John Owen on Sin

"Sin aims always at the utmost; every time it rises up to tempt or entice, if it has its own way it will go out to the utmost sin in that kind. Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could, every thought of unbelief would be atheism if allowed to develop. Every rise of lust, if it has its way reaches the height of villainy; it is like the grave that is never satisfied. The deceitfulness of sin is seen in that it is modest in its first proposals but when it prevails it hardens mens' hearts, and brings them to ruin."

John Owen

Total Depravity: Man Is Not Sick, He is Dead — A.W. Pink

The doctrine of total depravity is a very humbling one. It is not that man leans to one side and needs propping up, nor that he is merely ignorant and requires instructing, nor that he is run down and calls for a tonic; but rather that he is undone, lost, spiritually dead. Consequently, he is “without strength,” thoroughly incapable of bettering himself; he is exposed to the wrath of God, and unable to perform a single work which can find acceptance with Him. Almost every page of the Bible bears witness to this truth. The whole scheme of redemption takes it for granted. The plan of salvation taught in the Scriptures could have no place on any other supposition. The impossibility of any man’s gaining the approbation of God by works of his own appears plainly in the case of the rich young ruler who came to Christ. Judged by human standards, he was a model of virtue and religious attainments. Yet, like all others who trust in self-efforts, he was ignorant of the spirituality and strictness of God’s law; when Christ put him to the test his fair expectations were blown to the winds and “he went away sorrowful” (Matt. 19:22).

It is therefore a most unpalatable doctrine. It cannot be otherwise, for the unregenerate love to hear of the greatness, the dignity, the nobility of man. The natural man thinks highly of himself and appreciates only that which is flattering. Nothing pleases him more than to listen to that which extols human nature and lauds the state of mankind, even though it be in terms which not only repudiate the teaching of God’s Word but are flatly contradicted by common observation and universal experience. And there are many who pander to him by their lavish praises of the excellency of civilization and the steady progress of the race. Hence, to have the lie given to the popular theory of evolution is highly displeasing to its deluded votaries. Nevertheless, the duty of God’s servants is to stain the pride of all that man glories in, to strip him of his stolen plumes, to lay him low in the dust before God. However repugnant such teaching is, God’s emissary must faithfully discharge his duty “whether they will
hear, or whether they will forbear” (Ezek. 3:11). (excerpted from The Total Depravity of Man, A.W. Pink)

WITHOUT JESUS CHRIST ONE IS CONDEMNED ALREADY

John 3:16.–[For God so loved the world, etc.] Our Lord, in this verse, shows Nicodemus another “heavenly thing.” Nicodemus probably thought, like many Jews, that God’s purposes of mercy were entirely confined to His chosen people Israel, and that when Messiah appeared He would appear only for the special benefit of the Jewish nation. Our Lord here declares to him that God loves all the world, without any exception; that the Messiah, the onlybegotten Son of God, is the Father’s gift to the whole family of Adam; and that every one, whether Jew or Gentile, who believes on Him salvation, may have eternal life.

John 3:17.–[God did not send...condemn the world.] In this verse our Lord shows Nicodemus another “heavenly thing.” He shows him the main object of Messiah coming into the world. It was not to judge men, but to die for them; not to condemn, but to save. I have a strong impression that when our Lord spoke these words, He had in view the prophecy of David about Messiah bruising the nations with a rod of iron, and Daniel’s prophecy about the judgment, where he speaks of the thrones being cast down, and the Ancient of Days judging the world. (Ps. ii.6-9; Dan. vii.9-22.)

I think that Nicodemus, like most Jews, was filled with the expectation that when Messiah came He would come with power and great glory, and judge all men. Our Lord corrects this notion in this verse. He declares that Messiah’s first advent was not to judge, but to save people from their sins. He says in another place, “I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” (John xii.47.) The Greek word for judging and condemning, it must be remembered, is one and the same. Judgment and the condemnation of the ungodly, our Lord would have us know, are not the work of the first advent, but of the second. The special work of the first advent was to seek and save that which was lost. [That the world...saved.]

This sentence must clearly be interpreted with some qualification. It would contradict other plain texts of Scripture if we took it to mean, “God sent His Son into the world, that all the world might finally be saved through Him, and none be lost.” In fact, our Lord Himself declares in the very next verse, that “He that believes not is condemned already.”

The meaning of the sentence evidently is, that “all the world might have a door of salvation opened through Christ, that salvation might be provided for all the world, and that so anyone in the world believing on Christ might be saved.” In this view, it is like the expression of St. John, “The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.” (1 John iv.14.) The expression, “God has sent,” in this verse, ought not to be overlooked. It is very frequently applied, in St. John’s Gospel, to our Lord.

At least thirty-eight times we find Him speaking of Himself as Him “whom God has sent.” It is probably from this expression that St. Paul derives the peculiar name which he gives to our Lord, “The Apostle of our profession.” (Heb. iii.1.) The Apostle means simply, “The sent one.” The readiness of natural man everywhere to regard Christ as a Judge much more than as a Saviour is a curious fact. The whole system of the Roman Catholic Church is full of the idea. People are taught to be afraid of Christ, and to flee to the Virgin Mary! Ignorant Protestants are not much better.

They often regard Christ as a kind of Judge, whose demands they will have to satisfy at the last day, much more than as a present personal Saviour and Friend. Our Lord seems to foresee this error, and to correct it in the words of this text. Calvin observes on this verse: “Whenever our sins press us, whenever Satan would drive us to despair, we ought to hold out this shield—that God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because He has appointed His Son to be the salvation of the world.”

John 3:18.–[He who believes in Him is not condemned.] In this verse our Lord shows Nicodemus another “heavenly thing.” He declares the privileges of believing, and the peril of not believing in the Son of God. Nicodemus had addressed Him as a “teacher come from God.” He would have Nicodemus know that He was that high and holy One, to believe on whom was life eternal, and not to believe on whom was everlasting destruction. Life or death was before men. If they believed and received Him as the Messiah, they would be saved.

If they believed not, they would die in their sins. The expression, “He that believes,” deserves special notice. It is the third time that our Lord speaks of “believing” on Himself, and the consequence of believing, within four verses. It shows the immense importance of faith in the sinner’s justification. It is that one thing, without which eternal life cannot be had. It shows the amazing graciousness of the Gospel, and its admirable suitableness to the wants of human nature. A man may have been the worst of sinners, but if he will only “believe,” he is at once pardoned.

