The Bible says God is Spirit (John 4:24). What this assumes is that God is not only one (Deutronomy 6:4) as in he is not complex but rather simple but it also means that God is pure act. We humans on the other hand are passive. We are acted on. We live and move and have our being in Him alone (Acts 17:28).
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Thursday, November 16, 2017
The Christian wars with the system of darkness
In the first chapter of the Gita, the main character, who is about to enter battle with his family and friends, is overcome with a sense of pity and wishes not to enter into battle any more. The reason is that these men are his kin. He knows them and it would therefore be a grievous evil to battle against them, though they wanting to kill him would do so within a heart beat. Here the main character presents to us several ideas 1) should we go to war? 2) ought we to remain passive? 3) how should we think of our beliefs as suppose to others?
For the Christian, however, ideas are different. A Christian is one who accepts the gospel of God's free grace revealed in the Cross work of Christ alone. They see they are sinners lacking a righteousness of their own and so see that the righteousness that they have is the only righteousness that God imputes to them by free and sovereign grace in Christ alone. The Christian therefore sees any other worldly system as bulstering up of man's pride and selfrighteousness. Their aim, therefore, as a result of them being born again by grace alone, and as a result seeing their sin, and their need of a saviour and believing in Him alone for righteousness, is to present the points of the Scripture to their friends and family and to all who do not know God as their Saviour. They rather than succumbing to the idea that any one human being is ok and so therefore everyone is ok make war with the satanic doctrine with the gospel doctrine. They overcome evil with good and not with evil. The Christian does not do this out of pride for they did not come to these things on their own. Instead it was God that changed their minds and gave them a new set of beliefs.
As Paul says we make war but not with the weapons of the world.
For the Christian, however, ideas are different. A Christian is one who accepts the gospel of God's free grace revealed in the Cross work of Christ alone. They see they are sinners lacking a righteousness of their own and so see that the righteousness that they have is the only righteousness that God imputes to them by free and sovereign grace in Christ alone. The Christian therefore sees any other worldly system as bulstering up of man's pride and selfrighteousness. Their aim, therefore, as a result of them being born again by grace alone, and as a result seeing their sin, and their need of a saviour and believing in Him alone for righteousness, is to present the points of the Scripture to their friends and family and to all who do not know God as their Saviour. They rather than succumbing to the idea that any one human being is ok and so therefore everyone is ok make war with the satanic doctrine with the gospel doctrine. They overcome evil with good and not with evil. The Christian does not do this out of pride for they did not come to these things on their own. Instead it was God that changed their minds and gave them a new set of beliefs.
As Paul says we make war but not with the weapons of the world.
How to determine what good is?
What do you consider the greatest good or rather that which you aim at in life? No doubt there are probably many things that are noble to be achieved or won with; such as health and wealth, and other things (Aristotle writes on deliberation how to achieve the ends). However, for a Christian is there any such thing as deliberation? Ought we to choose or rather aim at x because of various reasons? As said before in many of my post several who claim to be Christians allow worldly things to cloud their thinking which causes them to do certian things on the whim of the emotions. I know when I was taking gout medication it caused me to pick up the phone and call certain people like my mom or whosoever came to my mind. And many still think that what we do causes us to be cleansed from sin or sanctified from it. However, a Christian does not do such things. What is to be done is what the law says. But we are sinful and we sin continuously after we are born again so that we cannot glory in ourselves but rather in Him who alone saved us by the blood of Christ Jesus having imputed our sins to Him and we receiving his righteousness by imputation and as a result believing in Him alone for our justification and sanctification; we do good works as a result of our position in Christ. Those who have accepted the promises of Christ for themselves by the Spirits work within do read and determine what the good is by what the Bible says. The Bible is made of two principles law and gospel by which are marked separately. The law tells us what we are to do to live and condemns all for lack of perfection and the gospel declares what God did on the behalf of His people people in Christ. What we ought to do is read and study the Bible to determine our actions not science, or actions of others.
We judge based on the word of God
No where in Aristotle's "The Art of Rhetoric" does he speak of believing the truth based on the word of God the Bible alone. As Christian we are to be pursuaded of an argument not because of the character of the speaker, the emotions the speech induces nor the speech itself. We are to be pursuaded on the grounds of the Bible alone.
Thursday, November 9, 2017
What makes one happy?
Happiness. So as I read Plato I find that he says that happiness consist in somewhat of a fashion to knowledge. In one sense I agree. But I don't agree in the general sense. I believe happiness is grounded in knowing and believing the gospel of Christ alone. This is diametrically opposed to the ideals of the world which thinks happiness consist of money, earthly belonging. Now I am not saying we don't want or need money or food or clothing. We are glad with them. But we do not base our happiness on those things.
Sunday, November 5, 2017
Whether one believes a testimony or the person themselves
John 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did. 40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his own word; 42 and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heardhim ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
Just noticed this from the text. But the many Samaritans who believed in the words of the woman are different from the many more Samaritans who believed Jesus' own words. So whether one hears a testimony about a person or hears the person himself makes no difference other than the venue.
Just noticed this from the text. But the many Samaritans who believed in the words of the woman are different from the many more Samaritans who believed Jesus' own words. So whether one hears a testimony about a person or hears the person himself makes no difference other than the venue.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Empiricism can never tell what is true or false
In Plato's theory of knowledge, Socrates debates the view that man is the measure of all things and that we know by way of sensation. There are several reasons he gives for why these ideas are false. One, however, reason why it is false to say that man is the measure of all things is that it cuts itself off the branch. If whatever a man thinks is true and no one thinks false ideas then guess what? All ideas are true. So whether I think one thing is true or you say another is true both are true no matter if we disagree or think differently. This is the problem with knowledge by sensation. It can never give us any reason to think one man is wrong over another or another man is right or true in opinion over another. This is the point Gordon Clark draws out against sense perception as a way of knowing between good and evil. At best sensation might help me to know the way things are at the moment but can never tell me how it ought to be.
Christ's death was for the elect alone those who believe
"Georgius imagines himself to argue very cleverly when he says, 'Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Therefore, those who would exclude the reprobate from participation in the benefits of Christ, must, of necessity, place them somehwere out of the world.' Now we will not permit the common solution of this question to avail on the present occasion, which would have it that Christ suffered sufficiently for all men, but effectually for His elect alone. This great absurdity, by which our monk has procured for himself so much applause amongst his fraternity, has no weight whatever with me. Johm does indeed extens the benefits of the atonement of Christ, which was completed by His death, to all the elect of God throughout what climes of the world soever they may be scattered. But though the case be so, it by no meana alters the fact that the reprobate are mingled with the elect in the world. It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins 'of the whole world.' But the solution of all difficulty is immediately at hand, in the truth and fact, that it is 'whosoever believeth in Him' that 'shall not perish, but shall have eternal life.'" - John Calvin, Eternal Predestination of God, pg. 165
Sunday, October 29, 2017
What do demons believe anyway?
"The Puritan writer Thomas Manton in his excellent commentary on the Epistle of James gives a characteristic and significant answer. The paragraph in question discusses James 2:19, 'The devils also believe, and tremble.' 'This instance showeth,' says Manton, 'what faith he disputeth against, namely, such as consisteth in bare speculation and knowledge. . . .Thou believest; that is assentest to this truth; the lowest act of faith is invested with the name of believing.'
Manton's argument here is that since the devils assent and true believers also assent, something other than assent is needed for saving faith. This is a logical blunder. The text says the devils believe in monotheism. Why cannot the difference between the devils and Christians be the different propositions believed, rather than a psychological element in belief? Manton assumes a different psychology is needed. It is better to say a different object of belief is needed.
According to Manton, the devils' psychology is one of bare speculation. However, he does not explain what this is. If it is the so-called faith, discussed on his preceding pages, that produces no works, one cannot object. This so-called faith Manton calls a 'dead faith,' or better a 'false faith,' and therefore not a saving faith at all. Faith without works is dead. Agreed. But if this is not saving faith at all, and is yet called faith and belief, the difference will be found in the object, not in the psychological analysis. The analysis is the same whether a person believes a saving truth, a non-saving truth, or even a falsehood.
Manton makes an attempt to avoid the force of this consideration. 'There is one God,' he continues. 'He instanceth in this proposition, though he doth limit the matter only to this: partly because this was the first article of the creed . . . by it intending also assent to other articles of religion . . . .'
Now, just what devils believe and do not believe, the Bible does not fully explain. The psychology of Satan is something of a puzzle. Apparently Satan really believed that Job would curse God. Like the Arminians he did not believe in the persevereance of the saints. One cannot be certain, but possibly Satan believed the promise he himself made to Eve. Did he not also believe that he might possibly tempt Christ to sin? If he had believed it impossible, why should he have tried three times? There must therefore be a good bit of the Bible that the devils do not believe.
In this difficulty it is best to stay close to the text, and James says only that the devils believe there is one God. The text nowhere says that this proposition stands for all the articles of the creed. It has just now been proved that it does not. If human beings can be monotheists without believing in the atonement, or even in Christ, one might suppose the devils could too. Because Manton adds to the creed of the devils propositions James does not specify, his argument becomes confused. Depending on an hypothesis that has no textual foundation, he fails to escape the objection above: It is illogical to conclude that belief is not assent just because belief in monotheism does not save. The clearer inference is that if belief in monotheism does not save, then one ought to believe something else in addition. Not assent, but monotheism is inadequate." Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?
