Thomas Stearns Eliot (1888–1965) was an eminent poet, playwright, essayist, and critic, widely regarded as one of the most influential literary figures of the 20th century, whose profound engagement with Christian faith indelibly shaped his life and work. Born in St. Louis, Missouri, to a prominent Unitarian family with New England roots, Eliot initially pursued an academic path, studying philosophy at Harvard, the Sorbonne, and Oxford. However, his intellectual and spiritual journey took a transformative turn in 1927 when he was baptized into the Church of England and naturalized as a British citizen, marking a decisive embrace of Anglo-Catholic Christianity that would permeate his subsequent oeuvre.
Eliot’s conversion was not a mere personal milestone but a cornerstone of his creative and philosophical output. His faith found expression in works such as Ash-Wednesday (1930), a lyrical meditation on repentance and spiritual renewal, and the monumental Four Quartets (1935–1942), where he interwove Christian theology, mysticism, and temporal reflection to explore the soul’s quest for divine meaning. A devout adherent to the Anglican tradition, Eliot viewed Christianity as both a personal anchor and a cultural bulwark, a conviction articulated in essays like “The Idea of a Christian Society” (1939), where he argued for the necessity of a Christian framework to sustain moral and societal order.
His dramatic works further reflect this commitment, notably Murder in the Cathedral (1935), which dramatizes the martyrdom of Thomas Becket and probes the interplay of faith, power, and sacrifice. Eliot’s Christian worldview also informed his critique of modernity’s secular drift, as seen in his assertion that the loss of Christian roots would unravel Western civilization—a theme resonant in his cultural commentary. Serving as a churchwarden at St. Stephen’s in London and engaging deeply with theological discourse, Eliot lived his faith with quiet intensity, blending intellectual rigor with spiritual devotion.
Marrying twice—first to Vivienne Haigh-Wood in 1915, a union marked by strain, and later to Valerie Fletcher in 1957, a source of late-life companionship—Eliot’s personal life intersected with his spiritual evolution, culminating in a legacy as a literary giant whose Christian faith provided both the lens and the substance of his enduring contributions. Awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1948, Eliot died in London in 1965, leaving behind a corpus that continues to illuminate the intersections of faith, art, and human experience.
A Christian Society:
“The Idea of a Christian Society is one which we can accept or reject; but if we are to accept it, we must treat Christianity with a great deal more intellectual respect than is our wont; we must treat it as being for the individual a matter primarily of thought and not of feeling. The consequences of such an attitude are too serious to be acceptable to everybody: for when the Christian faith is not only felt, but thought, it has practical results which may be inconvenient.” – T.S. Eliot
T.S. Eliot’s assertion in the quotation, extracted from his work The Idea of a Christian Society (1939), presents a nuanced and intellectually rigorous proposition regarding the conceptualization and adoption of Christianity as a foundational framework for societal organization. Eliot, a prominent modernist poet and thinker, challenges the prevailing tendencies of his time—and arguably ours—to approach Christianity predominantly through an emotive lens, urging instead a reorientation toward a more cerebral engagement with its doctrines and implications. This shift, he contends, carries profound consequences that demand careful consideration, particularly given their potential to disrupt conventional social and individual complacency.
Eliot begins by positing the “Idea of a Christian Society” as a binary choice: it is an intellectual construct that individuals and communities may either embrace or dismiss. This framing situates the notion not as an inevitable or inherited condition but as a deliberate act of acceptance, contingent upon a reasoned evaluation of its merits and requirements. By presenting it as a choice, Eliot underscores the agency of the individual or collective in shaping the moral and philosophical underpinnings of society, thereby elevating the discussion beyond mere tradition or sentimentality.
Central to Eliot’s argument is the exhortation to treat Christianity “with a great deal more intellectual respect than is our wont.” Here, he critiques what he perceives as a superficial or habitual engagement with Christian faith, one often reduced to ritualistic observance or emotional resonance. The phrase “than is our wont” suggests a cultural tendency—prevalent in the interwar period of Eliot’s writing and arguably persistent today—to prioritize subjective experience over rigorous doctrinal or philosophical scrutiny. For Eliot, such intellectual respect entails a shift in emphasis from Christianity as an affective phenomenon (“a matter primarily of feeling”) to one grounded in contemplation and rational inquiry (“a matter primarily of thought”). This reorientation aligns with his broader intellectual project, evident in works like The Waste Land and his critical essays, where he seeks to reclaim a disciplined, ordered approach to meaning-making in a fragmented modern world.
Eliot’s insistence on thought over feeling does not dismiss the latter but rather subordinates it to a higher order of engagement. He implies that an unreflective Christianity—one driven solely by emotion—lacks the depth necessary to sustain a coherent societal vision. Thought, in this context, refers not merely to abstract theologizing but to a systematic grappling with Christianity’s ethical, metaphysical, and practical demands. This intellectual labor, he argues, is indispensable if one is to authentically “accept” the idea of a Christian society, as opposed to passively inheriting its trappings.
The latter part of the quotation elucidates the stakes of this shift: “The consequences of such an attitude are too serious to be acceptable to everybody.” Here, Eliot acknowledges that a Christianity apprehended through thought rather than felt intuitively is not a neutral or universally palatable proposition. The gravity of these consequences stems from the practical implications that arise when faith is rigorously interrogated and applied. A faith that is “thought” compels the believer to confront its logical extensions—its demands for moral consistency, social restructuring, and personal sacrifice—which may conflict with prevailing norms or individual desires. For instance, a thoroughly considered Christian ethic might challenge economic inequalities, secular governance, or personal libertinism, rendering it “inconvenient” to those vested in the status quo.
The term “inconvenient” is particularly telling, as it suggests not merely discomfort but a disruption of ease and expediency. Eliot implies that a Christianity rooted in intellectual respect is inherently dynamic, even revolutionary, in its capacity to reshape both individual behavior and societal institutions. This aligns with his broader vision in The Idea of a Christian Society, where he advocates for a social order informed by Christian principles, distinct from both theocratic authoritarianism and secular liberalism. Such a vision, he recognizes, is unlikely to garner universal assent precisely because its rigor and implications unsettle the complacency of those who prefer a less demanding, more sentimental faith—or no faith at all.
In academic terms, Eliot’s argument can be situated within the discourse of philosophical theology and social theory. His call for intellectual respect resonates with thinkers like Søren Kierkegaard, who emphasized the existential weight of faith as a leap requiring conscious commitment, though Eliot diverges by prioritizing rational engagement over Kierkegaard’s paradoxical passion. Similarly, his focus on the societal ramifications of thought-driven faith invites comparison with Max Weber’s analysis of the Protestant ethic, where disciplined belief systems catalyze transformative social action. Yet Eliot’s perspective is distinctly conservative, seeking not to innovate but to recover a traditional Christian framework as a bulwark against modernity’s discontents.
In conclusion, Eliot’s quotation encapsulates a provocative thesis: the authentic embrace of a Christian society necessitates a deliberate, intellectual encounter with Christianity, one that transcends mere feeling to engage thought in its fullest sense. This shift, while enriching faith’s coherence and vitality, imposes serious and potentially inconvenient consequences that challenge universal acceptance. For scholars and readers, the passage invites reflection on the interplay between belief, reason, and social order—an interplay that remains pertinent in contemporary debates over religion’s role in public life. Eliot’s words thus serve as both a critique of facile religiosity and a call to a more demanding, yet potentially more transformative, mode of faith.
The Secular Challenge
“The problem of leading a Christian life in a non-Christian society is now very present to us, and it is a very different problem from that of the accommodation between an Established Church and dissenters. It is not merely the problem of a minority in a society of individuals holding an alien belief. It is the problem constituted by our implication in a network of institutions from which we cannot disassociate ourselves: institutions the operation of which appears no longer neutral, but non-Christian. And as for the Christian who is not conscious of his dilemma — and he is in the majority — he is becoming more and more de-Christianized by all sorts of unconscious pressure: paganism holds all the most valuable advertising space.” – T.S. Eliot
The quotation from T.S. Eliot presents a multifaceted critique of the challenges faced by individuals endeavoring to maintain a Christian mode of existence within a predominantly secular or non-Christian societal framework. This statement, articulated with Eliot’s characteristic intellectual rigor, underscores a tension that transcends mere theological disagreement or minority status, delving instead into the structural and cultural dynamics that shape individual belief and practice. To unpack this, I will analyze the quote systematically, addressing its key components and situating it within Eliot’s broader socio-religious commentary.
Eliot begins by distinguishing the contemporary predicament from historical ecclesiastical disputes, such as those between an Established Church (e.g., the Church of England) and dissenting factions. In earlier contexts, the central issue often revolved around reconciling institutional authority with theological nonconformity. However, Eliot asserts that the modern challenge is qualitatively distinct. It is not simply a matter of navigating coexistence with a majority adhering to an “alien belief” — a reference, perhaps, to secular humanism, materialism, or other ideologies antithetical to Christian doctrine. Rather, the difficulty lies in the pervasive entanglement of individuals within a “network of institutions” that are inherently non-neutral and, by implication, antagonistic to Christian values. This shift in focus from interpersonal belief disparities to systemic influence marks a critical evolution in Eliot’s diagnosis of modernity’s spiritual crisis.
The phrase “network of institutions” warrants particular attention. Eliot suggests that these structures — encompassing, potentially, governance, education, commerce, and media — are not passive frameworks within which individuals operate. Instead, they actively shape behavior and perception in ways that deviate from, or outright oppose, Christian ethics and ontology. The assertion that their operation “appears no longer neutral, but non-Christian” implies a historical transition: whereas such institutions might once have been perceived as aligned with or at least accommodating of Christian principles (e.g., in a pre-secular Christendom), they now embody values or priorities — perhaps pragmatism, individualism, or consumerism — that Eliot deems incompatible with a Christian worldview. This institutional embeddedness complicates the believer’s agency, as disassociation from these systems is practically unfeasible, rendering the Christian life a negotiation within a corrosive environment rather than a retreat from it.
Eliot further complicates this analysis by addressing the psychological and sociological dimensions of the dilemma. He identifies a majority of Christians who remain oblivious to this tension, suggesting that their unconscious acquiescence to prevailing cultural forces accelerates their “de-Christianization.” This term is significant: it denotes not an overt abandonment of faith but a gradual erosion of its lived integrity, effected through “all sorts of unconscious pressure.” Such pressures might include the normalization of secular norms, the marginalization of religious discourse in public life, or the subtle inculcation of values antithetical to Christian doctrine through everyday interactions with these institutions. The unreflective Christian, in Eliot’s view, becomes complicit in his own spiritual dilution, a process rendered insidious by its lack of explicit confrontation.
The closing metaphor — “paganism holds all the most valuable advertising space” — is both vivid and incisive. Here, “paganism” likely serves as a shorthand for a worldview rooted in materialism, hedonism, or the rejection of transcendence, rather than a literal revival of pre-Christian religions. By invoking “advertising space,” Eliot evokes the mechanisms of modern mass culture — media, propaganda, and commercial influence — which prioritize and propagate these non-Christian ideals with persuasive efficacy. The “most valuable” aspect suggests that these channels command the greatest reach and authority in shaping public consciousness, relegating Christian perspectives to the periphery. This imagery aligns with Eliot’s broader critique, notably in works like The Idea of a Christian Society (1939), where he laments the secular drift of Western civilization and its implications for moral coherence.
In academic terms, Eliot’s argument engages with several theoretical discourses. Sociologically, it resonates with Max Weber’s concept of the “disenchantment of the world,” wherein rationalization and secularization displace traditional religious frameworks, though Eliot frames this as a normative loss rather than a neutral progression. Philosophically, it echoes Søren Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the individual’s existential struggle to maintain authentic faith amid societal conformity, albeit with a more pronounced focus on institutional power. Culturally, it anticipates later critiques of late modernity, such as those by Alasdair MacIntyre, who similarly decry the fragmentation of moral traditions in pluralistic societies.
To expound further, Eliot’s observation invites reflection on the mechanisms of hegemony, as articulated by Antonio Gramsci. The “unconscious pressure” he describes parallels Gramsci’s notion of cultural hegemony, wherein dominant ideologies (here, secular or “pagan”) permeate societal norms, rendering alternative worldviews — like Christianity — increasingly untenable without deliberate resistance. Yet, Eliot’s pessimism about the majority’s unawareness suggests a limited scope for such resistance, positioning the conscious Christian as a beleaguered minority within an enveloping cultural tide.
In conclusion, Eliot’s quote encapsulates a profound meditation on the intersection of faith, culture, and power in a secular age. It articulates the problem of living authentically as a Christian not as a static theological exercise but as a dynamic confrontation with a societal apparatus that subtly undermines that authenticity. By highlighting the institutional and unconscious dimensions of this challenge, Eliot offers a prescient critique of modernity’s spiritual landscape, one that remains relevant to contemporary discussions of religion’s place in an increasingly pluralistic and secular world.
A Jealous God:
“So long…as we consider finance, industry, trade, agriculture merely as competing interests to be reconciled from time to time as best they may, so long as we consider “education” as a good in itself of which everyone has a right to the utmost, without any ideal of the good life for society or for the individual, we shall move from one uneasy compromise to another. To the quick and simple organization of society for ends which, being only material and worldly, must be as ephemeral as worldly success, there is only one alternative. As political philosophy derives its sanction from ethics, and ethics from the truth of religion, it is only by returning to the eternal source of truth that we can hope for any social organization which will not, to its ultimate destruction, ignore some essential aspect of reality. The term “democracy,” as I have said again and again, does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces that you dislike––it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.” – T.S. Eliot
In this profound and philosophically rich quotation, T.S. Eliot articulates a critique of modern society’s fragmented and utilitarian approach to its foundational institutions—finance, industry, trade, agriculture, and education—while simultaneously offering a metaphysical and ethical alternative rooted in a return to transcendent principles. His argument unfolds in several interconnected layers, which I shall elucidate in formal academic terms, exploring the implications of his thought for political philosophy, ethics, and social organization.
Eliot begins by diagnosing a pervasive malaise in contemporary society: the tendency to treat finance, industry, trade, and agriculture as mere “competing interests” to be pragmatically balanced rather than as components of a cohesive, purpose-driven whole. This atomistic perspective, he suggests, reduces these domains to instruments of material expediency, devoid of a unifying teleology or overarching societal vision. Similarly, he critiques the prevailing conception of education as an intrinsic good, universally accessible, yet unmoored from any normative (ideal) of “the good life” for either the individual or the collective. In Eliot’s view, this lack of a substantive ethical or metaphysical framework condemns society to a perpetual cycle of “uneasy compromises”—temporary resolutions that fail to address deeper, structural deficiencies. Such an approach, he warns, prioritizes short-term material ends, which, being “ephemeral as worldly success,” lack enduring significance and thus cannot sustain a stable or meaningful social order.
Against this critique, Eliot posits a radical alternative: a social organization grounded in eternal truths derived from a metaphysical and religious foundation. He invokes a classical hierarchy of knowledge, asserting that political philosophy must draw its legitimacy from ethics and ethics, in turn, from “the truth of religion.” This triadic relationship reflects a traditional worldview in which human institutions and moral systems are not autonomous but derive their coherence and authority from a transcendent source. For Eliot, the “eternal source of truth”—implicitly God—serves as the only bulwark against a social order that, by ignoring “some essential aspect of reality,” risks disintegration or tyranny. Here, he aligns himself with thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, who similarly argued that the polis or society must be oriented toward a summum bonum (highest good) to flourish.
Eliot’s subsequent commentary on democracy further sharpens his critique. He contends that the term “democracy,” as a standalone concept, lacks sufficient “positive content” to resist co-optation by malevolent forces. In the absence of a robust normative framework, democracy becomes a malleable vessel, easily reshaped by ideologies or powers antithetical to its ostensible values. This observation resonates with political theorists like Carl Schmitt, who emphasized the vulnerability of liberal democracy to subversion absent a clear sovereign decision or unifying ethos. For Eliot, the failure to ground democracy in a higher truth leaves it susceptible to transformation by the very “forces” its proponents might oppose—forces he later exemplifies through the stark figures of Hitler and Stalin.
The quotation culminates in a provocative theological assertion: “If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.” Here, Eliot employs a rhetorical flourish to underscore a binary choice between theism and totalitarianism. Drawing on the biblical imagery of a “jealous God” (cf. Exodus 20:5), he suggests that the rejection of divine authority does not lead to neutral secularism but rather to the enthronement of human idols—dictators who demand absolute allegiance. This is not merely a religious statement but a philosophical one, echoing Dostoevsky’s insight in The Brothers Karamazov that the denial of God elevates man to a godlike status, often with catastrophic consequences. Eliot implies that without a transcendent anchor, society inevitably gravitates toward authoritarianism, as human attempts to fill the void left by God’s absence result in the deification of power.
In summary, Eliot’s quotation constitutes a trenchant critique of modernity’s fragmented, materialistic, and ethically ungrounded approach to social organization. He advocates a return to a religiously informed ethical framework as the only viable means of integrating society’s disparate elements into a coherent whole, capable of withstanding the corrosive forces of relativism and tyranny. His argument challenges contemporary assumptions about secular governance and universal education, urging instead a reconsideration of the metaphysical foundations that underpin human flourishing. For scholars of political philosophy, ethics, or literature, this passage exemplifies Eliot’s broader intellectual project: a fusion of poetic insight with rigorous philosophical and theological reflection aimed at diagnosing and remedying the spiritual crises of his age.
Tolerated?
“When the Christian is treated as an enemy of the State, his course is very much harder, but it is simpler. I am concerned with the dangers to the tolerated minority; and in the modern world, it may turn out that most intolerable thing for Christians is to be tolerated.” – T.S. Eliot
T.S. Eliot’s quotation encapsulates a profound reflection on the paradoxical challenges faced by Christians in their relationship with secular authority and societal structures. To unpack this statement academically, it is necessary to examine its theological, sociopolitical, and philosophical underpinnings, situating it within Eliot’s broader intellectual framework as a modernist poet and Christian thinker.
The opening assertion, “When the Christian is treated as an enemy of the State, his course is very much harder, but it is simpler,” suggests a dual dynamic. The “harder” course refers to the tangible adversities—persecution, ostracism, or legal repercussions—that arise when a Christian’s faith places them in opposition to the State’s ideology or demands. Historically, this evokes early Christian martyrdom under Roman rule or, in Eliot’s 20th-century context, the tensions between religious conviction and totalitarian regimes such as Nazism or Soviet communism. The “simpler” aspect, however, implies a clarity of purpose and identity that emerges in such adversity. When the Christian is an unambiguous outsider, their moral and spiritual obligations are distilled to a fundamental choice: fidelity to their faith over capitulation to external power. This binary opposition eliminates the ambiguity of compromise, rendering their path, while arduous, conceptually straightforward.
Eliot then shifts focus to a more insidious danger: “I am concerned with the dangers to the tolerated minority.” Here, he pivots from overt hostility to the subtler peril of acceptance within a secular or pluralistic society. Tolerance, typically viewed as a virtue in modern liberal democracies, is recast as a potential threat. For Eliot, this danger lies in the erosion of Christian distinctiveness and vigor when the faith is subsumed into a broader, homogenized cultural framework that demands conformity under the guise of coexistence. As a tolerated minority, Christians may face pressure to dilute their doctrines, mute their prophetic voice, or relinquish their countercultural stance to align with prevailing norms—a phenomenon sociologist Max Weber might describe as the “routinization” of religious charisma within bureaucratic modernity.
The culminating paradox, “in the modern world, it may turn out that most intolerable thing for Christians is to be tolerated,” elevates this concern to a critique of modernity itself. Eliot, writing in the mid-20th century, was acutely aware of the secularizing tendencies of Western society, where religious belief was increasingly privatized and marginalized. Tolerance, in this sense, becomes a form of benign neglect or patronizing indifference, stripping Christianity of its transformative power and reducing it to a tolerated relic rather than a living tradition. This echoes Søren Kierkegaard’s critique of “Christendom,” where nominal acceptance of Christianity undermines its radical demands, rendering it “intolerable” not through persecution but through a suffocating assimilation that stifles authentic faith.
Eliot’s statement, therefore, operates on multiple levels. Theologically, it reflects a call to preserve the integrity of Christian witness against both external hostility and internal compromise. Sociopolitically, it critiques the modern State’s capacity to neutralize dissent through tolerance rather than suppression. Philosophically, it probes the tension between individual conviction and collective identity in an increasingly secular age. For Eliot, the Christian’s greatest challenge may not lie in facing the lion’s den but in navigating the quiet captivity of a society that tolerates their presence while dismissing their significance—a predicament as relevant today as it was in his time.
Liberalism
“That Liberalism may be a tendency toward something very different from itself, is a possibility in its nature. For it is something which tends to release energy rather than accumulate it, to relax, rather than to fortify. It is a movement not so much defined by its end, as by its starting point; away from, rather than towards something definite. Our point of departure is more real to us than our destination; and our destination is very likely to present a very different picture when arrived at, from the vaguer image formed in the imagination. By destroying the traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified, by fostering a notion of getting on to which the alternative is a hopeless apathy, Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is its own negation: the artificial, mechanized or brutalized control which is a desperate remedy for its chaos. – T.S. Eliot”
Unpacking this dense and provocative quote from T.S. Eliot, a poet and thinker known for his sharp critiques of modern society will prove rewarding. Eliot is taking aim at liberalism—not necessarily in the narrow political sense one might use today, but as a broader philosophical and cultural tendency. His argument is layered, so it will be analyzed it piece by piece before expanding on its implications.
Eliot begins by suggesting that liberalism has an inherent instability: it might evolve into something that contradicts its own essence. Eliot describes it as a force that “releases energy rather than accumulates it,” implying it’s more about breaking things loose than building something solid. It “relaxes” instead of “fortifies,” hinting at a loosening of structure or discipline. This sets the stage for his view that liberalism is less about a clear goal and more about rejecting what came before—a movement defined by its escape from tradition rather than a march toward a fixed ideal.
Eliot then contrasts the starting point and the destination. The “point of departure”—the traditions or systems liberalism rejects—feels concrete and familiar, while the endpoint remains hazy, a “vaguer image” that might look very different once reached. This is a subtle jab: liberalism promises freedom or progress, but Eliot suspects the reality might not match the dream.
The meat of the critique comes next, where he lists what he sees as liberalism’s destructive tendencies. It “destroys traditional social habits,” breaking down the customs that hold communities together. It “dissolves natural collective consciousness into individual constituents,” prioritizing the lone person over the group’s shared identity. It “licenses the opinions of the most foolish,” suggesting a leveling where all views, no matter how shallow, get equal weight. Eliot contrasts “instruction” (rote learning, perhaps) with “education” (a deeper cultivation of understanding), favoring cleverness over wisdom, upstarts over the seasoned, and a restless ambition (“getting on”) over contentment. These, to Eliot, are liberalism’s fruits: fragmentation, superficiality, and a restless discontent.
The twist comes at the end. He warns that this chaos liberalism creates might invite its opposite: “artificial, mechanized, or brutalized control.” In other words, by unraveling order and meaning, liberalism could pave the way for something authoritarian—a rigid, soulless system stepping in to fix the mess. It’s a paradox: a movement born from a love of freedom might midwife tyranny.
Expounding Eliot’s writing here reflects his broader anxieties about modernity, penned in the early 20th century amid cultural upheaval—World War I, industrialization, and the fraying of old certainties. Eliot is not just sniping at political liberalism but at a mindset that, in his view, fetishizes individual liberty and progress at the expense of stability and tradition. Think of it as a warning about unintended consequences: if one tear down the old walls too eagerly, one might not like what grows in the rubble.
This resonates today in debates about individualism versus community or progress versus preservation. Consider social media, where every voice gets a megaphone—Eliot’s “opinions of the most foolish” might echo in the din of viral hot takes. Or look at the erosion of shared cultural norms, replaced by a fragmented, choose-your-own-identity landscape. Some might cheer this as liberation; Eliot would likely see it as a step toward disorder, ripe for exploitation by something harsher—say, algorithmic control or populist strongmen.
Still, Eliot’s quote stings because it forces one to wrestle with trade-offs. Freedom’s allure is real, but so is the need for something to hold us together. Eliot is asking: if one keeps running away from the past, where is one actually going? And will one recognize ourselves when arriving there? It’s less a prophecy than a challenge—one that’s still worth chewing on.
If Christiany goes:
“If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready-made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great-grandchildren: and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it.” – T.S. Eliot
T.S. Eliot’s assertion, “If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes,” presents a provocative thesis on the interdependence of Western civilization and its Christian underpinnings. This statement, embedded within a broader reflection on cultural continuity and renewal, invites a rigorous examination of the mechanisms by which cultural identity is sustained and the consequences of its potential disintegration. Eliot, a towering figure in modernist literature and cultural criticism, posits that the erosion of Christianity—a foundational pillar of Western thought, ethics, and aesthetics—would precipitate a collapse of the cultural edifice it has historically supported. To unpack this, one must consider the intricate relationship between religion, culture, and societal stability, as well as Eliot’s implicit critique of modernity’s secularizing tendencies.
Eliot’s argument hinges on the notion that Christianity is not merely a religious doctrine but a pervasive cultural framework that has shaped Western institutions, moral philosophy, and artistic expression over centuries. Historically, the Christian worldview provided a unifying narrative—encompassing concepts of sin, redemption, and transcendence—that informed legal systems, educational structures, and communal values. For Eliot, this is not a detachable component of culture but its very root system; its removal would not merely alter the surface but uproot the entire organism. The subsequent assertion, “Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready-made,” underscores the organic nature of cultural formation. Eliot rejects the possibility of a rapid, artificial replacement—a secular ideology or imported tradition, for instance—suggesting that culture is not a construct that can be engineered ex nihilo but rather a cumulative process requiring time, tradition, and lived experience.
The agricultural metaphor that follows, “You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made,” reinforces this temporal dimension. Eliot employs a deliberately slow, sequential imagery to illustrate the laborious, intergenerational effort required to rebuild a culture. Grass does not sprout overnight, nor do sheep yield wool without sustained nourishment; similarly, a new cultural fabric cannot emerge without enduring the protracted stages of growth and adaptation. This analogy aligns with a conservative intellectual tradition that views culture as an inheritance, patiently cultivated rather than hastily imposed. It also implies a dependency on natural rhythms and resources, suggesting that any attempt to bypass this process would result in an inauthentic or unsustainable outcome.
Eliot’s reference to “many centuries of barbarism” introduces a bleaker prognosis: the interim between the collapse of one culture and the emergence of another is not a neutral void but a regression to a pre-civilizational state. Here, “barbarism” evokes a loss of the refined structures—intellectual, moral, and artistic—that Christianity, in Eliot’s view, enabled. This aligns with historical interpretations of the post-Roman Dark Ages, where the decline of a unifying imperial and religious order led to fragmentation and cultural stagnation. Eliot’s perspective thus assumes a cyclical view of history, wherein the loss of a cultural anchor precipitates a return to chaos, necessitating a slow climb back toward coherence.
The concluding remarks, “We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great-grandchildren: and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it,” deepen the existential weight of his argument. The temporal scope—spanning multiple generations—emphasizes the monumental scale of cultural renewal, positioning it beyond the lifespan of any individual or even several successive lineages. This longue durée perspective underscores the fragility of cultural continuity and the hubris of assuming it can be easily reconstituted. Moreover, the assertion that “not one of us would be happy in it” suggests an alienation inherent in the new culture. For Eliot, a culture divorced from its Christian moorings would lack the spiritual resonance and historical familiarity that render life meaningful to those shaped by the old order. This reflects his broader modernist preoccupation with dislocation and the search for meaning in a fragmented world.
