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.
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.
A Preterist Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
Tolle Lege Press and Chalcedon Foundation
1800+ pages, (2 vols) (hardback), with Scripture, subject, and name indexes
Bio:
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., is an academic with degrees from:
Tennessee Temple University (B.A.)
Reformed Theological Seminary (M. Div.)
Whitefield Theological Seminary (Th. M., Th. D.)
He also studied at Grace Theological Seminary for two years. Currently, he serves as a Research Professor of New Testament at Whitefield Theological Seminary. Gentry is an accomplished theological writer and conference speaker with extensive publications on topics including:
Theology; Ecclesiology; Eschatology; Theonomy; Six-day creation; Presuppositionalism; Worldview, and Christian Education
Additionally, he provides a Christian writing correspondence course. He founded and led GoodBirth Ministries, a non-profit promoting scholarly Christian education and research. Gentry is a retired minister of the Presbyterian church, maintaining his ordination with the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Assembly.
What Others are Saying:
“The interpretation of the book of Revelation is a daunting task, not one that should be undertaken lightly or without an awareness of the diversity of opinion regarding its authorship, date of writing, and the myriad of approaches to the interpretation of its prophetic visions. Ken Gentry’s commentary is up to the task. While making a case for his distinctly preterist, historical-redemptive interpretation of the book, he respectfully and keenly engages interpreters with whom he differs. Among recent commentaries on Revelation, Gentry’s extensive, two-volume work deserves to be included as arguably the most thorough representation of the (partial) preterist approach.” – Cornelis Venema, Ph.D. President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary
Author, The Promise of the Future
“Ken Gentry’s two-volume exposition of the book of Revelation is no doubt the most thorough treatment of that work from an essentially preterist point of view to date. Yet Gentry is careful to emphasize not only the historical setting of Revelation leading up to the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in AD 70, but especially the redemptive meaning of the book, which is the divine divorce of Israel due to her idolatry which culminated in the rejection of Jesus. Thus the seven churches of Revelation are a warning to Jewish Christians not to turn back to an irrelevant and discarded Judaism. The seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments describe God’s systematic defeat of Israel and ultimately the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans from AD 66-70. Revelation finishes with the majestic portrayal of God’s new wife, the church of the New Covenant which is the New Jerusalem. Both the theology and the historical details of Gentry’s magnum opus will appeal to interested readers in Revelation for years to come.” – C. Marvin Pate, Ph.D. Chair of Theology Ouachita Baptist University
“Gentry’s writings have largely set the standard for orthodox preterist writings but now, with this commentary, he for sure leads the pack. Agree with it, in full or in details, this commentary has much to offer all who care to grapple with his views. I commend it highly. You have not studied the Book of Revelation fully until you have done so.” – Jay Adams, Ph.D. Author, The Time Is At Hand: Prophecy and the Book of Revelation
“Gentry has devoted much of his scholarly career to understanding and elucidating the book of Revelation, and the present work is a veritable goldmine of exegetical insights. He offers here arguably the most extensive, vigorous preterist exegesis of Revelation in at least a generation. Non-preterist interpreters of Revelation must reckon with Gentry if they are to be taken seriously.” – P. Andrew Sandlin, STD Founder and President, Center for Cultural Leadership Author, A Postmillennial Primer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword by Martin Selbrede
Preface
1. Introduction
2. Superscription And Beatitude (1:1–3)
3. Greeting and Theme (1:4–8)
4. The Commissioning Vision (1:9–20)
5. Seven Oracles (2:1—3:22)
6. The Court Scene (4:1–11)
7. The Seven-Sealed Book (5:1–14)
8. The Seals Opened: The First Six Seals (6:1–17)
9. Two Interludes (7:1–17)
10. The Seals Opened: The Seventh Seal (8:1–5)
11. The Seven Trumpet Angels: The First Six Trumpets (8:6—9:21)
12. Third Interlude: The Little Book and John’s Action (10:1–11)
13. Fourth Interlude: The Measured Temple and Two Witnesses (11:1–13)
14. The Seven Trumpet Angels: The Seventh Trumpet (11:14–19)
15. The Sun-Clothed Woman And the Red Dragon (12:1–17)
16. The Beast From the Sea (13:1–10)
17. The Beast From the Land (13:11–18)
18. Visions of Blessing and Judgment (14:1–20)
19. The Seven Last Plagues (15:1—16:21)
20. The Harlot of Babylon and the Beast (17:1–18)
21. The Fall of Babylon the Harlot (18:1—19:5)
22. The Final Victory of the Lamb (19:6–21)
23. Satan’s Ruin and Final Judgment (20:1–15)
24. The New Creation’s Coming (21:1–8)
25. The New Jerusalem Bride (21:9–27
26. New Heaven and New Earth (22:9–17)
27. Final Testimonies and Admonition (22:6–15)
28. The Final Attestation and Blessing (22:16–21)
Review of “The Divorce of Israel” by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.
Introduction
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., in his theological treatise “The Divorce of Israel,” presents a meticulous and compelling examination of the eschatological implications of the relationship between God and Israel as depicted in the Scriptures. Gentry’s work significantly contributes to biblical theology, particularly in covenant theology and the historical interpretation of prophetic texts. This review will explore the depth of Gentry’s argumentation, his methodological approach, and the implications of his thesis within the broader context of Christian eschatology.
Theological Framework
Gentry operates within a postmillennial framework, a perspective that posits the gradual, global advance of the Christian gospel before the return of Christ. His approach to “The Divorce of Israel” is rooted in this eschatological viewpoint, influencing his interpretation of Old Testament prophecies regarding Israel’s covenantal relationship with God. Gentry asserts that the concept of Israel’s ‘divorce’ from God, as a metaphor, has been misunderstood or undervalued in traditional eschatological discussions. Instead, he posits that this divorce is not merely punitive but also a pivotal moment in redemptive history leading to the inclusion of the Gentiles.
Redemptive-Historical Interpretation
Gentry’s approach employs redemptive-historical hermeneutics, which posits that the Bible’s narrative is not merely a collection of disjointed events but a cohesive story of God’s redemptive acts throughout history. In “The Divorce of Israel,” Gentry argues that the fall of Babylon, as depicted in Revelation, should not be understood as a future, end-times event but as an event within the historical context of the New Testament, particularly the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This perspective aligns the events of Revelation with the culmination of Old Testament prophecies, where the failure of Israel to uphold the covenant leads to its ‘divorce’ from God, symbolized by the fall of Babylon.
Gentry meticulously traces this theme through biblical texts, suggesting that the judgment on Babylon (Israel) in Revelation represents the final act of God’s historical dealings with the Old Covenant nation, thereby ushering in the New Covenant era. His method involves synthesizing Old Testament prophecies with New Testament fulfillment, arguing that the destruction of Jerusalem was both a literal historical event and a profound theological statement about the transition from the Mosaic to the Messianic covenant.
Preterist Perspective
Central to Gentry’s commentary is his commitment to preterism, specifically a partial preterist viewpoint. In this context, Preterism interprets much of the prophecy in Revelation as having been fulfilled in the first century, particularly around the Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple. Gentry’s preterist interpretation of Revelation 18-19 posits that these chapters primarily concern the judgment on Jerusalem, not a far-future apocalypse.
He argues that the language of divine judgment in Revelation reflects a common biblical motif that describes significant historical and theological turning points, such as the destruction of Babylon, Tyre, and Nineveh in the Old Testament. Gentry’s detailed analysis includes historical accounts from Josephus and other sources to support his claim that the events described in Revelation align with the first-century Jewish calamity.
Exegetical Analysis
One of the strengths of Gentry’s work lies in his exegetical rigor. He delves into key scriptural passages like Jeremiah 3:8, Hosea 2, and Romans 11 with a keen eye for detail. Gentry’s analysis is not superficial; he engages with the Hebrew text, historical context, and the socio-religious milieu of the prophets. His interpretation suggests that the ‘divorce’ of Israel is not an end but a means to a greater end—the expansion of God’s covenant community to include all nations. This interpretation challenges the dispensationalist view of Israel and the Church as separate entities with distinct eschatological destinies.
