The Totality of a Man's Experience Makes Him Who He Is

 The will is first and original; knowledge is merely added to it as an instrument belonging to the phenomenon of the will. Therefore every man is what he is through his will, and his character is original, for willing is the basis of his inner being. Through the knowledge added to it, he gets to know in the course of experience what he is; in other words, he becomes acquainted with his character. Therefore he knows himself in consequence of, and in accordance with, the nature of his will, instead of willing in consequence of, and according to, his knowing, as in the old view." - Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Page 292 and 293

One of the problems with some of the rationalist philosophers is that they often become combatibilist.

Arthur here is teaching that our being is the will. We are who we are in eternity past. When we enter this life which is time and space, we go through life in successions. Thus as we learn more and more we get to know ourselves. Thus who we are and what we chose in eternity past becomes clear to us as time goes on.

It is similar to Leibniz thoughts.

G.W. Leibniz says, "Since this is so, we can say that the nature of an individual substance or of a complete being is to have a notion so complete that it is sufficient to contain and to allow us to deduce from it all the predicates of the subject to which this notion is attributed. An accident, on th other hand, is a being whose notion does not include everything that can be attributed to the subject to which the notion is attributed. Thus, taken in abstraction from the subject, the quality of being a king which belongs to Alexander the Great is not determinate enough to constitute an individual and does not include the other qualities of the same subject, not does it include everything that the notion of this prince includes. On the other hand, God, seeing Alexander's individual notion or haecceity, sees in it at the same time the basis and reason for all the predicates which can be said truly of him, for example, that he vanquished Darius and Porus; he even knows a priori (and not by experience) whether he died a natural death or whether he was poisoned, something we can know only through history. Thus when we consider carefully the connection of things, we can say that from all time in Alexander's soul there are vestiges of everything that has happened to him and marks of everything that will happen to him and even traces of everything that happens in the universe, even though God alone could recognize them all." - Discourse on Metaphysics, Page 8

In other words some qualifiers can be given to several different people. Such as King can be given to Alexander and David. However, what makes up Alexander is the sum total of his parts.

Poets know man profoundly

 "Therefore it has been observed that a poet may know man profoundly and thoroughly, but men very badly; he is easily duped, and is a plaything in the hands of the cunning and crafty." - Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Page 194

Our Wisdom, and Knowledge is of and about Christ

 Again, we continue with Schreiner's book on Faith Alone. In Chapter 15, Schreiner doubts whether Christ's righteousness is actually imputed to us. On Page 180, he says, "In consideration of 1 Cor 1:30, Wright notes that imputation isn't a convincing way to understand this passage, for if one maintains that righteousness is imputed to us, then one also has to say that wisdom, sanctification, and redemption are imputed since all these benefits are listed together. Since no one claims that these other gifts are imputed, it doesn't work to say that righteousness alone is imputed." Or again on Page 188, "More compelling, however, is the objection that because this verse also refers to God's wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, how can we say that God's righteousness is imputed to us unless we are also willing to say that God's wisdom, sanctification, and redemption are also imputed? Though I would agree that this objection has some merit, ultimately it is not decisive. . . . But this objection assumes that every item in the list (wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption) must be given to believers in the same way . . . ."

Of course, Schreiner struggles with 1 Corinthians 1:30 because he himself cannot see how the believers only plea is Christ alone not their works.

In what sense is Christ made wisdom or sophia for us? The Apostle Paul says, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." - 1 Corinthians 2:2

For us Christ alone is our wisdom, or plea. He alone is our only argument. He alone is the logic of God. He is the Son of God. Thus for believers, he is made wisdom. We think no other thing. We don't think Christ plus works. But we think Christ alone before God. We are accepted before God by the beloved - Ephesians 1:6-7. Verse 7 says we have redemption through him. He is our only redemption. It is not the works of the law. It is not what my hands have done, but His.

God alone is the light that enlightens everyone

 "God is the sun and the light of souls, the light that lights every man that comes into this world, and this is not an opinion new to our times. After Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers, who have always preferred Plato to Aristotle, I remember having previously noted that from the time of the Scholastics, several believed that God is the light of the soul and, in their way of speaking, the active intellect of the rational soul." - G.W. Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Essays, Page 30

The Bible says Christ is the light of every man in John 1. This is Epistemological, along with Hebrews 6.