In a broader academic context, Eliot’s statement can be situated within debates over secularization and cultural decline. Scholars such as Max Weber, with his theory of disenchantment, and Oswald Spengler, with his cyclical model of civilizational decay, provide parallel frameworks for understanding Eliot’s concerns. Yet, Eliot diverges by anchoring his analysis in a specific religious tradition rather than a generalized process of rationalization or organic decline. His view contrasts with progressive narratives—exemplified by Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire or later secular humanists—who might welcome the shedding of religious influence as a liberation from superstition. For Eliot, such a liberation is illusory, leading not to freedom but to a cultural vacuum.
Critically, one might interrogate the universality of Eliot’s claim. Does the dependence on Christianity hold equally across all Western societies, particularly those with significant non-Christian influences (e.g., Greco-Roman philosophy or Enlightenment rationalism)? Furthermore, his dismissal of a “ready-made” alternative overlooks historical instances of rapid cultural synthesis, such as the Renaissance’s fusion of classical and Christian elements. Nonetheless, Eliot’s insistence on the organic, time-bound nature of culture offers a compelling lens for examining the resilience and vulnerability of societal structures in the face of existential shifts.
In sum, Eliot’s quote encapsulates a profound meditation on the symbiosis of Christianity and Western culture, warning of the cataclysmic repercussions of their severance. It challenges readers to consider culture not as a static artifact but as a living tradition, sustained by deep historical roots and imperiled by their disruption. Through its layered imagery and somber tone, the passage articulates a conservative lament for a civilization at risk, while inviting reflection on the conditions under which human societies endure or falter.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
From a conservative Christian perspective, the as “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)” can be seen as woefully deficient because it frames the term in a way that prioritizes secular, progressive concerns over biblical principles and eternal truths.
An analysis of the Merriam-Webster definition of “woke:”
First, the definition emphasizes “racial and social justice” as the central focus, which conservative Christians might argue reflects a worldview rooted in human-centered ideology rather than God-centered theology. Scripture, they would say, calls believers to prioritize justice as defined by God—grounded in righteousness, personal responsibility, and reconciliation through Christ (Micah 6:8, Romans 3:26)—not as redefined by contemporary social movements. The “woke” lens, in their view, often elevates group identity and systemic grievances over individual sin and redemption, which are the heart of the Christian gospel.
Second, the phrase “important facts and issues” leaves out any mention of spiritual realities—sin, salvation, or the Kingdom of God—which a conservative Christian would consider the most important facts of all. By focusing solely on temporal societal issues, the definition risks reducing human purpose to activism rather than worship and obedience to God. Jesus Himself said, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33), suggesting a hierarchy of priorities that transcends earthly justice campaigns.
Third, the term “actively attentive” implies a call to action that aligns with progressive activism—protests, policy advocacy, or cultural critique—rather than the transformative inner work of faith, prayer, and discipleship that conservative Christians often emphasize. They might argue that true awareness comes from being “awake” to God’s truth (Ephesians 5:14), not to a shifting slate of political causes.
Finally, many conservative Christians see “woke” ideology as inherently divisive, clashing with the biblical call to unity in Christ (Galatians 3:28). They contend that the dictionary’s framing endorses a mindset that fuels resentment and victimhood rather than forgiveness and grace, which are central to Christian teaching.
In short, from this perspective, the definition isn’t just incomplete—it’s a symptom of a broader cultural drift away from God’s design, dressing up ideological trends as moral imperatives while ignoring the deeper spiritual battle at play.
Are you Woke? What does this mean?
Wokeism, a modern sociopolitical ideology, emphasizes identity politics, systemic oppression, and social justice through a lens of progressive activism. While its proponents argue it seeks equity and liberation, a conservative biblical-theological perspective reveals fundamental incompatibilities with scriptural principles. Below is a rebuttal grounded in key biblical themes: human nature, sin, salvation, and God’s design for justice and society.
First, Wokeism’s anthropology—its view of humanity—clashes with the Bible’s teaching. Scripture declares that all people are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), equal in dignity and worth, yet universally fallen due to sin (Romans 3:23). Wokeism, however, categorizes individuals primarily by group identity—race, gender, or class—assigning moral value based on perceived oppression or privilege. This contradicts the biblical truth that our core identity is not in earthly distinctions but in our relation to God. Galatians 3:28 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The gospel unifies across human divisions, while Wokeism amplifies them, fostering resentment rather than reconciliation.
Second, Wokeism misunderstands sin and guilt. The Bible frames sin as an individual and cosmic problem—rebellion against God (Isaiah 53:6)—for which all are accountable. Woke ideology, by contrast, often attributes guilt collectively based on historical actions of one’s group (e.g., “white privilege” or “systemic racism”). This concept of inherited, unearned guilt contradicts Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the father’s iniquity.” While Scripture acknowledges corporate consequences of sin (e.g., Exodus 20:5), it rejects the idea that individuals bear personal culpability for others’ actions absent repentance or restitution, which Wokeism rarely emphasizes.
Third, Wokeism offers a false salvation. The Bible teaches that redemption comes solely through Christ’s atoning work (John 14:6; Ephesians 2:8-9), transforming individuals and, through them, society. Wokeism, however, proposes secular salvation through activism, reparations, or dismantling systems deemed oppressive. This mirrors the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11)—a human attempt to achieve utopia apart from God. Scripture warns against such self-reliance: “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain” (Psalm 127:1). True justice flows from hearts aligned with God, not from endless deconstruction.
Finally, Wokeism’s vision of justice deviates from God’s. Biblical justice is rooted in God’s character—righteous, impartial, and merciful (Deuteronomy 32:4; Micah 6:8). It seeks restoration, not retribution, as seen in Christ’s command to love enemies (Matthew 5:44). Woke justice, however, often demands punitive measures against perceived oppressors, prioritizing power redistribution over reconciliation. This breeds division, contradicting the biblical call to “seek peace and pursue it” (1 Peter 3:11). Moreover, Wokeism’s relativism—where truth bends to lived experience—undermines the absolute authority of God’s Word (John 17:17).
In summary, Wokeism offers a counterfeit gospel: it redefines identity apart from God, misdiagnoses sin, pursues salvation through human effort, and distorts justice into vengeance. A conservative biblical theology rejects this framework, holding fast to the sufficiency of Scripture and the transformative power of Christ. True liberation comes not through ideology, but through the cross—where all are made equal, forgiven, and called to live under God’s reign.
Definitions:
In academic terms, “wokeism” lacks a singular, universally accepted definition, as its meaning shifts depending on the ideological lens through which it is viewed. Below, I present two distinct definitions rooted in the perspectives requested: first, from the framework of woke social justice, and second, from conservative biblical scholarship.
From the perspective of woke social justice, wokeism can be understood as an ideological and cultural framework centered on heightened awareness of systemic injustices embedded within societal structures, particularly those perpetuating oppression based on race, gender, sexuality, and class. It emphasizes intersectionality—the interconnected nature of these identity-based oppressions—and calls for active resistance against hegemonic power dynamics, often through deconstructing traditional norms, advocating for equity over equality, and amplifying marginalized voices. Proponents position wokeism as a moral imperative to dismantle patriarchal, colonial, and capitalist systems, viewing it as a progressive evolution of ethical consciousness informed by critical theory, postcolonial studies, and feminist scholarship.
Conversely, conservative biblical scholarship defines wokeism as a secular, postmodern ideology that conflicts with traditional Christian orthodoxy and biblical authority. It is critiqued as a worldview that prioritizes subjective human experience and identity politics over divine revelation, universal truth, and moral absolutes as articulated in Scripture. Scholars in this tradition argue that wokeism replaces the biblical narrative of sin and redemption with a socio-political framework of oppressors and oppressed, undermining individual responsibility and the centrality of faith in Christ. They often characterize it as a form of cultural Marxism or a quasi-religious movement that elevates temporal justice above eternal salvation, citing passages like Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”) to assert unity in Christ over identity divisions.
Some Relevant Comments:\
1st quote
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
This is what I mean by the woke mind virus. The more I learn, the more insidious and deadly it appears.
Maybe the biggest existential danger to humanity is having it programmed into the AI, as is the case for every AI besides @Grok. Even for Grok, it’s tough to remove, because there is so much woke content on the internet.
For example, when other AIs were asked whether global thermonuclear war or misgendering was worse, they picked the latter. The existential problem with that extrapolation is that a super powerful AI could decide that the only 100% certain way to stop misgendering is to kill all humans.
2/26/2025 on X
2nd quote
ELON: THE WOKE MIND VIRUS IS CREATING AN ARTIFICIAL MENTAL CIVIL WAR
“To summarize the woke mind virus, it consists of creating very, very divisive identity politics.
It actually amplifies racism, it amplifies sexism and all the -isms, while claiming to do the opposite.
It actually divides people and makes them hate each other, and it makes people hate themselves.
It’s also anti-meritocratic, it’s not merit-based.
You want to have people succeed based on how hard they work and their talents, not who they are, whether they’re a man, woman, what race or gender.
It’s an artificial mental civil war that is created. And let me tell you, it’s no fun.
Woke mind virus and fun are incompatible. There’s no fun in that, no joy.
The woke mind virus is all about condemning people instead of celebrating people.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon
Gordon Haddon Clark (August 31, 1902 – April 9, 1985) was a prominent American philosopher, Calvinist theologian, and apologist whose intellectual legacy is defined by his rigorous defense of presuppositional apologetics and his development of “scripturalism,” a distinctive epistemological framework. Born into a Presbyterian family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Clark’s life and work were profoundly shaped by his Christian heritage, academic training, and commitment to propositional truth derived from divine revelation. While his scholarship primarily engaged philosophy and theology rather than the natural sciences, his critiques of empiricism offer a tangential lens through which to consider his relevance to broader intellectual currents, including those intersecting with biology.
Early Life and Education
Clark was born to David Scott Clark, a Presbyterian minister, and Elizabeth Haddon Clark, whose familial lineage inspired his middle name. Raised in a devout and intellectually vibrant environment, Clark demonstrated early academic promise. He matriculated at the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts in French in 1924 and a Doctorate in Philosophy in 1929, specializing in ancient philosophy with a focus on figures like Plato and Aristotle. His graduate studies were supplemented by coursework at the Sorbonne in Paris, deepening his engagement with European philosophical traditions. This robust education laid the foundation for his lifelong pursuit of systematic thought, grounded in logical rigor and theological conviction.
Academic Career and Intellectual Contributions
Clark’s professional career spanned multiple institutions and decades, reflecting both his scholarly versatility and his commitment to Christian education. After brief teaching stints, including a role at the University of Pennsylvania, he served as chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University from 1945 to 1973, a tenure marked by his steadfast adherence to Reformed theology amid a secular academic context. Earlier, he taught at Wheaton College (1936–1943), resigned over theological disagreements, and later held positions at Covenant College and Sangre de Cristo Seminary. His extensive bibliography, numbering over 30 books and numerous articles, includes seminal works such as A Christian View of Men and Things (1952), The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (1964), and Religion, Reason, and Revelation (1961).
Central to Clark’s intellectual project was “scripturalism,” the view that true knowledge consists solely of propositions revealed in Scripture or logically deducible therefrom. Rejecting empiricism—the reliance on sensory experience for knowledge—Clark argued that sensation yields mere opinion, not certainty. This stance positioned him in opposition to Enlightenment-derived epistemologies underpinning modern science, including biology. In The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God, he critiqued scientific laws as resting on unprovable assumptions. This position implicitly challenged empirical disciplines like biology, though he rarely addressed biological specifics directly.
Personal Life and Legacy
Clark married Ruth Schmidt in 1936, a union that lasted 48 years until her death in 1984. Together, they raised two daughters, Nancy Elizabeth and Lois Antoinette. An avid chess enthusiast, Clark won the Tennessee State Chess Championship in 1966, reflecting his analytical prowess beyond academia. He died on April 9, 1985, in Westcliffe, Colorado, shortly after his wife’s passing, and was buried with a legacy cemented in Reformed theological circles.
Indirect Relevance to Biological Thought
While Clark’s work lacks direct engagement with biology, his epistemological framework intersects philosophically with the discipline. His rejection of a posteriori knowledge undermined the empirical foundations of biological sciences, such as evolutionary theory or ecological observation, which rely heavily on sensory data and inductive reasoning. For instance, Clark might have dismissed Darwinian evolution as epistemologically suspect, arguing that its conclusions—drawn from fossils, genetics, or comparative anatomy—lack a basis for certainty absent scriptural corroboration. Similarly, his theological anthropology, emphasizing humanity’s creation in God’s image, contrasts sharply with naturalistic accounts of life’s origins, offering an alternative metaphysical context for biological questions.
Scholarly Impact and Evaluation
Clark’s influence is most pronounced within Presbyterian and Reformed communities, where his presuppositional apologetics—building on Cornelius Van Til’s foundations—continues to shape theological discourse. His rigorous logic and prolific output earned him admirers among Christian philosophers, though his uncompromising scripturalism drew criticism for its perceived rigidity and dismissal of secular knowledge. In relation to broader scholarship, including biology, Clark remains a marginal figure; his critiques of science, while provocative, lack the specificity to engage practicing scientists substantively. Nonetheless, his work invites reflection on the epistemic assumptions of disciplines like biology, challenging scholars to justify their reliance on observation over revelation.
Conclusion
Gordon H. Clark’s biography reveals a thinker whose life bridged rigorous academic philosophy and devout Christian conviction. His scholarly contributions, while not biologically focused, offer a philosophical counterpoint to the empirical methodologies dominant in modern science. Through his critique of sensation-based knowledge and advocacy for propositional truth, Clark indirectly prompts consideration of biology’s foundations, though his impact remains confined to theological and philosophical spheres. His life—marked by intellectual tenacity, personal devotion, and a distinctive epistemological stance—stands as a testament to the enduring tension between faith and reason in 20th-century thought.
A Review of Gordon H. Clark’s God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics
Gordon H. Clark’s God’s Hammer:
The Bible and Its Critics stand as a formidable defense of the inspiration, authority, and infallibility of Scripture, offering a rigorous philosophical and theological apologetic rooted in the Reformed tradition. Published by The Trinity Foundation, this collection of essays—originally penned across various contexts and compiled into a cohesive volume—demonstrates Clark’s characteristic clarity, logical precision, and unwavering commitment to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. As a philosopher and Calvinist theologian who chaired the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years, Clark brings to bear his expertise in propositional logic and presuppositional apologetics to address the multifaceted assaults on biblical authority that characterized twentieth-century theological discourse. This review seeks to highlight the book’s intellectual rigor, its apologetic potency, and its enduring relevance for contemporary defenders of the Christian faith.
A Robust Presuppositional Framework
One of the most compelling aspects of God’s Hammer is Clark’s consistent application of presuppositional apologetics, a methodology he championed alongside (and at times in tension with) Cornelius Van Til. From the outset, Clark establishes the Bible as the axiomatic foundation of Christian epistemology, asserting that its truth is not subject to external validation but is self-attesting. In the opening essay, “How May I Know the Bible Is Inspired?” Clark argues that belief in Scripture’s divine origin cannot be induced solely through empirical evidence or rational argumentation but requires divine illumination—a position grounded in his Calvinistic anthropology and theology of grace. He writes, “It is therefore impossible by argument or preaching alone to cause anyone to believe the Bible. Only God can cause such belief” (p. 20). This stance does not dismiss reason but reorients it, placing logic in service of divine revelation rather than as its arbiter.
Clark’s presuppositional approach shines in his dismantling of alternative epistemological systems. He contends that secular philosophies—whether empiricism, rationalism, or existentialism—inevitably collapse under their own inconsistencies when divorced from a biblical foundation. By framing the Bible as the “hammer” that shatters false worldviews, Clark echoes the Reformation cry of sola Scriptura while adapting it to engage modern critics. His method is not merely defensive but proactively offensive, exposing the philosophical weaknesses of liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, and other ideologies that seek to supplant scriptural authority with human constructs such as tradition, clericalism, or subjective experience.
Logical Precision and Philosophical Engagement
A hallmark of Clark’s scholarship, evident throughout God’s Hammer, is his meticulous attention to definitions and logical coherence. This is particularly striking in his critiques of biblical detractors. For instance, in addressing liberal theologians who reduce Scripture to symbolic myth (e.g., Paul Tillich), Clark employs a reductio ad absurdum to devastating effect: if the crucifixion is merely a symbol of God’s love, and that love is itself symbolic, an infinite regress ensues, rendering meaning incoherent (p. 48). Such arguments exemplify Clark’s insistence that truth must be propositional and univocal, a position that distinguishes him from Van Til’s emphasis on analogical knowledge and underscores his commitment to the laws of logic as reflective of God’s rational nature.
Clark’s engagement with specific critics is equally incisive. He aims to neo-orthodox thinkers like Karl Barth, who separate the “Word of God” from the text of Scripture, arguing that such a dichotomy undermines the reliability of divine revelation. Likewise, he critiques evangelical compromisers who concede ground to higher criticism, warning that any erosion of biblical inerrancy jeopardizes the entire Christian system. His analysis of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) and its mid-twentieth-century debates over inspiration reveals both his optimism for an evangelical scholarship at the time and his prescient concern about its potential decline—a problem that writing from the vantage point of 2025, appears tragically prophetic given the ETS’s subsequent trajectory.
A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy
At the heart of God’s Hammer lies Clark’s impassioned defense of biblical inerrancy, a doctrine he views as non-negotiable for Christian orthodoxy. He argues that if the Bible errs in its self-description as God’s Word, its entire message becomes suspect: “If the Bible in a hundred different passages is mistaken in its account of itself, why should the rest of the message be accepted as true?” (p. 58). This rhetorical question encapsulates Clark’s holistic view of Scripture as a unified system of truth, where every part coheres with the whole. He contrasts this with the selective hermeneutics of liberal and neo-orthodox scholars, who cherry-pick passages to align with external authorities, a practice he deems intellectually dishonest and spiritually perilous.
Clark’s defense is not merely theoretical but pastoral in its implications. He invokes Christ’s own view of Scripture—citing Luke 24:25 and John 10:35—to argue that rejecting biblical authority is tantamount to rejecting Christ’s lordship. This Christological grounding elevates God’s Hammer beyond a philosophical treatise into a call for fidelity to the Savior who affirmed the unbreakable nature of God’s Word. For Clark, the stakes are existential: without an infallible Bible, the Christian has no firm foundation for doctrine, ethics, or hope.
Historical Context and Contemporary Relevance
Written against the backdrop of the twentieth-century “battle for the Bible,” God’s Hammer reflects the theological tumult of its era—liberalism’s ascendancy, neo-orthodoxy’s influence, and evangelicalism’s internal struggles. Harold Lindsell’s foreword situates the book within this conflict, praising Clark’s contribution to the conservative cause. Yet, the work transcends its historical moment, offering timeless insights for today’s church. In an age marked by postmodern skepticism, cultural relativism, and renewed attacks on scriptural authority, Clark’s arguments retain their potency. His critique of those who elevate human reason or experience over revelation resonates in a contemporary context where subjective “truths” often eclipse objective, propositional claims.
Moreover, Clark’s emphasis on the Bible as the sole reliable source of knowledge challenges modern Christians to resist syncretism and reclaim the Reformation heritage of scriptural sufficiency. His closing essay, “The Reformed Faith and the Westminster Confession,” frames the confession’s doctrine of Scripture as a “continental divide” between biblical Christianity and all other systems (p. 187). This metaphor invites believers to stand firm amidst theological drift.
Minor Critiques Amidst Overwhelming Strengths
While God’s Hammer is a tour de force, it is not without minor points of contention. Clark’s univocal view of knowledge and his critique of analogical reasoning (particularly in his disputes with Van Til) may strike some readers as overly reductive, potentially flattening the mystery of divine-human communication. Additionally, his dense philosophical style, while a strength for trained readers, may limit accessibility for those unversed in technical theology or logic. Yet these are quibbles in light of the book’s overarching achievement: a cogent, unapologetic defense of Scripture that equips believers to confront its critics with confidence.
Conclusion
In God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics, Gordon H. Clark delivers a masterful apologetic that marries philosophical rigor with theological fidelity. His presuppositional framework, logical precision, and staunch defense of inerrancy make this collection a cornerstone of Reformed apologetics and a vital resource for anyone seeking to uphold the authority of God’s Word. As a “hammer” that breaks the rock of skepticism and false doctrine, Clark’s work endures as a clarion call to trust the Bible as the infallible revelation of the living God. For scholars, pastors, and laypeople alike, God’s Hammer remains an indispensable weapon in the arsenal of Christian thought—an intellectual and spiritual triumph worthy of sustained study and admiration.
A Review of Gordon H. Clark’s Historiography: Secular and Religious
Gordon H. Clark’s Historiography: Secular and Religious (first published in 1971, with a second edition in 1994 by The Trinity Foundation) stands as a distinctive contribution to the philosophy of history from a Christian presuppositionalist perspective. Clark, an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian renowned for his rigorous defense of propositional revelation and his system of thought known as Scripturalism applies his formidable philosophical training to the study of historiography—the theory and practice of historical writing. In this work, Clark critiques both secular and religious approaches to history, arguing that epistemological presuppositions inescapably shape all historiography. He contends that only a framework rooted in divine revelation, precisely the biblical narrative, provides a coherent and consistent basis for interpreting the past. This review examines Clark’s central thesis, evaluates his critiques of secular historiographical theories, and assesses his proposed Christian alternative while considering the broader implications of his argument for the discipline of history.
Overview and Structure
Historiography: Secular and Religious is organized into two main parts. The first section surveys and critiques a range of secular philosophies of history, including determinism (geographical, physical, and statistical), objective and relativistic approaches, and moral interpretations of historical events. The second section turns to religious historiography, with a particular focus on Christian perspectives, culminating in Clark’s advocacy for an Augustinian model grounded in divine predestination and propositional revelation. Throughout, Clark’s method is characterized by a meticulous, often acerbic, dismantling of opposing views, followed by a succinct presentation of his position. The book spans 366 pages in its second edition and reflects Clark’s broader intellectual project of exposing the inadequacies of secular thought while defending a scripturally anchored worldview.
Clark’s Central Thesis
Clark’s primary argument is that historiography is not a neutral or purely empirical enterprise but a philosophical endeavor deeply intertwined with epistemology. He asserts that all historians—secular or religious—bring presuppositions to their work that shape their selection, interpretation, and presentation of historical facts. Secular attempts to construct “presuppositionless” histories, he argues, are inherently flawed, as they rely on unprovable assumptions about causality, objectivity, or moral judgment. For Clark, these frameworks collapse under scrutiny due to their failure to provide a coherent foundation for knowledge. In contrast, he proposes that a Christian historiography, rooted in the presupposition of biblical revelation, offers a logically consistent and epistemologically sound approach. This revelation, particularly as articulated by Augustine, integrates history into a divine plan of predestination, rendering it intelligible and purposeful.
Critique of Secular Historiography
Clark’s critique of secular historiography is both broad and incisive, targeting a variety of influential theories. He begins with deterministic models, such as geographical determinism (e.g., the influence of climate or terrain on historical development) and statistical approaches (e.g., quantitative analyses of historical trends). Clark argues that these reduce human agency and contingency to mere epiphenomena of external forces, undermining the possibility of meaningful historical explanation. His analysis of statistical history, for instance, challenges its reliance on probabilistic generalizations, which he sees as incapable of accounting for unique events—a hallmark of historical inquiry.
Next, Clark engages in the debate between objective and relativistic historiography. He dismantles the notion of a purely objective history, exemplified by the positivist ideals of Leopold von Ranke, who famously sought to narrate history “as it actually happened.” Clark contends that such objectivity is illusory, as historians inevitably impose interpretive frameworks on their data. Conversely, he finds relativistic approaches, such as those influenced by idealism or skepticism (e.g., R.G. Collingwood’s philosophy of history), equally untenable, arguing that they dissolve truth into subjective constructs, rendering history incoherent. His chapter on Collingwood is particularly noteworthy, offering a lucid exposition of the British philosopher’s view that history is a reconstruction of past thought, followed by a sharp rebuttal that such idealism fails to ground historical knowledge in objective reality.
Clark also addresses moral judgments in history, a topic he considers unavoidable yet problematic for secular historians. He critiques utilitarian and pragmatic ethical theories, asserting that they lack a logical basis for distinguishing right from wrong in historical narratives. Without a transcendent standard, he argues, secular historiography cannot justify its moral evaluations, leaving it mired in inconsistency.
These critiques are marked by Clark’s characteristic rigor and his reliance on logical analysis over empirical detail. His approach is less an engagement with specific historical cases and more a philosophical interrogation of the principles underlying historical writing. While this method exposes the epistemological weaknesses of secular theories, it occasionally sacrifices depth for breadth, as Clark’s summaries of complex thinkers (e.g., Charles Beard and Karl Barth) can feel cursory, lacking the nuance found in specialized historiographical studies.
Clark’s Christian Alternative
Having dispatched secular historiographies, Clark turns to his constructive proposal: a Christian historiography anchored in biblical revelation. Drawing heavily on Augustine, he argues that history gains intelligibility only when viewed as the unfolding of God’s sovereign plan. Key to this framework is the doctrine of divine predestination, which Clark sees as providing a unifying narrative for both sacred and secular events. Unlike secular theories that struggle to explain causality or purpose, this approach posits that “God acts in history” and that the biblical account—particularly the death and resurrection of Christ—serves as the epistemological foundation for understanding the past.
Clark’s Scripturalism, which holds that all truth is propositional and derived from divine revelation, underpins this historiography. He rejects empiricism as a reliable source of historical knowledge, arguing that sensory data and testimony are inherently fallible. Instead, he insists that the propositional truths of Scripture offer the only certain basis for historical interpretation. This culminates in his bold conclusion: “The Biblical plan of divine predestination… gives a more consistent view than any other and can be rejected only on the presupposition that revelation is impossible” (p. 338).
Strengths of Clark’s Argument
Clark’s work excels in its unrelenting critique of secular historiography’s epistemological foundations. His exposure of the myth of “presuppositionless” history remains a powerful corrective to naive assumptions about historical objectivity, aligning with later postmodern critiques (though Clark predates and would likely reject postmodernism’s relativism). His emphasis on the inseparability of philosophy and history challenges historians to confront the implicit assumptions shaping their craft, a point that resonates with contemporary historiographical theory.
Moreover, Clark’s clarity and logical precision make Historiography: Secular and Religious an accessible entry point for students and scholars seeking a Christian perspective on the philosophy of history. His Augustinian synthesis offers a compelling alternative for those who share his theological commitments, integrating history into a broader metaphysical and ethical framework.
Limitations and Critiques
Despite its strengths, Clark’s work has notable limitations. First, his dismissal of empirical observation as a source of knowledge raises significant questions about the practicality of his proposed historiography. If historical facts cannot be derived from testimony or artifacts—only from Scripture—how can historians address events outside the biblical narrative (e.g., the history of pre-Columbian America or ancient China)? Clark’s reticence to engage this issue leaves his model underdeveloped, particularly for practicing historians who must grapple with vast swathes of non-biblical data.
Second, Clark’s reliance on Augustinian predestination, while internally consistent, may alienate readers—Christian or otherwise—who do not accept his Calvinist presuppositions. His assertion that alternative views are viable only if revelation is deemed impossible assumes a binary epistemology (Scripturalism vs. nihilism) that overlooks other religious or philosophical approaches to history (e.g., Thomism, Hegelianism, or even non-Western traditions). This narrowness limits the book’s dialogue with broader historiographical discourses.
Finally, written in 1971, Historiography: Secular and Religious does not engage with the postmodern turn that would soon reshape historical theory. Thinkers like Hayden White or Michel Foucault, who emphasize narrative construction and power dynamics, are absent from Clark’s analysis. While his critique of presuppositionless history anticipates some postmodern insights, his solution—anchoring history in immutable divine propositions—stands in stark contrast to postmodern fluidity, leaving readers to wonder how he might have responded to these later developments.