Historical and Theological Contextualization
Gentry’s work is also commendable for its historical contextualization. He traces the theological threads from the Old Testament through the New Testament, illustrating how the concept of Israel’s divorce fits into God’s overarching plan of redemption. His scholarship reflects an understanding of how early Jewish and Christian communities might have viewed these prophetic messages, thus providing a bridge between historical theology and contemporary application.
Implications for Eschatology
The implications of Gentry’s thesis are profound for eschatological studies. By reframing the ‘divorce’ as a redemptive act, Gentry challenges the pessimistic interpretations that view Israel’s chastisement solely as judgment. Instead, he offers a hopeful perspective where Israel’s national identity is transformed and expanded within the universal body of Christ. This perspective not only aligns with postmillennial optimism but also with a more inclusive ecclesiology.
Critical Engagement with Diverse Perspectives
Gentry does not shy away from engaging with opposing views, particularly those from dispensational theology. He critiques these views with respect but with scholarly precision, arguing that they often fail to account for the full breadth of scriptural evidence regarding the continuity between Israel and the Church. His arguments are bolstered by references to patristic interpretations and reformed theological traditions, providing a robust defense of his position.
Conclusion
“The Divorce of Israel” by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., is a pivotal work in Christian eschatology. The book’s academic depth, coupled with its potential to reshape evangelical thought on the role of Israel in biblical prophecy, makes it an indispensable resource. Gentry’s work invites theologians, scholars, and lay readers alike to reconsider traditional interpretations through a lens that sees continuity and hope in God’s covenantal dealings with His people. His scholarship enriches the academic discourse and promotes a theology of hope and inclusion, which is particularly relevant in today’s global Christian context. Thus, Gentry’s “The Divorce of Israel” is highly recommended for anyone interested in a deeper understanding of biblical prophecy and covenant theology. Moreover, with commentary, Dr. Gentry has made a mark for himself in Church History.
The above study was 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)
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.
An Analysis of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion by Jack Kettler
Introduction
John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, first published in 1536, stands as a seminal work in Protestant theology, offering a systematic exposition of the Reformation’s teachings. This treatise not only delineated the principles of the Reformed tradition but also provided a theological framework that would influence the development of Western Christianity for centuries. This analysis will explore Calvin’s foundational themes, structural organization, and theological significance.
Theological Framework and Themes
Calvin’s Institutes is organized to reflect the structure of the Apostles’ Creed, focusing on God the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Church. This organization underscores Calvin’s emphasis on the sovereignty of God and the centrality of Christ’s work in salvation, known as soteriology.
1. Knowledge of God and of Ourselves: Calvin begins with the assertion that knowledge of God and knowledge of self are intertwined. He argues that true self-knowledge leads one to recognize their sinfulness and, consequently, their need for divine grace.
2. The Doctrine of God: Calvin’s exposition on God emphasizes divine attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. He delves into the concept of predestination, a doctrine where he posits that God, from eternity, has elected some to salvation and others to damnation, a doctrine that has sparked significant debate.
3. Christology: Calvin’s Christology focuses on the dual nature of Christ, fully divine and fully human, which is essential for the mediation between God and humanity. His discussion on the work of Christ emphasizes both his active obedience (fulfilling the law) and passive obedience (suffering on the cross) as key to salvation.
4. The Holy Spirit: The role of the Holy Spirit in Calvin’s theology is crucial, particularly in the application of redemption, sanctification, and the assurance of faith. Calvin describes the Spirit’s work as enabling believers to participate in Christ’s benefits.
5. The Church and Sacraments: Calvin views the Church as the community of the elect, where the Word is preached and the sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are rightly administered. These sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of grace, not merely symbolic but effective means of grace.
Structural Analysis
The Institutes evolved through various editions, with the 1559 version being the most comprehensive. Calvin’s methodical approach reflects his legal training, aiming for clarity and logical progression:
· Book One: Primarily deals with the knowledge of God the Creator, discussing the knowledge of God revealed in creation, scripture, and scripture’s necessity due to human sinfulness.
· Book Two: Explores Christ as the Mediator, focusing on the fall of humanity, the law, and the grace extended through Christ’s incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension.
· Book Three: Discusses the work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption, emphasizing faith, justification, sanctification, and the Christian life.
· Book Four: Treats the external means or aids by which God invites us into fellowship with Christ, namely, the Church, its organization, governance, and the sacraments.
Theological Significance
Calvin’s Institutes has had profound impacts:
· Reformational Influence: It provided a theological backbone for the Reformed tradition, influencing church polity, liturgy, and doctrine, particularly in Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches.
· Philosophical and Political Thought: Calvin’s emphasis on the sovereignty of God influenced political theories on governance and authority, such as the idea of limited government and resistance to tyranny.
· Education and Scholarship: The work has been pivotal in theological education, shaping curricula in seminaries and promoting a scholarly approach to theology.
Conclusion
John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion remains a cornerstone of Protestant theology. Its systematic approach, depth of scriptural analysis, and the integration of theological principles with practical church life have ensured its lasting influence. While Calvin’s views on predestination and his ecclesiology have been subjects of critique and debate, his work continues to be foundational for understanding the dynamics of grace, faith, and the Christian life within the Reformed tradition. The Institutes reflect the theological climate of the Reformation and provide enduring insights into the nature of God, humanity, and salvation.
The Cultural, Artistic, and Political Impact of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion
Introduction
John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion is not merely a theological treatise but a foundational text that has profoundly influenced Western culture, particularly in the arts, politics, and broader societal values. By examining Calvin’s work through these lenses, one can trace its wide-reaching effects from the Reformation era to contemporary society.
Cultural Influence
Calvin’s theological doctrines, as expounded in the Institutes, have shaped cultural attitudes towards work, community, and personal conduct. His emphasis on the “glorification of God” through all aspects of life led to what sociologist Max Weber later termed the “Protestant work ethic.” This ethos transformed how labor was perceived from a necessary evil to a means of serving God, influencing capitalist economies and the value placed on industriousness in Western culture.
Moreover, Calvin’s concept of the “priesthood of all believers” democratized religious practice, which had a ripple effect on education and literacy. The need for individuals to read and interpret the Bible fostered widespread education, which, in turn, contributed to the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason and individual rights.
Artistic Impact
In the arts, Calvin’s influence was initially restrictive. His teachings on iconoclasm and the dangers of idolatry led to the destruction of religious art in regions under Calvinist influence, such as Geneva. However, this puritanical approach eventually gave way to a unique artistic expression. While direct religious representation was discouraged, the emphasis on simplicity and clarity in Calvinist thought influenced architectural styles (e.g., the stark, functional beauty of Protestant churches) and literature, where narrative purity and moral clarity were prized.
Calvinist ethics also influenced music, emphasizing congregational singing and simplicity, contrasting with the more elaborate forms of Catholic liturgical music. This shift laid the groundwork for the development of hymnody and later, the aesthetic of simplicity seen in forms like folk music and even minimalist music of the 20th century.
Political Implications
Politically, Calvin’s Institutes provided a theological justification for resistance against tyrannical rule, which was revolutionary for his time. His notion of the “lesser magistrate,” as seen in his commentary on Romans 13, suggested that lower authorities could oppose higher ones if the latter were acting contrary to God’s law. This idea laid the groundwork for theories of constitutionalism and the rule of law, influencing thinkers like John Locke and, indirectly, the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
Calvin’s doctrine of the “two kingdoms” also had significant political ramifications. By distinguishing between the spiritual and secular realms, he inadvertently supported the separation of church and state, which became a cornerstone of modern democratic societies. This separation allowed for the development of secular governance while acknowledging a divine moral framework, influencing political systems towards democratic and republican forms.
Long-Term Effects
The Institutes shaped Protestant theology and laid the groundwork for secular modernity. The Calvinist emphasis on individual responsibility before God fostered notions of personal freedom and civic duty, which are fundamental to democratic theory. In economics, Calvin’s views on usury and wealth helped legitimize capitalist practices by viewing economic success as a sign of divine favor, contributing to the development of free market economies.
In the cultural sphere, Calvin’s ideas have had a lasting impact through the medium of literature and film, where themes of predestination, divine judgment, and the moral struggle of the individual resonate deeply. From Milton’s Paradise Lost to contemporary dystopian narratives, Calvin’s theological motifs are subtly woven into the fabric of Western storytelling.
