Clark is known for his clarity in what he writes. Here however a man might read into his paragraph what is not there. Clark is not suggesting that works become our assurance or at all does works become our focus. He is simply saying that works follow faith. What a man believes does have some effect on what he does. However, of course not all the time. A Christian still sins even though he believes the truth. A man's worldview will effect his living (this is generally true).
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Either what you believe is the truth or it is not the truth there is no neutrality
"The Christian believes in God; he believes that God will hold every one to account for the deeds done in the body; he expects a day of wrath and judgment. He acts in accordance with his belief. By trusting in Christ's finished work, and by giving evidence of that faith in his works in obedience to the injunction, 'if ye love me, keep my commandments,' the Christian shows to the world which postulate he accepts. But even if the self-styled skeptic or agnostic says nothing at all, it is perfectly clear that he believes there is no final judgment. He may protest in words that this is not true. He will say, 'It is not true that I believe there will be no judgment; I merely do not believe there will be a judgment. I do not know whether there will be a judgment or whether there will not. I am an agnostic, I do not know.' Now, either there is a God or there is not; either there is a final judgment or there is none. The skeptic must live by one or the other of these beliefs. He prays or he does not. But beyond this, if his protestation were sincere, he would have to admit that there was one chance in two that divine judgment would overtake him. If he knows nothing, and if there must be either a judgment or not a judgment, then so far as he knows the chances are even that there will be a judgment. And if a man really believed in the possibility, not to say the probability, of a judgment of God's wrath on sin, he would not adopt the attitude of indifference characteristic of self-styled agnostics. Their indifference is clear evidence that they believe that they are safe, that no judgment awaits them. Their life and action show what they believe. In this case, actions speak louder than words. Hence, whether one wish it or no, one is forced to adopt this or that theory. And there is no sense in denying in words the regulative principle which controls the life." - Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, Pg. 35, 36
Clark is known for his clarity in what he writes. Here however a man might read into his paragraph what is not there. Clark is not suggesting that works become our assurance or at all does works become our focus. He is simply saying that works follow faith. What a man believes does have some effect on what he does. However, of course not all the time. A Christian still sins even though he believes the truth. A man's worldview will effect his living (this is generally true).
Clark is known for his clarity in what he writes. Here however a man might read into his paragraph what is not there. Clark is not suggesting that works become our assurance or at all does works become our focus. He is simply saying that works follow faith. What a man believes does have some effect on what he does. However, of course not all the time. A Christian still sins even though he believes the truth. A man's worldview will effect his living (this is generally true).
Saturday, September 26, 2015
God can only deal with those who are in Christ
"The works of God are holy, all that He made was very good. He formed man perfect and in His image. He wrote His law in his heart and glorified Himself in grace, sanctifying the elect in Christ and by the Holy Spirit. Therefore He is called the Holy One of Jacob in Isa. 29:23. From His holy hill He hears the prayers of His people. (Ps. 3:4) God, the Holy One, shall be sanctified in righteousness (Isa. 5:16) for the redemption and the comfort of the hope of His poor. He is jealous for His honor (Josh. 24:19) and is therefore great and fearfull. 'Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?' (Ex. 15:11) 'Let them praise Thy great and terrible Name; for it is holy'. (Ps. 99:3)
Because of His holiness God can have communion only with those who are perfect. Not one person is holy in himself, yet those who are in Christ, are complete in Him (Col. 2:10) for He is the Holy One of God, (Mark 1:24; Acts 3:14) and the holy Child Jesus. (Acts 4:27) He sanctified Himself for His people. (John 17:19)" -G. H. Kersten, Reformed Dogmatics, Pg. 86-87
Because of His holiness God can have communion only with those who are perfect. Not one person is holy in himself, yet those who are in Christ, are complete in Him (Col. 2:10) for He is the Holy One of God, (Mark 1:24; Acts 3:14) and the holy Child Jesus. (Acts 4:27) He sanctified Himself for His people. (John 17:19)" -G. H. Kersten, Reformed Dogmatics, Pg. 86-87
Monday, September 21, 2015
The Christian Hope in the midst of Trials and Persecution
Matthew 24 is not about us knowing when but rather knowing that Jesus will return. The great hope is that Christians will be saved and not condemned.
Martin Luther on the importance of education
If it is one thing that is honorable about Martin Luther other than parts, if not all of his theology, its the fact that he stressed education: we need to learn the languages, we need to teach our children, and we need to keep the libraries and books. After all uneducated men and women will allow anything to happen to them even to the point that they let others tell them what truth is or not.
Doctrine has an influence upon practice
"Doctrine has an influence upon practice, especially evangelical doctrine, spiritually understood, affectionately embraced, and powerfully and feelingly experienced; so true is what the Apostle asserts, that the Grace of God, that is, the Doctrine of the Grace of God, that bringeth Salvation, the good news, the glad tidings of salvation by Christ, which is peculiar to Gospel Doctrine, hath appeared to all men, Gentiles as well as Jews, in the external ministry of the word; teaching us, to whom it comes with power and efficacy in the demonstration of the Spirit, that denying ungodliness and worldly lust, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, Tit. ii. 11, 12." - John Gill, Introduction to the Body of Divinity, Pg. xxiii
I like what he says here. Doctrine has an influence upon practice. Of course we know that we may believe the truth and yet sometimes what is believed does not right away translate in what we practice. But the order is first doctrine and then practice. Not that we look to doctrine first and then second to our practice but rather it is the case that as we look to doctrine always that it SHOULD turn out to practice.