Last, but not least, it shows the need of clear, distinct views of the nature of saving faith, and the importance of keeping it entirely distinct from works of any kind, in the matter of justification. Faith, and faith only, gives an interest in Christ. The old sentence of Luther’s days is perfectly true, paradoxical and startling as it may sound: “The faith which justifies is not the faith which includes charity, but the faith which lays hold on Christ.” The expression, “is not condemned,” is equivalent to saying, “he is pardoned, acquitted, justified, cleared from all guilt, delivered from the curse of a broken law, no longer counted a sinner, but reckoned perfectly righteous in the sight of God.”

The presentness of the phrase, if one may coin a word, should be specially noticed. It is not said that the believer “shall not be condemned at the last day,” but that “he is not condemned.” The very moment a sinner believes on Christ, his iniquities are taken away, and he is counted righteous. “All that believe are justified from all things.” (Acts xiii.39.) [He who does not...already.] This sentence means that the man who refuses to believe on Christ is in a state of condemnation before God, even while he lives. The curse of a broken law, which we all deserve, is upon him. His sins are upon his head. He is reckoned guilty and dead before God, and there is but a step between him and hell. Faith takes all a man’s sins away.

Unbelief keeps them all on him. Through faith a man is made an heir of heaven, though kept outside till he dies. Through unbelief a man is already a subject of the devil, though not yet entirely in his power and within hell. The moment a man believes, all charges are completely wiped away from his name. So long as a man does not believe, his sins cover him over and make him abominable before God, and the just wrath of God abides upon him. Melancthon remarks that the sentence of God’s condemnation, which was passed at the beginning—“Thou shalt surely die”—remains in full force and unrepealed against every one who does not believe on Christ. No new condemnation is needful.

Every man or woman who does not believe is under the curse and condemned already. [Because...not believed...name...Son of God.] This sentence is justly thought to prove that no sin is so great, and so damning and ruinous to the soul, as unbelief. In one sense it is the only unpardonable sin. All other sins may be forgiven, however many and great, and a man may stand complete before God. But if a man will not believe on Christ, there is no hope for him; and if he persists in his unbelief, he cannot be saved. Nothing is so provoking and offensive to God as to refuse the glorious

He has provided at so mighty a cost, by the death of His only begotten Son. Nothing is so suicidal on the part of man as to turn away from the only remedy which can heal his soul. Other sins may be scarlet, filthy, and abominable. But not to believe on Christ is to bar the door in our own way, and to cut off ourselves entirely from heaven. It has been truly remarked that it was a greater sin in Judas Iscariot not to believe on Christ for pardon, after he had betrayed Him, than to betray Him into the hands of His enemies.

To betray Him no doubt was an act of enormous covetousness, wickedness, and ingratitude. But not to seek Him afterwards by faith for pardon, was to disbelieve His mercy, love, and power to save. The expression, “the name,” as the object of faith, is explained in chap. i.12. Here, as frequently, it stands for the attributes, character, and office of the Son of God. Luther, quoted by Brown, remarks: “Henceforward, he who is condemned must not complain of Adam and his inborn sin.

The seed of the woman, promised by God to bruise the head of the serpent, is now come, and has atoned for sin and taken away condemnation. But he must cry out against himself for not having accepted and believed in the Christ, the devil’s head-bruiser and sin-strangler. If I do not believe the same, sin and condemnation must continue.” [1]

J.C. Ryle

Count All Things What!?

“Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:8–9).

---

Raising the Stakes Further

What’s left after putting everything on the table in exchange for knowing Christ? Maybe not what you’d expect. Up until this point, Paul has treated the things he’s willing to trade for knowing Christ as though they were something worth keeping. By any human standard, they're priceless! So how can he raise the stakes further? By saying that in his view, these priceless things aren’t worth crap—literally. That's the literal translation of σκυβαλα ("rubbish" in the above scripture) and that’s the analogy he uses. All the things that we hold dear should be considered just as valuable as a bag of dung. In comparison to the value of knowing Christ, Paul’s most prized possessions aren’t worth squat.

Rubbish

When we have something of value in our culture, say a house or a car, we typically insure it against loss from fire, theft, or various kinds of destruction. We do this because we want protection against loss. When Paul says that he counts all things loss, he is still treating them as valuable. He is simply making the decision not to hang onto these valuable things, but to exchange them for Christ.

“

In comparison to the value of knowing Christ, Paul’s most prized possessions aren’t worth squat.

”

Instead of Paul considering all his stuff as “valuable, but worth the trade” for knowing Christ, Paul goes one step further. Knowing Christ is so valuable to him that in comparison, he considers his stuff to be about as desirable as feces. He shifts from saying it is worth giving up everything to saying he considers everything but Christ valueless. It isn’t even worth insuring or filing a claim for. It’s no longer a “loss,” it’s “good riddance!”

What Does This Look Like for Us?

Instead of finding his identity in these things, he casts them all on the dung heap. If that’s really what all our stuff is worth compared to knowing Christ, who wouldn’t want to make this exchange?

Paul masterfully works his way through this illustration one stage at a time to move us through the process with him. As he lists his most prized possessions, it makes us wonder about what it would look like for us. He isn’t so much devaluing them as he is increasing the value of knowing Christ. In the final analysis, they are less than worthless compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ.

Your Thoughts of God Are Too Human

In one of his letters to Erasmus, Luther said, “Your thoughts of God are too human.” Probably that renowned scholar resented such a rebuke, the more so, since it proceeded from a miner’s son; nevertheless, it was thoroughly deserved. We too, though having no standing among the religious leaders of this degenerate age, prefer the same charge against the majority of the preachers of our day, and against those who, instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves, lazily accept the teaching of others. The most dishonoring and degrading conceptions of the rule and reign of the Almighty are now held almost everywhere. To countless thousands, even among those professing to be Christians, the God of the Scriptures is quite unknown.

