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.

"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

Pythagoras on Brotherhood

 "The original purpose of the brotherhood which Pythagoras founded was undoubtedly a moral and religious one. Pythagoreanism, in its inception at least, was a 'way of life'; what its founder offered to the initiated brethren was a method of living whereby they might win their souls' salvation from the dep evils that infect human existence." - Martin, Clark, Clarke, Ruddick, History of Philosophy, Pg 21

Philosophy makes man human

"A man is a 'philosopher' by virtue of being more THOROUGHLY human: he is a 'philosopher' precisely because he possesses and cherishes above the rest of mankind that 'love of wisdom' which is a part of all human nature and because he more reflectively and critically brings to the light and examines the largest and widest implications of the life of all men." - Martin, Clark, Clarke, and Ruddick, A History of Philosophy, pg. 5

Air is the singularity of Nature

"The single quotation preserved from his [Anaximenes] work asserts that, 'just as our soul, being air, holds us together, so do breath and air encompass the whole world.' This contains perhaps a hint why Nature was identified with air. The belief was widespread that the soul - the life principle of living things - was a vaporous substance, maintained during life in the body by respiration and finally exhaled at death only with the last breath. That Nature should be conceived as the self-evolving vital principle of the universe, as we have seen that it was by Milesian Philosophy, meant that the world was being interpreted after the analogy with living beings, and this way in some measure makes more intelligible Anaximenes' doctrine that Nature is air. Condensation and rarefaction are the respiration of a living cosmos; Nature is its breath of life." - Martin, Clark, Ckarke, Ruddick, A History of Philosophy, Pg. 18

Against Free Will

Clark writes in his commentary Philippians 2:13 against the notion of free will.

He says, "The two kai's contribute an emphasis. 'Both . . . and' is stronger than 'and' alone. The idea is that God not only gives us physical strength to engage in Christian activity, but he first controls our will so that as a result of his control we decide or will to do our duty. It is strange, it is incomprehensible, that some commentators use this verse to attack Calvinism: 'the Cavlinistic writers are exceedingly embarrassed with it.' The gentleman mentions Doddridge, though how the verse can embarrass Calvinists remains unexplained. The verse is among the strongest supports for Calvinism. Nobody, at least I do not see how anybody, could miss the statement that God controls a man's will as well as his actions. Ellicott notes, 'the thelein no less than the energein is a direct result of the divine energeia' (64, col. 2). This is correct, even though Ellicott then tries to avoid the full force of his own words.
The idea that man has free will, an idea sponsored by Pelagius, adapted by the Council of Trent, and emphasized by Arminius and Wesley, is totally inconsistent with the Biblical plan of salvation. It is also inconsistent with the sovereignty of God, with divine omniscience and omnipotence, with the necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and of course with the pervasive Scriptural teaching of predestination." - Gordon H. Clark, Philippians, Pg. 71 - 72


Notice that Clark states that God controls our wills. Those who teach that Man has a free will teach that God does not control Mans wills. Compatibilist teach that Man has free will and still claim that God is sovereign. However, to teach this is to disregard and to contradict what Scripture teaches. The Bible says that God controls the will and actions of man. There is no mystery as to how these things are done. Man has a will, a choice, a volition, but his will, choice, volition is not free from the controlling hand of God.


Further those who teach compatibilism also want to say that free will and sovereignty are compatible to one another. How they can say such things is beyond me to understand. Many of todays 'calvinist' rather than revealing what the word of God teaches seem to want to make the word of God of no known affect by teaching mystery. It is a mystery. The question is does the Bible teach that man has a will free from God's control? No. It states everywhere that man is dependent upon God in life, and in salvation. We do what he so pleases for us to do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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