Conclusion
Gordon H. Clark’s Historiography: Secular and Religious is a provocative and intellectually rigorous work that challenges the foundations of secular historical thought while advancing a distinctly Christian alternative. Its strength lies in its relentless epistemological critique and its bold assertion of a revelational framework for history. However, its practical applicability is constrained by Clark’s radical rejection of empiricism, and its theological specificity may limit its appeal beyond a narrow audience of like-minded presuppositionalists. For scholars and students of historiography, the book serves as a valuable starting point for exploring the interplay of philosophy, theology, and history. However, it must be supplemented by Clark’s other writings (e.g., A Christian View of Men and Things) and broader historiographical literature to fully address its implications. Ultimately, Clark succeeds in his stated aim—to introduce the philosophical and religious problems of history—while leaving ample room for further debate and refinement.
A Review of Gordon H. Clark’s Language and Theology
Gordon H. Clark’s Language and Theology (originally published in 1980 by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, with a second edition in 1993 by The Trinity Foundation) represents a significant contribution to the intersection of the philosophy of language and Christian theology. Clark, a prominent American philosopher and Reformed theologian known for his presuppositionalist epistemology and Scripturalism, here addresses the critical question of how language functions as a medium for theological truth. Writing in the twilight of his career, Clark brings his characteristic logical rigor and polemical style to bear on a range of thinkers—from secular philosophers like Ludwig Wittgenstein and A.J. Ayer to theological figures like Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. His central thesis is that theological knowledge, rooted in divine revelation, is propositional, intelligible, and dependent on a coherent theory of language, which he defends against empiricist, existentialist, and analogical alternatives. This review examines Clark’s argument, critiques his engagement with opposing views, and assesses the broader implications of his work for theology and philosophy.
Overview and Structure
Language and Theology spans 152 pages in its second edition and is structured as a series of interconnected essays rather than a strictly systematic treatise. Clark begins with a critique of secular theories of language, particularly logical positivism and Wittgensteinian philosophy, before turning to theological missteps he attributes to Neo-Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic analogical reasoning. The latter half of the book constructs his positive case: a theory of language grounded in the propositional nature of biblical revelation, which he sees as the only epistemologically sound basis for theology. Throughout, Clark’s method involves sharp philosophical analysis, frequent appeals to Scripture, and a combative tone that underscores his disdain for what he perceives as intellectual compromise in both secular and religious thought.
Clark’s Central Thesis
Clark’s argument hinges on two interrelated claims. First, he asserts that language is fundamentally a vehicle for expressing propositional truth—statements that are either true or false—and that theology, as a science of divine revelation, must rely on such propositions to be meaningful. Second, he contends that only a Christian worldview, with its presupposition of a rational God who communicates intelligibly through Scripture, can sustain a coherent theory of language and, thus, a viable theology. For Clark, secular and non-presuppositionalist religious approaches fail because they either deny the possibility of meaningful truth (e.g., positivism) or distort it through subjective or analogical frameworks (e.g., Barthian existentialism or Thomistic analogy). His Scripturalism—the view that all knowledge derives from divine revelation, primarily the Bible—underpins this position, rejecting sensory experience or human reason as independent sources of truth.
Critique of Secular Theories of Language
Clark opens with a trenchant critique of secular philosophies of language, targeting logical positivism and Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. He engages A.J. Ayer’s Language, Truth, and Logic (1936), a cornerstone of logical positivism, which holds that only empirically verifiable or analytically true statements are meaningful. Clark argues that this verification principle is self-defeating: it is neither empirically verifiable nor a tautology, thus rendering positivism incoherent by its standard. His analysis is concise yet devastating, exposing the epistemological fragility of a system that dismisses metaphysical and theological claims as “nonsense.”
Turning to Wittgenstein, Clark critiques the shift from the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), with its picture theory of language, to the Philosophical Investigations (1953), with its emphasis on language games and use. Clark finds the early Wittgenstein’s view—that language mirrors reality—preferable but ultimately inadequate, as it cannot account for divine revelation beyond empirical limits. The later Wittgenstein fares worse: Clark rejects the notion that meaning derives from use within specific linguistic communities, arguing that this relativizes truth and undermines the possibility of objective theological propositions. His critique, while incisive, occasionally oversimplifies Wittgenstein’s nuanced position, particularly the latter’s rejection of essentialist definitions of meaning—a point Clark sidesteps rather than fully engages.
Critique of Theological Alternatives
Clark’s treatment of theological approaches to language is equally polemical. He takes aim at Neo-Orthodox theologians like Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, whom he accuses of abandoning propositional revelation for existentialist or paradoxical frameworks. Barth’s concept of the Word of God as an event rather than a static set of propositions draws particular ire; Clark contends that this renders theology unintelligible, as it severs the connection between divine communication and human understanding. Similarly, Brunner’s emphasis on personal encounters over doctrinal precision is dismissed as a retreat into subjectivity, incapable of grounding theological truth.
Clark also critiques the Roman Catholic doctrine of analogy, rooted in Thomas Aquinas, which posits that human language can describe God analogically rather than univocally. He argues that analogy introduces ambiguity and equivocation, undermining the certainty of theological statements. For Clark, if God’s attributes (e.g., goodness, justice) are not univocally knowable, then theology collapses into skepticism. This critique, while logically consistent with Clark’s system, overlooks the Thomistic distinction between the univocity of being and the univocity of terms, potentially misrepresenting Aquinas’s intent to balance divine transcendence with human comprehension.
Clark’s Constructive Proposal
Having dismantled alternative views, Clark advances his theory: language is a divine gift designed by a rational God to convey propositional truth, and theology is the systematic exposition of truths revealed in Scripture. He draws heavily on Augustine, asserting that God’s rational nature ensures the intelligibility of His communication. The Bible, as a collection of inspired propositions, provides the sole reliable foundation for knowledge, including theological and linguistic understanding. Clark rejects empiricism outright, arguing that sensory data are unreliable and irrelevant to truth, which must be deductively derived from scriptural axioms.
This position culminates in a bold epistemological claim: “Truth is propositional, and the propositions of Scripture are true because they are given by inspiration of God” (p. 141). For Clark, language’s purpose is to express these propositions, and theology’s task is to systematize them without dilution by human speculation or sensory input. This framework aligns with his broader Scripturalist project, seen in works like A Christian View of Men and Things (1952), and reflects his commitment to a presuppositionalist apologetic inspired by Cornelius Van Til—though Clark departs from Van Til in emphasizing Scripture over general revelation.
Strengths of Clark’s Argument
Language and Theology excels as a provocative critique of secular and theological errors from a presuppositionalist standpoint. Clark’s dismantling of logical positivism remains a compelling rebuttal to verificationist dogmas, offering a timeless lesson in the self-referential pitfalls of restrictive theories of meaning. His insistence on the propositional nature of truth challenges the vagueness of existentialist theology, forcing readers to grapple with the question of whether divine revelation can be reduced to subjective experience.
The book’s clarity and logical consistency make it an accessible introduction to Clark’s thought, particularly for those sympathetic to Reformed theology or interested in the philosophy of language. His emphasis on divine rationality as the basis for language aligns with classical Christian apologetics, providing a robust defense against skepticism and relativism.
Limitations and Critiques
Despite its strengths, Language and Theology has limitations. First, Clark’s rejection of empiricism as a source of knowledge raises practical and philosophical difficulties. If sensory experience contributes nothing to understanding language or theology, how can one account for the process of reading Scripture itself, which involves sensory perception of text? Clark’s response—that divine illumination bridges this gap—feels ad hoc and underdeveloped, leaving a tension between his epistemology and everyday experience unresolved.
Second, his univocal theory of language, while internally consistent, struggles to address the mystery and transcendence central to Christian theology. By insisting that God’s attributes must be univocally knowable, Clark risks flattening divine nature into human categories, a concern Aquinas sought to avoid with analogy. This rigidity may alienate theologians who see value in balancing certainty with humility before an infinite God.
Third, Clark’s engagement with opposing views, while sharp, often lacks depth. His treatment of Wittgenstein and Barth, for instance, relies on selective quotations rather than sustained analysis, potentially caricaturing their positions. This polemical style, though rhetorically effective, limits the book’s appeal as a serious dialogue with broader philosophical and theological traditions.
Finally, written in 1980, Language and Theology does not anticipate later developments in the philosophy of language, such as Donald Davidson’s truth-conditional semantics or the resurgence of analytic theology. While Clark’s focus on propositional truth prefigures some analytic trends, his isolation from these conversations—due to his strict Scripturalism—narrows the work’s relevance to contemporary debates.
Conclusion
Gordon H. Clark’s Language and Theology is a bold, uncompromising defense of a propositional, revelation-based approach to theological language. Its strength lies in its relentless critique of secular and theological alternatives, exposing their epistemological weaknesses with clarity and precision. However, its practical applicability is constrained by Clark’s radical anti-empiricism, and its theological scope is limited by his univocal presuppositions, which may not satisfy those seeking a more nuanced account of divine-human communication. For scholars and students of philosophy and theology, the book offers a valuable window into Clark’s Scripturalist system and a stimulating challenge to prevailing theories of language. Yet, it must be read alongside broader literature—such as Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, Barth’s Church Dogmatics, or contemporary analytic theology—to fully appreciate its contributions and limitations. In the end, Language and Theology stand as a testament to Clark’s intellectual rigor, even as it invites further refinement and debate.
A Review of Gordon H. Clark’s Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy
Gordon H. Clark’s Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy, first published in 1957 and later reissued, stands as an ambitious yet idiosyncratic contribution to the historiography of Western philosophy. Spanning from the Presocratics to John Dewey, Clark offers a selective survey of philosophical thought, filtered through his distinctive lens as an American Calvinist philosopher and proponent of presuppositional apologetics. With a bold opening claim—“Greek philosophy began on May 28, 585 B.C., at 6:13 in the evening”—Clark signals both his penchant for precision and his intent to anchor philosophy’s origins in Thales of Miletus’ famous prediction of a solar eclipse. This review evaluates the work’s structure, philosophical focus, strengths, and limitations, situating it within Clark’s intellectual project and the broader tradition of philosophical histories.
Structure and Scope
The text is organized into three chronological parts: Greek Philosophy, the Middle Ages, and Modern Philosophy. Part One covers the Presocratics, the Sophists, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the Hellenistic schools (Epicureans, Stoics, and Skeptics). Part Two addresses the Patristic and Scholastic periods, emphasizing figures like Augustine and Aquinas who reconciled Christian theology with classical philosophy. Part Three traces modern thought from seventeenth-century rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz) through British empiricists (Locke, Berkeley, Hume), Kant, and Hegel, and concludes with “Contemporary Irrationalism,” culminating in Dewey’s pragmatism. This tripartite division mirrors conventional histories of philosophy, yet Clark’s selective emphasis distinguishes his approach.
Unlike encyclopedic works such as Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy, Clark explicitly eschews comprehensiveness. In his preface, he states that the book restricts its scope to a “near minimum” of thinkers and focuses primarily on their theories of knowledge (epistemology), rather than exhaustively cataloging their doctrines. This methodological choice reflects his pedagogical aim: to elevate students to philosophy’s level by offering a “fairly thorough comprehension of a few major issues” rather than a superficial overview of many. The result is a streamlined narrative, totaling approximately 548 pages in its original edition, that prioritizes depth over breadth.
Philosophical Focus and Presuppositional Lens
Clark’s focus on epistemology aligns with his broader intellectual commitments as a presuppositionalist, a position famously articulated in his other works, such as A Christian View of Men and Things. He contends that all philosophical systems rest on unprovable axioms or presuppositions, and he evaluates historical thinkers against the standard of Christian theism, particularly the coherence of their epistemologies with biblical revelation. This perspective shapes his treatment of each period.
In the Greek section, Clark praises Plato and Aristotle as “the greatest philosophic geniuses the world has ever seen” yet critiques their reliance on sensory experience or rational intuition as insufficient foundations for knowledge. For instance, he lauds Aristotle’s logical rigor but finds his empiricism wanting, arguing that sensory data cannot yield certainty without a divine guarantor. The Hellenistic schools, particularly the Skeptics, are dismissed as precursors to modern irrationalism, a recurring theme in Clark’s narrative.
The medieval section highlights Clark’s sympathy for Christian philosophers. Augustine’s synthesis of Neoplatonism and Scripture earns approval for its recognition of divine illumination. At the same time, Aquinas’ Aristotelian framework is respected but tempered by Clark’s suspicion of natural theology’s autonomy from revelation. Here, Clark’s Calvinist leanings subtly emerge, favoring a scripturally grounded epistemology over Scholastic reliance on reason alone.
In the modern period, Clark’s critiques intensify. Rationalists like Descartes are faulted for their subjective starting points (e.g., the cogito), while empiricists like Hume are condemned for reducing knowledge to sensation, leading to skepticism. Kant’s Copernican revolution, though acknowledged as a turning point, is critiqued for its agnosticism about the noumenal realm, which Clark sees as an abandonment of objective truth. Hegel’s dialectical idealism fares little better, interpreted as a pantheistic departure from Christian theism. The culmination in Dewey’s pragmatism—“Contemporary Irrationalism”—represents, for Clark, the nadir of modern thought, where truth is subordinated to utility, echoing the Sophists’ relativism.
Strengths
Clark’s work boasts several strengths. First, his writing is lucid and engaging, a rarity in philosophical histories that often sacrifice readability for technical precision. His opening line exemplifies this flair, drawing readers into a narrative that balances exposition with critique.
Second, the focus on epistemology provides a unifying thread, enabling readers to trace a central philosophical problem across millennia. This approach suits the book’s intended audience—students and educated lay readers—offering a manageable entry into complex ideas without overwhelming detail.
Third, Clark’s Christian perspective, while not universally appealing, supplies a distinctive interpretive lens. His evaluations, informed by presuppositionalism, challenge secular assumptions and invite readers to reconsider the foundations of knowledge. For instance, his critique of Hume’s skepticism as logically incoherent yet epistemologically paralyzing underscores the necessity of a transcendent anchor. This point resonates with theistic readers and provokes secular ones.
Finally, the book’s conciseness—compared to Russell’s 900-plus pages or Copleston’s multi-volume history—makes it a practical resource. At 413 reading pages in some editions, it distills Western philosophy into a digestible format, ideal for classroom use or personal study.
Limitations
Despite its merits, Thales to Dewey has shortcomings. First, its selectivity sacrifices breadth, omitting significant figures and movements. The Presocratics are treated briefly, with little attention to their cosmological innovations beyond Thales. Medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophers (e.g., Avicenna, Maimonides) are absent, skewing the narrative toward a Christian trajectory. In the modern era, post-Hegelian developments—such as Marxism, existentialism, or analytic philosophy—receive scant mention, ending abruptly with Dewey and ignoring mid-twentieth-century trends (e.g., Wittgenstein, Heidegger).
Second, Clark’s presuppositional framework, while coherent within his system, limits the work’s scholarly objectivity. His evaluations often presuppose the superiority of Christian epistemology, rendering his critiques predictable and occasionally dogmatic. For example, his dismissal of Dewey as “irrational” overlooks pragmatism’s influence and philosophical rigor, reducing it to a foil for Clark’s theistic agenda. Non-Christian readers may find these assessments unpersuasive, as they hinge on premises not all will accept.
Third, the book’s pedagogical intent sometimes undermines its depth. By simplifying arguments for accessibility, Clark omits technical details that advanced students or scholars might crave. His treatment of Kant, for instance, glosses over the intricacies of the Critique of Pure Reason, presenting a broad-brush critique without engaging the text’s nuances. This brevity, while a strength for novices, weakens its utility as a serious academic resource.
Finally, Clark’s historical contextualization is thin. Philosophical ideas are often abstracted from their cultural and intellectual milieus, flattening the dynamic interplay between thinkers and their times. The Hellenistic age, for example, is reduced to epistemological sketches, neglecting its rich socio-political backdrop.
Contribution and Reception
Thales to Dewey occupies a niche in the historiography of philosophy. It lacks the breadth of Russell’s witty skepticism or Copleston’s exhaustive scholarship, but it surpasses both in its focused epistemological lens and Christian orientation. For Clark’s intended audience—evangelical Christians and students seeking a theistic perspective—it remains a valuable tool, evidenced by its enduring availability through publishers like the Trinity Foundation. Reviews on platforms like Goodreads praise its clarity and unique viewpoint, though some note its dryness beyond the Greeks and its partisan tone.
Scholars, however, may find it less rigorous. William Bryar’s 1958 review in Latomus commended its clarity but criticized its omission of technical arguments, suggesting it serves better as a classroom supplement than a standalone text. This ambivalence captures the book’s dual identity: a pedagogical aid with scholarly ambitions yet constrained by its presuppositional commitments and selective scope.
Conclusion
Gordon H. Clark’s Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy is a commendable, if flawed, endeavor. Its strengths—clarity, focus, and a provocative Christian critique—render it a worthwhile introduction to Western thought, particularly for those sympathetic to its theological underpinnings. Yet its limitations—selectivity, bias, and lack of depth—curtail its appeal as a definitive scholarly resource. As a product of Clark’s broader project to defend Christian epistemology, it succeeds in articulating a coherent narrative, but it falls short of the universality and nuance expected in a comprehensive history. For readers seeking an accessible, theistically inflected survey, it remains a compelling choice; for those demanding exhaustive analysis or neutral exposition, it is better supplemented by broader works.
A Review of Gordon H. Clark’s A Christian View of Men and Things
Gordon H. Clark’s A Christian View of Men and Things, first published in 1952 and later reissued by the Trinity Foundation, stands as a formidable exposition of Christian philosophy applied to perennial human concerns. Written as an expansion of lectures delivered at Wheaton College and the Butler University School of Religion, this work demonstrates Clark’s prowess as a systematic thinker and a staunch defender of Reformed theology. Across its approximately 325 pages, Clark articulates a robust Christian worldview, engaging epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics, and religion with a clarity and rigor that distinguish it as a landmark in twentieth-century evangelical scholarship. This review explores the text’s structure, philosophical underpinnings, and contributions, arguing that it offers a compelling and intellectually satisfying framework for understanding reality through a biblical lens.
Structure and Scope
The book is organized into six chapters, each addressing a domain of human thought and experience: “The Philosophy of History,” “The Philosophy of Politics,” “Ethics,” “Science,” “Religion,” and “Epistemology.” A concluding chapter synthesizes these discussions, reinforcing Clark’s central thesis: that only a Christian worldview, grounded in the presupposition of divine revelation, provides a coherent and rational account of reality. This topical approach, rather than a chronological survey, allows Clark to systematically critique secular philosophies while constructing a positive alternative rooted in Scripture.
Clark’s stated aim, as outlined in the preface, is to present “an introduction to philosophy from a unified Christian point of view.” He achieves this by juxtaposing secular systems—such as naturalism, pragmatism, and positivism—with theistic axioms of Christianity, particularly those of the Reformed tradition. The result is a work that bridges apologetics and philosophy, appealing to both academic readers and thoughtful lay Christians seeking a rational defense of their faith.
Philosophical Foundations and Presuppositional Brilliance
At the heart of A Christian View of Men and Things lies Clark’s presuppositional apologetics, a methodology he refined over decades and which finds eloquent expression here. Drawing from Augustine and Calvin, Clark argues that all knowledge depends on unprovable starting points, or presuppositions. Secular philosophies, he contends, falter because their axioms—whether sensory experience, human reason, or utility—lead to skepticism, relativism, or incoherence. In contrast, Clark posits the Christian presupposition of an omniscient, self-consistent God who reveals truth through Scripture as the only foundation capable of sustaining a unified worldview.
This approach shines in the chapter on epistemology, where Clark dismantles empiricist and rationalist theories with surgical precision. He critiques Hume’s skepticism for its inability to justify causality or induction and Kant’s transcendental idealism for its agnosticism about ultimate reality. Against these, Clark offers the propositional revelation of Scripture as a bedrock for certainty, arguing that God’s Word provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. This is not mere fideism; Clark’s defense is philosophically sophisticated, engaging secular thought on its own terms before exposing its internal contradictions.
The application of this framework across diverse fields is equally impressive. In “The Philosophy of Politics,” Clark critiques secular theories of the state—such as Rousseau’s social contract and Marxist materialism—while advocating a limited government consistent with biblical principles of human sinfulness and divine authority. In “Ethics,” he rejects utilitarian and deontological systems for their lack of an absolute standard, proposing instead a divine command theory rooted in God’s unchanging nature. The chapter on science challenges the autonomy of naturalistic methodologies, asserting that the uniformity of nature presupposes a purposeful divine order.
Strengths and Contributions
Several strengths elevate A Christian View of Men and Things above typical apologetic works. First, Clark’s lucidity is exemplary. His prose is dense yet accessible, blending technical analysis with a conversational tone that invites readers into complex debates. For instance, his critique of Dewey’s pragmatism—“truth is what works”—is both incisive and engaging, exposing its circularity with a clarity that resonates beyond academic circles.
Second, the book’s interdisciplinary scope is a triumph. By addressing history, politics, ethics, science, religion, and epistemology within a single volume, Clark demonstrates the explanatory power of a Christian worldview. Unlike narrowly focused treatises, this work offers a holistic vision, showing how theology informs and unifies disparate domains. This integrative approach anticipates later developments in worldview studies, such as Francis Schaeffer’s work, while grounding them in a more rigorous philosophical foundation.
Third, Clark’s polemical skill enhances the text’s persuasive force. He does not merely assert Christian superiority but systematically dismantles rival systems, revealing their logical flaws. His treatment of positivism in the science chapter, for example, underscores its self-refuting claim that only empirically verifiable statements are meaningful—a proposition itself unverifiable by empirical means. Such arguments showcase Clark’s command of logic, a legacy of his training under Edgar Singer at the University of Pennsylvania.
Finally, the book’s unabashed Christian orientation is its greatest asset. In an era dominated by secular humanism, Clark boldly asserts the intellectual legitimacy of theism. His insistence that philosophy must begin with God rather than man challenges the Enlightenment’s anthropocentric turn, offering a counter-narrative that is both timeless and timely. For Reformed Christians, this work provides a philosophical articulation of their faith; for others, it demands a reckoning with the coherence of biblical presuppositions.
Minor Critiques in Context
While overwhelmingly successful, the text is not without minor limitations, though these do not detract from its overall achievement. Clark’s focus on Western philosophy occasionally overlooks non-European perspectives, a constraint of his mid-twentieth-century context rather than a substantive flaw. Additionally, his polemical zeal can border on dismissiveness, as seen in his swift rejection of existentialism without extended engagement. Yet these are quibbles in light of the book’s purpose: to present a unified Christian perspective, not to exhaustively catalog every philosophical school.
Reception and Legacy
Since its publication, A Christian View of Men and Things has garnered praise within evangelical and Reformed circles for its intellectual rigor and apologetic clarity. Its republication by the Trinity Foundation in 2005, complete with updated formatting, attests to its enduring relevance. Readers on platforms like Amazon commend its “thought-provoking” nature and “sound reasoning,” often citing its accessibility as a gateway to Christian philosophy. Scholars, too, recognize its influence; it prefigures the presuppositionalism popularized by Cornelius Van Til, with whom Clark famously sparred, yet it stands apart for its broader cultural engagement.
Conclusion
Gordon H. Clark’s A Christian View of Men and Things is a tour de force of Christian scholarship, blending philosophical acumen with theological fidelity. Its systematic critique of secular thought, paired with a cogent defense of biblical presuppositions, renders it an invaluable resource for students, educators, and believers seeking to navigate a pluralistic world. Far from a mere apologetic tract, it is a work of philosophy proper—bold, coherent, and intellectually invigorating. For those who share Clark’s conviction that truth begins with God, this book is a treasure; for those who do not, it is a formidable challenge. In either case, it remains a testament to the power of a Christian mind fully engaged with the things of men.
This review highlights Clark’s strengths, celebrates his presuppositional approach, and positions the book as a significant contribution to Christian philosophy, all while maintaining a scholarly tone and avoiding unsupported improvisation.
A Review of Gordon H. Clark’s The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God
Gordon H. Clark’s The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God, originally published in 1964 and later reissued by the Trinity Foundation, stands as a concise yet profound contribution to the philosophy of science from a Christian theistic perspective. Spanning approximately 121 pages in its original edition, this work exemplifies Clark’s rigorous intellect and unwavering commitment to Reformed presuppositionalism. Aimed at both philosophers and educated lay readers, the book critiques the epistemological foundations of modern science while defending the necessity of belief in God as the precondition for scientific inquiry. This review explores its structure, arguments, and significance, arguing that it offers a compelling and intellectually robust case for the compatibility of theism with rational investigation.
Structure and Approach
The text is organized into three main chapters, each tackling a pivotal phase in the philosophy of science: “Ancient Science and the Argument from Design,” “The Breakdown of the Mechanical Worldview,” and “Operationalism and Contemporary Philosophy of Science.” A brief introduction and conclusion frame these discussions, articulating Clark’s overarching thesis: that science, far from undermining belief in God, presupposes a theistic framework to account for the intelligibility and uniformity of nature. This tripartite structure allows Clark to trace the historical evolution of scientific thought while systematically exposing the philosophical weaknesses of secular alternatives.
Clark’s method is characteristically analytical, blending historical exposition with logical critique. Drawing on his expertise as a philosopher trained at the University of Pennsylvania and his theological grounding in Calvinism, he engages key figures—Aristotle, Newton, Laplace, and Bridgman—while situating their ideas within a broader epistemological narrative. The result is a work that is both a historical précis and a philosophical polemic, accessible yet dense with insight.
Philosophical Argumentation and Theistic Triumph
The brilliance of The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God lies in Clark’s application of presuppositional apologetics to the scientific enterprise. He begins in Chapter One with ancient science, particularly Aristotle’s teleological framework, which he praises for its recognition of purpose in nature—a view consonant with the biblical doctrine of divine creation. Clark defends the classical argument from design, arguing that the order and complexity of the cosmos suggest a purposeful intelligence, a position he finds more philosophically defensible than atheistic materialism.
Chapter Two addresses the Newtonian revolution and its aftermath, where Clark identifies a critical shift: the mechanical worldview, while empirically fruitful, severed science from its teleological roots. He critiques Laplace’s determinism and the exclusion of final causes, noting that this shift, though celebrated as a triumph of reason, left science without a coherent justification for its assumptions about natural laws. Newton’s own theism, Clark argues, provided the unspoken foundation for his system—a point secular successors ignored at their peril.
The third chapter confronts twentieth-century developments, particularly operationalism, as articulated by Percy Bridgman. Clark lauds operationalism’s emphasis on empirical definitions but exposes its fatal flaw. Reducing scientific concepts to measurable operations sacrifices explanatory depth and presupposes the reliability of sensory experience without justification.
Here, Clark’s presuppositionalism shines. He contends that the uniformity of nature, the reliability of induction, and the coherence of scientific laws—all indispensable to science—rest on the Christian doctrine of a rational, sovereign God who sustains the universe consistently. Secular philosophies, whether empiricism, positivism, or pragmatism, fail to ground these preconditions, collapsing into skepticism or circularity.
Strengths and Contributions
Several strengths distinguish this work. First, its brevity is a virtue. In under 130 pages, Clark delivers a cogent critique of secular science and a positive theistic alternative, making it an ideal resource for students and scholars alike. His prose is crisp and precise, reflecting his logical training, yet infused with a dry wit that enlivens technical discussions—such as his quip that operationalism “measures lengths but explains nothing.”
Second, the historical breadth is impressive for such a compact text. Clark seamlessly integrates ancient, early modern, and contemporary perspectives, offering a narrative that contextualizes modern debates within a millennia-spanning tradition. This approach not only educates but also underscores his thesis: that science’s successes owe an unacknowledged debt to theistic assumptions.