I like what he says here. Doctrine has an influence upon practice. Of course we know that we may believe the truth and yet sometimes what is believed does not right away translate in what we practice. But the order is first doctrine and then practice. Not that we look to doctrine first and then second to our practice but rather it is the case that as we look to doctrine always that it SHOULD turn out to practice.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
The Law condemns us to death, but the Gospel makes us alive
"Further, when I denied that the righteousness of the law is evil, and condemned [only] the use which makes it censurable, Latomus showed again how learned he is in Holy Writ. he adduced II Cor. 3[:10]: 'What once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it.' He believes that I have not read Ezek. 19[20:25]: 'I gave them statutes that were not good.' If he were to say this to me in person, I would think, if he were friendly, that he jests, or, if he were malicious, that he mocks. Nevertheless, we shall say a little about this for the sake of others. Many are persuaded that Paul deals in the above text with the ceremonial righteousness which is now repealed; yet he is speaking of the whole law, and comparing law with grace, not law with law. This error comes from the fact that they suppose the gospel is the teaching of laws, In brief then, let us point out that there are two ministries of preaching; one of the letter, the other of the spirit. The letter is the law, the spirit is grace. The first belongs to the Old Covenant, the second to the New. The glory of the law is the knowledge of sin; the glory of the Spirit is that revelation, or knowledge, of grace which is faith. Therefore the law did not justify: indeed, since human frailty found it unbearable, grace is veiled by it on Mount Tabor even to the present time.
Unless protected by grace, no one can withstand the power of the law. This is the reason Moses veiled his face [II Cor. 3:13]. It is because of this that the Jews do not understand the law even to this day. They seek to establish their own righteousness, and do not want that it become sin so that they may be subjected to the righteousness of God. The glory of the law makes all become sin, as Rom. 3[:9; cf. Gal. 3:22] says, 'All men are under the power of sin.' Thus the law is the strength of sin, working wrath and death; but the spirit makes alive. Therefore the verse of Ezekiel [20:25], 'I gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life,' has to do with the whole law, not only with ceremonies. Also, Paul's statement, 'What once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all,' refers to the entire law. The whole law was holy, just, and good, as Paul says in Rom. 7[:12]; but because of our fault, that which is good cannot be good to us, nor does it make us alive, but kills. God himself, the highest good, is not good to the ungodly but their greatest dread and distress, as Hos. 5[:12, 14] says, 'I am like a moth of Ephraim, and like dry rot to the house of Judah. For I will be like a lion to Ephraim, and like a young lion to the house of Judah.'
So the error of our teachers is that they know absolutely nothing of the Scriptures, nor understand either what is law, or what is grace, or what is ceremonial, or what is legal. Being thus confused, they follow one instead of the other." - Martin Luther, Against Latomus, Pg. 117- 118
Unless protected by grace, no one can withstand the power of the law. This is the reason Moses veiled his face [II Cor. 3:13]. It is because of this that the Jews do not understand the law even to this day. They seek to establish their own righteousness, and do not want that it become sin so that they may be subjected to the righteousness of God. The glory of the law makes all become sin, as Rom. 3[:9; cf. Gal. 3:22] says, 'All men are under the power of sin.' Thus the law is the strength of sin, working wrath and death; but the spirit makes alive. Therefore the verse of Ezekiel [20:25], 'I gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life,' has to do with the whole law, not only with ceremonies. Also, Paul's statement, 'What once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all,' refers to the entire law. The whole law was holy, just, and good, as Paul says in Rom. 7[:12]; but because of our fault, that which is good cannot be good to us, nor does it make us alive, but kills. God himself, the highest good, is not good to the ungodly but their greatest dread and distress, as Hos. 5[:12, 14] says, 'I am like a moth of Ephraim, and like dry rot to the house of Judah. For I will be like a lion to Ephraim, and like a young lion to the house of Judah.'
So the error of our teachers is that they know absolutely nothing of the Scriptures, nor understand either what is law, or what is grace, or what is ceremonial, or what is legal. Being thus confused, they follow one instead of the other." - Martin Luther, Against Latomus, Pg. 117- 118
The hearers are to judge what is taught
"Christ says in Matthew 7[:15], 'beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.' Observing that he here assigns the judgment not to the prophets and teachers but to the pupils or to the sheep. For how could one beware of false prophets unless one examined judged, and gave a decision on their teaching? There can be no false prophets among the hearers but only among the teachers. Consequently all teachers and their teaching should and must be subject to the judgment of the hearers." - Martin Luther, Right and Power of a Christian Church, Pg. 327
Martin Luther on Judging doctrine adn teaching of the pastor or teacher
Martin Luther on Judging doctrine and teaching of the pastor or teacher:
"Second, in this matter of judging doctrine and of appointing dismissing teachers or pastors, not the least attention is to be paid to any human decree, law, precedent, usage, or custom, whether it be decreed by pope or emperor, by prince or bishop, whether it has been observed by half the world or by all the world, whether it be in existence for one year or for a thousand years.
. . . .
The word and teaching of man have decreed and prescribed that the judging of doctrine be left altogether to bishops, theologians, and councils; all the world is bound to regard as law and as articles of faith whatever these have decided. This is abundantly proved by their daily harping on the pope's canon law. One hears scarcely anything else from them but the boast that they have the power and the right to judge what is Christian and what is heretical; the plain Christian must await their decision and abide by it.
