What God purposes to do that is what He does

"Wherever God purposes to save men of any nation, thither he sends his gospel in his proper time. Paul and Silas essayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered them not. And they were directed by a heavenly vision to go into Macedonia, where the word of the Lord had free course and was glorified. Paul met with great opposition when he came to Corinth, but the Lord encouraged him to continue there: For (said he) I have much people in this city." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio, pg. 335

The God of the Bible is sovereign over all things

Plato in the Timaeus taught that his god made order out of chaos and then he (like Zeus?) made divine children that created mortal man. In this, Plato taught that his god was not in control of all things. Bible declares however that God created the heavens and the earth. He was before all things. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." - Genesis 1

Not only do we have God before all things but also shaping and forming all things in seven literal days.


Gordon H. Clark says, "It is at about this stage that Mackay begins to discuss the relation between the world and God. His view of creation is not clear. 'Chance in the sense of chaos is indeed recognized (Gen. 1:2), but only as something banished from the world by God's creative word' (p. 49). This seems to say that there was a physical world of chaos before God created the cosmos. This is similar to the work of Plato's demiurge. Yet two pages later he says, 'God has conceived and made our world out of nothing.' Then later he says, 'Creation . . . . is not just a single datable event which happened at a particular time; it is rather a continuing relationship of dependence between us and God' (p. 69). How does this fit in with 'Let there be light, and there was light'? How also does a continuing relationship between God and man fit in with 'And on the seventh day God ended his work . . . and rested . . . from all his work which he had made'? Has not Mackay again contradicted himself? That the world is now upheld by the power of God is undeniable; but creation out of nothing must be instantaneous." - Beahaviorism and Christianity, Pg. 93

God controls all things including the sinfulness of man

"Isaiah 45 is an overpowering assertion of God's sovereignty. It begins with Cyrus, the Lord's anointed, and a statement of what God will do by him and for him. Then comes what is probably the most exalted statement in the Bible about the sovereignty of God. It is utterly destructive of Arminianism. The later verses, clear in themselves, are not to be ignored; but the middle section beggars praise. Verse 5 is only a reminder of the whole: 'I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. I girded you, though you have not known me.'
It is a shame to interrupt even an incomplete quotation, but the present task is to call attention to its meaning. God girded Cyrus, though Cyrus did not know it. One must not suppose, when God girds, guides, and controls someone, that the person is aware of it. Even regeneration, as the Puritans point out, is not a conscious experience; much less God's control of Pharaoh, Absalom, or Cyrus. Their knowledge comes later, if at all. Then the text continues: 'I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.'
The two theses most unacceptable to the Arminians are that God is the cause of sin and that God is the cause of salvation. In both cases the Arminians look to free will. Man is the first cause of his sin, and still independent of God, man is the first cause of his conversation. Isaiah in this verse makes Arminianism Biblically impossible.
The Scofield Bible is a good example of how Arminians try to escape from the plain meaning of the verse. Scofield says, 'Heb. ra, translated 'sorrow,' 'wretchedness,' 'adversity,' 'afflictions,' 'calamities,' but never translated sin. God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, ect., to be the sure fruits of sin.'
Now the most remarkable point about Scofield's note is that he told the truth when he said, 'ra... [is] never translated sin.' How could he have made such a statement, knowing it was true? The only answer is that he must have examined every instance of ra in the Hebrew text and then he must have determined that in no case did the King James translate it sin. And this is absolutely true. But if he compared every instance of ra with its translation in every case, he could not have failed to note that ra in Genesis 6:5 and in a number of other places is translated wickedness. In fact ra is translated wickedness some fifty times. Scofield could not have failed to notice this; so he says with just truth, ra is never translated sin. Since Scofield favors the word evil, a partial list of verses in which  this translation occurs will be given; and second there will be a partial list where wicked or wickedness is used." - Gordon H. Clark, Predestination, Pg. 131


Gordon H. Clark also says, "It would require too many quotations to list all the verses in which God is declared to be the sole first cause of everything, good or bad. Seeing the end from the beginning and knowing every intermediate event, could God, who created the universe from nothing, be other than the cause of all? But though the proof-texts for omnipotence, omniscience, and creation be omitted, no doubt one more verse that particularly mentions sin will be of help. Isaiah 45:7, in a context extolling the sovereignty of God, quotes him as saying, 'I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.'
Now, a certain edition of the Bible with a lot of heretical notes remarks that the Hebrew word for evil in this verse is never translated sin. Since this seems to be the case, the author of the note probably looked at every verse in which this word occurred. If he did, he must have seen that although the word is never translated sin, it is used in reference to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; it describes man's depraved imaginations as only evil continually; Jacob says the Angel redeemed him from all evil; Joseph's brothers refer to their treatment of him as evil, and refer to it as trespass and sin - and all this is found in Genesis. Exodus tells us not to follow a multitude to do evil. Deuteronomy 1:35 speaks of an evil, that is, a sinful generation; 4:25 uses the word with reference to idolatry; 19:19 with reference to a false oath; and 22:14 to fornication. So it goes throughout the Old Testament. Hence the attempt to avoid the force of the Lord's statement 'I create evil' is an exegetical and philological blunder. A Christian must on this point too conform his theology to the Word of God." - Volume 7 of the Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark "Clark and His Critics", Pg. 179-180

What does it mean to say God shall destroy?

In 1 Corinthians 3:17 it speaks of God destroying a man for defiling the temple.


Now the question to be considered is whether this destruction is eternal or what not? We often read such verses as such, and not to say that there are no verses that mean eternal destruction, but context should be considered.

The Love of God

Does God love every single human being?

The Arminian, and the Scholastics (whether Reformed so called or no) would say absolutely. They would definitely list out Scripture verses that seemingly supports this satanic idea. One such verse, is all together popular, is John 3:16.


It says that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son so that whosoever believes in Him shall not parish but have eternal life.


In this verse those who teach God loves every single human being who has, is, and will ever live on earth point out that the text says God so loved the world.

Now the problem with this interpretation of things is that it does not fit the context of the verse itself and of the whole Scripture. For instance, Romans 9 says God loved Jacob, but hated Esau.

They who holds that God loves every single human being (we will call them universalist) basically think that the term world means every individual. This however is not the case. The universalist has simply committed a fallacy. They say look here is the word world therefore this means this. The problem is that the term world in Scripture has several different meanings and none of them speak of every single human beings.

In fact, the term world can denote the universe, all creation including things. As God created the cosmos. He is ruler of it all the stars, the skies, the ocean.

It can also mean the gentile world as distinct from the Jewish world as Paul uses the term in Romans 11.

But since Scripture interprets Scripture we know ultimately God only loves those whom He has chosen in eternity past. Therefore, God so loved the world of the elect alone.

Romans 11

Just got done reading through Romans 10 - 11.

I had a childhood friend use Romans 11 to support the theory that a Christian can be saved at one time and then lose his salvation.

But the text does mean that. What it does say is that God has harden everyone or well has concluded all men in sin so that he might have mercy upon all (Romans 11:32).


Anyone who is saved is saved based on His mercy and grace alone that is free.

