Douglas J. Douma's Blog, page 14

Sermon on Romans 4:1-25 – “Salvation Through Faith: Yesterday, Today, and Forever”

In the 1960s (and 70s) CHRISTIANITY TODAY was a popular and generally orthodox publication with a large readership. The editor in those early days of the magazine was Carl Henry. And on one occasion Henry met with a prominent Swiss theologian who had for decades been making waves with many novel (if not unorthodox) theological ideas. When they met, Henry introduced himself as “Carl Henry, the editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.” But later, during some theological questioning the European theologian disparagingly asked, “Did you say CHRISTIANITY TODAY or CHRISTIANITY YESTERDAY?” The American Henry quickly responded with a Biblical phrase, saying, “Christianity Yesterday, Today, and Forever!”

Our Faith — the Christian Faith once delivered to the saints—does not change. The Word of God written in the Scriptures does not change. And that through which we are saved—Faith in Jesus Christ—does not change. It is good news for every age. It is the same in all times, yesterday, today, and forever.

It is impossible to ask a more serious question than “how can I be saved?” But, there is much confusion and ignorance regarding the answer to this question, even within the Christian church. Probably, most non-Christians think that Christians believe in some sort of scales of judgment whereby those who do more good than bad make it to heaven. Maybe even some in the church believe this. But it is a great error. Thinking that we can do good things to merit salvation is itself a sin. It is sinful to think that we are able to appease the most holy God with our deeds. For our deeds are filthy rags, and to think of them as something that would satisfy God is either to raise us above our true, sinful, nature, or to lower God down from his perfect, holy, nature. We can do nothing to appease God, and so there must be another way if we are to be saved.

I. SALVATION THROUGH FAITH – YESTERDAY

In our reading today from Romans 4, we find Paul continuing his theme from the previous chapter — salvation comes through faith. But to prevent anyone from saying that in this Paul has created a new doctrine, he proves his point by going to the Scriptures. He proves that in the “YESTERDAY” of the Old Testament God’s people then were saved through faith. And he provides two examples of this; two examples from The Old Testament of salvation not based upon works but through faith.

First, and most prominently, Paul shows that Abraham was saved through faith.

Paul writes,

1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

Paul here is directly quoting Genesis 15:6. He has gone to the Scriptures to prove his point since he knows that his Jewish theological adversaries agree that God’s Word is the authoritative. And while his adversaries might want to argue for salvation by works, Paul proves from the Old Testament that salvation is through faith. He does this by showing that it was through Abraham’s belief in God — through Abraham’s faith — that he was counted as righteous in the sight of God. And no works are allowed to sneak in to the equation. Works are entirely ruled out. For if works contributed at all then man would have something in which to boast.

Paul not only references Abraham in Genesis to prove his point, but he also quotes from a Psalm of David, the 32ndPsalm. He writes,

4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

The Psalmist does not say that the man who has done good works is blessed; he says the man whose sins are forgiven is blessed. As works do not forgive sins, it is the grace of God which the Psalmist is speaking of. God alone, by his grace, forgives sins.

And we too are blessed. And the focus of God’s blessing here is not on our wealth or our health, though these things are blessing from the Lord. But we are primarily blessed in that our sins have been forgiven. You, as a Christian, are greatly blessed because you have a savior in Jesus Christ.

So do not say that the person with more wealth than you is more blessed. And do not say that the one with more natural talent than you is more blessed. The blessed one is truly the one against whom the Lord will not count sin.

Who do you see as blessed?

– the athlete for his talents?

– the businessman for his wealth?

Are these not just fleeting things? The one who is truly blessed is the one who knows the Lord. You are truly blessed.

In all of this talk about the blessing of forgiveness, Paul has proven from the Old Testament that man then — in the YESTERDAY — was saved through faith.

To add to this, he proves another related point directly from the Old Testament. That is this: Abraham was not saved by circumcision, but through faith. Paul writes,

9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Abraham had saving faith without yet having had the sign and seal of the covenant, which then was circumcision. Those who have done the math say that God declared Abraham as righteous at least 14 years before Abraham’s circumcision.

II. SALVATION THROUGH FAITH – TODAY

So too Christians TODAY can have saving faith without Baptism — which is today’s sign and seal of the covenant. That is not to say that Baptism is unimportant, but it is to say that Baptism does not save us. In this Paul rejects what is known as Sacramentalism – the false teaching that one is saved by participation in the sacraments. I’ll spell that word out for our budding theologians, for the children of the congregation. (S A C R A M E N T A L I S M) — the false teaching that one is saved by participation in the sacraments.

When I was studying this passage I first called this error Sacredotalism rather than Sacramentalism. I had confused the terms. Sacredotalism actually is the false teaching that a priest is required to intervene to bring grace from God to man. Perhaps you’d like the spelling on this one too — S A C R E D O T A L I S M.

So the one, sacramentalism, teaches that sacraments are necessary for salvation, and the other, sacerdotalism, teaches that priests are necessary for salvation. But we believe that the Bible teaches salvation through faith ALONE; not by works, not by sacraments, and not through priests. Jesus alone saves us, and His glory is to go to no other person nor thing.

So Abraham YESTERDAY was saved through faith, not faith + circumcision. And we TODAY are saved through faith, not faith + baptism, or any other addition.

And in proving that salvation is through faith, Paul has proved that salvation is not in any way by works.