. . . .
Christ decrees the very opposite. He takes from the bishops, theologians, and councils both the right and power to judge doctrine and confers this right and power on all men, in particular on all Christians. . . ." - Martin Luther, Right and Power of a Christian Church, Pg. 326
(John 10:3, 5, 8; 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4; Matthew 7:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Matthew 20:26; 24:4-5)
"Second, in this matter of judging doctrine and of appointing dismissing teachers or pastors, not the least attention is to be paid to any human decree, law, precedent, usage, or custom, whether it be decreed by pope or emperor, by prince or bishop, whether it has been observed by half the world or by all the world, whether it be in existence for one year or for a thousand years.
. . . .
The word and teaching of man have decreed and prescribed that the judging of doctrine be left altogether to bishops, theologians, and councils; all the world is bound to regard as law and as articles of faith whatever these have decided. This is abundantly proved by their daily harping on the pope's canon law. One hears scarcely anything else from them but the boast that they have the power and the right to judge what is Christian and what is heretical; the plain Christian must await their decision and abide by it.
. . . .
Christ decrees the very opposite. He takes from the bishops, theologians, and councils both the right and power to judge doctrine and confers this right and power on all men, in particular on all Christians. . . ." - Martin Luther, Right and Power of a Christian Church, Pg. 326
(John 10:3, 5, 8; 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4; Matthew 7:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Matthew 20:26; 24:4-5)
Martin Luther on what a true Christian community is
Martin Luther on what a true Christian community is:
It is necessary, first of all, to know where and what a Christian community is so that men may not engage in purely human affairs under cover of the name of a Christian church, as has always been the custom of non-Christians. The certain mark by which a Christian community can be recognized is the preaching of the gospel in its purity. Just as one can tell by the military banner, as by a sure sign, what leader and what army have taken the field, so one may surely know by the gospel where Christ and his people are stationed. Of this we have God's sure promise in Isaiah 55 [:10, 11], 'My word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but as the rain comes down from heaven and waters the earth, so shall my word accomplish that which I purpose.' Hence we are certain that where the gospel is preached there must be Christians, no matter how few in number or how sinful and weak they may be. We are just as certain that where the gospel is not preached and where the doctrines of men hold sway there can be no Christians but only heathen, no matter how great their numbers or how pious and good their lives.
From this it follows unquestionably that the bishops, foundations, monastic houses, and all the rest of that crew have long since ceased to be either Christians or a Christian community, though they have flaunted this name as their exclusive possession. Anybody who knows what the gospel is can see, hear, and understand that to this very day they rely on their human teachings and have altogether rejected, and are still rejecting, the gospel. Whatever such people do and say must therefore be regarded as heathen and of this world." - Martin Luther, Right and Power of a Christian Church, Pg. 325-326
It is necessary, first of all, to know where and what a Christian community is so that men may not engage in purely human affairs under cover of the name of a Christian church, as has always been the custom of non-Christians. The certain mark by which a Christian community can be recognized is the preaching of the gospel in its purity. Just as one can tell by the military banner, as by a sure sign, what leader and what army have taken the field, so one may surely know by the gospel where Christ and his people are stationed. Of this we have God's sure promise in Isaiah 55 [:10, 11], 'My word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but as the rain comes down from heaven and waters the earth, so shall my word accomplish that which I purpose.' Hence we are certain that where the gospel is preached there must be Christians, no matter how few in number or how sinful and weak they may be. We are just as certain that where the gospel is not preached and where the doctrines of men hold sway there can be no Christians but only heathen, no matter how great their numbers or how pious and good their lives.
From this it follows unquestionably that the bishops, foundations, monastic houses, and all the rest of that crew have long since ceased to be either Christians or a Christian community, though they have flaunted this name as their exclusive possession. Anybody who knows what the gospel is can see, hear, and understand that to this very day they rely on their human teachings and have altogether rejected, and are still rejecting, the gospel. Whatever such people do and say must therefore be regarded as heathen and of this world." - Martin Luther, Right and Power of a Christian Church, Pg. 325-326
What is the purpose of the commands of God?
"A good tree needs no instruction or law to bear good fruit; its nature causes it to bear according to its kind without any law or instruction. I would take to be quite a fool any man who would make a book full of laws and statutes for an apple tree telling it how to bear apples and not thorns, when the tree is able to by its own nature to do this better than the man with all his books can describe and demand. Just so, by the Spirit and by faith all Christians are so thoroughly disposed and conditioned in their very nature that they do right and keep the law better than one can teach them with all manner of statutes; so that they themselves are concerned, no statutes or laws are needed.
