Douglas J. Douma's Blog, page 8

Review of How Do We Know? by James K. Dew Jr. and Mark W. Foreman

How Do We Know? An Introduction to Epistemology by James K. Dew Jr. and Mark W. Foreman, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2014, 174 pp.

Though my own views on epistemology differ considerably from those of the authors of How Do We Know?, I found this to be quite an excellent read. Unlike Moser’s The Theory of Knowledge, A Thematic Introduction, for example, Dew and Foreman’s book is actually introductory, and actually readable. And as short as it is, it can be read in just a few sittings.

One of the greatest virtues of this volume is its use of clear definitions. As I expect referencing these definitions to be valuable to my readers and to myself in the future, I’ll list a number of them:

Belief – something we hold to be true (p. 22)

Intuition – knowledge arrived at immediately (without a mediator) (p. 37)

Hard empiricism – that knowledge comes only from the senses (p. 38)

Soft empiricism – that most knowledge comes to us through the senses (p. 38)

Coherentism (as a definition of truth) – that a proposition is true if it coheres with, or is consistent with, everything else that a person believes (p. 52)

Pragmatism (as a definition of truth) – truth is a set of beliefs that works for a particular person or group in dealing with reality or accomplishing particular tasks. (p. 53-54)

Correspondence (as a definition of truth) – truth is defined as that which corresponds to reality. In other words, true propositions or statements are required to fit with, or line up with, what we find in the world. (p. 56)

Justification – refers to a person having reasons or evidence for his beliefs (p. 95). [But a second definition is given that these must be “good reasons” (p. 96)]

Internalism – that some kind of justification is needed for our beliefs if we are to be counted as rational. (p. 97)

Externalism – that it is not necessary to have access to the reasons in evidence that support a given belief. (p. 100)

Reliabilism – that a person can be reasonable in her beliefs and rational even if she does not have cognitive access to the reasons and evidence that support her beliefs, as long as her beliefs have been formed in a reliable fashion. (p. 102) [Why the authors use feminine pronouns I do not know.]

Noetic structure – the relationship between our beliefs. (p 103)

Basic belief – a foundational belief that does not require argumentation or empirical data to support it. (p. 104)

Foundationalism – that basic beliefs serve as the epistemic foundations for our believing and knowing, and non-basic beliefs must ultimately be supported by and built on basic beliefs. (p. 104)

Incorrigible beliefs – truths that are obvious on first reflection. (p. 105)

Virtue epistemology – that our ability to find the truth depends in large part on the proper development and use of our intellectual virtues. (p. 115)

But some terms are not so well defined. The book talks a lot about “certainty” but the closest thing I found to a definition of the term is that it is something “absolutely sure.” I don’t believe the authors ever define “perception” either, which is a term their empirical theory depends on. They ask “What is a perception” and then say “Or put another way, how well to our perceptions tell us about the external world outside of our minds.” (p. 79) But these surely are not identical questions.

I do think that this book excellently accomplishes its goal of being an introduction to epistemology. It is the clearest I’ve read on the subject. Where the authors explain epistemology in general they are excellent. But where they attempt to develop their own “Christian perspective” I must think they fail completely.

The Christian theory of the authors seems to be something tacked on to a generally secular epistemology. Special revelation is an afterthought. The divinity of Christ, in their view, must be argued for before the Scriptures are accepted as revelation. The book gives no thought to the role of the Holy Spirit in knowledge acquisition nor the fact that Jesus Christ is himself the Logos. In fact, there are very few biblical citations in the volume. Where the Bible is cited it is mostly to support natural theology (p. 132), the incarnation (p. 138-139), and arguments that Jesus is the Son of God (p. 143). No attempt is apparently made to discern the epistemology of the Bible itself. The resultant theory is essentially autonomous—focused on man’s own ability, and lacking emphasis on Jesus as the very truth himself and God’s revelation being our ultimately foundation for knowledge.

GHC Review 23: First Corinthians, A Contemporary Commentary

[image error]

First Corinthians, A Contemporary Commentary, by Gordon H. Clark, Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975, Second Edition 1991, 349 pp.

This is, I believe, the longest of all of all the commentaries Gordon Clark wrote. Throughout the volume Clark regularly presents various interpretations of disputed verses and provides arguments for the views he believes are correct.

Topics commented on in this volume include head coverings (Chapter 11), functional subordination in the Trinity (p. 132), Calvin against mere permission of evil (p. 156-158), the purpose of heresies in God’s plan (p.180), and ethical egoism (p. 164). But the topics in which Clark dedicates the most space include baptism, cessationism, and eschatology.

Regarding 1st Corinthians 7:14 (“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband; since otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.”) Clark concludes, “It could and more likely would mean that only holy children are baptized, and since the Corinthians baptized them, it is clear that they were already holy. That is to say, baptism makes no one holy; but is a sign that the person, child or adult, is already holy. Therefore, the Corinthian churches, with this knowledge, baptized those infants, and thus everyone knew they were holy.” (p. 107) And he writes, “Thus the correct interpretation is that the conversion of one marriage partner automatically dedicates the whole household to God, and the implication follows that the children should be baptized.” (p. 108)

Also, on 1st Corinthians 10:1-4, he writes the following on the mode of baptism:

“Also interesting is the fact that the Israelites were baptized. Of course, they were baptized into Moses, and not into the Trinity, but there must be some similarity in the two types of baptism. Some Baptists hold that the point of similarity is immersion. At a recent meeting of a theological society, one Baptist argued that the Greek preposition en was always locative and never instrumental. Of course, he was wrong. In this epistle, the instrumental en has already occurred a dozen times. However, consider the locative principle in this verse: they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea as one is immersed in a river or baptistry. This comparison is impossible because the Israelites were never in the cloud locally. The cloud went before them, or it rested over the ark. At night, the cloud went before them, or it rested over the ark. At night the cloud was fire, and this makes a poor comparison with water. Furthermore, the Israelites were never immersed in the seas, as Pharaoh’s soldiers were. The Israelites were never in the sea at all: they passed over dry land (Ex. 14:21-22). The similarity between Moses’s baptism and Christian baptism must be sought in their significance, or in part of it. In both cases, the baptism is a visible sign that the baptized persons are the disciples of him into whose name they are baptized.” (p. 152)

Cessationism is covered on p. 182, p. 200, and much of Chapters 13 and 14. Among this material is a critique of speaking in tongues. Clark’s emphasis is on intelligible propositions and their ability to edify the saints. He writes, “Could Paul have made it any plainer that nonsense does not edify? (p. 230)

Outside of Clark’s Systematic Theology, this commentary has more extensive comments on eschatology than any other of his writings. Chapter 15—corresponding with the 15th chapter of First Corinthians—is nearly all about eschatology. Someone more knowledgable on eschatology than I am could well put together a summary explanation and evaluation of Clark’s view—a limited form of premillennialism.

The 2nd edition cover is shown above. The original looked like this:

[image error]

For the previous review in this series see here.

Sermon on Romans 6:14-23 – “Set Free to be Slaves of God”

Sermon on Romans 6:14-23 – “Set Free to be Slaves of God”

Dec 30, 2018 at Dillingham Presbyterian Church

CONTEXT and INTRODUCTION

We’re now returning to our sermon series on Paul’s epistle to the church at Rome.

As you recall Romans is a treatise on justification. Paul’s main contention in the letter has been that righteousness is not found by works of the law but it is had by the grace of God, made known and applied through faith in Jesus Christ.

As we come to Chapter 6 we find Paul dealing with two objections to this doctrine.

The first objection was in 6:1 – “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” And Paul responded “By no means!” In Jesus Christ we have died to sin—it no longer has dominion over us—and we have been made alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Now today in the second half of Chapter 6 we will come to the second objection against Paul’s doctrine of salvation by Grace through faith.

And if we look at key words in each of these passages (the first half and second half of Chapter 6) we might note that Paul answered the first objection with an LIFE-DEATH analogy and will now answer the second objection with a SLAVE-FREE analogy.

Another way to summarize is to say that there are TWO MASTERS, TWO corresponding LIFESTYLES, and TWO corresponding RESULTS. [REPEAT: TWO MASTERS, TWO LIFESTYLES, AND TWO RESULTS]

That is, there are only two possible masters (either God is your master, or sin is your master), your lifestyle then depends on which of these two masters you follow, and the corresponding result (or fruit) of the lifestyles is limited to one of two possibilities: following sin as a master leads to death, but following God as your master leads to eternal life.