Conclusion
John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion has left an indelible mark on Western society. Its theological propositions have transcended their original religious context to influence the modern world’s cultural ethos, artistic expressions, and political structures. While often seen through the lens of theology, the Institutes have, in essence, shaped the foundations of how society views work, governance, and art, illustrating the profound interplay between religious thought and secular life. The legacy of Calvin’s work, therefore, is not only in churches but in the very structure and Spirit of the societies it has helped to shape.
Moreover, John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion occupies a significant position in the annals of world history, comparable in influence to other seminal texts such as Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica or John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. While Aquinas’s work defined much of Catholic theology and philosophical thought during the Middle Ages, shaping the intellectual landscape of Europe, Calvin’s Institutes similarly structured Protestant theology, providing a systematic framework that not only countered the Catholic doctrines of the time but also set the stage for the broader acceptance of Protestantism across Europe and beyond. Unlike Aquinas, whose influence was primarily within the Catholic intellectual tradition, Calvin’s work transcended religious boundaries, influencing political theories of governance, individual rights, and the separation of church and state, foundational to modern democratic societies. This broad applicability and impact on religious and secular realms arguably place Institutes as more directly influential in shaping the political and social structures of the modern world.
When juxtaposed with John Locke’s Two Treatises, which laid the intellectual groundwork for the Enlightenment and the American and French revolutions, Calvin’s work might be considered somewhat antecedent in its influence. Locke’s treatises inspired revolutionary movements and the drafting of constitutions, yet Calvin’s theological underpinnings and ethical framework were crucial prerequisites for Locke’s political theories. Calvin’s emphasis on the inherent sinfulness of humanity and the need for checks on power due to human depravity indirectly supported Locke’s justification for government by consent and the protection of natural rights. Thus, while Locke’s influence might be more immediately recognizable in the political sphere, Calvin’s theological and ethical constructs provided a deeper, albeit less visible, foundation for these political ideologies. In this comparative analysis, Calvin’s Institutes ranks high for laying foundational concepts that, while initially theological, had pervasive effects across multiple facets of human endeavor, arguably equalling or surpassing the singularly political impact of Locke’s work in its breadth of influence over time.
Quotes about John Calvin:
“The longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection.” – C. H. Spurgeon
“I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross.” – (Charles H. Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856).
“After the Holy Scriptures, I exhort the students to read the Commentaries of Calvin. . . . I tell them that he is incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture; and that his Commentaries ought to be held in greater estimation than all that is delivered to us in the writings of the ancient Christian Fathers: so that, in a certain eminent spirit of prophecy, I give the pre-eminence to him beyond most others, indeed beyond them all. I add, that, with regard to what belongs to common places, his Institutes must be read after the Catechism, as a more ample interpretation. But to all this I subjoin the remark, that they must be perused with cautious choice, like all other human compositions.” – Jacob Arminius
“I believe Calvin was a great instrument of God; and that he was a wise and pious man.” – John Wesley
“I have been a witness of him for sixteen years and I think that I am fully entitled to say that in this man there was exhibited to all an example of the life and death of the Christian, such as it will not be easy to depreciate, and it will be difficult to imitate.” – Theodore Beza
“Calvin’s theology interests us in its historical context as an outstanding record of Reformation theology that historically—and at times even legally—has served as a basis of proclamation in modern Protestant churches.” – Karl Barth
“John Calvin is a man of distinguished reputation, one of the great figures of church history.” – Wulfert de Greef
“[Calvin] easily takes the lead among the systematic expounders of the Reformed system of Christian doctrine. . . . Calvin’s theology is based upon a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He was the ablest exegete among the Reformers, and his commentaries rank among the very best of ancient and modern times. His theology, therefore, is biblical rather than scholastic, and has all the freshness of enthusiastic devotion to the truths of God’s Word. At the same time he was a consummate logician and dialectician. He had a rare power of clear, strong, convincing statement. He built up a body of doctrines which is called after him, and which obtained symbolical authority through some of the leading Reformed Confessions of Faith.” “Taking into account all his failings, he [Calvin] must be reckoned as one of the greatest and best of men whom God raised up in the history of Christianity.” – Philip Schaff
“The greatest exegete and theologian of the Reformation was undoubtedly Calvin. . . . He is one of the greatest interpreters of Scripture who ever lived. He owes that position to a combination of merits. He had a vigorous intellect, a dauntless spirit, a logical mind, a quick insight, a thorough knowledge of the human heart, quickened by rich and strange experience; above all, a manly and glowing sense of the grandeur of the Divine. The neatness, precision, and lucidity of his style, his classic training and wide knowledge, his methodical accuracy of procedure, his manly independence, his avoidance of needless and commonplace homiletics, his deep religious feeling, his careful attention to the entire scope and context of every passage, and the fact that he has commented on almost the whole of the Bible, make him tower above the great majority of those who have written on Holy Scripture.” – Frederic William Farrar, History of Interpretation
“Calvin is the man who, next to St. Paul, has done most good to mankind.” – William Cunningham
“To omit Calvin from the forces of Western evolution is to read history with one eye shut.” – Lord John Morley
“It would hardly be too much to say that for the latter part of his lifetime and a century after his death John Calvin was the most influential man in the world, in the sense that his ideas were making more history than those of anyone else during that period. Calvin’s theology produced the Puritans in England, the Huguenots in France, the ‘Beggars’ in Holland, the Covenanters in Scotland, and the Pilgrim Fathers of New England, and was more or less directly responsible for the Scottish uprising, the revolt of the Netherlands, the French wars of religion, and the English Civil War. Also, it was Calvin’s doctrine of the state as a servant of God that established the ideal of constitutional representative government and led to the explicit acknowledgment of the rights and liberties of subjects. . . . It is doubtful whether any other theologian has ever played so significant a part in world history.” – J. I. Packer
“Calvin helped the Reformation change the entire focus of the Christian life. Calvin’s teaching, preaching, and catechizing fostered growth in the relationship between believers and God.” – Joel R. Beeke
“Calvin’s theological heritage has proved fertile perhaps to a greater extent than any other Protestant writer. Richard Baxter, Jonathan Edwards, and Karl Barth, in their very different ways, bear witness to the pivotal role that Calvin’s ideas have played in shaping Protestant self-perceptions down the centuries. . . . It is impossible to understand modern Protestantism without coming to terms with Calvin’s legacy to the movement which he did so much to nourish and sustain.” – Alister E. McGrath
“The fundamental issue for John Calvin—from the beginning of his life to the end—was the issue of the centrality and supremacy and majesty of the glory of God.” – John Piper
“Where the God-centered principles of Calvinism have been abandoned, there has been a strong tendency downward into the depths of man-centered naturalism or secularism. Some have declared, rightly, we believe, that there is no consistent stopping place between Calvinism and atheism.” – Ken Talbot
“The strength of that heretic [Calvin] consisted in this, that money never had the slightest charm for him. If I had such servants my dominion would extend from sea to sea.” – Pope Pius IV
“Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they, and they only, did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed… If it had not been for Calvinists, Huguenots, Puritans, and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists.” – Sir John Skelton
“[Calvinists] are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world.” – French atheist Hippolyte Taine (1828 to 1893)
“Calvinism has been the chief source of republican government.” – Lorraine Boettner
“In Calvinism lies the origin and guarantee of our constitutional liberties.” – Goren van Prinsterer
“John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.” – German historian Leopold von Ranke
“From the first, therefore, I have always said to myself,—If the battle is to be fought with honor and with a hope of victory, then principle must be arrayed against principle; then it must be felt that in Modernism the vast energy of an all-embracing life-system assails us, then also it must be understood that we have to take our stand in a life-system of equally comprehensive and far-reaching power. And this powerful life-system is not to be invented nor formulated by ourselves, but is to be taken and applied as it presents itself in history. When thus taken, I found and confessed, and I still hold, that this manifestation of the Christian principle is given us in Calvinism. In Calvinism my heart has found rest. From Calvinism have I drawn the inspiration firmly and resolutely to take my stand in the thick of this great conflict of principles. And therefore, when I was invited most honorably by your Faculty to give the Stone-Lectures here this year, I could not hesitate a moment as to my choice of subject. Calvinism, as the only decisive, lawful, and consistent defence for Protestant nations against encroaching, and overwhelming Modernism,—this of itself was bound to be my theme.” – Abraham Kuyper, Dutch journalist, statesman and theologian. He founded a new church (the Gereformeerde Kerken), a newspaper, the Free University of Amsterdam, and the Anti-Revolutionary Party. He served as Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905.