It is wrong to think that God has abandoned his people as Paul says in v. 1. For the truth is he hasn't. Paul says so in v. 2 - 5 there is a remnant that has not bowed the knee. There is a remnant according to the election of grace.

But even so there is a small remnant of Israelites that are saved, the majority are hardened (v. 7 - 11) for the sakes of the Gentiles.

This according to Paul is to bring about jealousy amongst the Jews that some might be saved (14).

God therefore has cut off the Jews so to graft the Gentiles in. This correlates to that which Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2. What then shall we say? Where then is boasting? No where. There is no room for it in grace.

It is by faith (the doctrine of Christ) so that it is by grace. Therefore, we ought not to be highminded.

For God did not spare the Jews neither will he spare the Gentiles for pride. This ought to therefore cause us to look to Christ and believe the gospel of Gods free grace and mercy.

The use of Faith

Some verses seem to teach that a believer might fall from grace.

However, the question becomes are there really such verses?

There are different uses of the word faith. It can be used as a verb or noun.

So if one is said to have fallen away from the faith? Does this mean that one actually had Faith?
The two uses are equivocal. Faith is a term used to denote a doctrinal system. The other use of the term is referring to our act of believing.

1 Timothy 4:1 1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.


Tobias Crisp says, "But, Secondly, suppose the words to run as they are commonly rendered; I answer, then are we to distinguish in faith two things; there is the act of believing, and the object on which we believe; and so the words may be understood thus, 'Being justified; by the righteousness of faith, or by the righteousness of Christ which we believe, 'we have peace with God;' and so ascribe our justification to the object of our believing, the righteousness of Christ, and not to the act of believing." - Christ Alone Exalted, 127


Gordon H. Clark says this also.


"James 2:20 speaks of a dead faith. James also says that Abraham was justified by works and not by faith alone. How does this fit in with what Paul says? . . . The term faith has two very distinct meanings. Sometimes it means the mental activity of believing. . . . While the second meaning, namely the propositions believed, occurs in Revelation 2:13, 19 and 14:12. This second meaning is prominent in the pastoral epistles. Although many people confuse the two and slip from one to the other without realizing what they are doing. . . ." - Gordon H. Clark, Faith and Saving Faith

Definition of the word Church

I have not to my knowledge posted anything on this blog about the word "Church". When the word "Church" is used it is often not understood, particularly in certain context. One such context is found in relation to Church discipline. It is always important to define one's terms whether the term is time, or even Church. We ought to know what one is talking about and we do so when definitions are right set forth. In Matthew 18:17 it is said that if a man will not listen to two or three witnesses then one ought to tell it to the church. Often the term Church in this context is meant to mean a pastor or some sort of leader. However, this is not so. I say this in light of the fact that the term church is an assembly and in this context it is an assembly of God or an assembly that has been called out by God. It is an igglesia or we might say Ecclesia which means Called out ones.

I am not the only one who believes this. There are others who say the same thing. According to the Smalcald Articles, A Lutheran set of beliefs, says, "We do not concede to the papists that they are the church, for they are not. Nor shall we pay any attention to what they command or forbid in the name of the church, for, thank God, a seven-year-old child knows what the church is, namely, holy believers and sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd."

John Glas, the father in law of Robert Sandeman, says, "Before we proceed to inquire into this, it may be observed, that we do not find the officers or representatives of any church or churches, or any congregation or assembly of them, called the church; but we find the people distinguished from them, and called the church: Acts 15. 22. . . . Acts 14. 23. . . . Acts 20. 17. 28. . . ." - The works of John Glas, Pg. 158


Martin Luther on what a true Christian community is:

It is necessary, first of all, to know where and what a Christian community is so that men may not engage in purely human affairs under cover of the name of a Christian church, as has always been the custom of non-Christians. The certain mark by which a Christian community can be recognized is the preaching of the gospel in its purity. Just as one can tell by the military banner, as by a sure sign, what leader and what army have taken the field, so one may surely know by the gospel where Christ and his people are stationed. Of this we have God's sure promise in Isaiah 55 [:10, 11], 'My word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but as the rain comes down from heaven and waters the earth, so shall my word accomplish that which I purpose.' Hence we are certain that where the gospel is preached there must be Christians, no matter how few in number or how sinful and weak they may be. We are just as certain that where the gospel is not preached and where the doctrines of men hold sway there can be no Christians but only heathen, no matter how great their numbers or how pious and good their lives.
From this it follows unquestionably that the bishops, foundations, monastic houses, and all the rest of that crew have long since ceased to be either Christians or a Christian community, though they have flaunted this name as their exclusive possession. Anybody who knows what the gospel is can see, hear, and understand that to this very day they rely on their human teachings and have altogether rejected, and are still rejecting, the gospel. Whatever such people do and say must therefore be regarded as heathen and of this world." - Martin Luther, Right and Power of a Christian Church, Pg. 325-326


John W Robbins says

"Paul's final greeting is to 'the church in your house.' In the New Testament, the word church is never used of a building. We have drifted so far from the teaching of the New Testament that some Christians now think they are not in a church unless they are in a church building, or at least affiliated with an organization that owns such a building. But in the New Testament, the church is a society that meets for the purpose of publicly worshiping God. All Christians, as members of Christ's body, which is the invisible church, are members of Christ's church. When some of them gather together for public worship in a particular place, they are called a particular church: in this case, 'the church in your house.' Just as the New Testament never uses the word church to refer to a building, so it never uses the word church to refer only to church officers. It does not even mention such officers or offices as popes, cardinals, episcopal bishops, archbishops, trustees, superintendents, assistant pastors, associate pastors, music ministers, or youth pastors. All those offices have been invented by men. The church in Philemon's house is the entire group of Christians that meets there for worship. They are all part of the ekklesia." - John Robbins, Slavery and Christianity

Our good works cannot be the grounds of our Assurance

What Lordship Salvation does and those who hold to it is that it grounds our assurance in our works. It separates the object of justification from sanctification. It is Christ's death that justifies us. It is His death alone that sanctifies us. Our works here on earth are mingled with sin, therefore, cannot be the basis of our assurance.

People who ground their assurance in their works end up measuring their spiritual life on the basis of imperfect works. It is because these works are so imperfect that they cannot be the measuring rod of our salvation. Our salvation is grounded in and by Christ alone. Regeneration, Repentance, and Faith all send us to Christ alone. The Hebrew writer says that it is by faith we see Christ. Our faith, which is passive in our justification, looks to Christ who is the object of our justification and author of our faith.

We must learn to look to Christ and his finish work for our assurance and let the good works done be whatever they are simple works mingled with sin.

The Law and Gospel: Martin Luther vs. Mark Dever

Mark Dever, like John MacArthur, confuses the law and the gospel in all of his writings. For instance, Mark Dever says, "But according to the Bible, although freedom is a wonderful aspect of our message (e.g., John 8:32-36), sin and guilt are at the very heart and core of the gospel. Making people aware of their lost and sinful condition is part and parcel of sharing the good news of Christ." - The Gospel and Personal Evangelism, pg. 56

Here Mark Dever confuses the law and the gospel by saying that at the very heart of the gospel is sin and guilt. This is actually false. It is the law that results in sin and guilt. The gospel is good tidings of great joy about what Christ got done on the cross for the elect alone by His death by which he makes His people whom he died for accepted by His righteousness alone imputed to them. The gospel declares. It is news. It does not chide.

