one, this can
manifest itself as communism or a total state. If reality is ultimately
many, this can lead to political anarchy. Eastern polytheistic
philosophy contradictory comes down on the side of the many and at other
times the one manifesting itself as pantheistic monism. Polytheism has
never produced a system guaranteeing individual rights. Likewise,
Communism answered the question as noted in favor of the one or total
state and it likewise never produced any protection for property rights
or individual freedom.
The monotheistic Christian worldview, on
the other hand, has produced a balance of individual freedoms and a
basis for the state and church authority. This is accomplished because
of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian God is the ground and
explanation of all reality. God is one and yet more than one, with a
plurality of persons within the one God. Politically and religiously
this manifests itself by giving due authority to the state or church and
a proper place for individual rights and the basis for appealing abuses
of the state or church by the individual.
Why is the polytheist
unable to articulate a coherent theory of knowledge that can justify the
use of science, ethics and logic? The polytheist uses logic and talks
about ethics. They do so without justifying or demonstrating how their
worldview can account for these things. In other words, they beg the
question. In addition, mind you, when you point out this question
begging on their part, you will experience many ad hominem attacks,
which serve as a smoke screen to cover-up the bankruptcy of their
worldview. Moreover, the polytheist or any non-Christian steals from the
Christian worldview that can explain and justify the use of such things
to attack the Christian’s presuppositions. When informing the
polytheist of their theft, get ready for emotional responses or ad
hominem attacks.
Christians have a biblical foundation for
seeking knowledge and obtaining it. God-given revelation is objective.
Ungodly men reject biblical revelation; they suppress the truth that God
has revealed to them through creation (Romans 1:18). God has spoken in
the Scriptures, i.e., God’s special revelation to humanity concerning
what is required of them.
Greg L. Bahnsen explains the Christian’s worldview ability to talk intelligently like this:
In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian
apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the
impossibility of the contrary. When the perspective of God’s revelation
is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because
his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and
meaningful experience. To put it another way: the proof that
Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to
prove anything.
What the unbeliever needs is nothing less than a
radical change of mind – repentance (Acts 17:30). He needs to change his
fundamental worldview and submit to the revelation of God in order for
any knowledge or experience to make sense. He at the same time needs to
repent of his spiritual rebellion and sin against God. Because of the
condition of his heart, he cannot see the truth or know God in a saving
fashion. (6)
“Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary,
Deuteronomy, Vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing
Company reprint 1978), p.118.
2. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Isaiah, p.1049.
3. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, 1
Corinthians, vol. 2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 315.
4. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, James, 9
Volumes, Romans, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, pp. 39-40.
5. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing), p. 243-244.
6. Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready Directions for Defending the Faith, (Atlanta, Georgia, American Vision), p. 122.
“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: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
Cessationism of 1st Century χαρίσματα (charismata) revelatory sign gifts by Jack Kettler
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
In this study, we will look at the teaching known as cessationism and
along with some related relevant topics. What does cessationism mean?
Does God still give revelation via interpretation of tongues, prophecy
and revelatory words of knowledge? If so, are these gifts normative for
the entire church age? Are revelations conveyed from these gifts on the
same level as the Bible? What exactly are tongues mentioned in the
Bible? Is there an angelic language to be used in prayer? These are a
few of the questions we will seek biblical answers for in this study.
As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures,
lexical evidence, commentary evidence and confessional support for the
purpose to glorify God in how we live. Glorify God always!
Cessationism:
“The view that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (healing, tongues,
prophetic revelations) ended with the apostolic age, and that while God
still does do miracles, he does not gift individuals with the miraculous
spiritual gifts.” *
Cessationism:
“The position within
Christianity that the Charismatic Spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues,
word of knowledge, word of wisdom, interpretation of tongues, etc.)
ceased with the closing of the Canon of scripture and/or the death of
the last apostle.” **
From Scripture regarding the cessation of the revelatory gifts:
“Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall
fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be
knowledge, it shall vanish away.” For we know in part, and we prophesy
in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in
part shall be done away.” (1 Corinthians 13:8-10)
The passage
says that something that is “in part” shall be done away with when “that
which is perfect is come.” What is the apostle referring to when he
says that something perfect is coming?
Theologian Gordon H. Clark comments on this:
There is one phase, not so far mentioned: “When the completion comes,”
or “when that which is perfect comes.” This raises the question:
completion of what? It could be the completion of the canon. Miracles
and tongues were for the purpose of guaranteeing the divine origin of
apostolic doctrine. They cease when the revelation was completed. Even
the word knowledge is better understood this way. Instead of comparing
present-day extensive study of the New Testament with Justin’s [Martyr]
painfully inadequate understanding of the Atonement, it would be better
to take knowledge as the apostolic process of revealing new knowledge.
This was completed when revelation ceased. (1)
Clark is right on
track when connecting the coming perfection with the completion of the
Scriptures. The tongues and prophecy of the apostolic era confirmed and
bore witness to the truthfulness of the apostolic message. Nevertheless,
tongues, prophecy, and revelatory knowledge were lacking when compared
with the completed written Scripture. The written Scriptures are far
superior to spoken words. The written Scripture stands strong and cannot
be overthrown.
Dr. Leonard Coppes also has relevant comments regarding this passage of Scripture:
This is a clear statement that when the knowledge given through the
apostles and prophets is complete, tongues and prophecy shall cease.
Tongues, prophecy, and knowledge (gnosis) constitute partial, incomplete
stages. Some may stumble over the idea that “knowledge” represents a
partial and incomplete (revelational) stage. But is rightly remarked
that Paul distinguishes between sophia and gnosis in I Cor. 12:8 All
three terms (tongues, prophecy, knowledge) involve divine disclosure of
verbal revelation and all three on that basis alone ceased when the
foundation (i.e., the perfect) came (10). Verse 11 speaks of the partial
as childlike (cf., 14:20) and the perfect as manly (the apostolic is
“manly,” too, cf., 14:20). Paul reflecting on those who are limited to
these childlike things describes this limitation as seeing in a mirror
darkly (12). When the perfect (the apostolic depositum) is come, full
knowledge is present. (2)
Coppes, like Clark, connects the coming
perfection with the completion of the Scriptural canon. Both scholars
make compelling exegetical arguments for their interpretation of the
Corinthian passage. More will be seen in this study about the closing of
the Scriptural canon and its implications.
The next passage of
Scripture cited refers to warning of coming judgment upon the people of
Israel from the book of Isaiah cited by Paul in his letter to the
Corinthians and has relevance to the issue at hand regarding revelatory
gifts and their cessation. There are two reasons for tongues and the
other revelatory gifts.
Consider the first reason for tongues:
“In the law it is written, with men of other tongues and other lips
will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear
me, saith the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 14:22)
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:22:
22. Thus from Isaiah it appears, reasons Paul, that “tongues” (unknown
and uninterpreted) are not a sign mainly intended for believers (though
at the conversion of Cornelius and the Gentiles with him, tongues were
vouchsafed to him and them to confirm their faith), but mainly to be a
condemnation to those, the majority, who, like Israel in Isaiah’s day,
reject the sign and the accompanying message. Compare “yet … will they
not hear Me” (1Co 14:21). “Sign” is often used for a condemnatory sign
(Eze 4:3, 4; Mt 12:39-42). Since they will not understand, they shall
not understand.
prophesying … not for them that believe not, but …
believe—that is, prophesying has no effect on them that are radically
and obstinately like Israel (Isa 28:11, 12), unbelievers, but on them
that are either in receptivity or in fact believers; it makes believers
of those not willfully unbelievers (1Co 14:24, 25; Ro 10:17), and
spiritually nourishes those that already believe. (3)
The
commentators are correct to note that tongues were for non-believers, in
this case, national Israel. It is noteworthy that the commentators make
the connection with Isaiah 28:11-12.
The purpose of tongues in Isaiah 28:11-12 that the apostle Paul quotes in Corinthians:
“For with stammering lips and another tongue [the Assyrian language],
He will speak to this people, to whom He said, ‘This is the rest with
which you may cause the weary to rest,’ and, ‘this is the refreshing,’
yet they would not hear.” (Isaiah 28:11-12)
Digging Deeper:
Strong’s Concordance 3956
lashon: tongue
Original Word: לָשׁוֹן
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: lashon
Phonetic Spelling: (law-shone’)
Short Definition: tongue
Comments:
These words were spoken by the prophet to the people of Judah as a
declaration that they were about to be judged by God for their rebellion
by the Assyrian army. Moses also mentioned the presence of “unknown
tongues” in his prophecy concerning the destruction of the nation of
Israel. The passage also has real significance for national Israel’s
rejection of Christ and subsequent judgment by the Romans in 70AD. God
raised up a foreign army, which spoke an unintelligible or foreign
tongue to bring judgment upon His rebellious people.
Consider this earlier prophetic warning:
“The LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of
the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose [language] tongue
you will not understand.” (Deuteronomy 28:49)
Many of the modern translations use language instead of tongue. For example:
“The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end
of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language
[tongue]
you do not understand.” (Deuteronomy 28:49 ESV)
Comments:
This prophecy from Deuteronomy has fulfillment in regards to the Roman
invasion of Israel and destruction of the temple. The Deuteronomy
passage mentions “eagle.” This almost certainly refers to the emblem or
standard of the Roman army, the eagle. The passage probably has
significance to the earlier Assyrian and Babylonian judgments as well.
Tongues in the book of Acts did not just appear out of nowhere. The
understanding of tongues is rooted in Old Testament prophecy, namely,
Deuteronomy and Isaiah. The Greek word glossa has interpreted either
tongue or language.
The First purpose of tongues:
Tongues were a sign of judgment on the nation of Israel. The confusion
of tongues, at Babel and forward, has been a sign of judgment. When
Israel heard the tongues of the Assyrian invaders in the 8th Century
before Christ, it was a sign that judgment had come (Isaiah 28:11-12).
