On the Bible alone gives us Knowledge

"This book [Without a Prayer] is a defense of Christianity against one secular philosophy. The author hopes the reader will not stop with these pages, but will proceed to check his premises and the premises of other thinkers. To aid the inquiring reader, this writer has edited and published dozens of books on philosophy and Christianity - books discussing science, historiography, language, logic, psychology, ethics, epistemology, education, and ancient, medieval, contemporary philosophies. The conclusion of those discussions is that the axiom of revelation - the proposition 'The Bible alone is the Word of God' - contains the only solution to man's epistemological problem, for it provides truth - metaphysical, epistemological, theological, ethical, and political truth - that cannot be deduced from any non-Christian axiom. Propositional revelation avoids the insuperable difficulties encountered in any form of empiricism, Revelation is not a shortcut to knowledge, as though there were other, longer routes; the history of philosophy shows that propositional revelation is the only way to knowledge. All other routes are dead ends." -John W. Robbins, Without a Prayer, Pg. 219

Common Grace denied

"The omnipresence of God may be argued from the distributions of his goodness to all; to angels and glorified saints, who partake of his special favours; to all men on earth, to whom he does not leave himself without a witness of his kindness to them, giving them food and raiment, and all things richly to enjoy; he is present among them, and opens his hand and plentifully and liberally communicates to them: as well as from his universal government of the world by his wisdom; for his kingdom rules over all, the kingdom of nature and providence is his, and 'he is the Governor among the nations.'" -John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 42

"Nor is God ever in such sense with wicked men, as with good men; namely, by his gracious presence: but this hinders not, but that he is with them by his omnipresence and power, supporting them in their being." -John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 45

Molinism has problems

If God did not know and decree all things and his knowledge and decree was not simple, but rather his decree is based on God's foreseen knowledge of contingent beings; so that what God knows about the creature is not certainly based on His decrees but rather on the free choices of the creatures; and if even his knowledge of the creatures action was not certain; but rather God's knowledge only meant he knew what creatures could do given a set of choices, then on what basis can we say God knows anything at all?

James teaches Justification by Assent alone

James 1:21-2:26 This passage of scripture has been misunderstood. The point is really quite simple. The hearer/doer dichotomy really works if you understand that knowledge/assent dichotomy. The point is simple, James is not saying that a man is not justified by Faith alone or Assent alone; however, what he is saying is quite simple if one understands the different usage of the word faith. In the Bible the word faith can mean the doctrines that are believed in or can also mean the act of believing.


But, someone might say in James 2:18 it says show me your faith without works and why will show you my faith by my works. What does this mean? For the Christian it is important to know that a man is justified by Faith alone. Faith is the minds act of assenting to the propositions understood and in this instance the gospel doctrines understood. Paul often speaks of the justification before God while James speaks of the justification before others. The question is how might someone know that I am a Christian? How might I show someone that I am a Christian? First, let me ask this how did you know what the Gospel was? Again going back to James 1 we are born again by the word of God. Simply speak one must be shown the truth before he can believe it, likewise, one must show someone what he believes before anyone might know he or she is a believer or what a Christian is.




Going further into this passage James continues and presents to us two examples of those who were Justified by faith and works. This passage is not about the justification before God (that is by faith alone) but this passage is about the justification before others. So Abraham and Rahab were shown to be vindicated by what they believed through their works. The question is what works are these? I am going to say that the works that James speaks of is the work of Faith not some sort of 'good deed' in which someone walks an old lady down the isle. How do you know this? What tips you off that this is so? Read Matthew 7:21-29. Notice anything similar? Remember the hearing and doing dichotomy from James? Well Jesus also has same dichotomy the only difference is that Jesus says anyone who hears His words and does them is a wise man. Just a few verses prior to this Jesus says to people who Had works that they were workers of iniquity and Jesus says those who do the will of God will be the one's who will enter heaven.