The Apostle Paul says that it is the letter that kills but the Spirit brings life.

However, Martin Luther properly distinguishes the law and the gospel in his book "Against the Heavenly Prophets".
He says:

"Now in order that we do not open our mouths too wide and marvel at the skill of these false spirits, and thereby abandon the main articles, and thus deceitfully be led off the track (for thereby the devil succeeds through these prophets), I will here briefly recount these articles of the Christian faith to which everyone is above all things to pay attention and hold fast.
The first is the law of God, which is to be preached so that one thereby reveals and teaches how to recognize sin (Rom. 3[:20] and 7[:7]), as we have often shown in our writings. However these  prophets do not understand this correctly, for this means a truly spiritual preaching of the law, as Paul says in  Rom. 7[:14], and a right use of the law, as he says in 1 Tim. 1[:8].
Secondly, when now sin is recognized and the law is so preached that the conscience is alarmed and humbled before God's wrath, we are then to preach the comforting word of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins, so that the conscience again may be comforted and established in the grace of God, etc.
Christ himself teaches these two articles in such an order (Luke 24[:47]. One must preach repentance and the forgiveness of sins in his name. 'And the Spirit (he says in John [16:8]) will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment.' You do not find either of these two articles in this one or any other of the false prophets. They also do not understand them, and yet these are the most important and necessary articles." - Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 160

Notice that it is the Law that reveals sin and alarms the sinner. Only after this does the gospel come to comfort the wounded sinner.

Like Beza, Luther calls these two things (Law and Gospel) articles.

Offers tend to glorify the creature and not God

"Offer always tend towards creature-glorying, for when you should be evangelizing, how God is rich in mercy, and how full in Grace and Power through the Lord Our Righteousness, Eph. 2:4, you begin proposing some creature-act; and so Christ is now and then brought in, by the bye, only upon the courtesy of your offers. Here his name is made to stoop to your wickedness, and to serve with your sins. Thus offers are fitted to exalt the creature, for when you should be preaching all that exalts God, in contriving, preparing, sending, and revealing Salvation by Christ, also in bestowing and conveying these truths into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, men instead of it, depart from the truth, 1 Tim. 4:1, giving heed to a seducing spirit that carries them away to glory in offer; and when offers come to town, what do they do? Alas, they evidently lessen God and greaten man in the people's eyes that are open." - Joseph Hussey, God's Operation of Grace, Pg. 193 - 194

The Simplicity of Scripture alone

The Bible alone is God's word. The Bible speaks of what content it teaches. All Scripture points to Christ alone. Peter says even the prophets testify of Christ, Acts 10:42-43. Also one can see how the apostles and deacons handled the OT in Acts 2 and 7. Not only in Acts but the Gospels as well. Jesus says if you had believed Moses, then you would had believed in Him too for Moses speaks of Christ, John 5:46. One of the very things that Christ did after he was raised from the dead was to show his disciples how the Scripture must be fulfilled and testify of Christ, Luke 24:25-27. Certainly the Bible is not complex but is simple. It is not Scripture that confuses people but the minds of men who are sinful that do so. Who can free us from such state? As the Apostle says in Romans 7 it is Christ alone.

Scripture alone reveals God's will

"Paul in this verse does not tell us how to do so, at least not explicitly. But it is clear that the epistle as a whole is the will of God. Scripture is the will of God, and nothing else, if will is taken in the sense of precept and not in the sense of decree. One popular evangelist told his audience the six, or was it the eight, steps for finding the will of God for one's life. The process was almost totally secular. True, one step was the perusal of Scripture, but the others were all something else. Now, I would not forbid a puzzled Christian from seeking wisdom from more mature Christian friends. But the wisdom must consist of a study of Scripture. All Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness, and by Scripture, and by Scripture alone, the man of God thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Nothing else is needed - except an intellect to understand what Scripture says." - Gordon H. Clark, Ephesians, Pg. 179

The Pagan is in Danger of Hell Fire, the Carnal Christian is not

In response to Thomas Manton who said this, quoted in Gordon H. Clarks - What is Saving Faith, "'A man may be right in opinion and judgment, but of vile affections; and a carnal Christian is in as great danger as a pagan, or idolater, or heretic. . . .'"

Clark responds, "That a carnal Christian is in as great danger as a pagan is unscriptural. No one is to be commended for his carnality. Paul berated the carnal Christians in Corinth. But though their works shall be burned up, yet they themselves shall be saved. The carnal Christian is even somewhat better off than this. Since justification inevitably process sanctification,  the most depraved sinner who is born again must improve, perhaps slowly and with much difficulty, or sometimes with the success of John Newton. The pagan is in danger of Hell fire; the carnal Christian is not. To the extent that Manton depends on this false premise, to that extent his argument is vitiated." - What is Saving Faith

Needless to say we must understand the point of 1 Corinthians 3. Joseph Hussey strikes at the point of the passage in his work against Offerings.

Joseph Hussey says, "We must preach Effectual Grace, it being most suited to further God's building. So the words are in 1 Cor. 3:9, 'ye are God's building.' To this purpose, the Holy Ghost delights much to use the word instruction, which signifies a building upon. 'Tis instructing sinners, building up their principles, as grace, life and power upon Christ, which the Holy Ghost hath first laid into their hearts by the preaching of the Gospel. An Operation of the Spirit carries on God's building; but offers of Grace, proposals, or tenders of Salvation, neither instruct nor build up God's elect in the true mysteries of Grace and Salvation. Right preaching is a building of the new-born soul upon God's foundation, Christ. For why do I preach Grace, if God does not work by Grace? Better put on sackcloth and lie in the dust, and cry, Lord, show me thy truth, and let me not go on my own errand." - God's Operation of Grace, Pg. 189

The ends and means of Reprobation

"That the decree of damnation is not executed till sin be finished which bringeth forth death, Gen. 15:16, Rom. 1:28, as we of the Supra-lapsarian side {for absolute Election and Non-Election of persons in fixing the Decree, as to Love and Hatred of the persons; and yet too of the Sub-Lapsarian side for Absolute ways and means of executing the Decree, as to Salvation and Punishments} do hold; though we are slanderously reported, Rom. 3:8, by one of the Sub-Lapsarian way, as if the Supra-lapsarian theology {in Gomarus, Voet, Piscator, Perkins, Twisse, &c.,} held, that God from Eternity sentenced the greated part of mankind to Eternal Flames not for any prescience of their future ill behavior, but because he would have it so, and to show forth his Absolute Dominion over his creatures, and to manifest his Unlimited Power. Wherein now doth this text appear to propose the notion concerning offers of Grace?" - Joseph Hussey, God's Operations of Grace, Pg. 268

It is interesting to see that Joseph Hussey distinguishes between the ends and means of election and reprobation.