Paul quotes this verse in 1 Corinthians 14:22 in which he explains how
the New Testament gift of unintelligible languages (tongues) was a sign
to unbelieving Israel of impending judgment. It was the end of the Old
Covenant Age for Israel. When the judgment on Israel came in AD 70 with
the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the armies of Roman, the
nation was scattered, and the purpose of tongues foretold by Deuteronomy
and Isaiah was fulfilled.
The Second purpose of tongues:
The second purpose of tongues and their interpretation along with
prophecy and words of knowledge functioned to confirm the work of the
apostle’s words with power. These gifts were all revelatory or
revelations of God’s power and confirmation of His Will and Word.
The scriptural proof of this is seen in:
“And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with
them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” (Mark 16:20)
“God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with
divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own
will?” (Hebrews 2:4)
After the death of the apostles and the
closing of the canon of Scripture, the work of confirming the apostolic
message was no longer needed. The destruction of the temple and the
inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant people of God are also tied up
in the events of the end.
The Greek language helps in our understanding of tongues in the first century:
Digging deeper, Tongues from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:
Tongue (-s)
[A-1, Noun, G1100, glossa] is used of
(1) The tongues … like as of fire, which appeared at Pentecost;
(2) “The tongue,” as an organ of speech, e.g., Mark 7:33; Romans 3:13;
Romans 14:11; 1 Corinthians 14:9; Philippians 2:11; James 1:26; James
3:5-James 3:6, James 3:8; 1 Peter 3:10; 1 John 3:18; Revelation 16:10;
(3)
(a) “a language,” coupled with phule, “a tribe,” laos, “a people,”
ethnos, “a nation,” seven times in the Apocalypse, Revelation 5:9;
Revelation 7:9; Revelation 10:11; Revelation 11:9; Revelation 13:7;
Revelation 14:6; Revelation 17:15;
(b) “The supernatural gift of
speaking in another language without its having been learnt;” in Acts
2:4-Acts 2:13 the circumstances are recorded from the viewpoint of the
hearers; to those in whose language the utterances were made it appeared
as a supernatural phenomenon; to others, the stammering of drunkards;
what was uttered was not addressed primarily to the audience but
consisted in recounting “the mighty works of God;” cp. Acts 2:46; in 1
Cor., chapters 12 and 14, the use of the gift of “tongues” is mentioned
as exercised in the gatherings of local churches; 1 Corinthians 12:10
speaks of the gift in general terms, and couples with it that of “the
interpretation of tongues;” chap. 14 gives instruction concerning the
use of the gift, the paramount object being the edification of the
church; unless the “tongue” was interpreted the speaker would speak “not
unto men, but unto God,” 1 Corinthians 14:2; he would edify himself
alone, 1 Corinthians 14:4, unless he interpreted, 1 Corinthians 14:5, in
which case his interpretation would be of the same value as the
superior gift of prophesying, as he would edify the church, 1
Corinthians 14:4-6; he must pray that he may interpret, 1 Corinthians
14:13; if there were no interpreter, he must keep silence, 1 Corinthians
14:28, for all things were to be done “unto edifying,” 1 Corinthians
14:26. “If I come … speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you,”
says the Apostle (expressing the great object in all oral ministry),
“unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or
of prophesying, or of teaching?” (1 Corinthians 14:6). “Tongues” were
for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers, 1 Corinthians 14:22,
and especially to unbelieving Jews (See 1 Corinthians 14:21): cp. the
passages in the Acts.
There is no evidence of the continuance of
this gift after apostolic times nor indeed in the later times of the
Apostles themselves; this provides confirmation of the fulfillment in
this way of 1 Corinthians 13:8, that this gift would cease in the
churches, just as would “prophecies” and “knowledge” in the sense of
knowledge received by immediate supernatural power (cp. 1 Corinthians
14:6). The completion of the Holy Scriptures has provided the churches
with all that is necessary for individual and collective guidance,
instruction, and edification.
[A-2, Noun, G1258, dialektos]
“Language” (Eng., ‘dialect”), is rendered “tongue” in the AV of Acts
1:19; Acts 2:6, Acts 2:8; Acts 21:40; Acts 22:2; Acts 26:14. See
LANGUAGE.
[B-1, Adjective, G2804, heteroglossos]
Is
rendered “strange tongues” in 1 Corinthians 14:21, RV (heteros, “another
of a different sort,” See ANOTHER, and A, No. 1), AV, “other tongues.”
[C-1, Adverb, G1447, hebraisti]
(Or ebraisti, Westcott and Hort) denotes
(a) “In Hebrew,” Revelation 9:11, RV (AV, “in the Hebrew tongue”); so Revelation 16:16;
(b) In the Aramaic vernacular of Palestine, John 5:2, AV, “in the
Hebrew tongue” (RV, “in Hebrew”); in John 19:13, John 19:17, AV, “in the
Hebrew” (RV, “in Hebrew”); in John 19:20, AV and RV, “in Hebrew;” in
John 20:16, RV only, “in Hebrew (Rabboni).”
Note: Cp. Hellenisti, “in Greek,” John 19:20, RV; Acts 21:37, “Greek.” See also Rhomaisti, under LATIN. (4)
Comments:
As seen from Vine’s, the tongues as seen in Acts 2:6–8 were actual
languages. In denial of this, the modern day Charismatic and Pentecostal
movements assert that the understanding of tongues may be something
other than an understandable human language. They would say an angelic
language used for prayer.
People in this theological camp believe
that men can use angelic languages for private prayers and public
exhibitions and interpretations conveying unique revelatory words from
God. They cannot have it both ways. That would be equivocation – using
the same word to mean different things – a logical fallacy!
Charismatic proof texts passages for praying in non-human language tongues:
“Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what
we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh
intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans
8:26)
Consider Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Romans 8:26:
(26, 27) A second reason for the patience of the Christian under
suffering. The Spirit helps his weakness and joins in his prayers.
(26) Likewise.—While on the one hand the prospect of salvation sustains
him, so on the other hand the Divine Spirit interposes to aid him. The
one source of encouragement is human (his own human consciousness of the
certainty of salvation), the other is divine.
Infirmities.—The
correct reading is the singular, “infirmity.” Without this assistance,
we might be too weak to endure, but the Spirit helps and strengthens our
weakness by inspiring our prayers.
With groanings which cannot
be uttered.—When the Christian’s prayers are too deep and too intense
for words, when they are rather a sigh heaved from the heart than any
formal utterance, then we may know that they are prompted by the Spirit
Himself. It is He who is praying to God for us. (5)
Do Ellicott’s comments do justice to the text?
Comments:
Ellicott makes no mention of a man praying in an unknown angelic
language. First, it should be noted that the text says the Spirit prays,
not a man. Proponents of modern day tongue speakers read this into the
text something that is not there. Second, the text says the Spirit prays
for us with groanings, (stenagmos) not a man. Therefore, groanings
cannot be a man praying in an angelic language.
Digger deeper:
Strong’s Concordance 4726
stenagmos: a groaning
Original Word: στεναγμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: stenagmos
Phonetic Spelling: (sten-ag-mos’)
Short Definition: a groaning
Definition: a groaning, sighing.
Comments:
As seen, “The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings
which cannot be uttered” cannot possibly be a man praying in an angelic
language. These “groanings” are not audible whereas tongue speaking is.
Does this next passage validate an angelic prayer language?
“For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” (1 Corinthians 14:14)
From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on 1 Corinthians 14:14:
“For if I pray in an unknown tongue. In the Hebrew tongue, which the
greatest part of the Jewish doctors insisted (a) upon should be only
used in prayer; which notion might be borrowed from them, and now
greatly prevailed in the church at Corinth; and the custom was used by
such as had the gift of speaking that language, even though the body and
bulk of the people understood it not: my spirit prayeth; I pray with my
breath vocally; or else with affection and devotion, understanding what
I say myself, and so am edified; or rather with the gift of the Spirit
bestowed on me: but my understanding is unfruitful; that is, what I say
with understanding to myself is unprofitable to others, not being
understood by them.” Vid. Trigland. de Sect. Kar. c. 10. p. 172, 173.
(6)
Comments:
Gill makes no mention of an angelic prayer
language, but rather an unknown tongue. In this passage, Paul does not
say he prays in an unknown tongue instead; he says, “For if I pray in an
unknown tongue…but my understanding is unfruitful.” “For if” is a
hypothetical, not something the apostle says he does in personal
prayers. Besides, the apostle says if he did this, his understanding is
unfruitful. The apostle is not encouraging praying in an unfruitful
manner devoid of understanding.
A general command in Scripture is in the next three passages:
“What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the
understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with
the understanding also.” (1 Corinthians 14:15)
“For if these
things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be
barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2
Peter 1:8)
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.”
(2 Peter 3:18)
We are to grow in the knowledge of the Lord
Jesus Christ, not suspend our understanding. This is true even in
prayer. We should pray with understanding.
Consider another tongue speaking proof text:
“Though I speak with the tongues (glōssais plural) of men and of
angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a
tinkling cymbal.” (1 Corinthian 13:1)
The following scholar’s comments regarding the language of angels are pertinent:
“With respect to the words of angels which are recorded in the
Scriptures, nothing can be plainer, more direct, and, we may say, more
unimpassioned. They seem to say with the utmost conceivable plainness
what they have been commissioned to say, and nothing more. No words are
less the words of ecstasy than theirs.” (7)
Comments:
Where does the Bible speak of angels having their own language that
doubles as a prayer language for men? Is the mention of tongues in the
book Acts and the book of Corinthians an example of different tongues
for men and angels? There is no reason to believe that the tongues
mentioned are anything other than language, characterized by the rules
of grammar and syntax. Tongue speaking in Acts (glōssais the tongue, a
language) refers to known languages (maybe not to all the hearers). One
can argue that the languages that are spoken in the Corinthians
(glōssais) passage are as well. If not, you are equivocating on the use
of language without necessary contextual justification.
