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

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

Robert Traill the Supralapsarian

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

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

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

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

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.

God is one and three in different senses

Van Til has said in his writings that Scripture is made up of paradoxes. One instance where he affirms this diabolical teaching is founs in his doctrine of what he would say is the Trinitarian view. Van Til says that God is one and three in the same sense. God is, for Van Til, one person and three persons at the same time. How he is able to say such things and with a straight face confounds me. However, the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity doesnt purport such nonsense. God is one and three in two different senses. God is one in essence but three in Persons. These things are not paradoxical. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent in essence but three in persons. What God is the three persons is. The three are co-eternal but not confused or confounded.

Faith produces works not the other way around

"If the Scripture point forth the freedom of Divine grace, to the setting aside of all human distinctions, in such language as this, If any man will come after me; - If any man will be my disciple; - Let him that heareth say, Come; - And let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely; our preachers immediately put an emphasis of their own, a very impertinent one too, on the expression will,* and, accordingly, go about to limit the Divine grace to the better disposed part of mankind. But it would be endless to trace them in all their glosses on the sacred Scripture. In a word, when they read the various effects of faith recorded in Scripture, they persuade their hearers to labour to attain some shadow of these in their hearts, and then to work out faith as a prop to them all. - building downward to the foundation. And, indeed, the more seriously we consider the popular doctrine, we shall find the more reason to conclude it to be a castle in the air." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio




In the footnote: * The deceit and falsehood of all such glosses on the Scripture will readily appear to us, if we can only attend to the meaning of one plain passage, wherein Jesus addresses the woman of Samaria thus: If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, give me to drink; thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The knowledge here spoken of is saving faith. And this knowledge, which was never yet acquired by human endeavours, never yet sought, or in the remotest manner wished for by any unbeliever, is the only spring of all willing, wishing, desiring, asking, of every motion of the heart that is agreeable to God, and attended with a sense of his favour. This knowledge influencing the mind, is, in Scripture, called the new heart, the right spirit, new man, &c.


Also read Archibald Alexander:


"Much has been written about the various acts of faith; some making a greater and some a less number of essential acts; but although what they ascribe to faith belongs to its various actings, yet if we examine the matter more accurately, we shall find that faith is one simple exercise of the mind, including, however, both the understanding and will; and that all its various acts arise from the various truths brought into view. A full persuasion of the truth revealed, is faith, in every case; but when the truth believed is a divine promise, this persuasion is of the nature of trust or confidence. Most of the phrases which speak of faith are figurative, and express the common actings of Faith in allusion to some analogous thing. Thus receiving, flying for refuge, looking, coming, hungering, and thirsting, &c. are used to convey to our minds in an intelligible and striking manner, the exercises of a soul when it believes in Christ, but cannot be considered so many distinct acts. Of these figurative expression, no one is more frequently used, or better suited to express the whole of a genuine faith, than that of 'receiving' Christ. - Archibald Alexander, A treatise on Justification by Faith, pg. 43-44

The diminishing Mind of Empiricism

Ayn "Rand maintained that the child - every child - knows nothing, his mind is 'unexposed,' and yet he has a conscious mind. The contradiction is inherent in the notion of a tabula rasa mind. A mind that is tabula rasa is simply not a mind. A consciousness conscious of nothing is simply not a consciousness. A mind that is empty is not a mind, any more than a geometrical figure that has no sides is a geometrical figure. This egregious contradiction lies at the foundation of Rand's epistemology - not only Rand's, but at the base of all empirical philosophies, including those of John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle." - John W. Robbins, Without A Prayer, Ayn Rand and The Close of Her System, pg. 30-31

No such thing as good fruit without good seed. Knowing truth matters first before any good works can be done

"... what an awful delusion has taken hold upon so many men's minds who ridicule the pure doctrine and say to us: 'Ah, do cease clamoring, pure doctrine! Pure doctrine! That can only land you in dead orthodoxism. Pay more attention to pure life, and you will raise a growth of genuine Christianity.' That is exactly like saying to a farmer: 'Do not worry forever about good seed; worry about good fruits.' Is not a farmer properly concerned about good fruit when he is solicitous about getting good seed? Just so a concern about pure doctrine is the proper concern about genuine Christianity and a sincere Christian life. False doctrine is noxious seed, sown by the enemy to produce a progeny of wickedness." - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 20-21

Is it evil for God to cause a sinner to rape another sinner?

The Arminian says that Calvinist teach that God is evil because he causes a woman or a child to be raped by a perpetrator. Of course this is nothing but an emotional argument that seeks not the truth of the matter. The question is what is rape compared to other acts of God revealed in the Scripture alone? God destroys the whole earth by the flood, He also destroyed a whole nation by fire and brimstone. Whether God uses another sinner to do that which would be reprehensible to us or some other disaster is no different. The Assyrian king was an ax in the hand of the Lord against his people. God in the Scripture commands his people to destroy whole nations; in other words, genocide (1 Samuel 15:3, Numbers 31). They were to destroy the nations in order to blot out the remembrance of them (Deut. 25:19). Jesus says that likewise you will also perish if you do not repent either.