Thus he writes,

The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring–not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

With this we see the unity in God’s plan of salvation. There was not one plan for the Jews and another for the Gentiles, but one unified plan of salvation through faith. And there is not one plan for the saints of the Old Testament YESTERDAY and another plan for the New Testament times or in our own time TODAY, but there is one plan. God does not want faith from one person and works from another, but he has given faith to all His people that they may know Him and have eternal life by His grace.

We see here also the idea of Abraham as a father. Interestingly, Ab, in Hebrew means father; Abram means “exalted Father” and Abraham means “a Father of many nations.”

Abraham was first the father of the nation of Israel. He is also the father of all the faithful in that he was justified through faith long before the vast majority of God’s people were born into this world. Abraham was the prototypical man of faith. And we are children of Abraham when we have faith in Jesus Christ. It should be noted too that Abraham was an idolatrous sinner. He was imperfect as we are imperfect. He was a sinner as we are sinners. But he had faith, as we have faith, and so his sins were forgiven as our sins are forgiven in Jesus Christ.

III. SALVATION THROUGH FAITH – FOREVER

As we move on in the passage, we see that God’s promise is not only for YESTERDAY and for TODAY; it is FOREVER. [REPEAT: GOD’S PROMISE IS FOREVER] So not only were people in the Old Testament times and in the New Testament times saved through faith, but God’s blessing extends to all times; to now and to the future even unto the end of the age. This gives us hope because God is not going to suddenly change His plan of salvation. He is not going to suddenly require you to achieve a certain amount of good deeds or to be pure and holy of your own efforts.

God’s promise is FOREVER. His promise is to Abraham and his offspring. Not merely his physical offspring, but his spiritual offspring, for all times, forever. Not just the circumcised (the Jews) but the uncircumcised (the Gentiles).

So Paul writes,

20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

It is in this passage that the word “promise” first appears in the Paul’s letter to the Romans. God’s promises to Abraham include what is sometimes shortened to the phrase “land, seed, and blessing.” That is, there is the promise of the land of Canaan to him, the promise that he will have many descendants, and the promise that all families of the earth will be blessed through him. And, as Jesus descends from Abraham, the promise of blessing all nations is fulfilled in Jesus Christ whose death on the cross was for all nations.

One commentator well explains,

“In the present case the object of hope was the fulfillment of God’s promise that Abraham would have a son, in whose line the precious promise of blessings would be fulfilled.”

That son was Jesus Christ, 42 generations later according to the genealogy in Matthew’s gospel.

But “promise” is not the only future-looking word in this passage. We also have “hope.” It was “in hope” that Abraham believed God. And it is “in hope” that we too believe God, for just as Abraham expected and received blessings from the Lord, we too expect and receive blessings from the Lord. In fact, all our blessings come from Him. It is God alone from whom all blessings flow.

This phrase, the title of my sermon “Yesterday, Today, and Forever” comes actually from another passage altogether. Hebrews: 13:8 reads, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” And it is because Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever that our salvation through faith in him remains unchanged. Salvation is through faith today as it was yesterday and will forever be.

THROUGH Faith and BY Grace.

You might have noticed that throughout the sermon I say “THROUGH faith” rather than using some other preposition. I quite like Paul’s statement in Ephesians where he says “For BY grace you have been saved THROUGH Faith.” (Ephesians 2:8) Now, one can certainly use the preposition “by” and say that salvation is “BY Faith” as Paul does in Romans 4. But there has been a dangerous tendency historically to mistake what he here means.

Reformed theologians properly make the distinction between God’s GRACE as the GROUNDS of salvation, and FAITH as the INSTRUMENT of salvation. God, by His Grace, saves His people. Faith does not save us, but mediates the salvation we have by grace. Grace is the cause of salvation. Faith is the means through which God applies and makes known to us His Grace.

So we should only say salvation is “by Faith” if we understand “by” to mean “the instrument of” rather than “the ground of.”

This is extremely important, because if Faith were the grounds of our salvation, then man would be adding to the work of God, and taking from His glory. Man would have something in which to boast.

But Paul says the promise “rests on Grace.” Grace is the grounds of salvation. Christ’s death on the cross successfully atones for the sins of His people and guarantees their salvation.

We are justified in God’s sight by Christ’s righteousness imputed to us.Faith then is the instrument through which we receive the righteousness of Christ.

So we might say: Faith is not your savior. Jesus is your savior. Do not look to yourself for security, look to Christ.

As in real estate where the most important factor is LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION, when it comes to understanding the meaning of a Biblical text the most important factor is CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT.

And when all the context is taken into consideration, we must agree with the theologian and commentator William Hendricksen who explains that in Romans 4 Paul’s use of “by faith” means more exactly “the righteousness of Christ appropriated by faith.”

APPLICATION & CONCLUSION

With all this in mind – that God’s salvation through faith is the same yesterday, today, and forever, I ask, “HOW DO YOU VIEW YOUR STANDING BEFORE GOD?” [REPEAT]

Do you think you are “good enough” and that God likes some of what you do? Or do you see your standing before God as a forgiven sinner only through work of Jesus Christ?

If you do not have faith in Jesus Christ you should be very concerned about the wrath of the most holy God.

But if you believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord and confess Him with your lips then you should take comfort in the fact that He has saved you through faith (not works!) just as he saved Abraham and David and Paul and all people for eternity.

Since we can only have Faith in God if we have received His grace, the presence of faith in us proves that God’s grace is upon us.

So, take comfort in the Lord. As you have taken comfort in Him in the past, take comfort in Him today, and take comfort in Him forever. Amen.