There is
no biblical basis in 1 Corinthians 13:1 for the idea that there is a
heavenly, prayer language. This assumption is read into the text. Even
if you grant that angels speak in a pure form of Hebrew not understood
by man, this hardly supports the idea of a non-human heavenly prayer
language. Assumptions like this are pure conjecture. Furthermore, when
Paul makes the contrast and speaks of the “tongues of men and of
angels,” he is using hyperbole. Hyperbole is an exaggerated statement or
claims not meant to be taken literally. The apostle is saying that,
notwithstanding however brilliant one could be, using his own language,
or a foreign language, or perhaps within the speculative speech of
angels, it is worthless without love.
Angels always spoke in human language in the Bible when speaking to men:
Scripture provides many examples of angels speaking to men. They
communicated in languages that were understandable by those spoken to in
the Bible. The burden of proof is on those who claim who claim angels
spoke in non-human languages. The phrase “the tongues of angels” offers
no proof that angelic language is different from human language or that
there is any justification for some form of non-human language for
prayer. All you can ascertain is that the angelic language was unknown.
Said another way, trying to determine what the language may have been
used is sheer guesswork. The speaking of tongues in modern day churches
has no connection to actual language. It is gibberish with no connection
to the rules of grammar and syntax.
Linguists can study
languages and discern syntax and grammar structure. Messages from
tongue-speaking churches show no relationship to anything resembling
language. If they do, it would have to be ascertained if the person
speaking was bi-lingual or multi-lingual. Trying to track down dates and
locations of real foreign languages being spoken is more than
problematic. Most stories of real languages seem to be nothing more than
the parroting of unverified stories. Examples of linguist scrutiny*
Biblical Scholar D. A. Carson correctly observes:
“Modern tongues are lexically uncommunicative and the few instances of
reported modern xenoglossia [speaking foreign languages] are so poorly
attested that no weight can be laid on them” (8)
University of Toronto linguistics professor William Samarin concurs:
“Glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of
sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or
less haphazardly. The speaker controls the rhythm, volume, speed and
inflection of his speech so that the sounds emerge as pseudolanguage—in
the form of words and sentences. Glossolalia is language-like because
the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of
superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language.”
(9)
What we do know is that the study of history shows that
tongues ceased after the death of the apostles. The leading Church
fathers such as Chrysostom (Eastern Church), and Augustine (Western
Church) believed that tongues was a revelatory confirmatory sign gift
only for the apostolic era.
It was not until the Azusa Street
Revival, 1906-1915, founded and led by William J. Seymour in Los
Angeles, California, which resulted in the spread of what was allegedly a
new manifestation of the apostolic sign gifts of the first century.
Seymour immersed himself in radical Holiness theology, which taught a
post-conversion second blessing or the entire sanctification experience
that resulted in complete holiness or sinless perfection this side of
heaven, which is heretical. If tongues confirmed the apostolic message,
Seymour’s tongues movement did nothing of the sort. God did speak
through ordinary people in biblical times, these were prophets, but they
had good theology.
Extra questions:
If the revelatory
apostolic gifts such as tongues and prophecy were normative for all time
in the Church, how can the absence of these gifts be explained after
the first century? Was the Church apostate or spiritually dull-hearted
two thousand years? Was the true Church lost as the Mormons claim? Those
who would advance something like this cannot prove it biblically. An
alleged apostasy cannot be because Jesus said, “the gates of hell would
not prevail against His Church” in Matthew 16:18.
The nations of
Christendom, while not perfect, transformed nations and civilizations
for the better over the centuries in fulfillment of Christ’s words.
What about the prophecy for the book of Joel? Does this predict a last
day’s reappearance of the apostolic revelatory sign gifts of the first
century?
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour
out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see
visions.” (Joel 2:28)
Is this a prophecy for the first century or a futuristic prophecy?
From Matthew Poole’s Commentary Joel 2:28:
It shall come to pass, most certainly this shall be done, afterward; in
the latter days, after the return out of Babylonish captivity, after
the various troubles and salvations by which they may know that I am the
Lord, their God in the midst of them, when those wondrous works shall
be seconded by the most wonderful of all, the sending the Messiah, in
his day and under his kingdom.
I will pour out my Spirit; in
large abundant measures will I give my Holy Spirit, which the Messiah
exalted shall send, John 16:7; in extraordinary power and gifts in the
apostles and first preachers of the gospel, and in ordinary measure and
graces to all believers, Ephesians 4:8-11.
Upon all flesh; before
these gifts were confined to a few people, to one particular nation, to
a very small people; but now they shall be enlarged to all nations,
Acts 2:33 10:45, to all that believe, all that are regenerate.
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy: this was in part fulfilled
according to the letter in the first days of the gospel; but this
promise is rather of a comparative meaning, thus, By pouring out of the
Holy Spirit on your sons and your daughters, they shall have as clear
and full knowledge of the deep mysteries of God’s law as prophets
beforetime had. The law and prophets were till John, and during this
time the gifts of the Spirit were given in lesser measures, and of all
men the prophets had greatest measures of the Spirit; but in these days,
the least in the kingdom of God is greater than John.
Your old
men shall dream dreams; no difference of age, to old men who had been
long blind in the things of God the mysteries of grace shall be
revealed, and these shall know as certainly and clearly as if God had
extraordinarily revealed himself to them by dreams sent of God upon
them.
Your young men shall see visions; many young men shall be
as eminent in knowledge as if the things known were communicated by
vision. In a word, all knowledge of God and his will shall abound among
all ranks, sexes, and ages in the Messiah’s days, and not only equal,
but surpass, all that formerly was by prophecy dreams, or visions. (10)
Comments:
Poole establishes that the prophecy in Joel found its fulfillment in the book of Acts.
What are the implications for ongoing apostolic revelatory gifts?
If these revelatory apostolic gifts are still in operation, the canon
of Scripture is still open. If so, does this mean that the expanding
oral tradition of the Roman Church and the printed minutes from the
Mormon General Conference meetings and the Mormon Ensign Magazine where
the Mormon prophet speaks should be added to the book of Acts or an
ongoing addendum to the Bible? An addendum would be like the old
encyclopedias that had a yearly update edition. How exactly would this
work out for the Bible? Should there be Roman Catholic, Charismatic and
Mormon addendums?
Additional Problems for modern day tongues speakers:
Some have argued that tongues and words of knowledge and prophecy are
personal or private revelations and therefore not the same as a biblical
revelation in the Bible, a sort of two-tier system of revelation.
Experience in tongue speaking churches shows this is not the case. If
tongues are expressed publically, the congregants normally and hopefully
wait for an interpretation. Sometimes someone will speak what is
supposed to be the interpretation. At other times in the church service,
someone will speak prophecies or words of knowledge. This very practice
is not private but public.
How are these alleged spoken words
to be evaluated? Does the congregation vote on it? On the other hand,
should the hearers accept message or words at face value? Most of the
time the expressions of interpretation and prophecies are general
scripture like-sounding words. Also, how is it determined if the
individuals giving this supposed spirit inspired messages are not just
showboating or letting their feelings and emotions get the better of
them? Can spiritual pride lead to certain individuals to grandstand?
Most people want to be seen as spiritual, and some want to be seen as
more spiritual than others.
As said, from experience, most of
what is said in these alleged words are general exhortations or general
words of encouragement that sound like a simplified version of
Elizabethan English. No doubt, some of the readers of this article have
heard of examples of alleged tongue-speaking where someone would say for
example that tongue-speaking was in the Hungarian language. As
previously noted, trying to track down when and where this happened is
always problematic. When pressed, no one seems to know where and when.
Why listen to unverifiable words when we can read the Bible?
Consider this next passage:
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that
ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the
day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” (2 Peter 1:19)
Peter says we have “a more sure word of prophecy.” The Word of God is
surer than anything else is especially unsubstantiated prophecies. Read
Psalm 119.
A Conclusion:
The only time in a church service
you can be sure you are hearing the Word of God, is when you hear the
Scriptures read. Pastors with concerns to be biblically faithful always
pray that God will give a blessing to their preaching and guard the
words that come from their mouth. A Sermon from the pastor is not the
infallible word of God. Many times a pastor will pray, “Let the words of
my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in your sight, O
Lord, my strength, and my redeemer. Amen.” (Psalm 19:14)
If the
first-century revelations of God via, prophecy, interpretation of
tongues and words of knowledge were still in practice today, the
conclusion would be that the canon of Scripture is still open. This
would mean that we need more than just the Bible. In other words, the
Bible is not yet complete, because revelation is still ongoing. Some may
want to dance around this conclusion. It, however, is inescapable.
Furthermore, those arguing for on-going first century revelatory gifts
are inadvertently giving support for Roman Catholicism’s argument for
the concept of on-going oral traditions that are purported to be on
equal footing with Scripture. The Roman Catholics are more consistent in
their argument of a secondary source of revelation than the advocates
of the on-going first century revelatory gifts are. If the first-century
revelatory gifts are still in operation, how are they fundamentally
different from the oral traditions of the Roman Church?
A Time-tested principle of Scripture:
“These were nobler than those in Thessalonica, in that they received
the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily,
whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
“But test everything; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 ESV)
Why be satisfied with vague or general biblical sounding words; we need the pure Word of God.
General biblical sounding words or phrases that are interpretation of
tongues, congregational prophecies, words of knowledge cannot be used
for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness. Why?
Because if they can, then these new words are admitted to be on par with
Scripture. This conclusion is inescapable and proves the problematic
nature of these new words that are supposedly from God. Also, if these
so-called revelations are on par with the Bible, the sufficiency of
Scripture cannot be maintained.
Sufficiency of scripture:
“The principle that the words of scripture contain everything we need to
know from God in order for us to be saved and to be perfectly obedient
to him.” *
Sufficiency of scripture:
“The doctrine of the
sufficiency of Scripture is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith.