Of old, God complained to an apostate Israel, “Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself” (Psa 50:21). Such must now be His indictment against an apostate Christendom. Men imagine that the Most High is moved by sentiment, rather that actuated by principle. They suppose that His omnipotence is such an idle fiction that Satan is thwarting His designs on every side. They think that if He has formed any plan or purpose at all, then it must be like theirs, constantly subject to change. They openly declare that whatever power He possesses must be restricted, lest He invade the citadel of man’s “free will” and reduce him to a “machine.” They lower the all-efficacious atonement, which has actually redeemed everyone for whom it was made, to a mere “remedy,” which sin-sick souls may use if they feel disposed to; and they enervate the invincible work of the Holy Spirit to an “offer” of the Gospel which sinners may accept or reject as they please.

The “god” of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The “god” who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible Conferences is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of Christendom form “gods” out of wood and stone, while the millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a “god” out of their own carnal mind. In reality, they are but atheists, for there is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all. A “god” whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being a fit object of worship, merits naught but contempt.

Adapted from Arthur W. Pink, The Attributes of God (Kindle Edition)

Popularity: 1% [?]

The Fire by Nate Pfeil

Giving a Reason for Our Hope by Grover Gunn

Giving a Reason for Our Hope

by Grover Gunn

In the seventeenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we have an account of the clash of the Titans. The Apostle Paul, that educated, intelligent and erudite defender of the Christian faith, visited Athens, the philosophical center of the pagan world. There at the Areopagus, also known as Mar's Hill, the apostle Paul boldly defended the Christian faith. He proclaimed the Christian message in that ancient citadel of worldly philosophy, that intellectual stronghold of the enemy. Paul there did battle with the philosophical Goliaths of his day. Mt. Zion confronted the pagan Mar's Hill. The heavenly Jerusalem did battle with worldly Athens.

But Paul is not the only apologetic warrior we read about in the book of Acts. We also read about Peter, the man not trained at the feet of Gamaliel but trained to be a fisherman. Acts 4:13 says,

"Now when [the members of the Sanhedrin] saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus."

I find great hope is this verse. Peter was no Paul, certainly not in terms of education, perhaps not in terms of native intelligence and mental ability. Peter even mentions that certain things in Paul's writings are "hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16). God, however, used Peter as well as Paul as an apologist. Similarly, you may not be another Cornelius Van Til or another Greg Bahnsen in terms of education and intelligence, but God can use you just as He used Peter. God can use you as an apologist, a defender of the Christian faith.

There is a sense in which every aspect of every Christian's life is part of the Christian apologetic. There is something similar in regard to evangelism. Not every Christian is a gifted evangelist. God has not called every Christian to dedicate all his energies to evangelistic preaching or to efforts such as tract ministries. Not every Christian is an evangelist in the narrow sense of the word, but every Christian is an evangelist in a broader sense of the word. The life of every Christian should be a living epistle proclaiming the good news that Jesus delivers His people out of the bondage of sinful living and into the freedom and meaning of righteous living. In that sense, all of life is evangelistic. Similarly, we are not all called to be apologists for the faith in the narrow sense, but in the broader sense of the word, all of life is a defense of the faith. The life we live either adds credibility to our message, or it takes away from it.

Let's now look at what Peter, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said about the apologetic task. Our Scripture reading is 1 Peter 3:15, perhaps the most basic verse on apologetics to be found in the Bible. Some call it the Magna Charta of apologetics.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear."

Apologetics is the science of giving a reasoned defense of the Christian faith, and that is what this verse commands us to do. We are to give a defense, and the Greek word translated defense is apologia, the word from which we get the English word apology. And in this context, an apology is not an expression of sorrow for something wrong one has done nor a request for forgiveness. Apology in this context is a rational defense of the faith.

Apologetics, the defense of the faith, is the responsibility of every Christian. It is the responsibility not only of people such as Paul of Tarsus, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, but also of people such as Peter, the fisherman who was categorized by his opponents as uneducated and untrained. Peter says to all Christians, "be ready to defend the faith." Notice some of those to whom Peter is writing: to babes in Christ, to wives, to younger people, to slaves, and to the lower classes who have no social protection against persecution. To all of these, Peter says, "be ready to defend the faith."

I am reminded of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 about the social status of many Christians:

26	For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.
27	But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
28	and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,
29	that no flesh should glory in His presence.

These are the people called to be apologists for the faith. Apologetics is not a task assigned only to well educated scholars, only to well read philosophers, only to trained logicians, only to skilled debaters. It is assigned to all Christians regardless of their gifts and training.

We too easily think of apologetics as if it were strictly an intellectual enterprise such as a game of chess. We line up our evidences for the faith like so many chessmen on a game board. Then we try to move them with such skill and strategy that our opponent is forced into a corner where he has to concede intellectual defeat. When we start thinking about apologetics that way, we want to leave it to the experts, those masters of strategy who are skilled in debate and well read in philosophy. Either that, or we engage in apologetics ourselves and are tempted with pride because we view ourselves as one of the gifted few. We can become more concerned about winning a debate than about winning a soul. We can become more concerned about demonstrating our knowledge and intellectual sophistication than about defending the gospel message.

Peter is not calling us all to become rhetorical gladiators, people skilled in debating strategy, erudite in the fine points of philosophy, adept in the forceful use of logic. What then does it mean to be an apologist for the Christian faith? The answer is found in 1 Peter 3:15. This passage gives us insight into the apologetic method, which is usually our focus in apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 also, however, tells us about the apologetic moment and the apologetic manner. I want to look first at these two more neglected aspects of apologetics.

THE APOLOGETIC MOMENT

First, let's consider the apologetic moment. What does it matter if one has honed his apologetic skills to a fine art if he never has an opportunity to use them? Before one can defend the faith, he must first earn a hearing for the faith. I believe the foremost duty of the Christian apologist is to live his daily life in obedience to Jesus in the power of Jesus. That is what, more than anything else, will earn a hearing. It will draw the interest and attention, the amazement and wonder of a watching world. Beloved, we don't earn a hearing for the gospel by parading our intellectual achievements and capabilities.

This passage describes the apologetic moment. It is when someone approaches the Christian and asks him to give a reason for his hope. 1 Peter is written to Christians in a time of persecution, and it gives guidance on how the Christian is to conduct himself during such times of tribulation. It is this supernaturally empowered conduct that causes the world to approach the Christian and to say,

"Give me a reason for the hope that is in you. Your life has caught my attention, and I want to know."