Preach the Gospel unto all sinners

"Preaching of Christ does not lie in tendering but in proclaiming the glad tidings. It lies in showing, telling, and declaring, &C., the things of the Kingdom of God"- Joseph Hussey, God's Operations of Grace, pg. 91

Either Christ saves or we save ourselves

"Every doctrine, then, which teaches us to do or endeavour any thing toward our acceptance with God, stands opposed to the doctrine of the Apostles; which, instead of directing us what to do, sets before us all that the most disquieted conscience can require, in order to acceptance with God, as already done and finished by Jesus Christ." - Robert Sandeman


"To illustrate this matter, let it be remembered that the saving truth which the apostles believed was, That Jesus is the Christ. The apostles had one uniform fixed sense to these words, and the whole New Testament is writ to ascertain to us in what sense they understood them. Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ in a different sense from the apostles, or who maintains anything in connection with these words subversive of their real meaning, believes a falsehood; so his faith cannot save him. In the days of the apostles many affirmed along with them, that Jesus is the Christ, who yet meant very differently from them. The far greater part of Christendom will affirm in like manner; yet we shall not easily find many who, when they come to explain themselves, have the same meaning with the Apostles. Let us, then, lay aside all questions about faith, or how a man believes; and let the only question be, What does he believe? what sense does he put on the apostolic doctrine about the way of salvation?" - Robert Sandeman, Theron and Aspasio, Pg. 258 - 259


Joseph Hussey would concur with Sandeman. He says, "If there were such kinds of hearers now in our assemblies, yet there would be none amongst any of us who have received the common doctrine of the Gospel to deny, that the said doctrine of Grace was to be preached unto them, according to the precedent in which the apostles did it. Here then we all agree without dispute, in one and the same affirmative." - Joseph Hussey, God's Operations of Grace, Pg. 26

Scripture alone is the testimony used

"But the best of human testimonies are an ill medium to testify to the truth of the Gospel, because the Gospel is all built upon Divine Revelation, and thus it needs not to receive testimony from men." -Joseph Hussey, God's operations of Grace, pg. 13

The Free Offer entails Free Will

"Acceptance of the Gospel is a piece of the Gospel wrought in the soul by Jehovah the Spirit, which your tenderers of Salvation, either overlook or deny. Neither can offers be a fit means calculated to justify God, in condemning men for refusing a doctrine which was never preached to them; but rather offers justify God in condemning a minister, who, instead of preaching to conscience, offers his proposals, and leaves his messages at a great distance off-hand, as seems good to the profferer to fix them in mid-way, and wait for the sinner's acceptance. Offers lay all down for acceptance at mid-way block, and never get further. Whatever it be that is offered, Doctrine or Salvation, before the elect, or before the non-elect, or before all promiscuously, there it sticks in mid-way, waiting for a motion from man's free-will to accept. This is in no ways preaching the Gospel to Sinners!" - Joseph Hussey, God's Operations of Grace, pg. 43

The free offer entails free will. It ultimately leads to the errors of alter calls which Finney made popular.


David J. Engelsma also says in Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, "The only alternative to the truth of sovereign grace is the teaching that salvation depends upon the free will of the sinner. This is another aspect of the theory of the offer to which a Reformed man objects. We appreciate the fact that in the past defenders of the offer within the Reformed sphere have vehemently repudiated free will, despite the inconsistency of their repudiation with the doctrine of the offer itself. Nevertheless, the teaching of free will is necessarily implied in the doctrine of the offer and can be repudiated only by repudiating the offer." - Pg. 48

The Scripture nowhere sets the gospel as an offer

"The oracles of God have an elegant variety of expression, to set forth the preaching of Jesus Christ. As for example, it is called speaking, 1 Cor. 2:7,13, speaking the word, Phil. 1:14, preaching, Acts 20:25. . . . But never once in all this variety of phrase,  do Scriptures call preaching the Gospel by the names and phrases of offering, proffering, propounding or tendering Grace, Christ, Salvation and glad tidings to sinners." - Joseph Hussey, God's Operations of Grace, Pg. 22 - 23

So far so good. Nothing wrong with what was just quoted.

The Jewish leaders were Tyrants

The Bible speaks of the leaders of Israel as those who feared the people. In Matthew 26:5 they did not want to arrest Jesus because they feared an uproar. In Matthew 21:26, they couldn't answer Jesus because they feared the people; which is why they couldn't lay their hands on him because they feared the people v. 46. Mark 14:1-2 says that they plotted Christ's death but did not want to kill him on the feast day unless there would be an uproar of the people. These leaders were fearful of the people.


According to Plato, in the Republic, tyrants are tyrants because they really do fear the people. This is why these Jewish leaders are considered tyrants. They end up controlling and dominating over everyone out of fear that someone may override their authority.

No distinction between the words healing and curing

I suppose I never really thought much of this until an Arminian said it. But an Arminian once said that healing people and curing people are two different things. He bolstered his claim by using the text of scripture to suggest that Jesus healed people from demonic possession but didn't really cure them of it. Just think of what this satanic man is saying... Jesus doesn't save unto the uttermost. However, etymologically speaking the word for healing is synonymous with the word curing. The text he uses doesn't really prove his point either. What is also sad is that this guy is a teacher at a school. He has a degree somewhere. He ought to know what words mean. The hokie pokie was his favourite song.

All of grace and not of work

The gospel of Christ is a no strings attached news. It is not a tit for tat declaration. It isn't Christ died and now you must do something to make it worthwhile. It is the good news. News is declared. There are no you must do. The declaration is that Christ took away sins and appeased the wrath of God so that those whom he died for would be declared righteous because of what He did for them. This is the message that is declared. It is finished. It is accomplished. It is definite. It is particular. It is limited to those the Father gave to the Son. Christ shall not lose them. It is all of grace or it is of works.

The Gospel presupposes election

The Bible connects election with the Gospel. You cannot have a gospel message without election. Christ died for the elect alone, He lays down his life for the sheep alone, His church. He prays for her in John 17. In Matthew we see how election is connected to the gospel message of Christ. Matthew 3:12, speaks of the wheat and the tares. Matthew 11:25, says no one knows the son but those whom God chooses. Matthew 13:12, says Jesus speaks in parables so that His people will believe. He says it was given to His people to know the mystery of the Kingdom. In v. 38, it is spoken of the good seed which is the children of the kingdom. The tares as in Matthew 3:12 are the children of the wicked one. In Matthew 13:47, It is said that the gospel saves only few people, it is not meant to save every single human being who has or will ever live.

Salvation is a work of God alone

"Conversion and salvation must, in the very nature of things, be wrought and effected either by ourselves alone, or by ourselves and God together, or solely by God Himself. The Pelagians were for the first. The Arminians are for the second. True believers are for the last, because the last hypothesis, and that only, is built on the strongest evidence of Scripture, reason and ecperience: it most effectually hides pride from man, and sets the crown of undivided praise upon the head, or rather casts it at the feet, of that glorious Triune God, who worketh all in all." - Jerome Zanchius, Absolute Predestination, pg. 105

Can't preach the gospel without preaching predestination

Jerome Zanchius teaches that predestination ought to be taught as with the gospel. Certainly there is no gospel without predestination.