To say the Scriptures are sufficient means that the Bible is all we need
to equip us for a life of faith and service. It provides a clear
demonstration of God’s intention to restore the broken relationship
between Himself and humanity through His Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior
through the gift of faith. No other writings are necessary for this good
news to be understood, nor are any other writings required to equip us
for a life of faith.” ***
“All scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)
The Concluding Argument:
The most potent argument for cessationism of first-century revelatory gifts is the closing of the canon of Scripture:
The Scriptures are complete; divine revelation has ceased. In fact, the
ceasing of divine revelation can be seen right in the texts of
Scripture. The ending of divine revelation is the closing of the
Scriptural canon. Today, there are only two forms of revelation, general
(creation) and special (biblical). See this writer’s The Importance and
Necessity of Special Revelation.
The Closing of the Canon:
Consider Daniel 9:24 and its importance for the subject of the closing of the canon:
“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make
reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”
(Daniel 9:24)
Comments:
The terminus or completion of this
prophecy is in the first century. Verses in Daniel 9:25-27 make it
clear that when the seventy-week period begins, this week will continue
uninterrupted until the seventy-week period is over or complete.
Christ’s death and resurrection made an end of the sins of His people.
He accomplished reconciliation for His people. Christ’s people have
experienced everlasting righteousness because we are clothed in Christ’s
righteousness, which is everlasting. The phrase “and to seal up the
vision and prophecy” sets forth the closing of the canon of Scripture.
E. J. Young in The Geneva Daniel Commentary makes the following
observations concerning “vision” and prophecy” in the Old Testament:
Vision was a technical name for revelation given to the OT prophets
(cf. Isa, 1:1, Amos 1:1, etc.) The prophet was the one through whom this
vision was revealed to the people. The two words, vision and prophet,
therefore, serve to designate the prophetic revelation of the OT
period…. When Christ came, there was no further need of prophetic
revelation in the OT sense. (11)
Why, because Christ is the final revelation:
God “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath
appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” (Hebrews
1:2)
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers is in agreement with E. J. Young on Daniel 9:24:
To Seal Up.—σϕραγίσαι, Theod.; συντελεσθῆναι, LXX.; impleatur, Jer.;
the impression of the translators being that all visions and prophecies
were to receive their complete fulfilment in the course of these seventy
weeks. It appears, however, to be more agreeable to the context to
suppose that the prophet is speaking of the absolute cessation of all
prophecy. (Comp. 1Corinthians 13:8.) (12)
All seventy weeks were
fulfilled in the first century contrary to Dispensationalism that is
still waiting for the seventieth week to be fulfilled at some time in
the future. If Young and Ellicott are correct about the seventieth week,
the implications for what the dispensationalists are arguing for is
enormous and wrong. This would mean the canon of Scripture is still open
for the last two thousand years a position that is indefensible.
A Conclusion:
Since there is no fundamental difference between Old and New Testament
revelation, and the source of the revelation is identical, there is no
reason to doubt that all giving of new revelation ceased in the first
century. The canon of Scripture is closed. Whatever the claims are for
the alleged ongoing interpretation of tongues, modern-day prophecies,
words of knowledge, they are not genuine new revelations from God.
At best as some argue there are second or third, tier revelations. If
the canon is open, no argument can be made not to add these lesser
revelations to an addendum of the Bible. The Mormons have already gone
there; others are hesitant to get on board with something like this.
Nevertheless, this proves to be a glaring inconsistency for those
arguing for a continuation of the first century revelatory gifts.
What does the Scripture say about adding an addendum or extra books to the Bible?
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord
your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)
The very
practice of listening to revelations that are admittedly to be of a
secondary nature when compared to the written Scripture is diminishing
and giving preeminence to unverifiable words in a church gathering over
the written Word of God.
“For I testify unto every man that
heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add
unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written
in this book.” (Revelation 22:18)
Are charismatic revelations on
the same level as the Bible? If pinned down, the modern day
tongue-speaker would probably say no. If the charismatic revelatory
gifts are imparting new revelation, then this is a dangerous move away
from the authority of Scripture. In many cases, the charismatic is
unwittingly accepting an authority other than the Bible, namely the new
revelation. We are not talking about the personal conviction of the Word
by the Holy Spirit. The operation of the Spirit in a believer’s life is
inseparable from the written Word of God.
Prone to Errors:
Many followers of the tongue-speaking movement pay lip service to the
principle of Sola Scriptura, (the Bible alone). This biblical principle
of Sola Scriptura is undermined when so-called spiritual experiences
influence the interpretation of the Scriptures. In light of this flawed
hermeneutic, namely, letting the alleged spiritual experience (tongues
speaking, words of knowledge, and prophecy) influence an understanding
of the Scripture, it is not surprising that sound doctrine gives way to
interpretations of Scripture that are influenced by these self-same
experiences. The judicious reader sees the circular reasoning that
plagues this approach.
Since the tongue-speaker has either
allegedly witnessed or spoken in tongues, the Bible is interpreted in
such a fashion as to support the charismatic interpretations of the
Bible. Thus, the charismatic assumes this must be what the Bible teaches
since they have witnessed or experienced it. This is nothing more than a
dangerous subjectivist circle of interpretation. The role of Scripture
and experience are reversed, experience gaining the upper hand in this
system. The fruit of this, has led to practices contrary to the Bible.
Tongues, interpretation of tongues, personal prophecies, and personal
words of knowledge are subjective. Why should we seek after subjective
individual words when we have the clear Word of God?
“All
scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
(2 Timothy 3:16)
“For whatsoever things were written aforetime
were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of
the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)
A Question:
A Mormon can be asked if the Book of Mormon has added anything to the
Bible or took anything away from the Bible. The answer was always no, to
which the reply would be, why do we need the book? The same question
can be asked of those promoting new revelations whether second or third
tier or not.
“Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20)
What does prophecy mean from Matthew Poole’s Commentary on 2 Peter 1:20:
Knowing this first; either, principally and above other things, as
being most worthy to be known; or, knowing this as the first principle
of faith, or the first thing to be believed.
That no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation: the Greek word here used may be rendered, either:
1. As our translators do, interpretation, or explication; and then the
meaning is, not that private men are not to interpret the Scripture,
only refer all to the church; but that no man nor company of men, no
church nor public officers, are to interpret the Scripture of their own
heads, according to their own minds, so as to make their private sense
be the sense of the Scripture, but to seek the understanding of it from
God, who shows them the meaning of the word in the word itself, (the
more obscure places being expounded by the more clear), and by his
Spirit leads believers, in their searching the Scripture, into the
understanding of his mind in it: God himself being the author of the
word, as 2 Peter 1:21, is the best interpreter of it. Or:
2.
Mission or dismission; a metaphor taken from races, where they that ran
were let loose from the stage where the race began, that they might run
their course. The prophets in the Old Testament are said to run, as
being God’s messengers, Jeremiah 23:21, and God is said to send them,
Ezekiel 13:6, 7. And then this doth not immediately concern the
interpretation of the Scripture, but the first revelation of it, spoken
of in the next verse; and the question is not: Who hath authority to
interpret the Scripture now written? But: What authority the penmen had
to write it? And consequently, what respect is due to it? And why
believers are so carefully to take heed to it? And then the meaning is,
that it is the first principle of our faith, that the Scripture is not
of human invention, but Divine inspiration; that the prophets wrote not
their own private sense in it, but the mind of God; and at his command,
not their own pleasure. (13)
Comments:
If Poole is correct
that Peter has Scripture in mind when mentions no private
interpretation, then private revelations are also ruled out. In the
Puritan writings, it was common for them to place revelation (scripture)
under the heading of prophecy. See “A Quest for Godliness” by J. I.
Packer.
Additionally, the doctrine of the sufficiency of
Scripture is an essential belief of the Christian faith. The
self-evident testimony of the Scriptures is that they are sufficient.
The Scriptures are completely adequate to meet the needs of the
believer. This teaching is all over the face of the Scriptures. The
believer can have confidence in the Scriptures. God’s Words are
described as “pure,” “perfect,” “a light,” and “eternal.” This
conclusion is one that can be drawn from or deduced from the Scriptures
by good and necessary consequence.
Anyone promoting the idea of
ongoing revelation is dangerously close to if not an outright denial of
the sufficiency of Scripture along with giving aid and comfort to the
Roman Catholic attacks upon Sola Scriptura. If the revelatory gifts in
the first century bore witness to the word of the apostles, what do
these supposed gifts bear witness to today? Do the modern day tongue
speaking practices have any effect on doctrinal purity? Roman Catholic
tongue-speakers stay within the Roman Church and continue to love the
Mass and charismatic tongue-speakers, many who hold doctrinal heresies
such as Pelagianism, continue in soteriological errors. Whatever these
purported gifts do, it does not appear to lead to doctrinal clarity!
John Owen’s inescapable dilemma:
“Once the Scriptures were written, and the prophetic and
apostolic witness to Christ was complete, no need remained for
private revelations of new truths, and Owen did not believe that any
were given. He opposed the ‘enthusiasm’ of those who, like the Quakers,
put their trust in supposed revelations given apart from, and going
beyond, the word. In a Latin work Owen calls the Quakers fanatici,
‘fanatics’, for their attitude. He is quick to deploy against them the
old dilemma that if their ‘private revelations’ agree with Scripture,
they are needless, and if they disagree, they are false.” (14)
This dilemma is logistically inescapable and should be used today. Scripture is Paramount!