If you were at the Sunday evening study two weeks ago, you might see a similarity—a connection—between this passage and the early church catechism—the Didache—which we began to discuss.

The Didache, an early church catechism or teaching manual, says “There are 2 ways; 1 of life and 1 of death, and a great difference between these two ways.” To match better with our passage today, it might very well have said “There are 2 masters, and thus there are two ways, 1 of life and one of death, and a great difference between these ways.”

If Sin is your master and you blaze your own path in life, death is the result of that lifestyle.

But if Jesus Christ is your master and you follow him, you follow the path of God, and find eternal life.

There is indeed a very great difference between these two ways. One is life and one is death.

So the title of today’s sermon is “Set Free to be Slaves of God.” [REPEAT: “Set Free to be Slaves of God] And like the passage itself, this title makes an intentionally paradoxical statement. We Christians are “Set Free to be Slaves of God.” But while this statement might at first appear contradictory or confused, I hope that by the end of this sermon you will see more clearer its meaning and so praise the Lord and follow Him all the more earnestly, being in fact glad to be a Slave of Jesus Christ.

I. NOT UNDER LAW BUT UNDER GRACE

As we look to the first verse of the passage—verse 14—we find a statement that deserves to be discussed in its own right, for it is regularly misused or mishandled. It is a critically important verse to properly understand. It reads:

14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

This verse, when misunderstood and misused, has been the rallying cry of many deceitful and self-deceiving people. They will say “I’m not under law but under grace” so as to excuse any sin and their continuance in that sin.

But as I’ve discussed in previous sermons on Romans, we know that being “not under law but under grace” does not mean that we throw out the law entirely. We are definitely to understand that salvation is not by the law. But the law still has other purposes. I mentioned in previous sermons that the law, though not saving us, still is to be used as a mirror, a curb, and a guide. So we should not misinterpret this verse and think that Paul approves of sinning or denies to the law its proper purposes.

So then what does it mean to be “not under law but under grace”?

Paul is speaking here of the method of salvation. We are not saved under a principle of law, but we are saved under a principle of grace. [REPEAT: We are not saved under a principle of law, but we are saved under a principle of grace.] And thank God that that is true, for no one could make it under the law. No one could live a perfect life and merit heaven. But now, the Covenant of works is no more, we are now in the Covenant of Grace.

Our understanding of verse 14 is benefitted by reading it in context, for in the very next verse we read:

15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

That old antinomianism has crept back up again, and Paul again bops it on the head like a game of Whac-a-Mole.

15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

So we know that since Paul is condemning antinomianism (lawlessness, disregard for the law) in verse 15, he certainly cannot be approving it in verse 14.

Paul is appalled at the suggestion. This is his most fervent negation. By no means! μὴ γένοιτο he says in the Greek. μὴ γένοιτο, by no means!

This is the same phrase he used in Romans 6:2. What shall we say then? Are we to consider in sin that grace may abound? μὴ γένοιτο May it never be! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

So Paul’s argument is that though we are under grace, and not under the law, this is not an invitation to sin. Sin is no longer your master. Sin has no dominion over you. You are not under law but under grace and thus you are no longer slaves to sin, but slaves to righteousness. [REPEAT: you are no longer slaves to sin, but slaves to righteousness.]

These then are the only two possible masters:

Sin and righteousness. Yourself and God. Your master is either your own sin, or it is God and his righteousness.

Conversely, you are either a slave to sin, or a slave of God. [REPEAT: you are either a slave to sin, or a slave of God]

II. SLAVES OF GOD

The word “slave” in the Greek language of the New Testament is doulos. Strong’s Lexicon says that a doulos is one “devoted to another to the disregard of one’s own interests.” The word derives from the verb δέω meaning “to tie or bind.”

A number of English Bible translations—including the ESV and King James Bible— translate doulos most commonly as “servant.” But other versions better translate doulos as “slave.” Slave is probably a better term, for it has the appropriate connotation of permanence which “servant” lacks. A servant might just be hired, but a slave is bound to his master.

So, a slave of God is one tied to God and bound to Him.

Both the phrases “slave of God” and “slave of Jesus Christ” are used in the New Testament. We might note incidentally that since both of these terms are used interchangeably, from these very terms we have the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. That is, if one is “a slave of God” and also “a slave of Christ,” then (unless they have two masters) Christ is God.

And in almost every case that the term “slave of God” or “slave of Christ” is used in the New Testament, it is self-applied as a badge of honor.

Paul calls himself a “slave of Christ Jesus” in Romans 1:1 and again a “slave of Christ” in Galatians 1:10. In Colossians 4:12 Pauls speaks of Epaphras a man who is a “slave of Christ.” And since Epaphras was not an apostle, Paul yet calling him a “slave of Christ” tells us that that term is applicable to Christians in general, not just apostles or other leaders.

So Paul and Epaphras are slaves of Christ. And then Peter in 2nd Peter 1:1 says that he is “a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ.” And Jude in Jude 1:1 refers to himself as “a slave of Jesus Christ.” And finally the Apostle John in Revelation 1:1 is among the “slaves of Christ.”

It might seem strange to self-apply the title “slave of God” or “slave of Christ.” But this is exactly what the New Testament Christians did.

But perhaps this is not surprising as Christ himself came to serve. Though he was in the form of God, he emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

The vitally important thing to understand is that all people are slaves to something. [REPEAT: all people are slaves to something.] A person might be a slave to money, or power, lust, gluttony, or some other vice.

The basic division is that you are either living for yourself or you are living for God. You are either a slave to sin or a slave to God and His righteousness. Since being a slave to sin is such a terrible thing, and being a slave to God and His righteousness frees one from the desire to keep sinning, it is easy to see why the New Testament Christians would gladly call themselves slaves of Jesus Christ.

This basic division can well be summarized in saying that “there is no neutrality.” [REPEAT: “there is no neutrality.”] The Bible simply does not admit or allow some neutral position. If you are standing still, you are not walking with the Lord. If you are not for Him, you are against him. And thus agnosticism is impossible. A man either lives with fear of God before his eyes or he does not. [REPEAT: A man either lives with fear of God before his eyes or he does not.]

The professed agnostic is seen in reality to be an enemy of God because in none of his actions does he honor the Lord. The professed agnostic does not pray to God and does not obey the commandments. He shows by his actions that he believes there not to be a God who will judge him at the last day. The professed agnostic is an Atheist. He is a slave to sin.

The only other option—the solution and escape from slavery to sin—is to be tied to the Lord, to be rescued by him and so made a slave to righteousness, following God in all your ways.

Recalling that doulos finds its root meaning in the Greek verb meaning to tie or to bind, this helps us understand the Biblical idea of being a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. The slave is tied to—is bound to—his master.

It is like being on a raft in an ocean current which always flows in one direction. You are bound to that raft and go in the direction that it goes. Or, similarly, it is like being on a train. You are going where it goes. If the direction of your travel is sin you will sin, if you are on a path of righteousness then you shall have sanctification.

Whatever you obey is what your master is. And your actions show to what (or whom) you are a slave.

III. THANKS BE TO GOD

And so Paul praises God saying:

17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Thanks be to God!

Paul thanks God also in Romans 1:8 for the faith of the Romans being proclaimed throughout the world. Unlike the Galatians or Corinthians who need tough love, the Romans are a shining example of the faith. But the praise is not theirs. The praise is God’s, for HE has set us free from sin to become slaves of righteousness.

Thanks be to God!

That could be said over and over again. We should say it ever day. Thanks be to God!

He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son.

We no longer live in that domain of darkness. Sin no longer has dominion over us. We, like actual slaves, have been passed on to a new master, and so serve Him and not our former master. And since no man can serve two masters and we Christians are slaves of God, we should obey only him and not therefore continue in sin.

We have been set free. Set free to be slaves of righteousness. Set free to be slaves of God. This sounds paradoxical of course, but now you should understand its meaning. Being set free from sin, we walk in the path of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. And this walking is not of our own will, but as we are led by the Holy Spirit both to will and to do good things which lead to our sanctification.

So those are the two possible masters – yourself and God, and following them there are the two corresponding lifestyles — sin and righteousness. Living in disobedience of God’s commands or living in obedience to them. Then, finally, there are the two results – death and life. And a great difference between these two.

