The Religion That Started in a Hat

Is Faith the Gift of God in Ephesians 2:8? By Jack Kettler 2012

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” (NASB)

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -” (NIV)

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

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,” (NKJV)

It seems to me that a common reading of the passage leads one to the conclusion that the apostle is referring to faith as the gift of God. If not faith, what was Paul referring to when he said: “and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God?” This we will seek to determine in the following study.

An objection to connecting the word “faith” with being the “gift” of God:

There are those who object and say the Ephesians passage does not teach that “faith” is the gift of God and argue that the pronoun “that” (touto) is neuter in gender, and the word “faith” (pistis) is feminine. The argument says that the general rule in Greek grammar is that the gender and number of the pronoun should be the same as its antecedent. When there is no clear antecedent, then is is argued “that” (touto) should be connected to the word “saved” or the idea of salvation and would excluded “faith” to be understood as “the gift of God” in Ephesians 2:8.1

We can agree that there is a general grammatical rule regarding pronouns and antecedents. We cannot agree that there are no exceptions to this rule. As will be seen from commentary evidence, there are a number of exceptions to this rule. In the case of Ephesians 2:8, there is a clear antecedent in the verse and it is precisely the word “faith.” Can the above mentioned general grammatical rule prohibit the connection between “faith” being the “gift of God” be answered with certainty?

The Objection Answered

In sharp contrast to those who object, Robert L. Reymond in his New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith says:

Even though “faith” is a feminine noun in the Greek and “this” [NIV] is a neuter demonstrative pronoun, it is still entirely possible that Paul intended to teach that “faith,” the nearest possible antecedent, is the antecedent of the pronoun “this,” and accordingly that saving faith is the gift of God. It is permissible in Greek syntax for the neuter pronoun to refer antecedently to a feminine noun, particularly when it serves to render more prominent the matter previously referred to (see, for example, ‘your salvation [. . . soterias], and this [. . . touto] from God’ – Phil. 1:28; see also 1 Cor. 6:6, 8)2

Contemporary theologian R. C. Sproul concurs and has this to say:

The rules of Greek syntax and grammar demand that the antecedent of “that” be the word “faith.” Faith is not something we conjure up in our own effort, or the result of the willing of the flesh. Faith is a result of the Spirit’s sovereign work of regeneration.3

Christian philosopher and commentator Gordon Clark agrees:

Grammatically, neuter demonstrative pronouns, even in the more precise classical Greek, often refer to feminized nouns, especially to abstract feminine nouns. Hence it is false to say that touto [that] cannot mean faith.”…The Arminian ungrammatical and illogical interpretation now says something like this: “ you are saved by faith ; your salvation is a gift from God , your salvation is not of works .” But this is both weak and redundant . Compare it with the Calvinistic , logical , and grammatical interpretation: “ you have been saved by grace through faith; even that faith is not of your origination; faith too is a gift of God .”4

More from Gordon Clark on this:

At a certain graduation ceremony I heard a seminary president misinterpret this verse. His misinterpretation did not succeed in ridding the verse of the idea that faith is the gift of God, though that was presumably his intention. He based his argument on the fact that the word faith in Greek is feminine, and the word that in the phrase, “and that not of yourselves,” is neuter.

Therefore, he concluded, the word that cannot have faith as its antecedent. The antecedent, according to this seminary president, must be the whole preceding phrase: “For by grace are you saved through faith.” Now, even if this were correct, faith is still a part of the preceding phrase and is therefore a part of the gift. Taking the whole phrase as antecedent makes poor sense. To explain that grace is a gift is tautologous. Of course, if we are saved by grace, it must be a gift. No one could miss that point. But Paul adds, “saved by grace, though faith,” and to make sure he also adds, and that, that is, faith, is not of yourselves.

But what of the president’s remark that faith is feminine and that is neuter? Well, of course, these are the genders of the two words; but the president did not know much Greek grammar. In the case of concrete nouns, for example, the mother, the ship, the way, the house, the relative pronoun that follows is ordinarily feminine; but what the president did not know is that abstract nouns like faith, hope, and charity use the neuter of the relative pronoun. As a matter of fact, even a feminine thing, a concrete noun, may take a neuter relative (see Goodwin’s Greek Grammar 1022). The moral of this little story confirms the original Presbyterian policy of insisting upon an educated ministry. Here was a seminary president distorting the divine message because of ignorance of Greek – or, more profoundly, as I have reason to believe from some of his publications, because of a dislike of divine sovereignty.

A. T. Robertson in his A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page 704, lists six exceptions to the common rule that adjectives agree in gender with their nouns: Acts 8:10, Jude 12, 2 Peter 2:17, 1 Peter 2:19, 1 Peter 2:19, 1 Corinthians 6:11 and 10:6. These include masculine pronouns with feminine nouns, neuter adjective with feminine nouns, and neuter adjective with masculine nouns. The most interesting in the present connection is 1 Peter 2:19, where twice there is a neuter demonstrative with a feminine noun, thus paralleling Ephesians 2:8. I dutifully report that Robertson strangely asserts that the neuter demonstrative in Ephesians 2:8 does not refer to the noun faith. He gives neither a grammatical nor a theological reason for this assertion.5

What do other Reformed Commentators have to say:

English Baptist pastor, and renowned Biblical scholar Dr. John Gill says:

through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; salvation is through faith, not as a cause or condition of salvation, or as what adds anything to the blessing itself; but it is the way, or means, or instrument, which God has appointed, for the receiving and enjoying it, that so it might appear to be all of grace; and this faith is not the produce of man’s free will and power, but it is the free gift of God; and therefore salvation through it is consistent with salvation by grace; since that itself is of grace, lies entirely in receiving grace and gives all the glory to the grace of God: the sense of this last clause may be, that salvation is not of ourselves; it is not of our desiring nor of our deserving, nor of our performing, but is of the free grace of God: though faith is elsewhere represented as the gift of God, John 6:65 and it is called the special gift of faith, in the Apocrypha:

“And blessed is the eunuch, which with his hands hath wrought no iniquity, nor imagined wicked things against God: for unto him shall be given the “special gift of faith”, and an inheritance in the temple of the Lord more acceptable to his mind.’” (Wisdom 3:14)

—– (I asked the following question from a Greek and Hebrew professor:

“In this verse, to what does the word “that” refer to? Adam Clarke, Wesley & company say that it is neuter plural and “Faith” is feminine hence it cannot refer to faith, (Such an admission would destroy their theological system.) However “Grace” is also feminine as is “Salvation”.”’

His reply was:

“Here you ask a wonderful theological/exegetical question to which I can only give an opinion, and not a definitive answer. The problem is that there is NO precise referent. Grace is feminine. Faith is feminine. And even Salvation (as a noun) is feminine. Yet it must be one of these three at least, and maybe more than one, or all three in conjunction. Since all three come from God and not from man, the latter might seem the more likely. However, it is a tautology to say salvation and grace are “nor of yourselves,” and in that case it certainly looks more like the passage is really pointing out that man cannot even take credit for his own act of faith, but that faith was itself created by God and implanted in us that we might believe (i.e. the normal Calvinistic position). In which regard the whole theological issue of “regeneration preceding faith” comes into play. So, that is basically my opinion, though others obviously disagree strenuously, but from an exegetical standpoint, the other positions have to explain away the matter of the tautology.”’6

Dutch Commentator, William Hendriksen writes:

8. Reflecting on what he has just now said about grace, and repeating the parenthetical clause of verse 5b, the apostle says, For by grace59
59 The original has τῇ γὰρ χάριτι. Note the anaphoric use of the article. This is very common in Greek. See Gram. N.T., p. 762. Some translate: “this grace.” Gram. N.T. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research

you have been saved.… For explanation see on verse 5. He continues: through faith; and this not of yourselves, (it is) the gift of God …
Three explanations deserve consideration:

(1) That offered by A. T. Robertson. Commenting on this passage in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 525, he states, “Grace is God’s part, faith ours.” He adds that since in the original the demonstrative “this” (and this not of yourselves) is neuter and does not correspond with the gender of the word “faith,” which is feminine, it does not refer to the latter “but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.” Even more clearly in Gram.N.T., p. 704, he states categorically, “In Eph. 2:8 … there is no reference to διὰ πίστεως [through faith] in τοῦτο [this], but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before.”