One of the greatest American theologians, Benjamin B. Warfield on the Cessation of the Charismata:
There is, of course, a deeper principle recognizable here, of which the
actual attachment of the charismata of the Apostolic Church to the
mission of the Apostles is but an illustration. This deeper principle
may be reached by us through the perception, more broadly, of the
inseparable connection of miracles with revelation, as its mark and
credential; or, more narrowly, of the summing up of all revelation,
finally, in Jesus Christ. Miracles do not appear on the page of
Scripture vagrantly, here, there, and elsewhere indifferently, without
assignable reason. They belong to revelation periods, and appear only
when God is speaking to His people through accredited messengers,
declaring His gracious purposes. Their abundant display in the Apostolic
Church is the mark of the richness of the Apostolic age in revelation;
and when this revelation period closed, the period of miracle-working
had passed by also, as a mere matter of course. It might, indeed, be a
priori conceivable that God should deal with men atomistically, and
reveal Himself and His will to each individual, throughout the whole
course of history, in the penetralium of his own consciousness. This is
the mystic’s dream. It has not, however, been God’s way. He has chosen
rather to deal with the race in its entirety, and to give to this race
His complete revelation of Himself in an organic whole. And when this
historic process of organic revelation had reached its completeness, and
when the whole knowledge of God designed for the saving health of the
world had been incorporated into the living body of the world’s
thought—there remained, of course, no further revelation to be made, and
there has been accordingly no further revelation made. God the Holy
Spirit has made it His subsequent work, not to introduce new and
unneeded revelations into the world, but to diffuse this one complete
revelation through the world and to bring mankind into the saving
knowledge of it. (15)
In closing, consider how the Word of God Instructs Us:
“Let my cry come near before thee, O LORD: give me understanding according to thy word.” (Psalm 119:169)
Who would argue that “according to thy word” should be interpreted to
include personal revelations or unverifiable utterances in a church
meeting?
The Westminster Confession of Faith and cessationism 1.1:
Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence
do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave
men unexcusable; 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.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1991), pp. 212-213.
2. Leonard J. Coppes, Whatever Happened to Biblical Tongues?
(Chattanooga, Tennessee: Pilgrim Publishing Company, 1977), pp. 59-60.
3. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1219.
4. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,
(Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), pp. 1154-1155.
5. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers,
Romans, vol. 2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 238.
6. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 1
Corinthians, 9 Volumes, Romans, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011,
p. 323.
7. M. F. Sadler, The First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, (London, England, George Bell and Sons 1906), p. 217.
8. D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14,
9. (Grand Rapids, Michiagn Baker Academic), p. 84.
10. (Cited from Joe Nickell, Looking for a Miracle, (New York, Prometheus Books), p. 108.)
11. Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Joel,
vol. 2, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), pp.
893-894.
12. E. J. Young, Daniel, (Oxford: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988), p. 200.
13. Charles John Ellicot, A Bible Commentary for English Readers,
Daniel, vol. 5, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 387.
14. Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, 2
Peter, vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985),
p. 921.
15. J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness, (Westchester, Illinois, Crossway Books 1990), p. 86.
16. Benjamin B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles, (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918), pp. 25-26.
“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. He served as an ordained ruling elder in
the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He worked in and retired from a
fortune five hundred company in corporate America after forty years. He
runs two blogs sites and is the author of the book defending the
Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a
Hat. Available at: http://www.thereligionthatstartedinahat.com/
Does the Christian have a coherent theory of knowledge? Asked another way, can Christians make sense out of the world? Does the Christian worldview have a basis to determine right and wrong? This article is a challenge to the atheistic worldview. Can the atheistic worldview explain its starting point and defend it? Where does the Christian worldview start? The Christian worldview starts with an axiom.
Gordon H. Clark: The Axiom of Scripture:
“Every philosophic or theological system must begin somewhere, for if it did not begin it could not continue. But a beginning cannot be preceded by anything else, or it would not be the beginning. Therefore every system must be based on presuppositions (Require as a precondition of possibility or coherence. Tacitly assume to be the case) or axioms (An accepted statement or proposition regarded as being self-evidently true). They may be Spinoza’s axioms; they may be Locke’s sensory starting point, or whatever. Every system must therefore be presuppositional.
The first principle cannot be demonstrated because there is nothing prior from which to deduce it. Call it presuppositionalism, call it fideism, names do not matter. But I know no better presupposition than “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs.
If the axioms of other secularists are not nonsense, they are nonetheless axioms. Every system must start somewhere, and it cannot have started before it starts. A naturalist might amend the Logical Positivists’ principle and make it say that all knowledge is derived from sensation. This is not nonsense, but it is still an empirically unverifiable axiom. If it is not self-contradictory, it is at least without empirical justification. Other arguments against empiricism need not be given here: The point is that no system can deduce its axioms.
The inference is this: No one can consistently object to Christianity being based on an indemonstrable axiom. If the secularists exercise their privilege of basing their theorems on axioms, then so may Christians. If the former refuse to accept our axioms, then they can have no logical objection to our rejecting theirs. Accordingly, we reject the very basis of atheism, Logical Positivism, and, in general, empiricism. Our axiom shall be that God has spoken. More completely, God has spoken in the Bible. More precisely, what the Bible says, God has spoken.” (1)
“Logically the infallibility of the Bible is not a theorem to be deduced from some prior axiom. The infallibility of the Bible is the axiom from which several doctrines are themselves deduced as theorems. Every religion and every philosophy must be based on some first principle. And since a first principle is first, it cannot be “proved” or “demonstrated” on the basis of anything prior. As the catechism question, quoted above, says, “The Word of God is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify Him.”
The inference is this: No one can consistently object to Christianity being based on an indemonstrable axiom. If the secularists exercise their privilege of basing their theorems on axioms, then so may Christians. If the former refuse to accept our axioms, then they can have no logical objection to our rejecting theirs. Accordingly, we reject the very basis of atheism, Logical Positivism, and, in general, empiricism. Our axiom shall be that God has spoken. More completely, God has spoken in the Bible. More precisely, what the Bible says, God has spoken.” (2)
Scripturalism, the following is a paraphrase or summation of the Christian’s starting principle by Gordon H. Clark:
Scripturalism (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles, in the Christian case, the Bible).
From this principle, the presuppositional argument for God’s existence and its implications stated, and atheism challenged:
“The Bible contains the Christian’s starting principles or presuppositions. God speaks to us in the Scriptures (special revelation) with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. The Christian worldview has the necessary preconditions to talk intelligently and give justification for the use of logic, science, and morality. Consequently, the strength of the Christian worldview is seen by the impossibility of the contrary. The impossibility of the contrary can be asserted because as of this day, no non-Christian anywhere has shown how their worldview can account for the use of science, logic, and intelligently talk about ethics. Begging the question is the typical response by the atheist to their worldview’s failure and this begging the question is a logical fallacy. We are not saying the atheist does not use logic or talk about right and wrong. We are saying the atheist cannot account for these things within his system.
Note: Begging the question is a fallacy of assumption because it directly presumes the conclusion, which is the question in the first place. For example, “Killing people is wrong, (premise) so the death penalty is wrong.” Begging the question is known as circular reasoning because the conclusion is seen at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an unending circle, never achieving anything of substance. The atheist system assumes it can account for logic and ethics without ever providing substantiation. One must accept the premise to be true for the claim to be true.
Why the atheist cannot find God:
The Christian says if an individual starts with a non-Christian syllogism or presupposition, the individual will never arrive at a Christian conclusion. As Clark noted above, every system or belief has a starting point. Starting with a non-Christian premise reminds us of “…of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them” (Romans 1:18-19). The atheist in his suppression of the truth refuses to start with the testimony of Scripture or natural revelation, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalms 19:1). All non-believing presuppositions ultimately lead to complete skepticism or the philosophy of no-nothing-ism.
Furthermore, because of this ultimate skepticism, the atheist cannot live consistently with the result of where his worldview takes him. That is why many atheists still talk about morality, science, and logic. They are inconsistent. From their starting premise, nothing can be proven. As stated, a materialistic worldview or atheism cannot justify or account for science, logic, or morality, since matter is silent! A rock cannot tell the atheist the difference between right and wrong. Likewise, the moon, which is a big rock, cannot tell the difference between what is right, and what is wrong. Atheistic materialism has nothing to say about science, logic, and ethics reliably. The matter making up the universe is silent. God is not silent. Closing this paragraph with a quote by William Provine, Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences at Cornell University, “There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.” “No ultimate foundation for ethics, no meaning to life,” says Provine. With assertions like this, the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism is exposed.
Atheists refuse to acknowledge how their system works:
Atheists generally refuse to acknowledge that they have presuppositions and that presuppositions govern interpretations of the world. In short, the Christian’s presupposition is God’s revelation in the Bible is our authority and standard of interpretation. The atheist’s presupposition is the man himself is the authority and standard of interpretation. This clash or antithesis of worldviews happened in the beginning, Genesis 3:5, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” The consequence of Adam’s disobedience is that Adam’s descendants in their rebellion will seek to be the interpreters of reality and reject God’s interpretation. Now that the fallen race of man is acting like God, he appeals to his authority in his attempt to answer the demands of speaking intelligently about science, morality, and logic. It is the authority of the infinite versus the authority of the finite. The atheist may not like this conclusion; until he comes up with epistemological solutions, he should remain silent like a rock.
Pressing the antithesis:
In addition to numerous philosophical problems regarding atheists and other non-Christian interpretations of the world, it should be clear that matter or material has nothing to say within the framework of non-believing philosophy. What could it say? Within this framework, material or matter is ultimately an accident and therefore meaningless. In addition to this problem, all men have a priori commitments, which are at work and from which truth or falsity is deduced. The question is not do men have a priori commitments, but what are they? The non-believer has suppressed and substituted God’s revealed truth for his interpretation of the world. When dealing with ethics in particular atheism cannot speak intelligently. The atheist has to borrow from and assume Christian definitions when talking about evil and good. To quote Nietzshe: “When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self-evident… Christianity is a system.” When rejecting the Christian system, “Everything is permitted” – Friedrich Nietzsche. According to Nietzsche, if “everything is permitted,” good and evil are meaningless terms. Nietzsche was a consistent atheist.
In essence, the atheist has erected a closed system. His system is closed to God. He does not allow God to speak. Since the atheist rejects the Creator, he has nothing within his closed system that he allows to speak with moral certainty. As long as fallen man excludes God from his system, he cannot know anything with certainty. The atheist thought has no basis for absolutes. An atheist has plenty of arbitrary social conventions. If there are no absolutes, there can be no meaning attached to anything since everything could be said to be true and not true at the same time, which is unacceptable irrational nonsense. As noted earlier by Aldous Huxley: “It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one’s life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than ‘try to be a little kinder.’” An example of a failed atheistic attempt at determining morality for society is pragmatic majoritarianism, i.e., the majority makes right. This system does not work out so well for the minorities, like the Jews in Nazi Germany.