John Calvin also says, "When the apostle gives the appellation of faith to a vain notion, widely different from true faith, it is a concession which derogates nothing from the argument; this he shows from the beginning in these words: 'What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works?' He does not say, If any one have faith without works; but If any one boast of having it. He speaks speaks more plainly just after, where he ridicules it by representing it as worse than the knowledge of devils; and lastly, when he calls it dead. But his meaning may be sufficiently understood from the definition he gives: 'Thou believest,' says he, 'that there is one God.' Indeed, if nothing be contained in this creed but a belief of the Divine existence, it is not at all surprising that it is inadequate to justification. And we must not suppose this denial to be derogatory to Christian faith, the nature of which is widely different. For how does true faith justify, but by uniting us to Christ, that, being made one with him, we may participate his righteousness? It does not, therefore, justify us, by attaining a knowledge of God's existence, but by a reliance on the certainty of his mercy." - The Institutes, 3. 17. 11. Pg. 45-46
Manton's argument here is that since the devils assent and true believers also assent, something other than assent is needed for saving faith. This is a logical blunder. The text says the devils believe in monotheism. Why cannot the difference between the devils and Christians be the different propositions believed, rather than a psychological element in belief? Manton assumes a different psychology is needed. It is better to say a different object of belief is needed.
According to Manton, the devils' psychology is one of bare speculation. However, he does not explain what this is. If it is the so-called faith, discussed on his preceding pages, that produces no works, one cannot object. This so-called faith Manton calls a 'dead faith,' or better a 'false faith,' and therefore not a saving faith at all. Faith without works is dead. Agreed. But if this is not saving faith at all, and is yet called faith and belief, the difference will be found in the object, not in the psychological analysis. The analysis is the same whether a person believes a saving truth, a non-saving truth, or even a falsehood.
Manton makes an attempt to avoid the force of this consideration. 'There is one God,' he continues. 'He instanceth in this proposition, though he doth limit the matter only to this: partly because this was the first article of the creed . . . by it intending also assent to other articles of religion . . . .'
Now, just what devils believe and do not believe, the Bible does not fully explain. The psychology of Satan is something of a puzzle. Apparently Satan really believed that Job would curse God. Like the Arminians he did not believe in the persevereance of the saints. One cannot be certain, but possibly Satan believed the promise he himself made to Eve. Did he not also believe that he might possibly tempt Christ to sin? If he had believed it impossible, why should he have tried three times? There must therefore be a good bit of the Bible that the devils do not believe.
In this difficulty it is best to stay close to the text, and James says only that the devils believe there is one God. The text nowhere says that this proposition stands for all the articles of the creed. It has just now been proved that it does not. If human beings can be monotheists without believing in the atonement, or even in Christ, one might suppose the devils could too. Because Manton adds to the creed of the devils propositions James does not specify, his argument becomes confused. Depending on an hypothesis that has no textual foundation, he fails to escape the objection above: It is illogical to conclude that belief is not assent just because belief in monotheism does not save. The clearer inference is that if belief in monotheism does not save, then one ought to believe something else in addition. Not assent, but monotheism is inadequate." Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?
John Calvin also says, "When the apostle gives the appellation of faith to a vain notion, widely different from true faith, it is a concession which derogates nothing from the argument; this he shows from the beginning in these words: 'What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works?' He does not say, If any one have faith without works; but If any one boast of having it. He speaks speaks more plainly just after, where he ridicules it by representing it as worse than the knowledge of devils; and lastly, when he calls it dead. But his meaning may be sufficiently understood from the definition he gives: 'Thou believest,' says he, 'that there is one God.' Indeed, if nothing be contained in this creed but a belief of the Divine existence, it is not at all surprising that it is inadequate to justification. And we must not suppose this denial to be derogatory to Christian faith, the nature of which is widely different. For how does true faith justify, but by uniting us to Christ, that, being made one with him, we may participate his righteousness? It does not, therefore, justify us, by attaining a knowledge of God's existence, but by a reliance on the certainty of his mercy." - The Institutes, 3. 17. 11. Pg. 45-46
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
What is wrong with man is the measure of all things?
In the attack against Heracleitus and Protagoras, Plato says that they ultimately make man the measure of all things. For what appears to me to be cold may appear to you to be warm. Or what appears to me to be big may appear small to you. No one person may or can have the same perception. Perhaps this is the fault with those who trust that we know thinga by our senses. But, if one percieves a different quality in an object than another one does should we say that truth is therefore subjective? Perhaps the fault lies in our senses. How do we know what is truth? Of course the Bible alone is the word of God. God has revealed the Bible to us. God is truth, logic, and eternal. Therefore, the Bible alone is truth. God alone reveals it.
To be Regenerated is to be converted
"Every regenerate person has the Spirit of Christ and is led by Him, is in Christ, has Christ living in him, is a son of God, has the seed of God remaining in him, is a sharer of the kingdom of heaven, has a cleansed heart, is holy, a servant of righteousness, and free from sin." - Johannes Cocceius, The doctrine of the covenant and Testament of God, pg. 331
Monday, October 2, 2017
Life after death
Reading back through the Republic of Plato, with all of his faults and all, one reads in the last bit of segment of life after death. Though, Plato believed that the soul had immortality and that it never dies but rather when a man dies he goes through a sort of judgment in which he is supposed to be reincarnated. Though the question is how does Plato know this, the thought still is that Plato believed in some sort of life after the grave. Today, however, with the schools teaching materialism and Darwinian Evolution in which no longer is man a created being of God made in his image but rather a combination of primordial soup and as a result denying the existence and knowability of a god (if not The God) also deny life after the grave. The result of this grave teaching in our schools and family structure and world system is that morality doesn't depend on God but on man. Morality is a combination of feelings and disposition. One feels like they are a woman rather than a man. One feels like committing acts of rape. The sad thing of this is that it is all done in the name of equality. This hypothetical movement, in which the world attacked the church of brainwashing is now being done at an early time in a childs life. There seems to be no sign of this ending soon either. What needs to happen is a restoration of the family structure and restoration of the truth.
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
How to know?
"CRITIAS: 'Here then, Socrates, is the plan we have made to entertain you. We thought that Timaeus, who knows more about astronomy than the rest of us and who has devoted himself particularly to studying the nature of the universe, should speak first, and starting with the origin of the cosmic system bring the story down to man.'" - Plato, Timaeus, pg. 40
Of course apart from Revealed truth no one knows God. Who can pry into the mind of God? No one. God alone reveals secrets. The history of worldly education is that it is done apart from God and His word. Instead man has endeavored to know the hidden things by what he sees on earth. The grave question to ask is how do you know? The epistemic question is important in knowing anything at all. How does one derive his or her knowledge of the universe, what Method is used to gain knowledge? The Christian knows truth by the word of God and by faith we know that God created the universe.
Of course apart from Revealed truth no one knows God. Who can pry into the mind of God? No one. God alone reveals secrets. The history of worldly education is that it is done apart from God and His word. Instead man has endeavored to know the hidden things by what he sees on earth. The grave question to ask is how do you know? The epistemic question is important in knowing anything at all. How does one derive his or her knowledge of the universe, what Method is used to gain knowledge? The Christian knows truth by the word of God and by faith we know that God created the universe.
Monday, September 25, 2017
God is above the law by Clark and Perkins
It is interesting to read theology through history, for by doing so one can see the history of a position. This is not to say that theology depends on history. Theology depends on God's word alone the Bible.
Gordon Clark believed that God is Ex Lex. I agree as well. But Clark wasn't the first theologian to affirm this doctrine. William Perkins also believed this to be the case too.
"God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though he is the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply by virtue of the fact that he does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does. Since God caused Judas to bestray Christ, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. By definition God cannot sin. At this point it must be particularly pointed out that God's causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. But God is 'Ex-lex.'" - Gordon H Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, pg. 175
"We must understand every commandment of the law so, as that we annex this condition: unless God command otherwise. For God being an absolute Lord, and so above the law, may command that which his law forbiddeth. So he commanded Isaac to be offered, the Egyptians to be spoiled, the brazen serpent to be erected, which was a figure of Christ." - William Perkins, A Golden Chain, pg. 55
Sunday, September 24, 2017
The way of a Christian Man
Plato, in his last book of the Republic, speaks of the problems of poetry and painting in that they are far removed from the truth or the way things are. Today, we could say the same in the movie industry. The makers of the movies put together an imitation of what is and often times places in his or her own propaganda or what they want to teach the masses. But, of course, Plato was not a Christian nor was he Jewish. Plato was a greek philosopher and did not believe the Bible. The Christian should rather base his or her way of life on Scripture and not on what some sort of imitation says. What does the Bible say about what God is or what man is or what love is? How do we know what love is but by the Bible alone? Experience is an unfortunate thing. Many professors teach it as the rule of life. They basically deny the Bible alone as the word of God. We do well to read what the Scripture says. Till then, we know not what it means to be a Christian; even if we call ourselves Christians. Jesus made this point talking to the pharisees and other Jews who said they had Abraham as their father. The response of Jesus cut down their hypocrisy.