Has anyone seen God face to face?

Read Exodus 33 today, lets face it the skeptic/atheist, who does not wish for God to come near in truth, hates the word of God with such blatant passion that they are equally set against it and wants to destroy the consistent nature of Verbal Revelation. They use attacks such as Paradoxes, which Van Til so uses in his false presuppositions, to deny and cause doubt of the word of God. But, what is the meaning of these verses and how does one iron out the details to eliminate the charley horse?


11. And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face Moses will hereafter be dignified by this distinction, where God would declare the difference between him and other Prophets. (Numbers 12:8.) Familiar intercourse is therefore described in this phrase, as if it were said that God appeared to Moses by an extraordinary mode of revelation. If any object that there is a contradiction between this statement and what we shall presently see, "Thou canst not see my face," the solution is easy, viz., that although God revealed Himself to Moses in a peculiar manner, still He never appeared in the fullness of His glory, but only so far as man's infirmity could endure. For this expression contains an implied comparison, i.e., that no man was ever equal to Moses, or arrived at such a pitch of dignity. And this tends to magnify the Law, that Moses its minister reported what he had familiafly learnt, so that no ambiguity might be suspected. When it is said that Joshua departed not from the tabernacle, we gather that the dwelling-place of Moses was in the camp; and perhaps the fact of his being a young man is mentioned, [365] in order more highly to illustrate God's grace, in choosing that he should have the charge of the sanctuary. It is true that Joshua at this time was of mature age; but God's special blessing was manifested in him, in that God passed over many old men, and set him who was younger to be the keeper of His tabernacle. - John Calvin, Commentary on Exodus

Such thing as common grace?

I was thinking of Common Grace that a lot of Calvinist and Arminians like to espouse today. I know Wayne Grudem has a chapter on it but I couldn't find what I was looking for as to his view of Genesis 17:18-22 where God says he will bless Ishmael. Anyways, I will have to look for it and post it here. But, my question is does these set of verses display common grace? What was the reason for Ishmael receiving a gift from God? If God knew that He would destroy Ishmael in Hell then can we say that God gave him a gift out of love? Consider if you give someone a peanut who is allergic, I mean you might say that you did not know but over all you cannot say that the peanut was really good for him. God knows all things, he gave Ishmael a blessing and he also gave Pharaoh a blessing but over all he destroyed Pharaoh in the sea. Just thoughts to consider.

Negative and Positive statements of God's attributes

"The attributes of God are variously distinguished by divines; some distinguish them into negative and positive, or affirmative: the negative are such as remove from him whatever is imperfect in creatures; such are infinity, immutability, immortality, &c. which deny him to be finite, mutable, and mortal; and, indeed it is easier to say what God is not, than what he is: the positive, or affirmative, are such as assert some perfection in God, which is in and of himself; and which in the creatures, in any measure, is from him, as wisdom, goodness, justice, holiness, &c. but the distinction is discarded by others; because all negative attributes some positive excellency is found." -John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 34-35

For example, God is infinite which means he is timeless. Some Calvinist and Catholics teach that we can only speak of God in the negative statements. This makes no since. For one thing, if we can only speak of God in the negative only and not in any positive statements as well then how can we know him? I mean we know what he is not, but what is God as the WCF says.

The school system ignores God and by this they are not neutral

"Let no one fail to see the point: The school system that ignores God teaches its pupils to ignore God; and thus is not neutrality. It is the worst form of antagonism, for it judges God to be unimportant and irrelevant in human affairs. This is atheism." - Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, pg. 73

What the OT ascribes to God alone, the NT transfers to Christ

"Whenever mention is made of the Deity, therefore, there must no opposition be admitted between the Father and the Son, as though the name of the true God belonged exclusively to the Father. For surely the God who appeared to Isaiah, was the only true God, whom, nevertheless, John affirms to have been Christ. He likewise, who by the mouth of Isaiah declared that he was to be a rock of offence to the Jews, was the only true God; whom Paul pronounces to have been Christ. He who proclaims by Isaiah, 'As I live, every knee shall bow to me,' is the only true God; but Paul applies the same to Christ. To the same purpose are the testimonies recited by the Apostle - 'Thou, Lord, has laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens;' and 'Let all the angels of God worship him.' These ascriptions belong only to the one true God; he contends that they are properly applied to Christ. Nor is there any force in that cavil, that what is proper to God is transferred to Christ, because he is the brightness of his glory." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I. XIII. XXIII.

What does the Scripture mean?