Without any hesitancy I answer, Robertson, to whom the entire world of New Testament scholarship is heavily indebted, does not express himself felicitously in this instance. This is true first because in a context in which the apostle places such tremendous stress on the fact that from start to finish man owes his salvation to God, to him alone, it would have been very strange, indeed, for him to say, “Grace is God’s part, faith ours.” True though it be that both the responsibility of believing and also its activity are ours, for God does not believe for us, nevertheless, in the present context (verses 5–10) one rather expects emphasis on the fact that both in its initiation and in its continuation faith is entirely dependent on God, and so is our complete salvation. Also, Robertson, a grammarian famous in his field, knew that in the original the demonstrative (this), though neuter, by no means always corresponds in gender with its antecedent. That he knew this is shown by the fact that on the indicated page of his Grammar (p. 704) he points out that “in general” the demonstrative “agrees with its substantive in gender and number.” When he says “in general,” he must mean, “not always but most of the time.” Hence, he should have considered more seriously the possibility that, in view of the context, the exception to the rule, an exception by no means rare, applies here. He should have made allowance for it.60
60 Though Lenski calls Robertson’s statement (“Grace is God’s part, faith ours”) careless, his own explanation (op.cit., p. 423), in which he likewise bases everything on the fact that τοῦτο is neuter but πίστις feminine, is basically the same as that of Robertson.

Finally, he should hare justified the departure from the rule that unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise the antecedent should be looked for in the immediate vicinity of the pronoun or adjective that refers to it.

(2) That presented, among others, by F. W. Grosheide. As he sees it, the words “and this not of yourselves” mean “and this being saved by grace through faith is not of yourselves” but is the gift of God. Since, according to this theory — also endorsed, it would seem, by John Calvin in his Commentary — faith is included in the gift, none of the objections against theory (1) apply with respect to theory (2).
Does this mean then that (2) is entirely satisfactory? Not necessarily. This brings us to
(3) That defended by A. Kuyper, Sr. in his book Het Werk van den Heiligen Geest (Kampen, 1927), pp. 506–514.

Dr. Kuyper is, however, not this theory’s sole defender, but his defense is, perhaps, the most detailed and vigorous. The theory amounts, in brief, to the following: Paul’s words may be paraphrased thus, “I had the right to speak about ‘the surpassing riches of his grace’ for it is, indeed, by grace that you are saved, through faith; and lest you should now begin to say, ‘But then we deserve credit, at least, for believing,’ I will immediately add that even this faith (or: even this exercise of faith) is not of yourselves but is God’s gift.”

With variations as to detail this explanation was the one favored by much of the patristic tradition. Supporting it were also Beza, Zanchius, Erasmus, Huigh de Groot (Hugo Grotius), Bengel, Michaelis, etc. It is shared, too, by Simpson (op. cit., p. 55) and by Van Leeuwen and Greijdanus in their commentaries. H. C. G. Moule (Ephesian Studies, New York, 1900, pp. 77, 78) endorses it, with the qualification, “We must explain τοῦτο [this] to refer not to the feminine noun πίστις [faith] precisely, but to the fact of our exercising faith.” Moreover, it is perhaps no exaggeration to say that the explanation offered is also shared by the average man who reads 2:8 in his A.V. or A.R.V. Salmond, after presenting several grounds in its favor, particularly also this that “the formula καὶ τοῦτο might rather favor it, as it often adds to the idea to which it is attached,” finally shies away from it because “salvation is the main idea in the preceding statement,” which fact, of course, the advocates of (3) would not deny but do, indeed, vigorously affirm, but which is not a valid argument against the idea that faith, as well as everything else in salvation, is God’s gift. It is not a valid argument against (3), therefore.

I have become convinced that theory (3) is the most logical explanation of the passage in question. Probably the best argument in its favor is this one: If Paul meant to say, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this being saved is not of yourselves,” he would have been guilty of needless repetition — for what else is grace but that which proceeds from God and not from ourselves? — a repetition rendered even more prolix when he now (supposedly) adds, “it, that is, salvation, is the gift of God,” followed by a fourth and fifth repetition, namely, “not of works, for we are his handiwork.” No wonder that Dr. A. Kuyper states, “If the text read, ‘For by grace you have been saved, not of yourselves, it is the work of God,’ it would make some sense. But first to say, ‘By grace you have been saved,’ and then, as if it were something new, to add, ‘and this having been saved is not of yourselves,’ this does not run smoothly but jerks and jolts.… And while with that interpretation everything proceeds by fits and starts and becomes lame and redundant, all is excellent and meaningful when you follow the ancient interpreters of Jesus’ church.”61
61 As to grammar, from the works of Plato, Xenophon, and Demosthenes several instances of the use of τοῦτο to indicate a masculine or feminine antecedent are cited by Kuyper. He also quotes the following from a Greek Grammar: “Very common is the use of a neuter demonstrative pronoun to indicate an antecedent substantive of masculine or of feminine gender when the idea conveyed by that substantive is referred to in a general sense.” The quotation is from the work of Kühnhert, Ausführliche Grammatik der Griech. sprache (Hanover, 1870), Vol. II, p. 54.

This, it would seem to me also, is the refutation of theory (1) and, to a certain extent, of theory (2).

Basically, however, theories (2) and (3) both stress the same truth, namely, that the credit for the entire process of salvation must be given to God, so that man is deprived of every reason for boasting, which is exactly what Paul says in the words which now follow, namely, 9, 10. not of works, lest anyone should boast. This introduces us to the subject:

Works in relation to our salvation

(1) Rejected
As a basis for salvation, a ground upon which we can plead, works are rejected. “Not the labors of my hands can fulfil thy law’s demands.” In this connection it must be remembered that the apostle is not thinking exclusively or even mainly of works in fulfilment of the Mosaic law, by means of which the Jew, unconverted to Christ, sought to justify himself. Surely, also by such “works of the law” “no flesh will be justified in his sight” (Rom. 3:20; cf. Gal. 2:16). But in view of the fact that Paul was addressing an audience consisting mostly of Christians from the Gentile world it is clear that he wishes to emphasize that God rejects every work of man, be he Gentile, Jew, or believer in his moments of spiritual eclipse, every work on which any man bases his hope for salvation. If, then, salvation is completely from God, “who spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32), every ground of boasting in self is excluded (Rom. 3:27; 4:5; I Cor. 1:31). When the Lord comes in his glory, those at his left hand will do all the boasting (Matt. 25:44; cf. 7:22); those at his right hand will be unable even to recall their good deeds (Matt. 25:37–39).

Now all boasting is excluded,
Unearned bliss is now my own.
I, in God thus safely rooted,
Boast in sovereign grace alone.
Long before my mother bore me,
E’en before God’s mighty hand
Out of naught made sea and land,
His electing love watched o’er me.
God is love, O angel-voice,
Tongues of men, make him your choice.62
62 This is the product of my attempt to translate into English, with retention of meter, the first stanza of the beautiful Dutch hymn “Alle roem is uitgesloten.”7

The Principal of Princeton Theological Seminary between 1851 and 1878, And Presbyterian Systematic Theologian Charles Hodge says:

Vs. 8, 9. These verses confirm the preceding declaration. The manifestation of the grace of God
is the great end of redemption. This is plain, for salvation is entirely of grace. Ye are saved by
grace; ye are saved by faith and not by works; and even faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of
God. We have then here a manifold assertion, affirmative and negative, of the gratuitous nature of
salvation. It is not only said in general, ‘ye are saved by grace,’ but further that salvation is by faith,
i. e. by simply receiving or apprehending the offered blessing. From the very nature of faith, as an
act of assent and trust, it excludes the idea of merit. If by faith, it is of grace; if of works, it is of
debt; as the apostle argues in Rom. 4, 4. 5. Faith, therefore, is the mere causa apprehendens, the
simple act of accepting, and not the ground on which salvation is bestowed. Not of works. The
apostle says works, without qualification or limitation. It is not, therefore, ceremonial, as
distinguished from good works; or legal, as distinguished from evangelical or gracious works; but
works of all kinds as distinguished from faith, which are excluded. Salvation is in no sense, and in
no degree, of works; for to him that worketh the reward is a matter of debt. But salvation is of grace
and therefore not of works lest any man should boast. That the guilty should stand before God with
self-complacency, and refer his salvation in any measure to his own merit, is so abhorrent to all
right feeling that Paul assumes it (Rom. 4, 2) as an intuitive truth, that no man can boast before
God. And to all who have any proper sense of the holiness of God and of the evil of sin, it is an
intuition; and therefore a gratuitous salvation, a salvation which excludes with works all ground
of boasting, is the only salvation suited to the relation of guilty men to God.