Even when the words "Give me a reason," are uttered as a hostile challenge and are intended as verbal persecution, these words have been inspired by the observation of a life style that is strikingly different.

Beloved, if we are not living in the power of Christ, then we can have the most intellectually sophisticated arguments for Christianity which the world has ever heard, and the world could not care less. Apart from a Christ honoring and Christ empowered life, our intellectual arguments for Christianity will be like those scholarly articles buried in academic journals which no one reads. The Christ honoring life is the cutting edge of apologetics. The Christ empowered life is the foot in the door. It is the necessary price we must pay if we are to earn a hearing.

It is only logical that it would be easier to sell ice skates in Canada than it would be to sell them in Mexico. Similarly, the gospel message is more persuasive where the church is strong than where it is weak, where Christians are living out the gospel message than where the they are living as hypocrites.¹ By keeping covenant, by obeying God's law, by loving God with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves, by doing this without complaint, even with a joyful spirit, in the daily grind of the circumstances where God has placed us, we are living out a powerful apologetic, a powerful testimony to the truth of the gospel.

It is when we experience difficulties in life that we are given special opportunities to bear witness with our lives. It is when we are experiencing life's difficulties that others sense that they have more of a window into our souls. We should recognize that our difficulties are not accidents. There are no accidents, only divine assignments because God plans everything that comes into our lives. When we experience material loss, physical sickness or social persecution, we should view it as a providentially given opportunity to bear witness by bearing the fruit of the Spirit.

J.I. Packer described the fruit of the Spirit this way: "Each is a habit of reaction that is most strikingly seen in situations where, humanly speaking, a different reaction would have been expected."² There is a moment of decision between the stimulus and the reaction, and in that instant, that twinkling of the eye, one's heart character takes over and dictates the response. That response reveals one's inner character to others. Here is where ethics and apologetics overlap. One is in a painful, unfair, tense situation. How will one respond? With love or with bitter hatred? With joy or with self-pity? With peace or with enmity? With patience or with a short fuse? With kindness or with a spirit of revenge? With gentleness or with forceful rage? With self-control or with uncontrollable emotions?

Beloved, even though I speak the apologetic message with the eloquent tongues of angels, without the fruit of the Spirit, I have become a sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. The fruit of the Spirit is a sine qua non of an effective apologetic.

Think a moment about a water saturated sponge sitting on a table. If we push down with our finger even slightly, water runs out onto the table. We immediately know what fills the interior pockets of the sponge. The same is true with people. A watching world can tell what fills the Christian on the inside by observing what comes out when the Christian is under pressure. ³ Respond to life's miseries with the fruit of the Spirit, and the world will say, "Give me a reason for the hope that is in you!" That is the apologetic moment. Respond to life's miseries as the world responds to them, and your apology for your faith will fall on deaf ears.

This key to the apologetic moment is a large part of the message of 1 Peter. Repeatedly this epistle refers to the trials of life and the need to endure them in a matter that brings glory to Christ and which also develops one's Christian character (cf. 1 Peter 1:6-7; 2:12, 19-20; 3:14-18; 4:12-13)

Look again at 1 Peter 3:15. Notice that before one gives a defense, he is to sanctify the Lord in his heart. To sanctify the Lord in one's heart is to set Him apart as someone special, to reverence Him as Lord of all of life, to look to Him as one's hope and stay. Doing that will produce the life that inspires the apologetic moment. It will also enable one to defend the faith with meekness and fear. Setting apart Jesus as Lord not only inspires the apologetic moment but also enables the apologetic manner.

THE APOLOGETIC MANNER

Again, we put so much emphasis on the correct apologetic method that we forget the importance of the apologetic manner. And dare I say it? Our apologetic manner can speak louder than our apologetic method. We can be precise and pure in our method, and yet the harshness and the arrogance of our manner can overpower and drown out our technically correct message. Who can hear the delicate tune of our reasoned message when it is drowned out by the discordant blare of aroused emotions?

Let's say that one man is an evidentialist who argues for the faith with a gentle and loving spirit, and another man is a presuppositionalist who argues for the faith with an arrogant and harsh spirit. Which of these two does the most good? Which of these two does the most harm? I would say that there is no way to know as a general rule. We would have to evaluate each specific case, but the presuppositionalist with the immature manner will in some cases be the one who does the least good and the most harm.

For over five years, my wife worked in the libraries of two different seminaries. She often had to tell seminary students that their library books were overdue and that they owed a fine. She learned rather quickly that being advanced in doctrinal knowledge and precision is no guarantee that a person is emotionally mature.

"And though I understand all mysteries and all knowledge, but have not love, I am nothing."

The apologetic manner is important. What we say is important, but so is how we say it. 1 Peter 3:15 says that we are to give our reasons with meekness and fear. This is the proper apologetic manner.

MEEKNESS

We tend to misunderstand what it means to be meek as the Bible uses that word. J. Upton Dickson founded a group called DOORMATS. That stands for "Dependent Organization Of Really Meek And Timid Souls." Their motto was: "The meek shall inherit the earth -- if that's okay with everybody." Their symbol was the yellow traffic light, whose message is, Slow down and prepare to yield the right of way to others. ⁴

That's not what the Bible is talking about when it speaks of meekness. The biblical concept of meekness does not imply softness or weakness. It does not mean wimpy. We know this because of whom the Bible sets before us as the premiere examples of meekness. The Old Testament model of meekness is Moses (Numbers 12:3), and the New Testament example is Jesus (Matthew 11:29). Whatever Biblical meekness is, it is not being a doormat. All we have to do to know this is to think of Moses confronting Pharaoh or to think of Jesus with a scourge of cords driving the moneychangers out of the temple.

The root of Biblical meekness is a total dedication to doing the will of God, out of which grows both gentleness and strength. We see meekness in the life of Moses. Though Moses was raised as a prince in Egypt, he chose to identify with God's people in spite of their low position as persecuted slaves. In submission to God's will for his life, he left his luxurious station in Egypt and endured forty years of obscurity as a shepherd in the wilderness. After his encounter with Jehovah God at the burning bush, Moses obediently returned to Egypt to confront Pharaoh, the most powerful man on earth, not with military might but in the power of the living God. When the redeemed masses of Israel lacked faith to enter the Promised Land, Moses continued as their leader and wandered with them in the wilderness. Moses finally submitted without complaint to God's judgment upon him that he could see the Promised Land from a distance but not enter it himself. Here we see a selfless submission to the divine will which resulted in a forceful boldness when confronting God's enemies combined with a patient gentleness when shepherding God's people. Moses stands out as an example of meekness under the old covenant.