Saturday, September 9, 2017
Christians still sin but we are not forsaken
"The adultery of David with Bathsheba is an example, not to move us to evil: but if (while we follow the way of righteousness) any chance drive us aside, that we despair not. For if we saw not such infirmities in God's elect, we which are so weak and fall so often should utterly despair and think that God had forsaken us." - William Tyndale, the Obedience of a Christian Man, pg. 163
I remember once talking to an old friend of mine from Southwestern. He was a Lordshiper who said that if we sin then it shows we were never of Him. I tried asking my friend for clarification. He kept saying the same thing every time I asked. So the conclusion is that he must have meant every word. This is the conclusion of Lordship salvation or legalism. If you sin once then you are not a Christian. However this not what Tyndale said. To be a Christian is a spiritual matter not a physical matter.
I remember once talking to an old friend of mine from Southwestern. He was a Lordshiper who said that if we sin then it shows we were never of Him. I tried asking my friend for clarification. He kept saying the same thing every time I asked. So the conclusion is that he must have meant every word. This is the conclusion of Lordship salvation or legalism. If you sin once then you are not a Christian. However this not what Tyndale said. To be a Christian is a spiritual matter not a physical matter.
Thursday, September 7, 2017
Free Will is a doctrine that is not grounded from Scripture
"Aristotle saith [or says], give a man a law and he hath [or has] power of himself to do or fulfil the law and becometh righteous with working righteously. But Paul and all the scripture saith, that the law doeth but utter sin and helpeth not." - William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, pg. 21
Reading the Bible through its entirety one can see that the diabolical doctrine of free will is not found. Free Will is not a topic remotely close to any of the propositions of the Bible. In all instances, the Bible says that man is enslave to sin and God determines all things. Just by these two assertions free will radically oppose. We must read the Bible without any of the man made lenses of today.
Reading the Bible through its entirety one can see that the diabolical doctrine of free will is not found. Free Will is not a topic remotely close to any of the propositions of the Bible. In all instances, the Bible says that man is enslave to sin and God determines all things. Just by these two assertions free will radically oppose. We must read the Bible without any of the man made lenses of today.
No matter how much we sin even after conversion Christ's blood has purged us from it's results
"If any man repent truly and come to the faith and put his trust in Christ, then as oft as he sinneth of frailty, at the sigh of the heart is his sin put away in Christ's blood. For Christ's blood purgeth ever and blesseth ever." - William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, pg. 138
No where in this paragraph does Tyndale say that a Christian who sins after conversion is not saved. Macarthur says this and tries to ground it in the Reformed view. We need to beware of those who call themselves teachers and judge what they say.
No where in this paragraph does Tyndale say that a Christian who sins after conversion is not saved. Macarthur says this and tries to ground it in the Reformed view. We need to beware of those who call themselves teachers and judge what they say.
Sunday, September 3, 2017
No man is so great a sinner that he cannot be saved
"I say that no man is so great a sinner, if he repent and believe, but that he is righteous in Christ and in the promises: yet if thou look on the flesh and unto the law there is no man so perfect that is not found a sinner. Nor any man so pure, that hath not somewhat to be yet purged." - William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, pg. 59
Friday, September 1, 2017
Wives are to submit to their husband
"After that Eve was deceived of the serpent, God said unto her (Genesis 3), thy lust or appetite shall pertain unto thy husband and he shall rule thee or reign over thee. God which created the woman knoweth what is in that weak vessel (as Peter calleth her) and hath therefore put her under the obedience of her husband to rule her lusts and wanton appetites. Peter (1Peter 3) exhorteth wives to be in subjection unto their husbands, after the example of the holy women which in old time trusted in God, and as Sara obeyed Abraham and called him lord. Which sara before she was married, was Abraham's sister and equal with him: but as soon as she was married was in subjection and became without comparison inferior. For so is the nature of wedlock by the ordination of God. It were much better that our wives followed the example of the holy women of old time in obeying their husbands, than to worship them with a Pater Noster, an Ave and Credo, or to stick up candles before their images. Paul (Ephesians 5) saith: women submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the wife's head even as Christ is the head of the congregation. Therefore as the congregation is in subjection to Christ, likewise let wives be in subjection unto their husbands in all things. Let the woman therefore fear her husband, as Paul saith in the said place. For her husband is unto her in the stead of God, that she obey him and wait on his commandments. And his commandments are God's commandments. If she therefore grudge against him or resist him she grudgeth against God and resisteth God." - William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, Pg. 34
Nothing that is done apart from the Spirit is good
"Thou mayest hereby perceive that all that is done in the world (before the spirit of God come and giveth us light) is damnable sin, and the more glorious the more damnable: so that that which the world counteth most glorious is more damnable in the sight of God, than that which the whore, the their and murderer do." -William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, pg. 44
Friday, August 4, 2017
Sproul teaches us to look at our works
"The fruit of righteousness is that fruit that is exercised in us by the Holy Spirit. If we want to be holy, if we have a real hunger for righteousness, then we must focus our attention on the fruit of the Holy Spirit." R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, pg. 204
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
What Does it mean to teach Commandments and Creed?
In the second part of Large Catechism (from the Book of Concord), Martin Luther speaks of the commandments (The first part) and of the Creed (The second part). But, what does it mean?
He says, "Thus far we have heard the first part of Christian doctrine. In it we have seen all that God wishes us to do or not do. The Creed properly follows, setting forth all that we must expect and receive from God; in brief, it teaches us to know him perfectly. It is given in order to help us do what the Ten Commandments require of us. For, as we said above, they are set on so high a plane that all human ability is far too feeble and weak to keep them. Therefore it is as necessary to learn this part as it is the other so that we may know where and how to obtain strength for this task. If we could by our own strength keep the Ten Commandments as they ought to be kept, we would need neither the Creed nor the Lord's Prayer." (Pg. 411)
419
Zacharias Ursinus teaches us what it means by the words Commandments and Creed in the Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism on pg. 13.
He says, "The chief and most important parts of the first principles of the doctrine of the church, as appears from the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Hebrews, are repentance and faith in Christ, which we may regard as synonymous with the law and gospel. Hence, the catechism in its primary and most general sense, may be divided as the doctrine of the church, into the law and gospel. . . . These two parts are termed, by the great mass of men, the Decalogue and the Apostles' creed; because the Decalogue comprehends the substance of the law, and the Apostles' creed that of the gospel. Another distinction made by this same class of person is that of the doctrine of faith and works, or the doctrine of those things which are to be believed and those which are to be done."
So one sees what is meant by the terms Commandments and Creed.
As Luther puts it, "Now you see that the Creed is a very different teaching from the Ten Commandments. The latter teach us what we ought to do; the Creed tells what God does for us and gives to us. The Ten Commandments, moreover, are inscribed in the hearts of all men. No human wisdom can comprehend the Creed; it must be taught by the Holy Spirit alone. Therefore the Ten Commandments do not by themselves make us Christians, for God's wrath and displeasure still remain on us because we cannot fulfill his demands. But the Creed brings pure grace and makes us upright and pleasing to God." (Pg. 419-420)
He says, "Thus far we have heard the first part of Christian doctrine. In it we have seen all that God wishes us to do or not do. The Creed properly follows, setting forth all that we must expect and receive from God; in brief, it teaches us to know him perfectly. It is given in order to help us do what the Ten Commandments require of us. For, as we said above, they are set on so high a plane that all human ability is far too feeble and weak to keep them. Therefore it is as necessary to learn this part as it is the other so that we may know where and how to obtain strength for this task. If we could by our own strength keep the Ten Commandments as they ought to be kept, we would need neither the Creed nor the Lord's Prayer." (Pg. 411)
419
Zacharias Ursinus teaches us what it means by the words Commandments and Creed in the Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism on pg. 13.
He says, "The chief and most important parts of the first principles of the doctrine of the church, as appears from the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Hebrews, are repentance and faith in Christ, which we may regard as synonymous with the law and gospel. Hence, the catechism in its primary and most general sense, may be divided as the doctrine of the church, into the law and gospel. . . . These two parts are termed, by the great mass of men, the Decalogue and the Apostles' creed; because the Decalogue comprehends the substance of the law, and the Apostles' creed that of the gospel. Another distinction made by this same class of person is that of the doctrine of faith and works, or the doctrine of those things which are to be believed and those which are to be done."
So one sees what is meant by the terms Commandments and Creed.
As Luther puts it, "Now you see that the Creed is a very different teaching from the Ten Commandments. The latter teach us what we ought to do; the Creed tells what God does for us and gives to us. The Ten Commandments, moreover, are inscribed in the hearts of all men. No human wisdom can comprehend the Creed; it must be taught by the Holy Spirit alone. Therefore the Ten Commandments do not by themselves make us Christians, for God's wrath and displeasure still remain on us because we cannot fulfill his demands. But the Creed brings pure grace and makes us upright and pleasing to God." (Pg. 419-420)
Monday, July 31, 2017
What kind or how much sin did Christ atone for His people?
The question relates to how many sins did Christ die on behalf of the elect? Was his sacrifice only geared towards certain amount of sins or types of sins like accidentals vs habituals? Sproul would have us believe that to sin habitually means we are not really Christians.