The only point in the interpretation of these verses of any doubt, relates to the second clause.
What is said to be the gift of God? Is it salvation, or faith? The words καὶ τοῦτο only serve to render
more proninent the matter referred to. Compare Rom. 13, 11. 1 Cor. 6, 6. Phil. 1, 28. Heb. 11, 12.
They may relate to faith (τὸ πιστεύειν), or to the salvation spoken of (σεσωσμένους εἶναι). Beza,
following the fathers, prefers the former reference; Calvin, with most of the modern commentators,
the latter. The reasons in favour of the former interpretation are, 1. It best suits the design of the
passage. The object of the apostle is to show the gratuitous nature of salvation. This is most
effectually done by saying, ‘Ye are not only saved by faith in opposition to works, but your very
faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.’ 2. The other interpretation makes the passage
tautological. To say: ‘Ye are saved by faith; not of yourselves; your salvation is the gift of God; it
is not of works,’ is saying the same thing over and over without any progress. Whereas to say: ‘Ye
are saved through faith (and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God), not of works,’ is not
repetitious; the parenthetical clause instead of being redundant does good service and greatly
increases the force of the passage. 3. According to this interpretation the antithesis between faith
and works, so common in Paul’s writings, is preserved. ‘Ye are saved by faith, not by works, lest
any man should boast.’ The middle clause of the verse is therefore parenthetical, and refers not to
the main idea ye are saved, but to the subordinate one through faith, and is designed to show how
entirely salvation is of grace, since even faith by which we apprehend the offered mercy, is the gift
of God. 4. The analogy of Scripture is in favor of this view of the passage, in so far that elsewhere
faith is represented as the gift of God. 1 Cor. 1, 26-31. Eph. 1, 19. Col. 2, 12, et passim.8

John Calvin’s comments should be noted:

8. For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.

Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain undiminished. When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that claiming nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation.9

My thoughts on Faith being the Gift of God:

God graciously gives the gift of faith. I am saved by grace and even my faith is a gift. Ephesians 2:8 says: “and that not of yourselves”. What is not of yourselves? Faith! Did I choose Christ and exercise faith? Yes, but why? Who gets the glory? Christ? Or me? Why did I choose to believe? Ephesians 1: 4,5 supplies us the answer. “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Was this salvation in my hands to choose or reject? If this were the case, then could I not glory in and of myself? How can that be so? Because I would have done something others had not done.

The following verse tells us that predestination is:

“according to the good pleasure of his will.” “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” Romans 9:16. 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. Men do not like God’s control. The cause of God’s choosing or predestination is found in Him. If we insist that we played a part in God’s choice, then human merit is brought into the picture. Salvation then
becomes synergistic rather than monergistic. Biblical salvation is monergistic. Christ alone, by his complete and finished work saves the sinner. Within a synergistic scheme, salvation becomes a cooperative effort. My work takes away from the work of Christ. How? I made a contribution. I played a part in my salvation. If I was not willing, then God could not save me. A synergistic scheme of salvation not only steals Christ’s glory, it limits God’s power. God can only do what we allow him to do within this type of system.

In conclusion, it seems to me as the above commentators have very aptly pointed out, that “faith” is the gift of God and exactly what the apostle is teaching, namely, “faith” is not of ourselves, it is the “gift of God.” This interpretation removes all grounds of man’s boasting.

Thus, we can confess by the grace of God that: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” Titus 3:5.

Notes:

1. William D. Mounce, The Basis of Biblical Greek, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 2nd edition, 1993), p. 111).
2. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, New York, 2nd edition, 1998), p. 732.
3. R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books, 1997), p. 156.
4. Gordon Clark, Ephesians, (Jefferson, Maryland, Trinity Foundation, 1985), p. 73, 74.
5. Gordon Clark, Biblical Predestination, (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing CO., Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1969), pp. 102,103.
6. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments 9 Volumes, Ephesians, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs, 2011), pp. 39,40.
7. William Hendriksen, New Testament commentary, Galatians and Ephesians, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 120-124.
8. Charles Hodge, Commentary on Ephesians, (The Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, reprinted 1991), pp. 76-78.
9. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Ephesians, Volume XX1, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, Reprinted 1979), p. 227.

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 30 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Permission is hereby granted to reprint this article as long as my web site is retained in the biographical information.

Jack Kettler
Top 20 Global Business Builder Award Winner!
Curious, for an automatic e-mail reply go to: Jack@KettlerWellness.com

The Danger of Subjectivism in the life of the Christian by Jack Kettler 2012

Subjectivity can be defined as judgments that are based on individual experiences and feelings instead of outside facts. For the Christian, outside facts are as The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 says, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”

In subjectivism, individuals are governed by emotions, feelings, intuition and mystical experiences. Subjectivism is often manifested when you hear something along the lines of, “I feel” instead of “I know.” As stated above, the Christian should be governed by the teaching of Scripture. The Christian should always ask, what does God say about this in Scripture? If not using Scripture as the standard, nothing about how the Christian should live, can be known for certain. The Christian will be plagued by an inability to make Biblically based decisions if subjectivity is allowed creep in. We want to know what God’s Word says for our lives and act accordingly.

Enter Postmodernism:

Postmodernism, is basically a new expression of subjectivism, that has become theoretical to many disciplines, including literature, art, economics, philosophy and theology. Similar to subjectivism, postmodernism relies on feelings and experience over objective Biblical principles. In postmodern subjectivism, a person’s feelings mistakenly define what is thought to be true. Postmodernism can be described as a dressed up sophisticated form of subjectivity. In addition, postmodernism is influenced by relativism. Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute truth. Anytime relativism is attached to a philosophical system, it is only a matter of time until skepticism takes over. Some try and escape this by embracing various forms of mystical irrationalism. At the end of the day, mystical irrationalism is like being lost in a bottomless ocean.

Rather than using the objective standard of Scripture, one manifestation of the guiding principle of the postmodern subjectivist has become the “feeling right about it” approach to arriving at truth for life decisions. Using the “feeling right” approach as the guiding principle is nothing more than emotions or personal feelings influencing decisions. It is not honoring to God to lay at His feet (figuratively) our feelings and emotions and attribute them to Him in the area of guidance and understanding truth. Tragically, the claim of “feeling right” has been used as a pretext for all manner of Biblical mis-interpretation and false applications. For example, many professed Christians “feel” it is alright to have sex outside of marriage. Or, it does not matter where you worship as long as you worship somewhere (like at home watching football or fishing in the mountains).

The Danger of Subjectivity in Bible Interpretation:

Biblical objectivity is undermined when subjective experiences and feelings influence the interpretation of the Scriptures. When letting a subjective experience or feeling influence the understanding of Scripture, it is not surprising that sound doctrine will give way to interpretations of Scripture that are influenced by these self-same experiences and feelings. One can easily see the circular reasoning that plagues this approach. In the area of understanding Biblical truth, for the subjectivist, the Bible is interpreted in such a fashion as to support his experience oriented interpretations of the Bible. Thus, the subjectivist assumes this must be what the Bible teaches since they have felt it, saw it, or experienced it. This is nothing more than a dangerous subjectivist circle of interpretation. The role of Scripture and experience are reversed, experience and feelings thus gaining the upper hand. This is nothing more than reading into Scripture what you want it to say rather than submitting to the teachings of Scripture.

The Inherent Contradiction of Postmodern Subjectivism:

Postmodern subjectivism has a problem with the certainty of knowledge given its dependence on experience and feelings which differ from person to person. An insurmountable problem is that when the subjectivist postmodernist says, “there is no such thing as absolute truth.” A statement like this crumbles because of its own internal self-refuting contradiction. “There is no absolute truth” is clearly a statement asserting absolute truth. We can then ask; is your assertions true that there is no “absolute truth?” We can also ask; is your truth relative or does it even exist? Is such a concept such as relative truth, true? If truth is relative, all we have are arbitrary social conventions and it would make no difference if some slime told other slim to sit on the back of the bus. Even the postmodern subjectivist lives in such a way that evidences they believe in some kind of truth. All human beings talk about right and wrong. Why attempt to find truth if it doesn’t exist? The non-Christian may very well conclude that riotous living is the best choice. The Christian has a better way.