“People say that Calvinism is a dour, hard creed. How broad and comforting, they say, is the doctrine of a universal atonement, the doctrine that Christ died equally for all men there upon the cross! How narrow and harsh, they say, is this Calvinistic doctrine—one of the “five points” of Calvinism—this doctrine of the “limited atonement,” this doctrine that Christ died for the elect of God in a sense in which he did not die for the unsaved! But do you know, my friends, it is surprising that men say that. It is surprising that they regard the doctrine of a universal atonement as being a comforting doctrine. In reality it is a very gloomy doctrine indeed. Ah, if it were only a doctrine of a universal salvation, instead of a doctrine of a universal atonement, then it would no doubt be a very comforting doctrine; then no doubt it would conform wonderfully well to what we in our puny wisdom might have thought the course of the world should have been. But a universal atonement without a universal salvation is a cold, gloomy doctrine indeed. To say that Christ died for all men alike and that then not all men are saved, to say that Christ died for humanity simply in the mass, and that the choice of those who out of that mass are saved depends upon the greater receptivity of some as compared with others—that is a doctrine that takes from the gospel much of its sweetness and much of its joy.” – J. Gresham Machen
“Calvinism boldly affirms that salvation is of faith in order simply that it may be of grace—totally, completely, finally, from beginning to end, from Alpha to Omega, completely of God. and not of man. God is exalted and man is abased. Salvation is of grace, it is of God, and I, along with Charles Spurgeon (who was a great proclaimer of the free and sovereign grace of God), am happy to say that I am a Calvinist who holds to the doctrines of grace.” – Dr. D. James Kennedy, from Why I am a Presbyterian
“The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster.” – George Bancroft
It is no wonder that King James I once said: “Presbytery agreeth with monarchy like God with the Devil.” In England, our First War for Independence was called the “Presbyterian Rebellion.”
A Hessian captain (one of the 30,000 German mercenaries used by England) wrote in 1778, “Call this war by whatever name you may, only call it not an American rebellion; it is nothing more or less than a Scots-Irish Presbyterian rebellion.”
“Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it much respect.” – John Adams, America’s second President.
“He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.” – Harvard historian George Bancroft
Every competent historian will without exception confirm the words of Bancroft: “The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty, for in the moral warfare for freedom, his creed was a part of his army, and his most faithful ally in the battle.”1 And Groen van Prinsterer has thus expressed it: “In Calvinism lies the origin and guarantee of our constitutional liberties.” That Calvinism has led public law into new paths, first in Western Europe, then in two Continents, and today more and more among all civilized nations, is admitted by all scientific students, if not yet fully by public opinion. 1. BANCROFT, History of the United States of America. Fifteenth Edition; Boston 1853: I. 464; Ed. New York, 1891, I, 319
The above study was Groked, perfected with Grammarly AI, and directed by Jack Kettler.
“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.
Idealism, a philosophical perspective that posits that reality is fundamentally mental or experiential rather than material or physical, has been the subject of extensive debate within the realm of Christian thought. The Christian case for Idealism posits that the nature of God, the existence of the soul, and the ultimate reality of the spiritual realm provide compelling evidence supporting this philosophical perspective.
At the core of the Christian worldview is the belief in an omnipotent and omniscient God whose nature is fundamentally spiritual rather than material. This belief is rooted in the biblical account of creation, which describes God as the source of all existence, breathing life into the world through the power of His word. The immaterial nature of God, as well as the concept of the divine Trinity, suggests that reality is not limited to the physical realm but extends into the realm of the spiritual and the mental.
Furthermore, the Christian understanding of the soul as an immaterial, eternal entity that survives the death of the physical body provides additional support for the Idealist perspective. The concept of the soul, which is central to Christian theology, implies that reality is not reducible to the material world but includes an immaterial dimension that transcends physical existence.
The ultimate reality of the spiritual realm, as described in Christian Scripture, also supports the Idealist position. The Bible speaks of a heavenly realm populated by angelic beings and the eternal presence of God, suggesting that reality extends beyond the physical universe. The promise of eternal life, as well as the concept of the resurrection of the body, underscores the enduring and reassuring nature of the immaterial aspects of existence.
Why Study Idealism?
Here are some compelling questions that highlight the importance of studying and considering idealism, stimulating intellectual curiosity and engagement:
1. What is the nature of reality, and how does it relate to our perception and understanding of the world? Idealism challenges the materialist assumption that reality is fundamentally physical and independent of our minds, prompting us to consider alternative perspectives on the nature of existence.
2. How do our thoughts, beliefs, and intentions shape our experience of the world? Idealism emphasizes the role of consciousness in constructing our reality, encouraging us to explore the power of the mind in shaping our perceptions, emotions, and actions.
3. What is the relationship between the self and the external world? Idealism raises fundamental questions about the nature of the self and its relationship to the world, prompting us to examine the boundaries between the self and the environment and the role of the self in constructing reality.
4. How can idealism contribute to a deeper understanding of ethics, aesthetics, and the human condition? Idealism offers a unique perspective on these topics, challenging us to consider the role of values, ideas, and consciousness in shaping our moral, aesthetic, and existential experiences.
5. What are the implications of idealism for other philosophical and scientific disciplines? Idealism has a rich history of engaging with other fields, including psychology, sociology, and physics. Studying idealism can lead to a deeper understanding of these disciplines and their connections to the study of consciousness and reality.
6. How does idealism address the problem of free will and determinism? Idealism provides a unique perspective on the debate between free will and determinism, prompting us to reconsider the nature of agency, choice, and responsibility in light of the primacy of consciousness.
By engaging with these questions, students and scholars can develop a deeper understanding of idealism and its relevance to various aspects of human experience while also contributing to the ongoing dialogue on the nature of reality, consciousness, and the human condition.
Notable theologians who have held to Idealism:
Jonathan Edwards on Idealism:
Jonathan Edwards’ defense of idealism, the philosophical position that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual, significantly contributes to Western philosophical thought. In his work, Edwards argues that the material world is a product of the divine mind and that the reality is God himself. One of Edwards’ key arguments for idealism is based on his understanding of the nature of God. As a Calvinist theologian, Edwards believed in the absolute sovereignty of God, who is the creator of all things. This led him to conclude that the material world is not self-existent but rather a product of God’s mind. In other words, the material world exists only because God wills it to exist, and its existence is dependent upon his sustaining power.
Edwards also argues for idealism based on his understanding of human perception. He points out that when we perceive an object, what we are directly aware of is not the object itself but rather our idea or mental representation of the object. This leads him to conclude that the material world, as it is perceived by humans, is a product of our minds rather than something that exists independently of us.
In addition, Edwards argues that idealism provides a more satisfying explanation of the nature of causation. He points out that if the material world were self-existent, it would be difficult to explain how one material thing could cause another. However, if the material world is a product of the divine mind, then God can be seen as the ultimate cause of all things, providing a more coherent explanation of causation.
Overall, Edwards’ defense of idealism significantly contributes to Western philosophical thought. His arguments, based on an understanding of God, human perception, and causation, provide a compelling case for the view that reality is fundamentally mental and spiritual. While his views may not be universally accepted, they continue to be studied and debated by philosophers and theologians alike.
Gordon H. Clark and Idealism:
Gordon H. Clark, a prominent Christian philosopher and theologian, supported Idealism due to his commitment to the authority of Scripture and his understanding of the nature of God. Clark’s support for Idealism was rooted in his belief that the Bible, as the inspired Word of God, provides the ultimate foundation for understanding reality.
Clark’s Idealism was grounded in his interpretation of biblical passages that describe God as the ultimate source of existence and the spiritual nature of reality. He argued that the Bible presents a view of God as the ultimate reality, whose existence is not dependent on the physical world but is self-existent and eternal. This understanding of God’s nature led Clark to conclude that reality is fundamentally spiritual or mental rather than material or physical.
