I bought Schreiners book Faith alone. In it he says, "How important is 'Faith alone' - the doctrine of justification? I am not arguing that sola fide is the gospel, though I believe it is one element ot entailment of the gospel. Those who reject the motto aren't necessarily proclaiming a different gospel."
Saturday, October 28, 2023
Doctrine as the Road or the Map? Not really.
C.S. Lewis says that Doctrine and Theology is like a map that will be discarded in Heaven. "Now, Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But that map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really are in touch with God - experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map. You see, what happened to that man in the desert may have been real, and was certainly exciting, but nothing comes of it. It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it. In fact, that is just why a vague religion - all about feeling God in nature, and so on - is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work: like watching the waves from the beach. But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map." - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Pg. 154 - 155 (HarperSanFrancisco Zondervan Publishing House)
Even newer theologians are saying the same thing. Read what this little devil said in his book.
Several questions come to mind when reading what Lewis wrote: How is theology less real, How do you know God? What exactly is a feeling? But, Gordon Clark, who was probably not thinking of Lewis at the time or perhaps he was, wrote on this subject about making theology only the map.
Gordon Clark says, "Passing on from Barth and Brunner we now come to Dr. George S. Hendry, Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary. It is not so much his rejection of predestination and the atonement to which attention is here directed, as it is the non-Christian view of the nature of religion that underlies these rejections. In his book The Westminster Confession for Today Dr. Hendry writes,
Doctrines are not faith; they are statements of faith in propositional form. Faith has often been compared to a journey or a pilgrimage. Doctrine may then be compared to a map. No one would suppose he had reached his destination merely because he had located it on the map, or traced the route that leads to it. Yet the map is an indispensable aid to any traveler in unfamiliar country. And just as the map is right when it enables the traveler to reach the end of his journey, so doctrine is right when it enables the pilgrim to reach the end of his faith.
One should note that this analogy applies to the Bible itself as well as to the creeds, for the Bible also is written in sentences - propositions. When, therefore, Dr. Hendry in the next sentence says that doctrines are never 'infallible and irreformable,' his words apply as much to the Word of God as to the Confession. On these premises the Bible must itself be amended, and not simply the creeds where and if they inadequately reflect the Bible.
The analogy is attractive, but like all analogies it is misleading. Obviously a doctrine or a set of doctrines is not our ultimate destination, Heaven. But it does not follow that doctrine is merely a map. If an illustration is needed, let us say that doctrine is the road itself. If we change the doctrine, we change the road and head off in a wrong direction. Here we recall Luke's words to the effect that doctrine (that is, the propositions Luke wrote) is 'a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us.'
In fact, this illustration of doctrine as map is so inept that even when corrected so as to make doctrine the road, it remains misleading. After we arrive at a destination, we not only throw away the map; we also cease using the road. But in Heaven we shall continue to believe these infallible and irreformable doctrines and learn many others, too. They will remain our precious possessions forever." - The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, Pg. 98
Even newer theologians are saying the same thing. Read what this little devil said in his book.
"A final word about the use of slogans and doctrines. Anthony Lane rightly says that doctrines are maps and models, not mathematical formulas. We must avoid, then, relying on simplistic appeals to sola fide, or condemning without conversation or understanding those who reject the term. Instead, we must ask what those who reject sola fide intend when they question its adequacy. Perhaps those who reject it and those who affirm it are speaking past each other." - Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone, Page 17
Is it true that those who hold to the simple belief of the gospel alone to save are just talking past each other with those who teach one is saved by Christ and something else?
Several questions come to mind when reading what Lewis wrote: How is theology less real, How do you know God? What exactly is a feeling? But, Gordon Clark, who was probably not thinking of Lewis at the time or perhaps he was, wrote on this subject about making theology only the map.
Gordon Clark says, "Passing on from Barth and Brunner we now come to Dr. George S. Hendry, Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary. It is not so much his rejection of predestination and the atonement to which attention is here directed, as it is the non-Christian view of the nature of religion that underlies these rejections. In his book The Westminster Confession for Today Dr. Hendry writes,
Doctrines are not faith; they are statements of faith in propositional form. Faith has often been compared to a journey or a pilgrimage. Doctrine may then be compared to a map. No one would suppose he had reached his destination merely because he had located it on the map, or traced the route that leads to it. Yet the map is an indispensable aid to any traveler in unfamiliar country. And just as the map is right when it enables the traveler to reach the end of his journey, so doctrine is right when it enables the pilgrim to reach the end of his faith.