The Christian believes that Biblical truth is the basis for determining right from wrong. If truth does not exist, neither would right or wrong. Talking about evil and morality from a consistent postmodern subjectivist point of view would be nothing more than irrational nonsense. Silence is their only consistent option. This is impossible, thus, their position is refuted. The subjectivist philosophy rejects the certainty of truth and ends up with internally self-refuting contradictions. Moreover as already alluded to, Biblically speaking, holding philosophical beliefs that contain internally self-refuting contradictions is an expression of irrationalism.

How do we protect ourselves against subjectivism?

As Christians, we need to be aware of our world-view. How do we do this? As Christians we need to be epistemologically self-conscious. Epistemology is the study of how we know things. There are generally understood to be three types or theories of gaining knowledge, 1. empiricism (a view that experience, especially the senses is the only source of knowledge), 2. rationalism (a view that appeals to man’s independent reason as a source of knowledge) and 3. dogmatism, or scripturalism (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles, in the Christian case, the Bible). It is easy to see that the first position mentioned, empiricism is inherently plagued by subjectivism given its dependence on experience. The second position is nothing more than fallen man asserting his autonomy. We need to understand and hold to a distinctively Christian theory of knowledge as spelled out in the third position.

The Guiding Principle in Layman’s terms:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:2 (NIV)

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11 (NIV)

Jesus promises we can can arrive at a knowledge of the truth in John 7:17. We can “know the truth” if we seek after the truth by searching the Scriptures. See John 8:31-32. We know from Scripture that God reveals truth. See my Pagan Philosophy, Unbelief, and Irrationalism at:
http://www.contra-mundum.org/essays/kettler/jk_pagan.pdf and
The Importance and Necessity of Special Revelation at Contra Mundum. at:

Click to access jk_pagan2.pdf

The Bible is our All-Sufficient Rule for Faith and Practice:

For those who challenge us we should always say; show me that this is what the Scripture teaches, I am not persuaded by experience or feelings. Only God’s inspired Word not mis-interpreted because of feelings, experiences or hunches.

The principle of Romans 12:2 should always be at work, with our minds being transformed by the Word of God. Additionally, we need to be reminiscent of Acts 17:11 and follow the example of the Bereans, evaluating every new teaching, every new thought, every new experience with Scripture. We should never let our experiences and feelings interpret Scripture for us. On the contrary, we must change and conform ourselves to Christ, we interpret our experiences and feelings in harmony with Scripture. Following this principle, will protect us from the dangers of subjective mis-interpretation of the Bible.

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 30 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Permission is hereby granted to reprint this article as long as my web site is retained in the biographical information.

Jack Kettler
5 Star Presidential Director and
Top 20 Global Business Builder Award Winner!
Curious, for an automatic e-mail reply go to: Jack@KettlerWellness.com

Challenging unbelief and exposing self-refuting contradictions by Jack Kettler 2012

Positions claiming absolute certainty:

Consider the assertion: “there is no God.”

First, the Christian must point out that the unbeliever has not looked and cannot look everywhere for God. The unbeliever would have to possess the divine attributes of omniscience and omnipresence in order to make an assertion of this nature with any credibility. Moreover, since the unbeliever is finite, he cannot be certain of his assertion because proof for God’s existence may be in a place where he has not looked. Therefore, the unbeliever has no ground to claim his assertion is correct because he in reality cannot be absolutely sure about his assertion. The unbeliever is basically saying; “You can’t know anything for sure.” The unbeliever cannot be sure of his own assertion without contradicting himself. Said another way the unbeliever is saying; “You can’t know anything for certain.” You reply by asking, are you certain of that? As you have just seen, the unbeliever has refuted himself.

The following comments by Cornelius Van Til on atheism are most instructive:

Even making the statement “God does not exist” would be impossible if God did not exist. No statement can be made about chaos, abstract plurality. Without any order to the world, words would never have a consistent meaning. “This is x” would be equivalent to “This is not x.” “God does not exist” would be equivalent to “God does exist.” The words “God,” “does,” “not,” and “exist” would suffer the same possibility of becoming their opposites, or anything else; nor would there be any relationship between any of the words. To say that God does not exist is to make a universal negative claim, yet on the basis of a plurality that excludes all unity, universal claims are not possible. On the other hand, on the basis of an abstract unity as ultimate, no words would have any content. Once again, “is” would be equivalent to “is not.” All would be a blank. God, as a concrete universal, must exist in order for the statement “God does not exist” to be intelligible. Antitheism presupposes theism. One must stand upon the solid ground of theism to be an effective antitheist. Finally, agnosticism is morally self-contradictory since it pretends to be very humble in its insistence that it makes no sweeping conclusions, while as a matter of fact it has mad a universal negative conclusion in total reliance upon itself. The “natural man” is at enmity against God.1

Positions claiming absolute uncertainty:

“We cannot know whether God exists or not.”

The Christian must show the unbeliever that though his position may seem safe and neutral on the surface, it is actually a bold statement about God and His world. The assertion is claiming that God has not made himself known in a way that should be accepted by everyone. The Christian must respond by explaining to the unbeliever that he has not searched everywhere to see if there is any clear evidence for God’s existence. Moreover, the unbeliever is in reality unable to look everywhere without possessing divine attributes. The unbeliever is basically saying; “There is no certainty.” He cannot be certain of that without contradicting himself? Therefore, the unbeliever cannot be sure about his agnosticism and therefore, his position and objection is not valid. Again, as you have just seen, the unbeliever has refuted himself.

Cornelius Van Til speaking of Agnosticism says:

[Agnosticism] is, in the first place, psychologically self-contradictory upon its own assumptions. Agnosticism wants to hold that it is reasonable to refrain from thorough epistemological speculations because they cannot lead to anything. But in order to assume this attitude, agnosticism has itself made the most tremendous intellectual assertion that could be made about ultimate things. In the second place, agnosticism is epistemologically self-contradictory on its own assumptions because its claim to make no assertion about ultimate reality rests upon a most comprehensive assertion about ultimate reality. . . . the alternative is not between saying something about ultimate reality or not saying anything about it, but that the alternative is rather between saying one thing about it or another. Every human being, as a matter of fact, says something about ultimate reality.

It should be noted that those who claim to say nothing about ultimate reality not only do say something about it just as well as everybody else, but they have assumed for themselves the responsibility of saying one definite thing about ultimate reality. They have assumed the responsibility of excluding God. We have seen again that a God who is to come in afterward is no God at all [i.e. a God that is not sovereign over all existence – M.W.]. Agnosticism cannot say that it is open-minded on the question of the nature of ultimate reality. It is absolutely closed-minded on the subject. It has one view that it cannot, unless its own assumption be denied, exchange for another. It has started with the assumption of the non-existence of God and must end with it. Its so-called open-minded attitude is therefore a closed-minded attitude. The agnostic must be open-minded and closed-minded at the same time. And this is not only a psychological self-contradiction, but an epistemological self-contradiction. It amounts to affirmation and denial at the same time. Accordingly, they cancel out one another, if there is cancellation power in them. . .

Incidentally, we may point out that, in addition to being psychologically and epistemologically self-contradictory, the agnostic is morally self-contradictory. His contention was that he is very humble, and for that reason unwilling to pretend to know anything about ultimate matters. Yet he has by implication made a universal statement about reality. He therefore not only claims to know as much as the theist knows, but he claims to know much more. More than that, he not only claims to know much more than the theist, but he claims to know more than the theist’s God. He has boldly set bare possibility above the theist’s God and is quite willing to test the consequences of his action. It is thus that the hubris of which the Greeks spoke so much, and upon which they invoked the wrath of the gods, appears in new and seeming innocent garb.2

As seen in the above self-referential statements by unbelievers asserting total certainty or agnostics in arguing for total uncertainty, we see that their statements are self-refuting. It is amazing to see how many times these kinds of statements are made by unbelievers.

Some of the numerous examples and responses to self refuting contradictions made by modern day unbelievers and irrationalists:

“Only knowledge that can be empirically verified is true.” Can you empirically verify that statement?

“There are no absolute truths.” Is that statement absolutely true?

“All truth is relative.” Is the supposed truth you just asserted relative?

“You should be skeptical of everything.” Should we be skeptical of that statement?