He says, "The Gospel is to be preached, and that not partially and by piece-meal, but the whole of it. The commission runs, 'Go forth and preach the Gospel'; the Gospel itself, even all the Gospel, without exception or limitation. So far as the Gospel is maimed or any branch of evangelical system is suppressed and passed over in silence, so far the Gospel is not preached. Besides, there is scarce any other distinguishing doctrine of the Gospel can be preached, in its purity and consistency, without this of predestination. Election is the golden thread that runs through the whole Christian system; it is the leaven that pervades the whole lump." - Absolute Predestination, pg. 89

Does your church preach the gospel connected with predestination? If it doesn't then id say you are part of the synagogue of satan. One that is filled with types and shadows that follows the antichrist.

The denial of knowledge today

Christ and Culture. How can the problem be solved? According to Niebhur and a the popular doctrine of today it is relativity. The problem of Richard Niebhur's conclusion of Christ and Culture is a problem that the popular religion folks have today. Niebhur, like today's so-called churches (Reformed or not), are relativist. They in their relativistic viewpoint teaches that no one can know anything, They separate faith from knowledge. This seems to be similar to those of the Catholic church. How can you know is the great question of the times. Towards the end of "Christ and Culture", Niebhur says, "In politics, economics, and every other sphere of culture, no less than in medicine, we do the best we can on the basis of what we know about the nature of things and the processes of nature; but that best is always relative to fragmentary social and more fragmentary personal knowledge. (Pg. 234 - 235)" In other words, man has only a fragmentary knowledge of things, therefore how can man know anything at all? How could Niebhur have known about this fragmentary knowledge of things if even his thoughts are fragmentary? He couldn't. He says, "All our faith is fragmentary, though we do not all have the same fragments of faith. The littleness of second-century faith became apparent in its attitude toward the 'world' . . . . When we reason and act in faith and so give our Christian answer, we act on the ground of partial, piecemeal faith, so that there is perhaps a little Christianity in our answer. (Pg. 236)" Because of this concluding remark, Niebhur summarizes, "But from this particular standpoint in social history we necessarily see Christ against a background and hear his words in a context somewhat different from the background and context of our predecessors' experience. Our historical situation with its views and duties is further complicated by the relativity of our situation in society as men and women, parents and children, governors and governed, teachers and learners, manual intellectual workers, etc. We must make our decisions, carry on our reasoning, and gain our experience as particular men in particular times and with particular duties. (Pg. 237)" Therefore, no one can say that this is the answer on the basis of this relativity. However, this is the problem of this answer from Niebhur and those who are like him, they have not even begun to answer the question from a Biblical standpoint.

What is the result of denying knowledge? The result is futile. Number one it leads to post-modernism, the denial that truth can be found. Number two it leads to legalism. Lordship salvation is the result of such. If knowledge is forsaken, then men will put their eggs in a different basket. The result is legalism.
With this said, Niebhur's response has not touched the surface of Scripture I mean at all. For one thing, the Christian faith is founded not on man's own rationality, but on the sure foundation of Scripture alone which is the word of God. Man knows only that which God reveals to Him in the Scriptures. On this basis is faith built upon. Faith, is intellectual assent. Jesus tells us that the Church of God will be built on the confession that Jesus Christ is the messiah. The two principles that the Scriptures contain are the law and gospel. These two are distinct. The one commands the other declares what is done in Christ on the cross for the elect alone. By this we can judge between the lie and the truth. Of course, no one says that our knowledge is perfect. But, it is based on the old gospel truth revealed in Scripture alone. We do not judge our faith based on our experience but rather based on the Scripture. Which Christ do we believe? Is it the false idol Christ or the Christ of the Bible? Those who are sovereign grace believers already have the tools to reply back to these falsehoods.

Robert Traill the Supralapsarian

As Robert Traill says in Volume 1 of his work, "The first of these privileges is election. And justly it is called the first: for nothing can be before it; for itself is before time; and all that they afterwards receive, flows from it. "

It is interesting to read also John Calvin saying the basic same thing about the gifts and our election.

"Lastly, these phrases denote rather the order of Divine gifts, than the cause of them. In the accumulation of graces upon graces, God derives from the former a reason for adding the next, that he may not omit any thing necessary to the enrichment of his servants. And while he thus pursues his liberality, he would have us always to remember his gratuitous election, which is the source and original of all." -John Calvin, The Institutes, 3. 15. 21. Pg. 21 second volume.

John Brine also says, "Election to salvation is the Ground and Foundation of Regeneration and Sanctification. This gracious Decree is the Fountain of all that Purity and Holiness, which men receive as a Meetness for Heaven: God hath from the Beginning chosen you to Salvation, thro' Sanctification of the Spirit." -The Causes of Salvation And Vocation Considered, pg. 38

Jew and Gentile together in Christ as the eternal plan of God

Ephesians 2:1-22, we often stop at v. 10, but should read to at least the end of the chapter. As it displays the fact that both Jew and Gentile are under sin. Though we were children of wrath - that is children dispose of all maliceness and hatefulness - God by His unmeritted favour so loved His people before the foundations of the world to make one body composed of Jew and Gentile in Christ Jesus. You can also read this throughout the OT as well - Zechariah 6:15; Ezekiel 47:22-23; 37:15-19. He alone not only predestined us but also he alone quickened us together - Psalm 119:25.

Not a result of works in any sense

"Neither salvation, nor calling, is according to our Works: Grace and works are set in opposition, whenever the causality of our salvation is treated of: They cannot be, therefore, Con-causes of it. If it is of Grace, then it is no more of Works, otherwise Grace is no more grace: If it be of Works, then it is no more of Grace, otherwise Work is no more Work. It is not of works, lest any Man should boast." - John Brine, The Causes of Salvation and Vocation Considered, Pg. 13

What is the difference between the elect and the reprobate?

Some of the neo-preachers want to say that the difference between the elect and the reprobate remain to be works done by them. This is not so. The difference between the elect and the reprobate remains to be Christ and his works.

"Whence should it be, in respect of the event, that the elect and reprobate differ one from another? The difference lies in this, the elect shall be saved, and the reprobate shall be damned; the immediate cause is this, the reprobate bears his own sin, by reason of which he bears his ensuing damnation; the elect person bears not his own sin, and so there is nothing found against him, for which he should be damned." - Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, vol 2, pg. 81

In what sense is God the Author of sin?

Jerome Zanchius seems to suggest that God is the Author of all things including sin abstractly speaking. However, God is not the author of sin as one who does the sin.

"God, as the primary and efficient cause of all things, is not only the Author of those actions done by His elect as actions, but also as they are good actions, whereas, on the other hand, though He may be said to be the Author of all the actions done by the wicked, yet He is not the Author of them in a moral and compound sense as they are sinful; but physically, simply and sensu diviso as they are mere actions, abstractedly from all consideration of the goodness or badness of them." - Absolute Predestination, pg. 31 - 32

Do you desire salvation? Don't be fooled

A lordship salvation advocate asked me if I desire to obey Jesus. The problem is that if I did not he would count me a lost sinner. The problem is that his sentiments are not sound nor are they biblical. First of all the law punishes and condemns all for lack of perfect conformity to it. Even our best works are nothing short of sin and a defilement of God's glory. Second, the Bible never says if you at least desire to do x then you are hereby saved. No the Bible when it comes to salvation takes us out of the mix. Either a sinner believes the gospel of Christ alone as truth or he does not.