Third, Clark’s critique of secular epistemology is devastatingly effective. His analysis of induction—echoing Hume’s problem but resolving it through divine consistency—demonstrates that science cannot justify itself on naturalistic terms. For example, he argues that the expectation of consistent natural laws presupposes a lawgiver, a point he presses with relentless logic: “If nature is a chaos or a chance, why should tomorrow resemble today?” This exposes the Achilles’ heel of atheism while elevating theism as a rational necessity.
Finally, the book’s apologetic value is profound. For Christian readers, it provides a sophisticated defense of faith against scientism; for skeptics, it poses a formidable challenge to unexamined assumptions. Clark does not merely assert compatibility between science and belief in God—he demonstrates that the former depends on the latter, inverting the narrative of conflict peddled by popular secularists.
Minor Considerations in Context
If the work has limitations, they are minor and contextual. Clark’s focus on Western science excludes non-European contributions, but this aligns with his aim to address the dominant scientific tradition. His critique of operationalism might strike some as overly dismissive, given its practical utility in physics, yet his point is philosophical, not pragmatic: utility does not equate to truth. These are not flaws but reflections of the book’s targeted scope and purpose.
Reception and Enduring Relevance
Since its release, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God has been celebrated within Reformed and Evangelical circles for its intellectual rigor and apologetic clarity. Its republication in 1996 by the Trinity Foundation, alongside endorsements from scholars like John W. Robbins, attests to its lasting impact. Reader reviews on platforms like Goodreads praise its “logical consistency” and “eye-opening perspective,” often citing it as a counterweight to naturalistic dogmatism. In an academic landscape increasingly dominated by materialist assumptions, Clark’s voice remains a vital corrective.
Conclusion
Gordon H. Clark’s The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God is a masterful synthesis of philosophy, history, and theology. Its incisive critique of secular science, paired with a compelling defense of theistic presuppositions, marks it as a standout in the philosophy of science literature. Far from a reactionary tract, it engages the scientific tradition with respect and precision, revealing its dependence on a worldview it often denies. For students of philosophy, scientists of faith, and anyone wrestling with the science-religion divide, this work offers clarity, coherence, and a bold reaffirmation of God’s centrality to rational inquiry. In an age of growing scientism, Clark’s argument—that belief in God undergirds rather than undermines science—retains its power to instruct and inspire.
Recommendation for Further Reading:
For those intrigued by Clark’s arguments, further exploration into works like Alvin Plantinga’s “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism” or Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” could provide additional depth and contrast to Clark’s thesis.
A Review of Gordon H. Clark’s Three Types of Religious Philosophy
Gordon H. Clark’s Three Types of Religious Philosophy, first published in 1973 and later reissued by the Trinity Foundation, stands as a concise yet formidable contribution to the field of religious epistemology. Spanning approximately 170 pages, this work distills Clark’s lifelong commitment to Reformed presuppositionalism into a lucid and systematic analysis of three competing approaches to religious knowledge: empiricism, rationalism, and dogmatism (or presuppositionalism). Written with the clarity and precision that characterize Clark’s oeuvre, the book serves as both an apologetic defense of Christian theism and a philosophical critique of secular alternatives. This review examines its structure, arguments, and significance, arguing that it offers a compelling and intellectually rigorous case for dogmatism as the only coherent foundation for religious philosophy.
Structure and Analytical Framework
The text is organized around the titular “three types” of religious philosophy, with each approach receiving a dedicated chapter: “The Way of Discovery” (empiricism), “The Way of Reason” (rationalism), and “The Way of Authority” (dogmatism). An introductory chapter sets the stage by framing the problem of religious knowledge, while a conclusion reinforces Clark’s preference for the dogmatic method rooted in divine revelation. This triadic structure mirrors the clarity of a syllogism, reflecting Clark’s logical training under Edgar Singer at the University of Pennsylvania and his pedagogical intent to guide readers through a comparative evaluation.
Clark’s approach is dialectical. He presents each system with fairness, drawing on representative figures—Thomas Aquinas for rationalism, David Hume for empiricism, and Augustine for dogmatism—before subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny. His goal is not merely to catalog but to adjudicate, demonstrating that only one method withstands philosophical examination. The result is a work that is both an introduction to epistemology and a sophisticated apologetic, accessible to students yet rewarding for seasoned scholars.
Philosophical Rigor and Presuppositional Triumph
The brilliance of Three Types of Religious Philosophy lies in Clark’s application of presuppositional apologetics to the question of religious truth. In the chapter on empiricism, he critiques the reliance on sensory experience as a basis for knowledge, using Hume as a foil. Clark argues that empiricism, while initially appealing for its concreteness, collapses into skepticism: sensory data cannot yield certainty about God or metaphysical realities, as Hume’s dismantling of causality and induction vividly illustrates. Clark’s analysis is not dismissive but incisive, exposing empiricism’s inability to bridge the gap between phenomena and ultimate truth.
The rationalist chapter engages Aquinas and the tradition of natural theology, which seeks to prove God’s existence through reason alone. Clark acknowledges the sophistication of cosmological and teleological arguments but finds them wanting. He contends that rationalism’s starting point—unaided human reason—rests on unprovable assumptions and fails to achieve certainty, as it cannot escape the limitations of finite intellect or resolve disputes among competing proofs. His critique is tempered with respect for Aquinas’ genius yet firm in its conclusion: reason without revelation is a shaky foundation.
In contrast, the chapter on dogmatism emerges as the book’s intellectual pinnacle. Here, Clark defends his own position, drawing on Augustine’s credo ut intelligam (“I believe in order to understand”) and the Calvinist doctrine of scriptural authority. He argues that all knowledge rests on unprovable presuppositions, and the Christian’s axiom—the inerrant revelation of an omniscient God—provides the only coherent basis for epistemology. This “way of authority” does not eschew reason but subordinates it to divine truth, offering a framework that accounts for the intelligibility of the world and the certainty of religious claims. Clark’s defense is both bold and elegant, positing that dogmatism succeeds where empiricism and rationalism falter by grounding knowledge in an infallible source.
Strengths and Contributions
Several strengths elevate Three Types of Religious Philosophy to a position of distinction. First, its clarity is exemplary. Clark’s prose is precise and engaging, distilling complex epistemological debates into a form digestible for novices without sacrificing depth. His use of historical exemplars—Hume’s skepticism, Aquinas’ proofs, Augustine’s faith—anchors abstract arguments in concrete intellectual traditions, enhancing both readability and persuasiveness.
Second, the comparative framework is a masterstroke. By systematically evaluating three distinct approaches, Clark provides a comprehensive map of religious philosophy while subtly guiding readers to his conclusion. This method mirrors the Socratic dialectic, inviting critical reflection rather than demanding blind assent, a testament to his skill as an educator.
Third, the book’s apologetic power is profound. Clark does not merely assert the superiority of dogmatism; he demonstrates it through logical critique, exposing the internal contradictions of rival systems. For instance, his refutation of empiricism’s reliance on induction—“if experience is the sole criterion, how can one know it is reliable?”—is both devastating and elegant, echoing his broader critique of secular epistemology in works like A Christian View of Men and Things. This makes the text a potent tool for Christians seeking to defend their faith against secular challenges.
Finally, its brevity is a virtue. In under 200 pages, Clark delivers a focused yet thorough argument, avoiding the prolixity of more exhaustive tomes. This conciseness suits its dual audience: students needing an accessible entry into religious philosophy and scholars seeking a distilled expression of Clark’s thought. The 1996 Trinity Foundation reprint, at 144 pages, further refines this economy without losing substance.
Minor Considerations in Context
If the work has limitations, they are incidental to its purpose. Clark’s focus on Western Christian traditions excludes Eastern or non-theistic perspectives, but this reflects his aim to address the dominant streams of religious philosophy in his context. Some might find his dismissal of rationalism overly swift, given Aquinas’ enduring influence, yet his critique targets foundational flaws rather than surface details. These are not weaknesses but deliberate choices that sharpen the book’s thesis.
Reception and Legacy
Since its publication, Three Types of Religious Philosophy has been lauded within Reformed and Evangelical circles for its intellectual clarity and apologetic vigor. Its republication by the Trinity Foundation underscores its enduring appeal, while reader reviews on platforms like Amazon praise its “logical precision” and “refreshing defense of biblical authority.” Scholars recognize it as a crystallization of Clark’s presuppositionalism, distinct yet complementary to Cornelius Van Til’s work, with a broader appeal due to its epistemological focus. In an era of growing skepticism and relativism, Clark’s argument retains its relevance, offering a timeless framework for religious certainty.
Conclusion
Gordon H. Clark’s Three Types of Religious Philosophy is a gem of Christian scholarship, blending philosophical acumen with theological conviction. Its systematic critique of empiricism and rationalism, paired with a robust defense of dogmatism, establishes it as a standout in religious epistemology. Far from a mere polemic, it is a work of disciplined reasoning that invites readers to reconsider the foundations of knowledge. For Christians, it provides a coherent and confident apologetic; for philosophers, it poses a serious challenge to secular assumptions. Concise, lucid, and profoundly logical, this book exemplifies Clark’s legacy as a thinker who harmonized faith and intellect, making it an essential resource for anyone exploring the nature of religious truth.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Greg Bahnsen and “Theonomy and Christian Ethics”: An Overview
Introduction
Gregory L. Bahnsen (1948-1995) was a significant figure in Christian apologetics, theology, and philosophy. He is particularly noted for his contributions to presuppositional apologetics and theonomy. His work “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” remains one of his most influential publications, providing a comprehensive argument for the application of Old Testament civil laws in contemporary Christian societies.
Biographical Context
Bahnsen earned his Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, where he specialized in philosophy. He was deeply influenced by the thought of Cornelius Van Til, a key proponent of presuppositional apologetics, which contends that one must start with Christian presuppositions to make sense of reality. Bahnsen’s academic career was marked by his rigorous defense of the Christian worldview against secularism, employing logical and philosophical arguments.
Theonomy Defined
The term “theonomy” comes from Greek words meaning “God’s law.” In Bahnsen’s context, theonomy advocates for the application of biblical law, particularly the judicial laws of the Old Testament, as the standard for civil governance in societies today. This contrasts with traditional interpretations that might view the Mosaic law as applicable only to ancient Israel or as superseded by the New Testament.
Overview of “Theonomy in Christian Ethics”
Published in 1977, “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” is divided into three main parts:
The Foundations of Theonomy:
Here, Bahnsen establishes the theological and philosophical groundwork for theonomy. He argues that the moral law of God, as expressed in the Torah, is binding on all people, not merely the Jews of antiquity. He defends this position through an examination of scriptural continuity, emphasizing that Christ’s teachings do not abrogate but fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17).
The Application of Theonomy:
Bahnsen delves into how Old Testament civil laws should be applied in the modern era. He addresses common objections like the supposed obsolescence of these laws post-Christ’s ministry. He argues for a selective but principled application, where the principles behind the laws are upheld, even if the exact practices might change due to different cultural contexts.
The Implications of Theonomy:
This section discusses the practical implications for Christian ethics in law, politics, and societal norms. Bahnsen posits that a theonomic approach would lead to a more just society by ensuring laws are grounded in divine revelation rather than human subjectivity. He explores issues like crime and punishment, economics, and personal ethics under a theonomic framework.
Key Arguments and Contributions
Presuppositional Apologetics: Bahnsen’s defense of theonomy is deeply tied to his presuppositional approach, where he argues that one must start with biblical presuppositions to truly understand ethics and law.
Critique of Autonomy: He critiques the modern separation of church and state, arguing that this leads to moral relativism and societal decay, whereas theonomy provides a stable, divine moral foundation.
The Role of General Equity: Bahnsen introduces the concept of “general equity” in applying biblical law, suggesting that while specific laws might not be directly applicable, their underlying principles are universally binding.
Criticisms and Controversies
Historical Discontinuities: Critics argue that Bahnsen overlooks significant theological shifts
from the Old to the New Testament, particularly regarding legal applications.
Legalistic Tendencies: Some theologians and ethicists have criticized Bahnsen for applying ancient laws dangerously literally in modern contexts, potentially leading to a form of legalism.
Theocratic Implications: There’s debate over whether his theonomy could lead to a form of Christian theocracy, which raises concerns about religious freedom and pluralism in democratic societies.
Conclusion
Greg Bahnsen’s “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” stands as a seminal work in the discussion of Christian ethics, law, and governance. While it has provoked significant debate and critique, it has also inspired a reevaluation of how biblical principles might inform contemporary legal and ethical systems. Bahnsen’s work continues to influence Reformed and Evangelical circles, offering a robust, if controversial, framework for thinking about divine law in modern times.
Greg Bahnsen’s Presuppositionalism: An Analytical Overview
Introduction
Greg Bahnsen was a leading proponent of presuppositional apologetics, a method rooted in Cornelius Van Til’s theological and philosophical thought. Presuppositionalism, as expounded by Bahnsen, challenges traditional evidentialist approaches to apologetics by arguing that the very foundation of human reasoning and knowledge must presuppose the truth of the Christian worldview.
Core Principles of Bahnsen’s Presuppositionalism
Starting with God:
Bahnsen argued that one must begin with the presupposition that the Christian God exists because, without this foundational belief, epistemology (the theory of knowledge), ethics, and metaphysics collapse into incoherence. This approach is famously encapsulated in Van Til’s assertion that “there is no neutral ground.”
The Impossibility of the Contrary:
A key argument in Bahnsen’s methodology is that any worldview or system of thought that does not start with the Christian God leads to ultimate absurdity or self-contradiction. He often used transcendental arguments to demonstrate that only Christian presuppositions can account for logic, morality, and the uniformity of nature.
Critique of Autonomy:
Bahnsen emphasized that human autonomy in reasoning (i.e., reasoning independently of divine revelation) is an illusion. He believed that all human knowledge is derivative, dependent on God’s revelation. This critique extends to secular philosophy, science, and ethics, which he saw as inherently self-defeating without presupposing God.
Internal Consistency vs. External Critique:
Bahnsen’s approach involved showing the internal consistency of the Christian worldview while critiquing other worldviews on their own terms, exposing their inconsistencies or presuppositional weaknesses. He would often engage in what he called “transcendental critique,” where he would question how non-Christian worldviews could justify their basic presuppositions.
Methodological Application
Debate and Public Discourse:
Bahnsen was known for his debates, in which he challenged opponents to justify their own epistemological foundations. His most famous debate was with Gordon Stein in 1985, in which he used presuppositional arguments to argue against atheism, claiming that atheistic attempts at grounding knowledge and morality are futile.
Teaching and Writing:
Through his books, such as “Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis” and “Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith,” Bahnsen spread the methodology of presuppositionalism. He not only defended the approach but also provided practical guidance on how to apply it in discussions and debates.
Criticisms and Challenges
Over-intellectualization: Critics argue that Bahnsen’s approach might be too complex or abstract for many believers, potentially distancing the layperson from apologetics.
Circular Reasoning: Some opponents see presuppositionalism as a form of circular reasoning, where one assumes the truth of Christianity to prove Christianity. Bahnsen would counter that all systems of thought are circular to some extent, and the Christian circle is the only one that doesn’t lead to an infinite regress or contradiction.
Lack of Empirical Engagement: There is a critique that presuppositionalism can bypass empirical evidence or fail to engage sufficiently with scientific or historical arguments.
Conclusion
Greg Bahnsen’s version of presuppositionalism remains a significant challenge to traditional apologetics. His method insists on a holistic approach where philosophy, theology, and logic are interwoven, arguing that the truth of Christianity is not just one part of the puzzle but the very framework within which all knowledge and reasoning must occur. While it has its detractors, Bahnsen’s contributions to presuppositional apologetics continue to influence Christian apologists, theologians, and philosophers, providing a robust defense of the faith that starts from its most foundational claims.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Can Christians be involved in the arts and politics? By Jack Kettler
The question of whether Christians can be involved in the arts can be explored from both theological and historical perspectives, with a foundation in biblical principles.
Theological Justification:
1. Creation and Creativity: The Bible begins with the act of creation by God, as described in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” This act of creation sets a precedent for creativity being inherently part of the divine image in which humans are made (Genesis 1:27). If humans are made in the image of a creative God, then artistic expression can be seen as a reflection of this divine attribute. Psalm 139:14 further emphasizes the beauty of creation, suggesting an appreciation for aesthetics and beauty, which the arts often seek to express.
2. Artistic Skills in the Construction of the Tabernacle: Exodus 31:1-5 describes how Bezalel was filled with the Spirit of God in wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and all manner of workmanship to devise artistic works in gold, silver, and bronze. This passage indicates that God not only endorses but divinely gifts individuals with artistic talents for sacred purposes, directly linking art with divine service.
3. Praise and Worship: Psalms, often considered poetry, are a form of art used in worship. The Psalms are filled with expressions of emotion, beauty, and truth, which are fundamental to artistic expression.
4. Parables and Storytelling: Jesus Christ used parables, which can be viewed as an art form of storytelling, to convey spiritual truths (Matthew 13). This use of narrative arts by Jesus demonstrates that storytelling, a key component of many art forms, can be a vehicle for teaching, moral reflection, and spiritual growth.
Historical Context:
· Throughout history, Christian art has played a significant role in the church, from the stained glass windows of medieval cathedrals to Western Christianity. These artistic expressions have not only served aesthetic purposes but have been instrumental in teaching the faith to the illiterate, conveying theological concepts, and fostering communal identity.
Defensive Against Criticism:
· Some might argue that involvement in the arts could lead to idolatry or distraction from spiritual matters. However, this concern can be addressed by ensuring that artistic endeavors are directed towards glorifying God, educating the community about faith, or reflecting on the human condition in light of biblical truths. Colossians 3:17 advises, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” This suggests that all activities, including arts, can be sanctified when performed with the right intention.
In conclusion:
From a biblical standpoint, Christians can and are encouraged to participate in the arts as part of their worship, service, and reflection of God’s creative image. The arts can be a profound means of expressing faith, teaching doctrine, and engaging with the broader culture in a manner consistent with Christian values.
Title: Christian Participation in Politics: A Biblical Examination
Introduction:
The question of whether Christians can engage in politics is both historically relevant and theologically complex. This discussion will explore the biblical foundations that either support or challenge Christian involvement in political spheres.
Biblical Considerations:
1. Render Unto Caesar (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21):
· Jesus’ response to the Pharisees regarding taxes, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” suggests a level of engagement with secular governance. This statement acknowledges the existence and legitimacy of political authority, implicitly sanctioning involvement to some degree.
2. Paul’s Instruction to Authorities (Romans 13:1-7):
· Paul explicitly instructs Christians to submit to governing authorities, which are described as “instituted by God.” This text forms a primary argument for Christian political involvement, suggesting that by participating in politics, Christians can influence these God-ordained structures for good.
3. Leadership and Wisdom (Proverbs 8:15-16):
· Proverbs states, “By me [wisdom] kings reign, and rulers decree what is just.” Here, wisdom, personified, claims authority over rulers, implying that Christians, who should seek wisdom, have a role in governance to ensure justice.
4. Prophetic Roles in Society (Amos 5:24):
· The prophet Amos calls for justice to “roll down like waters,” indicating a prophetic duty to speak about societal and political issues. This suggests not just passive acceptance but active engagement in advocating for justice.
5. Daniel and Joseph: Political Figures in the Bible:
· Both Daniel and Joseph were placed in high political offices in foreign governments. Their roles involved navigating political landscapes to serve God’s purposes, demonstrating that political involvement can be part of a divine mission.
Counterarguments:
1. Separation from Worldly Systems:
· Some interpretations of scriptures like 2 Corinthians 6:17 (“Come out from them and be separate”) might suggest a withdrawal from worldly systems including politics. However, this passage primarily addresses moral and spiritual separation rather than physical or societal disengagement.
2. Temptation of Power:
· The Bible warns of the corrupting influence of power (1 Samuel 8:10-22), which might lead some to argue against Christians engaging in politics where such temptations are rife. Yet, this can also be seen as a call for vigilance rather than abstention.
A specific argument against involvement in politics or voting:
The country was not started as a Christian nation; therefore, a Christian should not vote or engage in politics.
The assertion that “the country was not started as a Christian nation; therefore, a Christian should not vote or engage in politics” can be refuted on both biblical and logical grounds as follows:
Biblical Refutation:
1. Christian Civic Responsibility:
· Scriptures advocate for the engagement of Christians in civic duties. Romans 13:1-7 explicitly states the need to submit to governing authorities, which implies active participation in the political system to ensure these authorities are just and God-fearing. This passage does not suggest withdrawal from political involvement but rather engagement to promote good governance.
· 1 Timothy 2:1-2 instructs believers to pray for those in authority so that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This directive inherently involves understanding and influencing the political landscape to foster an environment conducive to Christian living.
· Jesus’ command to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17) implies a dual responsibility where Christians are to be involved in secular affairs while maintaining spiritual fidelity.
2. Biblical Examples of Political Engagement:
· The prophet Daniel’s involvement in the Babylonian and Persian courts (Daniel chapters 1-6) illustrates how a faithful servant of God can engage in politics without compromising his faith, thereby serving as a model for Christian political involvement.
· Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41-50) used his administrative role to enact policies that saved many lives, demonstrating that political power can be used for moral and beneficial ends.
Logical Refutation:
1. Historical Context vs. Modern Application:
· Even if one were to argue that the country was not founded explicitly as a Christian nation, this does not logically preclude Christian participation in modern governance. The nature and role of a nation can evolve, and Christians have the responsibility to contribute to this development in line with their values and ethics.
2. Separation of Church and State:
· The concept of separation of church and state in the U.S. context ensures that the government does not establish religion, but it does not bar individuals from bringing their religious convictions into the public square or influencing policy according to those convictions. Therefore, Christians are free to engage in politics to reflect their faith within the bounds of secular law.
3. Moral Influence in Governance:
· Christians have historically influenced laws and societal norms towards justice, peace, and human dignity based on Judeo-Christian ethics. Abstaining from politics would relinquish this influence, potentially leading to policies contrary to Christian teachings on human values, justice, and compassion.
4. Voting as Moral Action:
· Voting is an act of moral agency where Christians can express their values in the public sphere. Not voting would be to abdicate this responsibility, which contradicts the Christian call to be “salt and light” in the world (Matthew 5:13-16), influencing it positively.
The statement “The country was not started as a Christian nation; therefore, a Christian should not vote or engage in politics” contains a logical fallacy known as non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”). Here’s how:
Premise: “The country was not started as a Christian nation.”
Conclusion: “Therefore, a Christian should not vote or engage in politics.”
The fallacy lies in the fact that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. Here’s why:
1. Irrelevance of Historical Foundation to Current Participation: The historical foundation of a country, whether it was established with or without religious intent, does not directly dictate the appropriateness of religious individuals participating in its political processes. The premise might be about the origins or initial intent of the nation, but this does not inherently relate to the rights or duties of individuals based on their religious beliefs today.
2. Rights and Duties: Modern democratic societies generally uphold the right of all citizens, regardless of religion, to participate in political processes like voting or engaging in politics. The premise does not address whether the country’s founders intended to exclude Christians from political participation; it only states the country’s founding wasn’t explicitly Christian. This does not logically lead to a conclusion about the participation of Christians in current political activities.
3. Assumption of Exclusivity: The conclusion assumes that only nations founded with explicit Christian principles should allow Christian political involvement, which is an arbitrary and unfounded restriction on personal freedoms and civic duties. This assumption overlooks the principle of separation of church and state, where individuals can hold and act upon their religious beliefs while participating in secular governance.
4. Misconception About Civic Duty: Voting and political engagement are seen as civic duties or rights in many democratic systems, not contingent on the religious nature of the state’s founding. The argument fails to recognize that Christian values might include civic participation as a form of stewardship or service to the community.
In summary, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise because a country’s historical religious identity (or lack thereof) does not dictate individuals’ political participation rights or duties based on their current religious beliefs. This fallacy is a clear example of a non sequitur, where the connection between the premise and conclusion is missing or illogical.
In conclusion:
The assertion that Christians should not engage in politics due to the non-Christian founding of a nation is neither supported by biblical texts advocating civic involvement nor by logical reasoning concerning contemporary societal roles and influences. Instead, both scripture and logic suggest Christians should actively participate in political processes to uphold and promote Christian values.
In Summary:
Biblically, there is a strong foundation for Christian involvement in politics. The mandates to submit to, respect, and even influence political authorities for the sake of justice and righteousness are clear. However, this involvement must be approached with discernment, aiming not at personal gain or the accumulation of power but at the service of God’s will for human society. The biblical narrative supports Christians not only participating but actively shaping political landscapes in accordance with divine principles of justice, mercy, and humility.
While the Bible does not provide a comprehensive political theory, it offers principles that can guide Christian engagement in politics. This involvement should be reflective, prayerful, and focused on embodying the teachings of Christ and the prophets in the public square.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Molinism and Its Connection to Arminianism: An Examination By Jack Kettler
Introduction
Molinism and Arminianism represent two distinct theological systems within Christian soteriology that address the complex interplay between divine sovereignty and human free will. This article seeks to analyze Molinism’s foundational tenets, its historical development, and its relationship to Arminianism, focusing on their shared and divergent views on predestination, grace, and free will.
Molinism: An Overview
Molinism, named after its proponent Luis de Molina (1535-1600), emerged from the Jesuit tradition in the late 16th century. Molina’s central contribution is the concept of scientia media or middle knowledge, which posits that God possesses knowledge of all possible worlds and the free actions of creatures within those worlds. This knowledge is distinct from God’s natural knowledge (necessary truths) and free knowledge (actual events).
· Scientia Media: Molina suggests that God knows what any free creature would do in any given set of circumstances, which allows God to orchestrate history while preserving genuine human freedom, as He predestines based on foreknowledge of human choices under all possible conditions.
· Divine Providence: Molinism reconciles divine providence with human free will by suggesting that God uses His middle knowledge to ensure His divine plan without necessitating human actions.
Arminianism: An Overview
Arminianism, derived from the teachings of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), emerged as a reaction to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. Arminian theology emphasizes:
· Free Will: Humans possess libertarian free will, meaning they have the ability to choose or reject salvation.
· Conditional Election: Election is based on God’s foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ rather than an arbitrary decree.
· Resistible Grace: Divine grace, while prevenient and sufficient, can be resisted by human will, contrasting with the irresistibility of grace in Calvinism.
Connections and Divergences
1. Theological Anthropology:
Both Molinism and Arminianism affirm a more synergistic view of salvation than Calvinism, where human cooperation with divine grace plays a crucial role.
2. Predestination:
Molinism uses middle knowledge to explain predestination. God knows how individuals will respond to grace in any given scenario and elects based on this knowledge.
Arminianism similarly bases predestination on foreknowledge but does not delve into the mechanics of how this knowledge is utilized as explicitly as Molinism does with scientia media.
3. Grace and Human Freedom:
Both systems assert the reality of human free will, but:
Molinism provides a more detailed mechanism through scientific media, suggesting God can ensure outcomes while maintaining human freedom.
Arminianism focuses on the resistibility of grace, emphasizing human responsibility in the salvation process.
4. Theological Implications:
Molinism offers a solution to the problem of evil by allowing for God’s omniscience and omnipotence while maintaining human moral responsibility.
While also addressing this problem, Arminianism places greater emphasis on human culpability in sin and the necessity of grace for salvation.
Conclusion
Molinism and Arminianism share a commitment to reconciling divine sovereignty with human free will, yet they articulate this reconciliation differently. Molinism introduces a nuanced theory of divine knowledge, while Arminianism focuses on the conditional nature of election and the resistibility of grace. Both theological frameworks have influenced Christian thought significantly, offering alternative perspectives to the deterministic views associated with Calvinism. Future theological discourse may continue to explore these systems’ implications for understanding divine-human interaction, the nature of freedom, and the mystery of predestination.