One should note that this analogy applies to the Bible itself as well as to the creeds, for the Bible also is written in sentences - propositions. When, therefore, Dr. Hendry in the next sentence says that doctrines are never 'infallible and irreformable,' his words apply as much to the Word of God as to the Confession. On these premises the Bible must itself be amended, and not simply the creeds where and if they inadequately reflect the Bible.
The analogy is attractive, but like all analogies it is misleading. Obviously a doctrine or a set of doctrines is not our ultimate destination, Heaven. But it does not follow that doctrine is merely a map. If an illustration is needed, let us say that doctrine is the road itself. If we change the doctrine, we change the road and head off in a wrong direction. Here we recall Luke's words to the effect that doctrine (that is, the propositions Luke wrote) is 'a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us.'
In fact, this illustration of doctrine as map is so inept that even when corrected so as to make doctrine the road, it remains misleading. After we arrive at a destination, we not only throw away the map; we also cease using the road. But in Heaven we shall continue to believe these infallible and irreformable doctrines and learn many others, too. They will remain our precious possessions forever." - The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, Pg. 98
Euclid's mathematics was modeled after rationalism
"It was recognized that perception through the senses was not to be trusted unconditionally, and it was hastily concluded thay only rational logical thinking established truth, although Plato (in the Parmenides), the Megarics, Pyrrho, and the New Academicians showed by examples (in the way later adopted by Sextus Empiricus) how syllogism and concepts were also misleading, how in fact they produced paralogisms and sophisms that arise much more easily, and are far harder to unravel, than the illusion in perception through the senses. But this rationalism, which arose in opposition to empiricism, kept the upper hand, and Euclid modelled mathematics in accordance with it. He was therefore necessarily compelled to found the axioms alone on the evidence of perception, and all the rest on syllogism." - Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Page 71
Sunday, October 22, 2023
Free Willers are stupid
"Want of understanding is called in the proper sense stupidity, and it is just dulness in applying the law of causality, incapacity for the immediate apprehension of the concatenations of cause and effect, of motive and action. A stupid person has no insight into the connexion of natural phenomena, either when they appear of their own accord or when they are intentionally controlled, in other words made to serve machines." - Arthur Schopenhauer, The World As Will and Representation, Page 22
Are free willers stupid?
Of course, Arthur didnt' believe in the Bible alone.
Freud as a Hegelian
G.W.F. Hegel says, "The two extremes of the Understanding gazing into the inner world of essence, and this inner realm itself, are now merged together. The curtain of appearance is drawn aside, and the Ego, qua expression of the Absolute Idea, will come to see only itself beyond. . . ." - Phenomenology of Spirit, Page 518
Sigmund Freud was a Hegelian thinker. We are dealing with Hegel because he was the thinker thay influenced several thinkers in the western world.
Lordship salvation teaches that the Gospel is Christ in us
When I was duped in the Lordship salvation camp several years ago, the idiom was something to the effect that Christ is not about fire insurance but about savoring Christ more and more; by which the idiom meant believing in Christ alone entails more than being saved from the wrath to come. However much this idiom is spoken by people it is a confused idiom. It confuses the Law and Gospel. It mingles the Christ for us with the Christ in us. The Christ for us made himself a curse that we might be the righteousness of God by imputation (Galatians 3:13), the Christ for us died to deliver us from the curse (Galatians 1:4), and so was made sin for us (2 Cor 5:15);
However, the christ in us who walks in our midst (2 Cor 6:16), who reveals his son in us (Galatians 1:16) - imperfectly, who lives in us (Galatians 2:20), who helps us in our weaknesses- Romans 8:26, dwelling richly in us and not by measure - 1 John 4:12, works in us to will and do Phil 2:13.
However we need first the Christ who laid down his life for us (1 John 3:16) before we can get the Christ who works in us.