IV. THE FRUIT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

But, Perhaps one might ask, “why exchange one master for another?” Perhaps someone would say “I like sin, and I don’t want Christ to be my master.” Then an analysis of the fruit of the lifestyles is to be made to persuade them otherwise.

The fruit of sin is rotten; it is dead. But the fruit of righteousness is ripe and glorious; it is life eternal.

Paul says,

21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Those former things you are now ashamed of. So don’t turn back!

No we are not to sin that grace may abound.

No we are not to sin because we are under grace and not under law.

Don’t you remember that you are ashamed of those former ways? Those sins.

In fact, the way of sin becomes a vicious cycle. Paul says it is “lawlessness leading to more lawlessness.” But thanks be to God for he has taken us out of that vicious cycle and brought us into a virtuous cycle. His Holy Spirit works in us to produce good deeds which leads to our sanctification. In sin things get worse and worse; in the Spirit things get better and better, leading ultimately to eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And this as a gift to us. For what we deserves is death. The wages of our sin is death. But the free gift of God is eternal life.

This “gift” language is Paul’s throughout his letters. All that we have from God—and especially our salvation—is a gift of God, so that no one can boast. We thank God for the salvation He has obtained for us, a salvation in which our efforts have played no vital part. The free gift of God is eternal life.

2 Masters, 2 Lifestyles, and 2 Results.

We see this more clearly in Psalm 1 than almost anywhere else:

Blessed is the man who does not walk in the way of the wicked or stands in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers but his delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water which yields fruitful in season. His leaf does not whither for whatever he does prospers. Not so the wicked they are like chaff which blows away in the wind. The wicked will not stand in the judgment nor sinners in the congregations of the righteous. The Lord watches over the path of the Godly, but the path of the wicked leads to destruction.

CONCLUSION

The only true freedom then is freedom in Christ, therefore let us—each and every one of us—thank God that we who were once slaves of sin have become obedient, and in this let us fully commit to our Lord (our Master) and Savior Jesus Christ.

Christ himself is recorded in John’s Gospel saying, in chapter 8,

“Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”

The Son—Jesus Christ—has set you free. You are free indeed. Do not continue in sin, for you are free from that master. Your master is now and forever Jesus Christ and his righteousness, and you are free indeed.

Tie yourself to God. Bind yourself to Him and to His Word.

As Christians, like those at Rome to whom Paul is writing, you are already bound to God. He has adopted you; not the other way around.

And so like Paul says of the Roman Christians,

THANKS BE TO GOD, that have become slaves of righteousness. THANKS BE TO GOD. AND GOD ALONE.

Let us Praise God that He has freed us from the shackles of sin, has delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the Kingdom of His beloved Son. Amen. Let us pray.

Clark – Van Til and “Greek Specifications”

A frequent contention Cornelius Van Til made against Gordon Clark was that the latter’s theology is in some way based on “Greek specifications.”

Though this precise contention is not made in the official Complaint against Clark’s ordination, it does appear in a letter of Van Til’s from the time of the Clark – Van Til controversy. On December 17, 1945 Van Til wrote to Charles Stanton saying, “Clark’s position therefore involves the rejection of the Reformed concept of God’s revelation to man and a reduction of it to Greek specifications.” Van Til’s biographer John Muether noted the same contention when he wrote, “Further conversations confirmed for Van Til his suspicion that Clark’s thought was deeply grounded in Greek philosophy; Van Til summed up Clark’s position in the Socratic motto that ‘knowledge is virtue’.” (John Muether, Cornelius Van Til, Reformed Apologist and Churchman, P&R, 2008, p. 102)

But what precisely was Van Til’s contention? The Greeks surely were not uniform in their thought. What “Greek specifications” is he referring to? Which Greek? Aristotle? Plato? Plotinus? Someone else? The New Testament was written in Greek, but Van Til certainly isn’t contending that Clark’s position is Biblical.

Some light might be shed on this question in a letter of Van Til to R. J. Rushdoony of December 18, 1959 where he wrote, “I was interested in the remark that you made with respect to correspondence on the subject of your book with Dr. Gordon H. Clark. I have no doubt that he tackled the problem of analogy. He has never been able to free himself of the incubus of Greek thinking. This was clearly apparent in the article in [he?, typo] wrote on the ‘Primacy of the Intellect’ in the Westminster Theological Journal, as well as other writings. It would be wonderful if you could persuade him to see things a little differently.”

[image error]

Here Van Til does not specify what his “Greek thinking” contention against Clark is, but he does at least refer to one disputed article.

Clark’s article “On the Primacy of the Intellect” was published in the Westminster Theological Journal in May 1943. It was one of the major documents under consideration in The Complaint against his ordination. Van Til mentions this article also in a letter of July 2, 1944 to Calvin Knox Cummings. There Van Til wrote, “Just before presbytery meeting of last spring Clark and I spent about two hours together at my house. I tried as several times before to show him that his article on the primacy of the intellect failed to make the distinction between the creator and creature fundamental. He dismissed the whole matter.”

So one problem Van Til had with Clark’s article was that it “failed to make the distinction between the creator and creature fundamental.” But when The Complaint comes to this same article of Clark’s its most repeated point of argument is opposition to Clark’s denial of God having emotions. And there is Muether’s note that the problem was that Clark held that “knowledge is virtue.”

I am left thinking one can only speculate what Van Til’s contention really was when it comes to “Greek specifications.” Probably all of the points brought up in The Complaint relate to the contention in some way. Clark’s entire system was then in view. Saying Clark’s views are “Greek” (but not providing clear arguments as to the case) is a good example of what the logicians call “poisoning the well.”

Sermon on Matthew 2:1-12 “Born in Bethlehem”

Sermon on Matthew 2:1-12 “Born in Bethlehem”

December 23, 2018 at Dillingham Presbyterian Church

INTRODUCTION

While in the early history of Presbyterianism holidays were generally not recognized, it is common in many places today, even among conservative Presbyterians that a sermon on Christ’s death be preached at Easter or a sermon on Christ’s birth be preached at Christmas or that some other day—whether religious or national—be recognized in its due place.

When it comes to acknowledging a day as important in some way—or for some remembrance—Paul tells us in Romans 14:5-6

“One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.”

While Paul perhaps is referring primarily to the various days of the week, we can infer that his principle holds true for all days. In fact, the commentator William Hendriksen points out that the days Paul is referring to may either be the seventh day Sabbath of the Jews, or it may be certain days of fasting, or it may be the certain specific days of religious festivals prescribed by Moses.

But whatever the “days” are that Paul is referring to, his principle is clear. “The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord, the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord.”

If you celebrate a particular day, do so in honor of the Lord. [REPEAT: If you celebrate a particular day, do so in honor of the Lord.]

So if you celebrate Easter as the Western Church does—on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox—or if you celebrate Easter as the Eastern Church does—according to the 14th day of Nisan of the Jewish calendar, whenever you celebrate Easter, do so in honor of the Lord.

And if you choose to observe ONLY Sunday as a holy day set especially apart for the Lord, do so in honor of the Lord. And if you choose to celebrate the Lord’s birth on December 25th or in the middle of the summer, do so with thanks unto the Lord. This is a great freedom we have in Christ.

Now, it might be a surprise to some that it is not in fact Christmas that is historically the greatest of Christian holidays. It is Easter. (Children may especially be surprised since it is the custom in our land that they receive grand presents on Christmas, but merely small chocolate eggs on Easter.)

Christmas celebrates Christ’s birth, but Easter celebrates Christ’s resurrection; his rebirth. And in that we are promised eternal life in Christ. It is Christ’s resurrection that perhaps urges celebration more than any other event.

In actuality, we celebrate Easter each and every Lord’s Day because this—the first day of the week—was the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And so, each and every Sunday it is right and proper to announce “He is Risen!”

And so, because it is acceptable to recognize certain days as long as such recognition is done in the honor of the Lord, on December 2nd of this year, Rev. Hicks preached an Advent sermon on John the Baptist, the witness to the coming Christ. And today—three weeks later— I am blessed to preach on Christ himself and his birth.