Review of Choosing the Good Portion

Choosing the Good Portion, Women of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, ed. Patricia E. Clawson & Diane L. Olinger, Willow Grove, PA: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2016, 470 pp.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church has done a far better job than any other presbyterian church I know of in recording its history. Until now, however, the role of the women in the church has been largely overlooked. Choosing the Good Portion fills this void with 52 essays on the lives of various women in the church. The essay subjects range from women who were large financial donors in the early years to others who served as missionaries, school teachers, Sunday school teachers, wives, mothers, and in various other roles.

The book is hefty at 470 pages, and in places makes for slow reading. Many of the stories, however, are greatly encouraging and the book is certainly a welcomed break from the regular flow of materials the church produces about J. Gresham Machen. The book also helps to show the extent of OPC foreign missions as a number of essays relay stories from missions in Eritrea, Korea, and other countries.

Choosing the Good Portion is probably most profitably read just one short essay at a time. Although some of the essays are pretty good, others are just brief biographical sketches. I suspect it is not wrong to think that the vast majority of the readers of this volume will have interest in it because they are acquainted with one or more of the persons covered.

Review of The Separated Life by Johannes G. Vos

The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life, A Study of Basic Principles by Johannes G. Vos, Philadelphia: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, no date, 35 pages.

Reading this pamphlet just after finishing Rosaria Butterfield’s The Gospel Comes with a House Key makes for an interesting comparison. But the “Separated Life” of Vos is not antithetical to the hospitality of Butterfield. They are, in fact, complementary doctrines.

Vos does not argue for a separation of Christians from the world such as monks in monasteries or the Amish in their enclaves. Rather his “separation” is of another kind, entirely compatible with Christian hospitality, evangelism, and involvement in civic affairs. He argues that the Bible teaches (1) separation from sin, (2) separation from the temptation to sin, and (3) separation from participation in the sins of the world. What this looks like in the life of the believer varies person-by-person as each is tempted by different things. It is “impossible to formulate specific rules.” (p. 8)

Vos makes a distinction between things or acts that are sinful in themselves (like adultery) and things or acts that are sinful only under some circumstances (like playing the piano would be sinful if it is done by a child in disobedience of his parents). He comments that “there can be little doubt that certain groups among American Fundamentalists have to a considerable extent revived the ancient Gnostic doctrine that material things can be sinful in themselves.” (p. 11) Christians are to have liberty in “things indifferent” and not to judge others in those things. (p. 14) But Christians must also take care not to cause others to stumble. (p. 15) The Bible alone is to be our guide for what is indifferent. (p. 17-21) No church or denomination should make extra-biblical requirements for membership. That is, “the church has no authority to require abstinence from things indifferent.” (p. 25) Yet it is sometimes legitimate for civil governments to make such laws. (p. 32)

The key teaching is “the seat of sin is the corrupt heart of man; the use of the no material thing can be sinful in itself.” (p. 33) This opposes the teaching of some Fundamentalists that “sin is inherent in the use of certain material things.”

This is a worthwhile essay to read. While it might be hard to find a copy of the pamphlet, the essay itself is available free online in a number of places.

Review of The Gospel Comes with a House Key by Rosaria Butterfield

The Gospel Comes with a House Key, Practicing Radically Ordinary Hospitality in Our Post-Christian World by Rosaria Butterfield, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018, 240 pp.

I could provide a host of criticisms of this book (Including the author’s regular use of the term “image of God” without much of a definition of it, her apparent acceptance of the hypo-Calvinistic doctrine of the well-meant offer of the gospel (p. 56), and the stream-of-conscience writing and general lack of order in the book.)

But these criticisms are peripheral. The Gospel Comes with a House Key is a book for our time; a book needed right now that simply must be read. In this world of increasing “chronic loneliness” (p 34), hospitality is vital.

Author Rosaria Butterfield is best when telling stories. She does not shy away from the difficulties of reality, but draws you into her life just as she draws in many people into her house in real life.

She notes many ways the reader can get involved in “radically ordinary hospitality” even if one has a full-time career, is single, or has extensive family obligations. Her practical advice includes: live below your means (p. 12), hospitality can be done by guests as well as hosts (p. 12), hospitality does need to be elaborate but can be “practical, unfussy, and common” (p. 36), budget for extra groceries (p. 63), “start where you are” (p. 100), consider foster care or being a host for the SAFE Family Network (p. 112), single adults may be in a good position to foster a teenager (p. 112), and even if you’re not wealthy you can share what you do have (p. 217).

This book is likely a hard read for any cultural Christian, legal-moralist, or elitist. But I think true Christians will embrace the call to hospitality and do many great things in the Lord’s service being stimulated by this book.

Practical Apologetics

“Practical Apologetics”

by Rev. Douglas J. Douma

Keynote Speech given at The Geneva Institute for Christian Thought, July 18, 2018

When one hears the word “practical” he might be inclinded to think of the philosophy of pragmatism. Pragmatism assesses the truth of a belief in terms of the success of its practical applications. The pragmatist wants to know what “works.” If Christian apologetics were to be based on pragmatism, it would seek for the method of argument that best “works”—that most successfully produces converts.