“You ought not judge.” Is that a judgment you just asserted?

The folly of modern unbelieving assertions about reality are best summed up by Van Til:

“Modern science boldly asks for a criterion of meaning when one speaks to him of Christ. He assumes that he himself has a criterion, a principle of verification and of falsification, by which he can establish for himself a self-supporting island floating on a shoreless sea. But when he is asked to show his criterion as it functions in experience, every fact is indeterminate, lost in darkness; no one can identify a single fact, and all logic is like a sun that is always behind the clouds.”3

Also, it problematic for non-believers, when they assert moral absolutes and omniscient statements within the framework of a materialistic system that does not allow absolutes. When finite man without Biblical authority asserts moral absolute omniscient statements, it is indefensible. Moreover, it should be noted the absurdity of atheism’s claim when asserting, “there is no God.” The absurdity is this; it is impossible to prove a universal negative. And furthermore, when the atheist asserts that “there is no God.” When using the second question of the Socratic technique, “how do you know that?” reveals the failure of this unverifiable claim. With that, we can dismiss the non-believer’s demand for verification, which they always demand of Christians. In regards to the agnostic claims of ignorance concerning the existence of God, it should be noted that this claim of ignorance is not an argument against the existence of God. Rather, it is a sign of epistemological bankruptcy and what could be described as a deficiency of knowledge.

Unbelievers argue in ways that are truly rational only on the basis of the Christian world-view:

We cannot do without God any more when we wish to know about physics or psychology than when we wish to know about our soul’s salvation. Not one single fact in this universe can be known truly by man without the existence of God. Even if man will not recognize God’s existence, the fact of God’s existence none the less accounts for whatever measure of knowledge man has about God….Now if every fact of the universe is created by God, and if the mind of man and whatever the mind of man knows is created by God, it goes without saying that the whole fabric of human knowledge would dash to pieces if God did not exist and if all finite existence were not revelational of God.4

In closing, as Van Til observes:

It is the firm conviction of every epistemologically self-conscious Christian that no human being can utter a single syllable, whether in negation or affirmation, unless it were for God’s existence. Thus the transcendental argument seeks to discover what sort of foundations the house of human knowledge must have, in order to be what it is.5

Van Til goes on to say:

We must point out that reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well… It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions.6

To see the transcendental apologetic in an actual debate listen to the Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein: titled “The Great Debate” on atheism versus the existence of God at:

Both men are now deceased. Gordon Stein at the time was the top debater for atheism. In this debate, Greg Bahnsen demolishes and totally upends Gordon Stein. It is well worth your time to listen to this.

Download books by Cornelius Van Til on PDF’s at:

Van Til PDF’s

See Van Til’s Why I believe in God

See my The Importance and Necessity of Special Revelation at:

Click to access jk_pagan2.pdf

Let it be widely known that:

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…” Psalm 14:1

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Psalm 19:1

Notes:

1. Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970), xii.
2. Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970) pp. 213,214.
3. Cornelius Van Til, Christian-Theistic Evidences (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1976), pp. 147-48.
4. Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1978), 14.
5. Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970) p. 11.
6. Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), p. 204).

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 30 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Permission is hereby granted to reprint this article as long as my web site is retained in the biographical information.

Jack Kettler
5 Star Presidential Director and
Top 20 Global Business Builder Award Winner!
Curious, for an automatic e-mail reply go to: Jack@KettlerWellness.com

Scriptural Authority, the Old Testament and Biblical Considerations:                      2011 By Jack Kettler                                  

The authority of Scripture flows from the fact that it is God’s Word. As will be shown in this study, the Scriptures declare themselves to be God’s Word. It follows necessarily, that the Scriptures are authoritative. We will also see clear Biblical evidence that the people of Israel had an objective written Scriptural canon and the importance of this to safe guard against false teachers.

The prophet Isaiah declares the power of God’s Word when it is sent forth:

 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:11 David in the Psalms further confirms this truth:

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. And, …The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. Psalms 33:6, 11

Not only is God and His Word irresistible when sent forth, it is important to see at the start of this study just how closely God is identified with the Scriptures.

Consider this example from the book of Romans:

 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 10:11
The apostle Paul in the book of Romans says, “For the scripture saith.” It is significant to note, when you consult Isaiah 28:16 whom the apostle is quoting, you find that it is God speaking.

To establish this further:

 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isaiah 28:16

And then in Romans we also read:
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Romans 9:17
Was God speaking or the Scriptures? If there is any doubt, we know for sure after reading Exodus 9:16 that it is God speaking whereas, Romans says, “the scripture saith.” Therefore, it is clear that God and the Scriptures are so closely identified as to be synonymous. In essence, we learn from these examples, “thus saith the Lord God” and the phrase “the Scriptures saith” can be and are used interchangeably.

As stated at the beginning, it should be obvious from the Biblical passages seen thus far, that God’s Word is inseparable from His authority. His Word conveys His authority. A real issue today is one of authority. What role does the Bible have? False religious leaders attack the reliability of the Bible in order to subordinate people to their own authority. The pattern is always the same; the claim is “the Bible is not sufficient.”

The attacks upon Biblical authority and sufficiency are sometimes very subtle, although at times bold claims are made about alleged missing or corrupted parts of the Scriptures. You supposedly need their leaders, traditions, books, or special insights to make up for the missing or unclear parts of the Bible.

The Scriptures declare God to be Sovereign or the absolute ruler over all. God has either preserved His Word from corruption or He has not. These are the only two choices. It is evident from the Scriptures that God has the power to preserve His Word from corruption as evidenced by the testimony of the Scriptures themselves.

Since the Christian recognizes the authority of Scripture we will examine what God has revealed in the Bible about his Word. The Bible provides a powerful testimony concerning itself. God has clearly spoken in the Bible. We can have the utmost confidence in Scripture.

The Biblical view of the Old Testament Scriptures:

The Scriptural passages in this section of the present study give Biblical rationale for putting confidence in the Word of God. The passages cited in this section from the Old Testament clearly teach that the Old Testament itself is the Word of God. The New Testament passages cited in this section clearly refer to the Old Testament as Scripture or the very Word of God. Because of this, there is no reason to doubt that the Old Testament is the Word of God.

The following five passages speak of the Word of God:

 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandment of the Lord your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psalm 119:105

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded. Proverbs 13:13

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever. Isaiah 40:8

We see that these five passages set God’s Word apart from the writings of men, by the fact that God’s words are “pure,” “a lamp and light,” and are “eternal.” If you despise the Word by rejecting or altering it you will be destroyed. What man can claim this about his writings? Not one!
And furthermore, when reading the Old Testament there is no mistaking that God is speaking to man. Beginning in Genesis 1:3 you have the phrase “And God said.” or the similar phrase “And the Lord said.” Exodus 32:9. In addition, you have God speaking using the familiar terminology “Thus saith the Lord” or “saith the Lord” in places such as Genesis 22:16; Exodus 5:1; all the way to Malachi 1:2. In the prophets we read passages like “And say, Here ye the word of the Lord” Jeremiah 19:3. There are many variations of these above phrases. In fact, there are many hundreds of Old Testament passages like this, which establish the divine authenticity of the Old Testament.
How does the New Testament view the Old? For the remainder of this study we will see a consistent New Testament testimony.

Consider the importance of the following New Testament verse:

 These were more noble minded 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

This should be the practice of all believers. The believers in Berea used the Scriptures as a test for the truth or falsity of a given message and are commended for this practice. In this particular instance, the Bereans were commended for examining even the Apostle Paul’s message. Surely, this gives the individual Christian the basis for questioning church doctrine if not established Biblically. In regards to the above passage, it should be noted that this verse from Acts 17:11 deals primarily with the Old Testament Scriptures, since at this stage in redemptive history the New Testament was in the process of being given and complied. Because of this, we can infer that the Old Testament is the Word of God. It was the Old Testament that was searched by the Bereans to see if Paul’s message was true.

Consider the words of Christ himself when speaking of the Old Testament Scriptures:

 …the Scripture cannot be broken. John 10:35

This passage speaks directly of the Old Testament but goes beyond them and refers to the New Testament as well. If the Scriptures “cannot be broken,” then we are to bind ourselves to its teaching. Unquestionably, according to our Lord here in John’s gospel the Scriptures are set forth as the highest court of appeal.

How did the Old Testament prophecy of Scripture come?