I. BETHLEHEM

The passage today from the Gospel of Matthew starts by saying “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea” but Matthew had not so far in his Gospel even told us of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, nor does not tell us the immediate reasons why Joseph and Mary are in Bethlehem. For that, we look to Luke’s Gospel which tells us that a census had been decreed by Caesar Augustus and that each person had to be registered in his town. And so Joseph “went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem because he was of the house and lineage of David.” (Luke 2:4)

While the census is the immediate reason for Joseph and Mary’s travels to Bethlehem, there is another—a greater—reason why they are there. And Matthew does tell us about that. He says that as “it is written by the prophet,” a ruler will come from Bethlehem who will shepherd God’s people. Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem then was a fulfillment of prophecy.

The prophet in view is not one of the major prophets—Isaiah or Jeremiah—but is the minor prophet Micah. And it is quite fitting that Micah—this minor prophet, this small-town rural prophet—is the one who announces that this minor town, this tiny village of Bethlehem, is to have the honor of being the place where a great ruler will be born.

Micah’s prophecy from Micah 5:2 reads:

“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me, one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.”

Bethlehem means “house of bread” in Hebrew. That is, “Beth” is house and “lehem” is bread. And Micah calls the town “Bethlehem Ephrathah” because there was another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulon. So naming it “Bethlehem Ephrathah” he distinguishes this Bethlehem in Judah from the Bethlehem of the tribe of Zebulon in Galilee.

And Micah says that from this Bethlehem will come a ruler in Israel, “whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” This hardly can be a normal ruler, or even someone elevated like David or Solomon. Though all rulers are so ordained to rule by God, it is specifically mentioned here that the coming forth of this ruler from Bethlehem is not a new plan of God’s, but has been His plan from the beginning. This can hardly be a prophecy of merely another temporal king in the line of Jewish kings. This is a prophecy of the coming of one far greater; the coming of the Messiah.

And it is this passage from Micah that Matthew quotes. He says that Herod assembled all the chief priests and scribes and inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. And they said “In Bethlehem of Judea.” “For so it is written by the prophet. ‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah, for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.” (Matthew 2: 6)

With such a small village, the fulfillment of the prophecy is made all the more clear. Had the messiah been prophesied to be born in Jerusalem with a population in the hundreds of thousands, there would be a great chance of confusion over who was the messiah. But with Bethlehem, there are very few births; and even fewer born there who are also of the line of David the king.

Of the fulfilled prophecies of Jesus his birth in Bethlehem is one of the most important. Perhaps one might try to contend that Jesus performed some miracles—like turning water into wine, or multiplying fish and loaves—by some sleight of hand. Or one might try to contend that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies because he consciously sought out to do so. But while there are certain things in one’s life that a person has some control over, no one has control over the place of their birth. No one can choose where they are born, or to whom they are born. And so this fulfilled prophecy—written 700 years previously— this prophecy that Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem—is a testament to the truth that Jesus is the Messiah, and not merely self-appointed.

The point then in all this discussion of Bethlehem is that tiny Bethlehem is given a great honor in being promised place of Christ’s birth, and the fulfillment of this prophecy is a solid testimony to the legitimacy of the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. [REPEAT: tiny Bethlehem is given a great honor in being promised place of Christ’s birth, and the fulfillment of this prophecy is a solid testimony to the legitimacy of the claim that Jesus is the Messiah.]

But before we move on, there is perhaps one other thing to mention here. That is, it is seen here that the chief priest and scribes, and Herod himself, had some measure of respect for the Scriptures. Perhaps their understanding was distorted in many places, but when it came to this prophecy they cared what the Scriptures said. In fact, the chief priests and scribes used the phrase “It is written.” That is, it is solid and trustworthy, because it is the word of the Lord.

This is the way Christ himself would later refer to Scripture, saying “It is written.” It is of the Lord.

II: THEY WORSHIPPED HIM

We see also in this passage from Matthew 2 a sort of foreshadowing of the evil of Herod who later in the chapter will order the “slaughter of the innocents” in Bethlehem because he did not want competition as King of Israel. The messiah Jesus, even as a newborn, was a threat to King Herod.

But in our passage the focus has not yet moved on to Herod, but remains on Jesus. And of the remainder of the passage perhaps the most important statement is “they fell down and worshipped him.” [REPEAT: “they fell down and worshipped him.”] That is, the wise men, upon arrival, fell down and worshipped Jesus.

How can anyone say that the Bible does not teach Jesus’ divinity?!

The doctrine of Christ’s divinity is presented in many ways in Scriptures.

Hearkening back to the name of God in the Old Testament, Yahweh—I am who I am, Jesus said seven times:

1. “I AM the bread of life.”

2. “I AM the light of the world.”

3. “I AM the door.”

4. “I AM the good shepherd.”

5. “I AM the resurrection and the life.”

6. “I AM the way, the truth, and the life.”

and

7. “I AM the true vine.”

Jesus is the great I AM. He is divine.

The doctrine of Christ’s divinity is also seen when Jesus told the Jews, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58) And if there is any doubt in the readers’ mind, there was no doubt in the minds of the people for they responded by picking up stones to stone him because they understood Jesus to be doing nothing less than claiming himself to be God!

In our passage also we seen Christ’s divinity taught. The wise men fell down and worshipped Jesus.

Who were these wise men? Were they Jews from the East who had come from Babylon, living there for generations since the Captivity? Or were they Zoroastrian priests who looked to the stars for guidance? Perhaps some of each?

And how many of them were there? A tradition has developed that there were three wise men, but we only know from the account that the wise men brought three gifts—gold, frankincense, and myrrh. We don’t know how many wise men themselves there actually were.

Whoever they were—and however many they were—they are said to have fallen down and worshipped Jesus.

In the entire Bible there is no command to worship anyone but God. We do not worship Mary, nor do we worship the saints, but we are to worship God alone. And so by the wise men’s worshipping of Jesus, and the Gospel writer’s approval of them doing so, it is clear that the wise men as well as Matthew, our author, believed Jesus to be divine; to be himself God in the flesh.

The apostle John says “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” [REPEAT: “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”] We call this The Incarnation. To incarnate is to take on humanity, to take on flesh. We have this word from the Latin incarno meaning “to make into flesh.” You might see this same root Latin word words like carnivore, the word for meat-eating or flesh-eating animals. That, anyways, helps me think of what is meant by “incarnation”—taking on flesh.

So Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the Trinity took on the nature of man and dwelt among men.

But while man, he was (and is) also God. And thus he was worshipped by the wise men.

And the wise men were not the last to be recorded as worshipping Jesus.

Without even going beyond the Gospel of Matthew from which our passage comes, we find other examples of worshipping Jesus:

In Mathew 8 “a leper came and worshipped him (Jesus)”

In Matthew 9 – a ruler whose daughter had died “came and worshipped him (Jesus)”

In Matthew 14 after Jesus had walked on water and the wind had ceased, “those in the boat worshipped him (Jesus)”

In Matthew 15 a Canaanite women with a demon-possessed daughter came “and worshipped him (Jesus)”

And finally, in Matthew 28, after Jesus had been resurrected from the dead, the disciples came “and worshipped him (Jesus).”

From the beginning to the end of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is being worshipped. And this makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is divine, for only God deserves our worship.

III. CHRISTMAS NO-SHOWS

So the wise men from the East came and worshipped Jesus. But have you ever considered who the “Christmas no-shows” were? Who didn’t show up? The priests and scribes knew the prophecy, but there is no record of them traveling along with the wise men to Bethlehem. And Bethlehem is only 6 miles from Jerusalem. And Herod didn’t go either.

I imagine their whole rabble (Herod, the priests and scribes) saying together “BAH, humbug.”

The most important birth in the history of the world, and they could not find time for it. The greatest event that had ever occurred and they could not be bothered to attend. “BAH, humbug.”

Let us not be no-shows when it comes to worshipping the Lord. Let us recognize that worshipping the Lord, giving Him glory is our chief end, not something we make time for only after all else is done. But let us worship God in everything we do and in all moments of our lives. Let us not be no-shows when it comes to worshiping the Lord.

For we have great reason to worship the Lord Jesus Christ. Because not only was he born into this world, but he came to accomplish a purpose – the salvation of our sins through his death on the cross. Taking upon himself our sin. Taking upon himself our guilt. And giving us forgiveness, reconciliation with God, and ultimately eternal life. That is the greatest of reasons for us to praise the Lord.

And so I want to look at two applications from this passage.