The pragmatic approach, however, is misguided for a number of reasons. For one, it is difficult, if not impossible, to know that a conversion is genuine. And even if conversions could be counted by number, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine the relative contributions of the various arguments which may have led to each particular conversion. Therefore, since the metrics of pragmatism are not measureable, the approach is untenable. Pragmatism itself does not “work.” Furthermore, the pragamatic approach makes the mistake of giving credit to man rather than to the Holy Spirit for the conversion of sinners. In truth, it is ultimately the work of Holy Spirit that converts sinners, not the force of the apologetic arguments themselves. The apologete converts no one, his arguments never “work.” There is a zero percent success rate of man converting man to Christ. But the success rate of the Holy Spirit is one hundred percent. No one can resist God’s will.

With this in mind—that the Holy Spirit alone effectually calls men—it should be understood that there are quite different answers to the following two questions: 1) Why do I believe in Christ? and, 2) Are there good reasons to believe in Christ? We must not answer these two questions in the same way. While one might believe that there are in fact good reasons to believe in Christ, it is ultimately not for any of these reasons that we do so believe. The single effective reason why one believes in Jesus Christ is because of the Holy Spirit working in him.

Consider what the Westminster Confession of Faith says when it comes to belief in the truth of the Scriptures:

“We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s savlation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection therepf, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority therefore, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” – WCF, Chapter 1, Part 5

With the Confession we must agree; while there are many arguments for the faith, our full persuasion is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit.

But it would be a mistake to conclude from this that the apologete, the preacher, or the evangelist plays no role in conversion. While the effective cause of conversion is the Holy Spirit, the preacher is ordinarily God’s chosen intstrument. Speaking of the importance of the preacher’s role in conversion, Paul writes in his letters to the Romans,

“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?’ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:14-17)

The preacher, as Paul shows, then functions as an instrument of God, preaching God’s word so that those who hear might believe. Rather than seeking the “what works” of pragmatism, the goal of the preacher is to present the truth of the Holy Scriptures. Apologetic methodology likewise is not to be guided by the pragmatism of man’s decisions, but by the Biblical truth of God’s word.

While knowing that the Christian is to be an instrument of God in the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit for the conversion of God’s chosen people, one might yet rightly ask, “how does one practice apologetics?” “What should our methodology be?” And what does God’s word teach us to say? On what theory are we to guide our practice?

Before we look into those questions, we must note an important something about the relationship between theory and practice. Those who condescendingly say “that’s your theory” and then explain their own view are usually making a claim that their own view is of reality itself, not merely a theory of reality. Truly however, they are merely giving their own theory while wanting to refer to it as something else. They should more honestly say, “That is your theory, but I think I have a better theory.” It must be understood that theory is theory of practice. Theory does not exist for its own sake, but is a mental model to explain reality. A person simply cannot practice apologetics without some theory, however foggy, of what he is doing. And so we seek an ever better and ever clearer theory of apologetics so that we might practice it rightly.

So then, how should one practice apologetics?

I. Do so with gentleness and respect.

Perhaps the most central verse of apologetic concern is 1 Peter 3:15, “… always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

The “gentleness and respect” of the English Standard Version is “meekness and fear” in the King James Vesion. And while the “repect” or “fear” refers to our attitude toward God, the “gentleness” or “meekness” must refer to our attitude toward men.

Commenting on this verse, Gordon Clark writes,

“The reasons [that we believe] are to be given in meekness and fear. A parade of learning on the one hand and a smart-aleck reply on the other are equally uncalled for. People are not always altogether logical, and they often judge the value of our reply by the manner in which it is given. And among those who ask a reason are some who will seize any opportunity for ridiculing the gospel. To this end they will use our evil conduct or even any legitimate conduct which can be put in bad light. We cannot always at the moment defend ourselves against such prejudice. If we act in good conscience, if we have faithfully tried to obey God’s commands, then we have done all we can to make these enemies of Christ ashamed of their false accusations. Fail though we may to impress this particular person, the contrast between his evil words and our good conversations in Christ may very well produce an effect in those who are watching us.” – Gordon H. Clark, Peter Speaks Today, p. 121.

Like Peter, Paul says, “Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” (Col. 4:5-6)

John Calvin comments on this passage saying, “He [Paul] reckons as tasteless everything that does not edify. The term graceis employed so as to be opposed to talkative-ness, taunts, and all sorts of trifles which are either injurious or vain.”

Along these lines of “gentleness,” J. Gresham Machen writes that the defense of the faith should be 1) “perfectly open and above board”; that is honest, and 2) “of a scholarly kind” focusing on the arguments and never analyzing another person’s motives. (Education, Christianity, and the State, p. 30, 31)

The graciousness Paul demands, like the gentleness demanded by Peter, is all too rare in contemporary Christian apologetics. There is an army of Christian apologists who, it seems to me, are seeking to win arguments by any means necessary. But intimidation, abusive ad hominem, and other un-Christ-like approaches have no place in Peter and Paul’s admonitions. Our speech is to be gracious, but consider the titles of various contemporary books on apologetics: Pushing the Antithesis; We Destroy Arguments; and How to Answer the Fool. Now the content of these books might not be as ungracious as their titles indicate, but would you not be embarassed if an unbeliever seeking genuine counsel saw such titles on your bookshelf? You are to give a reason for the Faith that you have. Reasons are to be reasonable and unemotional. There is no benefit to being hostile or uncharitable when presenting the reason.

“Gentleness” then answers the question of how we should argue, but it does not itself answer the question of what we should argue. A Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness might have plenty of gentleness all the while teaching gross errors. But we must avoid error and speak the truth. So then, we must ask, what reason or reasons should we give for our faith?