We see meekness even more clearly in the life of Jesus. Moses left the treasures of Egypt, but God the Son gave up the riches of heaven. "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). "... [A]lthough He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:5-8, NAS).

Again, the root of meekness is a total dedication and submission to the will of the Father. The climax of Jesus's submission was His willingness to experience the shameful and painful death of the cross in obedience to the will of His Father. At Gethsemane, He prayed "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." The writer of Hebrews comments on this prayer, stating that Jesus "offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear" (Hebrews 5:7). God the Father answered Jesus' prayer for salvation from the death of the cross but not by enabling Him somehow to escape the ordeal as He had requested. The Father's answer to the prayer of Gethsemane was Jesus' resurrection from the dead on the third day. Jesus humbly submitted to the will of the Father in this matter, selflessly putting aside His personal desire. Jesus "endured the cross, despising the shame," for the joy of victory which was set before Him (Hebrews 12:2). He was like an athlete who endures the agony of competition for the sake of the anticipated joy of victory. Jesus' anticipated joy was the completion of the work of redemption which would result in our salvation and the Father's glory. This is meekness.

This meekness produces a gentle spirit. Isaiah prophesied concerning the Messiah, "A bruised reed He will not break, and smoking flax He will not quench" (Isaiah 42:3). The bruised reed is close to being broken, and the smoking flax is close to being extinguished. These represent the broken and downtrodden masses who are easily overcome by brute force. Yet Jesus in compassion healed their diseases even while their leaders plotted His death (Matthew 12:14-21). The Son of Man exercises His authority not by forcing others to serve Him but by serving others even to the point of giving His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:42-45).

There is a good example of Jesus' gentle patience near the end of His earthly ministry. When Jesus had "steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem," a Samaritan village refused to receive Him during His journey. James and John suggested to Jesus, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" Jesus responded, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." They then went to another village (Luke 9:51-56). Here is gentleness rooted in a singleminded dedication to the will of the Father. Here is gentleness rooted in a sense of mission.

This is the sort of meekness which makes the difference between a wild stallion and a trained war horse. Both are strong, but the war horse is dedicated to doing the will of his master. The war horse will selflessly charge into the line of battle at his master's command, and the war horse will calmly ignore any challenge apart from his master's command. Meekness is this gentleness rooted in a devotion to God's cause and a confidence in God's strength.

How will this meekness affect our apologetic manner? It will eliminate any defensiveness, any proud concern about our winning the argument, any protective sensitivity about our reputation. It will give us patience. It will enable us to ignore personal affronts. It will enable us to maintain a quiet dignity. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that the meek will inherit the earth. The meek will also prevail in defending the faith. The meek are those who care the least about obtaining any personal honor and acclaim, and they are also those most likely to win the apologetic victory.

FEAR

The other component in the proper apologetic manner is fear. Fear can refer to a respect of our fellow man as a creature created in the image of God. The Christian's respectful attitude, however, goes beyond the image bearer to the Creator Himself. The fear of God is the beginning of all true wisdom.

I have just finished reading through C.S. Lewis' Narnia series with my family. Here is an interchange from The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, the first in the series, which illustrates a proper reverence toward God and Christ:

"Is - is he a man?" asked Lucy.

"Aslan a man!" said Mr. Beaver sternly. "Certainly not. I tell you he is the King of the wood and the son of the great Emperor-Beyond-the- Sea. Don't you know who is the King of Beasts? Aslan is a lion - THE Lion, the great Lion."

"Ooh! said Susan, "I'd thought he was a man. Is he - quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion."

"That you will, dearie, and no mistake," said Mrs. Beaver, "if there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than most or else just silly."

"Then he isn't safe?" said Lucy.

"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver. "Don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

"I'm longing to see him," said Peter, "even if I do feel frightened when it comes to the point." ⁵

And here is a quotation from another book in the series, Prince Caspian:

"Hush!" said the other four, for now Aslan had stopped and turned and stood facing them, looking so majestic that they felt as glad as anyone can who feels afraid, and as afraid as anyone can who feels glad. ⁶

A fear of God will have two effects upon the apologist. First, when he defends the faith, he will treat the issue with a respectful seriousness. He will remember that the apologetic contest is not an intellectual game. It is a very serious matter. It is spiritual warfare. The eternal destinies of people are at stake.

Secondly, the fear of God imparts a gentle boldness. Men with a vision of God can speak with confidence before emperors. They are not overwhelmed by outward trappings of power or by diplomas and titles and respect or even by threats to their own safety or prosperity.

I am reminded of the bold fearlessness of Elijah at Mt. Carmel when he mocked the priests of Baal. Baal was the storm god, and his statues often modeled him with a thunderbolt in his hand. Yet this god Baal was not able to light a fire on an altar. As Baal's priests cried out to him to light the fire, we read in 1 Kings 18:27 that Elijah mocked them,

"Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened."

According to the notes in the New Geneva Study Bible, the word busy here is probably a euphemism for a trip to what the British call the necessary room. There is a place for bold fearlessness in apologetics.

I am also reminded of the martyrdom of Polycarp as recorded by Eusebius. In the arena at Smyrna, the Roman proconsul tried to persuade Polycarp to deny Christ and to swear by the genius of Caesar. There Polycarp gave his famous reply:

"You threaten with fire that burns for a time, and is quickly quenched, for you do not know the fire which awaits the wicked in the judgment to come and in everlasting punishment. But why are you waiting? Come, do what you will."⁷

The beast can order as many as will not worship his image to be killed, but the angel of God cries out, "If anyone worships the beast, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation." (Revelation 13:15; 14:9-10).

The man who fears God fears no man. The man who sees a vision of the Lord upon His throne in all His splendor cries out, Here I am! Lord, send me! 2 Corinthians 5:11 says, "Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men" (NIV).