Tobias Crisp says, "And we may do some good to let you see what advantage there is in Christ for you; for thereby you may be induced not to establish your own righteousness against him, and his. We shall sin every day; in many things we sin all; but the business we are to do, is this, to let you know, that though there be sins committed, yet there is no peace broken; because the breach of peace is satisfied in Christ; there is a reparation of the damage before the ain itself be commitres: Christ had in his eye, and so had the Father too, all the damages that should fall out to the end of the world, by his own people; and he did not pay a price for some that were present only, but he paid the damages of all that shouls come after, from the time of his suffering, to the end of the world. . . ." Christ Alone Exalted, pg. 164 - 165
Tobias Crisp says, "And we may do some good to let you see what advantage there is in Christ for you; for thereby you may be induced not to establish your own righteousness against him, and his. We shall sin every day; in many things we sin all; but the business we are to do, is this, to let you know, that though there be sins committed, yet there is no peace broken; because the breach of peace is satisfied in Christ; there is a reparation of the damage before the ain itself be commitres: Christ had in his eye, and so had the Father too, all the damages that should fall out to the end of the world, by his own people; and he did not pay a price for some that were present only, but he paid the damages of all that shouls come after, from the time of his suffering, to the end of the world. . . ." Christ Alone Exalted, pg. 164 - 165
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Sproul against the Gospel
So I have read the revised and expanded edition of Sproul's The Holiness of God. On pg. 204 Sproul tells us to focus on the fruit of the holy spirit. Sproul basically is telling us to look inward to ourselves for holiness. The problem is that all of this is abstract and conjured. Ultimately speaking if our holiness and sanctification is dependent on what the Spirit does in us then it is no longer Christ alone but our salvation then hinges on what we do.
Not by works of any kind no matter how perfect
"Let me tell you, that the Lord hath so established Christ, for the rest and life of men, that if they could yield angelic obedience, be perfect throughout in obedience to the whole law of God, and not fail in one point of it; if, I say, from such perfection of obedience they would gather up their own comfort, or conclude their own salvation; these persons should be damned, as well as those that sin ever so much: for God hath established Christ, and only his righteousness, to be the salvation of man; I say, only the righteousness of Christ; that if a man were so perfect, and in respect of that perfection, would leave the righteousness of Christ, and lean to the perfection of his own, for his peace, and salvation; that man would miscarry, and be damned." -Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, pg. 157
Martin Luther says in the Large Catechism found in the Book of Concords, "Therefore the Ten Commandments do not by themselves make us Christians, for God's wrath and displeasure still remain on us because we cannot fulfill his demands. But the Creed brings pure grace and makes us upright and pleasing to God." (Pg. 420)
Martin Luther says in the Large Catechism found in the Book of Concords, "Therefore the Ten Commandments do not by themselves make us Christians, for God's wrath and displeasure still remain on us because we cannot fulfill his demands. But the Creed brings pure grace and makes us upright and pleasing to God." (Pg. 420)
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Nothing in the creature swayed God to choose one and reject the other
"The apostle, in the former chapter, more plainly and fully lays down the absolute freeness of the grace of God alone to peace, life, and salvation, than any where else; clearly shewing, that merely and only for his own good pleasure-sake, he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy; especially in that instance of Jacob and Esau, he tells us plainly, that God hath no regard in the world unto good and evil, that might be done by either of them; but, before ever they could do any such thing, it is expressly written of them, 'Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.'
And the reason, why God takes nothing into his consideration, either good or evil done by the creature as a motive to his love, the apostle gives there, is this, 'That the purpose of God might stand, according to election; not of works, but of grace,' that is, that all the world may see that the first thoughts of God, in his election, had no eye in the world unto any thing that the creature might do, which should have any prevalency with him, to sway him this way, or that way; it was not consideration of Esau, as one that would be resolute and peremptory in a way of sinfulness, that was a motive with God to reject him; nor was it consideration of any propensity in the spirit of Jacob to yield unto calling, or of any inclination in Jacob to glorify him being called...." -Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, pg. 153
And the reason, why God takes nothing into his consideration, either good or evil done by the creature as a motive to his love, the apostle gives there, is this, 'That the purpose of God might stand, according to election; not of works, but of grace,' that is, that all the world may see that the first thoughts of God, in his election, had no eye in the world unto any thing that the creature might do, which should have any prevalency with him, to sway him this way, or that way; it was not consideration of Esau, as one that would be resolute and peremptory in a way of sinfulness, that was a motive with God to reject him; nor was it consideration of any propensity in the spirit of Jacob to yield unto calling, or of any inclination in Jacob to glorify him being called...." -Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, pg. 153
Friday, July 28, 2017
The humanitarian is the one who is often for dominance and control
"The problem is not only a lust for power; ironically, benevolence and humanitarianism drive many to seek power over others. They believe for humanitarian reasons that the strong and wise have an obligation to subject the weak and ignorant to the whims of government control." -Ron Paul, End The Fed, pg. 117
Our Righteousness can do nothing but procure for us the Wrath of God
"All our righteousness will prevail nothing at all with God, nor move him a jot, except it be to pull down wrath: there is not one act of righteousness that a person doth, but when that is finished, there is more transgression belonging to him, than before he had performed it: and there no composition, there is no buying out of evil by good doings; the doing of good doth not make a recompense for what sin doth; we pay but our debts in doing good; so that as is a new righteousness performed, there is still a new reckoning added to former; by acting of righteousness, you make up a greater number of sins than before; so that it is only Christ from whom we must have the expectation of success, in whatsoever thing desire." Tobias Crisp, Christ alone exalted, pg. 148
Sunday, July 23, 2017
God is one and three in different senses
Van Til has said in his writings that Scripture is made up of paradoxes. One instance where he affirms this diabolical teaching is founs in his doctrine of what he would say is the Trinitarian view. Van Til says that God is one and three in the same sense. God is, for Van Til, one person and three persons at the same time. How he is able to say such things and with a straight face confounds me. However, the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity doesnt purport such nonsense. God is one and three in two different senses. God is one in essence but three in Persons. These things are not paradoxical. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent in essence but three in persons. What God is the three persons is. The three are co-eternal but not confused or confounded.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
George Berkeley to be sure was an empiricist. If we are only limited to what our eyes are capable of seeing then we would not truly be able to understand or know anything at all. We couldn't make any judgment as to the truth of one religion or philosophy from another. How do we know truth? We know it based on Scripture alone anything else simply reduces itself to skepticism. The Bible alone is the word of God.
Sunday, July 16, 2017
With our ideas we are completely passive
"I do not understand how our ideas, which are things altogether passive and inert, can be the essence, or any part (or like any part) of the essence or substance of God, who is an impassive, indivisible, pure, active being." (Pg. 45) "And, hath it not been made evident that no such sunstance can possibly exist? And, though it should be allowed to exist, yet how can that which is inactive be a cause; or that which is unthinking be a Cause of thought?" (Pg. 47) - Philonous in the Three Dialogues, George Berkeley
God is simple or one in essence
"Therefore, let such as love sobriety, and will be contented with the measure of faith, briefly attend to what is useful to be known, which is, that, when we profess to believe in one God, the word God denotes a single and simple essence, in which we comprehend three Persons, or hypostases; and that, therefore, whenever the word God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit are intended as much as the Father; but when the Son is associated with the Father, that introduces the reciprocal relation of one to the other; and thus we distinguish between the Persons." - John Calvin, The Institutes, 1. 8. 20. Pg. 136
"The nature of God is his most lively and most perfect essence. The perfection of the nature of God is his absolute constitution by the which he is wholly complete within himself. (Exodus 3:14) . . . . (Acts 17:24,25) . . . . The perfection of his nature is either simpleness, or the infiniteness thereof. The simpleness of his nature is that by which he is void of all logical relation. He hath not in him subject or adjunct. (John 5:26) . . . . Conferred with John 14:6 . . . . (1 John 1:7) . . . . Conferred with 1 John 1:5 . . . . Hence it is manifest that to have life and to be life, to be in light and to be light, in God are all one. Neither is God subject to generality or speciality, whole or parts, matter or that which is made of matter, for so there should be in God divera things, and one more perfect than another. Therefore, whatsoever is in God is his essence, and all that he is, he is by essence. The saying of Augustine in his sixth book and fourth chapter of The Trinity, is fit to prove this, 'In God (saith he) to be, and to be just and mighty are all one: but in the mind of man it is not all one to be, and to be mighty or just: for the mind may be destitute of these virtues, and yet a mind.' Hence it is manifest that the nature of God is immutable and spiritual." - William Perkins, The Golden Chain, pg. 2
"The nature of God is his most lively and most perfect essence. The perfection of the nature of God is his absolute constitution by the which he is wholly complete within himself. (Exodus 3:14) . . . . (Acts 17:24,25) . . . . The perfection of his nature is either simpleness, or the infiniteness thereof. The simpleness of his nature is that by which he is void of all logical relation. He hath not in him subject or adjunct. (John 5:26) . . . . Conferred with John 14:6 . . . . (1 John 1:7) . . . . Conferred with 1 John 1:5 . . . . Hence it is manifest that to have life and to be life, to be in light and to be light, in God are all one. Neither is God subject to generality or speciality, whole or parts, matter or that which is made of matter, for so there should be in God divera things, and one more perfect than another. Therefore, whatsoever is in God is his essence, and all that he is, he is by essence. The saying of Augustine in his sixth book and fourth chapter of The Trinity, is fit to prove this, 'In God (saith he) to be, and to be just and mighty are all one: but in the mind of man it is not all one to be, and to be mighty or just: for the mind may be destitute of these virtues, and yet a mind.' Hence it is manifest that the nature of God is immutable and spiritual." - William Perkins, The Golden Chain, pg. 2
Sunday, July 9, 2017
God is one and so His knowledge is eternal
"The knowledge of God proves him without successive duration. God knows all things, past, present, and to come, that is, which are so to us; not that they are so to him; these he knows at once, and all together, not one thing after another, as they successively come into being; all things are open and manifest to him at once and together, not only what are past and present, but he calls things that are not yet, as though they were; he sees and knows all in one view, in his all-comprehending mind: and as his knowledge is not successive, so not his duration." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 49
If there was a successive moments in God, then He would not be immutable if he thought like us.