Now this leads to sever other words. What is the will of God and how might we do the Scriptures? In John 6:40 we see that Jesus says, "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." So we see here that the will of God is that we believe in Christ the one whom God has sent. This is very important to know this. But how do you know if you are not studying and reading God's word? Now to continue on to the next question how might we do the Scriptures? We do the Scriptures when we hear God's word and we believe what God has said concerning His son Jesus Christ. Christ is the redeemer who has alone atoned for the sins of His elect alone. It is these people whom Christ came to redeem and save by His righteousness alone. The elect hear his voice and they follow. John 6:28-29 tells us that this is the work of God that we believe in Him. There we have it folks. This is the connecting board showing us that what James is distinguishing by faith and works is really a set of doctrines which we have vs. the act of believing.

Scripture interprets Scripture

If you are a Congregationalist please note you are not alone:

"The Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture, or the Spirit of God therein; nor are the church or its pastors, nor councils and popes, the infallible interpreters thereof; there is a private interpretation of Scripture, which every Christian may make, according to his ability and light; and there is a public one, by the preacher of the word; but both are subject to, and to be determined by the Scripture itself, which is the only certain and infallible rule of faith and practice." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 22-23

Stay congregational my friends.

Shedd's view presents changes in the Trinity?

"Shedd's material begins on page 278 of volume two. There he says, 'The God-man was a new person.' since Shedd will deny that the man Jesus was a person, this assertion implies certain changes and alterations in the Second Person of the Trinity. Indeed he is a very specific, for on page 281 he adds, 'The Trinity itself is not altered or modified by the Incarnation. Only the Second Person is modified.' Coming from an intelligent and well-educated Christian, this is amazing. The Second Person of the Trinity is as immutable as the other two. Furthermore, if the Second Person suffered alteration, it would modify the Trinity as whole. The Trinity, if I may use the language, is a complex of three Persons. Clearly if one changes, the complex changes. It will have different constituents. Certainly this violates the basic Christian doctrine and destroys all confidence in what may be said of the Incarnation." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 47


John Gill kind of reiterates this fact of the incarnation:


"Nor is the unchangeableness of the divine nature to be disproved by the incarnation of Christ; for though he, a divine Person, possessed of the divine nature, was made flesh, or became man; the divine nature in him was not changed into the human nature, nor the human nature into the divine, nor a third nature made out of them both; was this the case, the divine nature would have been changeable; but so it was not; for as it has been commonly said, 'Christ remained what he was, and assumed what he was not;' and what he assumed added nothing to his divine person; he was only manifested in the flesh; he neither received any perfection, nor imperfection, from the human nature; though that received dignity and honour by its union to him, and was adorned with the gifts and graces of the Spirit without measure, and is now advanced at the right hand of God." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 37

The incarnation did not change the Son of God. Nothing was added to Him when he assumed the nature of man.

God, Eternity, Christ, Ascension

I do not see at all where the Second person of the Holy Trinity took upon himself flesh (as he is God). But, I do say that Christ (both God and Man) in the flesh ascended to the right hand of God the father.

1 Corinthians 15:20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Hebrews 2:17 - Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Heretical views on the Incarnation

Nestorianism - 5th Century
This heresy taught that Mary only gave birth to Jesus’ human nature. The founder of the heresy, Nestorius, believed Jesus was really two separate persons, and only the human Jesus was in Mary’s womb. If that was true, then Jesus was not God incarnate while in the womb.

Monophysitism - 5th Century
This heresy taught that Jesus’ humanity was absorbed by His divinity. The heresy is Monophysite in nature, derived from the Greek words “mono” (one) and “physis” (nature). In essence, the heresy claimed Jesus had only one nature (something new and different than the Divine or human nature that God and humans have, respectively). Instead, this heresy taught a third unique nature was possessed by Jesus; a blend or mixture of the human and the Divine.