Does apologetics sometimes degenerate into an argument, into an intellectual contest, into a matter of pride and a question of who's right? That will not happen if we have the correct apologetic manner. In Revelation 5, we read that the apostle John heard the words "Behold, the Lion." John looked and saw "a Lamb as though it had been slain." The Christian apologist is to have the humble gentleness and the servant's heart of the sacrificial lamb, and yet the Christian apologist is also to have the bold fearlessness of a lion. We certainly see both in the life and ministry of our Lord. We are to follow His example by giving our reasoned defense with meekness and fear.

THE APOLOGETIC METHOD

The correct apologetic method is what we normally think about when we think about apologetics. Yet I have put the apologetic method third after the apologetic moment and the apologetic manner. The Christ-like life is what gets the world's attention so that someone asks for a reason for the Christian's hope. The Christ-like manner as expressed by the words meekness and fear is what keeps the world's attention as the Christian defends the faith. What one says, the apologetic method one uses, is also of great importance. Our discussing the apologetic method last is not meant to downplay its importance.

First, we must think through our apologetic method and message ahead of time so we will be ready to give a defense. The main problem today with the typical effort to defend the faith is a lack of knowledge. Christians today have a shallow understanding of the Bible and its teachings. One can't really defend what one is unfamiliar with. One can't really defend what one doesn't understand. Getting to know the Bible is, of course, a life long process. One has to prepare.

Second, one must be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is within him. Now what does that mean? Notice the three words, defense, reason, and hope. Defense refers to one's apologetic; reason refers to the rational, logical use of human intelligence; and hope refers to the essence of what one believes, to faith as it looks to the future and sustains one in the present. The key question is this: in one's apologetic defense, what is the relationship between reason and faith? The answer to this question will determine one's apologetic method.

Now consider carefully the wording of 1 Peter 3:15:

"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you."

Notice that the apologetic defense involves both reason and hope, and thus reason and faith because faith is implicit in the concept of hope. Notice secondly that the reasoning is done in the context of hope or faith. The reason explains and confirms the faith which already existed prior to the explanation and confirmation. This use of a reasoned defense in the context of faith, is the basic methodology of presuppositional apologetics. The presuppositionalist uses reason in the defense of the faith without abandoning his hope in the Christ of the Bible in the process.

FIDEISM

Now notice what Peter did not say. To use a play on Paul's words in Philippians 4, Peter did not say:

"Bear witness to the hope of God which, transcending all understanding, guards your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."

If Peter had said that, he would have been advocating fideism, which is an apologetic with faith divorced from reason. Our apologetic would be reduced to a bold assertion. Our assurance would be based solely on a deep inner encounter with God which does not involve the mind. Our faith would be a leap into the dark which we cannot rationally explain, much less defend.

One tends to associate this sort of apologetic with cults that define true religion as an ecstatic emotional encounter. Such cults sometimes defend this position by arguing for a strong dichotomy between mind and spirit. The mental process is defined as a function of the soul, and we are admonished to be spiritual and to reject all soulish religion. Therefore there is no place for logical reasoning in our apologetic.

One also associates this sort of apologetic with neo-orthodoxy. Karl Barth believed that apologetics is an illegitimate pursuit. Neo-orthodoxy teaches that God is transcendent or wholly other in the sense that He cannot communicate to us in a manner we can comprehend with our minds. Thus the Bible is not the Word of God. The Bible contains the word of God in that when we read the Bible, God can communicate to us through a spiritual encounter deep within our being, a spiritual encounter which does not directly involve the mind. Thus, to use the language of neo-orthodoxy, God is wholly revealed to us in terms of an irrational encounter but He simultaneously remains totally hidden from us in terms of our mental comprehension.

RATIONALISTIC EVIDENTIALISM

Also, to use a play on Paul's words in Ephesians 2, Peter did not say:

"Use the world's reason, which has no hope and is without God, to establish and prove your hope in God and Christ.

If Peter had said that, he would have been advocating rationalistic evidentialism. This viewpoint says to the pagan inquirer,

"I want to reason as you reason so that you will accept my reasoning. I don't want to argue in a circle and beg the question by assuming what I am trying to prove. Therefore, I will set aside for the moment my belief in God, my belief in Christ, my belief in the Bible as a divinely inspired book. I am going to set aside my faith in everything but my faith in my own ability to reason, and then I will use that ability to prove my faith in God, Christ and the Bible."

This viewpoint advocates autonomous human reason as a foundation for faith. This viewpoint makes faith in human reason more foundational than faith in God and His Word. 1 Peter 3:15 begins by saying, "Sanctify the Lord in your hearts." From the very beginning of our apologetic, we must set Jesus apart as the Lord of our thoughts; we certainly must not set Him aside as epistemologically irrelevant in our quest for common ground with the nonbeliever.

CONCLUSION

Presuppositionalism incorporates the strengths of both fideism and evidentialism while avoiding their weaknesses.

Like fideism, presuppositionalism recognizes that God is incomprehensible. One cannot fit God within the confines of the human cranium. We may not be able to fully understand the trinity or creatio ex nihilo or divine sovereignty, but that does not mean that they are not true.

Like evidentialism, presuppositionalism recognizes that God is knowable. God's communion with us is not limited to the emotional. God has revealed truth about Himself that can be intellectually digested and rationally understood.

Like fideism, presuppositionalism recognizes that God's Word is the most ultimate authority. One can't elevate human reasoning as a self-authenticating final authority and then use it to authorize Scripture as a legitimate and genuine authority.

Yet, like evidentialism, presuppositionalism acknowledges a place for human reasoning in apologetics. Human reasoning can confirm and bolster and strengthen our faith in the Bible as life's self-authenticating and final authority. Reason is a mental tool, an intellectual facility which God has given us to use. We can use it profitably in submission to God's Word. The Bible commands us to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ and to love the Lord God with all our mind.