"Is not time measured by the succession of ideas in our minds?" says Philonous, in George Berkeley's Three Dialogues, Pg. 23
If there was a successive moments in God, then He would not be immutable if he thought like us.
"Is not time measured by the succession of ideas in our minds?" says Philonous, in George Berkeley's Three Dialogues, Pg. 23
Monday, July 3, 2017
One must understand what is being represented in the Sacrament
"I am happy the mass now is held among the Germans in German. But to make a necessity of this, as if it had to be so, is again too much. This spirit cannot do anything else than continually create laws, necessity, problems of conscience and sin. To be sure, I have read in 1 Cor. 14 [:27-28] that he who speaks with tongues is to be silent in the congregation when no one understands anything of what he says. One tends however to skip over the other words: 'Unless there is someone to interpret.' That is, St. Paul permits speaking with tongues, 'if at the same time it is interpreted,' so that one understands it. Therefore he also commands that they are not to prevent those who speak with tongues, etc. Now we administer the sacrament to no one unless he understands the words in the sacrament, as one well knows. So in this matter we do not act contrary to St. Paul, since we satisfy his intention. If we do not satisfy this spirit, who only looks at external works and has no regard for either conscience or intentions, it is of no importance. We attach no importance to his new articles of faith.
. . .
For whoever goes to the sacrament understanding those words in German or having them clearly in his heart: 'Take, eat; this is my body,' etc. [Matt. 26:26], which he has learned and borne in mind from a foregoing sermon, and thereupon and therewith receives the sacrament, he receives it rightly and does not merely hear speaking with tongues, but something which has real meaning. On the other hand he who does not comprehend or understand these words in his heart, nor thereupon receives the sacrament, such a one would not be helped if a thousand preachers stood around his ears and shouted themselves into a frenzy with such words. However for the mad spirit everything depends on external works and appearance, which out of his own head he would continually set up as necessary and as an article of faith, without God's commandment." -Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 219-220
Now Gordon Clark also says something similar when his writings. In What is the Christian Life? He says,
"It is therefore requisite to make a few more remarks on the efficacy of sacraments. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ceremonies commanded by Christ. Therefore the church must administer them until Christ returns. They are signs: Baptism signifies purification, and the Supper pictures Christ's death. The sacraments are also seals which confirm our faith, and as such are means of grace. A seal, in earlier legal practice, showed that a document was genuine. If seals are no longer so widely used, at least they were familiar necessities in Biblical times (compare 1 Kings 21:8, Nehemiah 9:38, Isaiah 8:16, Jeremiah 32:10, Daniel 12:4). In the case of Abraham and his descendants, circumcision was the seal God placed on his promises. One might argue that God and God's promises do not need seals: nevertheless God used seals to strengthen our assurance.
However, if God has made no promises, if the document is blank, if there is nothing to seal, the seal obviously is useless. Hence with the seal there must also be the Scripture whose truth is thereby authenticated. Sacraments are not to be celebrated apart from the Word.
A magical formula operates of itself; it needs nothing further. Hence Romish worship most frequently has its sacraments without the Word, whereas Calvinism always stresses the sermon - the preaching of the Word. Without the Word the sacrament seals nothing. For a sacrament to be effective, it must be understood; and the more extensive the understanding the greater the effect. Suppose Nebuchadnezzar had sent a sealed document to the Chinese. Unless the Chinese had a translator, the document would mean nothing to them. This is why the Protestants from the first insisted on translating the Bible into the common languages, while the Roman church, until only a few years ago, opposed translations for the people. Incidentally, this is also why Paul insists that the miraculous gift of speaking in foreign languages, during the apostolic age, should not be used in public unless translation were given. Thus 'There is never any sacrament,' says Calvin, 'without an antecedent promise of God, to which it is subjoined as an appendix. . . . A sacrament consists of the Word and the outward sign. For we ought to understand the word, not of a murmur uttered without any meaning or faith, a mere whisper like a magical incantation . . . but of the gospel preached. . .'" (Institutes IV xiv 3, 4). - Gordon H. Clark, What is the Christian Life?, Pg. 76
"As we have said above, the preaching of the Word is useless if it is not preached in an intelligible manner, and, likewise, if also what is expounded and declared to us, i.e. Jesus Christ with all His benefits, is not received by faith in the hearts of those who hear it. It must be understood that it is the same with Sacraments. For, if in receiving the Sacraments we do not bring faith, the sole means of receiving what is preached to us and represented by them, they are far from serving to our salvation. On the contrary, in the measure in which we misapprehend them or, rather, misapprehend Christ in them, they seal our damnation (1 Cor 10:5; 11:27-29; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 15:8,9). However, in the same way as the Gospel does not cease to be, in its nature, the word of life and salvation, although unbelievers turn it into an odour of death and damnation, thus the Sacraments do not cease to be true Sacraments although they may be administered or received by unworthy persons, even reprobates. For the malice of men cannot change the nature of the ordinance of God." -Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, pg. 48
. . .
For whoever goes to the sacrament understanding those words in German or having them clearly in his heart: 'Take, eat; this is my body,' etc. [Matt. 26:26], which he has learned and borne in mind from a foregoing sermon, and thereupon and therewith receives the sacrament, he receives it rightly and does not merely hear speaking with tongues, but something which has real meaning. On the other hand he who does not comprehend or understand these words in his heart, nor thereupon receives the sacrament, such a one would not be helped if a thousand preachers stood around his ears and shouted themselves into a frenzy with such words. However for the mad spirit everything depends on external works and appearance, which out of his own head he would continually set up as necessary and as an article of faith, without God's commandment." -Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 219-220
Now Gordon Clark also says something similar when his writings. In What is the Christian Life? He says,
"It is therefore requisite to make a few more remarks on the efficacy of sacraments. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ceremonies commanded by Christ. Therefore the church must administer them until Christ returns. They are signs: Baptism signifies purification, and the Supper pictures Christ's death. The sacraments are also seals which confirm our faith, and as such are means of grace. A seal, in earlier legal practice, showed that a document was genuine. If seals are no longer so widely used, at least they were familiar necessities in Biblical times (compare 1 Kings 21:8, Nehemiah 9:38, Isaiah 8:16, Jeremiah 32:10, Daniel 12:4). In the case of Abraham and his descendants, circumcision was the seal God placed on his promises. One might argue that God and God's promises do not need seals: nevertheless God used seals to strengthen our assurance.
However, if God has made no promises, if the document is blank, if there is nothing to seal, the seal obviously is useless. Hence with the seal there must also be the Scripture whose truth is thereby authenticated. Sacraments are not to be celebrated apart from the Word.
A magical formula operates of itself; it needs nothing further. Hence Romish worship most frequently has its sacraments without the Word, whereas Calvinism always stresses the sermon - the preaching of the Word. Without the Word the sacrament seals nothing. For a sacrament to be effective, it must be understood; and the more extensive the understanding the greater the effect. Suppose Nebuchadnezzar had sent a sealed document to the Chinese. Unless the Chinese had a translator, the document would mean nothing to them. This is why the Protestants from the first insisted on translating the Bible into the common languages, while the Roman church, until only a few years ago, opposed translations for the people. Incidentally, this is also why Paul insists that the miraculous gift of speaking in foreign languages, during the apostolic age, should not be used in public unless translation were given. Thus 'There is never any sacrament,' says Calvin, 'without an antecedent promise of God, to which it is subjoined as an appendix. . . . A sacrament consists of the Word and the outward sign. For we ought to understand the word, not of a murmur uttered without any meaning or faith, a mere whisper like a magical incantation . . . but of the gospel preached. . .'" (Institutes IV xiv 3, 4). - Gordon H. Clark, What is the Christian Life?, Pg. 76
"As we have said above, the preaching of the Word is useless if it is not preached in an intelligible manner, and, likewise, if also what is expounded and declared to us, i.e. Jesus Christ with all His benefits, is not received by faith in the hearts of those who hear it. It must be understood that it is the same with Sacraments. For, if in receiving the Sacraments we do not bring faith, the sole means of receiving what is preached to us and represented by them, they are far from serving to our salvation. On the contrary, in the measure in which we misapprehend them or, rather, misapprehend Christ in them, they seal our damnation (1 Cor 10:5; 11:27-29; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 15:8,9). However, in the same way as the Gospel does not cease to be, in its nature, the word of life and salvation, although unbelievers turn it into an odour of death and damnation, thus the Sacraments do not cease to be true Sacraments although they may be administered or received by unworthy persons, even reprobates. For the malice of men cannot change the nature of the ordinance of God." -Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, pg. 48
Sunday, July 2, 2017
James 2 teaches us the importance of right doctrine
The point of James 2 is quite simple. No it has nothing to do with works righteousness or salvation hinging on works as the lordship salvation guy says. The point of the chapter is to say that Faith results in action. Right doctrine results in action. Even the devils believe that God is one and they shudder. Faith without works is dead. If Christ has really torn down the dividing wall of hostility and that there is now no distinction between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, ri...ch or poor then how might that result how we ought to live towards our brethren in Christ? We do not judge according to the law but we are now free from the cursed law. This is not a passage to endorse self righteousness. Macarthur is wrong and so are the Lordshipers who try to distinguish between works done by the power of the flesh or works done by grace. Simply put, this passage removes all kinds of boasting in ones works whether the works done are of flesh or of grace; for the passage is about right doctrine or more particularly right gospel doctrine and not about works.