Some Churches Don't like the Law and Gospel Distinction

 Spoke with one of the guys at that church again. I think about what he said. But basically he said that the law and gospel distinction isn't a primary issue (I disagree). He said that someone to be saved doesn't need to know the law and gospel distinction, though it's helpful, there are other criterias to which one can read the Bible ( I would ask what does he mean?)

Overall it seems like he is wanting to keep it a secret. Some like to keep the doctrine of election a secret because ignorant is bliss and if someone doesn't know then how can they reject it?

Of course, the Bible has lots to say about how a person is saved. If a person believes they are saved by faith and works then can we say they are saved? The issue is probably muddied in the sense that when a hearer hears the gospel message for the first time or second time it is assumed that the speaker knows what is the gospel and what is the law. If the speaker or preacher doesn't know these things then as the Bible says the preacher or teacher or speaker will be judged more harshly. I think of the warnings in Ezekiel or the Parables of Jesus.

Theodore Beza says, "We must pay great attention to these things. For, with good reason, we can say that ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principles sources of the abuses which corrupt and still corrupt Christianity.

The majority of men, blinded by the just judgement of God, have indeed never seriously considered what curse the Law subjects us to, nor why it has been ordained by God. And, as for the Gospel, they have nearly always thought that it was nothing other than a second Law, more perfect than the first. . . ." - The Christian Faith, Page 37

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

Pride produces Ignorance

"Ignorance is the first penalty of pride." - H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Pg. 13

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.

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

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.

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

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

Life after death

Reading back through the Republic of Plato, with all of his faults and all, one reads in the last bit of segment of life after death. Though, Plato believed that the soul had immortality and that it never dies but rather when a man dies he goes through a sort of judgment in which he is supposed to be reincarnated. Though the question is how does Plato know this, the thought still is that Plato believed in some sort of life after the grave. Today, however, with the schools teaching materialism and Darwinian Evolution in which no longer is man a created being of God made in his image but rather a combination of primordial soup and as a result denying the existence and knowability of a god (if not The God) also deny life after the grave. The result of this grave teaching in our schools and family structure and world system is that morality doesn't depend on God but on man. Morality is a combination of feelings and disposition. One feels like they are a woman rather than a man. One feels like committing acts of rape. The sad thing of this is that it is all done in the name of equality. This hypothetical movement, in which the world attacked the church of brainwashing is now being done at an early time in a childs life. There seems to be no sign of this ending soon either. What needs to happen is a restoration of the family structure and restoration of the truth.

George Berkeley to be sure was an empiricist. If we are only limited to what our eyes are capable of seeing then we would not truly be able to understand or know anything at all. We couldn't make any judgment as to the truth of one religion or philosophy from another. How do we know truth? We know it based on Scripture alone anything else simply reduces itself to skepticism. The Bible alone is the word of God.

With our ideas we are completely passive

"I do not understand how our ideas, which are things altogether passive and inert, can be the essence, or any part (or like any part) of the essence or substance of God, who is an impassive, indivisible, pure, active being." (Pg. 45) "And, hath it not been made evident that no such sunstance can possibly exist? And, though it should be allowed to exist, yet how can that which is inactive be a cause; or that which is unthinking be a Cause of thought?" (Pg. 47) - Philonous in the Three Dialogues, George Berkeley

God is one and so His knowledge is eternal

"The knowledge of God proves him without successive duration. God knows all things, past, present, and to come, that is, which are so to us; not that they are so to him; these he knows at once, and all together, not one thing after another, as they successively come into being; all things are open and manifest to him at once and together, not only what are past and present, but he calls things that are not yet, as though they were; he sees and knows all in one view, in his all-comprehending mind: and as his knowledge is not successive, so not his duration." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 49

If there was a successive  moments in God, then He would not be immutable if he thought like us.

"Is not time measured by the succession of ideas in our minds?" says Philonous, in George Berkeley's Three Dialogues, Pg. 23