Jerome Zanchius, Zacharias Ursinus, Martin Luther vs. John Macarthur

John Macarthur is known to have brought in the heretical Lordship Salvation heresy into the church. When defining what it means for Christ to be Lord he says basically that it is a lifestyle change. He connects this and other doctrines with how we live or what we do. He says, "Jesus is Lord (1 Cor. 12:3). That is the single, central, foundational, and distinguishable article of Christianity. It is also the first essential confession of faith every true Christian must make: 'If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved' (Rom. 10:9). The belief that someone could be a true Christian while that person's whole lifestyle, value system, speech, and attitude are marked by a stubborn refusal to surrender to Christ as Lord is a notion that shouldn't even need to be refuted." Macarthur is an existentialist. Unless something is experienced it cannot be true. On top of this he is a dispensationalist.

However, this isnt taught by any of the Reformers. Luther never defined Christ's Lordship in conjunction to our obedience. He says in the Larger Catechism found in the book of Concord on pg. 414 "If you are asked, 'What do you believe in the Second Article, concerning Jesus Christ?' answer briefly, 'I believe that Jesus Christ, true Son of God, has become my Lord.' What is it to 'become a Lord'? It means that he has redeemed me from sin, from the devil, from death, and from all evil. Before this I had no Lord and King but was captive under the power of the devil. I was condemned to death and entangled in sin and blindness."

Luther also says on the same page, "Those tyrants and jailers now have been routed, and their place has been taken by Jesus Christ, the Lord of life and righteousness and every good and blessing. He has snatched us, poor lost creatures, from the jaws of hell, won us, made us free, and restored us to the Father's favor and grace. . . . Let this be the summary of this article, that the little word 'Lord' simply means the same as Redeemer, that is, he who has brought us back from the devil to God, from death to life, from sin to righteousness, and now keeps us safe there."

None of these blessings have an existential truth connected to it.

Ursinus says, "When we, therefore, say that we believe in our Lord, we believe, 1. That the Son of God is the Creator of all things, and therefore has a right over all creatures. 'All things that the Father hath are mine.' 2. That he is in a peculiar manner constituted the Lord, the defender and preserver of the church, because he has redeemed it with his blood. 3. That the Son of God is also my Lord, that I am one of his subjects, that I am redeemed by his blood and continually preserved by him, so that I am bound to be grateful to him. And, further, that his dominion over me is such as is calculated to promote my good, and that I am saved by him as a most precious possession, a peculiar purchase, secured at the greatest expense." - Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pg. 205

Jerome Zanchius says the that the term Lord means that God has absolute sovereign rights to do as He pleases.

Jerome Zanchius says, "As Lord or Sovereign of all, He does as He will (and has a most unquestionable right to do so) with His own, and in particular fixes and determines the everlasting state of every individual person, as He sees fit. It is essential to absolute sovereignty that the sovereign have it in his power to dispose of those over whom his jurisdiction extends, just as he pleases, without being accountable to any; and God, whose authority is unbounded, none being exempt from it, may, with the strictest holiness and justice, love or hate, elect or reprobate, save or destroy any of His creatures, whether human or angelic, according to His own free pleasure and sovereign purpose." - Absolute Predestination, Pg. 38

John Gill a Supralapsarian

Of course we have other passages of Gill that could be used but this one is very clear:

In the election of men, "They were considered as on an equal foot with others not elected, as men are; as men are considered, when chosen, as in the pure mass, having done neither good nor evil, so were angels; this must be out of all question, with respect to them, since the elect angels never fell, never were in any corrupt state, and could not be so considered: besides, their preservation from apostasy, and their confirmation, by grace, in the state in which they were created are in consequence of their election; and therefore must be previous to the fall of the rest, who, with them, must be considered in the pure mass of creatureship; wherefore the choice of the one, and the leaving of the other, must be entirely owing to the sovereign will of God." - Body of Divinity, Pg. 176

God's goodness means that He is unchangeable

When it comes to what is God one aspect of divinity is the goodness of God. What do we mean by goodness? Of course, by it we do not mean to say God is good according to some standard outside of Himself otherwise He wouldn't be good. What we simply mean by the goodness of God is the perfection in which there is no shadow of turning, He does not change. God simply is a spirit and in Him he is not made of parts as the compound or complexity of humans.

John Gill speaks of the goodness of God in his Body of Divinity. He says, "The goodness of God is not distinct from his essence; for then he must be compounded of that, and his essence; which is contrary to his simplicity: he is good in and of himself, and by his own essence; and not by participation of another; for if he was not good of himself, and by his own essence, but of and by another; then there would be some being, both better than him, and prior to him; and so he would not be the eternal God, nor an independent Being, since he must depend on that from whence he receives his goodness; nor would he be the most perfect being, since what communicates goodness to him must be more perfect than he: all which, to say of God, is very unbecoming. It remains, then, that he is essentially good; is so in and of himself, by his own nature and essence." Pg. 92

With this we confess along with Jerome Zanchius,

"God is essentially unchangeable in Himself. Were He otherwise, He would be confessedly imperfect, since whoever changes must change either for better or for the worse; whatever alteration any being undergoes, that being must, ipso facto, either become more excellent than it was or lose some of the excellency which it had. But neither of these can be the case with the Deity: He cannot change for the better, for that would necessarily imply that He was not perfectly good before; He cannot change for the worse, for then He could not be perfectly good after that change. Ergo, God is unchangeable." pg. 25-26, Absolute Predestination

The belief of the Truth alone is the cause of all true holiness; while our good works simply help our neighbor

"The simple belief of the truth, is the only spring of all true holiness, of all love and obedience to God. He who, perceiving the Divine love to sinners of all sorts, without distinction, manifested in the atonement, is thereby led to love the atonement, and the Divine character appearing there, and so to enjoy the promised comfort resulting thence to the obedient, comes at the same time to know his particular interest in the atonement. And thus by happily experiencing the truth of the gospel, he is greatly encouraged to go forward in that course into which he was at first introduced by the evidence of truth appearing to him in the report of the gospel. So he labours neither first nor last to acquire any requisite to justification; but all his labour proceeds on the persuasion, that the atonement itself is the sole and all-sufficient requisite to justification. He is likewise sensible, that the atonement is the sole spring of all his self-denied love, and of all the present comfort, as well as future reward connected with it; so he knows that all his holiness, as well as all his happiness, comes entirely of that grace which provided the atonement, and thus he understands how grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

"In the sight of God it is really faith that makes a person holy; faith alone serves him, while our works serve the people." - Martin Luther, The Large Catechism, in The Book of Concords, pg. 385

"Some then may object, if it be so, we ought to refrain from doing righteousness, as from dung.
I answer, It follows not; but that we must refrain from glorying in, or stroaking ourselves for our righteous doings, and rather take shame to ourselves when we have done, and so glory only in the Lord. Though good works done by us are but dung in themselves, and in God's eye; yet must we be careful to maintain them, since they are profitable to men, Tit. iii. 8. David (Psal. xvi. 2, 3,) confesseth, that his goodness extendeth not to God; yet for all this he refrains not, because it could extend to the Saints upon earth, and to the excellent in whom was his delight; it is no good plea, that because a man cannot be wholly clean, therefore, he will be more filthy than needs. . . ." - Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, Second Volume, Pg. 42