Unanswerable questions for the atheist:
John Locke is known as the originator of the epistemological theory known as empiricism, which postulates the mind at birth is a blank tablet (tabula rasa) and then assimilates knowledge through sensations. This theory could be called the “blank mind theory” of knowledge. The details of how this theory works out with the mind receiving, interpreting, and retaining these sensations are lacking, to say the least.
For example, can atheistic empiricism provide a basis for certainty? It cannot. For example, empiricism historically argues that knowledge comes through sensations in the following order: (a) sensations, (b) perceptions, (c) memory images, (d) and the development of abstract ideas. In this system of interpretation, perceptions are inferences from sensations. How does the atheistic empiricist know valid from invalid inferences?
Can atheistic rationalism (reason alone) provide answers to big questions of life? Does the atheist have the necessary preconditions to interpret reality? The Christian says God is a necessary precondition for interpretation. The atheist says no. From a Christian worldview, it can be explained why life has a purpose. Can the atheist explain why life is purposeful? To remember an earlier quote: “There is no splendor, no vastness, anywhere, only triviality for a moment, and then nothing” – Bertrand Russell. This assertion by Russell is an example of a bankrupt worldview. Dostoevsky countered this idea of Russell by saying: “I don’t understand how, up to now, an atheist could know there is no God and not kill himself at once” – Fyodor Dostoevsky.
Pressing the antithesis further:
We can ask the atheist, what is the origin of laws of logic? Are the laws of logic interpreted in the same way universally? If not, why not? The laws of logic within the framework of non-belief are nothing more than a philosophical construct, which ends up collapsing into irrationality and inconsistency. Thus, the atheistic rational man has no rationale for his rationalism. The assertion that God is not silent is the solution to obtaining knowledge. God has spoken through the Scriptures to all of mankind. As Christians, we have a foundation for knowledge; it is revelational. God-given revelation is objective. Atheists reject this revelation; they suppress the truth that God has revealed to them through creation (Romans 1:18). God has spoken in the Scriptures, God’s special revelation to all men concerning what is required of him, and thus, we have a rationale for ethics. To repeat two quotes from David Silverman, “There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own actions….” In addition, “The hard answer is it is a matter of opinion.” David Silverman is an American secular advocate who served as president of American Atheists. According to Silverman, we are left with opinions. Different opinions are not solutions.
Again, we can ask the atheist and all non-Christians, what standard for interpretation is being used; identify your worldview and its basis for predication. Predication is attaching a predicate to a subject; hence, making an assertion. Van Til says, “Only the Christian worldview makes predication possible.” The atheist needs to demonstrate how his worldview can accomplish this.
For the atheist, there is ultimately only irrationalism:
Thus, the atheistic man has only matter, unintelligible or debatable explanations for sensations (sense perception), or his finite, fallible reason. An unclear debatable sensation is one reason for the bankruptcy of atheistic, materialistic humanism. The Christian has a rational basis for knowledge; it is the Biblical revelation. The Christian allows God to speak through creation and Scripture. The non-Christian will not allow room for the God of the Bible to speak in their system. As said, their system is closed to God’s revelation. The atheist insists on being the ultimate interpreter of reality, God is excluded. The Christian system is not closed like the atheist’s system. The Bible tells us about general and special revelation and man’s requirement to submit to a God-given interpretation of all things. It is because we have God’s revelation that an intelligent conversation on these matters can be carried on. How can a finite man who does not even know how many atoms are in an orange speak intelligently when asserting, absolutely and omnisciently, there is no God? These same people talk about the universe coming into existence from a big bang out of nothing. Was there a spark before the explosion of nothing? How did this spark happen? How does nothing explode? A big explosion sounds like the primitive view of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is illogical nonsense. In contrast to the atheist’s hypothetical speculation, the Christian has a God-given rational case for knowledge.
Philosophically, atheism vacillates between two positions of knowing and not knowing. These two opposite poles of allegiance constitute a never-ending dilemma, thus revealing the futility of non-Christian epistemology. Despite this, the atheist presses on irrationally. To illustrate, for example, some atheists claim absolutely that there are no absolutes, a self-refuting contradiction. The philosophy of non-belief contradicts itself when it claims not to know (uncertainty, agnosticism) and to know (certainty, atheism). Both atheism and agnosticism are two sides of the same coin. Thus, the non-believer is left with contradictory uncertainty and certainty, which are manifestations of his epistemological inability to derive meaningful intelligibility from an ultimate irrational meaningless universe.
The Christian Solution to knowledge:
As Christians, we have a coherent theory of knowledge. God has spoken. God speaking through revelation is certain: God speaks to us in the Scriptures with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. Language has the same meaning for God and man. Because of this, presuppositionalists argue that Christianity is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. The atheist position of the contrary has never been articulated successfully. See the great debate between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein at Davis University in California in 1985.* Atheistic epistemology has different theories, but no universal certainty and cannot escape skepticism better explained as no-nothing-ism. The non-Christian philosophers will argue on and on, never reaching an agreement. The following picture illustrates the atheist and other non-believers dilemma. The following picture illustrates the atheist’s impossible escape to nowhere.
Water man climbing to nowhere
In light of the Christian axiom, Scripturalism, (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles, in the Christian case, the Bible) we can put forth the Transcendental Argument:
1. God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).
2. People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities, which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute God.
3. Therefore, God exists. If He didn’t, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver.
“The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality.” – Greg Bahnsen
“…in the present day not a few are found, who deny the being of a God, yet, whether they will or not, they occasionally feel the truth which they are desirous not to know. We do not read of any man who broke out into more unbridled and audacious contempt of the Deity than C. Caligula, and yet none showed greater dread when any indication of divine wrath was manifested. Thus, however unwilling, he shook with terror before the God whom he professedly studied to condemn. You may every day see the same thing happening to his modern imitators. The most audacious despiser of God is most easily disturbed, trembling at the sound of a falling leaf. How so, unless in vindication of the divine majesty, which smites their consciences the more strongly the more they endeavor to flee from it. They all, indeed, look out for hiding-places where they may conceal themselves from the presence of the Lord, and again efface it from their mind; but after all their efforts, they remain caught within the net. Though the conviction may occasionally seem to vanish for a moment, it immediately returns, and rushes in with new impetuosity, so that any interval of relief from the gnawing of conscience is not unlike the slumber of the intoxicated or the insane, who have no quiet rest in sleep, but are continually haunted with dire horrific dreams. Even the wicked themselves, therefore, are an example of the fact that some idea of God always exists in every human mind.” – John Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion
“The statement that ‘God is dead’ comes from Nietzsche and has recently been trumpeted abroad by some German and American theologians. But the good Lord has not died of this; He who dwells in the heaven laughs at them.” – Karl Barth
“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)
Notes:
1. Gordon H. Clark, In Defense of Theology, (Fenton, Michigan, Mott Media, Inc. Publishers, 1984), pp. 31-33.
2. Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe? (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed 1985), pg. 18.
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: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, and the author of
nineteen books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About
Muhammad. His latest book is The History of Jihad.
Mr. Spencer
has directed seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States
Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College,
the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force
(JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and
the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and
terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the
German Foreign Ministry. He is a consultant with the Center for Security
Policy and vice president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative.
What others are saying about Robert Spencer:
“Robert Spencer is one of my heroes. He has once again produced an
invaluable and much-needed book. Want to read the truth about Islam?
Read this book. It depicts the terrible fate of the hundreds of millions
of men, women, and children who, from the 7th century until today, were
massacred or enslaved by Islam. It is a fate that awaits us all if we
are not vigilant.” – Geert Wilders, member of Parliament in the
Netherlands and leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV)
“Spencer argues, in brief, ‘There has always been, with virtually no
interruption, jihad.’ Painstakingly, he documents in this important
study how aggressive war on behalf of Islam has, for fourteen centuries
and still now, befouled Muslim life. He hopes his study will awaken
potential victims of jihad, but will they–will we–listen to his
warning? Much hangs in the balance.” – Daniel Pipes, president, Middle
East Forum and author of Slave Soldiers and Islam: The Genesis of a
Military System
“Jihad is not mere terrorism. Ironic as it may
seem, that is Western wishful thinking. From its inception, as Robert
Spencer incontestably illustrates, jihad has been the outward,
aggressive expression of a conquest ideology. The History of Jihad: From
Muhammad to ISIS is as relentless in relating unvarnished truth as is
the phenomenon it tracks in seeking domination–and never being
satisfied with less, however long it takes. Those who care to preserve
Western rationalism, civil liberties, and free societies must confront
this history, and its implications, with eyes opened.” – Andrew C.
McCarthy, bestselling author, former federal prosecutor, and National
Review contributing editor
Important definitions:
Allah: One God (Allah in Arabic).
Caliph: (khalif,) the Caliph is a political-religious leader of the Muslim community.
Dhimmitude: The state of subjection and oppression of non-Muslims under
Islamic rule. Enslavement or servitude of the non-Muslims then becomes a
whole outlook on life and way of dealing with things.
Jihad: Commonly translated as Holy War, the defense of Islam against its enemies.
Kafir One who does not believe in Allah, or in the content of the Qur’an, or in the prophetic status of Muhammad.
Qur’an: The sacred text of Islam.
Taqiyya: not showing their faith openly by means of pretense, dissimulation, or concealment, is a special type of lying.
My thoughts on Spencer and this new book:
Mr. Spencer continues to distinguish himself as a champion of religious
and civil liberties. This latest book, The History of Jihad is the
first of its kind. The fake media and feckless politicians and
ecumenical leaders who continue to promote the “religion of peace”
canard are shown “To have no clothes,” paraphrasing “The emperor has no
clothes.”