APPLICATION 1: As Bethlehem was so tiny but so important, so too are all things important in God’s plans. So too are you and I. [REPEAT: As Bethlehem was so tiny but so important, so too are all things important in God’s plans. So too are you and I.]

Some—typically atheists—look out on the vast universe and say “I am but a meaningless speck.” Despair follows.

But we should look out on the universe and say of all things, of all things, man is the greatest. Stars are beautiful, but they are just hydrogen and helium. A human being is far more complex. And in addition we have souls, and we are made in the image of God.

We, despite being small in the universe, are of great importance in God’s plan.

Man is the crowning achievement of God’s creation.

He made the heavens and the earth, the fish, the animals, and all things. And then he made man. Men and women, all human beings together are the pinnacle of God’s creation.

DO NOT believe the lie that you are insignificant.

You, like tiny Bethlehem, have a great place in God’s plan. For God works all things together for good for those who love Him.

We can see from our passage, however, not only that we are significant—that we have meaning—but we can see also that we have purpose. Our purpose—our chief end, as the catechism calls it—is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. As the wise men worshipped Jesus, and as the disciples (and all the rest) worshipped Jesus, so too are we to worship the Lord Jesus Christ. This shall be our second application.Worship the King, Jesus.

APPLICATION 2: Worship the King, Jesus.

This is, in fact, our primary reason for being in church. This is a worship service. Though we benefit in many ways from church — having social contacts, learning about God, enjoying the music, etc. — our primary purpose here is (and must always be) to worship the Lord.

We know the reason for the season – at Christmastime we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Let us also keep focused on the purpose for this and all seasons; worshipping, glorifying God. In all that you do in this season — whether with family, or friends, or by yourself (and I’ve been there) — whatever you do, do it in honor of the Lord.

So, this Christmas—this Sunday—let us Worship Jesus Christ. Let us worship the King, all glorious above, and let us gratefully sing his power and his love. For it is the love of Jesus Christ, born in Bethlehem, truly God and truly man, that brings hope to the downcast and downtrodden and by which we shall one day be raised to eternal life. Let us worship the newborn king. It is in his name we pray, Amen.

Review of Calvinism: Pure & Mixed by W. G. T. Shedd

Calvinism: Pure & Mixed, A Defence of the Westminster Standards, by W. G. T. Shedd, 1893, Banner of Truth, 1986, Reprinted 1999, 161 pp.

Calvinism: Pure & Mixed is an ironic title to be carried by Banner of Truth since this publisher itself promotes Calvinism sometimes more purely and sometimes in a rather mixed form. In fact, many of the books which Banner of Truth reprints (or publishes for the first time) seem to be chosen specifically to advance their hypo-Calvinistic position on the well-meant offer of the Gospel. This volume, sadly, falls in that category.

On a historical basis Calvinism: Pure and Mixed was written to contest those (mostly liberals) in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America in the late 19th century who desired to revise the Westminster Confession of Faith. While Shedd argues adroitly against revising the confession, he probably spends more time trying to elaborate upon his own view, a Calvinism in places weakened by his mixture of it with lesser soteriological views.

Like most moderate Calvinists Shedd argues for infralapsarianism. This position itself isn’t too troubling but as is typically found he combines it with other errors. Shedd relies on God’s “permission” of sin (against John Calvin) to avoid making God the author of sin. (p 31-32) And he translates the “harden” of Romans 9:18 as “do not soften” so that he might try to maintain his view. (p. 52) He also argues “If God does not purpose to make Judas Iscariot ‘a vessel of mercy’, he must of course purpose to leave him ‘a vessel of wrath’” when the text of Romans 9 has God actually making and molding (not simply leaving or passing by) the vessel of wrath. (p. 40)

Repeatedly Shedd argues for the salvation of all infants, a view I’ve only ever seen in context of Arminianism and its kin. (p. 5-6, 15, 62-67, 107-115) He does note however against his own view that “It is sometimes said that the extension of election by the later Calvinism, so as to include all infants as a class instead of a part of them as individuals, is a departure from the Calvinistic system, and a considerable modification of it in the direction of Arminianism.” (p. 109) Shedd’s response to the criticism is unpersuasive, arguing that his view is still Calvinist, but varies only on the quantity of infants saved.

Finally, God’s “common grace,” in Shedd’s view, actually helps man believe but is “nullified solely by the resistance of the non-elect.” (p. 56) The sinner has “defeated” (p. 47) and “frustrated” (p. 73) God’s common grace and “thwarted” (p. 48) God’s benevolent approach to his sinful heart. Shedd’s God simply is not sovereign.

GHC Review 22: Three Types of Religious Philosophy

[image error]

Three Types of Religious Philosophy, by Gordon H. Clark, Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1973, 2nd Edition, 1989, 155 pp.

Gordon Clark’s Three Types of Religious Philosophy discusses Rationalism, Empiricism, Irrationalism, and Dogmatism. To be true to the title then, one might wonder which of the four sections doesn’t make the cut to be considered a religious philosophy? The answer is Irrationalism which, though a “widely held point of view,” “is neither a method nor a philosophy.” (p. 4.)

Summarizing much of Clark’s philosophical thought, this clearly-worded and fairly short volume makes for a nice overview of Clark’s philosophy.

Chapter 1 – Introduction

In the introduction Clark defines dogmatism as “that method of procedure which tries to systematize beliefs concerning God, science, immorality, etc. on the basis of information divinely revealed in the sacred writings.” (p. 8) And, he contends, “Dogmatism does not conflict with truth from other sources because there are no other sources of truth.” (p. 9) Rationalism is “the theory that all knowledge, and therefore all religious knowledge, can be deduced from logic alone, i.e. logic apart from both revelation and sensory experience.” (p. 10) “The strict form of empiricism bases all knowledge on sensation alone.” (p. 24) “Should we begin by assuming the authority of sensation, the authority of logic, or the authority of God? The problem is how to start. What method shall we choose? Shall our method be dogmatism, rationalism, or empiricism?” (p. 25)

Chapter 2 – Rationalism

In his chapter on Rationalism, Clark discusses Augustine and Anselm, though he admits, both here and in the introduction, neither of these to be pure rationalists. Skepticism held sway for a number of centuries. Against it, knowledge must be shown to be possible. “Augustine starts explicitly with logic.” (p. 30) He “pushes still further” holding “that the norms of morality were also known and certain.” (p. 31) “Everyone desires happiness and the philosopher by his actions shows that happiness resides in the truth. The skeptic, etymologically, is a seeker of truth.” (p. 31) “The skeptic is refuted by the moral quality of his own actions.” (p. 31) “Anselm tried to improve on Augustine” (p. 33) and gave the ontological argument. Kant critiqued Anselm’s argument.

Clark’s conclusion on the whole discussion is instructive:

“Suppose deny that there are any existential judgments. Although this may sound insane to some philosophers who are very much enamored of existential propositions, there is a fairly decent argument to support the contention. It is this: If a predicate can be attached to everything without exception, it has no distinct meaning, and this is to say that it has no meaning at all. If a house is mur, and a cat ismur, and a boat, a mountain, a word, a dream, are mur, and if beauty and justice are mur, and the square root of minus one as well as aleph null, it begins to become clear that murhas no meaning. The judgement that a house is tall makes sense only because cats and some other things are not tall. If beauty and justice are norms, the assertion makes sense only because some subjects are not norms. That is to say, a predicate that attaches to everything without exception has no meaning. Here then is the conclusion: The predicate existence can be attached to everything real or imaginary without exception. Dreams exists, mirages exist, the square root of minus one exists. … Of course God exists. Anything exists, so far as the term has any faint meaning at all. But it makes a great difference whether God is a dream, a mirage, or the square root of minus one. Spinoza did not need to prove that God exists. His important point was that God is the universe. But if God is not the universe, if, contrariwise, God is the Creator and Judge of all mankind, then we are dealing with substantial questions instead of non-sense syllables like existence.” (p. 43-44)

Chapter III – Empiricism

This chapter covers Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley, and Hume. Rather than the ontological argument of the Rationalists, these Empiricists emphasize the Cosmological Argument. “Unlike Augustine Thomas does not admit innate ideas or intellectual intuitions. All knowledge must be abstracted out of sensations.” (p. 60-61) Clark provides a number of criticisms of the Cosmological Argument arguing that it is invalid.