You ask: Why, then, did God give so many commandments to all mankind, and why does Christ prescribe in the gospel so many things for us to do? Of this I have written at length in the postils and elsewhere. To put it here as briefly as possible, Paul says that the law has been laid down for the sake of the lawless [1 Tim. 1:9], that is, so that those who are not Christians may through the law be restrained outwardly from evil deeds, as we shall hear later. Now since no one is by nature Christian or righteous, but altogether sinful and wicked, God through the law puts them all under restraint so they dare not willfully implement their wickedness in actual deeds. In addition, Paul ascribes to the law another function in Romans 7 and Galatians 2, that of teaching men to recognize sin in order that it may make them humble unto grace and unto faith in Christ. Christ does the same thing here in Matthew 5[:39], where he teaches that we should not resist evil; by this he is interpreting the law and teaching what ought to be and must be the state of temper of a true Christian, as we shall hear further late on." - Martin Luther, Temporal Authority, Pg. 279-280
You ask: Why, then, did God give so many commandments to all mankind, and why does Christ prescribe in the gospel so many things for us to do? Of this I have written at length in the postils and elsewhere. To put it here as briefly as possible, Paul says that the law has been laid down for the sake of the lawless [1 Tim. 1:9], that is, so that those who are not Christians may through the law be restrained outwardly from evil deeds, as we shall hear later. Now since no one is by nature Christian or righteous, but altogether sinful and wicked, God through the law puts them all under restraint so they dare not willfully implement their wickedness in actual deeds. In addition, Paul ascribes to the law another function in Romans 7 and Galatians 2, that of teaching men to recognize sin in order that it may make them humble unto grace and unto faith in Christ. Christ does the same thing here in Matthew 5[:39], where he teaches that we should not resist evil; by this he is interpreting the law and teaching what ought to be and must be the state of temper of a true Christian, as we shall hear further late on." - Martin Luther, Temporal Authority, Pg. 279-280
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Christ is both God and Man
"The relationship that obtains between the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, and Jesus is unique, unlike that between the Logos and every other man who comes into the world (see John 1:9). The Logos did not merely light the mind of Christ; the Logos Himself is fully in Christ. Christ could therefore say, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.' No mere prophet could make such an astounding claim. Prophets, inspired by God, possess some of the divine propositions, Christ, however, possesses them all, as the author of Hebrews argues in his first chapter. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
If, as seems to be the case, we now have a solution to the puzzles of the Incarnation, a solution that avoids the contradictions and meaningless words of the traditional formulations, a solution that is supported by Scripture itself, we are obliged to accept it. Jesus Christ was and is both God and man, a divine person and a human person. To deny either is to fall into error. Once the key terms are defined and clearly understood, the Incarnation is an even more stupendous and awe-inspiring miracle than the Church has hitherto surmised." - J.W.R., Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 77-78
If, as seems to be the case, we now have a solution to the puzzles of the Incarnation, a solution that avoids the contradictions and meaningless words of the traditional formulations, a solution that is supported by Scripture itself, we are obliged to accept it. Jesus Christ was and is both God and man, a divine person and a human person. To deny either is to fall into error. Once the key terms are defined and clearly understood, the Incarnation is an even more stupendous and awe-inspiring miracle than the Church has hitherto surmised." - J.W.R., Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 77-78
What suffered on the cross? Nature or Person?
"The creeds and the volumes on theology, mindful of the heresies prior to A.D. 451, deny that Christ was a human person. They use the phrase 'two distinct natures and one Person forever.' With great uniformity they refuse to define nature. Now this leads to extreme difficulties.
If Jesus was not a human person, who or what suffered on the cross? The Second Person could not have suffered, for Deity is impassible. One of the heresies of the early ages, as mentioned before, was Patripassianism. Substituting a modal trinity for the three distinct Persons, the theory requires the Father to have been crucified. But to require the Second Person, as such, to suffer is equally impossible. The Westminster Confession describes him as 'a most pure Spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions' (II, 1). If then the Second Person could not suffer, could a 'nature' suffer? Perhaps some few readers have heard of Isaac Watts' not so popular hymn with its inference concerning children.
Dogs delight to bark and bite
For 'tis their nature to.
If, then, theologically undefined nature is certain qualities or characteristics, such as susceptibility to fatigue, aptitude for learning, joy, sorrow, or, to extend the list beyond the life of Christ, jealousy, irascibility, sullenness - if nature is such qualities can any one of them suffer pain? Can even a human, physical body suffer? If that were the case a corpse could suffer. On the contrary, only a spirit, a soul (including the souls of animals), or a person can suffer. Apparently demons can suffer (Luke 8:31; Matthew 8:29, in which one should note the word torment), yet they have no bodies." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 67-68
If Jesus was not a human person, who or what suffered on the cross? The Second Person could not have suffered, for Deity is impassible. One of the heresies of the early ages, as mentioned before, was Patripassianism. Substituting a modal trinity for the three distinct Persons, the theory requires the Father to have been crucified. But to require the Second Person, as such, to suffer is equally impossible. The Westminster Confession describes him as 'a most pure Spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions' (II, 1). If then the Second Person could not suffer, could a 'nature' suffer? Perhaps some few readers have heard of Isaac Watts' not so popular hymn with its inference concerning children.
Dogs delight to bark and bite
For 'tis their nature to.