Importance of Education
I'm reading Plato's Republic. Plato to be sure was a heathen philosopher. However, he speaks of education and upbringing as things to be protected and guarded against corruption in book 4. Plato speaks of music, poetry, and physical training that easily corrupts these two things.
Today, we have even more things that corrupt the minds of men and women every where. You might be able to think of some things but I know that today music, movies, medicine, the foods we eat, the drinks we drink are all things that are used by the system to distort the minds of the masses. Even the News channels all give out bias ideas.
The Christian, however, depends not on these things for truth for living but lives by every word from God alone. So what does this mean? It means that if one is married, or is unmarried, how we are to live is not by experience. But we are to live according to the word of God. The Bible alone is the word of God and tells us how we are to live not the media.
If it is one thing that is honorable about Martin Luther, other than parts, if not all of his theology, then it's 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 other people tell them what truth is or is not.
For many Christians, or those who profess to be so, knowledge is well despised. Of course this is nothing new people have despised knowledge since the beginning of the first sin. However, the Bible encourages understanding and knowledge of the truth. Philippians 2:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 5:1-3; Colossians 1:9; Ephesians 1:9, 17-18, 4:23-24. In fact this seems to be the purpose of the Exodus that the Egyptians might know God (and also the Jewish people no doubt) - Exodus 14:4, Deuteronomy 4:35-36. Of course God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to make the effect of our sanctification in knowledge.
The Bible also says,
25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Gordon H. Clark says, "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
Also Theodore Beza says,
"The Kingdom of God is not a Kingdom of ignorance, but of faith and, consequently, of knowledge; for it is beyond the ability of anyone to believe that which he is ignorant of." - Theodore Beza, Preface of Theodore Beza in The Christian Faith, pg. iv
Today, we have even more things that corrupt the minds of men and women every where. You might be able to think of some things but I know that today music, movies, medicine, the foods we eat, the drinks we drink are all things that are used by the system to distort the minds of the masses. Even the News channels all give out bias ideas.
The Christian, however, depends not on these things for truth for living but lives by every word from God alone. So what does this mean? It means that if one is married, or is unmarried, how we are to live is not by experience. But we are to live according to the word of God. The Bible alone is the word of God and tells us how we are to live not the media.
If it is one thing that is honorable about Martin Luther, other than parts, if not all of his theology, then it's 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 other people tell them what truth is or is not.
For many Christians, or those who profess to be so, knowledge is well despised. Of course this is nothing new people have despised knowledge since the beginning of the first sin. However, the Bible encourages understanding and knowledge of the truth. Philippians 2:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 5:1-3; Colossians 1:9; Ephesians 1:9, 17-18, 4:23-24. In fact this seems to be the purpose of the Exodus that the Egyptians might know God (and also the Jewish people no doubt) - Exodus 14:4, Deuteronomy 4:35-36. Of course God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to make the effect of our sanctification in knowledge.
The Bible also says,
25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
- Matthew 11
"Light" here is taken to mean knowledge and not some sort of weight. Christ is the radiance and glory of God and has revealed his truth to man. He is therefore said to be the light of the world. He is not dark but light and in him does the fullness of deity dwell. Of course in context 28 comes after 27.
Gordon H. Clark says, "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
Also Theodore Beza says,
"The Kingdom of God is not a Kingdom of ignorance, but of faith and, consequently, of knowledge; for it is beyond the ability of anyone to believe that which he is ignorant of." - Theodore Beza, Preface of Theodore Beza in The Christian Faith, pg. iv
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Is it that all we ever do is sin continously?
If all we ever do is sin continuously and so therefore we can do no good work, then faith in Christ is a sin. Beholding the satisfaction of the Father is a sin. Resting in the cross of Christ alone for our righteousness is sin. Offering the same kind of gifts of praise and thanks as Abel did is sin.
These guys who claim the justified elect can do no good works cut their own knees out from under them. - David Bishop
These guys who claim the justified elect can do no good works cut their own knees out from under them. - David Bishop
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Wether the governing rulers are good or evil we are to be submissive
"In considering the duties enjoined in the apostolic Epistles, it is constantly to be kept in view that, while written on particular occasions, and addressed to particular churches, they are equally adapted, in the wisdom of God, to all times and circumstances. They are intended for the instruction and guidance of Christians in every country and every age, just as the Decalogue, though delivered to only one nation, and that only once, is binding on every nation under heaven, in every period, till ths end of time. Christians learn from at present from this passage the will of God respecting their duty to civil government, just as those to whom this Epistle was addressed. It is true that there is an innumerable variety of differences in circumstances; but this is nothing to the purpose. The things taught in these Epistles are in all circumstances duty. The Roman Christians were under a despotism, and those who read this Epistle may live under a free government. But the dury of obedience is in both cases the same. The powers are under both equally to be obeyed." -Robert Haldane, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, pg. 576
Friday, June 23, 2017
God's chastisement for his children
"But, as for afflictions, we must reply, firstly: although all affliction and death entered into the world by sin, God does not always have regard to our sins when He afflicts us. We establish this from the whole history of Job and elsewhere (John 9:3; 1 Pet 2:19; 3:14; James 1:2). But He has several other ends in view which tend to His glory and our profit, as we shall explain further on.
On the other side, when God afflicts Hus own for their sins, even if He comes to make them feel the pains of death (Job 13:15), He is not provoked to anger against them as a judge, to condemn them, but as a Father who is chastising His children in order to prevent them from perishing (2 Cor 6:9; Heb 12:6; 2 Sam 7:14), or to give an example to others (2 Sam 12:13, 14)." - Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, pg. 19
"Nor do the hidings of God's face from them after conversion, prove any change in his love to them; for though he hides his face from them, and forsakes them for a moment, in a little seeming wrath, to shew his resentment at their sins, to bring them to a sense of them, to humble them before him, and to cause them to seek his face and favour; yet with great mercies he gathers them again to himself, in the most tender manner, and with loving-kindness, has mercy on them; and, for the strengthening of their faith in his love, swears he will not be wroth with them; and declares his loving-kindness to be more immoveable than hills and mountains, Isa. liv. 7-10. Afflictions are no evidence of a change of affections to them; though he may thoroughly chastise them, and, as they may think, severely, yet he deals with them but as children; and, like Ephraim, they are his dear sons and daughters, and pleasant children, in whom he takes the utmost complacency and delight; chastenings are rather proofs of sonship, than arguments against it." -John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 39
This reminds me of the Westminster Confessions of Faith - Chapter 17
They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.
2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
3. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.
Of course all of this reminds me of the Book of Hebrews in the Bible.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Who can bring any charge against God's elect?
"Let us therefore learn to reply in a different manner to the aforesiad argument of Satan. You say, Satan, that God is perfectly righteous and the avenger of all iniquity. - I confess it; but I add another property of His righteousness which you have left aside: since He is righteous, He is satisfied with having been paid once. You say next that I have infinite iniquities which deserve eternal death. - I confess it; but I add what you have maliciously omitted: the iniquities which are in me have been very amply avenged and punished in Jesus Christ who has borne the judgement of God in my place (Rom 3:25; 1 Pet 2:24). That is why I come to a conclusion quite different from yours. Since God is righteous (Rom 3:26) and does not demand payment twice, since Jesus Christ, God and man (2 Cor 5:19), has satisfied by infinite obedience (Rom 5:19; Phil 2:8) the infinite majesty of God (Rom 8:33), it follows that my iniquities can no longer bring me to ruin (Col 2:14); they are already blotted out and washed out of my account by the blood of Jesus Christ who was made a curse for me (Gal 3:13), and who righteous, died for the unrighteous (1 Pet 2:24)." - Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, Pg. 18
The Christian's assurance is not based on their works or worthiness of God's grace or acceptance. The Christian's assurance is based on the sole object of Faith alone which is Christ alone. By Christ alone we are justified and saved by His imputed righteousness alone.
The Christian's assurance is not based on their works or worthiness of God's grace or acceptance. The Christian's assurance is based on the sole object of Faith alone which is Christ alone. By Christ alone we are justified and saved by His imputed righteousness alone.