Reformed Theological Refutation of Molinism and Arminianism
Refutation of Molinism
1. Theological Coherence and Divine Sovereignty:
· Middle Knowledge Problem: The concept of scientia media posits that God knows what any free creature would do in any given circumstance. However, this introduces a potential limitation on God’s sovereignty by suggesting that human free actions are not fully decreed by God but are instead conditioned by circumstances. Reformed theology would argue that this undermines God’s decree over all things, including human decisions (Proverbs 16:33; Ephesians 1:11).
· Determinism vs. Freedom: Molinism seeks to balance divine determinism with human freedom but might inadvertently create a scenario where human freedom is only illusory because God’s foreknowledge of what would happen in any circumstance effectively predetermines outcomes.
2. Scriptural Basis:
· Molinism lacks explicit biblical support for the concept of middle knowledge. Reformed theologians would argue that Scripture emphasizes God’s will and decree over human actions (Romans 9:16, 18), not a speculative third type of divine knowledge.
3. Philosophical Consistency:
· The notion of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom in Molinism leads to logical conundrums about how God can know what would happen without determining it, which Reformed theology sees as contradicting the biblical teaching of God’s exhaustive sovereignty.
Refutation of Arminianism
1. Biblical Doctrine of Election:
· Unconditional Election: Arminianism’s doctrine of conditional election based on foreseen faith contradicts the Reformed understanding of election as unconditional and solely by God’s grace (Ephesians 1:4-5; Romans 9:11-13). The Reformed view holds that election is not based on human merit or foreseen faith but on God’s sovereign choice.
· Irresistible Grace: Arminianism posits that grace can be resisted, which Reformed theology counters by teaching that where God intends to save, His grace will effectually call and regenerate (John 6:37, 44). This is seen as necessary for the consistency of God’s salvific plan.
2. Synergism vs. Monergism:
· Arminianism implies a synergistic approach to salvation where human will cooperates with divine grace, which Reformed theology refutes as it promotes a monergistic view where salvation is entirely the work of God (John 1:13; Titus 3:5). The Arminian view is criticized for attributing part of salvation to human effort, potentially diminishing the glory due to God alone in salvation.
3. Perseverance of the Saints:
· The Arminian doctrine of the possibility of falling away from grace after having been saved contradicts the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, which states that those whom God has called and justified, He will also glorify (Romans 8:30). This is seen as an essential safeguard of the doctrine of total depravity and the necessity of divine preservation.
4. Scriptural Interpretation:
· Many passages used by Arminians to support human freedom (e.g., Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15) are reinterpreted by Reformed theologians to emphasize the responsibility of human beings within the framework of God’s sovereign will rather than independent choice outside of divine ordination.
Conclusion
From a Reformed perspective, both Molinism and Arminianism are seen to compromise the scriptural teaching of divine sovereignty by attributing too much autonomy to human will or introducing speculative knowledge frameworks without clear biblical support. Reformed theology insists on a consistent view where God’s decrees are the ultimate cause of all events, including human salvation, thereby maintaining the glory of God as the primary purpose of all things.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Joe Morecraft, III and Authentic Christianity By Jack Kettler
An Overview of Joe Morecraft III
Joseph C. Morecraft III is an American pastor, theologian, and author who has significantly influenced the landscape of Reformed theology within the Presbyterian tradition. Born in 1944 in Madison, West Virginia, Morecraft has emerged as a leading figure in theonomist circles. This theological position advocates for the application of Old Testament civil laws in contemporary society. He holds multiple degrees, including a Bachelor of Arts in History from King College, a Master of Divinity from Columbia Theological Seminary, and both a Master of Theology and a Doctor of Theology from Whitefield Theological Seminary.
Morecraft has been the pastor of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church in Cumming, Georgia, which he founded in 1980. His ministry has been characterized by a commitment to expository preaching, where he elucidates biblical texts in great detail, often linking theological doctrines to practical Christian living and societal ethics. His theological stance is firmly rooted in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism, documents of which he is a staunch defender and interpreter.
Morecraft’s authorship extends into areas of Christian apologetics, theonomy, and cultural critique, with works like “How God Wants Us to Worship Him” and “With Liberty and Justice for All: Christian Politics Made Simple.” His stance on various social and political issues has garnered both support and controversy, mainly due to his outspoken views on the role of Christianity in public life.
A Review of “Authentic Christianity” by Joe Morecraft III
· “Authentic Christianity: An Exposition of the Theology and Ethics of the Westminster Larger Catechism” represents Joe Morecraft III’s most extensive scholarly work, culminating in an eight-volume set. This comprehensive commentary delves into the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC), examining each question and answer in-depth.
· Theological Depth: Characterizes Morecraft as he meticulously expositions each segment of the WLC, linking it to scriptural references and historical Reformed theology. His approach is systematic, offering insights into the doctrinal implications and historical context of each catechetical point.
· Ethical Application: Beyond mere theological discourse, Morecraft extends into ethical considerations, interpreting how each doctrinal truth should influence Christian ethics and societal norms, reflecting his theonomic perspective.
· Structure and Organization: The series is well-organized, with each volume dedicated to a portion of the catechism.
· Each volume includes an extensive analysis of each catechism question.
· Each volume includes detailed indices for navigation, including a scripture index, historical index, and index of names, which aid scholars in cross-referencing and further study.
· Scholarly Contribution: The work not only serves as a resource for those within Reformed circles but also contributes to broader theological discourse by offering a detailed exposition of one of the key confessional documents of the Presbyterian tradition. Morecraft’s commentary is enriched with citations from church fathers, Reformation theologians, and Puritan authors, providing a continuity of thought from the early church to contemporary Reformed theology.
· Critique and Reception: While praised for its depth and commitment to traditional Reformed theology, some critics argue that Morecraft’s interpretation might overly emphasize the legal aspects of the catechism, potentially overshadowing its pastoral and personal application. Additionally, his theonomic interpretations have sparked debate regarding the application of Old Testament law in modern governance.
· Educational Value: “Authentic Christianity” is a valuable resource for theological education. It offers laypersons and scholars alike a thorough exploration of Reformed doctrine through the lens of one of its foundational catechisms. It serves as an essential tool for those studying or teaching Reformed theology, ethics, and catechetics.
In closing:
“Authentic Christianity” explores a comprehensive range of Christian theology, including the following plus much more:
· Personal piety
· The Christian’s civic duties
· Detailed interpretations of the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer
· Preaching methods
· The church’s victory, the Trinity’s roles, and the significance of sacraments
· God’s revelation, scriptural inspiration, and sovereignty
· The interplay of divine providence with human and angelic actions
· The responsibilities of governments under God
“Authentic Christianity” by Joe Morecraft III has received several endorsements from notable figures within Reformed Christian circles. Here are two of the endorsements:
1. Dr. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., President of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, described it as a work that every Christian serious about the Reformed Faith and the Westminster Standards should have and use, emphasizing its thorough research, biblical exegesis, and historical and systematic theology. He noted, “Even when the reader might not agree with every one of Dr. Morecraft’s conclusions, he will be challenged to think Biblically.”
2. George Grant, Pastor at Parish Presbyterian Church and Director at King’s Meadow Study Center, praised it as an “invaluable treasure” informed by Morecraft’s lifetime of pastoral insight, theological precision, and historical incisiveness. He recommended it as a vital resource for Reformed pastors, Sunday School teachers, and Bible study leaders.
In summary:
Joe Morecraft III’s “Authentic Christianity” stands as a monumental work in Reformed scholarship. It provides an exhaustive commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism that bridges historical theology with contemporary ethical discussions. Moreover, with his comprehensive work, Morecraft has undoubtedly made a mark in Church History.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Shaeffer and Solzhenitsyn, Cultural Freedom Fighters By Jack Kettler
“If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow from within or come from outside, eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state. No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have real absolute by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes and who speak out and act upon that absolute.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
Explanation of Francis A. Schaeffer’s Statement:
Francis A. Schaeffer, in the statement provided, articulates a cautionary perspective regarding the relationship between Christianity and authoritarian governance. His argument can be broken down into several key components:
1. Role of Christians in Society: Schaeffer posits that Christians, due to their adherence to a divine standard (Scripture), possess what he refers to as “real absolute by which to judge” the actions of any government. This absolute is derived from Christian theology, specifically the belief in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible as God’s revelation.
2. Authoritarian Governments: He discusses two forms of authoritarianism:
3. Growing from Within: This refers to the gradual shift of a democratic or free society towards authoritarian rule through internal political or cultural changes.
4. Coming from Outside: This describes the imposition of authoritarian control by external forces, such as invasion or foreign influence.
5. Consequences for Christians: Schaeffer warns that in an authoritarian regime, Christians will become “the enemy of society and the state” because their moral absolutes conflict with the state’s arbitrary absolutes. Despotic governments, by nature, seek to centralize power and suppress dissent or alternative sources of authority, including religious ones.
6. Imperative to Speak Out: He urges Christians to oppose these trends actively, suggesting silence or inaction will lead to their marginalization or persecution.
Biblical Defense:
· Role of the Church: The Bible encourages believers to act as the “salt of the earth” (Matthew 5:13) and the “light of the world” (Matthew 5:14-16), implying a responsibility to influence society positively, including against oppression.
· Prophetic Tradition: Biblical prophets like Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah spoke out against the rulers and social injustices of their times, often at great personal risk, illustrating the duty to challenge unrighteous authority (Amos 5:24; Isaiah 1:17; Jeremiah 22:3).
· Submission vs. Obedience: While Romans 13:1-7 commands submission to governing authorities as instituted by God, this must be understood in light of Acts 5:29, where Peter states, “We must obey God rather than human beings,” indicating there’s a higher law to which human laws are subject.
· Justice and Care for the Oppressed: Scripture consistently calls for justice and protection of the vulnerable (Psalm 82:3-4; Micah 6:8), which can conflict with authoritarian practices that often disregard individual rights or justice for political control.
Logical Defense:
· Moral Relativism vs. Absolute Morality: Authoritarian regimes often operate under a moral relativism where the state becomes the arbiter of right and wrong. Christianity, with its claim of moral absolutes from God, naturally opposes this, providing a logical basis for dissent against unjust laws or policies.
· Human Dignity: Christian theology posits that humans are made in the image of God (Imago Dei), which inherently grants them dignity and rights. Authoritarian regimes that diminish these rights are logically opposed to this foundational Christian belief.
· Historical Precedents: History shows numerous instances where Christian individuals or movements have opposed authoritarianism, from the early church’s refusal to worship Roman emperors to modern resistance against oppressive regimes, lending empirical support to Schaeffer’s argument.
· Long-term Societal Health: The freedom to critique and challenge authority is crucial for societal moral and intellectual health. Christianity, by advocating for truth and justice, contributes to this health, suggesting that its suppression would be detrimental to society at large.
In conclusion, Shaeffer’s first statement:
Schaeffer’s caution about Christians’ role in the face of authoritarianism is biblically grounded and logically coherent, reflecting a call to preserve moral absolutes in the public square against the encroachments of arbitrary state power.
Shaeffer’s second statement:
“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
Francis A. Schaeffer’s statement, “If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God,” articulates a profound critique of absolute governmental authority from both a theological and philosophical standpoint. Here is an academic exposition and defense of this assertion:
Theological Perspective
1. Biblical Basis for Civil Disobedience:
· Daniel 3: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s refusal to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image exemplifies civil disobedience in adherence to higher divine law. Their act was not merely defiance but a prioritization of worship to God over human edicts.
· Acts 5:29: The apostles’ assertion, “We must obey God rather than men,” encapsulates the principle that when human laws contradict divine laws, believers are duty-bound to follow the latter. This scriptural precedent supports Schaeffer’s argument that there must be room for civil disobedience when earthly governance contravenes divine mandates.
2. Government as God’s Servant, Not Master:
· Romans 13:1-7 discusses the role of government as an institution established by God for the good of society. However, this passage does not sanction governments to act autonomously or above divine law. Governments should act justly, reflecting God’s righteousness, not supplanting His authority.
Philosophical Perspective
1. Autonomy of Government:
· Schaeffer’s critique targets the notion of a government that operates without accountability to a higher moral or ethical standard, which essentially deifies the state. Moreover, this leads to totalitarianism, where the state’s will is the ultimate law, devoid of any checks, including those from moral or religious convictions.
2. Human Dignity and Rights:
Philosophically, if government is autonomous, it can arbitrarily define human rights and dignity, undermining the intrinsic value of individuals as beings created in the image of God (Imago Dei). Civil disobedience becomes a mechanism to assert human dignity against oppressive regimes.
3. Moral Accountability:
· The concept of a government answerable to no higher authority negates the idea of moral accountability. Schaeffer implies that without the possibility of civil disobedience, there is no practical method for citizens to challenge or rectify moral breaches by the state, thus elevating the state to an idolatrous position.
Logical Defense
1. Logical Consequence of Autonomous Government:
· Logically, if a government is the final arbiter of morality, it positions itself as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent attributes traditionally ascribed to God. This leads to a theocratic form of governance where the state assumes divine roles, which from a Christian perspective, is idolatry.
2. The Role of Conscience:
· The allowance for civil disobedience acknowledges the role of individual conscience, which, in Christian theology, is informed by divine law. If civil disobedience is eradicated, the conscience, which is meant to be guided by divine truth, becomes subservient to state authority, creating a moral vacuum.
3. Historical Precedents:
· The effectiveness and moral justification of civil disobedience can be seen in historical movements like the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., which was profoundly influenced by Christian principles and the necessity to oppose unjust laws.
In conclusion:
Schaeffer’s statement posits that civil disobedience is not merely a political tool but a theological necessity where human law conflicts with divine law. The absence of such a mechanism would elevate government to a god-like status, which is antithetical to biblical teaching and the logical structure of governance under moral law.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s statement addresses the moral and ethical implications of silence and indifference towards evil. His assertion can be dissected into several key components:
1. Silence as Complicity: Individuals participate in its perpetuation by remaining silent about evil. Silence does not merely ignore evil; it actively fosters an environment where evil can flourish unchecked.
2. Internalization of Evil: Evil does not disappear but is internalized when it is not confronted. This internalization acts like a seed within the moral landscape of society, which, in due time, will sprout into more overt manifestations of evil.
3. Exponential Growth of Evil: Solzhenitsyn suggests that this internalized evil does not remain static but grows “a thousandfold,” indicating an exponential increase in the scale and impact of evil over time due to societal negligence.
4. Impact on Justice: By neither punishing nor reproaching evildoers, society fails to correct or deter wrongdoing and erodes the very principles upon which justice is built. This failure sets a precedent for future generations, undermining moral education and establishing just societal norms.
Biblical Defense
· Silence Equals Sin: In Ezekiel 3:18-19, God tells Ezekiel that if he does not warn the wicked about their ways, their blood will be on his hands. Moreover, this implies a moral obligation to speak out against evil, aligning with Solzhenitsyn’s view that silence is complicity.
· Justice and Retribution: Proverbs 29:1 states, “He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck, will suddenly be broken beyond healing.” Furthermore, this supports the idea that evil should be confronted and reproached to prevent further harm and to maintain justice.
· Moral Accountability: Romans 1:32 suggests that those who approve of evil are as guilty as those who commit it. Additionally, this aligns with the notion that not condemning evil contributes to its perpetuation.
Logical Defense
· Moral Decay: Logically, if evil acts are not addressed, they set precedents. Over time, this can lead to a normalization of unethical behavior, eroding societal morals. Solzhenitsyn’s point about the growth of evil can be seen as a warning against this decay.
· Preventive Justice: The concept of deterrence in legal systems supports the idea that punishment or reproach is a preventive measure against future crimes. By not addressing evil, society loses this deterrent effect, thus potentially increasing the incidence of wrongdoing.
· Educational Impact: Education in ethics and morality often involves learning from past mistakes. If evil is buried without acknowledgment, future generations lack the lessons necessary to understand and prevent similar behaviors, thereby weakening the foundation of justice.
· Systemic Integrity: Justice systems rely on accountability to function correctly. If evildoers are not held accountable, the integrity of these systems is compromised, leading to a broader societal impact where justice is seen as optional rather than imperative.
In conclusion
Solzhenitsyn’s statement underscores the inherent dangers of societal indifference to evil, suggesting that such silence fails to address immediate moral failings and sows the seeds for future moral crises. Both biblical teachings and logical reasoning support the necessity of confronting and addressing evil to maintain and promote justice across generations.
In closing, another profound statement by Solzhenitsyn is:
“A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
“But the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s statement encapsulates his critique of Marxism-Leninism, particularly emphasizing the role of atheism within this ideological framework. His assertion can be dissected into several key components:
Organized, Militarized, and Malevolent Godlessness:
· Organization: as articulated by Karl Marx and further developed by Vladimir Lenin, Marxism included atheism as an ancillary belief and a core tenet. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, under Lenin’s leadership, institutionalized atheism through various state mechanisms. The League of Militant Atheists, established in 1925, was a direct instrument of the state aimed at promoting atheism and eradicating religious beliefs, which was part of a broader cultural and educational policy to secularize society.
· Militarization: The term “militarized” refers to the aggressive and systematic approach adopted by the Soviet state against religious institutions and practices. Moreover, this was manifested through state propaganda, the destruction of religious buildings, and the persecution of religious figures. For instance, during the Soviet anti-religious campaigns in the 1920s and 1930s, thousands of churches were closed or destroyed, and clergy members were imprisoned, exiled, or executed.
· Malevolence: Solzhenitsyn’s use of “malevolent” underscores the perceived hostility and deliberate intent behind Soviet policies to obliterate religious faith. Additionally, this is evidenced by the state’s use of coercive measures, including forced labor camps (Gulags), where religious believers were among those who suffered greatly. The suppression of religion wasn’t merely a by-product of Communist policy but was seen as necessary for the creation of the “new Soviet man” devoid of religious superstition.
Hatred of God as the Principal Driving Force:
· Philosophical Underpinnings: Marx’s view of religion as “the opium of the people” laid the groundwork for interpreting religion as a tool of oppression and a barrier to true class consciousness. Lenin further expanded this, seeing religion as inherently counterrevolutionary and thus an enemy to be combated.
· Psychological Aspect: Solzhenitsyn suggests that at the core of Marxist and Leninist psychology was a profound rejection of any divine authority, which he interprets as a hatred of God. This rejection was not just ideological but was seen as a psychological necessity to justify the immense power and control the state exerted, which would be otherwise checked by religious morality and ethics.
Militant Atheism as the Central Pivot:
· Policy Implementation: The Soviet Union’s approach to religion was not passive but actively militant. State atheism was enshrined in policy, with laws and decrees aimed at diminishing the influence of religion. Moreover, this included the 1918 Soviet Constitution, which declared the separation of church and state but, in practice, led to the state’s control over religious affairs.
· Educational and Cultural Eradication: Education systems were revamped to exclude religious teachings, and cultural products were censored to remove religious references. Furthermore, this systematic approach aimed to create generations free from religious influence, viewing this as crucial for the success of Communism.
Historical Proof:
· Legislation and Actions: The Soviet decrees, like those in 1918 on the separation of church and state, and the 1929 law that drastically curtailed religious activities illustrate the state’s intent to marginalize religion.
· Persecution of Religious Groups: The extensive documentation of the persecution of religious groups, from the Russian Orthodox Church to smaller sects, during various Soviet campaigns supports Solzhenitsyn’s view. Historians like Robert Service and Richard Pipes have detailed accounts of how religion was systematically attacked.
· Survivor Accounts: Solzhenitsyn’s own experience, as well as those of other survivors like Varlam Shalamov, provide firsthand accounts of how religious belief was a frequent cause for imprisonment or harsher treatment in Soviet labor camps.
· Literature and Propaganda: Soviet literature and propaganda, from official state newspapers to educational materials, consistently promoted atheism while vilifying religion, showing the depth of integration into state policy.
Solzhenitsyn’s critique posits that the Soviet form of Communism was uniquely hostile to religion because it viewed religious belief as fundamentally incompatible with its ideological goals. His statement, therefore, is not merely an opinion but reflects a historical reality where atheism was not just a belief but a strategic element of state policy. This historical analysis corroborates his assertion through various documented actions and policies of the Soviet state.
In conclusion:
Solzhenitsyn states: “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
The Incompatibility of Progressivism and the Bible By Jack Kettler
The incompatibility between biblical teachings and the ideologies associated with Progressivism, particularly Communism, can be examined through several theological and doctrinal lenses:
1. Concept of Property and Wealth:
· Biblical Perspective: The Bible acknowledges private property and the right to personal wealth. For instance, the Eighth Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal” (Exodus 20:15), implies the existence of personal possessions. Additionally, parables like the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) suggest stewardship over personal resources with an expectation of growth and productivity, contrasting with communal ownership without individual accountability.
· Communist Perspective: Communism advocates for the abolition of private property and the collective ownership of all resources. This fundamental tenet directly opposes the biblical affirmation of personal stewardship and ownership.
2. Work Ethic and Incentive:
· Biblical Perspective: The Bible promotes diligence, work, and personal responsibility. Proverbs 14:23 states, “In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty,” underscoring the value of labor. The New Testament also speaks to the moral duty of work (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12).
· Communist Perspective: The system often removes personal incentives for work due to equal distribution of goods, potentially leading to decreased productivity and a reliance on state allocation rather than individual initiative.
3. Human Nature and Sin:
· Biblical Perspective: Christianity views humans as inherently sinful (Romans 3:23), necessitating redemption through faith and personal transformation. This view supports structures that account for human fallibility, including checks and balances against corruption.
· Communist Perspective: Communism often assumes a more optimistic view of human nature, suggesting that societal structures can be reformed to eliminate greed and conflict. However, this perspective might not sufficiently account for individual sinfulness, leading to potential abuses of power in practice.
4. Freedom and Autonomy:
· Biblical Perspective: The Bible champions freedom, particularly spiritual freedom through Christ (Galatians 5:1), but also respects individual autonomy in moral choices, though guided by divine law.
· Communist Perspective: Communism, in its historical implementations, has often curtailed personal freedoms in favor of collective goals, which can conflict with the biblical notion of free will and personal accountability before God.
5. Charity vs. State-Mandated Redistribution:
· Biblical Perspective: Charity is a voluntary act of love and faith (2 Corinthians 9:7), where giving is cheerful and from the heart, reflecting one’s relationship with God and community.
· Communist Perspective: Redistribution of wealth is mandatory and systematic, lacking the voluntary aspect emphasized in biblical charity, potentially reducing the spiritual significance of giving.
5. Authority and Governance:
· Biblical Perspective: The Bible recognizes the necessity of government (Romans 13:1-7) but emphasizes that its authority is derived from God, with leaders accountable to divine principles.
· Communist Perspective: The state often assumes an omnipotent role in defining moral and economic life, which can lead to the secularization of authority, diminishing the acknowledgment of divine sovereignty.
In conclusion:
While both ideologies might share superficial goals like concern for the poor or community welfare, the methods, underlying philosophies, and understandings of human nature, property, and governance diverge significantly. The biblical perspective often emphasizes individual responsibility, stewardship, and a divine moral order, which opposes the collectivist, materialistic, and often atheistic underpinnings of Communist ideologies.
A review of David Chilton’s Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators: A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider:
Introduction:
David Chilton’s “Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators” critiques Ronald J. Sider’s “Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger” by offering a counter-narrative rooted in a particular interpretation of biblical theology. Chilton’s work aims to challenge the socio-economic implications suggested by Sider, a socialist advocating instead for a theology that supports individual liberty and free-market economics from a Christian perspective.
Thesis and Argumentation:
Chilton’s central thesis is that based on Christian guilt, Sider’s call for economic redistribution and social justice misinterprets biblical teachings. Chilton argues that the Bible does not endorse socialism or communal ownership but instead supports a form of capitalism underpinned by Christian ethics. His argumentation is structured around several key points:
1. Biblical Exegesis: Chilton engages in scriptural analysis to counter Sider’s interpretations, particularly emphasizing passages that he believes advocate for personal responsibility, stewardship, and property rights. He critiques Sider’s use of selective scriptures to promote economic equality, arguing instead that biblical texts advocate for prosperity through diligence and wise management of resources.
2. Economic Theory: Chilton defends the free market principles, suggesting that economic success is not inherently at odds with Christian values. He posits that charity should be voluntary, not mandated by state or societal pressure, which he identifies as “guilt manipulation.” His economic arguments are underpinned by classical liberal economics, contrasting sharply with Sider’s preference for government intervention.
3. Critique of Guilt Manipulation: A significant aspect of Chilton’s critique is his analysis of how Sider uses guilt to influence Christian behavior. Chilton argues that this tactic is manipulative and not in line with true Christian doctrine, which should foster joy and freedom in giving rather than obligation.
Methodological Approach:
Chilton employs a method that combines theological hermeneutics with economic theory. His approach is polemical, aiming to refute and reshape the discourse around Christian social ethics.
· Hermeneutics: His biblical interpretation is heavily influenced by postmillennialism and presuppositional apologetics, which color his reading of economic themes in scripture.
· Economic Analysis: Chilton’s economic arguments are primarily deductive, starting from his theological premises to derive economic conclusions rather than engaging extensively with empirical economic data.
Strengths:
· Clarity and Conviction: Chilton’s writing is clear and direct, making his arguments accessible to those within his theological and economic circles.
· Theological Depth: His work provides an in-depth look at biblical texts concerning wealth and stewardship, offering a robust theological alternative to Sider’s interpretations.
Conclusion:
David Chilton’s “Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators” serves as a thought-provoking counterpoint to Ronald J. Sider’s work, stimulating dialogue on the intersection of Christian theology and economic policy. While it effectively articulates a case for Christian involvement in economics from a conservative standpoint, its reception and scholarly impact hinge on one’s alignment with its theological and economic presuppositions. This book remains a significant text for understanding the diversity of opinion within Christian economic ethics, prompting readers to critically evaluate the role of scripture in shaping economic thought and action.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Dean Haskins and the “Way of the Tabernacle” by Jack Kettler
Overview of the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM)
The Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) is a contemporary Christian theological and cultural movement that emphasizes adopting elements from Second Temple Judaism and the practices of the early Christian communities. This movement seeks to reconnect with the Hebraic foundations of Christianity, often advocating for a return to what is perceived as the original form of the faith as practiced by Jesus (Yeshua) and his early followers.
Historical Context:
The origins of the HRM can be traced back to the late 20th century, though its ideological underpinnings have roots in earlier Christian restorationist movements. Movements like this, including the Church of God (Seventh Day) and various Messianic Jewish groups, aimed to restore what they viewed as lost biblical practices and teachings. The HRM gained momentum with the advent of the internet, which allowed for broader dissemination of its teachings and facilitated community building among adherents.
Core Beliefs:
1. Torah Observance: Central to the HRM is the belief in the ongoing relevance of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) for Christian life. Adherents often adopt practices such as observing the Sabbath from Friday evening to Saturday evening, keeping the biblical feasts (like Passover, Sukkot, and Shavuot), and adhering to dietary laws (kashrut).
2. Use of Hebrew Names: There is a significant emphasis on using Hebrew names for God (Yahweh) and Jesus (Yeshua), alongside Hebrew words and phrases in worship and daily life, to reflect a more authentic connection to the biblical language.
3. Biblical Literalism: HRM proponents often interpret the Bible literally, particularly in matters of law and prophecy, which leads to a unique hermeneutic that blends elements of Judaism with Christian theology.
4. Cultural and Theological Identity: The movement often seeks to reclaim a Jewish identity for Christianity, arguing that Jesus and the early church were Jewish, and therefore, a true understanding of Christianity must include its Jewish roots.
Practices:
· Sabbath Observance: Adherents might refrain from using work technology and engage in communal worship or personal study.
· Feast Days: Celebration of the biblical feasts is seen as a way to align with the liturgical calendar of the Old Testament.
· Dietary Laws: Keeping kosher or refraining from certain foods like pork and shellfish is common.
· Study of Hebrew: There is encouragement to learn Hebrew so that they can understand the Scriptures in their original language better.