If, then, theologically undefined nature is certain qualities or characteristics, such as susceptibility to fatigue, aptitude for learning, joy, sorrow, or, to extend the list beyond the life of Christ, jealousy, irascibility, sullenness - if nature is such qualities can any one of them suffer pain? Can even a human, physical body suffer? If that were the case a corpse could suffer. On the contrary, only a spirit, a soul (including the souls of animals), or a person can suffer. Apparently demons can suffer (Luke 8:31; Matthew 8:29, in which one should note the word torment), yet they have no bodies." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 67-68
A person is what he thinks
"Aside from whatever objections will be immediately raised against this uncommon conclusions, theologians will complain that this reduces the Trinity to one Person because, being omniscient, they all have, or are, the same complex. This objection is based on a blindness toward certain definite Scriptural information. I am not at the moment referring only to the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit. I am referring to the complex of truths that form the Three Persons. Though they are equally omniscient, they do not all know the same truths. Neither the complex of truths we call the Father nor those we call the Spirit has the proposition, 'I was incarnated.' This proposition occurs only in the Son's complex. Other examples are implied. The Father cannot say, 'I walked from Jerusalem to Jericho.' Nor can the Spirit say, 'I begot the Son.' Hence the Godhead consists of three Persons, each omniscient without having precisely the same content. If this be so, no difficulty can arise as to the distinctiveness of human persons. Each one is an individual complex. Each one is his mind or soul. Whether the propositions be true or false, a person is the propositions he thinks. I hope that some think substance to be a subterfuge." -Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 54-55
H.C. Powell's argument makes humanity divinity
"The pervasive and most annoying difficulty that plagues this whole subject is the deficiency in definition. The crucial nouns (not concepts) are ambiguous, or actually meaningless. On page 149 Powell declares, 'The chief point which was established in regard to both the Holy Trinity and to the . . . Incarnation, was that a real difference was to be recognized between essence, or nature, and personality. If there was no such real difference, then the Sabellian conception of God must be true.' The reader should recall that Sabellianism is the theory of a Unitarian modal trinity. Now, if essence means definition, which is its only suitable meaning, and if personality is a part of that definition, it is hard to see how defining the Father to include personality prevents one from including personality in the somewhat different definition of the Son. Powell's argument implies that all human individuals are one individual because every one of them is a person.
Powell goes even further. Continuing on page 149 he argues, or rather, asserts, 'if there was no distinction between person and nature [nature, he had previously identified with essence], it would seem to follow that there could be no separation in our Incarnate Lord between his Divinity and his humanity, in which case he could not have been really man, as we are.'
In the first place, however, according to the orthodox doctrine, Christ was not really man as we are, for we are persons and Christ was only a 'nature.' In the second place, Powell wants to define person in one way and nature in another way, even though he had earlier identified nature with essence, or definition. The nature is the definition of the person. How this prevents us from separating divinity from humanity, as he says it does, is not at all clear. Condense his argument: Unless person and nature are distinct, the definition of divinity is precisely the definition of humanity." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 30-31
Powell goes even further. Continuing on page 149 he argues, or rather, asserts, 'if there was no distinction between person and nature [nature, he had previously identified with essence], it would seem to follow that there could be no separation in our Incarnate Lord between his Divinity and his humanity, in which case he could not have been really man, as we are.'
In the first place, however, according to the orthodox doctrine, Christ was not really man as we are, for we are persons and Christ was only a 'nature.' In the second place, Powell wants to define person in one way and nature in another way, even though he had earlier identified nature with essence, or definition. The nature is the definition of the person. How this prevents us from separating divinity from humanity, as he says it does, is not at all clear. Condense his argument: Unless person and nature are distinct, the definition of divinity is precisely the definition of humanity." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 30-31
What is the definition of a person?
"It is now time to identify the fatal flaw in the Chalcedonian Symbol, or, more broadly, to face the very real difficulties in formulating a theory of the Incarnation that is both Biblical and intelligible. The great defect in the Creed is the absence of definitions. Its bishop-authors did not explain, and probably did not themselves know the meanings of 'rational soul,' 'consubstantial,' 'nature,' 'subsistence,' and above all 'person.' This was said a few pages ago, but it needs constant emphasis.
. . .
Now, the trouble with the Creed is not that it contains an ambiguous word. The trouble is that there are so many of them. If psuches logikes causes minimum difficulty, how shall we translate omoousion, phuseon, the Latin theatrical mask persona, and especially prosopon? Nor is translation the main difficulty. If upostasis or persona means person, we still must form a definition of person. Can one person have two wills and two intellects? Christ is commonly said to have had two wills, though his human will does not make him a person. What in addition to will and intellect is necessary to make a human body a human person? The human 'nature' of Christ is supposed to have lacked an essential characteristic of a person. What was it that he did not have? How can he be true man without being a human person? Merriam Webster defines person as a character in a stage play, a specific kind of individual character, a being characterized by rational apprehension, rationality, and a moral sense, an individual human being. Was Jesus any of these, or none? Is it not plausible that the Church Fathers did not understand what they were saying? Is it not desirable therefore to give some serious attention to the Incarnation? And while not all persons are men, all men are persons." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 15-17
. . .
Now, the trouble with the Creed is not that it contains an ambiguous word. The trouble is that there are so many of them. If psuches logikes causes minimum difficulty, how shall we translate omoousion, phuseon, the Latin theatrical mask persona, and especially prosopon? Nor is translation the main difficulty. If upostasis or persona means person, we still must form a definition of person. Can one person have two wills and two intellects? Christ is commonly said to have had two wills, though his human will does not make him a person. What in addition to will and intellect is necessary to make a human body a human person? The human 'nature' of Christ is supposed to have lacked an essential characteristic of a person. What was it that he did not have? How can he be true man without being a human person? Merriam Webster defines person as a character in a stage play, a specific kind of individual character, a being characterized by rational apprehension, rationality, and a moral sense, an individual human being. Was Jesus any of these, or none? Is it not plausible that the Church Fathers did not understand what they were saying? Is it not desirable therefore to give some serious attention to the Incarnation? And while not all persons are men, all men are persons." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 15-17
The Second person of the Trinity was not formed in Mary; but Christ was born of a woman
"The next heresy was that of Nestorius, who died sometime after A.D. 440. Even if the reports apply more to his disciples than to him, we know more about him than about other heretics because Cassian (360-432?) wrote sixty-nine pages of double columns (in the Post-Nicene Fathers) under the title The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius. But though thus indebted to him, we cannot fully trust him, for, like the other Fathers, he uses too much invective. At the beginning of his treatise he describes Nestorius as a hydra, who hisses against us with deadly tongues. Book VI, Chapter vi starts with 'O you heretic . . . you wretched madman' and continues in VI, ix with 'What are you vomiting forth?' To which add, 'you wretched, insane, obstinate creature' (VI, xviii).