Furthermore, Clark’s Idealism was influenced by his understanding of the nature of the soul and the spiritual realm. He believed that the biblical concept of the soul as an immaterial, eternal entity provides evidence for the Idealist perspective. Additionally, the biblical descriptions of the heavenly realm and the eternal presence of God suggest that reality extends beyond the physical universe, supporting the Idealist position.
Clark’s commitment to the authority of Scripture and his understanding of the nature of God led him to embrace Idealism as a philosophical perspective that aligns with the biblical worldview. While his support for Idealism has been the subject of debate within Christian circles, Clark’s position remains a significant contribution to the ongoing discussion of the relationship between Christian theology and philosophical idealism.
Others who have held to Idealism include:
Augustine of Hippo (354-430): A key figure in the development of Western Christianity, Augustine’s theology in his early years was influenced by the Platonic thought forms of the day. He believed that reality is fundamentally spiritual or mental and that the physical world is a reflection of the divine mind.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): A prominent medieval theologian and philosopher, Aquinas synthesized Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology. While he is often associated with realism, some scholars argue that his thought contains elements of Idealism, particularly in his understanding of God as the ultimate reality.
The Biblical Case for Idealism:
The biblical case for Idealism rests on several key passages that describe the nature of God, the existence of the soul, and the ultimate reality of the spiritual realm. These passages suggest that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual rather than material or physical.
1. Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” This verse describes God as the ultimate source of existence, breathing life into the world through the power of His word. It suggests that reality is not limited to the physical realm but extends into the spiritual and mental realms.
2. Psalm 102:25-27: “Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end.” This passage suggests that God’s existence is eternal and unchanging, while the physical world is temporary and subject to decay. This implies that reality is fundamentally spiritual or mental rather than material or physical.
3. Matthew 10:28: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” This verse describes the soul as an immaterial, eternal entity that survives the death of the physical body. This suggests that reality is not reducible to the material world but includes an immaterial dimension that transcends physical existence.
4. Acts 17:28: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring.” This verse suggests that God is the ultimate source of existence and that reality is fundamentally spiritual or mental rather than material or physical. This supports the biblical case for Idealism, as it underscores the idea that reality is not limited to the physical realm but extends into the realm of the spiritual and the mental.
5. 2 Corinthians 4:18: “As we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” This passage suggests that reality extends beyond the physical universe and that the ultimate reality is the spiritual realm.
6. Revelation 21:1-4: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.’” This passage describes the ultimate reality as a new heaven and a new earth, suggesting that reality extends beyond the physical universe and includes an eternal, spiritual realm.
These biblical passages suggest that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual rather than material or physical. While the debate surrounding Idealism and Christian theology continues, these texts provide a foundation for the biblical case for Idealism.
Objections and Responses:
· Objection: Idealism reduces reality to mere ideas in the mind, implying that the material world is illusory or non-existent.
· Response: Christian Idealism, particularly as seen in thinkers like Augustine of Hippo and Anselm of Canterbury, posits that the ultimate reality is God, who is the source of all ideas and the ground of all being. The material world is not illusory but rather is a manifestation of divine ideas.
· Objection: Idealism seems to undermine the reality of human suffering, sin, and evil.
· Response: Christian Idealism, acknowledges the reality of suffering and evil but views them as distortions or privations of the good, which is grounded in the nature of God. Evil is not an independent force but rather a corruption of the good.
· Objection: Idealism seems to suggest that the material world is unimportant or insignificant compared to the realm of ideas.
· Response: While Christian Idealism emphasizes the primacy of the spiritual, it does not devalue the material world. Rather, it sees the material world as a reflection of divine ideas and as a means through which God can be known and loved.
· Objection: Idealism can lead to a form of solipsism, where one’s own ideas are the only things that can be known with certainty.
· Response: Christian Idealism, particularly in its Augustinian and Anselmian forms, emphasizes the communal nature of knowledge and the importance of revelation. It acknowledges the limits of human reason and the necessity of divine illumination for true understanding.
· Objection: Idealism can lead to a form of moral relativism, where moral standards are seen as merely subjective ideas.
· Response: Christian Idealism, grounded in God’s nature as the ultimate standard of goodness, provides a robust basis for objective moral standards. Morality is not merely a matter of personal preference or cultural convention but is rooted in God’s unchanging character.
· Objection: Idealism seems to be incompatible with modern science, which relies on empirical observation and experimentation.
· Response: Christian Idealism is not necessarily opposed to empirical science. Rather, it views the material world as a manifestation of divine ideas, which can be explored and understood through scientific inquiry. The Christian Idealist can affirm the validity of scientific discoveries while maintaining that these discoveries are ultimately grounded in God’s nature.
Does Idealism necessarily conclude that the Universe is a giant mental construct in the mind of God and, therefore, like “The Matrix”?
Christian idealism, as represented by figures such as Jonathan Edwards and Gordon H. Clark, generally does not conclude that the universe is a giant construct in the mind of God in the same way that Berkeley’s subjective idealism does. Instead, these thinkers typically hold a form of objective idealism, which posits that the world is fundamentally made up of ideas or concepts that exist independently of any individual mind.
For example, Jonathan Edwards, a prominent 18th-century American theologian and philosopher, held a form of idealism that emphasized the primacy of the divine mind in shaping reality. However, he did not necessarily view the universe as a construct in the mind of God in the sense that Berkeley did. Instead, Edwards saw God as the ultimate source of all reality, with the world existing as a manifestation of God’s ideas or concepts.
Similarly, Gordon H. Clark, a 20th-century American philosopher and theologian, held a form of Christian idealism that emphasized the role of divine ideas in shaping reality. Clark argued that the world is made up of ideas or concepts that exist in the mind of God, but he did not view the universe as a construct in the mind of God in the same way that Berkeley’s subjective idealism does.
In summary, Christian idealism, as represented by figures such as Edwards and Clark, does not typically conclude that the universe is a giant construct in the mind of God in the same way that Berkeley’s subjective idealism does. Instead, these thinkers hold a form of objective idealism that emphasizes the role of divine ideas or concepts in shaping reality without necessarily viewing the universe as a construct in the mind of God.
Jonathan Edwards’s and Gordon H. Clark’s Christian idealism shares some conceptual similarities with the world of “The Matrix” in that both perspectives emphasize the role of ideas or concepts in shaping reality. However, there are significant differences in the underlying assumptions and implications of these two worldviews.
In contrast, Christian idealism, as represented by Edwards and Clark, posits that the world is a manifestation of God’s ideas or concepts. The world is not a construct in the mind of God in the same way that the Matrix is a construct in the minds of the machines. Instead, God’s ideas or concepts are the ultimate reality, and the world exists as a reflection or expression of these divine ideas.
Furthermore, Christian idealism, as held by Edwards and Clark, is rooted in a theistic worldview that emphasizes the existence of a personal, transcendent God who is the ultimate source of reality. In contrast, the world of “The Matrix” is a product of a materialistic worldview that does not necessarily involve the existence of a transcendent, personal God.
What about dependence on Platonic thought?
Moreover, it is important to note that Christian idealism, as represented by Edwards and Clark, is not dependent on Platonic thought, although there are similarities. Christian idealism is rooted in a theistic worldview that emphasizes the existence of a personal, transcendent God who is the ultimate source of reality. While Platonic thought has influenced the development of some forms of idealism, the two worldviews are not identical, and Christian idealism can be understood and defended on its own terms.
In conclusion, in light of these theological and philosophical considerations, the Christian case for Idealism argues that the nature of God, the existence of the soul, and the reality of the spiritual realm provide compelling evidence supporting the Idealist perspective. While this philosophical position may not be universally accepted within Christian thought, it offers a thought-provoking and intellectually engaging framework for understanding the nature of reality and the ultimate destiny of humanity.
The above study was Groked with the questions asked by this writer 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)
Mr. Kettler is a respected 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.
What does Jesus mean by hate in Luke 14:26? By Jack Kettler
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
The above passage from Luke has perplexed many young Christians. How is this passage to be understood, and in particular, what is meant by hate? Is it literal?