II. There are many reasons to believe in Jesus Christ.

First, it is important to note that there is not one single argument that suffices for all apologetics. When Peter said, “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” it is important to note that he said “a reason” not “the reason.” That is, there are various reasons or arguments for the Christian Faith that might be given upon each their proper occasion. Just as the preacher is to preach the “whole counsel of God,” (Acts 20:27) the apologete is to defend the faith using knowledge from the whole Scriptures.

Much could be said about the supposed proofs for the existence of God. But let this comment suffice on the topic: the Bible nowhere seeks to prove the existence of God, but rather His existence is always assumed.

If there were merely one foolproof argument for the Christian faith, we would only need to repeat it in each and every situation. Some Christian apologetes virtually do this. But God uses various Biblical truths to bring people to faith. And he uses various ministers as his instruments. And while men inevitably have errors mixed in with the truth of their speech, at least some Biblical truth is necessary to be presented for one to come to faith, to believe in Jesus Christ. Consider, for example, the results of a poll I recently conducted in a discussion group that I’m a member of. I asked the question “What preacher or writer did God use to bring you to faith?”

The answers included:

1. “Robbie Symons of Harvest Bible Chapel in Oakville, ON, Canada.”

2. “The late D. James Kennedy’s TV ministry.”

3. “Chaplain Dan Norwood, a card-carrying Fundamental Dispensational Premillenialist that served in the Salvation Army.”

4. “Hearing Joel Beeke’s sermon on Eternity left a big influence on me when I was in my teens in addition to reading Pressing into the Kingdom of Godby Jonathan Edwards.”

5. “RC Sproul.”

6. “It was the Romanian version of Vernon McGee’s – Thru the Bible Radio Broadcast.”

7. “My Papaw, a country Baptist preacher.”

8. “Reading of the Indonesian translation of the Canon of Dort.”

9. “Clark’s ‘God and Evil,’ from Religion, Reason, and Revelation, and Clark’s commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, What Do Presbyterians Believe?”

10. “Rev. John Baker, M.Div, Free Presbyterian Church of NA, and John Calvin.”

11. “Dr. Lorraine Boettner and Arthur W Pink.”

12. “The works of John W. Robbins.”

13. “Greg Bahnsen and his books Always Ready and Pushing the Antithesis.”

14. “Francis Schaeffer.”

15. “My father.”

16. “A religious education school teacher at 16 years old.”

What does this mean? For one, it means that conversion does not only occur through one effective argument, for each of these preachers had different approaches, some even lacking considerable orthodoxy. And it also means that God can bring people to faith even through imperfect instruments; even through you! But there must be something of His truth. Therfore, our goal must be to glorify God by presenting Biblical truths.

III. Clear the way for the Christian presentation.

Set against God’s truth there are various religions and secular philosophies. Often, if not always, the unbeliever is held captive by one or more of these non-Christian systems. And in order for him to believe the truth of the Scriptures he must renounce his belief in these lies. The unbeliever has a sin problem, but he also has a knowledge problem. Though the Holy Spirit alone can convict him of his sin, the preacher or apologete can be used as God’s instrument to correct the unbeliever’s knowledge problem.

The unbeliever must be shown both that his views are false and that the teachings of the Scriptures are true. In defending the faith therefore it is valuable to understand the various opponent’s views. The more knowledge you have of their beliefs the better. The more knowledge you have of their beliefs the more likely that you will be able to find contradictions in their views. But, perhaps more importantly, you must be greatly learned in the Scriptures so that you can answer the objections (often misconceptions of the Bible’s teaching) of the non-believer.

If a person doesn’t know the Gospel, they cannot believe it. And if they have an objection to Christianity, that objection must be demolished. Thus we must defeat each and every argument one by one. The more learned one is, the more prepared one is, the better.

To begin, one book I suggest as an excellent guide to understanding and critiquing some of the cult-like religions is Walter Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cults. This book will also help you understand more clearly what Christianity is, as you learn what it is not. But this one book will not suffice for learning how to address all unbelievers. You must study broadly. Do not be afraid to read something of atheism, mormonism, Christian Science, Islam, etc. Because Christianity is true there we should not fear the writings of unbelievers.

IV. The Christian Presentation

But to move on with our lecture, after showing the contradictions of some non-Christian system or systems, the apologete must them make a presentation of the Christian faith. This is to include the gospel—that Jesus died and rose again, showing him, based on the Old Testament prophecies, to be the promised Messiah and Lord, ushering in the kingdom of God with it’s justice and peace, and forgiving the sins of God’s people so that they are seen as righteous in His sight. In contrast to the non-Christian systems it should be noted that Christianity is consistent and provides reasons to live on the earth and to have hope for eternal life. Sinful, stubborn man will not respond to the Biblical message. Only by the power of the Holy Spirit will man be born again. But while the Holy Spirit does this converting, the preacher is God’s instrument providing the necessary Biblical knowledge of which man believes for salvation.

And so we have a two-step process. Gordon Clark well explains:

“The process of the reductio must be explained to him. There are two parts to the process. First the apologete must show that the axioms of secularism result in self-contradiction. … Then, second, the apologete must exhibit the internal consistency of the Christian system. When these two points have been made clear, the Christian will urge the unbeliever to repudiate the axioms of secularism and accept God’s revelation. That is, the unbeliever will be asked to change his mind completely, to repent. This type of apologetic argument … [does not] deny that in fact repentance comes only as a gift from God” – Gordon H. Clark, Karl Barth’s Theological Method, p. 110.

V. An Example.

Finally, we’ll conclude with an excellent example of “practical apologetics” in a letter Dr. Clark wrote to his nephew. As I read this, note the gentleness in which the letter is written. Note also that both the unbeliever’s worldview is critiqued and the truth of the Gospel is presented.

