"Let us put both truths in propositional form:
1. God is absolutely sovereign, even so that he determines the moral acts of man, both good and evil.
2. Man is responsible before God for all his moral acts.
It may well be that we cannot answer the question how God is able to determine man's deeds without destroying man's responsibility. That he is able to do so is asserted plainly by the two propositions stated above. But whether or not we can understand this operation of the... sovereign God upon man is not the question. The sole question is whether the two propositions concerning God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are contradictory. This we deny. In fact, they cannot possibly be, for the simple reason that they assert something about two wholly different subjects.
They would be contradictory if the first proposition denied what is affirmed in the second. But this is not true. The first proposition asserts something about God: He is absolutely sovereign and determines the acts of man. The second proposition predicates something about man: He is responsible for his moral acts. Does the first proposition deny that man is responsible? If it does you have here a contradiction. But it does not. Those who like to discover a contradiction here, usually the enemies of the truth of God's sovereignty, simply take for granted that to assert that God is sovereign even over man's acts is to say the same as that man is not responsible. It must be pointed out, however, that this is neither expressed nor implied in the first proposition. In the two propositions responsibility is not both affirmed and denied at the same time to man.
The two propositions would, of course, also be contradictory if the second proposition denied what is affirmed in the first. In that case, sovereignty even over the acts of man would be both affirmed and denied to God. But also this is neither expressed nor implied in the two propositions, unless it can first be shown conclusively that to say that man is responsible is the same as declaring that God is not sovereign over his moral acts. And this has never been demonstrated, nor is it self-evident.
If they were really contradictory they could not both be the object of the Christian's faith. We could only conclude that either the one or the other were not true." - Herman Hoeksema, The Clark Van Til Controversy
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Knowledge and Truth
If Gods knowledge and mans knowledge is not the same univocally thus rendering God and man analogous in knowledge, then it would in fact be the case that man would know nothing of God. The word 'God' would be insufficient and this whole paragraph would be impossible. Mans words would also fail to communicate correctly to one another. Therefore, Gods and mans knowledge are in fact not analogous but are univocal. God simply knows more quantitatively not qualitatively.
Of course a word may have two or three or more other meanings. But the fact is that a word will not have an infinite array of meanings. In order for a word to mean something it must also not mean something. A cat does not mean a dog, or a horse, but rather it means pussy cat or feline.
Of course a word may have two or three or more other meanings. But the fact is that a word will not have an infinite array of meanings. In order for a word to mean something it must also not mean something. A cat does not mean a dog, or a horse, but rather it means pussy cat or feline.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Martin Luther on The Papacy in Rome
"I contend for only two things. First, I will not suffer any man to establish new articles of faith and to abuse all other Christians in the world and slander and brand them as heretics, apostates and unbelievers simply because they are not under the pope. It is enough that we let the pope be pope, and it is not necessary that for his sake God and his saints on earth should be blasphemed. Second, all that the pope decrees and does I will receive on condition that I first test it by the Holy Scriptures. He must remain under Christ and submit to being judged by the Holy Scriptures." - Martin Luther, The Papacy in Rome
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Martin Luther on Justification by Faith alone in Christ alone
"This is what it means to prevail against the gates of hell: Not to be bodily in an external communion, authority, jurisdiction, or assembly according to your way of babbling about the Roman communion and its unity, but by a firm and true faith to be built upon Christ, the rock which can never be suppressed by any power of the devil, even if he counts more followers and uses unceasing strife, cunning, and violence against it." - Martin Luther, The Papacy in Rome
Friday, September 12, 2014
Gordon Clark on the Trinity
"One substance or essence means that neither the Father nor the Son is an 'essence.' Each is a 'person.' Only the Trinity as such is an 'essence.' The confusion here and in the footnote above disappears, or at least is alleviated, by using the word definition instead of essence; and also by remembering that the Son has an 'essence' that is different from the 'essence' of the Father, but which in both cases contains the 'essence' of Deity. The definition of Deity does not define the Son; nor can the definition of the Son apply to Deity. A succulent does not have all the qualities of a cactus, but the latter has all of the characteristics of the former. That is to say, the Trinity or Godhead, absolutely and as such, does not have the characteristics of any one Person, absolutely and as such; but each Person has all the predicates of Deity. Note that the word here is Deity, not Father." - Gordon Clark, The Trinity
Friday, September 5, 2014
Martin Luther on Limited Atonement
"But if you ask where faith and confidence may be found or whence they come, it is certainly the most necessary thing to know. First, without any doubt it does not come from your works or from your merits, but only from Jesus Christ, freely promised and freely given. As St. Paul writes in Romans 5[:8], 'God shows his love toward us as exceedingly sweet and kind in that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners.' This is as if Paul said, 'Ought this not give us a strong, in...vincible confidence in that before we prayed about it or cared about it, yes, while we still continually walked in sin, Christ died for our sins?' [Paul] goes on, 'if then Christ has died for us while we were yet sinners, how much more shall we be saved through him, being justified by his blood. And if, while we were still enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be preserved through his life' [Rom. 5:8-11]." - Martin Luther, Treatise on Good works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)