A Reformed theological exegesis of Luke 14:26:
Luke 14:26 presents a complex and often misunderstood passage where Jesus declares, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” This statement seems to contradict the broader biblical commandment to honor one’s parents and love one’s neighbor. However, a Reformed theological exegesis of this verse suggests a deeper meaning.
In Reformed theology, the term “hate” in this context does not imply a sinful emotion of hostility or anger but rather a relative comparison in terms of loyalty and devotion. Jesus is not advocating for actual hatred or disregard of family or self, but emphasizing the radical commitment required to follow Him.
This interpretation aligns with the Reformed understanding of God’s call’s supremacy and discipleship’s radical nature. Jesus’ words in Luke 14:26 echo His earlier statement in Matthew 10:37, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” The point is not that one should actually hate family members or oneself but that one’s allegiance to Christ must be absolute, surpassing all other loyalties.
This interpretation is also consistent with the Reformed emphasis on the sovereignty of God and the total depravity of man. Reformed theology teaches that man is so corrupted by sin that he cannot come to Christ unless God first regenerates him. In this light, the call to hate one’s family and oneself can be seen as a call to renounce one’s own sinful nature and to rely completely on God’s grace, a comforting truth for all believers.
The exegesis is stated in logical form:
Premise 1: Reformed theology interprets the term “hate” in Luke 14:26 as a relative comparison of loyalty and devotion rather than a sinful emotion of hostility or anger.
Premise 2: Jesus emphasizes the radical commitment required to follow Him, surpassing all other loyalties.
Premise 3: This interpretation aligns with the Reformed understanding of God’s supremacy and the radical nature of discipleship.
Premise 4: Reformed theology teaches that man is so corrupted by sin that he cannot come to Christ unless God first regenerates him.
Conclusion: A Reformed theological exegesis of Luke 14:26 understands Jesus’ words as a call to absolute, radical commitment to Christ, surpassing all other loyalties, consistent with Reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty, human depravity, and the radical nature of discipleship.
In summary:
A Reformed theological exegesis of Luke 14:26 understands Jesus’ words not as a call to actual hatred but as a call to absolute, radical commitment to Christ, surpassing all other loyalties. This interpretation is consistent with Reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty, human depravity, and the radical nature of discipleship.
The above study was Groked 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)
Mr. Kettler is a respected 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.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
John 1:1 is a cornerstone of Christian theology, as it introduces the concept of the “Word” (Greek: Logos) as a divine entity that coexisted with God from the very beginning. Breaking it down grammatically and biblically, one finds:
1. “In the beginning” – This phrase echoes the opening of Genesis, suggesting a cosmic, timeless context. It implies that the Word existed before the creation of the world.
2. “Was” – The verb “was” (Greek: ἦν, eimi) is in the imperfect tense, indicating continuous existence. It emphasizes the eternal nature of the Word.
3. “The Word”- The Greek term “Logos” (λόγος) is rich in meaning. It can refer to the spoken word, reason, or an underlying principle or logic. John’s Gospel refers to the preexistent Christ, who embodies God’s wisdom and creative power.
4. “With God” – The preposition “with” (Greek: πρός, pros) suggests a close, intimate relationship between the Word and God. It implies a distinction of persons within the Godhead, yet a unity of essence.
5. “And the Word was God”- This phrase affirms the Word’s deity. The absence of the definite article before “God” (Greek: θεός, theos) is grammatically significant. It suggests that the Word shares the same divine nature as God without implying that the Word is a separate god.
Biblically, this verse establishes Jesus as the pre-existent, divine Word who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). It sets the stage for the rest of the Gospel, which proclaims Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, the source of life and light, and the Savior of the world.
The Arian Heresy:
The Arian heresy refers to a theological controversy that arose in the early Christian Church, named after its most prominent proponent, Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria in the early 4th century. At the heart of the controversy was the nature of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ.
Arius taught that Jesus Christ, the Son, was not co-eternal with God the Father. He argued that the Son was created by the Father, and therefore, there was a time when the Son did not exist. In Arius’ view, the Son was a created being, divine in nature but not equal to the Father.
This view starkly contrasted with the traditional Christian belief, which held that the Son was co-eternal with the Father and fully divine, a belief encapsulated in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Arian heresy was condemned as a heresy at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where the Council Fathers affirmed the full divinity of the Son and formulated the Nicene Creed, which states that the Son is “of one substance with the Father.”
The Arian controversy had significant implications for the development of Christian theology. It forced the Church to clarify and define its understanding of the Trinity and the nature of Christ, leading to the formulation of doctrines that are still central to Christian theology today.
A modern-day example of Arianism:
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, commonly known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, interprets John 1:1 as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This interpretation is based on a particular reading of the Greek text and has been a point of significant theological debate.
Biblical scholars have criticized this interpretation for several reasons:
1. Greek Grammar: The Watchtower’s translation hinges on the absence of the definite article “the” (Greek: ὁ, ho) before “God” (Greek: θεός, theos) in the phrase “the Word was God.” However, Greek grammar does not require the definite article to denote a definite noun. The absence of the article here is more likely a stylistic choice to emphasize the nature of the Word rather than to diminish its divinity.
2. Contextual Analysis: The Watchtower’s interpretation ignores the broader context of John’s Gospel, which consistently presents Jesus as divine. For example, John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God,” and John 10:30, where Jesus states, “I and the Father are one.”
3. Historical Context: The early Christian Church universally accepted Christ’s deity. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation is a relatively recent development, first appearing in their New World Translation of the Bible in 1950.
4. Biblical Theology: The doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons in one divine essence, is a central tenet of orthodox Christianity. The Watchtower’s interpretation contradicts this doctrine by suggesting that Jesus is a lesser deity, or “a god,” rather than being fully divine.
In conclusion, the Watchtower’s interpretation of John 1:1 is not accepted among biblical scholars and theologians. It is seen as a misinterpretation that stems from a particular theological perspective rather than a careful reading of the Greek text and its broader biblical context.
Additionally, the Granville Sharp Rule, named after the English theologian and scholar Granville Sharp, is a grammatical principle applied to the translation of New Testament Greek. It is used to determine the relationship between two nouns in a sentence when they are connected by the conjunction “and” (Greek: καί, “kai”). The rule states that when two singular common nouns are used to describe a person, and those two nouns are joined by the conjunction “and,” and the definite article (Greek: ὁ, “ho”) precedes the first noun, but not the second, then both nouns refer to the same person.
This rule is significant in New Testament studies, particularly in discussions regarding the deity of Christ. It has been applied to several verses, notably Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, to argue that Jesus is explicitly referred to as “God” in these texts. For example, in Titus 2:13, the phrase “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” is translated from Greek as “τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.” According to the Granville Sharp Rule, since “God” and “Savior” are both preceded by the definite article “the” (in the genitive case), they refer to the same person, Jesus Christ, who is thus identified as “God” and “Savior.”
What a number of Greek scholars think about The New World Translation of John 1:1:
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Jehovah’s Witnesses own Kingdom Interlinear Translation):
“A shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.’”
“But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.”
“I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as the Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures…. It is a distortion–not a translation.”
“The translators of the New World Translation are ‘diabolical deceivers.’”
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):
“A frightful mistranslation.” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.”
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:
“This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article ‘a’ means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase ‘the Word was a god.’”
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:
“The Jehovah’s Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:
“I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:
“I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah’s Witnesses…I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language.”
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:
“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ‘…the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:
“Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase ‘And the Word was God.’ Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…’a god’ would be totally indefensible.”
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:
“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. ‘My Lord and my God.’ – John 20:28”
Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:
“The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate would probably mean that the LOGOS was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word “THEOS” is placed at the beginning for emphasis.”
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:
“No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as ‘the Word was a god.’ There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct….I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian.”
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of the Translations Department, American Bible Society:
“With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek.” [Responsible for the Good News Bible – The committee worked under him.]
Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):
“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word…in the third clause ‘the Word’ is declared to be ‘God’ and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”
The above study was Groked 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)
Mr. Kettler, a respected author and has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active members of the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
The concept of divine accommodation in Christian theology refers to the idea that God, in His divine revelation, communicates with humans in ways that are understandable and accessible to their limited capacities. This principle suggests that God, being infinitely transcendent, adjusts His communication to match the cognitive and cultural context of the recipients of His revelation.