Criticisms and Challenges:
· Theological Debates: Traditional Christian denominations often criticize HRM for potentially undermining the Pauline doctrine of freedom from the law through faith in Christ.
· Cultural Appropriation: Some Jewish scholars and leaders critique the movement for what they perceive as the appropriation or misrepresentation of Jewish culture and theology.
· Community and Identity: There are challenges in defining who qualifies as part of the movement and how to integrate or differentiate from Jewish communities.
Conclusion:
The Hebrew Roots Movement represents an effort to reinterpret Christian identity through a Hebraic lens. It challenges conventional Christian practices and theology by promoting a lifestyle and belief system that integrates elements of ancient Jewish practice into modern Christian life.
Here are some groups and organizations that can be associated with the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM), though they might not all use this term explicitly, reflecting the diverse expressions within this broader movement:
1. First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) – This group teaches believers about their Hebrew roots, including observing biblical feasts and Torah-keeping from a Messianic Jewish perspective.
2. TorahResource Institute – Led by Tim Hegg, this institute provides resources and education on the Torah from a perspective that integrates it with the Christian faith, emphasizing the Hebrew roots.
3. Hebraic Roots Teaching Institute (HRTI) – Founded by William F. Dankenbring, HRTI aims to restore what they see as the original Hebraic foundations of Christianity.
4. Beth Immanuel Sabbath Fellowship – A congregation that embraces both Jewish and Christian elements, focusing on living out the commandments of the Torah in light of the New Testament.
5. Olive Tree Congregation – This group practices a form of Messianic Judaism, integrating Jewish traditions with faith in Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah.
6. Assembly of Yahweh – While more aligned with Sacred Name movements, this group often overlaps with HRM due to its emphasis on the Torah and its observance.
7. Lion and Lamb Ministries – Founded by Monte Judah, it provides teachings that link the Torah with New Testament Christianity, encouraging the practice of the Feasts and other biblical observances.
8. Restoration Fellowship – This organization works towards restoring the early Christian practices, which they believe include the observance of the Torah.
9. Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA) – Although primarily a Messianic Jewish organization, many of its teachings and practices align with HRM, emphasizing integrating Torah observance with faith in Yeshua.
10. United Church of God (UCG) – While not strictly part of HRM, some of its teachings resonate with the movement, particularly in Sabbath observance and the biblical festivals.
11. Nazarene Israel – This group combines beliefs in Torah observance with the idea that the faithful followers of Yeshua would maintain Jewish identity and practices.
It’s important to note that while these groups share some commonalities with the Hebrew Roots Movement, they might differ significantly in other theological areas or practices. Moreover, some might identify more with Messianic Judaism or other related but distinct movements.
Who is Dean Haskins and the Way of the Tabernacle?
Dean Haskin’s bio:
Dean Haskins is an artist known for his music composition, production, and performance work. He has been actively involved in the music industry since the early 1990s, combining his music skills with his visual and performing arts talents. Haskins has produced and composed for various projects, including film scores, commercials, and live performances, often blending genres like jazz, rock, and classical music to create unique auditory experiences. His work is characterized by an exploration of soundscapes, where he integrates live instruments with electronic elements, showcasing his versatility and innovative approach to music. His music can be found on platforms like Bandcamp, where he shares his compositions for evaluation and enjoyment.
Haskins wrote a book, “From Christian to Believer,” with his co-author, James Finnegan.
This writer came in contact with Dean at the social media site called Parler. He strongly disagreed with the content of the Apostle’s Creed that this writer posted. He made it clear in short order that he hated Christianity. He strongly objected to the name Jesus. He asserted that Christianity was a bastardized religion and emphasized the importance of using Hebrew.
When asked if he was a better Hebrew scholar than Alfred Edershiem, the 19th-century Jewish scholar who converted to Christianity wrote many volumes on Jewish life at the time of Christ, including the monumental work “The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah.” Dean could not credibly explain why Edershiem felt the liberty to use the name Jesus rather than the Hebrew Yeshua; he could not answer the question.
Another area that was like pulling teeth was asking Dean who the leader of his group was, the “Way of the Tabernacle.” Gradually, it became clear that he was or at least one of the leaders. Then Dean was asked if he was appointed or self-appointed. Throughout our limited exchange, Dean exhibited arrogance and the constant use of pejoratives. This writer informed him that because of this, he was a bad salesman. He said that he was guided by the Holy Spirit, passing off his lousy salesmanship to God. Another takeaway from the exchange was his hatred for Christianity and his refusal to recognize the arguments made by a Christian. This writer gave Dean a link to an article explaining why the observance of the Saturday Sabbath was changed to the Lord’s Day on Sunday. Sending Dean this article link was our final exchange in which he blocked me on the Parler platform. Much of the following will be a point-by-point response to assertions made on the “Way of the Tabernacle” website. The points meriting a response will be highlighted in red.
An analysis of various statements made by Dean Haskins on his website:
“True believers who are indwelt by the Spirit are the bride, and the bride’s name is Y’isra-el. Most in the “church” don’t possess the spiritual understanding to see what is physical and what is spiritual.” – Dean Haskins
The above statement contains several logical fallacies and theological issues:
1. Ambiguity in Definitions:
· The term “true believers” is not universally defined. Different denominations and theological perspectives might define who qualifies as a “true believer” differently, leading to ambiguity in who is considered part of the bride.
2. Scriptural Interpretation:
· The idea that “true believers who the Spirit indwells are the bride” might be derived from interpretations of New Testament passages like Ephesians 5:25-27 or Revelation 19:7-9, where the Church is metaphorically referred to as the bride of Christ. However, equating the bride directly with “Y’isra-el” (presumably referring to Israel) introduces a mix-up between Judaic identity and Christian ecclesiology. Traditionally, Christian theology might see Israel as a precursor or type of the Church, but the equation here seems to blur distinct theological identities.
3. Theological Conflation:
· The conflation of the Christian Church (the body of Christ, often called the Bride of Christ) with Y’isra-el (the nation of Israel) overlooks the distinctions between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church. While theological views like Covenant Theology might see continuity between Israel and the Church, the statement implies a direct identity that many Christian traditions would argue oversimplifies or misrepresents these relationships.
4. Exclusivity and Judgment:
· The assertion that “most in the ‘church’ don’t possess the spiritual understanding to see what is physical and what is spiritual” implies a judgment on the spiritual state of others without any proof. This kind of statement can be problematic because:
· It presupposes one’s spiritual superiority or insight, which can lead to spiritual elitism.
· It lacks objective criteria for sufficient “spiritual understanding,” making it a subjective claim.
· Contrary to many teachings about humility, love, and mutual upbuilding in faith, it might foster division rather than unity within the Christian community. In addition, the claim that “most in the church” is fallacious. Has Dean interviewed most of the people in the Church? Such an unverifiable claim is like the atheist trying to prove a universal negative.
5. Lack of Scriptural Support:
· The statement does not provide scriptural references to support the direct identification of the bride with Y’isra-el, which would be crucial in Christian theological discourse. Without biblical backing, the claim appears more as a personal or unique theological interpretation than a widely accepted doctrine.
6. Logical Structure:
· The argument moves from a potentially accepted Christian metaphor (believers as the bride) to a less commonly accepted or understood identity (the bride as Y’isra-el) without clear logical or scriptural progression. This jump needs more theological groundwork to be logically coherent in traditional Christian thought.
In summary:
Dean Haskin’s statement lacks clarity in its definitions, conflates different theological identities without sufficient explanation, makes potentially divisive judgments, and does not adequately support its assertions with accepted scriptural or traditional Christian teachings, making it problematic from a logical and theological perspective.
Consider the warnings in the scriptures about returning to the types and shadows of the Older Covenant.
The Bible’s King James Version (KJV) includes several passages that could be interpreted as warnings against returning to or relying on Judaism after accepting the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Here are some relevant verses:
1. Galatians 2:16 – “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
2. Galatians 3:2-3 – “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”
3. Galatians 4:9-11 – “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.”
4. Galatians 5:1 – “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
5. Hebrews 6:4-6 – “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
6. Hebrews 10:26-29 – “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
7. Colossians 2:16-17 – “Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”
These verses, mainly from Galatians, are often cited in discussions about the transition from the Old Covenant (associated with Judaism) to the New Covenant in Christ, warning against reverting to practices seen as legalistic or unnecessary under the new covenant Christian faith.
The following is a point-by-point analysis of the Way of the Tabernacle’s online tract called: (Bolding and red text highlighting is mine)
“THERE IS TRUTH AND THERE IS COUNTERFEIT”
Messiah: born on the Feast of Tabernacles in the Fall of each year)
Answer:
The idea that the Messiah was born on the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) is a theory held by some scholars and theologians. Still, it is not universally accepted or confirmed by historical texts. Here are some points to consider:
1. Biblical Texts: The Bible does not provide an exact date for the birth of Jesus, who Christians believe to be the Messiah. The Gospels do not mention a specific date or festival in connection with his birth.
2. Feast of Tabernacles: This Jewish festival occurs in the Fall, specifically in the month of Tishrei, around September or October. Some argue that:
· Jesus’ birth might align with Sukkot because of the themes of the festival, which celebrate God’s dwelling among the people, paralleling the idea of Emmanuel (“God with us”).
· There’s a reference in John 1:14 where it says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” and the term “dwelt” can be translated from the Greek as “tabernacled.”
3. Contrast with Traditional Christmas: The traditional celebration of Christmas on December 25 originates in early Christian practices and might have been chosen to coincide with or replace pagan winter solstice festivals rather than being based on historical evidence for Jesus’ actual birth date.
4. Theological Interpretations: Various theological interpretations exist. Some suggest that Jesus’ birth during Sukkot would be symbolically rich, aligning with themes of divine presence, the harvest, and the pilgrimage aspect of the festival. However, these are speculative and not derived from explicit scriptural evidence.
5. Different Jewish Interpretations: In Jewish Messianic thought, the timing of the Messiah’s birth or arrival isn’t strictly tied to Sukkot. Other Jewish traditions and texts might have varying views on this matter.
In summary:
While the theory that the Messiah could have been born during the Feast of Tabernacles provides an interesting theological and symbolic interpretation, it remains speculative. There’s no definitive scriptural or historical evidence to confirm this as fact. Therefore, it’s true in the context of some theological discussions but not as a universally accepted fact.
Counterfeit: born on the Christ-mass, December 25 (sun god’s birthday) (bolding emphasis mine)
Answer:
The claim that Jesus Christ was born on December 25 has a complex history intertwined with Christian tradition and pagan festivals. Here’s a breakdown of the perspectives and historical context:
1. Biblical and Traditional Viewpoints:
· No Specific Date in the Bible: The Bible does not provide an explicit date for Jesus’s birth. While clues suggest a different time of year (like shepherds in the fields at night), these do not definitively confirm or deny December 25.
· Early Christian Traditions: Early Christian writers like Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, and Hippolytus from the second and third centuries mention December 25 as Jesus’s birthday. However, these accounts are not universally accepted as historically accurate.
2. Historical and Scholarly Analysis:
· Pagan Festivals: December 25 was indeed the date of several pagan festivals, notably Saturnalia (a Roman festival for Saturn) and Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (“Birthday of the Unconquered Sun”). Some historians suggest that the early Christian Church might have chosen this date to align with existing pagan celebrations, facilitating the conversion of pagans to Christianity by providing a Christian alternative to these festivals.
· Calculations Hypothesis: Another theory proposes that the Church calculated Jesus’s birth based on the presumed date of his death or conception, both thought to have occurred around the equinoxes or solstices, leading to the nine months later calculation for his birth.
3. Contemporary Interpretations:
· Posts on X: Some users on social media platforms like X (formerly known as Twitter) argue that December 25 was chosen for its pagan significance, suggesting it was a strategic move by early Christians to replace pagan festivities with Christian ones. According to this idea, as the Christian faith conquered the pagan world, it claimed the holidays and infused the pagan holidays with new meaning.
· Christian Perspective: Many Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25 not because they believe it to be his actual birthday but as a traditional and symbolic date, emphasizing the theological significance of Jesus as the “Light of the World” during the darkest time of the year.
In conclusion:
Whether Jesus was born on December 25 remains uncertain due to the lack of definitive historical evidence. The date’s association with pagan festivals is well-documented, but the choice of December 25 might also reflect early Christian theological symbolism. The celebration of Christmas on this date has more to do with cultural and religious traditions than with historical accuracy regarding Jesus’s birth date. Moreover, as the Christian faith conquered the pagan world, Christians infused the old pagan holidays with new meaning as a sign that Christ is the victorious Lord overall.
Messiah diedon Passover (a Wednesday that year)
Answer:
The question of whether Jesus referred to as the Messiah in Christian theology, died on Passover, specifically on a Wednesday, involves examining both biblical texts and historical context, which often yields different interpretations:
1. Biblical Accounts:
· Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke): These Gospels suggest that Jesus was crucified on the day following the Passover meal, which would traditionally have been observed on the 15th of Nisan. This aligns with the idea that the Last Supper was a Passover meal, placing the crucifixion on a Friday, known as Good Friday.
· Gospel of John: John’s account differs, indicating that Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover, before the Passover meal, aligning with the 14th of Nisan. This has led some to argue for crucifixion a day before the traditional Passover, potentially a Wednesday if one assumes a particular year where Passover preparation was on Wednesday.
2. Historical and Scholarly Perspectives:
· Passover Date Variations: Passover’s date shifts due to the lunar calendar; in some years, it might coincide with different weekdays. Scholars debate the exact year of Jesus’s crucifixion, with proposals including A.D. 30 or A.D. 33, each having different implications for the day of the week Passover fell on.
· Wednesday Crucifixion Theory: Some propose a Wednesday crucifixion based on interpretations of Jesus’s statement about being in the “heart of the earth” for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). However, this interpretation has its challenges, mainly due to how days are counted in ancient Jewish tradition (where part of a day counts as a whole day).
3. Posts on X:
· Some posts on X mention that Jesus died on Passover, with some users supporting that this occurred on a Wednesday. These posts reflect varied personal or group interpretations, not scholarly or historical validations.
In Conclusion:
The traditional Christian observance aligns Jesus’s crucifixion with a Friday, following a Thursday Passover meal.
However, there exists a minority view that argues for a Wednesday crucifixion based on interpretations of scripture and specific calendar alignments. Still, this view isn’t universally accepted among scholars or theologians.
The exact day of the week for Passover when Jesus was crucified remains a matter of theological, historical, and interpretative debate. The most widely accepted view supports a Friday crucifixion, but alternative theories like the Wednesday crucifixion do exist, often based on different scriptural interpretations or calendar calculations.
Counterfeit: died on Good Friday
Answer:
There are several pieces of evidence and traditions within Christian theology and historical analysis that support the belief that Jesus Christ died on what is now known as Good Friday:
1. Biblical Accounts:
· The Synoptic Gospels (Mark 15:33-42, Matthew 27:45-50, Luke 23:44-56) describe Jesus’ crucifixion, noting that darkness fell over the land from the sixth hour until the ninth hour (noon to 3 PM), which would be consistent with the time of day for a Friday execution. After this, Jesus is described as dying and being buried before the Sabbath began at sunset.
· John’s Gospel does not specify the day but provides details that align with the timing of the Passover. Jesus is described as being crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover, which would naturally lead into the Sabbath, making it likely Friday.
2. Historical and Traditional Timing:
· The Jewish Calendar: The Last Supper is traditionally considered a Passover meal. If Jesus was crucified the day after this meal, which was a day of preparation before the Sabbath, then Friday becomes the logical day for the crucifixion.
· Early Church Fathers: Writings from early Christian leaders like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others in the 2nd century corroborate this timing, speaking of the crucifixion happening on the 14th of Nisan, which could correspond to a Friday in any given year.
3. The Three Days and Three Nights Issue:
· One theological and chronological debate arises from Jesus’ mention of being in the heart of the earth for “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). This has led some to question the Friday crucifixion because, by modern reckoning, it seems to not fit neatly into three full days.
· However, The Jewish method of counting any part of a day as a full day could explain this discrepancy. Thus, part of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would count as three days.
· Some scholars also argue for a “Sabbath reckoning” where the Passover might be treated as a special Sabbath, complicating the exact timing but still allowing for a Friday crucifixion.
4. Archaeological and Historical Corroboration:
· While direct archaeological evidence for the exact day of Jesus’ crucifixion is lacking, the method of crucifixion described in the Gospels aligns with Roman practices of the time, and the general historical context of Roman Judea, including the governorship of Pontius Pilate, supports the setting of the crucifixion narrative.
In conclusion:
While these points collectively form the basis for the traditional belief in a Friday crucifixion, it’s also important to recognize that the exact day does not change the theological significance of the event in Christian doctrine. However, for those strictly adhering to scriptural and historical analysis, these pieces of evidence provide a compelling case for Good Friday.
Messiah; Rose again on the Feast of Firstfruits (during the night)
Answer:
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, often referred to as the Messiah in Christian doctrine, with specific Jewish festivals from the Hebrew calendar.
Consider the breakdown:
· Messiah: In Christian belief, Jesus is the Messiah, the coming one prophesied in Jewish scripture to bring salvation or fulfill a divine role.
· Rose again: This refers to the Christian belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is central to the Christian faith, symbolizing victory over death and the promise of eternal life to believers.
· Feast of First Fruits: This ancient Jewish festival occurs the day after the Sabbath following Passover. In Christian theology, within certain interpretations, the Resurrection of Jesus is believed to have happened on this day, aligning with the concept of Jesus being the “first fruits” of those who have fallen asleep (died), as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:20.
· During the night: The Gospels in the New Testament do not specify the exact time of Jesus’s Resurrection, but traditions and interpretations vary. Some Christian traditions emphasize that the Resurrection happened in the early morning, as the tomb was found empty at dawn (Mark 16:2, Matthew 28:1).
Given these points:
· The belief that Jesus rose again on the Feast of First Fruits is a theological interpretation held by some Christians, particularly those focusing on the typological connections between Jewish feasts and Christian events. However, precise timing or symbolic significance is not universally agreed upon across all Christian denominations.
· “During the night” adds a specific detail not explicitly supported by canonical texts but could be part of some interpretations or traditions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, while the general idea of Jesus rising on the day corresponding to the Feast of First Fruits is a significant theological interpretation within Christianity, the exact timing (“during the night”) isn’t explicitly detailed in the primary sources, leading to varied interpretations.
Counterfeit: rose again on Easter/Ishtar (at dawn)
Answer:
The statement that Jesus rose again on Easter at dawn is based on traditional Christian belief, but its historical accuracy and interpretation can vary.
Some points to consider:
1. Biblical Accounts:
· Mark 16:2 States that Mary Magdalene and others came to the tomb “very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise.”
· John 20:1 Mary Magdalene came to the tomb “early, while it was still dark.”
· Luke 24:1 mentions that the women came to the tomb “very early in the morning.”
· Matthew 28:1 Notes it was “after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week.”
These accounts suggest that Jesus had already risen before dawn or at dawn when the women arrived at the tomb. However, none of these accounts explicitly say that Jesus rose at dawn; they only indicate when the tomb was found empty.
Theologically and traditionally, Easter Sunday celebrates the Resurrection, but the exact moment of Jesus’ Resurrection isn’t specified. It’s often understood that he rose sometime before the dawn, as the tomb was already empty when the women arrived.
The Resurrection is central to the Christian faith, symbolizing victory over death. The timing isn’t as doctrinally significant as the event itself.
Conclusion:
Therefore, saying “Jesus rose again on Easter at dawn” from a traditional standpoint could be seen as an oversimplification or assumption about the exact timing. Theologically, it’s more accurate to say that Jesus had risen by dawn on the first day of the week, Easter Sunday, in the Christian tradition.
Messiah’s people: assemble on the Father’s Sabbath (seventh day)
Answer:
What about the Hebrew word olam, which can be translated as “everlasting”?
One should note that the Hebrew word olam can be translated differently. Some examples are forever, perpetual, everlasting, eternal, or permanent. The word “forever” does not necessarily mean never-ending in scripture, but it can also be understood to mean lasting only as long as a time period or age. Since the Mormons are appealing to scripture in the defense of one of their peculiar doctrines, we should briefly respond to this argument about the “everlasting” nature of the Aaronic priesthood.
Does this mean that a practice commanded in scripture will last forever? First, it can be admitted that it’s possible when dealing with the usage of olam that a practice mentioned may last forever. However, the context of a passage is essential when making this determination. Admitting that ‘olam may mean forever does not invalidate the fact that there are numerous indicators that ‘olam can also be used to describe a practice that will end or change forms going from the Older Covenant into the New. In particular, olam is used regarding ordinances in the Older Covenant, which were to be kept by the people of Israel and not carried over into the New Covenant church practice in their Older Covenant forms. It should be noted that there are significant discontinuities and continuities in redemptive history when moving from the Older Covenant into the New Covenant era.
1. Examples of the time limitations of olam:
For example:
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. (Exodus 21:6)
In this passage, ‘olam stresses permanence and that man would be a servant forever. This verse explicitly conveys the idea of a limitation of time. The prima facie limitation in this verse is the life span of the servant.
2. Another example is the Feast of Unleavened Bread:
So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance. (Exodus 12:17)
The discontinuity is that the New Covenant church no longer celebrates the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The continuity is that this Feast is fulfilled in Christ.
3. Consider the Passover:
Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance. (Exodus 12:14)
The discontinuity is that the New Covenant church no longer celebrates the Passover feast. The continuity is that all of the Older Covenant feasts, including the Passover, find fulfillment in the Lord’s Supper.
4. Then there is the example of circumcision:
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:7-10)
The discontinuity is that circumcision is no longer required in the New Covenant. The continuity is that circumcision is replaced by baptism in the New Covenant era as the mark of the covenant.
5. The Sabbath Day to be kept on the seventh day:
Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed. (Exodus 31:16-17)
Conclusion:
The discontinuity is that the day has been changed to the first day of the week in celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. The continuity is that God’s people are to still honor Him by resting for our labors after six days of work. (Hebrews 4:9) In the Greek text, the word for “rest” in Hebrews 4:9 is sabbatismos. It means “a Sabbath rest.” Young’s Literal Translation captures this well: “There doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest to the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9).
Counterfeit: assemble on the venerable day of the sun (first day)
Answer:
The fallacy in asserting that those who worship on Sunday are guilty of worshiping the sun god can be dissected through several logical errors:
1. False Equivalence:
· Fallacy: Equating Christian Sunday worship with pagan sun worship because both involve the sun or Sunday.
· Explanation: This assumes that the mere act of worship on a day named after the sun implies worship of the sun itself, which overlooks the intent and theology behind Christian worship. Christians worship on Sunday to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not because of any inherent solar significance.
2. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of This):
· Fallacy: Assuming that because Christianity adopted Sunday for worship later in its history, this must be a continuation or transformation of sun worship.
· Explanation: The adoption of Sunday for Christian worship occurred centuries after Christianity’s inception. Early Christians observed the Sabbath on Saturday, and the shift to Sunday was more about differentiating from Jewish practices and celebrating the Lord’s resurrection, not adopting pagan rituals.
3. Guilt by Association:
· Fallacy: This suggests that Christian Sunday worship is inherently pagan because Sunday was dedicated to Sol Invictus or other solar deities in Roman culture.
· Explanation: Just because Sunday was also a day for sun worship in some pagan traditions does not mean Christian worship is an endorsement or continuation of those practices. Many cultures have overlapping religious practices regarding timing or rituals, but the theological content and purpose differ significantly.
4. Cherry-Picking:
· Fallacy: Focusing only on the day of worship without considering the full breadth of Christian doctrine, history, and scripture.
· Explanation: This argument ignores the theological reasons for Sunday worship, like the writings of early church fathers, the significance of the resurrection, and the development of Christian liturgy. It also disregards how Christianity has changed and adapted over time for various non-pagan reasons.
5. Argument from Etymology:
· Fallacy: Using the origin of the word “Sunday” (from Old English “Sunnandæg,” day of the sun) to imply theological or ritualistic continuity.
· Explanation: The linguistic connection does not necessarily imply religious continuity. Language evolves, and words take on new meanings independent of their origins. For instance, many names of days and months have pagan roots, but their contemporary use in Christian contexts doesn’t imply the worship of those pagan deities.
6. Non Sequitur:
· Fallacy: Concluding that worship on Sunday must be sun worship because of the day’s name or historical pagan associations.
· Explanation: This conclusion doesn’t follow logically. Just as worshiping on Saturn’s Day (Saturday) doesn’t make one a worshiper of Saturn, worshiping on Sunday, named for the sun, does not inherently mean one is worshiping the sun god.
Conclusion:
The argument that Sunday worship equates to sun god worship is flawed because it oversimplifies and misinterprets historical, linguistic, and theological contexts, relying on superficial or coincidental connections rather than substantive evidence or understanding.
Furthermore, the fallacy is just as silly as saying that if you have a Bible study on Thursday, you are worshipping Thor, the Norse god of thunder.
Moreover, Saturday is named after Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture, wealth, and time. In Roman mythology, Saturn was one of the most important gods, often associated with the Greek god Cronus. The name “Saturday” comes from the Latin term “dies Saturni,” meaning “day of Saturn.” This naming reflects Saturn’s prominence in the Roman seven-day planetary week, where each day was named after a celestial body or the god associated with it.
The following article by this writer that was given to Dean Haskins resulted in him blocking me on the web platform Parler.
Who changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday Worship?
Did the Roman Catholic Pope change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday worship? In this study, we will seek to answer why the day of worship changed for most Christians to Sunday. If it was not for the Pope, would there be Scriptural arguments for this day’s change? If the day of worship changes, will Sabbath requirements be attached to Sunday?
When did Christians start meeting on Sunday? A cursory look at the New Testament:
“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7 ESV)
“On the first day of the week,” along with the direction given in Corinthians by Paul, “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come” (1Corinthians 16:2 ESV). Act 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 are Scriptural evidence that the Church had begun to observe the weekly celebration of the Resurrection on the first day of the week.
Considering the claims of two Roman Catholic leaders:
What does the Roman Church say is the sign of its authority? On January 18, 1563, “the Archbishop of Reggio made a speech in which he openly declared that tradition stood above the Scriptures because the church had changed the Sabbath into Sunday—not by a command of Christ, but by its authority” (Canon and Tradition, p. 263). http://biblelight.net/bssb-1443-1444.htm
Additionally, the Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, Maryland, published a series of 4 editorials, which appeared in that paper on September 2, 9, 16, and 23, 1893, as the expression of the Papacy to Protestantism and the demand of the Papacy that Protestants shall render to the Papacy an account of why they keep Sunday and also of how they keep it. (Rome’s Challenge: Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?) http://biblelight.net/chalng.htm
It should be noted that just because the Roman Catholics claim they changed the Sabbath to Sunday does not prove anything. This claim has to be evaluated scripturally and historically.
Are these two claims valid? Did the Roman Papacy change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday? First off, this claim is dubious and a historical impossibility because the Papacy did not exist until sometime after the First Council of Nicaea, which convened in AD 325.
The Roman Church may dispute this, but appeals to historical evidence became increasingly flimsy before this council for an established and recognized papal system. The Eastern and Coptic Churches show no acceptance of a papal system during the first three centuries of Church history.
The Seventh Day Adventists also take issue with Sunday worship, connecting it with the Roman Church or Emperor Constantine.
Contrary to this claim that Sunday worship was a Roman Catholic invention, the early Church in the East met on Sunday as the day of worship. Eastern Orthodox Churches have observed Sunday worship since the 1st century.
For example, consider the Eastern Orthodox Worship by Rev. Alciviadis C. Calivas, Th.D.
Rev. Alciviadis says the following:
“The most important day for the Christian community was and continues to be the First day of the Jewish week. For the people of the Old Covenant the First Day was a memorial of the first day of creation, when God separated the light from the darkness. For the people of the New Covenant the first day includes this and much more. The first was the day when the empty tomb was first discovered and the risen Lord made His first appearances to His followers. The first was the day of the Resurrection of Christ and the beginning of the new creation brought about by His victory over death. By the end of the first century the Church gave to this special day of Christ’s Resurrection a distinctly Christian name: the Lord’s Day (Kyriake hemera) (Rev. 1: 10).