Never before has the wealth of information in this book
been placed into one volume. Historically, Islam has been relentless in
ongoing military campaigns. Spencer accounts how modern-day slavery and
dhimmitude are dark realities of Islamic conquest. Spencer chronicles
the1400 years of bloodshed, murder, rape, pillaging, and slavery done in
the name of Islam since its inception. It cannot be disputed after
reading Spencer’s book, that the history of Islam is the history of
jihad. This is true if Islam in operating under an empire like that of
the Ottoman Turks or an individual jihadist.
When a Muslim
jihadist screaming “Allahu Akbar” runs over people on the streets or
stabs them to death like Theo Van Gogh, in Holland, they are doing what
Islam has always done. The acts of terrorism are what Muhammad taught.
For example, Muhammad commanded in Quran 8:12 – “I will cast terror into
the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads
and strike off every fingertip of them.” References from the Quran and
quotes from historical documents in Spencer’s book prove this beyond
doubt.
In conclusion after reading Spencer’s book my thoughts are:
“Islam is a religious, political, genocidal ideology characterized by
centuries of Jihadist warfare and brutal oppressive totalitarianism of
those enslaved. This 7th Century malevolent ideology provides cover for
unfathomable discrimination against non-Muslims, sadistic torture and
unthinkable misogyny, even encouraging the rape of non-Muslim women and
slavery that is practiced and sanctioned to this present day as
witnessed by ISIS.”
“The religion of the New World Order is
Islam. The selection of Islam as the religion of the New World Order
explains the West’s forced suicidal surrender to Islam and the
relentless attacks upon anyone who dares to speak the truth about Islam,
its history of violence and subjugation and supremacy over non-Muslims.
The violent Mohammedans will be used to intimidate and suppress free
speech, lectures, media interviews, and assemblies and terrorize people
into submission.”
Islamophobia is a recently made up term, which
can be defined as someone who has an irrational hatred and fear of
Islam. This charge when made against Mr. Spencer is slanderous.
“…tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali
“People that tell you Islam is a religion of peace are only announcing their ignorance.” – Brigitte Gabriel
In ending this review, those who have given in to political correctness
and are willing to surrender Western freedoms brought to you by the
Judeo/Christian world view, I will end with Mr. Spencer’s words: “And
so, in closing, I have to say: Shame on you.”
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 The Religion That Started in a Hat.
Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
In this study, we will look at the biblical teaching regarding what the
Bible calls regeneration. What does this mean? As in previous studies,
we will look at definitions, scriptures, lexical evidence, commentary
evidence and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how
we live. Glorify God always!
Regeneration
“An act of God
whereby a soul, previously dead to him, experiences a spiritual
resurrection into a new sphere of life, in which he is alive to God….”;
an inner work of the Spirit in which new spiritual life is implanted so
that a person’s whole nature is changed and he or she can respond to God
in faith. Also called new birth, rebirth, spiritual birth, being born
again or quickening.” *
Regeneration
“The act of God
whereby He renews the spiritual condition of a sinner. It is a spiritual
change brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit so that the person
then possesses new life, eternal life. Regeneration is a change in our
moral and spiritual nature where justification is a change in our
relationship with God. Also, sanctification is the work of God in us to
make us more like Jesus. Regeneration is the beginning of that change.
It means to be born again.” **
From Scripture:
“And the
LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to
love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that
thou mayest live.’ (Deuteronomy 30:6)
“A new heart also will I
give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you and heart of
flesh.” (Ezekiel 36:26)
“And I will give them and heart to know
me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their
God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.” (Jeremiah
24:7)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God.” (John 3:3)
“Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be
the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with
the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy
tables of the heart.” (2Corinthians 3:3)
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” (Ephesians 2:1)
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)
“For this is the covenant that I will
make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will
put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will
be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” (Hebrews 8:10)
“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days,
saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds
will I write them.” (Hebrews 10:16)
In regeneration, a spiritual
new birth takes place. In the Scriptural words and phrases below are
various descriptions of the new birth seen in the passages above:
“Born again” or (born from above) John 3:3;
“And you hath he quickened” (made alive) Ephesians 2:1;
“The washing of regeneration” Titus 3:5;
“I will put into their hearts; written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God” 2 Corinthians;
“I will give them a heart to know me” Jeremiah 24:7;
“God will circumcise thine heart, a new spirit will I put within you” Deuteronomy 30:6;
God is the One who regenerates the sinner. John 3:3 informs us that a
man must be born again. The other passages listed above describe how a
man is born again by the action of God. The Holy Spirit gives life. The
verb tenses in the above passages that have been underlined are action
verbs on God’s part. For example, “I will,” “And you hath he quickened,”
“God will.”
Some descriptions of what happens in regeneration:
1. Spiritually reborn
2. New birth resulting in a new nature
3. Heart of stone changed to heart of flesh
4. Circumcision of the heart
5. Rebirth of the old nature, to a new spiritual nature
6. The reborn are restored to a relationship with God
7. Renewed to life, characterized by faith in Christ
8. The act of God causing an inward resurrection from sin to a new life in Christ
Regeneration from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:
Regeneration
[1, G3824, palingenesia]
“new birth” (palin, “again,” genesis, “birth”), is used of “spiritual
regeneration,” Titus 3:5, involving the communication of a new life, the
two operating powers to produce which are “the word of truth,” James
1:18; 1 Peter 1:23, and the Holy Spirit, John 3:5-John 3:6; the loutron,
“the laver, the washing,” is explained in Ephesians 5:26,”having
cleansed it by the washing (loutron) of water with the word.”
The
new birth and “regeneration” do not represent successive stages in
spiritual experience; they refer to the same event but view it in
different aspects. The new birth stresses the communication of spiritual
life in contrast to antecedent spiritual death; “regeneration” stresses
the inception of a new state of things in contrast with the old; hence
the connection of the use of the word with its application to Israel, in
Matthew 19:28. Some regard the kai in Titus 3:5 as epexegetic, “even;”
but, as Scripture marks two distinct yet associated operating powers,
there is not sufficient ground for this interpretation. See under EVEN.
In Matthew 19:28 the word is used, in the Lord’s discourse, in the
wider sense, of the “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21, RV), when,
as a result of the second advent of Christ, Jehovah “sets His King upon
His holy hill of Zion” (Psalms 2:6), and Israel, now in apostasy, is
restored to its destined status, in the recognition and under the benign
sovereignty of its Messiah. Thereby will be accomplished the
deliverance of the world from the power and deception of Satan and from
the despotic and anti-Christian rulers of the nations. This restitution
will not in the coming millennial age be universally a return to the
pristine condition of Edenic innocence previous to the Fall, but it will
fulfill the establishment of God’s covenant with Abraham concerning his
descendants, a veritable rebirth of the nation, involving the peace and
prosperity of the Gentiles. That the worldwide subjection to the
authority of Christ will not mean the entire banishment of evil is clear
from Revelation 20:7-Revelation 20:8. Only in the new heavens and
earth, “wherein dwelleth righteousness,” will sin and evil be entirely
absent. (1)
An excellent informative article on Regeneration by J.I.Packer:
Regeneration is the spiritual change wrought in the heart of man by the
Holy Spirit in which his/her inherently sinful nature is changed so
that he/she can respond to God in Faith, and live in accordance with His
Will (Matt. 19:28; John 3:3,5,7; Titus 3:5). It extends to the whole
nature of man, altering his governing disposition, illuminating his
mind, freeing his will, and renewing his nature.
Regeneration, or
new birth, is an inner re-creating of fallen human nature by the
gracious sovereign action of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5-8). The Bible
conceives salvation as the redemptive renewal of man on the basis of a
restored relationship with God in Christ, and presents it as involving
“a radical and complete transformation wrought in the soul (Rom. 12:2;
Eph. 4:23) by God the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5; Eph. 4:24), by virtue of
which we become ‘new men’ (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), no longer conformed to
this world (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9), but in knowledge and
holiness of the truth created after the image of God (Eph. 4:24; Col.
3:10; Rom. 12:2)” (B. B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies,
351). Regeneration is the “birth” by which this work of new creation is
begun, as sanctification is the “growth” whereby it continues (I Pet.
2:2; II Pet. 3:18). Regeneration in Christ changes the disposition from
lawless, Godless self-seeking (Rom. 3:9-18; 8:7) which dominates man in
Adam into one of trust and love, of repentance for past rebelliousness
and unbelief, and loving compliance with God’s law henceforth. It
enlightens the blinded mind to discern spiritual realities (I Cor.
2:14-15; II Cor. 4:6; Col. 3:10), and liberates and energizes the
enslaved will for free obedience to God (Rom. 6:14, 17-22; Phil. 2:13).
The use of the figure of new birth to describe this change emphasizes
two facts about it. The first is its decisiveness. The regenerate man
has forever ceased to be the man he was; his old life is over and a new
life has begun; he is a new creature in Christ, buried with him out of
reach of condemnation and raised with him into a new life of
righteousness (see Rom. 6:3-11; II Cor. 5:17; Col. 3:9-11). The second
fact emphasized is the monergism of regeneration. Infants do not induce,
or cooperate in, their own procreation and birth; no more can those who
are “dead in trespasses and sins” prompt the quickening operation of
God’s Spirit within them (see Eph. 2:1-10). Spiritual vivification is a
free, and to man mysterious, exercise of divine power (John 3:8), not
explicable in terms of the combination or cultivation of existing human
resources (John 3:6), not caused or induced by any human efforts (John
1:12-13) or merits (Titus 3:3-7), and not, therefore, to be equated
with, or attributed to, any of the experiences, decisions, and acts to
which it gives rise and by which it may be known to have taken place.
Biblical Presentation
The noun “regeneration” (palingenesia) occurs only twice. In Matt.
19:28 it denotes the eschatological “restoration of all things” (Acts
3:21) under the Messiah for which Israel was waiting. This echo of
Jewish usage points to the larger scheme of cosmic renewal within which
that of individuals finds its place. In Titus 3:5, the word refers to
the renewing of the individual. Elsewhere, the thought of regeneration
is differently expressed.