Paley’s watchmaker argument is called the teleological argument. “The basic criticisms,” writes Clark, “of the cosmological argument retain their force, no mater in what form it is stated. Even the more developed form of the teleological argument is equally based on experience.” (p. 65) Hume argues against all arguments for God based on experience. Hume writes, “If the cause be known only by the effect, we never ought to ascribe to it any qualities beyond what are precisely requisite to produce the effect.” (p. 66)

“Thomas and Hume, for all their differences in conclusions, agreed that all knowledge is based on sensation.” (p. 70) Many though, like the Greek skeptics, do not believe knowledge is attainable via sensation. “These criticisms [of the Greeks and others] utterly demolish empiricism and all arguments similar to those of Thomas Aquinas and William Paley.” (p. 75)

Though it is an unpopular conclusion, Clark admits, no one can make any progress until the futility of sensation is admitted. (p. 91)

Chapter IV – Irrationalism

Irrationalism “began as a reaction against Hegel’s rationalism.” (p. 93) After giving a brief history of philosophyh from Hume to Hegel, Clark moves on to Soren Kierkegaard who severs Christianity from historical events. “Kierkegaard is as dialectical, as relativistic, and as skeptical as he believes Hegel is. The ridicule consists in this: Hegel thought he was objective; Kierkegaard openly accepts irrationalism.” (p. 99)

“Here let us pause to catch our breath. The argument on historical research is acutely embarrassing to that type of (Lutheran) Apologetics and Prolegomena that tires to prove various Christian theses by archaeology or historical investigation. It is impossible by historical methods to prove beyond all doubt that Jesus was crucified. Even if the crucifixion by probably (though what probability means is not easily explained), empirical history could never prove that his death was a propitiatory sacrifice. And without this latter belief the former cannot save. But such difficulties as these do not embarrass any Christian who rejects empirical methodology.” (p. 100)

“Kierkegaard proposes subjectivity, faith, and infinite passion.” (p. 102) Kierkegaard’s view of faith is far from that of intellectual belief in Biblical propositions. It is rather, “the objective uncertainty due to the repulsion of the absurd held by the passion of inwardness … intensified to the utmost degree.” (p. 102) Kierkegaard “means precisely that the [Christian] doctrines are self-contradictory, therefore meaningless, therefore absurd.” (p 104) Faith, for Kierkegaard, believes contradictories. “Rather obviously Kierkegaard is not the spokesman for Christianity. Who in the whole history of the church ever believed these two contradictories [that God became man and that God cannot become man]? Where in the Bible are they asserted.” (p. 106) “What Kierkegaard means by faith is totally at variance with the Christian meaning of faith. The reason Christians do not believe contradictories is that no one can.” (p. 106) Kierkegaard’s views, so argues Clark, greatly influence Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. Their fatal flaw is the rejection of logic. “When once a man commits himself to contradictions, his language, and therefore his recommendations to other people, become meaningless.” (p. 114)

Chapter V – Dogmatism

Since “rationalism and empiricism, no less than irrationalism, are incapable of providing a system to make life worth while,” “to escape suicide, what else is there but dogmatism?” (p. 116)

“There must be first principles. A system cannot start unless it starts. The start is first. Therefore no one, since all must start somewhere, can consistently refuse permission to the dogmatist to start were he chooses.” (p. 120)

There is a similarity between rationalism and dogmatism in that they are forms of realism. “Thought and therefore intelligent conversation require something other than nominalistic proper nouns.” (p. 122) “To be sure, Christian dogmatism does not accept the unaltered World of Platonic Ideas. The Philonic interpretation is better. Still better is the replacement of Ideas (minus predicates) by propositions or truths.” (p. 122-123)

“There are of course other thoughts, objects, or realities. Every Biblical proposition is one. These never change not go out of existence, for they are constituents of God’s mind. Knowing them we know God. To know God, we do not pass from an unreal concept abstracted from sensory experience to a different reality. We know God directly, for in him we live and move and have out being.” (p. 123)

What follows is a lengthy critique of John Warwick Montgomery and his empiricism. “He must hold that sensory experience is more reliable than a divinely given revelation.” (p. 132)

“Why does anyone choose the Bible rather than the Koran?” “The answer is that faith is the gift of God. As Psalm 65:4 says, God chooses a man and causes him to accept Christian dogmatism. Conversely, the Apostle John informs us that the Pharisees could not believe because God had blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts.” Clark here, in my opinion, is really answering the wrong question. People don’t want to know so much why a person chooses Christianity over Islam. The question is why SHOULD a person choose Christianity of Islam. This answer is found in Clark’s second Wheaton Lecture: Christianity should be chosen because it results in a superior system.

The original cover of the book is shown above. The second edition cover looks like this:

[image error]

For the previous review in this series see here.

GHC Review 21: II Peter, A Short Commentary

[image error]

II Peter, A Short Commentary, by Gordon H. Clark, Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972.

[Page references in this review will be from New Heavens, New Earth, the later revised edition of Clark’s commentaries on 1 and 2 Peter]

This is a detailed commentary on the short epistle of Second Peter. In it (so it seems to me) Clark is more focused on grammar than in his other commentaries. Clark also emphasizes the theme of “knowledge” in the epistle. He sums up Second Peter saying, “the Apostle Peter desires an increase in divine knowledge for those to whom God has sovereignly allotted faith in righteousness of Christ, himself God, that they may receive many additional blessings of grace and peace.” (p. 173)

Clark argues that II Peter 1:20 should be translated as “No written prophecy ever came into being by any individual’s setting it free [or, more literally] by private release. Because …,” etc. He continues, “Peter is asserting the complete absence of human initiative in revelation. Revelation is initiated by God.” (p. 193)

In chapter two he discusses the close similarities between Second Peter and Jude, concluding that there is no good reason to think either of the letters are spurious. Rather, he argues, it is possible that Peter and Jude had discussed together the topic at hand and come to some agreement in thought and even wording before each writing their letters.

On II Peter 3:9 Clark explains “Peter is therefore saying simply that Christ will not return until every one of the elect has come to repentance.” (p. 232)

On II Peter 3:13 he writes, “Peter’s conflagration results in a heavenly and earthly home of righteousness. This is not Stoic. It comes from Isaiah.” (p. 234)

Regarding Peter’s emphasis on knowledge, “Contemporary popular Christianity, both the semi-modernists and the ‘New-evangelicals,’ has seriously ignored Peter’s exhortation. They have fallen off their foundation and are carried away with various wicked errors.” (p. 238) This is solid evidence that Clark did not consider himself to be among the New-evangelicals, even if some of his former students had led the movement.

Clark concludes, “Will this perverse generation heed the apostle and studying grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord?”

For the previous review in this series, see here.

GHC Review 20: The Johannine Logos

[image error]

The Johannine Logos: The Mind of Christ by Gordon H. Clark, Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1972, 90 pp.

Gordon Clark’s The Johannine Logos is not a full commentary on John’s Gospel but a focused study on the apostle’s use of the word logos and his doctrine of it. It is a most excellent book.

Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION

In the introduction Clark critiques those who have given a very late date to John’s Gospel. Rather than taking a second century date like the liberals, or a pre-70 A.D. date like some conservatives, he argues that John wrote his Gospel “late in the first century” (p. 12) and presumably after having written Revelation as the Gospel was “his final book” (p. 13).

He then notes four differences between John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptics have an extended account of Jesus’ ministry while John focused on a period of about twenty days. More so than the synoptics, John relied on personal reminiscences. The synoptics also focused on Jesus’ public ministry while John emphasizes the impression Jesus made on a few individuals. Lastly, he notes, the gospels were each written with different purposes. “Matthew’s purpose, so it seems, was to convince Jews that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. … Mark wrote a short account of Jesus’ ministry, presumably for the Romans, chiefly. Luke was particularly interested in chronology. … John … so that its readers might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might have life in his name.” (p. 14)

Chapter 2 – THE PROLOGUE

“’In the beginning was the Logos.’ What can Logos mean?” (p. 15) The Liddell and Scott Greek lexicon lists meanings including: “computation, reckoning, account, measure, esteem, proportion, ratio, explanation, pretext, plea, argument, discourse, rule, principle, law, hypothesis, reason, formula, definition, debate, narrative, description, speech, oracle, phrase, wisdom, sentence, and at the very end word.” (p. 15)

Clark argues “word is a poor translation in verse 1.” He hints at his own choice of translation in saying “There indeed an English word with the same root as Logos. Though it would make a somewhat inadequate translation, it would convey some meaning, a relatively accurate meaning; but for a peculiar reason, which this study hopes to dispel, many people dislike it.” (p. 16) Of course, the word Clark is referring to “logic.”