Like fideism, the presuppositionalist recognizes that the gospel in the power of the Spirit is more powerful than human logic. Spurgeon put it this way:

"Suppose a number of persons were to take it into their heads that they had to defend a lion. There he is in the cage, and here come all the soldiers of the army to fight for him. Well, I should suggest to them that they should kindly step back, open the door, and let the lion out! I believe that would be the best way of defending him. And the best 'apology' for the gospel is to let the gospel out. ... Preach Jesus Christ and him crucified. The Lion of the tribe of Judah will soon drive away all his adversaries."⁸

Yet, like evidentialism, presuppositionalism recognizes that we have a responsibility to try to persuade people of the truth of Christianity. God has given weak and fragile humans the honor and privilege of bringing His message of grace to the world. "... [W]e have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us" (2 Corinthians 4:7). In Acts 10, God sent an angel to visit the Roman centurian Cornelius to instruct him to meet with the apostle Peter, and God gave a divine vision to Peter to prepare him to meet with Cornelius. God chose to use both the angel and the vision, not to communicate the gospel message to Cornelius, but to enable and facilitate Peter's sharing the good news with Cornelius.⁹ God has chosen to work through human agents in proclaiming the gospel, including their skills of persuasion.

Man was created in God's image, and that image testifies deep within the heart of man that the Gospel is true. Like fideism, presuppositionalism recognizes that that image is not limited to the intellect. There are voices deep within the heart of man which cry out that the message of the Bible is true. The intellect is not the only witness to God's truth which fallen man has to suppress.

Yet, like evidentialism, presuppositionalism recognizes that the image of God within man includes the intellect. Jesus is to be Lord of the mind. Peter says "gird up the loins of your mind" (1 Peter 1:13). Paul says, "bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). We are to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength, all our mind. Christianity is not a mindless religion.

THE PLATINUM ROD

Allow me to close with an analogy. W.A. Criswell, in his book The Bible for Today's World, wrote,

"Washington, D. C., is the home of The Bureau of Standards. Every weight and every measure that is used in the United States is a copy of the standard that is kept inviolate by the Bureau in Washington. In that Bureau there is a perfect inch, a perfect foot, a perfect yard, a perfect gallon, a perfect pint, a perfect millimeter, a perfect milligram. Every weight and measure that we have finds its standard in that Bureau in Washington, and all are judged by that standard."¹⁰

Let's say that in the Bureau of Standards in Washington, D.C., there is a platinum rod that defines the length of the yard. How do we know that that platinum rod is really one yard long? Should we all get out our wooden yardsticks and measure it just to make sure? No, that would be senseless. Doing that would test not the rod but our yardsticks because that platinum rod defines exactly how long a yard is. That rod is the standard by which we measure all our yardsticks, and no yardstick can sit in judgment over it.

The evidentialist is like a person who insists that his wooden yardstick proves that the platinum rod is one yard long. He treats his wooden yardstick as if it were the national standard and the definitive measure.

The fideist is like the person who burns all his wooden yardsticks. He says that the platinum rod is all he needs. Who needs a wooden yardstick?

The presuppositionalist agrees with the fideist that the platinum rod, not a wooden yardstick, is the final and definitive measure of the yard. Yet the presuppositionalist agrees with the evidentialist that wooden yardsticks are important and have their use. After all, the wooden yardsticks are modeled after the platinum rod, and that is why they are reliable measures. Our experience of their reliability in measurement confirms our faith in the platinum rod. That's because the platinum rod was the standard by which all the wooden yardsticks were manufactured.

The presuppositionalist is the one who believes both in the final authority of the platinum rod and in the use of wooden yardsticks. Presuppositionalism incorporates the strengths of both fideism and evidentialism while avoiding their weaknesses.

---

FOOTNOTES

1	William Edgar, Reasons of the Heart (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1996), 60.
2	J.I. Packer, Rediscovering Holiness (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Publications, 1992), 240.
3	Craig Brian Larson, editor, Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching from Leadership Journal (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 22.
4	taken from the INFOsearch illustration collection, P.O. Box 11749, Arlington, TX 76003, 817-468-0074.
5	C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1950), 75-76.
6	C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1951), 148.
7	W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), 271.
8	Tom Carter, compiler, 2200 Quotations from the Writings of Charles H. Spurgeon (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988), 13; see page 256 of volume 42 of Spurgeon's sermons in their original printed form.
9	William Edgar, Reasons of the Heart, 39.
10	taken from the INFOsearch illustration collection, P.O. Box 11749, Arlington, TX 76003, 817-468-0074.

Epistemology 101 by Grover Gunn

Epistemology 101

by Grover Gunn

Psalm 145:1-3

1	I will extol You, my God, O King; and I will bless Your name forever and ever.
2	Every day I will bless You, and I will praise Your name forever and ever.
3	Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and His greatness is unsearchable.

Romans 11:33-36

33	Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34	"For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?"
35	"Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him?"
36	For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

Epistemology involves the study of the concept of human knowledge. We all have the psychological experience of knowing, but how do we verify the validity of the experience? How do we know that there is any objective relationship between our subjective experience of knowing and something real and objective out there in the outside world? How do we know that what we are experiencing is not some sort of dream experience? We touch and see and hear things in our dreams that have no objective existence.

We can have epistemological autonomy only if we can obtain or achieve intellectual self-sufficiency. And intellectual self-sufficiency is impossible for finite creatures. For example, even if we do have an objective but partial knowledge of some things, how do we know that we understand those things rightly? The one fact we don't know about them may be the fact that changes their meaning completely.

A wealthy woman who was traveling overseas saw a bracelet she wanted to buy, so she sent her husband this cable: "Have found wonderful bracelet. Price $75,000. May I buy it?" Her husband promptly wired back this response: "No, price too high." But the cable operator omitted the comma, so the woman received this message: "No price too high." Elated, she purchased the bracelet. It was just a comma, but what a difference it made!¹

How do we know that our sense perceptions are reliable? How can we know that we have a real knowledge of anything? Even if we can know anything, the knowledge we have is so fragmentary. Some things are too deep for us to ever know, and we are ignorant of most of the facts we could understand. The question is not merely, "How do we know?" The question is, "How do we know that we know?"

The answer to these questions is very simple but very profound (2 Corinthians 11:3). We know that we know because God has told us so. Ecclesiastes 7:24 asks, "As for that which is far off and exceedingly deep, who can find it out?" The answer is, God can. God knows all things (Hebrews 4:13). The measure of God's knowledge is that He is the One who created the universe and upholds it moment by moment. His understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5). We know our sense perceptions are reliable because God gave them to us (Proverbs 20:12).

Our epistemological confidence is founded on faith in the Lord (Proverbs 3:5-8). The epistemologies of the world tend to be complex, but they are also foolish (1 Corinthians 3:18-20). They try to show how finite man can have certain knowledge without the help of the infinite, all-knowing Creator. They assume a finite human can somehow attain his own epistemological self-sufficiency.