[Letter from Gordon H. Clark to his nephew, Feb 15, 1974]

Dear D—,

Aunt Ruth and I were immensely pleased to get your letter about Christmas time. Five pages, no less. Wonderful. [Personal content removed]

We are happy that you are doing so well in music. In advising students I have always said that a student should go into a line of endeavor that he really likes. We all need money to live, but to me it would be torture to spend a life doing what you do not like, even for a good salary.

You say you are more a doer than a thinker. Well, I can understand that you may not like to study and write books, you may not like cancer research and microbiology. All right: music is fine; I enjoy it. One of my brilliant students, a girl who came to college with only two years of high school, and made A’s in all classes but mine (for I am an ogre), practiced her violin eight hours a day (or maybe only six – no wonder she got only a B in Logic); she then started to become a neuro-surgeon, and is now in McGill in Montreal, with a side job in an orchestra.

But even in music one must be not only a doer, he must also be a thinker. Is not music based on theory? I wager Beethoven did a good bit of thinking. You speak about learning by experience. Experience is a very poor teacher. If you wish to understand scales and harmony, it is foolish to spend your time experimenting. You only repeat the trials and errors of earlier people. Books tell you about their mistakes. No one would think of making advances in cancer before learning what has already been done. Why start from scratch, when you can get a hundred years “experience” in a few weeks of reading?

But there is something more important. Experience, even Beethoven’s, never provides you with norms of judgment. Of course, if you never heard music, experienced it, you would have nothing to judge. But you can hear music, and if you have no idea of what is good, you are left to your own uneducated reactions. The formulation of aesthetic norms is an immensely difficult undertaking. There are easier things and better examples of what I mean.

Without, however, leaving your field, may I speak of your constructing radio programs? You mentioned “Scattered Arts.” You also spoke of “creative programming.” Now, is it not obvious that to do these things you must have some idea of what a program should be? Experience will tell us what programs are being broadcast. You can compose a list of all the programs of a hundred stations for a week. But the mere observation of all these data goes no distance in deciding which are better than others. To judge quality and purpose requires more than mere experience. You must have norms. Norms are statements of what should be; experience gives us only what is. And from is there is no logical route to ought.

This, of course, is where philosophy comes in. Somehow or other a thinker will try to establish norms. He must construct an argument. His critics ask, Is it a good or poor argument. And his critics must have their own norms for judging him. Observation is of no help in all this.

If all this is so with respect to music and radio, think how much more applicable it is to politics. We can list large numbers of actual political actions taken by the parliaments of various nations; we can sometimes perhaps see whether these actions fulfilled their intended purposes; but experience can never tell whether those legislative acts and their results were good. Our country, with its Christian background, used to think that murder, torture, and kidnapping were bad. But did you notice that when Hearst’s daughter was kidnapped, and a ransom of food to the poor was demanded, the older poor in California said they would not accept it, but the younger said they would take it. Apparently the younger generation contains a greater proportion of people who approve of kidnapping, hijacking, and the violence that occurs in many parts of the world. The terrorists think terror is good. Others think that terror is bad. To decide, one needs norms. These are statements of what ought to be done; they are not lists of what has been done.

Now, you say that you can see no clear plan in the world or life. You say you had “an intense personal relationship with Christ.” This is experience, and to tell the truth, I do not think much of it. You admit that it was largely emotion, and dependent on the “psyching up” by other people. But your state of mind then fell apart, as you yourself say, and you found too many absurdities in your environment (I am repeating some of your words), so that you could see no plan in life, and could not think a person responsible for what he does.

The reason, I believe, is that you depended on experience. And it seems to me that experience by itself is just as chaotic as you say. What I think you should have depended on is revelation.

The Bible reveals that all people are born sinners. They do all want to do evil, and everybody succeeds to various degrees. People are by nature, by birth, enemies of God. Naturally a world of such people produces apparent chaos. Mere looking at the world discloses no plan of history, or guide of life. But revelation does.

As for the plan of history, the revelation says that God chose Abraham for a certain purpose; and Moses – the Exodus and its details were a contest between God and the religion of Egypt. But most important, Christ came, died, and was resurrected from the grave. These events are explained in the revelation. Everybody dies. I shall soon die. Strange as it seems to me, who remembers my high school days so well, I am an old man, and cannot live much longer. Well, Pontius Pilate died too, and so did the Pharisees. But Christ died in order to pay the penalty for the sins of those who should take him as Lord and Savior. This is the significance, and it is discovered, not in experience, but in revelation. That Christ rose from the dead assures us that his death accomplished what he intended.

Further, on a world wide historical level, the Bible predicts that the Jews shall return to Palestine. For two thousand years that seemed impossible. What other people has preserved its identity for so long and though scattered returned to their ancient land? The significance is in revelation, even if experience tells us that the Jews are in fact in Jerusalem.

Then on a personal level, much smaller in scope than world history, the revelation gives us the norms for life. Terror, kidnapping are wrong because God condemns them. The Ten Commandments, and the many derivative precepts, are the norms by which we ought to judge music, morals, politics, and ourselves.

None of this comes to us by “doing rather than thinking,” or by experience and certainly not by emotion. It comes in an intelligible revelation. It comes by believing that God has established these norms and not some others.