In OT prophecies regeneration is
depicted as the work of God renovating, circumcising, and softening
Israelite hearts, writing his laws upon them, and thereby causing their
owners to know, love, and obey him as never before (Deut. 30:6; Jer.
31:31-34; 32:39-40; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:25-27). It is a sovereign work of
purification from sin’s defilement (Ezek. 36:25; cf. Ps. 51:10),
wrought by the personal energy of God’s creative out breathing the
personal energy of God’s creative out breathing (“spirit”: Ezek. 36:27;
39:29). Jeremiah declares that such renovation on a national scale will
introduce and signal God’s new messianic administration of his covenant
with his people (Jer. 31:31; 32:40).
In the NT the thought of
regeneration is more fully individualized, and in John’s Gospel and
First Epistle the figure of new birth, “from above” (anothen: John 3:3,
7, Moffatt), “of water and the Spirit” (i.e., through a purificatory
operation of God’s Spirit: see Ezek. 36:25-27; John 3:5; cf. 3:8), or
simply “of God” (John 1:13, nine times in I John), is integral to the
presentation of personal salvation. The verb gennao (which means both
“beget” and “bear”) is used in these passages in the aorist or perfect
tense to denote the once-for-all divine work whereby the sinner, who
before was only “flesh,” and as such, whether he knew it or not, utterly
incompetent in spiritual matters (John 3:3-7), is made “spirit” (John
3:6), i.e., is enabled and caused to receive and respond to the saving
revelation of God in Christ. In the Gospel, Christ assures Nicodemus
that there are no spiritual activities, no seeing or entering God’s
kingdom, because no faith in himself, without regeneration (John
3:1ff.); and John declares in the prologue that only the regenerate
receive Christ and enter into the privileges of God’s children (John
1:12-13). Conversely, in the Epistle John insists that there is no
regeneration that does not issue in spiritual activities. The regenerate
do righteousness (I John 2:29) and do not live a life of sin (3:9;
5:18: the present tense indicates habitual law-keeping, not absolute
sinlessness, cf. 1:8-10); they love Christians (4:7), believe rightly in
Christ, and experience faith’s victory over the world (5:4). Any, who
do otherwise, whatever they claim, are still unregenerate children of
the devil (3:6-10).
Paul specifies the Christological dimensions
of regeneration by presenting it as (1) a life giving co-resurrection
with Christ (Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13; cf. I Pet. 1:3); (2) a work of new
creation in Christ (II Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10; Gal. 6:15). Peter and James
make the further point that God “begets anew” (anagennao: I Pet. 1:23)
and “brings to birth” (apokyeo: James 1:18) by means of the gospel. It
is under the impact of the word that God renews the heart, so evoking
faith (Acts 16:14-15).
Historical Discussion
The fathers
did not formulate the concept of regeneration precisely. They equated
it, broadly speaking, with baptismal grace, which to them meant
primarily (to Pelagius, exclusively) remission of sins. Augustine
realized, and vindicated against Pelagianism, the necessity for
prevenient grace to make a man trust and love God, but he did not
precisely equate this grace with regeneration. The Reformers reaffirmed
the substance of Augustine’s doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed
theology still maintains it. Calvin used the term “regeneration” to
cover man’s whole subjective renewal, including conversion and
sanctification. Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated
regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration
(hence the systematic mistranslation of epistrepho, “turn,” as a
passive, “be converted,” in the AV); later Reformed theology has defined
regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the “seed” from which
faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual
calling. Arminianism constructed the doctrine of regeneration
synergistically, making man’s renewal dependent on his prior cooperation
with grace; liberalism constructed it naturalistically, identifying
regeneration with a moral change or a religious experience.
The
fathers lost the biblical understanding of the sacraments as signs to
stir up faith and seals to confirm believers in possession of the
blessings signified, and so came to regard baptism as conveying the
regeneration which it signified (Titus 3:5) ex opere operato to those
who did not obstruct it’s working. Since infants could not do this, all
baptized infants were accordingly held to be regenerated. This view has
persisted in all the non-Reformed churches of Christendom, and among
sacramentalists within Protestantism.
Regeneration Advanced Information
Scripture terms by which this work of God is designated:
Creating – Eph. 4:24
Begetting – 1Jo 4:7
Quickening – Joh 5:21 Eph. 2:5
Calling out of darkness into marvellous light – 1Pe 2:9
The subjects of it are to be alive from the dead – Ro 6:13
To be new creatures – 2Co 5:17
To be born again, or anew – Joh 3:3, 7
To be God’s workmanship – Eph. 2:10
Proof that there is such a thing as is commonly called regeneration.
The Scriptures declare that such a change is necessary – 2Co 5:17 Ga 6:15
The change is described – Eph. 2:5 4:23 Jas 1:18 1Pe 1:23
It is necessary for the most moral as well as the most profligate – 1Co 15:10 Ga 1:13-16
That this change is not a mere reformation is proved by its being referred to the Holy Spirit. – Tit 3:5
In the comparison of man’s state in grace with his state by nature. – Ro 6:13 8:6-10 Eph. 5:8
In the experience of all Christians and the testimony of their lives.
Proofs that believers are subjects of supernatural or spiritual illumination.
This is necessary. – Joh 16:3 1Co 2:14 2Co 3:14 4:3
The Scriptures expressly affirm it. – Ps 19:7, 8 43:3, 4 Joh 17:3
1Co 2:12, 13 2Co 4:6 Eph. 1:18 Philippians 1:19 Col 3:10 1Jo 4:7 5:20
The first effect of regeneration is to open the eyes of our
understanding to the excellency of divine truth. The second effect the
going forth of the renewed affections toward that excellency perceived.
Proof of the absolute necessity of regeneration
The Scriptures assert it. – Joh 3:3 Ro 8:6, 7 Eph. 2:10 4:21-24
It is proved from the nature of man as a sinner – Ro 7:18 8:7-9 1Co 2:14 Eph. 2:1
Also from the nature of heaven – Isa 35:8 52:1 Mt 5:8 13:41 Heb. 12:14 Re 21:27
The restoration of holiness is the grand end of the whole plan of salvation. – Ro 8:28, 29 Eph. 1:4 5:5, 26, 27
Bibliography
J. Orr, “Regeneration,” HDB; J. Denney, HDCG; B. B. Warfield, Biblical
and Theological Studies; systematic theologies of C. Hodge, III, 1-40,
and L. Berkhof, IV, 465-79; A. Ringwald et al., NIDNTT, I, 176ff.; F.
Buchsel et al., TDNT, I, 665ff.; B. Citron, The New Birth. (2)
Regeneration an Act of God by systematic theologian, Charles Hodge:
1. Regeneration is an act of God. It is not simply referred to Him as
its giver, and, in that sense, its author, as He is the giver of faith
and of repentance. It is not an act which, by argument and persuasion,
or by moral power, He induces the sinner to perform. But it is an act of
which He is the agent. It is God who regenerates. The soul is
regenerated. In this sense the soul is passive in regeneration, which
(subjectively considered) is a change wrought in us, and not an act
performed by us.
Regeneration an Act of God’s Power
2.
Regeneration is not only an act of God, but also an act of his almighty
power. Agreeably to the express declarations of the Scriptures, it is so
presented in the Symbols of the Protestant churches. If an act of
omnipotence, it is certainly efficacious, for nothing can resist
almighty power. The Lutherans indeed deny this. But the more orthodox of
them mean simply that the sinner can keep himself aloof from the means
through which, or, rather, in connection with which it pleases God to
exercise his power. He can absent himself from the preaching of the
Word, and the use of the sacraments. Or he may voluntarily place himself
in such an inward posture of resistance as determines God not to exert
his power in his regeneration. The assertion that regeneration is an act
of God’s omnipotence, is, and is intended to be, a denial that it is an
act of moral suasion. It is an affirmation that it is “physical” in the
old sense of that word, as opposed to moral; and that it is immediate,
as opposed to mediate, or through or by the truth. When either in
Scripture or in theological writings, the word regeneration is taken in a
wide sense as including conversion or the voluntary turning of the soul
to God, then indeed it is said to be by the Word. The restoration of
sight to the blind by the command of Christ was an act of omnipotence.
It was immediate. Nothing in the way of instrumentary or secondary
coöperating influence intervened between the divine volition and the
effect. But all exercises of the restored faculty were through and by
the light. And without light sight is impossible. Raising Lazarus from
the dead was an act of omnipotence. Nothing intervened between the
volition and the effect. The act of quickening was the act of God. In
that matter, Lazarus was passive. But in all the acts of the restored
vitality, he was active and free. According to the evangelical system it
is in this sense that regeneration is the act of God’s almighty power.
Nothing intervenes between his volition that the soul, spiritually dead,
should live, and the desired effect. But in all that belongs to the
consciousness; all that precedes or follows the imparting of this new
life, the soul is active and is influenced by the truth acting according
to the laws of our mental constitution. (3)
In closing:
The Westminster Catechism, under the headings of redemption and effectual calling covers, regeneration.
Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 29 on redemption/regeneration:
Q: How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A: We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the
effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit. (1.)
(1.)
John 1:12-13. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which
were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of God.
John 3:5-6. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I
say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God. . . That which is born of the
flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Titus 3:5-6. Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but
according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus
Christ our Saviour.
Westminster Larger Catechism on effectual calling/regeneration:
Q. 67: What is effectual calling?
A. 67: Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace,
whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from
nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time,
invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly
enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their
wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made
willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace
the grace offered and conveyed therein.
“Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,
(Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 939.
2. J. I. Packer, Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, “Regeneration,” (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House), pp. 924-926.
3. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans), pp. 31-32).
“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. He served as an ordained ruling elder in
the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He worked in and retired from a
fortune five hundred company in corporate America after forty years. He
runs two blogs sites and is the author of the book defending the
Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a
Hat. Available at: http://www.thereligionthatstartedinahat.com/
The Religion That Started in a Hat 