Divine accommodation is grounded in the Christian belief that humans are created in God’s image, which includes the capacity for reason and understanding. However, this does not mean that humans can fully comprehend the divine nature. Therefore, God accommodates His communication to our level, using language, concepts, and cultural expressions that are familiar to us.
This principle is evident in the Bible, where God often uses anthropomorphic language to describe Himself and His actions. For instance, the Bible speaks of God’s “hand,” “eyes,” and “ears,” and it describes God as “walking” in the garden with Adam and Eve. These expressions are not to be taken literally but rather as instances of divine accommodation, where God is described in human terms to facilitate understanding.
The idea of divine accommodation is also central to the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ, who is considered the ultimate revelation of God. In the incarnation, God the Son took on human form and lived among us, experiencing human life in all its fullness. This act of divine accommodation is seen as God’s most profound and intimate form of communication with humanity.
Examples of divine accommodation in the Bible, which show God’s interaction with humans in a manner that accommodates their understanding:
1. Genesis 18:1-8 describes Abraham’s encounter with the three men (often considered to be the Lord and two angels) in the plains of Mamre. God appears in human form, eats, and converses with Abraham, showing an accommodation of human form and needs.
2. Exodus 33:11 – God speaks to Moses “face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.” Exodus 33:11 shows an accommodation of human communication methods, allowing Moses to understand and relate to God more easily.
3. Numbers 12:6-8 – God speaks to the prophets in visions and dreams, a form of communication that accommodates the human capacity for understanding.
4. 1 Samuel 3:1-10 – God speaks to the young Samuel in a dream, using a method that accommodates Samuel’s age and understanding.
5. Job 38-41 – God speaks to Job out of a whirlwind, a form of divine communication that accommodates human senses and understanding.
6. Matthew 1:22-23 – The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, showing God’s accommodation of human history and prophecy.
7. John 1:14 – “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The Incarnation of Christ is the ultimate example of divine accommodation, as God takes on human form in the person of Jesus Christ to interact with humanity on a personal level.
8. 1 Corinthians 1:21 – “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” 1 Corinthians 1:21 shows God’s accommodation in the method of salvation, choosing to communicate the gospel through human speech and preaching.
These above examples illustrate the principle of divine accommodation, where God communicates and interacts with humans in ways that are accessible and understandable to them despite their vast differences in nature.
In conclusion:
The Christian idea of God’s accommodation is a theological principle that acknowledges God’s infinite transcendence and His accommodation of human limitations in His revelation. It underscores the belief that God desires to communicate with His creation in ways that are accessible and understandable to them.
God appropriates humanly intelligible means to communicate real knowledge of himself. God speaks to us in a form that is suited to our human capacity.
From Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, 1.17.13:
“Because our weakness cannot reach his height, any description which we receive of him must be lowered to our capacity in order to be intelligible. And the mode of lowering is to represent him not as he really is, but as we conceive of him.”
The above study was Groked 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)
Respected author Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active members of the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Romans 5:10-11)
“And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:18-19)
Reformed theology’s doctrine of the atonement emphasizes certain aspects of Christ’s work on the cross and its implications for salvation, in which humanity is viewed as fallen and sinful, deserving of God’s judgment, and unable to save itself.
Christ’s atonement centers on the idea of penal substitutionary atonement, and teaches that:
1. God’s Justice: God’s justice demands that sin be punished. In the Reformed view, Christ’s sacrificial death satisfies this demand for justice, allowing God to forgive sinners without compromising His righteousness.
2. Penal Atonement: Jesus Christ, through His death on the cross, bore the penalty of sin on behalf of believers. This penalty includes both the punishment due to sin (the divine wrath and justice) and the moral guilt associated with sin.
3. Substitutionary Atonement: Christ acted as a substitute for sinners, taking their place and bearing the consequences of sin so that believers might be reconciled to God.
4. Propitiatory Sacrifice: To propitiate means to “appease” or to “placate.” Jesus gave his life as a propitiatory sacrifice, thus, appeasing or satisfying God’s wrath.
5. Redemption and Justification: Through Christ’s atoning work, believers are redeemed from sin and its consequences. They are justified before God, declared righteous on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.
Other inadequate or false views of the atonement:
1. The Moral Influence Theory of Christ’s atonement posits that the primary purpose and result of Christ’s death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This view emphasizes the love of God as demonstrated by Christ’s life and sacrifice, rather than focusing on the satisfaction of divine justice or the payment of a debt owed to God or the Devil. Proponents of this theory believe that Christ’s death serves as an ultimate example of love, inspiring and teaching people to live a life of faith and obedience.
2. The Christus Victor theory of Christ’s atonement, is a perspective on the Christian understanding of salvation. It emphasizes Christ’s victory over the powers of darkness, sin, and death, as opposed to a focus on the legal or transactional aspects of atonement that other theories might stress. His death is not seen as a payment to God or the Devil, but as a strategic move to defeat the forces of darkness and to demonstrate God’s love and power. Christ’s resurrection is then the ultimate victory, demonstrating that death and sin have been conquered once and for all.
3. The Governmental Theory of Christ’s atonement, also known as the rectoral theory or the moral government theory, is a doctrine in Christian theology that proposes Christ’s suffering and death served as a demonstration of God’s justice and mercy, rather than a direct substitution for the punishment of individual sinners. It emphasizes the role of Christ’s sacrifice in upholding God’s moral order and governance of the world. According to this theory, Christ’s death was not a literal payment for the penalty of sin, but rather a symbolic act that showed the seriousness of sin and God’s commitment to justice. It was a way for God to demonstrate his moral standards and maintain his moral government of the universe without having to punish every sinner directly.
4. The Recapitulation Theory of Christ’s atonement, emphasizes the idea that Christ’s life and work reversed the disobedience and sin initiated by Adam, thus restoring humanity to obedience. This theory suggests that Christ recapitulated, or relived, the stages of human life, from infancy to adulthood, and in doing so, corrected the course of humanity from disobedience to obedience. In essence, the Recapitulation Theory views Christ’s life and death as a comprehensive restoration of humanity, undoing the effects of Adam’s original sin. It is rooted in the understanding of Christ as the “new Adam,” who, through his obedience, counteracts the disobedience of the first Adam.
While having elements of truth, these other speculative theories highlight the unique importance and theological standpoints of Reformed theology’s doctrine of atonement, particularly its focus on penal substitutionary atonement as the central mechanism for dealing with sin and reconciling humanity to God.
To receive the benefits of Christ’s atonement, one must follow the teachings laid out in the New Testament:
1. Repent and Come unto Christ: This involves recognizing one’s sins and committing to turn away from them. It requires faith in Jesus Christ and a desire to follow his teachings and example.
2. Accept Christ as Your Savior: By accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Redeemer, you acknowledge that it is through his grace and mercy, made possible by the atonement, that you can be forgiven of your sins and reconciled to God.
The atonement is a gift from God.
In Conclusion, the Westminster Confession of Faith explains atonement this way:
“iii. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace might be glorified in the justification of sinners.”
“V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.” (WCF 11.3, 5)
The Confession teaches that Christ alone is a sufficient Savior, and to suggest that something more is required beyond Him would be blasphemous. It highlights the principle that the life of a creature is in the blood, and it is through the shedding of Christ’s blood that atonement is made for one’s life. This theological framework emphasizes the centrality of Christ’s sacrifice in achieving salvation and reconciliation with God
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
Mr. Kettler, a respected author and has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active members of the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Exploring the theological implications of God’s choices in Romans 9:13-18 by Jack Kettler
“As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” (Romans 9:13-18)
From the viewpoint of Reformed theology, Romans 9:13-18 illuminates God’s sovereignty in electing certain individuals for salvation while passing over others. Paul’s reference to Malachi 1:2-3 in verse 13, where God loved Jacob but hated Esau, underscores that God’s choice is not based on human merit or effort.
In verses 14-15, Paul addresses the question of fairness by asserting God’s right to show mercy and compassion to whomever He chooses. This aligns with the belief in unconditional election, where God’s choice for salvation is solely based on His will, not human merit.
