Regulative Principle

 The regulative principle of Scripture whether in worship or every day life is:

6Brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over another. - 1 Corinthians 4

Who were Paul and Apollos but servants of God, men not to be worshiped or trusted but in so far as they were called of God to preach and teach the gospel alone which the Bible alone has declared to us, we head their writings.

What is the Bible? It is the 66 books it contains. These books alone are the words of God. God by his power dictated the words to his Prophets and Apostles.

We are not to go beyond what is written. What has been revealed by special revelation is what we head.

What did the Apostle Paul believe about his writings?

Peace and mercy to all who walk by this rule, even to the Israel of God. - Galatians 6:16

He considered his writings as part of Canon. The term for rule is a term where we get the term Canon from.

That is right, the Apostle consider his writings as part of the Holy Bible, the Scriptures, that is what is written.

To deny Paul's writings is to deny the Bible alone is the word of God.

Justification by Faith alone is to distinguishing the Law and the Gospel

 By saying that the law and gospel distinction is a secondary matter, one is leaving the door open for the idea that one is justified by faith and works or faith and the law of obedience. The gospel is not a secondary matter bit as Paul says it is a matter of first importance - "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;" 1 Corinthians 15

By knowing the law and gospel distinction believers are better equipped to understand and ground their assurance rightly by what Christ alone did.

Again, the elect are justified by faith alone. What is this faith alone if it doesn't distinguish between our sins which are many, which procures the wrath of God outside of Christ, and the only righteous thing that makes the elect acceptable before God?

If the law and gospel is merely a secondary matter then Paul would not have said did we receive the Spirit by the works of the law or did we receive the Spirit by the hearing of the word through faith?

If one gets the law and gospel distinction wrong they get God's act of justification wrong and vise versa. They two are intertwine. For by faith the elect believe the gospel and so are justified.

Noah A Scripturalist

 One of the things we can glean from Noah in Genesis 6:22 and 7:5 is that Noah was a Scripturalist. He wasn't like some today that say yeah the Bible is good but we may use our senses, or we may use whoredom in our worship, or offer up sacrifices to other gods.

The Bible tells us that Noah did according to all that God commanded him. Noah wasn't charismatic.

Job says, "Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food." - 23:12

Scripture alone not Pope alone

"You should read and study your Bible daily. 'Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read' Isaiah 34:16. You are not to rely on some minister, elder, seminary, public school teacher, parent, wife, husband, confession, Hollywood movie, popular author (alive or dead), pope, priest, or any other sinful person/institution to tell you what the Bible teaches." - Monty L. Collier, A Unique Kind of Righteousness, pg. 100

Bart Ehrman's arguments are nothing

Bart Ehrman is known for his anti-biblical attacks against Christianity. There are many who 'respond' according to his level of expertise. However, only those who do not believe that the Bible alone is the word of God will attempt to discredit it as the sole infallible and authoritative word that it is. What is Bart Ehrman really saying? He isn't saying that we have no autograph copies of the ancient writings. No. He is saying that he does not believe the Bible and therefore does not believe God. If one believes that the Bible alone is the word of God then where is the argument against such notions? Only the skeptic and the evidentialist will run in circles trying to prove what they cannot adequately prove.

The only authority for the Christian is Christ alone

"The Christian is independent of human authority, because he acknowledges God's authority alone. His law, revealed by Christ, he recognizes in himself, and voluntarily obeys it." - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You, pg. 127

The Gospel is not about me, but what Christ accomplished for His elect alone

"The Gospel is not about me gaining membership in some institutional church, but it is about the expiation Christ made for our sins. The Gospel is about how Christ propitiated the wrath of God for us. The Gospel is about how Christ satisfied the Law of God for us. The Gospel is about our sins being laid to Christ's account, while His perfect righteousness is imputed to us!" - Monty L. Collier, Papist Whores & Their Theology, pg 142

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

The Simplicity of Scripture alone

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

Scripture alone reveals God's will

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

Scripture alone is the testimony used

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

The 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.

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

No morality without God

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

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

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.

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

How to determine what good is?

What do you consider the greatest good or rather that which you aim at in life? No doubt there are probably many things that are noble to be achieved or won with; such as health and wealth, and other things (Aristotle writes on deliberation how to achieve the ends). However, for a Christian is there any such thing as deliberation? Ought we to choose or rather aim at x because of various reasons? As said before in many of my post several who claim to be Christians allow worldly things to cloud their thinking which causes them to do certian things on the whim of the emotions. I know when I was taking gout medication it caused me to pick up the phone and call certain people like my mom or whosoever came to my mind. And many still think that what we do causes us to be cleansed from sin or sanctified from it. However, a Christian does not do such things. What is to be done is what the law says. But we are sinful and we sin continuously after we are born again so that we cannot glory in ourselves but rather in Him who alone saved us by the blood of Christ Jesus having imputed our sins to Him and we receiving his righteousness by imputation and as a result believing in Him alone for our justification and sanctification; we do good works as a result of our position in Christ. Those who have accepted the promises of Christ for themselves by the Spirits work within do read and determine what the good is by what the Bible says. The Bible is made of two principles law and gospel by which are marked separately. The law tells us what we are to do to live and condemns all for lack of perfection and the gospel declares what God did on the behalf of His people people in Christ. What we ought to do is read and study the Bible to determine our actions not science, or actions of others.

What is wrong with man is the measure of all things?

In the attack against Heracleitus and Protagoras, Plato says that they ultimately make man the measure of all things. For what appears to me to be cold may appear to you to be warm. Or what appears to me to be big may appear small to you. No one person may or can have the same perception. Perhaps this is the fault with those who trust that we know thinga by our senses. But, if one percieves a different quality in an object than another one does should we say that truth is therefore subjective? Perhaps the fault lies in our senses. How do we know what is truth? Of course the Bible alone is the word of God. God has revealed the Bible to us. God is truth, logic, and eternal. Therefore, the Bible alone is truth. God alone reveals it.

How to know?

"CRITIAS: 'Here then, Socrates, is the plan we have made to entertain you. We thought that Timaeus, who knows more about astronomy than the rest of us and who has devoted himself particularly to studying the nature of the universe, should speak first, and starting with the origin of the cosmic system bring the story down to man.'" - Plato, Timaeus, pg. 40

Of course apart from Revealed truth no one knows God. Who can pry into the mind of God? No one. God alone reveals secrets. The history of worldly education is that it is done apart from God and His word. Instead man has endeavored to know the hidden things by what he sees on earth. The grave question to ask is how do you know? The epistemic question is important in knowing anything at all. How does one derive his or her knowledge of the universe, what Method is used to gain knowledge? The Christian knows truth by the word of God and by faith we know that God created the universe.

Free Will is a doctrine that is not grounded from Scripture

"Aristotle saith [or says], give a man a law and he hath [or has] power of himself to do or fulfil the law and becometh righteous with working righteously. But Paul and all the scripture saith, that the law doeth but utter sin and helpeth not." - William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, pg. 21

Reading the Bible through its entirety one can see that the diabolical doctrine of free will is not found. Free Will is not a topic remotely close to any of the propositions of the Bible. In all instances, the Bible says that man is enslave to sin and God determines all things. Just by these two assertions free will radically oppose. We must read the Bible without any of the man made lenses of today.