He then reviews the use of the term logos among Greek philosophers. For Heraclitus the logos is “a universal law that does not change” amidst the constant flux of all things. (p. 16) For the Stoics the logos, or plural logoi, are that which controls each individual thing. Philo had another view referring to the world of ideas in the mind of God as the logos.

Clark argues, however, that what influenced John was not the Greek philosophers but the Old Testament. He quotes Kittel: “There is a great difference between Hellenistic Logos speculation and the New Testament Logos.” (p. 17) And, he writes, “If this term is to be understood as an element borrowed from Greek philosophy, if John’s thought is construed as similar to that of the Gnostics and the Hermetic literatures, it is strange that the further and frequent occurrences fo the word in John are so totally devoid of such meaning. If, on the other hand, logos is simply an ordinary Greek word with all the meanings that Liddell and Scott list, and if John’s thought and even the word itself have an Old Testament background, then a very different pictures comes into focus.” (p. 18) Even so, “there is nothing absurd in supposing that John deliberately wrote his Prologue to warn his Gentile Christians against false forms of the Logos doctrine.” (p. 18)

“Now, in summary, the ordinary meaning of the Greek term, i.e., the list in the lexicon, can fairly well be combined into the idea of thinking, or the expression of thought. The English cognate is Logic, the science of valid reasoning. As a Greek philosophic term, Logos indicates a supreme intelligence controlling the universe.” (p. 19)

“Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to say that the Word was God, and the German romanticists refused to say that God was Word or Reason.” (p. 19) For Faust life is deeper than logic. Experience is valued over theory. He would prefer the verse to say “In the beginning was the Deed.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses have produced the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures which reads in John 1:1, “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” But proper Greek grammar shows that this is a mistranslation. John’s first two words are en archee, the same first two words of Genesis in the Septuagint translation. This is “evidence that the subject of which John speaks is God: In the beginning God.” (p. 22)

In verse 3 John makes the explicit reference to creation, again evidencing that he did not get his ideas from pagan sources, for they had no notion of a fiat creation, such as Genesis describes.

“The life that was the Logos, the creator, was the light of men; and the light shines in the darkness. Verse 5 surely cannot refer to physical darkness. The remainder of the Gospel squarely opposes any such literal view. The light is the spiritual and the darkness also is spiritual, rational, or intellectual.” (p. 23)

On verse 9 Clark argues that the noun which the phrase “coming into the world” modifies is not the light but “every man.” I studied this question a while ago, and if I recall correctly, Clark’s view agreed with the KJV translation, but not the NIV, ESV, etc. His view is important to his overall philosophy. He writes, “The sense of the verse seems to be that Christ enlightens every man ever born by having created him with an intellectual and moral endowment.” (p. 24-25)

The remainder of the chapter emphasizes the doctrines of Grace and the doctrine of the incarnation in John’s prologue and ends with a sustained critique of the views of Rudolf Bultmann.

Chapter 3 – LOGOS AND RHEEMATA

Back in chapter 2 Clark had noted that from Genesis to Ruth the translators of the Septuagint generally replaced the Hebrew root DBR with the Greek rheemata, but in the prophets they far more frequently used the Greek logos. Here now in Chapter 3 more detail on the meaning and use of these words is given. Throughout the chapter Clark provides numerous Bible verse references.

Rheema (singular) and rheemata (plural) mean word and words, ordinarily spoken words. Clark contends that in a noticeable proportion of its instances in John “logos means a sentence, a propositions, a doctrine, an objection of intellectual apprehension. They make it indubitable by quoting the proposition to which they refer.” (p. 38) He gives examples that show logos referring explicitly to a sentence, a whole sermon, an Old Testament verse, and a prophecy of Christ’s. “It is always an intelligible proposition.” (p. 40)

Returning back to John 1:1 and the apostle’s doctrine of the Logos, Clark writes, “the Logos of verse 1 is the Wisdom of God.” (p. 40) “God does not work haphazardly. He acts rationally. Some of this wisdom is expressed in the propositions o the previous list. They are the mind of Christ: they are the very mind of Christ. In them we grasp the holy Wisdom of God. Accordingly there is no great gap between the propositions alluded to and Christ himself. The Platonic Ideas, as interpreted by Philo, and by him called Logos, are the mind of God.” (p. 40)

“Jesus is never called the Rheema, as he is called the Logos. Rheemata in a very literal sense are the sounds that come out of one’s mouth when one speaks. These are not thoughts; they are sounds in the air; they are the symbols of thoughts.” (p. 42)

Because in some verses the message of Christ is a logos and later the same message is called rheemata, Clark concludes “Logos and rheema designate the same thing.” (p. 43). Also in Luke’s Gospel “can be seen the identity of the two terms.” (p. 43)

Because of what has been said earlier in the chapter, I take it here that by “identity” Clark means that the auditory words, the symbol, or rheemata sufficiently convey a meaningful proposition, or logos. The terms are not interchangeable.

Chapter 4 – TRUTH

A theme of this chapter is that truth is of propositions, intellectual content. This contention is made in opposition to ideas like Emil Bruner’s truth as encounter. Backing his contention Clark references numerous verses in John’s Gospel that each use the word truth. Clark writes, “There is no personal truth that is not propositional.” (p. 50) “Christianity is taught, not caught.” (p. 52)

The remainder of the chapter is a critique of A. W. Tozer’s view of truth. Tozer has a two-fold theory of truth. Clark’s rejection of Tozer’s theory leads nicely into chapter five where he discusses he own view of saving faith which relies on truth being of a single type.

But before moving on, it might be of interest to note Clark’s comment on page 58 that The Presbyterian Journal is “a journal that claims to defend orthodox Presbyterians from the onslaughts of the dialectical theologians.” The background is that the editor of the journal, G. Aiken Taylor, rejected an article Clark wrote on A. W. Tozer. And in doing so, Taylor misidentified an objectionable statement of Tozer’s as that of Clark’s. Clark pointed out the mistake to Taylor, but Taylor never responded to acknowledge his mistake.

So Clark wrote the following letter which will be reproduced in whole:

November 21 1970

Dr. G. Aiken Taylor

The Presbyterian Journal

Dear Dr. Taylor,

Enclosed is the review of the book you sent me. I am inclined to use this occasion to continue a correspondence that you broke off.

Recall that I had protested against your using a sermon by Dr. Tozer that attacked the doctrines of the Westminster Confession. You refused to publish my reply because of certain phrases you disliked. When I pointed out that those phrases were Dr. Tozer’s and not mine, and that you incorrectly put them in my mouth, you did not reply.

Your editorial policy seems to continue to undermine the Confession. This summer you published an article that argued that Christians should remain in corrupt churches because the tares and wheat must grow together and only the angels at the end of the world may separate them. This conflicts with the Presbyterian principles of church discipline, and may explain why so little discipline has been enforced. But I do not expect such attacks on our doctrine to come from a periodical that is supposed to call for a return to the Confession.

Then again on the front cover you printed a statement that for the right bringing up of children all that is necessary is merely to allow the Spirit to control. Merely indicates that no Biblical teaching is to be given to the children. Allow disallows that the Spirit is Almighty God and does not stand on human being’s allowance. The Spirit works how and when and where he pleases, and no one merely allows him to do anything.

This continuing editorial policy suggests to me that you may be trying to undermine the Confession and trying to prevent the establishment or reestablishment of a Reformed church in the south.

If my protest seems vigorous, it is meant to be.

Yours very truly,

Gordon H. Clark

After another set of letters between the two men without resolving their disagreements, Clark severed connections, finally writings “I cannot honest support or aid a person who both quotes me incorrectly and who constantly opposes the doctrines of the Confession.” (Gordon H. Clark to G. Aiken Taylor, Dec. 14, 1970)

And so, Clark’s conclusion was that The Presbyterian Journal only “claims to defend orthodox Presbyterianism.” It was, under Taylor’s leadership, perhaps Presbyterian more in name than fact.