There is another and less dishonorable reason for reading Cassian and the other Fathers, with some suspicion. Unfortunately it applies to all authors. Even when modern scholars document their studies, it is always possible that they misunderstand some of their quotations. But this danger is greater when the subject matter is new, unfamiliar, and chaotic. The present writer will now select what he thinks are the most important of Cassian's references to Nestorius' theology. But the going is not smooth: Irrelevancies and fallacies beset us.
Nestorius, then, taught that Christ was born as a mere man (I, iii). A footnote at II, vi (p. 561, Nicene Fathers) reads, Nestorius maintained that 'that which was formed in the womb of Mary was not God himself.'' But this is no heresy. The Second Person of the Trinity was not formed in Mary. The Logos was never formed at all. He is eternal. Hence the argument against Nestorius, at this point, is a failure. Even the phrase from I,iii is unobjectionable, though perhaps too easily misunderstood. Christ was indeed born as mere men are, if this means from a woman's womb. But his conception was not that of an ordinary human baby. The trouble is that the language is loose, and Cassian too easily settles upon one interpretation. one should not be too surprised at this. When a group of men begin to discuss an utterly new subject, the terminology is bound to be imperfect." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 10-11
There is another and less dishonorable reason for reading Cassian and the other Fathers, with some suspicion. Unfortunately it applies to all authors. Even when modern scholars document their studies, it is always possible that they misunderstand some of their quotations. But this danger is greater when the subject matter is new, unfamiliar, and chaotic. The present writer will now select what he thinks are the most important of Cassian's references to Nestorius' theology. But the going is not smooth: Irrelevancies and fallacies beset us.
Nestorius, then, taught that Christ was born as a mere man (I, iii). A footnote at II, vi (p. 561, Nicene Fathers) reads, Nestorius maintained that 'that which was formed in the womb of Mary was not God himself.'' But this is no heresy. The Second Person of the Trinity was not formed in Mary. The Logos was never formed at all. He is eternal. Hence the argument against Nestorius, at this point, is a failure. Even the phrase from I,iii is unobjectionable, though perhaps too easily misunderstood. Christ was indeed born as mere men are, if this means from a woman's womb. But his conception was not that of an ordinary human baby. The trouble is that the language is loose, and Cassian too easily settles upon one interpretation. one should not be too surprised at this. When a group of men begin to discuss an utterly new subject, the terminology is bound to be imperfect." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 10-11
The Bible informs our systematic theology and only then our practice
"Having completed an Exposition of the whole Bible, the Books both of the Old and of the New Testament; I considered with myself what would be best next to engage in for the further instruction of the people under my care; and my thoughts led me to enter upon a Scheme of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, first the former and then the latter; the one being the foundation of the other, and both having a close connection with each other." - John Gill, Body of Divinity, or Systematic Theology, Pg. 23
What worldview is best and true?
"But now we have fallen into an 'ocean of arguments' no less deep and wide than Plato's Parmenides. Suppose the child, the human being, is an evolutionary product, simply a more complicated animal, without a soul, especially without an immortal soul. The late Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said, 'I can see no reason for attributing to man a significant difference in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or to a grain of sand. . . . I wonder if cosmically an idea is any more important than the bowels.' Bertrand Russell's famous passage, quoted in chapter three, builds life and therefore education 'only on the firm foundation and unyielding despair.' The end of man is a doom, pitiless and dark. All the labor of the ages is destined to extinction and must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins. Suppose on the other hand that God created man in His own image and breathed into him the breath of life, with the result that those redeemed by Christ shall glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Teachers teach pupils. But whereas a teacher with the first view of what a pupil is teaches despair along with arithmetic or social consciousness; the teacher with the second view teaches hope.
In these two views, naturalism and theism, are interwined all the strands of philosophy. Even the question whether the government should control education for its own ends and ban God from the schools, or whether the church, home, or private corporations should do the educating, depends on what man is. Once admit that the teacher teaches pupils, it is impossible to rule out any part of philosophy as irrelevant.
Among the considerations that have come under review, some mention has been made of the effect of government on education. Mention should also be made of the effect, or alleged effect, of education on government. Americans often speak of public education as if it were the main support of democracy. Without an educated populace all sorts of evils would proliferate, and the professional educators claim that unless legislatures appropriate almost unlimited amounts of tax money for the schools, the nation will shortly collapse. The fact of the matter is that with hundreds of billions already appropriated for public education, all sorts of evils have proliferated and the nation is already collapsing. A Justice of the United States Supreme Court was forced to resign in the 1960's because of suspicious financial arrangements. The 1970's and 1980's have seen a series of national scandals in all three branches of the government. No wonder America raises its crime rate faster than it inflates its money." -Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, Pg. 8-9
Teachers teach pupils. But whereas a teacher with the first view of what a pupil is teaches despair along with arithmetic or social consciousness; the teacher with the second view teaches hope.