The Apostle Peter teaches that the Scriptures came from God as the Spirit of God moved holy men to speak:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. II Peter 1:20,21

In this passage, Peter clearly sets the Old Testament apart from human writings. The apostle Paul says the same thing when he tells us that it was the “oracles” or the very Word of God, which was committed to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. Consider Paul’s germane teaching:

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3:2

We also find that the word translated “oracles” occurs in the New Testament several more times. For example, in Acts 7:38, Hebrews 5:12, and 1 Peter 4:11 we see “oracles” mentioned. These examples are all referring to the Scriptures as being that which was spoken by God.

In the next passage from Luke, Jesus is referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. How did Christ view these Scriptures? To begin with, Jesus establishes His identity from the Scriptures. And secondly, He did not believe any portions of Scripture had disappeared or existed in some separate body of oral traditions as evidenced by the phrase “in all the Scriptures.”

Christ appealing to an objective body of writings:

 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27

Along this same line, after Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah in Luke 4:18,19 He says:

And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears. Luke 4:21

Not only does Christ identify Isaiah’s writing as Scripture he goes on later in Luke 16:30,31 to show the importance of Scriptural testimony as over against even a miracle such as someone returning from the dead. This is significant because it sets forth the Scriptures as more important than experience.

Consider another important passage from Luke:

 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. Luke 16:29

This passage reinforces the authority of the Old Testament, because Moses and the prophets spoke the Word of God with finality and we are told to “hear them.” At this point because of the relevance of the above passage it would be good to note the necessity of using the Scriptures to interpret experience. This is of the utmost importance. Many people use experience and emotions or feelings to interpret the Bible without even realizing it.

The careful reader of God’s Word should use the grammar and historical context when interpreting the Scriptures. You should not come to the text with preconceived ideas that may color your interpretation. People whom claim to have had spiritual experiences often fall into the trap of allowing the experience to influence their understanding of a particular text of Scripture. The experience in effect governs the interpretation the Scripture and inevitably leads to error.

We see more of Christ’s view of Scripture in the gospel of John: “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God” 5:18. In this passage Jesus responds to the Jew’s attempt to kill him because of His claim of Deity by appealing to the Old Testament Scripture again: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” John 5:46,47.

The crux of Christ’s argument is an admonition to search the Old Testament Scriptures, which further establishes their credibility and authority. Hopefully this important affirmation by the Saviour concerning the authority of the Old Testament Scripture is not overlooked.

It is significant to see how Jesus makes this connection:

 Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

In this passage from John, Jesus tells the disciples about one of the most important testimonies of the Scriptures, namely, how His person and work are inseparably connected to the Scriptures. More will be said later on the importance of this.

We should note how God speaking in and through the Scriptures, directs His people to study the Scriptures in order to gain patience, comfort, and hope. The apostle Paul gives the believer assurance by clearly referring to the Old Testament Scriptures as the place to obtain these very things.

Consider this statement of the apostle Paul, which confirms this:

 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

It should be established beyond any doubt that the New Testament consistently calls the Old Testament the Scriptures or in other words, the Word of God. Another issue that needs to be addressed is whether Old Testament people of God had possession of the Scriptures in a identifiable or recognizable form. It should be noted that the Scriptures were read and studied in the synagogues of ancient Israel. The people of Israel were to commit God’s Word to memory and teach it to their children and write them on the door-posts of their houses. This command of God has tremendous implications in the life of every day believers.

Consider God’s Command:

 And these words, which I commanded thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. Deuteronomy 6:6-9

This verse shows us that there was a daily ongoing reading and teaching of the Scriptures, which created a deep respect in Israel for the Word of God. There was a reverence for God’s Word in Israel. In fact, Israel has been known as “people of the book.” As God spoke in the Old Testament, these words were recorded and faithfully transcribed to preserve this Word for proceeding generations. This preservation is evidenced by the fact that the Scriptures were read in the synagogues of Israel. Christ himself read and taught the Word in the synagogues. Luke 4:16-21

The astute reader will notice that Jesus “closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister.” Jesus was demonstrating that Israel had the Word of God in written form. Israel did not just have fragments of God’s Word; they had a recognizable body of writing. So it is not surprising in Luke’s gospel we see clear indication for the Old Testament authoritative books, or the canon of Scripture that existed in Christ’s day:

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Luke 24:44

This verse refers to the three sections of the Old Testament canon. The Old Testament canon consisted of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings in which the Psalms was a part. There was clearly, a distinguishable structure and list of authoritative books in the Old Testament at this point in redemptive history.

In the following passage we find more proof that establishes a distinguishable written canon of Scripture in Christ’s day:

 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation. From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation. Luke 11:50,51

This passage sets the time frame for Old Testament prophetic revelation between the death of Abel in Genesis 4:8 and Zechariah’s death. The death of Zechariah is recorded in II Chronicles 24:20,21. At first sight this seems to present a problem because of the order of our modern Bibles. It would seem to exclude any Old Testament books following II Chronicles. In Christ’s day the canon of the Old Testament had the book of Chronicles, which was not then divided, placed out of historical order in the Jewish canon and was found after Ezra and Nehemiah, thus making it the last book of the Jewish canon. So according to this order, Zecharias was the last sufferer at the hands of the Old Testament religious apostates.

The testimony of the Scriptures stands sure. That testimony is that the Old Testament is the Word of God. It can be said with certainty; there was indeed a distinguishable Old Testament written canon of Scripture in Christ’s day. The importance of a recognizable written canon of Scripture possessed by the Old Testament people of God cannot be underestimated in its importance. An objective body of canonical writings is far superior to an undetermined fluctuating oral tradition, or dubious so-called additional books of revelation.

Hopefully, those who have attempted to cast doubt on the Scriptural canon and its binding authority so that they can attempt to establish new revelations allegedly found in additional books previously missing or a secondary sources of divine revelation, such as an alleged body of “sacred tradition” will not miss this. Christ fully accepted the canon as it stood in His day, on that account of His Words “the Scripture cannot be broken.” John 10:35

In conclusion, to doubt the divine authenticity of the Old Testament is to doubt Christ. The Old Testament people of God knew that they possessed the Word of God, and consequently, were careful in handling the texts of Scripture. The New Testament people of God were no less careful. There is no indication that the Word of God mentioned in this study was anything other than the Scriptures, which are recorded in our Bibles.

This is why we declare:

 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the Word that I have spoken, the same [Christ’s Word] shall judge him in the last day. John 12:48

 

3. God’s sovereign will in election and regeneration Volume 1 number 3

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not

of him that willeth, nor him that runneth, but God that showeth mercy. Ro. 9:15,16

15)The all important aspect of verse 15 is that in support of the “God forbid” of verse 14 the mercy of God is not a matter of justice to those who are partakers of it but altogether of free and sovereign grace. This true whether the mercy be viewed as the theocratic election of Israel to covenant privileges or, in terms of what is the apostle’s particular interest, as the mercy that is unto salvation. Justice presupposes rightful claims, and mercy can be operative only where no claim of justice exists. Since mercy alone is the constraining consideration, the only explanation is God’s free and sovereign determination. He has mercy as he pleases. This is the emphasis of Exodus 33:19 and to this Paul makes his definitive appeal. Back of this thesis is the polemic of the apostle in the earlier part of the epistle for the principle of grace.

16)Can be regarded as the inference drawn from the Scripture quoted in verse 15 but it is preferably regarded as a statement of what is involved in the truth just asserted. The relation would be then as follows: if God has mercy on whomsoever he wills, “then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy”. The emphasis falls here on the exclusion of man’s determination as the negative counterpart to God’s exercise of mercy. The first negation refers to human volition, the determination belonging to man’s will; the second refers to man’s active exertion (cf. 1 Cor. 9:24, 26; Gal. 2:2; 5:7; Heb. 12:1). The mercy of God is not an attainment gained by the most diligent labour to that end but a free bestowal of grace. No statement could be more antithetic to what accrues from claims of justice or as the awards of labour. ⁸

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Jas. 1:18

18)James designates God the Father of lights. By implication, however, he calls God our Father. Even though he omits the word Father, he employs the concept to give birth. Fatherhood is part of God’s nature. He is the Father of Jesus Christ and through him is our Father. a. “He chose to give us birth.” The first verb in this sentence is “chose”; because of its position it receives emphasis. “We have been born of his saving will (Jas. 1:18), and because God himself is the unalterable on (cf. Jas. 1:17), his gracious will cannot be overthrown.” We did not choose him; rather, he chose us and saved us from death. He gave us new life in Christ Jesus. In verse 15 James depicts sin giving birth to death. In verse 18 he states that God “chose to give us birth through the word of truth.” God is our creator but also our redeemer. In this verse the context favours the interpretation that God is our re-creator. He gives us life through spiritual birth. b. “Through the word of truth.” Paul uses this expression a number of time (11 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:5; 11 Tim. 2:15). It refers to the gospel, as Paul explains in his letter to the Colossians. When this gospel is proclaimed, God regenerates the sinner and reforms him into “new creation” (11 Cor. 5:17; Col. 3:10). Writes D. Edmond Hiebert, “There is no substitute for the proclamation of the gospel.” c. “That we might be a kind of firstfruits.” God created, regenerated and renewed us. We are his handiwork, his prize possession. James says that we are “a kind of firstfruits.”