And so, without getting his article published in the journal, Clark writes on Tozer in this chapter of The Johannine Logos.

Chapter 5 – SAVING FAITH

“In view of the clear and repeated assertions of the Gospel it is strange that anyone who considers himself conservative or even orthodox should minimize faith or belief and try to substitute for it some emotional or mystic experience.” (p. 69)

“The nature of saving faith is an important division of theology. Therefore one should pay strict attention to what John’s Gospel says on the subject.” (p. 70)

“There is no antithesis between believing Jesus as a person and believing what he says.” (p. 71) “In literary usage one may say that one believes a person; but this means that one believes what the person says. The immediate and proper object of belief or faith is a truth (or falsehood), a meaning, the intellectual content of some words; and this intellectual content is in logic called a proposition.” (p. 72) “To believe a person means precisely to believe what he says.” (p. 73)

“It is regeneration to eternal life that causes the intellectual belief. Thus acceptance of the propositions is a mark of having been regenerated and of having eternal life.” (p. 73) “Be sure to note that the Apostle John never mentions mystic experience. He never says one must get behind the text to something other than the words or doctrine. He repeatedly says, if you believe, you are saved.” (p. 74)

From page 74 to 88 then Clark writes about and critiques the traditional view of faith as understanding (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia). This part absolutely must be read for yourself. Importantly, Clark asks, “Can fiducia be so defined as to make it an independent third element in faith, or is faith essentially assent to a known proposition?” (p. 81) “The desire to find a third element in faith, in addition to understanding and assent, seems, if we may judge by popular preaching, to be aided by a psychological illusion.” (p. 87) “What better conclusion can there be other than the express statements of the Bible? Permit just one outside of John. Romans 10:9-10 says, ‘If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your mind that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.’” (p. 88)

The arguments of this chapter are more detailed and expanded on in Clark’s later Faith and Saving Faith.

Finally, to end this view I want to reproduce below a letter Clark received from Robert Strong, an old minister friend from their OPC days, and then note a couple other relevant letters.

REFORMED THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

5422 Clinton Boulevard

Jackson, Mississippi 39209

ROBERT STRONG

Professor of Homiletics

March 4, 1974

Dear Gordon:

What a strange thing for an editor to do. You have good reason indeed to be upset.

I have just finished your The Johannine Logos. It is splendid.

Another edition should soon be called for. Suggestions: correct the spelling of anarthrous, develop as a fourth point of difference about the autopic gospel that John’s report of Christ’s discourses contrasts as to the style and method with the synoptics (Matt. 11:27 is one of the very few places that sound like John); amplify your phrase “voluntary assent” to take still better care of those who rely so heavily on fiducia.

I am making my colleagues read your book that they might be still better prepared to deal with anti-intellectualism.

Kind regards to you and Ruth –

Cordially,

Bob

A couple other items might be of note from Clark’s letters. Clark wrote to John Robbins on 11/3/80 saying “I would like to expand the Johannine Logos; or at least correct a most unfortunate misspelling on one page.” (Was a second edition was ever released? I know that the Trinity Foundation has a version of the book, but whether it was edited at all I do not know.) And Robbins wrote to Clark on June 23, 1981 “I’ve gotten a Covenant Seminary graduate to write a paper (he calls it “Logology”) on the use of logos and rheema in the non-Johannine books in the NT. I have seen the introduction; it looks good. We hope to publish it in the July/August issue of the Review.” That article was published in the Trinity Review and can be found here.

For the previous review in this series see here.

GHC Review 19: Historiography Secular and Religious

[image error]

Historiography Secular and Religious by Gordon H. Clark, Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1971, 381 pp.

I must admit that this book makes for rather tedious reading. It might be of some value for studying Clark’s views on a particular thinker, be it Barth, Bultman, Collingwood, Cullman, or one of the many others he discusses in this volume. But for someone rather novice in the discussion of historiography, as I am, the sweep over so many viewpoints easily becomes overwhelming.

I also have to think that this is among the least commonly read of Clark’s books. It is dense, and not as often discussed as most of his other works. Even a summary of the book would be lengthy. So I have opted to review it only in giving some brief comments.

Of the secular theories, Clark’s comments on Marxism are the most interesting. He is brutal on Marx and his communist followers. He writes, “Marx had the incredibly stupid idea that ‘constant capital,’ i.e., the land, buildings, machinery, and raw materials, are not factors in production.” (p. 83) and, “That an army of bureaucrats would eat up more of the profits than capitalists ever did never occurred to Marx’s one track mind.” (p. 84) “The communists, though they can orbit the earth, cannot raise wheat.” (p. 90) “From the chief theoretician of the communist party in the United States an undisillusioned student expects something fairly calm and intelligible. But it turns out otherwise.” (p. 98) “From the Manifesto to Khrushchev to Mao enormities of illogical propaganda are normal procedure. Neurotic, self-alienation is its best defense.” (p. 99) Ultimately “Marxism fails to explain history concretely and in detail.” (p. 105) “When it comes to the details of history, their vaunted scientific methods leaven them silent.” (p. 105) “Marx and his followers are a disgrace to the profession.” (p. 108) In a later chapter Clark writes, “from Marx on, the theory [of Marxism] is torn between a desire to be scientifically neutral and an overwhelming hatred of people who hold lucrative positions.” (p. 180) And in yet another chapter, “It was his [Walter Rauschenbusch’s] opinion that the Christian faith demands the establishment of a socialistic or even Marxian society. This could not be guessed from the Biblical accounts of Abraham and Job, nor from the hard money policy of the Mosaic law, nor even from the New Testament account of the rich young ruler, and certainly not from the example of Christ and the apostles. But Rauschenbusch, in company with the other modernists of his day, determined the contents of the ‘Christian’ faith by the method of arbitrary selection.” (p. 264)

Of the religious theories it is Augustine who Clark most likes. “Augustine notes that the Hebrew-Christian religion understands history in terms of the City of God and its conflict with the earthly city.” (p. 233) History is a linear scheme; not a cyclical construction like some pagans have devised. “There are therefore two cities in the world, whose interaction, competition, and antagonism produce history. The human race remains a biological unity, for whatever that is worth, but its spiritual unity is forever broken. God remains the Creator of all, but he does not remain the Father of all, for one part of mankind have become children of the devil.” (p. 235) “Whereas mankind is divided into so many nations … yet there are but two sorts of men that do properly make the two cities we speak of: the one is of men that live according to the flesh, and the other of those who live according to the spirit.” (p. 235-236) “Two loves therefore have given origin to these two cities, self-love in contempt of God unto the earthly, love of God in contempt of one’s self to the heavenly. The first seeks the glory of men, and the latter desires God only as the testimony of the conscience, the greatest glory.” (p. 236) The schema of Biblical ages that Augustine uses is revealed in the Scriptures rather than observed in history. Some Wars may be just. (p. 239) “Civil government is doubtless a good insofar as it prevents anarchy; but this makes it a good of a negative sort. One could as well say that it is a necessary evil.” (p. 239) “The interaction of two antagonistic societies, with different origins, conflicting motives, contradictory aim, and opposite ends is history.” (p. 241) “From Abraham to Christ all important events occurred either within the Jewish nation or in relation to it. … Since the time of Christ the geographical or national center of gravity has been replaced by a spiritual center, the Church. The city of God and the worldly city no doubt produce history by conflict, but the whole process if for the good of the city of God.” (p. 242) “God uses the wisdom and also the foolishness of men to work out his plans.” (p. 243) “The Christian holds that God determines the course of history and so the events unfold God’s plan.” (p. 250) “Although the end is determined and inevitable, it is not true that contrary actions, even fascism or socialism, lead to the same result. There are two results: each city goes to its appointed end and it goes there by means of its actions.” (p. 252-253) Clark also talks of Augustine’s City of God here:

Throughout the books hints of Clark’s view come to light. There is definitely an emphasis on the necessity of presuppositions, the importance of epistemology, and the necessity of grounding historiography with some ethical theory.

If one is interested in reading further, my twin brother, a history professor at Georgetown University and an expert on historiography, has written critically on Clark’s views here.

Two other reviews, shown below, are reproduced in pictures (unfortunately blurry) from Dr. Clark’s personal papers.

[image error]

[image error]

[image error]

And finally, here is a later cover design of this volume:

[image error]

For the previous review in this series see here.