In these two views, naturalism and theism, are interwined all the strands of philosophy. Even the question whether the government should control education for its own ends and ban God from the schools, or whether the church, home, or private corporations should do the educating, depends on what man is. Once admit that the teacher teaches pupils, it is impossible to rule out any part of philosophy as irrelevant.
Among the considerations that have come under review, some mention has been made of the effect of government on education. Mention should also be made of the effect, or alleged effect, of education on government. Americans often speak of public education as if it were the main support of democracy. Without an educated populace all sorts of evils would proliferate, and the professional educators claim that unless legislatures appropriate almost unlimited amounts of tax money for the schools, the nation will shortly collapse. The fact of the matter is that with hundreds of billions already appropriated for public education, all sorts of evils have proliferated and the nation is already collapsing. A Justice of the United States Supreme Court was forced to resign in the 1960's because of suspicious financial arrangements. The 1970's and 1980's have seen a series of national scandals in all three branches of the government. No wonder America raises its crime rate faster than it inflates its money." -Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, Pg. 8-9
Monday, September 7, 2015
God's thoughts are not our thoughts but that does not mean we cannot think God's thoughts after Him
"As for Deuteronomy 29:29, Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, and John 1:18, 6:46 (see v. 45), these verses actually teach that human beings can know God and his thoughts truly to the degree that he reveals himself in his spoken word. Finally, Isaiah 55:8-9 far from depicting 'the gulf which separates the divine knowledge from human knowledge,' actually holds out the real possibility that people may know God's thoughts and urges them to turn away from their own thoughts and to learn ...God's thoughts from him. In 55:7 God calls upon the wicked man to forsake his way and thoughts. Where is he to turn? To the Lord, of course (55:6-7). Why should he forsake his way and thoughts? 'Because,' says the Lord, 'my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways' (55:8). The entire context, far from affirming that God's ways and thoughts are beyond the capacity of humans to know, on the contrary, expressly calls upon the wicked man to turn away from his ways and thoughts and to seek God's ways and thoughts. In doing so, the wicked man gains ways and thoughts which, just as the heavens transcend the earth, transcend his own. Far from teaching that an unbridgeable gulf exists between God's thoughts and our thoughts, these verses actually call upon the wicked man, in repentance and humility, to seek and to think God's thoughts after him." - Robert Reymond, A New Systematic of the Christian Faith, Pg. 101 2nd ed.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Wesley's false gospel is based on the strides made in sanctification
"John Wesley believed in justification by faith. His 'long suit,' however, was sanctification. He had been deeply influenced by Moravian Pietism and certain of the great Roman Catholic mystics. But Wesley's emphasis on sanctification was the weakness of the Methodist movement. Along with justification by the blood of Christ, Wesley emphasized the renewing power of the Holy Spirit in conforming lives to true obedience to the law of God. Apart from sanctified obedience to the law of God, Wesley declared that no soul would retain the blessing of justification.
Wesley developed a doctrine of entire sanctification, known also as the 'second blessing' or 'Methodist perfection.' He proposed that after justification and a process of sanctification, the believer could receive by faith a sudden second blessing which would completely purge the soul from inbfred sin, enabling the fully sanctified to feel nothing but perfect love. He called his experience 'a still higher salvation,' 'immensely greater than that wrought when he was justified' (Plain Account, p. 7). Wesley and his preachers urged their hearers to seek this second blessing of perfection with all diligence. They did, and gave proof of it in lives of earnest (and sometimes frantic) piety.
With Paul and Luther, justification by faith was the whole truth of the Gospel. But in Wesleyanism, the centrality and all-sufficiency of justification tended to be lost by being subordinated to sanctification." - John Robbins, Found in the Appendix in The Holy Spirit, Pg. 104
Wesley developed a doctrine of entire sanctification, known also as the 'second blessing' or 'Methodist perfection.' He proposed that after justification and a process of sanctification, the believer could receive by faith a sudden second blessing which would completely purge the soul from inbfred sin, enabling the fully sanctified to feel nothing but perfect love. He called his experience 'a still higher salvation,' 'immensely greater than that wrought when he was justified' (Plain Account, p. 7). Wesley and his preachers urged their hearers to seek this second blessing of perfection with all diligence. They did, and gave proof of it in lives of earnest (and sometimes frantic) piety.
With Paul and Luther, justification by faith was the whole truth of the Gospel. But in Wesleyanism, the centrality and all-sufficiency of justification tended to be lost by being subordinated to sanctification." - John Robbins, Found in the Appendix in The Holy Spirit, Pg. 104
Going beyond Justification by Faith?
"Even before the Reformers had passed off the stage, different sects began to grow up within the Protestant movement and to break from the founding churches. The sects said that Luther made a good start in reviving the doctrines of justification by faith, but they had the feeling and Luther stood only half way and that they must go on, higher and deeper.
But Luther discerned that they erred on the greater charter of Protestantism - justication by faith - and, as far as he was concerned, if this was wrong everything was wrong. 'Whoever departs from the article of justification does not know God and is an idolator,' wrote Luther. 'For when this article has been take away, nothing remains but error, hypocrisy, godlessness, and idolatry, although it may seem to be the height of truth, worship of God, holiness, etc.' (What Luther says [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959], Vol. II, pp. 702-704).