Apollinarianism - 4th Century
This heresy denied the true and complete humanity of Jesus. Led by Appollinaris the Younger, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, this heresy Jesus did not have a human mind, but instead had a mind that was completely Divine. The heresy lessened the human nature of Jesus in order to reconcile the manner in which Jesus could be both God and man at the same time.

Docetism - 2nd Century
This heresy was coined from the Greek word, “dokesis” meaning “to seem”. It taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body and was not truly incarnate. Docetists viewed matter as inherently evil, and therefore rejected the idea that God could actually have a body. By denying Jesus truly had a body, they also denied He suffered on the cross and rose from the dead.


Of course with all of these heretical views I must say Nestorianism is used a lot against those who do have the correct viewpoint of the Incarnation. The problem is not with 'Nestorian' itself but rather the problem is that this heresy has not been clearly defined. The terms used here are unclear.

The law and gospel distinction in Jonah

"He threatened the Ninevites with the destruction of their city within forty days, that is, unless they repented: they did repent, and were saved from ruin, God repenting of what he had threatened; which, though a change of his outward conduct towards them, he threatened them with, was no change of his will; for both their repentance, and their deliverance, were according to his unchangeable will, Jonah iii. 4, 10."
- John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 40

I once heard a sermon on this book. It was by a Lordshiper. Of course through the sermon the focus was that sinners are to repent from sin if they do not then God's wrath will come upon them. However, is this really what Jonah was speak about? I wonder if this elder knew the law and gospel distinction?

God's unchangeable covenant of grace

"God is unchangeable in his covenant of grace. This was made with Christ from everlasting, and stands fast with him; it is as immoveable as a rock, and can never be broken; the blessings of it are sure mercies, flow from the sovereign grace and mercy of God, and are sure and firm, being according to his unchangeable will, and are what he never repents of, nor revokes. . . . Rom. xi. 29. and viii. 30. the promises of the covenant, which are gone out of his mouth and lips are unalterable; what has been said of purposes may be said of promises, that they were made before the world were, by God, that cannot lie, who is all-wise, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and faithful to perform them." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 40

God's promises are never alterable. This is where assurance comes from. Even in the WCF Assurance is not grounded in our works but is grounded from the infallible promises of God. It is between God and Christ. It does not change. That is the gospel. Stay focus on who Jesus is. Justification is by faith alone. The Gospel assumes election. But, you can speak of all other points of doctrine and yet miss the gospel.

God's love for his Elect alone, and His hatred to the Reprobate

"Wrath and hatred are opposed to love, which are never in the heart of God towards his beloved ones: besides, this is said after the manner of men, and according to our apprehension of things." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 40

God never hated the elect, nor did he ever love the reprobate

Absolute Predestination and against the Free Offer

"God is unchangeable in his purposes and decrees, there is a purpose for every thing, and a time for that purpose; God has determined all that ever was, is, or shall be; all come to pass according to the counsel of his will, and all his decrees are unchangeable. . . . the purposes of God are always carried into execution, they are never frustrated; it is not in the power of men and devils to disannul them; whatever devices and counter-workings to them may be framed and formed, they are of no avail. . . . and his purposes are called counsels, because designs wisely formed by men, are with consultation, and upon mature deliberation: and such are  the decrees of God, they are made with the higher wisdom by him, who is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working, and so are unchangeable. . . ." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 38

Notice that if you read John Gill, in his Divinity, how he is so systematize every doctrine presupposes another. God's immutability presupposes his knowledge and his counsel.

The divine second person of the Holy Trinity and the incarnation

"Nor is the unchangeableness of the divine nature to be disproved by the incarnation of Christ; for though he, a divine Person, possessed of the divine nature, was made flesh, or became man; the divine nature in him was not changed into the human nature, nor the human nature into the divine, nor a third nature made out of them both; was this the case, the divine nature would have been changeable; but so it was not; for as it has been commonly said, 'Christ remained what he was, and assumed what he was not;' and what he assumed added nothing to his divine person; he was only manifested in the flesh; he neither received any perfection, nor imperfection, from the human nature; though that received dignity and honour by its union to him, and was adorned with the gifts and graces of the Spirit without measure, and is now advanced at the right hand of God." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 37

The incarnation did not change the Son of God. Nothing was added to Him when he assumed the nature of man.