The cause of all things is the will of God

"The will of God is so the cause of all things, as to be itself without cause, for nothing can be the cause of that which is the cause of everything. So that the Divine will is the ne plus ultra of all our inquiries; when we ascend to that, we can go no farther. Hence we find every matter resolved ultimately into the mere sovereign pleasure of God, as the spring and occasion of whatsoever is done in heaven and earth." - Jerome Zanchius, Absolute Predestination, pg. 16 - 17

We are embassadors of the gospel of Christ not of the law

"What the great and main business of us that profess ourselves to be the ministers of Christ, ought to be in the world with men. It is to be lamented, I confess, and I would to God there were no occasion to speak of it, whilst we profess ourselves to be the ambassadors of Christ, to dispatch this great business, to beseech men in Christ's stead to be reconciled unto God; we are too much the ministers of Moses, pressing and thundering the wrath of God from heaven; publishing unto men the working out their own salvation by their own works, according to the law; putting on them the performance of duties in every particular, that they may have peace and joy of spirit from it; telling them, that they must make their peace with God, by fasting, and prayer, and mourning: is this to beseech men in Christ's stead to be reconciled unto God by Christ alone? This is the embassage of the ministers of the gospel; and whoever he be that forsake this message, he goes, and is not sent; he takes upon him to manage a business out of his commission; for the commission is, that we in Christ's stead should beseech men to be reconciled unto God, and by the blood of Christ alone." Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted v. 2, pg. 5 - 6

Justification by Faith alone

"Nay, justification is made by this onely motion, wherby the mind through faith is so moved unto God, that it taketh hold of his good will, reconciled by Christs satisfaction to all that beleeve in him" - Johannes Piscator, A learned and profitable Treatise of Mans justification Two Books, pg. 68

Sanctification is a work of God alone

"Men do not make themselves holy; neither their regeneration nor their growth in grace is due to their own diligence or obedience, but to God alone. The fruit of the Spirit - love, joy, peace, long suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control - are just that, the fruit of the Spirit, not of ourselves, for it is Christ who lives in us, and it is Christ who works in us both to will and to do his good pleasure. We are commanded to 'work out' what God has already 'worked in' us. We cannot work out unless God works in us, for without Christ we can do nothing. We are Christ's workmanship, not our own." - John W. Robbins, Foreword to the First Ediction of What is the Christian Life?, Pg. 15

Apart from the imputed righteousness of Christ our works are simply dung

"For except justice be imputed to a man by faith, no worke of his can please God and be approved as just." - Johannes Piscator, "A learned and profitable Treatise of Mans justification Two Bookes", pg. 57

Jesuits Theology or Counter-Reformation

There are some who are positing that Molinism would not be against what Gordon H. Clark taught. These men teach that Gordon H. Clark and Molinism both taught that the free will of man and God's sovereignty are both compatible.

First of all, what Clark taught was not compatiblism. But rather what Clark taught was hard determinism. Clark did not hold to the irrational view that man has free will and yet God is sovereign at the same time. Second,  Molinism teaches that God's knowledge is so vast that he really doesn't know anything. It is satanism at its worst. Compatibilism is nothing but irratiinalism. Third, Molinism is nothing short of the Jesuits counter reformation. Clark attacks and repudiates this heretical error in his book "Predestination".


Gordon H. Clark says, "The Bible contradicts the notion of free will that is acceptance by professing Christians can be explained only by the continuing ravages of sin blinding the minds of men. To some this sounds like an extreme statement. But the appeal is to the Bible, and the Bible says that the heart of man is deceitful above measure. It will use all possible devices to avoid acknowledging that it is a worm, a lump of clay, a creature, and not an independent, autonomous being." - Predestination, Pg. 81

God chooses a king by inclining the people for one above another

"I think royalists cannot deny but a people ruled by aristocratic magistrates may elect a king, and a king so elected is formally made a lawful king by the people's election; for of six willing and gifted to reign, what maketh one a king and not the other five? Certianly by God's disposing the people to choose this man, and not another man. It cannot be said but God giveth the kingly power immediately; and by him kings reign, that is true. The office is immediately from God, but the question now is, What is that which formally applieth the office and royal power to this person rather than to the other five as meet? Nothing can here be dreamed of but God's inclining the hearts of the states to choose this man and not that man." - Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and The Prince, pg. 9

God's motivation to saving His elect is Love for them only

"And the truth is, that God took up as vast a love unto us of himself at first as ever he hath borne us since, and all that Christ doth for us is but the expression of that love which was taken up originally in God's own heart. Thus we find that out of that love he gave Christ for us. So John 3:16, 'God so loved the world (of elect), that he gave his only begotten Son to die', etc. Yea, Christ's death was but a means to commend or set fortg that love of his unto us." -Thomas Goodwin, Christ Set Forth, Pg. 227

The Government that be are from God

"All civil power is immediately from God in its root; in that, 1st, God hath made man a social creature, and one who inclineth to be governed by man, then certainly he must have put this power in man's nature: so are we, by good reason, taught by Aristotle. 2d, God and nature intendeths the policy and peace of mankind, then must God and nature have given to mankind a power to compass this end; and this must be a power of government." - Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince, Pg. 1

Righteousness presupposes rationality

But in opposition to pietism, the contrast or even incompatibility between righteousness and rationality must be rejected. Far from conflicting with rationality, righteousness presupposes it. If righteousness requires obedience to God, this obedience depends on understanding God's precepts. Sin is disobedience; and whatever stronger denunciations of sin are appropriate, sin can also be denounced as irrational. Then again, animals, which cannot sin, also cannot be righteous - the reason being that they are non-rational. Hence the image of God, which distinguishes man from animals, is basically logic. - Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark volume 7

"The most important part of creation was the creation of man. The heavens and the earth, grand as they are, are, as it were, nothing but the stage setting for the actors in the Divine Comedy. The reason is that while nature displays the manifold wisdom of God, man bears God's image. Dogs don't. I still love dogs, dachschunds and St. Bernards. But God gave man a reasonable or rational soul. Man can learn mathematics. Dogs can't. And I still love dogs, Doberman pinschers and Toy Manchesters.
Further, dogs, not to speak of trees and stones, cannot be righteous or holy. To them the Ten Commandments and the Biblical requirements for worship do not apply. But man was created with the law of God written in his heart." - Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?, Pg. 59 - 60

No morality without God

The question is what is the basis of morality? For the Christian the basis of morality is God and what He deems to be just. However, for those who do not believe in God the basis of morality would be something other than the Bible. Some teach that morality can be based on the greater good. In other words what is good is good for the whole of humanity not just part. The essential problems of such ideology is that this does not tell us what good is or what evil is. Like pragmatism, the greater good is that which can be anything. For instance, what if killing one million people helped solve world hunger? This evil would essentially be good because it would help solve an evil. The problem is obvious evil is used to alleviate another evil. This is why anyone who wants to live without the Bible alone cannot justify any action. Either they will say morality is based on the greater good or they will say morality is based on what man feels is good. Both concepts do not present to us any clear definition of what is evil or what is good.