In Old Testament times, the first fruits were holy and belonged to God: the first-born of man and of cattle, the first produce from the vineyard, orchard, and field (see, for instance, Exod. 23:16; 34:22; Lev. 19:23-25; Num. 15:20-21; Deut. 18:4). However, already in the Old Testament the prophets began to use the expression figuratively. Jeremiah writes, “Israel was holy to the LORD, the firstfruits of his harvest” (Jer. 2:3). And in the New Testament, Christians are God’s first fruits (Rom. 11:16; 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:15). In his epistle, James calls us “a kind of firstfruits of all [God] created.” We belong to the countless multitude (symbolically represented as the 144,000) who “were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb” (Rev. 14:4).

What an honor! We are God’s first fruits and as such are holy. That is, God has chosen us from all his creatures to be holy and has dedicated us to himself. We belong to God. Therefore, let no one ever think that God can lead us astray. That is impossible, for he is holy and we, his first fruits, share his holiness. ⁹

Notes:

8.John Murray, The New International Commentary On The New Testament, The Epistle To The Romans, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, WM. B. Eerdmans, Reprinted 1982), Volume 11 p. 26.

9.Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, James and 1-111 John, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 53, 54

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of the http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 30 years. Mr. Kettler can be contacted by e-mail at: jack@kettlerwellness.com

 

Studies in the Sovereignty Of God Volume 1 Number 2

 2. God, the Ruler or governor of the nations:

 For the kingdom is the LORD’s: and he is the governor among the nations. Ps. 22:28

 (28) The kingdom is Jehovah’s, that he may rule over the nations Some explain these words thus:- It is not to be wondered at if the Gentiles should be constrained to yield honor to God, by whom they were created, and by whose hand they are governed, although he has not entered into a covenant of life with them. But I reject this as a meagre and unsatisfactory interpretation. This passage, I have no doubt, agrees with many other prophecies which represent the throne of God as erected, on which Christ may sit to superintend and govern the world. Although, therefore, the providence of God is extended to the whole world, without any part of it being excepted; yet let us remember that he then, in very deed, exercises his authority, when having dispelled the darkness of ignorance, and diffused the light of his word, he appears conspicuous on his throne. We have such a description of his kingdom by the prophet Isaiah,

 “He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people.” (Isa 2:4)

 Moreover, as God had not subdued the world to himself, prior to the time when those who before were unconquerable were subdued to a willing obedience by the preaching of the gospel, we may conclude that this conversion was effected only under the management and government of Christ. If it is objected, that the whole world has never yet been converted, the solution is easy. A comparison is here made between that remarkable period in which God suddenly became known every where, by the preaching of the gospel, and the ancient dispensation, when he kept the knowledge of himself shut up within the limits of Judea. Christ, we know, penetrated with amazing speed, from the east to the west, like the lightning’s flash, in order to bring into the Church the Gentiles from all parts of the world. ⁵

 For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down, and setteth up another. Ps. 75:6,7

 6) There is a God, and a providence, and things happen not by chance. Though deliverance be hopeless from all points of the compass, yet God can work it for his people; and though judgment come neither from the rising or the setting of the sun, nor from wilderness of mountains, yet come it will, for the Lord reigneth. Men forget that all things are ordained in heaven; they see but the human force, and carnal passion, but the unseen Lord is more real far than these. He is at work behind and within the cloud. The foolish dream that he is not, but he is near even now, and on the way to bring in his hand that cup of spiced wine of vengeance, one draught of which shall staggger all his foes.

7) Even now he is actually judging. His seat is not vacant; his authority is not abdicated; the Lord reigneth evermore. Empires rise and fall at his bidding. A dungeon here, and there a throne, his will assigns. Assyria yields to Babylon, and Babylon to the Medes. Kings are but puppets in his hand; they serve his purpose when they rise and when they fall. A certain author has issued a work called “Historic Ninepins,” a fit name of scorn for all the great ones of the earth. God only is; all power belongs to him; all else is shadow, coming and going, unsubstantial, misty, dream-like. ⁶

 The King’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whitheroever he will. Prov. 21:1

 1) And indeed Scripture witness is abundant. Abimelech’s heart was in the hand of the Lord for good. Pharaoh’s heart was turned towards Joseph. The Babylonians monarch showed kindness to Daniel and his captive brethren. The Persian monarchs countenanced and assisted in the building of the temple. The hearts of wicked kings are alike in the hand of the Lord; yet he hath no part in their wickedness. The hatred of Pharaoh; the ambition of Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, were his instruments for his own purposes. Ahab’s murderous heart was restrained, and even made to accomplish the downfall of Baal. The counsels of the kings of the earth against Christ were under Divine control. Thus does the wrath of man praise him; and the remainder he restrains. Thus an Almighty agency is visible by its effects in the minutest affairs. ⁷

 Notes:

 5. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p. 385, 386.

6. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Treasury of David (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), p. 294, 295

7. Charles Bridges, Proverbs, The Geneva Series of Commentaries, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, The Banner of Truth Trust, Reprinted 1983), p. 364, 365.

 

Studies in the Sovereignty Of God Volume 1 Number 1

In this section we will look at numerous scriptures that prove that God is sovereign.

I. The Sovereign Will of God:

A. The Divine Sovereign Will of God over His creation. We can see in the following passages God’s sovereignty in the preservation of His creation.

Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth; in the

seas, and all deep places. Ps. 135:6

Verse 6) Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places. His will is carried out throughout all space. The king’s warrant runs in every portion of the universe. The heathen divided the great domain; but Jupiter does not rule in heaven, nor Neptune on the sea, nor Pluto in the lower regions; Jehovah rules over all. His decree is not defeated, his purpose is not frustrated: in no one point is his good pleasure set aside. The word “whatsoever” is of the widest range and includes all things, and the four words of place which are mentioned comprehend all space; therefore the declaration of the text knows neither limit nor exception. Jehovah works his will: he pleases to do, and he performs the deed. None can stay his hand. How different this from the gods whom the heathen fabled to be subject to all the disappointments, failures, and passions of men! How contrary even to those so called Christian conceptions of God which subordinate him to the will of man, and make his eternal purposes the football of human caprice. Our theology teaches us no such degrading notions of the Eternal as that he can be baffled by man. “His purpose shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure.” No region is too high, no abyss too deep, no land too distant, no sea too wide for his omnipotence: his divine pleasure travels post over all the realm of nature, and his behests are obeyed. ¹

O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD.

Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O

house of Israel. Jeremiah. 18:6

6) Refuting the Jews’ reliance on their external privileges as God’s elect people, as if God could never cast them off. But if the potter, a mere creature, has power to throw away a marred vessel and raise up other clay from the ground, a fortiori God, the Creator, can cast away the people who prove unfaithful to His election and can raise others in their stead (compare Isa 45:9; 64:8; Ro 9:20, 21). It is curious that the potter’s field should have been the purchase made with the price of Judas’ treachery (Mt 27:9, 10: a potter’s vessel dashed to pieces, compare Ps 2:8, 9; Re 2:27), because of its failing to answer the maker’s design, being the very image to depict God’s sovereign power to give reprobates to destruction, not by caprice, but in the exercise of His righteous judgment. Matthew quotes Zechariah’s words (Zec 11:12, 13) as Jeremiah’s because the latter (Jer 18:1-19:15) was the source from which the former derived his summary in Zec 11:12, 13 [Hengstenberg]. ²

John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given

him from heaven. John 3:27

Well saith John, I see a man can receive (that is, perceive) nothing, except it be given him from heaven. The labour of ministers if all lost labour, unless the grace of God make it effectual. Men do not understand that which is made most plain, nor believe that which is made most evident, unless it be given them from heaven to understand and believe it. ³

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou

hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Rev. 4:11

11) All the praises, homages, and acknowledgments of all the creatures is thy due; as thou art he who gavest the first being to all creatures, and therefore gavest it them, that they might praise, honour, serve and obey thee. ⁴

Notes:

1. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Treasury of David (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), p. 193.