The Lord’s Day (Sunday) is a Christian institution. It is the Christian festival, founded upon Christ’s Resurrection. It is “the day which the Lord has made” (Ps. 117:24). It is a day of rejoicing and holy convocation, when no one is permitted to fast or kneel in sorrow or in penance. In 321 A.D. St. Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, declared it a day of rest. Long before him, however, Christians were already known to observe the day with special solemnity, treating it as a holy day devoted to spiritual things. As a day of rest, the Lord’s Day is not to be abused as a day of idleness and inactivity. For the faithful, it is always a day for participation in the communal worship of the Church, for Christian fellowship, for the service of God through works of charity, for personal quiet and meditation, and for the discovery and enjoyment of God’s presence in us, and in the people and the world that surround and touch our lives.” (1) (Underlining emphasis mine)
Not only do the Eastern Orthodox Christians worship on Sunday, the Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic Christians also worship on Sunday. The Roman Church has never had much influence in the East. The Eastern Churches have always opposed the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Thus, it is doubtful that Sunday worship in the East was because of the dictates of a Roman Pope.
According to Wikipedia, it was not until the 4th century that the Roman Church officially started worshipping on Sunday. Historically, the Roman Church was a Johnny come lately to the day change for church worship.
Justin Martyr (ca. 100-ca. 165), who lived from approximately 100 to 165 AD, wrote on the issue of Sunday worship enlightens us historically:
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.” (2)
The writings of the early Church Father Justin Martyr point to the celebration of the Lord’s Day on Sunday’s first day of the week; Revelation 1:10.
This fact flies in the face of the Roman Church’s assertions.
There are other indications of Sunday worship early in Church history. For example:
The Didache:
“1. But every Lord’s Day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.” (3)
According to the Didache, Sunday worship started early in church history.
The Didascalia:
“The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation, because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven.” (4)
According to the Didascalia, Sunday worship started with the apostles.
St. Ignatius, AD 1491 1556:
“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death.” (5)
Note: The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is a brief Christian thesis, dated by scholars to the late first or early 2nd century
Note: Didascalia Apostolorum (or just Didascalia) is a Christian treatise. The Didascalia introduces itself as written by the Twelve Apostles at the time of the Council of Jerusalem. However, scholars agree that it was a composition of the 3rd century,
As an aside, what about Emperor Constantine? As some Seventh-Day Adventists claim, did he change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? This claim does not hold up since Christians have met on Sundays since the Apostles. Constantine did make a decree regarding worship on Sunday, thus making it easier for Christians to worship on Sunday, which they were already doing.
As noted, Constantine’s decree recognized the three hundred years of Christian practice and expanded Christian freedom by allowing them to keep their shops closed:
“On the venerable Day of the Sun, let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” (6)
Constantine’s decree protected and guaranteed Christians’ civil freedom for their ongoing practice.
Where did the Protestant Reformers stand on the Saturday Sabbath and Sunday worship?
The burden of proof is on those who maintain the Lord’s Day, the Christian Sabbath Day, which was moved from Saturday to Sunday.
The burden of proof for this will now be met:
During the Reformation, the Protestant theologians did not mindlessly import theology and practices from the Roman Church. They reformed the Church by examining scripture and binding themselves to the Scriptures as the final court of appeal. During the counter-reformation Council of Trent, the Roman Church made many false assertions attempting to undermine Protestant theology. This undermining happened when Roman leaders, as seen above, claimed that the Papacy changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
The Scriptural proof of the day change:
The Older Covenant delineated Saturday as the Sabbath, and it was to be eternal.
How did the Protestant Reformers deal with the eternal covenants in the Old Testament?
The Scriptural basis for discontinuity, continuity, and its relevance to the issue at hand:
The Sabbath Day was to be kept on the seventh day:
“Therefore, the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.” (Exodus 31:16-17)
“So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” (Hebrews 4:9 ESV)
The discontinuity is that the day has been changed to the First Day of the week in celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. The continuity is that God’s people are to still honor Him by resting for our labors after six days of work Hebrews 4:9. In the Greek text, the word for “rest” in Hebrews 4:9 is sabbatismos, which means “a Sabbath rest.”
Young’s Literal Translation captures the text from Hebrew 4:9 perfectly:
“There doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest to the people of God.” (Hebrews 4:9)
Consider Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary entry on (Hebrews 4:9), and the sabbatic rest:
“9. Therefore—because God “speaks of another day (see on [2548] Heb. 4:8).
Remaineth—still to be realized hereafter by the “some (who) must enter therein” (Heb. 4:6), that is, “the people of God,” the true Israel who shall enter into God’s rest (“My rest,” Heb. 4:3). God’s rest was a Sabbatism, so also will ours be.
A rest—Greek, “Sabbatism.” In time, there are many Sabbaths, but then there shall be the enjoyment and keeping of a Sabbath-rest: one perfect and eternal. The “rest” in Heb. 4:8 is Greek, “catapausis;” Hebrew, “Noah”; rest from weariness, as the ark rested on Ararat after its tossings to and fro; and as Israel, under Joshua, enjoyed at last rest from war in Canaan. But the “rest” in this Heb. 4:9 is the nobler and more exalted (Hebrew) “Sabbath” rest; literally, “cessation”: rest from work when finished (Heb. 4:4), as God rested (Re 16:17). The two ideas of “rest” combined, give the perfect view of the heavenly Sabbath. Rest from weariness, sorrow, and sin; and rest in the completion of God’s new creation (Re 21:5). The whole renovated creation shall share in it; nothing will there be to break the Sabbath of eternity; and the Triune God shall rejoice in the work of His hands (Zep 3:17). Moses, the representative of the law, could not lead Israel into Canaan: the law leads us to Christ, and there its office ceases, as that of Moses on the borders of Canaan: it is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath still; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical Sacrifice superseded it, As then the antitypical heavenly Sabbath-rest will not be till Christ, our Gospel Joshua, comes, to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then. The Jews call the future rest “the day which is all Sabbath.’” (7)
Preliminary Conclusions:
As seen in these examples of the translation of ‘olam as forever, perceptual, everlasting, eternal, and permanent, we can conclude that qualifiers are attached that guide our understanding of these passages. The substance remained in each of these passages, yet the outward form changed, moving from the Older Covenant into the New Covenant. The Sabbath Day is eternal, yet the day of observance changed to Sunday.
On the other hand, the Reformers looked at continuities and discontinuities in scripture. They concluded that the practice of the early Christians meeting on the first day of the week (Sunday) was a case of a fundamental discontinuity in scripture.
The Reformed hermeneutic presumes that unless the New Testament sets aside an Old Testament practice, as in the case of the dietary laws, the Scriptural command will still be in force, considering legitimate discontinuities, as seen above. If the continuity discontinuity motif is not maintained, it can be alleged that there are contradictions in scripture.
A Scriptural deduction from the Reformed argument:
1. In light of what has been said above, the first day of the week came to be known as the “Lord’s Day” (Revelation 1:10) and has been the day on which the Church gathered with the blessing of the Apostles (Acts 20:7).
2. On the day Jesus had been raised from the dead, the risen Lord Himself chose the first day of the week to manifest himself to his disciples when they were gathered together (John 20:19, 26).
Supplemental evidence:
From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation by D. A. Carson.
“1. The early Church met on the Lord’s Day to commemorate Jesus’ Resurrection (Bauckham, 232-245): All four gospels emphasize Jesus’ Resurrection on the first day of the week. Though it cannot be proven that this was the reason established for Sunday worship, early Christians did connect gathering on the first day of the week with the Lord’s Resurrection (Bauckham, 236, 240).
2. By the end of the first century, “Lord’s Day” is seen to be a technical term already in use about the first day of the week/Sunday, the Christian gathering day (Revelation 1:10; see Bauckham, “Lord’s Day,” 222-232).
3. By the middle of the second century, Lord’s Day worship gatherings are the universal practice of the Church (Bauckham, “Lord’s Day,” 230).” (8)
A Reformed exposition of the day change by Professor John Murray on The Pattern of the Lord’s Day:
“The Sabbath as a creation ordinance for all time.
If we accept, the witness of scripture there can be no question that the weekly Sabbath finds its basis in and derives its sanction from the example of God himself. He created the heavens and the earth in six days and “on the seventh God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it” (Gen. 2:2, 3). The fourth commandment in the Decalogue sets forth the obligation resting upon man and it makes express appeal to this sanction. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exod. 20:11).
Many regard this Sabbath institution as a shadow of things to come and, therefore, as an ordinance to be observed, has passed away because that of which it was a shadow has been realized in the full light of the new and better covenant. At this point, suffice it to ask the question: has the pattern of God’s work and rest in creation ceased to be relevant? Is this pattern a shadow in the sense of those who espouse this position? The realm of our existence is that established by creation and maintained by God’s providence. The new covenant has in no respect abrogated creation nor has it diminished its relevance. Creation both as action and product is as significant for us as it was for Israel under the old covenant. The refrain of scripture in both Testaments is that the God of creation is the God of redemption in all stages of covenantal disclosure and realization. This consideration is invested with greater significance when we bear in mind that the ultimate standard for us is likeness to God (cf. Matt. 5:48; 1John 3:2, 3). And it is this likeness, in the sphere of our behaviour, that undergirds the demand for Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:11; 31:17).
The Redemptive Pattern
It is noteworthy that the Sabbath commandment as given in Deuteronomy (Deut. 5:12-15) does not appeal to God’s rest in creation as the reason for keeping the Sabbath day. In this instance, mention is made of something else. “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and an out-streched arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day” (Deut. 5:15). This cannot be understood as in any way annulling the sanction of Exodus 20:11; 31:17. Deuteronomy comprises what was the reiteration of the covenant made at Sinai. When the Sabbath commandment is introduced, Israel is reminded of the earlier promulgation: “Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee” (Deut. 5:12). And we should observe that all the commandments have their redemptive sanction. The preface to all is: “I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exod. 20:2; cf. Deut. 5:6). So what we find in Deut. 5; 15 in connection with the Sabbath is but the application of the preface to the specific duty enunciated in the fourth command. It is supplement to Exodus 20:11, not suspension. We have now added reason for observing the Sabbath. This is full of meaning and we must linger to analyze and appreciate.
The deliverance from Egypt was redemption. “Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed” (Exod. 15:13). It is more than any other event the redemption of the Old Testament. It is the analogue of the greater redemption accomplished by Christ. The Sabbath commandment derives its sanction not only from God’s rest in creation but also from redemption out of Egypt’s bondage. This fact that the Sabbath in Israel had a redemptive reference and sanction bears directly upon the question of its relevance in the New Testament. The redemption from Egypt cannot be properly viewed except as the anticipation of the greater redemption wrought in the fullness of time. Hence, if redemption from Egypt accorded sanction to the Sabbath institution and provided reason for its observance the same must apply to the greater redemption and apply in a way commensurate with the greater fullness and dimensions of the redemption secured by the death and Resurrection of Christ. In other words, it is the fullness and richness of the new covenant that accord to the Sabbath ordinance increased relevance, sanction, and blessing.
This redemptive reference explains and confirms three features of the New Testament.
1. The Retrospective Reference
Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (cf. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). For our present interest the important feature of the New Testament witness is that the first day of the week continued to have _distinctive religious significance_ (cf. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). The only explanation of this fact is that the first day was the day of Jesus’ Resurrection and for that reason John calls it “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). The first day took on a memorial significance appropriate to the place the Resurrection of Christ occupies in the accomplishment of redemption and in Jesus’ finished work (cf. John 17:4) as also appropriate to the seal imparted by the repeated appearance to his disciples on that day (cf. Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:15-31, 26; John 20:19,26). When Christ rose from the dead he was loosed from the pangs of death (cf. Acts 2:24), he entered upon life indestructible (cf. Rom. 5:10; 6:9, 10), became a “life-giving Spirit” (1Cor. 15:45), and brought “life and immortality to light” (2Tim. 1:10). In a word, he entered upon the rest of his redeeming work. All of this and much more resides in the emphasis, which falls upon the Resurrection as a pivotal event in the accomplishment of redemption. The other pivot is the death upon the cross. The sanctity belonging to the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day is the constant reminder of all that Jesus’ Resurrection involves. It is the memorial of the Resurrection as the Lord’s Supper is the memorial of Jesus’ death upon the tree. Inescapable, therefore, is the conclusion that the Resurrection in its redemptive character yields its sanction to the sacredness of the first day of the week just as deliverance from Egypt’s bondage accorded its sanction to the Sabbath institution of the old covenant. This is the rationale for regarding the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath. It follows the line of thought, which the Old Testament itself prescribes for us when it appeals to redemption as the reason for Sabbath observance. The principle enunciated in Deuteronomy 5:15 receives its verification and application in the new covenant in the memorial of finalized redemption, the Lord’s Day.
2. The Manward Reference
Under this caption, we have in mind our Lord’ saying: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27, 28).
The title our Lord uses to designate himself is one that belongs to him in his messianic identity, commission, and office. The lordship he claims is, therefore, redemptively conditioned; it is his lordship as Mediator and Saviour. As such, in accord with his own testimony, he is given all authority in heaven and earth (cf. John 3:36; Matt. 28:18). So every institution is brought within the scope of his lordship. Since he exercises this lordship in the interests of God’s redemptive purpose, it is particularly true that institutions given for the good of man are brought within the scope of his lordship and made to serve the interests of the supreme good which redemption designs and guarantees. It is this governing thought that is applied in the text to the institution of the Sabbath. The accent falls upon the beneficent design of the Sabbath – it was made for man. “Therefore the Son of man is Lord” of it.
When Jesus speaks of the Sabbath, he is specifying the institution defined by the fourth commandment, and he asserts his lordship over it in precisely this character. There is not the slightest intimation of abrogation. For it is the Sabbath in that identity over which he claims to be Lord. Too frequently this text is adduced in support of an alleged relaxation of the requirements set forth in the commandment as if Jesus on this ground were, in the exercise of his authority, defending his disciples for behaviour that went counter to Old Testament requirements. This totally misconstrues the situation in which the words were spoken. Jesus is defending his disciples against the charge of desecration brought by the Pharisees (cf. Mark 2:24). But in doing so he shows by appeal to the Old Testament itself (cf. Matt. 12:4, 5; Mark 2:25, 26) that the behaviour of his disciples was in accord with what the Old Testament sanctioned. It was not deviation from Old Testament requirements that our Lord was condoning but deviation from pharisaical distortion. He was condemning the tyranny by which the Sabbath institution had been made an instrument of oppression. And he did this by appeal to the true intent of the Sabbath as verified by scripture itself. Of special interest is the relation of the redemptive sanction of the fourth commandment to the claim of Jesus on this occasion. The lordship over the Sabbath is, as observed, redemptively conditioned and thus only within a redemptive design can his lordship of the Sabbath be understood. This is to say that the Sabbath ordinance in its beneficent character comes to full expression within the realm of our Lord’s mediatorial lordship. The Sabbath is not alien to redemption at the zenith of its realization and blessing. As made for man it continues to serve its great purpose in that administration that achieves the acme of covenant grace. This Jesus’ word seals to us – “the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath”.
3. The Prospective Reference
“There remains therefore a Sabbath keeping for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9)
The context of this passage is all-important for its interpretation and for appreciation of its implications. At verse 4 there is quotation of Genesis 2:2: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” This, of course, refers to God’s – own – rest. At verse 5 there is allusion to the rest of Canaan and quotation of Psalm 95:11 (cf. also vs. 3 and 3:11) in reference to the failure of too many to enter into it (cf. Psalm 95:10). The remarkable feature of verse 5 as of Psalm 95:11 is that this rest of Canaan is called God’s rest (“my rest”). Why this characterization? It is not sufficient to say that it was the rest God provided. The proximity of reference to God’s own rest in verse 4 requires more than the thoughts of mere provision by God. We cannot say less than that God calls it his rest because the rest of Canaan was patterned after God’s rest – it partook of the character of God’s rest. The same kind of identification appears in verse 10 with reference to the rest that remains for the people of God. “For he that has entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own works, as God did from his.” So the rest of Canaan and the rest that remains for the people of God are called God’s rest because both partake of the character of God’s own rest in resting from his creative work on the seventh day. Here is something highly germane to the present topic.
It is clear that the rest of Canaan and the rest that remains for the people of God are redemptive in character. Since they are patterned after God’s rest in creation, this means that the redemptive takes on the character of that rest of God upon which the Sabbath institution for man originally rested and from which it derived its sanction. We cannot but discover in this again the close relation between the creative and the redemptive in the Sabbath ordinance and the coherence of Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:15. We are reminded again that likeness to God governs man’s obligation and is brought to its realization in the provisions of redemption. In the consummation of redemption, the Sabbath rest of God’s people achieves conformity to the fullest extent. “For he who has entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (cf. Rev. 14:13). The Sabbath institution in all its aspects and applications has this prospective reference; the whole movement of redemption will find its finale in the Sabbath rest that remains. The weekly Sabbath is the promise, token, and foretaste of the consummated rest; it is also the earnest. The biblical philosophy of the Sabbath is such that to deny its perpetuity is to deprive the movement of redemption of one of its most precious strands.
Redemption has a past, a present, and a future. In the Sabbath as “the Lord’s Day,” all three are focused. In retrospect, it is the memorial of our Lord’s Resurrection. In the present with resurrection joy, it fulfils its beneficent design by the lordship of the Son of man. As prospect, it is the promise of the inheritance of the saints. With varying degrees of understanding and application, it is this perspective that dictated the observance of the Lord’s Day in catholic, protestant and reformed tradition. Shall we forfeit in institution so embedded in redemptive revelation and recognized as such in the history of the Church of Christ? In the faith and for the honour of the Sabbath’s Lord may we answer with a decisive, no! In devotion to him may we increasingly know the joy and blessing of the recurring day of rest and worship.” (9)
John Murray answers the argument that Romans 14:5 ends the fourth commandment in the New Covenant era:
ROMANS 14:5 AND THE WEEKLY SABBATH
“The question is whether the weekly Sabbath comes within the scope of the distinction respecting days on which the apostle reflects in Romans 14:5. If so then we have to reckon with the following implications.
1. This would mean that the Sabbath commandment in the decalogue does not continue to have any binding obligation upon believers in the New Testament economy. The observance of one day in seven as holy and invested with the sanctity enunciated in the fourth commandment would be abrogated and would be in the same category in respect of observance as the ceremonial rites of the Mosaic institution. On the assumption posited, insistence upon the continued sanctity of each recurring seventh day would be as Judaizing as to demand the perpetuation of the Levitical feasts.
2. The first day of the week would have no prescribed religious significance. It would not be distinguished from any other day as the memorial of Christ’s Resurrection and could not properly be regarded as the Lord’s day in distinction from the way in which every day is to be lived in devotion to and the service of the Lord Christ. Neither might any other day, weekly or otherwise, be regarded as set apart with this religious significance.
3. Observance of a weekly Sabbath or of a day commemorating our Lord’s Resurrection would be a feature of the person weak in faith and in this case he would be weak in faith because he had not yet attained to the understanding that in the Christian institution all days are in the same category. Just as one weak Christian fails to recognize that all kinds of food are clean, so another, or perchance the same person, would fail to esteem every day alike.
These implications of the thesis in question cannot be avoided. We may now proceed to examine them in the light of the considerations which scripture as a whole provides.
1. The Sabbath institution is a creation ordinance. It did not begin to have relevance at Sinai when the ten commandments were given to Moses on two tables (cf. Gen. 2:2, 3; Exod. 16:21–23). It was, however, incorporated in the law promulgated at Sinai and this we would expect in view of its significance and purpose as enunciated in Genesis 2:2, 3. It is so embedded in this covenant law that to regard it as of different character from its context in respect of abiding relevance goes counter to the unity and basic significance of what was inscribed on the two tables. Our Lord himself tells us of its purpose and claims it for his messianic Lordship (Mark 2:28). The thesis we are now considering would have to assume that the pattern provided by God himself (Gen. 2:2, 3) in the work of creation (cf. also Exod. 20:11; 31:17) has no longer any relevance for the regulation of man’s life on earth, that only nine of the ten words of the decalogue have authority for Christians, that the beneficent design contemplated in the original institution (Mark 2:28) has no application under the gospel, and that the lordship Christ exercised over the Sabbath was for the purpose of abolishing it as an institution to be observed. These are the necessary conclusions to be drawn from the assumption in question. There is no evidence to support any of these conclusions, and, when they are combined and their cumulative force frankly weighed, it is then that the whole analogy of scripture is shown to be contradicted by the assumption concerned.
2. The first day of the week as the day on which Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19) is recognized in the New Testament as having a significance derived from this fact of Jesus’ Resurrection (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2) and this is the reason why John speaks of it as the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10). It is the one day of the week to which belongs this distinctive religious significance. Since it occurs every seventh day, it is a perpetually recurring memorial with religious intent and character proportionate to the place which Jesus’ Resurrection occupies in the accomplishment of redemption. The two pivotal events in this accomplishment are the death and Resurrection of Christ and the two memorial ordinances of the New Testament institution are the Lord’s supper and the Lord’s day, the one memorializing Jesus’ death and the other his Resurrection. If Paul in Romans 14:5 implies that all distinctions of days have been obliterated, then there is no room for the distinctive significance of the first day of the week as the Lord’s day. The evidence supporting the memorial character of the first day is not to be controverted and, consequently, in this respect also the assumption in question cannot be entertained, namely, that all religious distinction of days is completely abrogated in the Christian economy.
3. In accord with the analogy of scripture and particularly the teaching of Paul, Romans 14:5 can properly be regarded as referring to the ceremonial holy days of the Levitical institution. The obligation to observe these is clearly abrogated in the New Testament. They have no longer relevance or sanction and the situation described in Romans 14:5 perfectly accords with what Paul would say with reference to religious scrupulosity or the absence of such anent these days. Paul was not insistent upon the discontinuance of ritual observances of the Levitical ordinances as long as the observance was merely one of religious custom and not compromising the gospel (cf. Acts 18:18, 21; 21:20–27). He himself circumcised Timothy from considerations of expediency. But in a different situation he could write: “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing” (Gal. 5:2). Ceremonial feast days fall into the category of which the apostle could say: “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike”. Many Jews would not yet have understood all the implications of the gospel and had still a scrupulous regard for these Mosaic ordinances. Of such scruples we know Paul to have been thoroughly tolerant and they fit the precise terms of the text in question. There is no need to posit anything that goes beyond such observances. To place the Lord’s day and the weekly Sabbath in the same category is not only beyond the warrant of exegetical requirements but brings us into conflict with principles that are embedded in the total witness of scripture. An interpretation that involves such contradiction cannot be adopted. Thus the abiding sanctity of each recurring seventh day as the memorial of God’s rest in creation and of Christ’s exaltation in his Resurrection is not to be regarded as in any way impaired by Romans 14:5.” (10)
Reformed Confessional support for the Sunday is the Christian Sabbath:
The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks which day of the seven has God appointed. The Shorter Catechism in Q.59 puts it this way:
“Q.59. Which day of the seven has God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath?
A. From the beginning of the world to the Resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.”
Westminster Confession of 1646: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day
“Chapter XXI. Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day with Scriptural proofs
I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and with all the soul, and with all the might, (Rom 1:20; Act 17:24; Psa 119:68; Jer 10:7; Psa 31:23; Psa 18:3; Rom 10:12; Psa 62:8; Jos 24:14; Mar 12:33). But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy scripture, (Deu 12:32; Mat 15:9; Act 17:25; Mat 4:9-10; Deu 15:1-20; Exd 20:4-6; Col 2:23).
II. Religious worship is to be given to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to Him alone, (Mat 4:10; Jhn 5:23; 2Co 13:14); not to angels, saints, or any other creature, (Col 2:18; Rev 19:10; Rom 1:25): and, since the fall, not without a Mediator; nor in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone, (Jhn 14:6; 1Ti 2:5; Eph 2:18; Col 3:17).
III. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, (Phl 4:6); is by God required of all men, (Psa 65:2): and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, (Jhn 14:13-14; 1Pe 2:5); by the help of His Spirit, (Rom 8:26); according to His will, (1Jo 5:14); with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance, (Psa 47:7; Ecc 5:1-2; Hbr 12:28; Gen 18:27; Jam 5:16; Jam 1:6-7; Mar 11:24; Mat 6:12, 14-15; Col 4:2; Eph 6:18); and, if vocal, in a, known tongue, (1Co 14:14).
IV. Prayer is to be made for things lawful, (1Jo 5:14); and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter, (1Ti 2:1-2; Jhn 17:20; 2Sa 7:29; Rth 4:12): but not for the dead, (2Sa 12:21-23; Luk 16:25-26; Rev 14:13); nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death, (1Jo 5:16).
V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, (Act 15:21; Rev 1:3); the sound preaching, (2Ti 4:2); and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, (Jam 1:22; Act 10:33; Mat 13:19; Hbr 4:2; Isa 66:2); singing of psalms with grace in the heart, (Col 3:16; Eph 5:19; Jam 5:13); as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God, (Mat 28:19; 1Co 11:23-29; Act 2:42): beside religious oaths, (Deu 6:13; Neh 10:29); vows, (Isa 19:21; Ecc 5:4-5); solemn fastings, (Joe 2:12; Est 4:16; Mat 9:15; 1Co 7:5); and thanksgivings upon special occasions, (Psa 107; Est 9:22); which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner, (Hbr 12:28).
VI. Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the Gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed, (Jhn 4:21): but God is to be worshipped everywhere, (Mal 1:11; 1Ti 2:8); in spirit and truth, (Jhn 4:23-24); as, in private families, (Jer 10:25; Deu 6:6-7; Job 1:5; 2Sa 6:18, 20; 1Pe 3:7, Act 10:2); daily, (Mat 6:11); and in secret, each one by himself, (Mat 6:6; Eph 6:18); so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or wilfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by His Word or providence, calleth thereunto, (Isa 56:6-7; Hbr 10:25; Pro 1:20-21, 24; Pro 8:34; Act 13:42; Luk 4:16; Act 2:42).
VII. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him, (Exd 20:8, 10-11; Isa 56:2, 4, 6-7): which, from the beginning of the world to the Resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week, (Gen 2:2-3; 1Co 16:1-2; Act 20:7); and, from the Resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, (Rev 1:10); and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath, (Exd 20:8, 10; Mat 5:17-18).
VIII. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, (Exd 20:8; Exd 16:23, 25-26, 29-30; Exd 31:15-17; Isa 58:13; Neh 13:15-19, 21-22); but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy, (Isa 58:13; Mat 12:1-13).”
Westminster Catechism and Confession, one of Protestantism’s most excellent confessions, understands that the Saturday Sabbath has changed to Sunday, along with its significance.
Conclusion with a summary of Scriptural reasons for the day change:
1. The Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week, Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 25:1; and John 20:1, 19, 26.
2. In the book of Acts, we learn more about Sunday, the day of Christ’s Resurrection. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7)
3. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, Paul tells us that not only in Corinth but all the churches of Galatia met upon the first day of the week. Moreover, the apostles commanded the observation of this day rather than any other day for Sabbath services.
4. Regarding Sunday, the first day of the week, it can be said this day is sanctified to be holy to the Lord above any other day, and therefore it has the Lord’s name upon it and consequently is called the Lord’s day, as is manifest from Revelation1:10.
In answer to the opening questions, the Roman Catholic assertion that the Papacy changed the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday worship does not hold up historically, nor most importantly, biblically.
5. Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter IX.
6. (Constantine, March 7, 321. Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; translated in Philip Schaff’s, History of the Christian Church), Vol. 3, p. 380, note 1.
7. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1405-1406.
8. R. J. Bauckham, “Lord’s Day,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, ed. D. A. Carson, pages 221-250.
9. John Murray, The Sabbath, The Pattern of the Lord’s Day, (United Kingdom, Lord’s Day Observance Society), out of print.
10. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2, The New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), 257–259.
Messiah’s people: “called out assembly,” the bride, true name Y’Isra-el
Answer:
The concept of the Messiah’s people being referred to as the “called out assembly” or “bride” has roots in both Jewish and Christian theology, though interpretations can vary significantly between these groups and even within them:
1. Messiah’s People as “Called Out Assembly:”
· In Christianity, the term “ekklesia” (ἐκκλησία), often translated as “church,” means “called out ones” or “assembly.” This term is used to describe the community of believers in Jesus Christ, who are seen as called out by God for a divine purpose. Early Christian writings, including those in the New Testament, describe believers as an assembly chosen or called by God.
2. The Bride:
· The metaphor of the “bride” is frequently used in Christian theology to describe the church’s relationship with Christ. This imagery comes from passages like Ephesians 5:25-27, where the church is described as the bride of Christ, meant to be presented without spot or wrinkle. In Judaism, the concept of Israel as God’s bride exists, notably in prophetic literature, where God is depicted as betrothed to Israel (e.g., Hosea, Jeremiah).
3. True Name Y’Isra-el:
· The term “Y’Isra-el” or “Yisra’el” is essentially the Hebrew name for Israel, which means “struggles with God” or “God prevails.” In Jewish thought, Israel refers to the descendants of Jacob, who was renamed Israel after wrestling with an angel (Genesis 32:28). In some Messianic or Jewish-Christian interpretations, there’s a movement to reclaim or use Hebrew names, believing they hold spiritual significance or are closer to the original context of the scriptures. “Y’Isra-el” might emphasize this connection, although it’s not universally adopted in mainstream Jewish or Christian discourse.
4. Messianic and Eschatological Views:
· From a Messianic Jewish perspective or certain streams within Christianity, especially those with Hebraic roots, there’s an understanding that the true followers of the Messiah (whether seen as Jesus or another figure in Jewish eschatology) are part of a spiritual Israel, which might be called Y’Israel. This view often incorporates the idea that believers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are part of God’s covenant with Israel through faith in the Messiah.
5. Cultural and Theological Nuances:
· The idea of “Y’Isra-el” as the true name for the Messiah’s people can be tied to theological debates about the identity of God’s people in the end times. Some believe that all believers in the Messiah will be part of a restored Israel, fulfilling prophecies about the ingathering of the exiles and the unity of God’s people under one covenant.
In summary:
While the phrase “called out assembly” aligns with Christian usage of “ekklesia” for the church, and the term “bride” is used for both Israel (in Jewish texts) and the Church (in Christian texts), the specific usage of “Y’Isra-el” as the true name for the Messiah’s people might be more aligned with certain Messianic or Hebraic Christian interpretations, emphasizing a continuity or restoration of Israel through faith in the Messiah. However, interpretations can vary widely, and not all theological or religious groups will agree on these points.
Counterfeit: Circe (Church), daughter of the sun god
Answer:
The fallacy above refers to likely stems from the conflation or misinterpretation of several mythological or religious elements.
1. Circe in Mythology:
· Circe is a figure from Greek mythology, not directly related to Christianity or any other religious institution like the Church (often referred to as “Circe” in some interpretations due to phonetic or typographical similarity). She was a sorceress known for her ability to turn men into animals, as described in Homer’s “Odyssey.” Circe was the daughter of Helios, the Titan sun god, and the nymph Perse.
2. Misinterpretation or Confusion:
· The confusion might arise from:
· Linguistic Mix-up: Circe might be confused with “Church” due to similar sounding names in some languages or dialects.
· Symbolic or Allegorical Interpretations: In some literary or symbolic interpretations, mythological figures like Circe might represent ideas or entities from Christianity or other religions. However, this isn’t standard in traditional mythology.
3. Symbolic Connections:
· Sun Imagery in Religion: The sun has been a powerful symbol across many cultures and religions, including Christianity, where light is often used as a metaphor for divine truth or enlightenment. However, this does not mean figures like Circe are directly linked to or considered part of Christian theology.
4. Fallacy Analysis:
· Argument from False Analogy: This fallacy occurs when two things are compared that have no real similarity, or the comparison is made inappropriately. Here, assuming Circe, a mythological figure with no direct connection to Christianity, is the “daughter” of the Church due to some superficial or misunderstood connections would be erroneous.
5. Etymological Fallacy:
· Assuming that because words sound similar or share similar roots, their meanings must be related, which isn’t the case here with “Circe” and “Church.”
To summarize:
The idea that Circe is the daughter of the Church because of her association with the sun god Helios represents a misunderstanding or creative reinterpretation of mythology and religion. This fallacy would involve misconceptions about the origins and implications of mythological and religious symbols and names.
Messiah: Yahoshua (Yah’s salvation)
Answer:
“Messiah: Yahoshua (Yah’s salvation)” is not the only exclusive way to refer to the Messiah in Christian or Jewish contexts. Here are some variations and considerations:
1. Yahoshua – This name is derived from Hebrew. It’s sometimes used by those who prefer using original Hebrew names. However, variations exist:
· Yeshua is a more commonly used Hebrew name for Jesus, meaning “salvation.”
· Joshua – The anglicized form of “Yahoshua” or “Yeshua,” found in English Bibles.
2. Jesus – In English-speaking contexts, “Jesus” is the most widely recognized name for the Messiah. This comes from the Latin Iesus, which in turn derives from the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua or Yahoshua.
3. Jesus Christ – Combining the name with the title “Christ,” which means “Messiah” or “Anointed One” in Greek.
4. Messiah – This term can stand alone or be paired with various names:
· Messiah Jesus or Jesus the Messiah
· HaMashiach in Hebrew, which means “The Messiah.”
5. Lord – Often used in a messianic context, especially in Christian worship and texts:
· Lord Jesus Christ
6. Other Cultural and Linguistic Variations:
· Isa is used in Arabic, Islam, and some Christian contexts in the Arab world.
· And, Iēsous Khristos in Greek directly translates to “Jesus Christ” in English.
Each of these ways of referring to the Messiah can be associated with different theological, cultural, or linguistic backgrounds:
· Christianity generally uses “Jesus Christ” or variations thereof.
· Judaism might use “Messiah” or “Moshiach” when discussing the expected or potential messianic figure.
· Messianic Judaism might use “Yahoshua” or “Yeshua” to highlight the Jewish roots of Jesus’ identity.
Therefore, while “Messiah: Yahoshua (Yah’s salvation)” is one way to express this concept, it’s far from the only universally accepted way. Language, culture, and religious tradition significantly influence how this figure is named and described.
Counterfeit: Yay Zeus (Jesus, also falsely iesous, iesum, an iesus)
The statement “Yay Zeus (Jesus, also falsely iesous, iesum, an iesus)” contains several inaccuracies and misconceptions:
1. Jesus and Zeus:
· Confusion between Names: The statement seems to imply that Jesus and Zeus are related or the same, which is incorrect from a theological, historical, and linguistic perspective.
· Jesus: The name Jesus comes from the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Yeshua” or “Yehoshua” (Joshua), meaning “Yahweh is salvation.” The Greek transliteration is Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous).
· Zeus: Zeus is the chief deity in Greek mythology, unrelated to the Judeo-Christian figure of Jesus. The name Zeus derives from the Indo-European root *dyeu-, which is related to sky or day, not to any Semitic or Hebrew roots.
2. Linguistic Misrepresentation:
· “Iesous, Iesum, Iesus:” These are Latinized forms of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous). They are not false but are variations of the same name adapted to different grammatical cases in Latin:
· Iesous – Nominative case used for the subject of a sentence.
· Iesum – Accusative case, used as the direct object.
· Iesus – Another Latin form, though less commonly used in classical Latin texts for Jesus.
· The claim that these names are “falsely” attributed to Jesus misunderstands how names get adapted across languages. These variations are typical linguistic adaptations rather than false representations.
3. Cultural and Religious Misunderstanding:
· The statement might imply a conspiracy or a deliberate misrepresentation of how Jesus’s name was transliterated or translated, which isn’t the case:
· Early Christian texts were written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean. Hence, “Yeshua” was naturally transliterated to “Iēsous” in Greek and from Greek to Latin as “Iesus” or “Iesum,” depending on the grammatical context.
4. Lack of Historical Context:
· The evolution of the name from Hebrew to Greek to Latin reflects the cultural and linguistic transitions in the early spread of Christianity, not an attempt to mislead or confuse.
In conclusion:
The statement contains a mix-up of linguistic evolution, historical context, and theological identity. The names “Iesous,” “Iesum,” and “Iesus” are legitimate, albeit varied, forms of Jesus’s name in different linguistic contexts, not falsehoods. The connection or conflation with Zeus is a misunderstanding of etymology and cultural history.
Salvation: declared directly to the believer by the Holy Spirit
Counterfeit: declared only by man who falsely claims it’s the Holy Spirit
And, for some reason, Christians don’t think these things even matter!
The above declaration and alleged counterfeit are nothing more than subjective quibbling. Dean, a leader of the “Tabernacle,” says that the Holy Spirit tells him directly and without any evidence and levels an accusation that a Christian’s testimony is based on man’s word. The assertion that salvation is based on man’s word is false regarding the Reformed faith. Furthermore, Christians think these things matter to those who are more humble in their faith and less likely to throw accusations around. His lack of documentation is a glaring error in Dean Haskins’ assertions here and elsewhere. In this writer’s brief exchange with Dean on Parler, he was asked if he had taken up mind reading because of his lack of documentation for his assertions.
Escatology Astray: The following is Dean Haskin’s view on Bible interpretation taken from his website.
WHAT IS THE “FALLING AWAY”?
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Paul speaks of the coming rule of the antichrist, which will precede Messiah’s 1000-year reign on earth. He says that the antichrist will not come until there is first “falling away from the faith. (bolding emphasis mine)
What movement occurred AFTER Paul had died and stripped the true faith of its foundations, replacing the Father’s true ordained days (Sabbaths) with ordained pagan counterfeits like SUNday assembling and holydays are tied to sun worship, and also turned salvation into something man controls?
Christianity I.S. the “apostasy” Paul said would precede the coming of the antichrist. It began in the early centuries after the New Testament writers had all died/culminating in its head (the Pope) endorsing the antichrist. Christianity flows from Rome, where it was invented, and it pervades and deceives the planet.
Apart from some shocking historical errors, such as “Christianity flows from Rome.” Dean has apparently never heard of Eastern Orthodoxy because they would most certainly object along with the Coptics.
The assertion that “everything in Christianity flows from Rome” oversimplifies and is not accurate.
1. Historical Context:
· Early Christianity: Christianity began in the Middle East, specifically in Judea (modern-day Israel and Palestine), with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The early Church spread through the Apostles’ efforts across the Roman Empire and beyond.
· Rome’s Role: Rome became central due to its political and cultural significance in the Roman Empire. The Bishop of Rome (later known as the Pope) gained prominence partly because Rome was the empire’s capital.
2. Development of the Papacy:
· Over centuries, the Bishop of Rome’s role evolved, especially after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Pope’s authority was recognized more formally during the Middle Ages, leading to the concept of papal primacy. However, this was not without controversy, especially in the East, where the Orthodox Church developed independently.
3. Eastern Christianity:
· The Eastern Orthodox Church, centered in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), has its own Patriarchs and does not accept the Pope’s universal jurisdiction. This branch of Christianity developed alongside Western Christianity but with different theological emphases and ecclesiastical structures.
4. Protestant Reformation and Beyond:
· The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century challenged the authority of Rome, leading to the formation of various Protestant denominations. These groups often rejected or reformed many doctrines and practices associated with Roman Catholicism, emphasizing scripture over tradition or papal authority.
5. Global Christianity:
· Today, Christianity is a global religion with diverse expressions:
· Catholicism: While the Pope in Rome is the spiritual leader, there are also significant Eastern Catholic Churches that, while in communion with Rome, retain their own rites and traditions.
· Orthodoxy: Orthodoxy has autocephalous (self-headed) churches, such as the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.
· Protestantism: Encompasses numerous denominations like Presbyterian, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, etc., each with its governance.
· Other Christian Movements: Include Anglicanism, which splits between those who align closely with Rome and others who do not, and independent or non-denominational churches.
6. Non-Roman Influences:
· Various cultures and places have influenced Christianity:
· Alexandria: Early Christian theology and Christology were significantly developed here.
· Antioch is known for its school of thought that emphasizes Christ’s humanity alongside His divinity.
· Constantinople: Played a crucial role in theological debates and the formation of the Nicene Creed.
In summary:
While Rome has been, and remains, a significant center for Christianity, especially for the Roman Catholic Church, the assertion that “everything flows from Rome” does not hold universally across all Christian traditions. Many cultural, geographical, and theological currents have influenced Christianity’s development, making it a richly diverse global faith.
Exegesis of 2 Thessalonians from a Reformed Perspective
Introduction:
2 Thessalonians, believed to be penned by the Apostle Paul, addresses a community grappling with eschatological concerns, moral conduct, and church discipline. This letter, likely written shortly after 1 Thessalonians, aims to clarify misunderstandings about the Day of the Lord, encourage steadfastness in faith, and correct certain behaviors within the church.
1. Authorship and Historical Context:
· Authorship: While traditional scholarship attributes 2 Thessalonians to Paul, some modern scholars debate its Pauline authorship due to stylistic differences with 1 Thessalonians. However, from a Reformed perspective, which typically holds to traditional authorship, the letter is accepted as genuinely Pauline, written in collaboration with Silas and Timothy (2 Thess. 1:1).
· Context: The church in Thessalonica was experiencing persecution (2 Thess. 1:4-7), which likely led to confusion about eschatological events, causing some members to become idle, expecting the imminent return of Christ.
2. Theological Themes:
· Eschatology: The Day of the Lord (2 Thess. 2:1-12): Paul corrects the Thessalonians’ misunderstanding that the day of the Lord had already come. He outlines a sequence: apostasy must occur, and the “man of lawlessness” must be revealed before Christ’s return (2 Thess. 2:3-4). This passage reflects Reformed theology’s understanding of progressive revelation, where events unfold in God’s predetermined order, emphasizing God’s sovereignty over history.
· The Restrainer: Discussions on the identity of the restrainer (2 Thess. 2:6-7) are speculative; however, within Reformed circles, interpretations might lean towards the Holy Spirit, human government, or an angelic being, all under divine control.
· Perseverance and Election:
· God’s Faithful Calling (2 Thess. 2:13-14): Paul reassures believers of their election by God for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. This aligns with the Reformed doctrine on election, emphasizing that salvation is a divine initiative, not predicated on human merit.
· Work and Discipline:
· Against Idleness (2 Thess. 3:6-15): Paul’s admonition for everyone to work and not be idle (3:10-12) reflects the Reformed work ethic, where diligence in one’s calling is seen as a part of Christian living, countering the idle expectation of Christ’s immediate return.
3. Ecclesiological Insights:
· Church Discipline: The directive to withdraw from those who live in idleness but do not obey the letter’s instructions (2 Thess. 3:14-15) underscores the Reformed view on church governance and discipline, where the community is responsible for maintaining order and purity in doctrine and life.
· Prayer for the Church (2 Thess. 1:11-12): Here, the intercessory role of the apostle for the spiritual growth and glorification of the church members is emphasized, reflecting the Reformed focus on the means of grace, including prayer, for spiritual development.
4. Application for Today:
· Relevance: The themes in 2 Thessalonians continue to resonate:
· The call to diligently work and doctrine amidst eschatological speculation or societal pressures.
· Believers find comfort in God’s sovereign plan for history and salvation.
· The importance of church discipline as part of communal spiritual health is highlighted.
Conclusion:
2 Thessalonians from a Reformed perspective serves as a guide for eschatological understanding and a framework for Christian living that emphasizes perseverance, community responsibility, and reliance on divine providence. It encourages believers to live out their faith actively in anticipation of Christ’s return, maintaining order and discipline within the church community while trusting in God’s overarching plan for the cosmos.
Introductory Observations about Dean Haskins’ book From Christian to Believer” by Kurt Van Gordon:
“When I first looked at Dean Haskins’s book on Amazon, coauthored with James Finnegan, I was unfamiliar with either author. However, I took note that their book was published by “Tate Publishing” (the scandalized Tate Publishing from Mustang, Oklahoma, not to be confused with Tate Publishing in London, England, from 1911). This relaxed my anticipation that we had much more than two self-proclaimed specialists who lacked the business-sense to steer away from Tate Publishing, due to their horrid reputation. Anyone can Google Tate Publishing of Mustang, OK, and find compounded articles exposing lawsuits by would-be authors, the Oklahoma Attorney General’s eight-count indictment for embezzlement, among other things, and the lawsuits from Xerox and other corporations. This was not a good beginning for analyzing Mr. Haskins’s work.
My second flag was Haskins’s book description, which stated that we are all going to be “shocked” with what he found out about Christianity. When someone uses the word “shocked” to describe the Bible or Christianity, it fosters the pretense that the author has discovered something formerly unknown or untouched by any other writer. Rarely is this the true case. In fact, his thesis about Hebraic Roots is rehashed from the Messianic movement churches, but even older, it also is rooted in the Judaizers who tormented the apostolic Church, who were rebuked in Paul’s epistles as legalists who are ignorant of God’s true grace.
Further research showed that Haskins’s coauthor, Finnegan, has released the book free of charge on his website. I downloaded it and read some of the sections. My initial suspicions were confirmed in that it was a jumbled concoction of term-replacement, term-twisting, and just plain fabrications reminiscent of Herbert W. Armstrong (founder of the former cult, Worldwide Church of God). Haskins and Finnegan have intensified the legalism and have returned to the very object of Paul’s rebuke in Galatians, in that “they pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7), of which he twice-declared, “Anathema!” (accursed, Gal. 1:8, 9).
The book meanders in directionless paths with no central point, except that he disdains both mainline Christianity and parts of the Hebrew Roots Movement. The book also engages date-setting for the tribulation and millennial periods, which they surmise as 2031, “From the time of Adam to the time of Abraham, there was roughly two thousand years. Then from the time of Abraham to the time of Christ, there was another two thousand years. Most biblical scholars agree that Christ was crucified in the year AD 31, and if we add two thousand years to that, we arrive at 2031.” The simplest research will expose their false statement about “most scholars,” but far worse is their contrived and forced interpretation attached to it. As with most hyper-dispensational date-setters, none have ever been right because “the day and the hour no man knows,” promised Jesus, in Matthew 24:36.” – Kurt Van Gorden, author of Mormonism (Zondervan, 1995), the coauthor of The Kingdom of the Occult (with Walter R. Martin and Jill Martin-Rische, 2008), and the Senior Researcher of The Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin, (2019).
Critical Review of “From Christian to Believer” by James Finnegan and Dean Haskins
“From Christian to Believer” aims to guide readers on a spiritual journey through Christian symbolism, mainly focusing on the Tabernacle. However, the book suffers from several academic flaws that significantly undermine its credibility:
1. Lack of Scholarly Rigor:
The text often makes assertions about biblical interpretations without providing sufficient textual or historical evidence. This approach might resonate with those already inclined towards the author’s viewpoint but lacks the depth expected in academic or theological studies where primary and peer-reviewed secondary sources are crucial.
2. Anachronistic Interpretations:
There’s a tendency to impose modern theological concepts onto ancient texts without acknowledging the historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts. This retrofitting of contemporary beliefs onto ancient practices can lead to misinterpretations and overlooks the development of Christian doctrine over centuries.
3. Over-Simplification:
Complex theological concepts are often reduced to simplistic metaphors, which might serve well for introductory religious literature but fail when trying to engage with or contribute to theological discourse. This simplification can dilute the richness of biblical scholarship and ignore the nuances that scholars debate.
4. Bias and Lack of Critical Engagement:
The book appears to advocate for a particular theological stance without adequately exploring or critiquing alternative interpretations or viewpoints. This lack of dialogue with other theological traditions or even within the Christian tradition can make the work seem dogmatically one-sided rather than a scholarly exploration.
5. Inadequate Source Citation:
While not uncommon in religious texts aimed at the general public, the absence of proper citations or references to other works, both ancient and modern, hampers the book’s value, which makes it difficult for readers to follow up on claims or assess the credibility of the interpretations presented.
6. Theological Assumptions:
The author sometimes presents theological assumptions as if they were universally accepted truths, which can be misleading. For instance, specific interpretations of salvation, the role of the Tabernacle, or the nature of belief are treated as definitive rather than as one perspective among many.
7. Use of Anecdotal Evidence:
The narrative often relies on personal anecdotes or testimonies, which, while compelling from a personal faith perspective, do not constitute reliable academic evidence. This method might be inspiring but does not contribute to scholarly discourse.
Are the authors professionally competent in Hebrew?
Given the information available and the nature of the book “From Christian to Believer,” there isn’t explicit evidence within the author’s or authors’ document demonstrating professional knowledge of Hebrew.
Points to consider:
Language Use: The text often discusses biblical concepts, especially those related to the Tabernacle, which might suggest familiarity with the Old Testament. However, this does not necessarily indicate proficiency in Hebrew, as many English translations or commentaries could be the source of such information.
Lack of Hebrew Textual Analysis: If the book delves deeply into Hebrew language specifics, like etymology, syntax, or exegesis based on the Hebrew text, one might expect to see Hebrew words or phrases analyzed, transliterated, or translated. However, without directly accessing the text or a detailed content analysis, there’s no clear indication that such a level of Hebrew scholarship exists.
Theological Interpretation vs. Linguistic Knowledge: Many theological interpretations of the Bible can be made without advanced knowledge of Hebrew. The book might focus on spiritual or symbolic interpretations that do not require one to be adept in the original languages of the Bible.
Author’s Background: The book doesn’t provide information about the author’s background or credentials. If the author has training or expertise in Hebrew, this would typically be mentioned in the author bios or in the book’s acknowledgments, which are not included in the review snippets or the PDF version of the book itself.
To accurately assess the author’s knowledge of Hebrew, one would need:
· Direct Reference to Hebrew: Quotes from or discussions about the original Hebrew texts, showing interaction with the language.
· Citations: Use of scholarly sources that deal with Hebrew, like lexicons, commentaries on the original texts, or studies from Hebrew scholars.
· Author’s Qualifications: Information on the author’s academic or professional qualifications related to biblical languages.
Without this information, it’s difficult to confirm if the author(s) of “From Christian to Believer” have professional knowledge of Hebrew sufficient for writing an authoritative book on biblical interpretation based on the language itself.
The publisher Dean Haskins used for his book is another reason not to read the book:
Tate Publishing from Mustang, Oklahoma, is not considered a credible publisher based on its history and numerous legal and ethical issues:
Business Practices: Tate Publishing operated primarily as a vanity press, where authors paid for publication services. While this isn’t inherently non-credible, the issues surrounding Tate Publishing go beyond standard vanity press operations.
· Legal Troubles:
In 2016, Xerox sued Tate Publishing for over $1.7 million in unpaid services. This lawsuit highlighted financial distress.
In January 2017, Tate Publishing ceased operations amid legal battles, including lawsuits from printing services providers like Lightning Source and Xerox for millions of dollars in unpaid debts.
The founders, Richard and Ryan Tate, were arrested in May 2017 on charges including embezzlement, extortion, and racketeering. They pleaded no contest to 44 criminal charges in December 2019, which included defrauding customers.
· Customer Complaints: There have been numerous complaints from authors and musicians about the non-delivery of services despite payment, lack of royalties, and poor quality of work. The Oklahoma Attorney General received nearly 2,200 complaints from former clients about Tate Publishing’s practices.
· Closure and Transition: In January 2017, they announced they were in a transition period, no longer accepting new clients, and were supposedly working to find new homes for their current authors and artists, which did not resolve the issues for many.
· Public Perception: The combination of legal issues, customer complaints, and the abrupt closure of business operations significantly damaged Tate Publishing’s reputation. They were often cited in consumer reports and reviews as a company to be wary of.
Given this background, Tate Publishing would not be recommended for anyone considering a publisher for their work due to its history of fraudulent activities, legal issues, and failure to provide promised services. In light of the numerous fallacies, lack of scholarship, and divisive spirit outlined above regarding Dean Haskins’ book, Tate Publishing was a publisher of last resort.
Conclusion:
From an academic standpoint, “From Christian to Believer” falls short. Its methodological approach lacks the rigor, critical analysis, and broad engagement with theological scholarship necessary for it to be considered a contribution to biblical or theological studies. This book, however, ends with a conclusion and does not include an index.
While Dean Haskins is a talented musician, his excursion into theology can be described as religion-run amuck. The “Way of the Tabernacle” is an extreme aberrational subset of the HRM characterized by ignorance, arrogance, and vitriolic hate of the Christian Faith.
Portions of the above study were Groked under the direction of Jack Kettler and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
The above material is copyrighted and published by Kettler Wellness Inc. The above material can be freely copied as a whole or in part if the context is preserved and proper attribution is listed.
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Torahism: The Book by R. L. Solberg has been recognized for its critique of the theology associated with the Hebraic Roots Movement, arguing against the requirement for Christians to keep the Law of Moses. This book won awards for its theological stance and is considered a thorough defense against HRM teachings. www.RLSolberg.com
Torahism: Are Christians Required to Keep the Law of Moses?
Dangers of the Hebrew Roots Movement by Tim Chaffey with Answers in Genesis examines the HRM, pointing out what it sees as dangers and heresies, such as the belief that Christians must keep the Torah, which it argues contradicts New Testament teachings.
Articles and blog posts by R. L. Solberg, including those on his website, discuss the theological issues with HRM, emphasizing the dangers of legalism and the misinterpretation of scriptural covenants. https://www.youtube.com/@TheBiblicalRoots
Judaism is not Jewish: (currently out of print, one can find used copies for sale on the Internet)
By Baruch Maoz
What others are saying about Baruch’s Judaism is not Jewish:
“The heart of his indictment is this: the Movement has allowed rabbinic tradition to overshadow the Bible. In a laudable attempt to attract Jews to Christianity, they are in danger of losing the essence of the faith as it centers in Jesus Christ.” – Tom Wells, Pastor, The Kings Chapel, West Chester, Ohio
“Written primarily as a constructive critique of Messianic Judaism and in light of the author’s more than 30 years as a minister in Israel, it has far broader relevance. It highlights, in a fashion both compelling and winsome, considerations that are non-negotiable today, as always, in maintaining the integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ and biblical Christianity.” – Richard B. Gaffin, Jr, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia
“This book is must reading for everyone who cares about the Jewish people.” – Stan Telchin, Stan Telchin Ministries, Sarasota, Florida
“Pastor Maoz is a passionate and persuasive writer with clear convictions, who builds simple and convincing arguments on ademonstrably biblical foundation. For those within, intrigued by,or dealing with the Messianic Movement, this book is importantand perhaps essential reading. Similarly, other Jewish Christians and any one involved in evangelizing Jews would almost certainly find it helpful. The book also has much to say to all believers.” – The Banner of Truth
“This is a warm, engaging and very important book, especially for Jewish Christians and those involved in ministry with Jewish followers of Messiah Jesus.” – John Armstrong, Reformation & Revival Ministries, Carol Stream, Illinois (Director of Renew and formerly a Pastor for twenty years)
“Pastor Maoz is a passionate and persuasive writer with clear convictions, who builds simple and convincing arguments on ademonstrably biblical foundation. For those within, intrigued by,or dealing with the Messianic Movement, this book is importantand perhaps essential reading. Similarly, other Jewish Christians and any one involved in evangelizing Jews would almost certainly find it helpful. The book also has much to say to all believers.” – The Banner of Truth
The Religion That Started in a Hat 