The one Christ for us died for our sins so that by faith passively we are justified and declared righteous, the Christ in us is to show our thankfulness and to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Hegel on Scepticism
David Hume was an empiricist and was consistent being a skeptic.
G.W.F. Hegel says, "Scepticism carries into realization what Stoicism merely notionally thinks. It explicitly negates the rich determinate content of life and action. All tasks and all desires become for it vanishing quantities." - Phenomenology of Spirit, Page 523 and 524
John 4, the woman was looking forward to the Messiah
In John 4, the woman was looking for the Messiah. Her faith was set towards the Messiah.
The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (the one called Christ); “whenever he comes, he will tell us everything.” Jesus said to her, “I, the one speaking to you, am he.”
John's first epistle On THE SIN
in 1 John 3, the sin which John writes is the sin of disbelief of the gospel doctrine that Christ was manifested in the flesh and the hating of those who bring and believe that doctrine. Of course, ultimately the sin John writes against is the sin of unbelief. No questions. Of course, not believing the gospel promise is sin and the result of not believing is that one hates those who believe the gospel. Likewise, those who do believe the gospel should show love towards them that also believe the gospel. Again, what saves is not our love, not even our faith that saves, but what saves is the gospel that is believed.
Limited Atonement
My Particular beliefs is that Christ death on the cross is the sole difference maker between saved and not saved. By that I mean that either Christ died for one and so thereby won one's salvation or he did not.
The Bible talks about the blood of Christ. By it we are justified (Romans 5:9), we are accepted (Eph 1:7), with his own blood he purchased the congregation - Acts 20:28. We overcome the world by the blood (1 John 5, Revelation 12:11).
There are other verses. For me preaching a definite and accomplished redemption is what the gospel is. A man or woman (in keeping with the times) either accepts this or they do not. They either assent to the saving message of what Christ did or they believe something else is what saves.
Romans 6 I think is referring to the Gospel by which the elect were united to Christ death, burial, and resurrection which is the basis or motivation for the Apostle Paul to give us the law as a "Rule of Life" and not as a "Covenant of Works" to not continue in sin.
Now the question arises, what is the sin in which Paul here implores Christians not to continue in? I think Paul is talking about the sin of unbelief. Notice he does not say shall we continue in SINS plural but rather shall we continue in SIN singular. The sin in which he writes against is the sin of not reckoning, not knowing, and not believing the gospel truth. Of course, believers can only do this because of what Christ did for them.
The Natural man does not understand the Scriptures to be true
"The natural man according to Paul does not understand the true significance of the words and deeds of his fellow-men; he does not use them to attest spiritual facts. The man who is in Christ, on the contrary, even when he uses ordinary means of information, is acquiring knowledge of spiritual relationships, relationships which exist in the new world. So it is also with the knowledge of Christ. The natural man may acquire a certain knowledge of Christ; he may learn what Christ said and did and what were the worldly circumstances of His life. But such knowledge is a knowledge according to the flesh; it does not attain to the true significance even of those facts which are learned." - J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul's Religion, Page 56
It is not that one believes facts only and another does not believe facts only. The difference Machen is talking about is that one understands the facts and believes them in their true import, the other does not.
To The Unknown God
To the unknown God. The church speaks of this passage as if people were worshipping something they didnt know existed. But however the inscription to the unknown God has more philosophy in it than not. In the history of the church and philosophy this idea that God is unknown has meant that God can only be spoken of in the negative and not in the positive.
Someone can say what God is not but not what God is.
To say that God is not evil, is to say that He is good. Or We might say God is not finite but timeless. Some Calvinist and Catholics teach God is only in the negative statements.
John Gill in his Body of Divinity says, "The attribute of God are variously distinguished by divines; some distinguish them into negative and positive, or affirmative: the negative are such as remove from him whatever is imperfect in creatures; such are infinitity, immutability, immortality, &c. which deny him to be finite, mutable, and mortal; and, indeed, it is easier to say what God is not, than what he is; the positive, or affirmative, are such as assert some perfection in God, which is in and of himself; and which in the creatures, in any measure, is from him, as wisdom, goodness, justice, holiness, &c. but the distinction is discarded by others; because in all negative attributes some positive excellency is found." - Page 34 - 35
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)