"Now, though heretics rail at the word person, or some morose and obstinate men clamorously refuse to admit a name of human invention; since they cannot make us assert that there are three, each of whom is entirely God, nor yet that there are more gods than one, how very unreasonable is it to reprobate words which express nothing but what is testified and recorded in the Scriptures! It were better, say they, to restrain not only our thoughts, but our expressions also, within the limits of the Scripture, than to introduce exotic words, which may generate future dissensions and disputes, for thus we weary ourselves with verbal controversies; thus the truth is lost in altercation; thus charity expires in odious contention. If they call every word exotic, which cannot be found in the Scriptures in so many syllables, they impose on us a law which is very unreasonable, and which condemns all interpretation, but what is composed of detached texts of Scripture connected together. But if by exotic they mean that which is curiously contrived, and superstitiously defended, which tends to contention more than to edification, the use of which is either unseasonable or unprofitable, which offends pious ears with its harshness, and seduces person from the simplicity of the Divine word, I most cordially embrace their modest opinion. For I think that we ought to speak of God with the same religious caution, which should govern our thoughts of him, since all thoughts that we entertain concerning him merely from ourselves, are foolish, and all our expressions absurd. But there is a proper medium to be observed we should seek in the Scriptures a certain rule, both for thinking and for speaking by which we may regulate all the thoughts of our minds, and all the words of our mouths. But what forbids our expressing in plainer words, those things which, in the Scriptures, are, to our understanding, intricate and obscure, provided our expressions religiously and faithfully convey the true sense of the Scripture, and are used with modest caution, and not without sufficient occasion? Of this, examples sufficiently numerous are not wanting. But, when it shall have been proved, that the Church was absolutely necessitated to use the terms Trinity and Persons, if any one then censures the novelty of the words may he not be justly considered as offended at the light of the truth? As having no other cause of censure, but that the truth is explained and elucidated?" -John Calvin, The Institutes, I. XIII. III. (Emphasis is mine)




"It does not appear that those men who are so strenuous for the use of Scripture phrases only in articles of religion, have a greater value for the Scriptures than others; nay, not so much; for if we are to form a judgment of them by their sermons and writings, one would think they never read the Scriptures at all, or very little, since they make such an infrequent use of them; you shall scarcely hear a passage of Scripture quoted by them in a sermon, or produced by them in their writings; more frequently Seneca, Cicero, and others; and it looks as if they thought it very unpolite, and what might serve to disgrace their more refined writings, to fill their performances and the Socinians more lately, carry on their cause, and endeavor to support it by making use of unscriptural words and phrases; and therefore it is not with a very good grace that such men, or those of the same cast with them, object to the use of words and phrases not syllabically expressed in Scripture; and the rather since the Arians were the first that began to make use of unscriptural phrases, as Athanasius affirms." - John Gill, Introduction to Divinity of God, Pg. xxix

The Bible informs our systematic theology and only then our practice

"Having completed an Exposition of the whole Bible, the Books both of the Old and of the New Testament; I considered with myself what would be best next to engage in for the further instruction of the people under my care; and my thoughts led me to enter upon a Scheme of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, first the former and then the latter; the one being the foundation of the other, and both having a close connection with each other." - John Gill, Body of Divinity, or Systematic Theology, Pg. 23

What worldview is best and true?

"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

The Spirit's work in Regeneration to Glorify God

"Inspiration was an act of the Spirit on a special group of people, enabling them to perform a task no others were permitted to do. There is another act of the Spirit which applies to a large group irrespective of their individual personalities. In fact, there are two. As such they can be discussed before itemizing more particular examples. The first of these is regeneration. At the beginning of Kuyper's gigantic volume, he takes pains to say that the chief purpose of the Spirit is not to regenerate sinners, but to glorify God. 'The chief thing is not that the elect be fully saved, but that God be justified in all His works . . .' (p. 9). Undoubtedly this is so; but anyone whether the Spirit or a human being, or even an animal, can glorify God in several ways. For that matter the inanimate planets and the sands of the sea glorify God. Hence what attracts our attention now is not so much the Spirit's ultimate purpose as it is one chosen activity for accomplishing it." - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 31

The Holy Spirit speaks

"A group of only two verses, however explicit they may be, will strike many readers as insufficient. Therefore a larger group, though not really required, will contribute corroboration. Then too, the aim is not rigidly restricted to the proof of the Spirit's personality, but expands to a general view of what the New Testament has to say. As will become clear later on, we want to know, not merely that the Spirit is a person; we also want to know what sort of person he is. Now, one thing that two persons can do. which non-persons cannot, except in poetic fancy, is to talk to each other. The delirious Keats once addressed a Grecian urn, but the urn never replied. Contrariwise, the Holy Spirit speaks and is spoken to. Consider these verses. In each there is an example of the Spirit's speaking. No one verse exhausts the range of his conversation, but each is sufficient to show that he speaks." - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 17-18

(John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13, 14; Acts 13:2, 21:11; Romans 8:26, 27; Galatians 4:6; 1 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 2:7)

The word of God is alone sufficient

"The Bible, infallibly, and the Westminster Confession, in compliance with the Bible, both teach the sufficiency of Scripture, neither science, nor history, nor philosophy is needed to give knowledge. There is no 'two-source' theory of knowledge taught in the Word of God. As Paul clearly stated in the first two chapters of 1 Corinthians, the wisdom of the world is foolishness, and man is not able to come to the knowledge of the truth apart from the Spirit-revealed propositions of Scripture. The Bible is sufficient for all the truth we need and all the knowledge we can have. Here alone do we find, writes Solomon, 'the certainty of the words of truth' (Proverbs 22:17-21). This is Scripturalism." - W. Gary Crampton, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, Pg. 16