These sectarian teachers did not deny justification as an initiating step in the Christian life. Their error was the old one of relegating justification to something whereby the believer can make a start and then go on to higher things. With them, justification by faith was no longer the center. Their focus was away from Christ's work to their own, from the objective to the subjective." -John Robbins, Appendix found in The Holy Spirit, Pg. 102
But Luther discerned that they erred on the greater charter of Protestantism - justication by faith - and, as far as he was concerned, if this was wrong everything was wrong. 'Whoever departs from the article of justification does not know God and is an idolator,' wrote Luther. 'For when this article has been take away, nothing remains but error, hypocrisy, godlessness, and idolatry, although it may seem to be the height of truth, worship of God, holiness, etc.' (What Luther says [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959], Vol. II, pp. 702-704).
These sectarian teachers did not deny justification as an initiating step in the Christian life. Their error was the old one of relegating justification to something whereby the believer can make a start and then go on to higher things. With them, justification by faith was no longer the center. Their focus was away from Christ's work to their own, from the objective to the subjective." -John Robbins, Appendix found in The Holy Spirit, Pg. 102
Pentecostals say that the Spirit resides in those who are sinless
"The Pentecostals say that 'You can receive the Holy Spirit, but not with sin in your heart.' Also, 'The Holy Spirit and sin cannot abide in the same heart.' This presupposes sinlessness. 'Pentecostalism . . . makes the mastery of . . . sin to be the condition for the grace of the Holy Spirit. Grace itself, or the forgiveness of sin, appears in Pentecostalism to play a role only in the Christian's conversion, rarely appears in other discussions, and thus ceases for all practical purposes to be the center and determinate of the whole Christian life. The reversal of the apostolic sequence of grace-then-obedience lies at the bottom of the Pentecostal error' (p. 233).
The smaller print on the same page is devastating. Bruner quotes, 'Many believers count on the 'Christ for us,' but not on the 'Christ in us' [Colossians 1:27]; and yet it is this 'Christ in us' who is the hope of glory. That means: the heavenly resurrection life can only be imparted to us when we let Christ live in us. The forgiveness of sins, as important and necessary as it is, does not suffice for this.' Then Bruner notes that 'in Col. 1:27 the not primarily individual or internal, but communal congregational. . . . Furthermore 'Christ in us' is not a higher better form of 'Christ for us.' 'Is Christ divided?''
When the Pentecostals say, 'As sinners we accept Christ, as saints we accept the Holy Spirit,' Bruner answers, 'Not only is the separation of the Spirit from Christ serious (is Christ without the Spirit?) but it is suggested that while sinners can accept Christ, the Holy Spirit must be obtained by men more highly qualified. The Pentecostal conditions define the meaning of 'saints'" (P. 235). - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 94
The smaller print on the same page is devastating. Bruner quotes, 'Many believers count on the 'Christ for us,' but not on the 'Christ in us' [Colossians 1:27]; and yet it is this 'Christ in us' who is the hope of glory. That means: the heavenly resurrection life can only be imparted to us when we let Christ live in us. The forgiveness of sins, as important and necessary as it is, does not suffice for this.' Then Bruner notes that 'in Col. 1:27 the not primarily individual or internal, but communal congregational. . . . Furthermore 'Christ in us' is not a higher better form of 'Christ for us.' 'Is Christ divided?''
When the Pentecostals say, 'As sinners we accept Christ, as saints we accept the Holy Spirit,' Bruner answers, 'Not only is the separation of the Spirit from Christ serious (is Christ without the Spirit?) but it is suggested that while sinners can accept Christ, the Holy Spirit must be obtained by men more highly qualified. The Pentecostal conditions define the meaning of 'saints'" (P. 235). - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 94
Irrationalism crept into the pentecostals camp which in turn crept back into Rome
"By the end of [... World War 1] fundamentalism had moved from its scholarly form as defended by eminent theologians in the famous The Fundamentals and had become a very non-scholarly movement making progress among the less affluent population. My father was certainly among the less affluent population, as were his people; but there was only one member who took up with the new movement. That the Pentecostals accepted the five points of the original fundamentals, namely, the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, Jesus' miracles, his vicarious atonement and resurrection, admits of no doubt.
But let us remember that the Galatian Judaizers, whom Paul so vigoriously condemned, believed these five points too. What they did not believe was justification by faith alone. Did the early Pentecostals believe it? Do they believe and teach it now? Or is their developed view of tongues inconsistent with the evangelicals' historic position? However it may have been in the 1920's, more recently, beginning at the University of Notre Dame, the Pentecostals have penetrated Romanism and have welcomed numerous Catholics, if not into their assembly halls, certainly into their spiritual fellowship." - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 84
But let us remember that the Galatian Judaizers, whom Paul so vigoriously condemned, believed these five points too. What they did not believe was justification by faith alone. Did the early Pentecostals believe it? Do they believe and teach it now? Or is their developed view of tongues inconsistent with the evangelicals' historic position? However it may have been in the 1920's, more recently, beginning at the University of Notre Dame, the Pentecostals have penetrated Romanism and have welcomed numerous Catholics, if not into their assembly halls, certainly into their spiritual fellowship." - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 84
Saturday, September 5, 2015
What the Apostle's taught is what Jesus commanded them to teach
The Bible no where says we are saved by our obedience to some commands. Matthew 28:19-20 says that the apostles were to make disciples by teaching them all that Christ had commanded them (the apostles) to teach.
Arrested for the Gospel's sake
The Apostles were arrested because they preached Christ alone not because they were preaching some regulative moral code.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)