God and Time

"In his nature and essence, being simple, and devoid of all composition, as has been proved: the more simple and free from mixture and composition any thing is the less subject to change. . . . and since he is eternal, there can be no change of time with him; time doth not belong to him, only to a creature, which is the measure of its duration; and began when a creature began to be, and not before; but God is before all creatures; they being made by him, and so before time; he was the same before the day was as now, and now as he was before; 'even the same to-day, yesterday, and for ever:' though he is the ancient of days, he does not become than he was millions of ages ago, nor will be millions of ages to come; his eternity is an everlasting and unchangeable now;" - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 36-37

Time existed after creation. God is not older now than he was when he first created.

Negative and Positive statements of God's attributes

"The attributes of God are variously distinguished by divines; some distinguish them into negative and positive, or affirmative: the negative are such as remove from him whatever is imperfect in creatures; such are infinity, immutability, immortality, &c. which deny him to be finite, mutable, and mortal; and, indeed it is easier to say what God is not, than what he is: the positive, or affirmative, are such as assert some perfection in God, which is in and of himself; and which in the creatures, in any measure, is from him, as wisdom, goodness, justice, holiness, &c. but the distinction is discarded by others; because all negative attributes some positive excellency is found." -John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 34-35

For example, God is infinite which means he is timeless. Some Calvinist and Catholics teach that we can only speak of God in the negative statements. This makes no since. For one thing, if we can only speak of God in the negative only and not in any positive statements as well then how can we know him? I mean we know what he is not, but what is God as the WCF says.

Reymond might be an Arminian

On Pg. 178 "By what they have said about his immutability, as a consequence of their understanding of God's eternality as involving timelessness, classical theists have sometimes portrayed God as One virtually frozen in timeless immobility or inactivity (this is one example of the theological mischief which accrues to the ascription of timelessness to God)." Who has said that God's immutability means that God is basically frozen in time?
"These theists correctly argue that since God is a perfect being, he is incapable of any ontological change, since any change must be either for the better or for the worse. He cannot change for the better since he is already perfect, and he cannot change for the worse since that would result in his becoming imperfect. The same holds true, it is incorrectly argued, with regard to any motion or activity on his part. Any movement must either improve his condition or detract from it. But neither is possible for a perfect Deity. Therefore, he remains in an 'eternally frozen pose' (Packer's characterization) as the impassible God. But this is not the biblical description of God." -It isn't, then what is?
"The God of Scripture is CONSTANTLY acting into and reacting to the human condition. In no sense is he metaphysically insulated or detached from, unconcerned with, or insensitive or indifferent to the condition of fallen men."
So God reacts to man's actions? WOW! There you have it Reymond is an Arminian at best, but according to the previous status he might be a humanist or atheist at worse.

Is Raymond an atheist?

This is what Raymond says, "Third, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in saying that a timeless person lives in the 'eternal present' because the referent of the word 'present' has significance only in the ordering category which includes past and future as well. Nicholas Wolterstorff points out:
In order for something to be timeless, none of these ordering relationships [past, present, future] can be applicable to that being. If a being is truly timeless, it should be impossible for it to exist simultaneously with anything else, or before anything else, or after anything else. Once it is established [or argued, as Hodge does - author] that a being does occupy one of the ordering relations, then that being is clearly temporal." - A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Pg. 175


I do not know about you but Raymond's argument is ridiculous and his support for Wolterstorff is also. So God being present means that he is temporal? At best I do not know what this means, but at worse this is pure atheism - If a being is truly timeless, it should be impossible for it to exist simultaneously with anything else...