2. Jamieson,Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 618.

3. Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, Fourth printing 1985) p. 1932.

4. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 961

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of the http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 30 years. Mr. Kettler can be contacted by e-mail at: jack@kettlerwellness.com

Essential Nutritional Categories: towards an understanding of which nutritional supplements should be taken, how many and for how long. Part Six

Essential Enzymes and human needs:

First, an enzyme is a protein that catalyzes or speeds up, a chemical reaction in the body. Enzymes are digestive agents that break down food particles into molecules that can then be absorbed through the intestinal walls and into the blood stream.

Secondly, enzymes require companions or helper molecules in order to operate. They are called co-factors. A co-factor is a substance that needs to be present with the enzyme for a certain reaction to take place. The term co-factor can refer to either an inorganic molecule that works with enzymes or organic molecules. It should be noted that some enzymes specifically require organic molecules (vitamins) to function correctly and others require inorganic molecules (minerals) to function properly. They are both called co-factors because they help carry pieces of molecules to different places in the body via the blood stream.

If the companion molecule is an organic vitamin then the companion is called a co-enzyme. The word co-enzyme refers to an organic molecule or a vitamin. A co-enzyme is a functional and necessary part of an enzyme.

Digestive enzymes come from food sources such as sprouts, papaya, pineapples, avocados, bananas and mangos. Enzymes are manufactured internally in our bodies by the digestive system which secretes them into the saliva, stomach, pancreas and intestines.

There are six main divisions or groups of enzymes. Within each class of enzymes there are many more.

The Six Groups:

• Hydrolases is needed to break down proteins, carbohydrates, and fat molecules into their simplest forms
• Isomerase breaks down chemical groups within molecules. Note: this enzyme is needed to help attach galactose (a monosaccharide) to the bodily cells
• Ligases brings about the unification of two different molecules
• Lyases splits the double bonds between atoms within certain chemical groups
• Oxidoreductases facilitates oxidation and reduction within a wide range of biological processes
• Trasnserases as the name implies, transfers chemical groups from one molecule to another

What happens if you are deficient in one or more critical enzymes? What if the necessary co-factors are not present? Or, what if the enzyme is missing the needed co-enzyme? Enzyme deficiency is known to cause heart problems, joint pain, obesity, and many other health problems because of the nutritional loss due to this deficiency. The importance of essential enzymes activity has been seriously overlooked in the field of nutritional science. There are a number of good enzymes supplements available in the marketplace.

In conclusion, hopefully, the information supplied above will help the reader with some directions when trying to answer the question regarding the right supplements and food sources along with how much of each particular supplement is needed by the body to feed or supply its necessary nutritional needs.

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to each individual’s unique requirements. It would be wonderful if there was a nutritional body scanner that could answer this question. The doctor could then tell you if you needed extra vitamin B or more amino acids. Short of waiting for this machine to be invented, it seems prudent to adhere to a well balanced diet consisting of foods as close to their raw state as possible. In addition, maintaining a regime of essential nutrients and a proper exercise program, coupled with plenty of rest, drinking good clean water and breathing in clean air will help in developing a healthy active lifestyle.

Again, it needs to be asked, what happens if you are deficient in one or more of the essential monosaccharides, amino acids, vital dietary enzymes or vitamins and minerals? Will the glycosylation or other metabolic processes break down if an individual is lacking in their unique required nutritional needs?

Unless there are special factors that require a doctor’s analysis and recommendation, it is important to take enough of a supplement and take them long enough. Just like the glycosylation process which is ongoing, all cells need vitamins, minerals, amino acids, fatty acids and enzymes supplied in the diet or by supplementation to live. This is an ongoing, life long sustaining process. In other words, you need to nourish or feed your body.

Nutritional supplements are not drugs. We have to think of them differently.  If we approach nutrition like drugs we will be looking for an overnight quick fix. Nourishing our bodies through proper diet and nutritional supplementation is completely different. It is a life style or way of life. Eating is necessary to live. It has been said “we are what we eat.” We need to evaluate if what we are eating is truly nourishment and not simply empty calories devoid of nutritional content.

And finally, some people ask when they would be able to stop taking a supplement. This question is a tip off that the individual is approaching a nutritional supplement like a drug. To make a point; what happens if you are deficient in one or more of the essential vitamins and minerals? Beriberi, pellagra, rickets and scurvy are well know nutritional deficiencies. If you had the symptoms of scurvy (a vitamin C deficiency) would you take a vitamin C supplement until the symptoms disappeared and then stop or make sure you are continuing to get enough vitamin C through your diet or a supplement for the rest of your life? The answer should be obvious.

In review, one of the ways the structure and function of cells are determined is by the nature of nutrition supplied into the body. Nutrition is the raw material that goes into the ongoing creation of new cellular structures. For this process to happen correctly you need to have vital nutrition in your body. Nutrition when ingested in the body is broken down into micronutrients which become the building blocks or parts used in the making of the cells in your body.

All of the recognized groups of nutrition are vital for improving cellular structure and function by supporting the physiological functions of repair, regeneration, and other immune defense mechanisms of the body. What I am saying is that the body repairs itself and nutrition provides the molecules necessary to accomplish this. When this happens, these are not a drug effects, it is normal physiology, in other words the biochemistry of the body is being changed nutritionally and because of this I am not claiming that nutritional products treat cure, or mitigate disease. In short, when the body has the correct nutrition supplied the structure of the new cells will normal and they will function correctly.

Nutrition is essential! You will not always feel (drug paradigm thinking) something from the supplementation of a nutrient for it to be supplying critically needed raw material for your body’s metabolism processes. Don’t short change yourself!  Take charge of your health, live a healthy life style, nourish yourself with the best foods and find the best supplements on God’s green earth to support your body by giving it the tools needed to repair and correct it-self! In other words, give your body a fighting chance! Start discovering the wonderful world within you today. Support the immune, endocrine, digestive, and elimination systems of your body and don’t let health issues get the upper hand. Be proactive when it comes to your health!

To Your Health,

Jack Kettler

Certified Wellness Consultant (DSHEA Certified) (Diplomat in Nutritional Education and Health)

Extended Bio

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 30 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Permission is hereby granted to reprint this article as long as my web site is retained in the biographical information. Mr. Kettler can be contacted by e-mail at: jack@kettlerwellness.com

Disclaimer: The information in this article should not be considered a substitute for a doctor’s care or advice.

Notes:

1. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vitamins for Chronic Disease Prevention in Adults, JAMA 2002; 287:3116
2. Roger J. Williams, Biochemical Individuality, (New Canaan, Connecticut, Keats Publishing, Reprint 1998) p. 189.
3. Williams, p. 189.
4. Ibid, p. 190.
5. Ibid, p. 184.
6.  Beth M. Ley, Colostrum & Lactoferrin, (Detroit Lakes, MN, BL Publications, 2000) pp. 45, 46.

Recommended Reading:

Roger J. Williams, Biochemical Individuality, (New Canaan, Connecticut, Keats Publishing Reprint 1998).

Roger J. Williams, The Wonderful World Within You, (Wichita, Kansas, Bio Communications Press, Revised edition republished 1998).

Roger J. Williams, Nutrition Against Disease, (New York, Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1971).

Roger J. Williams, Physicians Handbook Of nutritional Science, (Springfield, Illinois, Thomas Books 1975).

Anthony J. Cichoke, The Complete Book Of Enzyme Therapy, (New York, Avery, 1999).

Robert Ronzio, The Encyclopedia of nutrition and Good Health, (New York. Facts On File Inc., 2003).

Beth M. Ley, Colostrum & Lactoferrin, (Detroit Lakes, MN, BL Publications, 2000).

Lester Packer and Carol Colman, The Antioxidant Miracle, (New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1999).