Atheism can establish no norms whatever. Examine their arguments and see for yourself. Atheism has nothing to offer me, who cannot last too long now. What do atheists promise for after death? They promise no more for this life either. Bertrand Russell based his life on “unyielding despair.” But he had no reason for living at all. It may be compacting the matter too much to suit some people, but I think I can properly reduce the matter to a choice is between Christianity and purposeless, absurd, chaotic despair.

Cordially, your uncle,

Gordon

Review of Intellectuals by Paul Johnson

Intellectuals by Paul Johnson, New York: Harper and Row, 1988, 385 pp.

Intellectuals is Paul Johnson’s critique of those who have set themselves up as critics and social revolutionaries. He seeks to show that their lives grossly fail to meet the standards set down by their own philosophies. He targets twelve of these intellectuals in each their own chapters: Rousseau, Shelley, Marx, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Brecht, Russell, Sartre, Edmund Wilson, Gollancz, and Hellman. They prove to each possess a combination of vile characteristics, most which are common to the lot: egotism, atheism, socialism, drunkenness, adultery, polygamy, womanizing, advocacy of violence, money problems, even a lack of cleanliness.

Sure, the author has a right-wing bias. His targets are leftist intellectuals, not any on the right. And, as I’m not incredibly knowledgable on any of the twelve intellectuals I cannot say whether he does not make historical or biographical errors. But yet Intellectuals makes for interesting reading and provides an important balance to any hagiographic account of these individuals.

What I think this book really displays — while I have no indication that this was the author’s goal — is that all men are sinful and that man-made systems of philosophy are completely unlivable. It is a great joy that we Christians do not have to follow one or another tyrannical egotist but have the very Word of the living, loving, and unchangeably holy God to direct our lives. The foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Review of Pleading for a Reformation Vision by David Calhoun

Pleading for a Reformation Vision, The Life and Selected Writings of William Childs Robinson (1897–1982) by David Calhoun, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2013, 309 pp.

The biography section of this volume is rather short; extending only to page 126. The remaining 60% of the book then is selected writing of William Childs Robinson. The biography section itself also references and has lengthy quotes from many of his writings. Probably, it seems, sufficient materials do not exist to write more thoroughly on the history and person of Robinson. What remains in the record are his theological writings.

The author, David Calhoun, is an expert on Southern Presbyterian history, having writing not only this volume but also Our Southern Zion: Old Columbia Seminary (1828–1927).

As for Robinson, he was a pivotal figure keeping alive the Calvinist tradition in the South at a low point in church history. He taught for many years at Columbia Seminary where he was the leading conservative voice in an institution growing increasingly liberal. These were the days before the Reformed renaissance in the South with the respective founding of both Reformed Theological Seminary (1966) and Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary (1986). Conservative Calvinists either went to Columbia Seminary to study with Robinson or they had to leave the region and attend a place like Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Robinson studied briefly with Karl Barth and worked alongside Manfred Gutzke. He significantly influenced his students including D. James Kennedy and Paul Settle. In 1945 he preached a sermon to an audience that included President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was a leading opponent of the merger between his southern Presbyterian Church US and the northern Presbyterian Church USA and influenced many of the founders of the PCA.

In many ways (working at a liberal seminary as a conservative and staying in the mainline denomination) William Childs Robinson is, in my estimation, the John Gerstner of the South. Or perhaps John Gerstner is the Robinson of the North.

The book also contains interesting information on Robinson’s two sons who each followed his path into Christian academia but deviated significantly from his orthodox Calvinism.

Overall, the book must be said to be lacking in many ways. The biography is lacking . . . well . . . biographical information. While in For a Continuing Church Sean Lucas comments significantly on Robinson’s views on segregation, in the present volume there is only one short paragraph on the matter. Robinson’s whole upbringing receives a scant two pages. It is noted that Robinson did not join the PCA, but does not explain why he did not join. There is not even an index. The book is a disappointment.

Review of Lectures on the South by Joe Morecraft

Lectures on the South by Joe Morecraft, III, self-published, no date, 172 pp.

This volume contains five essays on Christianity and the nineteenth century American South by Presbyterian minister Joe Morecraft. Morecraft was a founder of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, United States and today has his ministerial credentials in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Hanover Presbytery. This latter denomination is the one in which I also am an ordained minister.

It is over a century and a half since the end of the American Civil War and yet the political issues and indeed the history of the War itself are still hotly debated. As a Northerner myself—having grown up in Michigan—I’ve certainly been presented with one view of the conflict in the public schools, the society around me, and the media. But as one who has read widely on libertarianism, I’m well aware of the immorality of Abraham Lincoln and the U. S. Government. Having now lived primarily in the South for the last decade and learned some Southerners perspectives, I hope that I might be in a position to somewhat dispassionately consider the issues. I have no axe to grind. My ancestors were not involved on either side of the war as they were at that point basically all poor farmers still in the old countries: Friesland, Poland, Holland, and Germany. But while I’m rather emotionally disconnected from the Civil War, I must admit that I am also rather disconnected from knowledge of the times. While I’m not entirely ignorant, I will admit—unlike an all-too-large percentage of American men— to not being an expert on the Civil War.

Turning to Morecraft’s volume, the first of the five essays is “The Religious Cause of the War Between the States and the Reconstruction of the South.” Here Morecraft contends that the humanistic “Enlightenment” which led to the French Revolution in 1789 was brought to the South in the War Between the States and the Reconstruction which followed. The growing Unitarianism in New England condemned the Calvinism dominant in the South. The goal of the War was to make a secular society with a strong central authority. The continuing humanistic revolution, he argues, can only be stopped by the power of the Reformation: faith in and obedience to the Word of God. Only this can rescue us from tyranny and the meaninglessness of modern American culture. I’d like to see the main idea of this essay fleshed out a bit more. The essay is only fourteen pages in length and doesn’t explain what seems to be most critical—what makes for the distinctive Christian nature of the antebellum South.