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
To believe one must have knowledge what to believe
"The Kingdom of God is not a Kingdom of ignorance, but of faith and, consequently, of knowledge; for it is beyond the ability of anyone to believe that which he is ignorant of." - Theodore Beza, Preface of Theodore Beza in The Christian Faith, pg. iv
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Faith produces works not the other way around
"If the Scripture point forth the freedom of Divine grace, to the setting aside of all human distinctions, in such language as this, If any man will come after me; - If any man will be my disciple; - Let him that heareth say, Come; - And let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely; our preachers immediately put an emphasis of their own, a very impertinent one too, on the expression will,* and, accordingly, go about to limit the Divine grace to the better disposed part of mankind. But it would be endless to trace them in all their glosses on the sacred Scripture. In a word, when they read the various effects of faith recorded in Scripture, they persuade their hearers to labour to attain some shadow of these in their hearts, and then to work out faith as a prop to them all. - building downward to the foundation. And, indeed, the more seriously we consider the popular doctrine, we shall find the more reason to conclude it to be a castle in the air." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio
In the footnote: * The deceit and falsehood of all such glosses on the Scripture will readily appear to us, if we can only attend to the meaning of one plain passage, wherein Jesus addresses the woman of Samaria thus: If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, give me to drink; thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The knowledge here spoken of is saving faith. And this knowledge, which was never yet acquired by human endeavours, never yet sought, or in the remotest manner wished for by any unbeliever, is the only spring of all willing, wishing, desiring, asking, of every motion of the heart that is agreeable to God, and attended with a sense of his favour. This knowledge influencing the mind, is, in Scripture, called the new heart, the right spirit, new man, &c.
Also read Archibald Alexander:
"Much has been written about the various acts of faith; some making a greater and some a less number of essential acts; but although what they ascribe to faith belongs to its various actings, yet if we examine the matter more accurately, we shall find that faith is one simple exercise of the mind, including, however, both the understanding and will; and that all its various acts arise from the various truths brought into view. A full persuasion of the truth revealed, is faith, in every case; but when the truth believed is a divine promise, this persuasion is of the nature of trust or confidence. Most of the phrases which speak of faith are figurative, and express the common actings of Faith in allusion to some analogous thing. Thus receiving, flying for refuge, looking, coming, hungering, and thirsting, &c. are used to convey to our minds in an intelligible and striking manner, the exercises of a soul when it believes in Christ, but cannot be considered so many distinct acts. Of these figurative expression, no one is more frequently used, or better suited to express the whole of a genuine faith, than that of 'receiving' Christ. - Archibald Alexander, A treatise on Justification by Faith, pg. 43-44
In the footnote: * The deceit and falsehood of all such glosses on the Scripture will readily appear to us, if we can only attend to the meaning of one plain passage, wherein Jesus addresses the woman of Samaria thus: If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, give me to drink; thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The knowledge here spoken of is saving faith. And this knowledge, which was never yet acquired by human endeavours, never yet sought, or in the remotest manner wished for by any unbeliever, is the only spring of all willing, wishing, desiring, asking, of every motion of the heart that is agreeable to God, and attended with a sense of his favour. This knowledge influencing the mind, is, in Scripture, called the new heart, the right spirit, new man, &c.
Also read Archibald Alexander:
"Much has been written about the various acts of faith; some making a greater and some a less number of essential acts; but although what they ascribe to faith belongs to its various actings, yet if we examine the matter more accurately, we shall find that faith is one simple exercise of the mind, including, however, both the understanding and will; and that all its various acts arise from the various truths brought into view. A full persuasion of the truth revealed, is faith, in every case; but when the truth believed is a divine promise, this persuasion is of the nature of trust or confidence. Most of the phrases which speak of faith are figurative, and express the common actings of Faith in allusion to some analogous thing. Thus receiving, flying for refuge, looking, coming, hungering, and thirsting, &c. are used to convey to our minds in an intelligible and striking manner, the exercises of a soul when it believes in Christ, but cannot be considered so many distinct acts. Of these figurative expression, no one is more frequently used, or better suited to express the whole of a genuine faith, than that of 'receiving' Christ. - Archibald Alexander, A treatise on Justification by Faith, pg. 43-44
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Repent and Believe are the parts of Conversion
"In Mark 1:15 Christ says, 'Repent, and believe in the gospel.' In the first part he denounces our sins, in the latter part he consoles us and shows us the forgiveness of sins. For to believe in the Gospel is not to have the general faith that even the demons have (James 2:19), but, in the true sense, to believe that for Christ's sake the forgiveness of sins has been granted us; this is revealed in the gospel." - The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 7. Penitence, pg. 187-188
Thursday, April 13, 2017
The Gospel is the distinguishing mark between all other false religions
When the apostle speaks "of the testimony of God, the object of saving faith, he tells us, 'it is Christ crucified,' 1 Cor. 1. 23-24. This was the great intent of the prophecies, which spake of the sufferings of Christ, and following glory: 'For to him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him; shall receive remission of sin.' Acts 10. 43. This therefore is that truth of the gospel which is specially witnessed unto, and whereby Christ says, 'his kingdom is advanced in the world.' And this may be further clear unto us if we consider,
1. That this is the distinguishing truth of Christianity, whereby it us differenced from mere natural religion, and from all religions in the world that any way compete with it. This is the great thing, the first thing, that any religion can purpose to sinful men, How they should be pardoned, reconciled to God, and justified in his sight? If the Christian religion differ from others in any thing, it is in this: they purpose other ways of coming into favour with God, and false ways; but Christ has made peace by the blood of his cross, and thereby reconciled all his people, of all nations, unto God in one body; and has come and preacher this peace to them that were afar off, and to them that were nigh, and this is the truth wherein the true God is gloriously manifested and distinguished from every false god." - John Glas, The Works of Mr. John Glas: In Four Volumes, pg. 109
1. That this is the distinguishing truth of Christianity, whereby it us differenced from mere natural religion, and from all religions in the world that any way compete with it. This is the great thing, the first thing, that any religion can purpose to sinful men, How they should be pardoned, reconciled to God, and justified in his sight? If the Christian religion differ from others in any thing, it is in this: they purpose other ways of coming into favour with God, and false ways; but Christ has made peace by the blood of his cross, and thereby reconciled all his people, of all nations, unto God in one body; and has come and preacher this peace to them that were afar off, and to them that were nigh, and this is the truth wherein the true God is gloriously manifested and distinguished from every false god." - John Glas, The Works of Mr. John Glas: In Four Volumes, pg. 109
The Kingdom of God is maintained by the Truth
The "kingdom is not set up, maintained, or advanced in the world, by human policy, but by the truth. It might be expected, that when the power of the sword is laid aside, there would be more need of this kind of wisdom. But instead of this wisdom, we have here the truth. They that were employed at first in setting up and promoting this kingdom in the world, used great plainness of speech, and spake naked truth without disguise." - John Glas, The works of Mr. John Glas: In Four Volumes, pg. 100
No compromise between what the gospel is and isn't
The Bible makes no compromise on this point. There is no middle path between truth and falsehood. It is either truth or a lie! There is a great temptation to consider people who are pious, and faithfully attending services, as righteous. God has broken in me the deep rooted, but pernicious, inclination to self-redemption which runs so deep in man. We are born with it. I do not believe that there is a man who of himself wants to live by 'grace alone'. We secretly hope that there may still be something good in us. We are too proud to admit the contrary. The Bible breathes an atmosphere of sovereign grace. The sinner is justified by grace, through faith. Human cooperation in this work of justification is totally excluded. I am glad that God has revealed this truth to me. 'And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free' (John 8:32). - Toon Vanhuysse, The Truth Set Me Free, found in "Far From Rome Near to God, ed. Richard Bennett and Martin Buckingham, pg. 208 - 209
Sunday, January 29, 2017
The Law versus the Gospel
In his Epistle to the Romans, contrasting the law and the gospel, he says, 'Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that a man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.' Do you perceive how be thus discriminates between the law and the gospel, that the former attributes righteousness to works, but the latter bestows it freely, without the assistance of works? -John Calvin, The Institutes, 3.11.17. Pg. 669
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Scripture alone is the alone infallible rule of faith
It is a constitutional rule of the great Bible Societies that they are to circulate the Bible 'without note or comment.' This is a noteworthy and significant fact. It indicates that the Bible is a self-contained and a self-explanatory book, a book which does not have and cannot have an authoritative introduction; and untold thousands have found the Saviour and been built up in our most holy faith by simple reading and study of the Word, under the guidance and illumination of the Holy Spirit. It is true of the Bible, as of no other book, that 'the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.' - Oswald T. Allis, The Old Testament Its Claims and Its Critics, pg. 1
The teacher does not teach new things to a pupil
A teacher does not teach anything. Of course they might say lies or false things but as it goes they cannot teach anyone anything. There is only one Teacher who has enlightened everyone. So what then what is the point of one person supposedly teaching another? Simply their job is to remind. That is what we are doing when we use propositions. Propositions are either false or true.
Someone responds, "Does a parent teach a child to walk? To talk? Do they 'remind' them to do so? Are we all 'enlightened'? Born with the ability of language and walking, just needing to be reminded?"
The question is what does it mean to walk; in other words, what is the definition of walking? By what way does a child become capable of walking?
The Bible says it is God who trains up a man for battle. I think David says God trains his hands for the bow.
Furthermore, God is said to make men blind, deaf, mute, and lame. So who teaches a man to walk? God alone.
Someone responds, "Does God teach you how to play the banjo? How to tie your shoes? What the capital of North Dakota is? No. Teachers teach those things. I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps you'll have to teach me."
Well I didn't respond to your question because I think I've answered it. We only have one Father. He alone gives us knowledge. Since God is knowledge, logic, and truth. All knowledge comes from Him. No man knows unless God reveals. Have you read Exodus? I suppose you have not. What does it say about the men who made the tabernacle?