Verse 16 brings forth a comforting truth, one that is central to the “Doctrines of Grace” theology in which salvation is not dependent on human will or effort. This reinforces the belief in “total depravity”, which asserts that humans, due to their inherently sinful nature, are incapable of seeking God or contributing to their salvation.
In verse 17, Paul cites the example of Pharaoh, who was raised by God to demonstrate His power and mercy. This illustrates another key concept of Reformed theology, “reprobation,” where God passes over certain individuals, allowing them to remain in their sinful state to serve His purposes.
Finally, verse 18 reiterates the reassuring truth of God’s sovereignty in hardening hearts and showing mercy, emphasizing the Reformed theology’s belief in irresistible grace, which holds that God’s elect will inevitably respond to His call and be saved.
In summary of the above:
From a Reformed theological perspective, the concept of free will is considered inadequate to refute Romans 9:13-18 or to make the text more palatable to an unbeliever because it assumes that human choice plays a role in determining salvation. Reformed theology, on the other hand, emphasizes God’s sovereignty and the belief in total depravity, stating that humans are incapable of seeking God or contributing to their salvation due to their inherently sinful nature.
In the context of Romans 9:13-18, the Reformed theological interpretation highlights that salvation is not dependent on human will or effort but solely on God’s sovereign choice (verse 16). This understanding is further reinforced by Paul’s assertion that God has the right to show mercy and compassion to whomever He chooses (verse 15), indicating that salvation is not a result of human merit or decision-making.
Additionally, the concept of free will is considered inadequate because it does not account for the Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace, which maintains that God’s elect will inevitably respond to His call and be saved. This belief is supported by Romans 9:18, which emphasizes that God has the power to harden hearts and show mercy according to His sovereign will.
Consider the following comments on Romans 9:18 from Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:
“Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will,… These are the express words of the former testimony: it follows, and whom he will he hardeneth; which is the just and natural consequence of what is contained in the latter; for if God could, or he did, without any injustice, raise up Pharaoh, and harden his heart against him and his people, that he might rise up against him and destroy him by his power for his own glory, then he may harden any other person, and even whom he will: now this hardening of men’s hearts may be understood in perfect agreement with the justice and holiness of God: men first harden their own hearts by sinning, as Pharaoh did; what God does, is by leaving them to the hardness of their hearts, denying them that grace which only can soften them, and which he is not obliged to give, and therefore does them no injustice in withholding it from them; by sending them both mercies and judgments, which through the corruption of their hearts, are the means of the greater hardening of them; so judgments in the case of Pharaoh, and mercies in the case of others; see Isaiah 6:10; by delivering them up into the hands of Satan, and to their own lusts, which they themselves approve of; and by giving them up to a judicial blindness and hardness of heart, as a just punishment for their impieties.” (1)
Gill’s comments discuss the concept of divine hardening of hearts, particularly referencing the story of Pharaoh in the Bible. It suggests that God may harden the hearts of individuals, as seen with Pharaoh, for his own purposes without injustice. It argues that individuals first harden their own hearts through sin, and God’s action in hardening is by allowing them to remain in this state, withholding grace that could soften them. This hardening can occur through various means such as the denial of grace, sending mercies and judgments that further harden hearts, delivering individuals to their own lusts, and allowing them to experience judicial blindness and hardness of heart as a punishment for their sins.
In summary, according to Reformed theology, the concept of free will is not an adequate rebuttal to Romans 9:13-18 because it contradicts the core biblical beliefs in God’s sovereignty, total depravity, and irresistible grace.
Stated logically:
1. Premise 1: Free will requires that individuals have the ability to make genuinely uncaused choices.
2. Premise 2: Uncaused choices cannot be rational or morally responsible, as they are arbitrary and not grounded in reason or character.
3. Premise 3: A moral agent must be able to make rational and morally responsible choices.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, free will arguments fail, as they require uncaused choices, which are neither rational nor morally responsible, contradicting the necessary conditions for moral agency.
The following hypothetical story by Christian philosopher and theologian Gordon H. Clark makes the point that the free will argument is no solution to lighten or soften the Romans 9:13-18 text:
“On the road below, to the observer’s left, a car is being driven west. To the observer’s right a car is coming south. He can see and know that there will be a collision at the intersection immediately beneath him. But his foreknowledge, so the argument runs, does not cause [that is made necessary] the accident. Similarly, God is supposed to know the future without causing it.”
“The similarity, however, is deceptive on several points. A human observer cannot really know that a collision will occur. Though it is unlikely, it is possible for both cars to have blowouts before reaching the intersection and swerving apart. It is also possible that the observer has misjudged speeds, in which case one car could slow down, and the other accelerates so that they would not collide. The human observer, therefore, does not infallible foreknowledge.”
“No such mistakes can be assumed for God. The human observer may make a probable guess that the accident will occur, and this guess does not make the accident unavoidable; but if God knows, there is no possibility of avoiding the accident. A hundred years before the drivers were born, there was no possibility that either of them could have chosen to stay home that day, to have driven a different route, to have driven a different time, to have driven a different speed. They could not have chosen otherwise than as they did. This means either that they had no free will [understood as a liberty of indifference] or that God did not know.”
“Suppose it be granted, just for the moment, that divine foreknowledge, like human guesses, does not cause the foreknown event. Even so, if there is foreknowledge, in contrast with fallible guesses, free will is impossible. If man has free will, and things can be different, God cannot be omniscient. Some Arminians have admitted this and have denied omniscience [the open theists], but this puts them obviously at odds with Biblical Christianity. There is also another difficulty. If the Arminian . . . wishes to retain divine omniscience and at the same time assert that foreknowledge has no causal efficacy, he is put to explain how the collision was made certain a hundred years, an eternity, before the drivers were born. If God did not arrange the universe this way, who did?”
“If God did not arrange it this way, then there must be an independent factor in the universe. And if there is such, one consequence and perhaps two follow. First, the doctrine of creation must be abandoned. . . . Independent forces cannot be created forces, and created forces cannot be independent. Then, second, if the universe is not God’s creation, his knowledge of it past and future cannot depend on what he intends to do, but on his observation of how it works. In such a case, how could we be sure that God’s observations are accurate? How could we be sure that these independent forces will not later show us an unsuspected twist that will falsify God’s predictions? And finally, on this view God’s knowledge would be empirical, rather than an integral part of his essence, and thus he would be a dependent knower. These objections are insurmountable. We can consistently believe in creation, omnipotence, omniscience, and the divine decree. But we cannot retain sanity and combine any of these with free will.” (2)
As seen from the above quote, Gordon H. Clark argued against the concept of free will from a Reformed theological perspective. His main arguments can be summarized as follows:
1. Incompatibility with God’s sovereignty: Clark asserted that free will is incompatible with the idea of an omnipotent and sovereign God. He believed that if humans have free will, their choices could potentially contradict or override God’s sovereign plan, resulting in a limitation of God’s power and authority.
2. Contradiction with divine foreknowledge: Clark argued that the concept of free will contradicts the idea of God’s foreknowledge, as it implies that God’s knowledge of future events is dependent on human choices. According to Clark, this undermines God’s omnipotence, as it suggests that God’s knowledge is contingent on human decisions rather than being absolute and certain.
3. Impossibility of uncaused choices: Clark maintained that free will requires uncaused choices, which are logically impossible. He argued that every choice must have a cause, whether it is a conscious decision or an unconscious desire. Since uncaused choices cannot exist, free will, as traditionally understood, is an incoherent concept.
4. Inconsistency with moral responsibility: Clark believed that free will is inconsistent with moral responsibility, as it assumes that individuals can be held accountable for their choices even if they are arbitrary and uncaused. He argued that genuine moral responsibility requires choices to be based on reasons and character, which is not possible if free will is understood as an uncaused choice.
In Conclusion:
Gordon H. Clark’s arguments against free will primarily revolve around the incompatibility of free will with God’s sovereignty, divine foreknowledge, the impossibility of uncaused choices, and the inconsistency of moral responsibility. Therefore, those who interpret Romans 9:13-18 in such a way as to not offend people are mishandling the Scriptures.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Romans, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), p. 255.
2. Gordon Clark, From God and Evil (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2004), 25 26. Cited in Reymond, What Is God? pp. 132, 133.
Mr. Kettler, a respected author and has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active members of the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
The Religion That Started in a Hat 