"As the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky made clear, 'If there is no God, everything is permitted.' When a group of people adopt a worldview that has no place for a personal and moral God, we should not be surprised to find that the notions of good and evil lose their power. While atheists may acknowledge moral principles, they cannot provide good reasons for them." - Ronald H. Nash, The Meaning of History, pg. 127

The truth alone sanctifies

"The power that sanctifies us is no other power but the power of the cross of Christ; and the glory to which we are conformed by the Spirit in beholding it, is the glory that shines in Christ crucified; and we are raised up to walk in newness of life, no otherwise but together with Christ, and by the power of his resurrection, 'who was delivered for our offenses, and raised for our justification,' and by that blood of everlasting covenant, by virtue of which he came again from the dead: and therefore they seek sanctification where it is not to be found, who seek it not in this truth; and they seek it in vain, who seek it not by that belief of this truth, whereby we receive the remission of sins, and are justified." - John Glas, The Works of Mr. John Glas, pg. 146

What is wrong with history apart from divine written Revelation?

"The history of philosophy began with naturalism, and so far as this volume is concerned it ends with naturalism. The Presocratic naturualism dissolved into Sophism, from which a metaphysics arose; and the metaphysics lost itself in a mystic trance. Then under the influence of an alien source, Western Europe appealed to a divine revelation. In the sixteenth century one group put their complete trust in revelation, while another development turned to unaided human reason. This latter movement has now abandoned its metaphysics, its rationalism, and even the fixed truths of naturalistic science. It has dissolved into Sophism. Does this mean that philosophers and cultural epochs are nothing but children who pay their fare to take another ride on the merry-go-round? Is this Nietzsche's eternal recurrence? Or, could it be that a choice must be made between skeptical futility and a word from God? To answer this question for himself, the student, since he cannot ride very fast into the future and discover what a new age will do, might begin by turning back to the first page and pondering the whole thing over again. This will at least stave off suicide for a few days more." - Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey, Pg. 533 - 534

The whole point of Clark's work comes down to this that Philosophy unaided by Divine Revelation knows nothing. We see the fact that philosophy without the Bible alone (The word of God alone) conjures up several different ideas and views as time goes on. These ideas, to say the least, are wrong. This does not mean that no human being apart from Scripture alone cannot know some things that are helpful; however, it does mean that man apart from Scripture alone cannot know the truth. Truth is the reality of the world, truth is eternal, truth is God. It is God who is truth, who is eternal. We know God by Scripture alone.

Gordon Clark on G.I. Williamson

"The present theological climate, however, is inimical to clear thinking. Intellectualism is in disgrace. Even such a conservative, orthodox theologian as G.I. Williamson, though he does not deny the section of the Confession just quoted, passes over the matter of deduction in one sentence. He then immediately tries to restrict its application by saying, 'The Mosiac Law, for example, is not expressed by way of abstract principles. Moses declared the law in terms of concrete instances.' This is ridiculous. The Ten Commandments do not include a single concrete case. They forbid all murder: They mention neither Cain nor Lamech. They condemn all adultery: They do not specify any single instance. They prohibit all theft: Rachel's particular example is missing. Of course, Williamson is not consistently opposed to deductive logic. He rather represents those conservative theologians who have not completely escaped the influence of contemporary irrationalism." - Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?, Pg. 83

Aristotle and Happiness

Aristotle is wrong about happiness. I don't care that he is a prominent philosopher. Aristotle teaches in "The Nicomachean Ethics" that happiness is the virtuous activity of the soul and therefore the happy man is one who continues in life until death in this activity. The Bible alone, however, is God's word and it says that "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," - Romans 4. The Christian is made happy by knowing and accepting the gospel as the only means of righteousness before God. As the Westminster Catechism says that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. We do so by knowing and believing the truth. Proverbs says, 13Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. James teaches us that the wisdom of the Christian is from above. And Paul, in 1 Corinthians, says, that God in His wisdom made the world and everything in it. And by God's wisdom the world did not know God. But rather the cross is the wisdom of God.

No Justification because of works before grace or works after grace

Johannes Piscator, "The Apostle derogates justification not only from those works which are done before faith, but also from those which are done after faith. For he speaks of Abrahams works, which are mentioned in Scripture for to show his uprightness as that he obeyed God going out of his own country, and offered his son. But works which Abraham did beore faith, are mentioned in the Scripture, not as such whereof he might rejoice, but as such whereo he might worthily be ashamed: namely, that he served strange gods, Josh. 24.2."

Knowledge of Good and Evil

The Bible speaks of knowledge of good and evil. For instance, in Genesis 2:17, God forbids the eating of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 3:22, God says that man, after having disobeyed the command not to eat from the tree, has become "as one of us, to know good and evil". Elsewhere, in Isaiah 7:16, the Bible speaks of a boy before he is able to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be desolate of both her kings.

The Arminian or free willer will speak of this as proof that free will does exist and that man has the ability to choose without coercion from God or something else between good and evil. But, is this conclusion necessarily so? After reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation the concept of free will is not ever found. So if this is so, then the Arminian reasoning is false. So the question is what does it therefore mean for the Bible to speak of having a knowledge of good and evil?

The problem today in reading Scripture or talking to others about Scripture is that many read the Bible through a lense. Of course, we all have lenses or glasses. The issue is not that we ought not to read the Bible without lenses, but we ought not to bring lenses from outside the text of Scripture and reading those concepts back into scripture. Yes, interpretation of scripture often deals with logical deduction; but the only logical deduction that is founded upon Scripture is that which is followed from the text of Scripture. The Bible no where says man has free will nor allures to the point of such.

So the question is what does it therefore mean for the Bible to speak of having a knowledge of both good and evil? To put simply, we often say that a man has a knowledge of a thing after adequate study of it. This is philosophy 101. I cannot work on trucks or cars because I am not well versed in such things. Likewise, to have a knowledge of both good and evil is simply to know both good and evil. To know good and to know evil. Man from the garden has become evil, able to commit evil. Likewise, the Bible in Isaiah 7 does not say that man is not sinful from birth but rather that he is not able to rightly be able to distinguish between the two points proficiently. Christ grew in wisdom of the truth. He did so without sin. As he grew, he became more and more proficient to distinguish between good and evil without sin. Likewise, when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden they became sinners knowing evil. God, knows how to distinguish the good from the evil because He is God and the law is contingent upon what he deems is right and wrong. The Bible even speaks of those who are not able to distinguish between the two (these are not infants either).

Empiricist cut the branch on which they sit

Like the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume, the modern language philosophers, intent on undermining theology, undermine themselves. Hume showed that the existence of God could not be proven if one begins with empirical evidence; in so doing he demonstrated that nothing at all could be proven with empirical evidence. God lives, despite the best efforts of Hume, and Christian theology remains, despite the best efforts of the language philosophers. The only things Hume and the language philosophers have refuted are themselves. - John Robbins, Forward to Clark's book Language and Theology, Pg. V or 5