Since men, are created in the image of God, they are created with logic, knowledge, ability to speak in some cases.
We therefore say man is not tabula rasa.
Therefore, human teachers do not teach or discover new ideas. But ideas, propositions are understood prior. Therefore, teachers either speak lies or truth. But their job is to remind.
Someone responds, "Does a parent teach a child to walk? To talk? Do they 'remind' them to do so? Are we all 'enlightened'? Born with the ability of language and walking, just needing to be reminded?"
The question is what does it mean to walk; in other words, what is the definition of walking? By what way does a child become capable of walking?
The Bible says it is God who trains up a man for battle. I think David says God trains his hands for the bow.
Furthermore, God is said to make men blind, deaf, mute, and lame. So who teaches a man to walk? God alone.
Someone responds, "Does God teach you how to play the banjo? How to tie your shoes? What the capital of North Dakota is? No. Teachers teach those things. I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps you'll have to teach me."
Well I didn't respond to your question because I think I've answered it. We only have one Father. He alone gives us knowledge. Since God is knowledge, logic, and truth. All knowledge comes from Him. No man knows unless God reveals. Have you read Exodus? I suppose you have not. What does it say about the men who made the tabernacle?
Since men, are created in the image of God, they are created with logic, knowledge, ability to speak in some cases.
We therefore say man is not tabula rasa.
Therefore, human teachers do not teach or discover new ideas. But ideas, propositions are understood prior. Therefore, teachers either speak lies or truth. But their job is to remind.
The diminishing Mind of Empiricism
Ayn "Rand maintained that the child - every child - knows nothing, his mind is 'unexposed,' and yet he has a conscious mind. The contradiction is inherent in the notion of a tabula rasa mind. A mind that is tabula rasa is simply not a mind. A consciousness conscious of nothing is simply not a consciousness. A mind that is empty is not a mind, any more than a geometrical figure that has no sides is a geometrical figure. This egregious contradiction lies at the foundation of Rand's epistemology - not only Rand's, but at the base of all empirical philosophies, including those of John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle." - John W. Robbins, Without A Prayer, Ayn Rand and The Close of Her System, pg. 30-31
Friday, January 6, 2017
There is nothing special in the sacrament itself
"In order that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and the sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Spirit is given, and the Holy Spirit produces faith, where and when it pleases God, in those who hear the Gospel. That is to say, it is not on account of our own merits but on account of Christ that God justifies those who believe that they are received into favor for Christ's sake. Gal. 3:14, 'That we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.'
Our churches condemn the Anabaptist and others who think that the Holy Spirit comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works." - The Book of Concord, The Augsburg Confession, Pg. 31 Article 5 [The ministry of the Church]
Our churches condemn the Anabaptist and others who think that the Holy Spirit comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works." - The Book of Concord, The Augsburg Confession, Pg. 31 Article 5 [The ministry of the Church]
Elijah the prophet during the time when man did what is right in his own eyes
No wonder Elijah thought himself alone. Gilead was part of the tribe that was in the northern kingdom of Israel. During that time Ahab sinned as if it was a light thing for him to do. In his time Hiel rebuilt Jericho (Joshua in 6:26 curses the man who rebuilds the city). During the time then there would have seemed like there was a famine of the word of God.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
No difference between the law of Christ and the decalogue
In sundry other places of their confessions they explain their meaning more fully thus: Many laws were uttered by Christ of which Moses knew nothing; for instance, the law to love our enemies, the law not to seek private revenge, the law not to demand back what has been taken from us, ect. All these matters the papists declare to be 'new laws.' This is wrong; for even Moses has said: ' Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thine heart and with all thy soul and with ...all thy might,' Deut. 6,5; and: ' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' Lev. 19, 18. Now, Christ did not abrogate this law of Moses, but neither did He publish any new laws. He only opened up the spiritual meaning of the Law. Accordingly, He says in Matt. 5, 17: 'Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' That means that He did not come to issue new laws, but to fulfill the Law for us, so that we may share His fulfillment. - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 73-74
"The law is called the Decalogue, and the gospel is the doctrine concerning Christ the mediator, and the free remission of sins through faith." -Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg, pg. 2
"The law is called the Decalogue, and the gospel is the doctrine concerning Christ the mediator, and the free remission of sins through faith." -Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg, pg. 2
.
Cannot believe that which is unknowable
If the Holy Scriptures were really so obscure a book that the meaning of all those passages which form the basis of articles of the Christian Creed could not be definitely ascertained, and if, as a result of this, we should have to acknowledge that without some other authority it would be impossible to decide which of two or several interpretations of Scripture-passages is the only correct one, - if these conditions, I say, we're true, the Scriptures could not be the Word of God. How could a book that leaves us groping in darkness and uncertainty regarding its essential contents serve as a revelation? - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 59
"The Kingdom of God is not a Kingdom of ignorance, but of faith and, consequently, of knowledge; for it is beyond the ability of anyone to believe that which he is ignorant of." - Theodore Beza, Preface of Theodore Beza in The Christian Faith, pg. iv
I would say that the Arminian is a lost heretic who denies the law and gospel distinction
"'In the second place,' Gerhard continues, 'when the doctrine of the Gospel is not separated from the Law by definite boundary-lines, the blessings of Christ are co considerably obscured.' By ascribing to man some share in his own salvation, we rob Christ of all His glory. God has created us without our cooperation, and He wants to save us the same way. We are to thank Him for having created us with a hope of life everlasting. Even so He alone wants to save us. We to him who says that he must contribute something towards his own salvation! He deprives Christ of His entire merit. For Jesus is called the Savior, not a helper towards salvation, such as preachers are. Jesus has achieved our entire salvation. That is why we are so determined in our Predestinarian Controversy. For the basic element in the controversy has been that we insisted on keeping Law and Gospel separate, while our opponents mingle the one with the other. When they hear from us this statement: 'Out of pure mercy, God has elected us to the praise of the glory of His grace; God vindicates for Himself exclusively the glory of saving us,' etc., they say: 'That is a horrible doctrine! If that were true, God would be partial. No, He must have beheld something in men that prompted Him to elect this or that particular man. When He beheld something good in a person, He elected him.' If that were so, man would really be the principal cause of his salvation. In that case man could say, 'Thank God, I have done my share towards being saved.' However, when we shall have arrived in our heavenly fatherland, this is what we shall say: 'If I had had my own way, I should never have found salvation; and even supposing I had found it by myself, I should have lost it again. Thou, O God, didst come and draw me to Thy Word, partly by tribulation, partly by anguish of heart, partly by sickness, ect. All these things Thou hast used as a means to bring me into heaven, while I was always striving for perdition.'" - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 40-41
The law does promise to give on condition that we fulfill it's demands
"In the law as a covenant of works there is also a promise, a gracious promise of the continuance of spiritual and temporal life and, in due time, of eternal life. This promise, which flowed solely from infinite benignity and condescension in God, was made, and was to have been fulfilled, to Adam and all his natural posterity, on condition that he as their representative perfectly obeyed the precept." - John Colquhoun, A treatise on the law and gospel, pg. 15 this is on the law in general.
No such thing as good fruit without good seed. Knowing truth matters first before any good works can be done
"... what an awful delusion has taken hold upon so many men's minds who ridicule the pure doctrine and say to us: 'Ah, do cease clamoring, pure doctrine! Pure doctrine! That can only land you in dead orthodoxism. Pay more attention to pure life, and you will raise a growth of genuine Christianity.' That is exactly like saying to a farmer: 'Do not worry forever about good seed; worry about good fruits.' Is not a farmer properly concerned about good fruit when he is solicitous about getting good seed? Just so a concern about pure doctrine is the proper concern about genuine Christianity and a sincere Christian life. False doctrine is noxious seed, sown by the enemy to produce a progeny of wickedness." - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 20-21
What of the Christian bearing the sword?
"It is true, he had signified to his disciples, that they would be in such circumstances as wherein they would stand in extreme need of this sort of defence; and had said to them, 'He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy 'one,' Luke 22. 36. Yet, while tehy stood in the greatest need of selling their garments to buy swords, before the Emperor turned Christian, they did not reckon that these words of the Lord were intended to oblige them to take the sword for their defence in their profession: For when the disciples answered Christ, saying, 'Here are two swords,' he said unto them, 'It is enough;' surely not for eleven disciples; but it was enough for his purpose, which was to give occasion, first, for the 'miracle of healing Malchus's 'ear,' wherein he gave a notable evidence of his good-will to his enemies, and that he was able to deliver himself, but condescended to suffer; and a notable pattern to his people, of doing acts of kindness to enemies, and of patience in suffering; and, secondly, for the following prohibition of drawing the sword in his quarrel; for, when he healed the ear, he said to his enemies, 'Suffer ye thus far,' Luke 22. 51; and to Peter, Matth. 26. 52 'Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword.' He speaks there of another sort of defence, more agreeable to the nature of his heavenly kingdom, than the sword of his disciples, which he would have used rather, if it had not been unsuitable to his present condition, and against the fulfillment of the Scripture, v 53-54 'Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?' There is no need of the sword of the disciples to defend the kingdom of heaven; the armies of angels are more suitable to this kingdom than armies of fighting men." - John Glas, The Works of Mr. John Glas: In Four Volumes, Vol. 1, Pg. 90
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)