The second essay is “How God Saved the Old South from Unitarianism.” Morecraft explains that while the North grew more and more Unitarian in the early and mid 19th century, the South remained committed to orthodox Christianity. His answer to how this happened is that the immigration to the South of (both Calvinistic) French Huguenots and Scottish Presbyterians stemmed the tide of Unitarianism’s growth and made the South solidly Christian. In addition to this factor of immigration, God used religious revivals to win the day for Christianity. Morecraft concludes that revival is needed today. I noted that throughout the first two essays it is apparent from the citations he makes that Morecraft is influenced by the writings of Richard Weaver.

The third essay is “How Dabney Looked at the World: The Worldview of Robert L. Dabney.” Morecraft well notes, “many today who profess to love the South and who have battle flag decals on their cars and trucks have no real commitment to that Biblical Christianity that was the bed-rock foundation of the Old South.” Dabney, he argues, was a thorough Calvinist and a polymath. This essay then explains Dabney’s views on a range of topics.

The fourth essay is “Benjamin Palmer: A Cataract of Holy Fire.” The essay starts with a biography and description of Palmer, his work, and his preaching. Morecraft then is back to the main point of his earlier essays. He writes, “Palmer rightly understood that the War Between the States was a religious war fought, not primarily over slavery, states’ rights or tariffs, but fought primarily by the South in defense of Christendom in the South against the war of aggression against it fought by the North, spurred on by Unitarian leaders who wanted to break the back of Reformed Christianity in the United States so as to ‘junk’ the U. S. Constitution and create a powerful, socialistic central government with the power to de-Christianize the entire nation through state-sponsored education.” (p 120) I’d be interested to know what other historians think of this view. I’m not sure that the Unitarians were so influential or that in the South was as thoroughly Christian as Morecraft believes. The situation was more complicated. I suspect that Morecraft would agree with that to an extent.

The fifth and final essay is “Why the State Motto of Virginia is Sic Semper Tyrannis.” Referencing the book of Revelation, Morecraft contends that the beast from the sea is “fallen, unregenerate humanity” while the beast from the land is “the apostate church.” He then goes over a basic history of the Reformation and the Synod of Dordt and connects Arminianism with tyranny. More fully, he argues that “tyranny flourishes in those societies that reject the Reformed Faith.” Nowhere in the essay do I see an explicit answer the question of its title.

Probably the most interesting idea in these essays is the effect of humanism on the North. Certainly Morecraft is right to note that influence. And it is a good corrective to those who have overlooked that factor. But I wonder (and again I have little knowledge of the pertinent source materials) whether he has overcorrected in making more of this factor than warranted.

Review of The Basis of Christian Faith by Floyd Hamilton

The Basis of Christian Faith, A Modern Defense of the Christian Religion by Floyd E. Hamilton, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1927, Third Revised Edition 1946, 354 pp.

Though largely overlooked today, Floyd Hamilton was an important figure in the early history of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. For many years he was a professor at the Presbyterian seminary in Korea. He also backed Gordon Clark during Clark’s ordination controversy in the 1940s and had his own challenges with the denomination in succeeding years. Three of his books have similar titles: The Basis of Christian Faith, The Basis of Evolutionary Faith, and The Basis of Millennial Faith.

Hamilton’s The Basis of Christian Faith basically follows the approach of the Old Princeton tradition. He builds up from various evidences to make a case for Christianity. His understanding of philosophy seems to be rather poor and his logic choppy. He is an example all-too-common among Christian authors of one who has more confidence than knowledge. An example of one of his logical blunders is in a section arguing against evolution when he writes, “Since man is the so-called highest animal he ought to have either the highest number of chromosomes or the lowest number, with the other animals ranging up or down the scale in correspondence with the evolutionary classification.” (p. 72) Would Hamilton perhaps see his error if “chromosomes” were replaced with “fingers”?

In the preface to this third edition, Hamilton notes “the newer apologetics of that last few years” which has “affected my thinking extensively.” But while he says that this led to changes in Chapters one and three, I don’t see much of evidence of either a Clarkian or Van Tillian influence on him.

While Hamilton sounds like the talkative uncle who’s trying to tell you everything he’s ever learned, he occasionally stumbles upon some good ideas. I particularly liked his section on the reasons for the growth of early Christianity and how it compares with the growth of other faiths. I also found it funny (though true) when he argues that Buddhism praises laziness and teaches its adherents to be beggars and therefore parasites on society.

Overall, the book is too dated and too scattered in its thoughts for me to recommend anyone reading it.

Review of Letters From The Front, ed. Barry Waugh

Letters From The Front, J. Gresham Machen’s Correspondence From World War I, transcribed and edited by Barry Waugh, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2012, 342 pp.

While I appreciate Barry Waugh’s work in putting this book together (as well as I appreciate his online writings on Presbyterian history), Letters From the Front is rather boring.

Basically, J. Gresham Machen was working for the Y.M.C.A. peddling hot chocolate (and sundry other commodities) to French and American soldiers during the final year or so of World War I. These letters are largely his day-to-day summaries of his life there in France written to his mother back in the States.

While there are occasional items of interest, this is a book that I’d recommend only to the most dedicated of Machen scholars.