The key to our epistemology is our knowledge of God. We must now explain how God is knowable but at the same time incomprehensible. How can God enable us to know that we know if God is beyond our comprehension?

GOD IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE

I once spoke on the trinity to a group of pastors in Uganda. Although they all spoke English, they wanted my lectures translated into their tribal tongue. Suddenly the translator came to me for advice. I had repeatedly referred to the three Persons in the Godhead, and his native language had no word for person. He had been translating this as "the three human beings in God," and he knew that was not right. I suggested instead "the three Faces of God." The difficulty we had in finding words to describe the trinity is not surprising. The living and true God is beyond our full comprehension.

It is said that St. Augustine once walked along the seashore meditating on the mystery of the trinity. He saw a boy repeatedly pouring seawater into a hole dug in the sand. When asked what he was doing, the boy replied that he was pouring the ocean into that little hole. The great theologian responded, "That is what I have been trying to do also." He had been pondering the eternal with his finite mind.²

God created this world from nothing. God is in control of everything without being to blame for anything. Each Person of the Godhead is a distinct Person, and yet all of God is in each Person. All of God is wherever God is, and God is everywhere. God sincerely desires obedience even when He has decreed disobedience. I believe the Bible teaches all of these, even though I cannot fully comprehend any of these. I don't believe I ever will comprehend these things, not even in eternity.

Suppose you lived in a flat, two dimensional world, a world with no three dimensional depth.³ Suppose someone came from the world of 3-D to tell you about pyramids and cubes and spheres. In your limited 2-D world, you could learn many truths about these mysterious solid figures from another dimension, but you could never fully understand them. Although you could know things about them, they would always remain incomprehensible to you as solid figures. That is also the way it is when the eternal Creator tells us about Himself. God has revealed many truths about Himself in the Bible, but we should never expect to have God all figured out. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God's ways above our ways, and God's thoughts above our thoughts.

GOD IS KNOWABLE

Some argue that if God is incomprehensible, then it must be impossible to know Him in any intelligible manner. According to neo-orthodoxy, we can't know God with our minds. We can know him only through a religious experience. We can know God only in a non-cognitive, irrational sense. The Bible does not contain propositional truth, the actual verbal words are not inspired and thus inerrant and infallible. The Bible is a human book filled with factual errors, but it is a divine book in that through its message we can have a religious experience.

The response to this is simple. God may be incomprehensible, but He is also knowable not directly but by creaturely analogies. We are finite creatures, but God also made us in His image. God also created the universe to reflect His glory. So God filled this world with true creaturely reflections of His glory so that He can reveal Himself to us.

No man can look upon God directly and live. The Bible speaks of God as clothed in impenetrable light. God, however, created a world which reflects His glory, a world filled with analogies, reflections and images of the eternal, which God can use to reveal to us truth about Himself.

AGAIN, GOD IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE

The opposite error is a denial of God's incomprehensibility. Some argue that because they can truly know some things about God, then they must be able to comprehend all truth about God. This is religious rationalism. In this system, human understanding becomes the final measure of truth about God.

We see this more commonly today in cultists such as the Jehovah's Witnesses who teach that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity can't be true because it is not reasonable. I agree that no human can fully understand how God is One and Three. Using the term Being to refer to the oneness and the word Person to refer to the threeness states the position but does not answer all the questions. There are personal distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Spirit such that they have had a genuine love relationship from eternity past. The God who is love is no solitary deity lonely for fellowship with a peer. And yet there is but one God with each Person of the Godhead so fully God that all of God is present in each Person. This is beyond my comprehension. Does that mean it cannot be true?

The answer to this is simple. God is knowable because He has revealed Himself. God is incomprehensible in that we can't directly know and experience the eternal. We can know God only as He reveals Himself in terms of our creaturely limitations. These creaturely limitations and the folly of rationalism are well illustrated in the parable of the fisherman.

THE PARABLE OF THE FISHERMAN

A fisherman said that he had a net that could catch all the fish in the sea. He sailed around the world catching fish. When he returned, he proclaimed, There are no more fish left in the sea because my net has caught them all. But some asked him about the tiny fish that could swim through the mesh of his net, and about the large fish that were bigger than his net. He replied, "Oh, those aren't fish. My net has caught all the fish in the sea. If my net didn't catch them, they are not fish."

The fisherman is a rationalist. The net is his mind. The rationalist says his net catches all fish. If his net cannot catch it, then it's not a fish.

I am a supernatural rationalist. The God who simultaneously knows all knowledge at once, the God whose mental process establishes the laws of logic and whose providential upholding of the creation establishes the law of causation, the God whose orderliness is the basis for inductive science, the God who made our senses to be accurate but limited probes of objective reality, He alone is the fisherman with the net that catches all fish. He has gifted me with a creaturely imitation of His net, a net that will catch many fish. There are, however, fish too small for its mesh and fish too large for its reach. He has told me which fish these are so I will know where it is presumptuous for me to fish. These are fish such as the Trinity and the will of God.

There are no fish too large or too small for God's net. My net is made in the image of God's net, but it is also a creaturely net with finite limitations. My net really does catch fish. The fish my net cannot catch are still real fish, and the fish which only God's net can catch are not absurdities.

THE QUESTION OF SQUARE CIRCLES

Someone once asked me how I know that there are not "square circles" and other logical absurdities in the mind of God if God is incomprehensible. By definition, there are no absurdities in the mind of God, because the mind of God is the final measure of what is rational and what is absurd. God has given us His sufficient and inerrant revelation of His mind in the Bible. The Bible is the key to both our inerrant knowledge and our "learned ignorance." "Learned ignorance" is a concept discussed by John Calvin.⁴ It refers to our learning from our study of Scripture that there are truths we simply cannot fully comprehend and our learning from Scripture what they are. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that either "square circles" or the paradoxes of neo-orthodoxy are eternal truths in the mind of God. They are, therefore, indeed absurdities. There are other truths, such as the relationship of the oneness and threeness of the Trinity or the relationship of the revealed and the decretive aspects of God's will, which Scripture reveals to be genuine truths even though they are beyond our full mental grasp. These truths are beyond creaturely comprehension but nevertheless are absolutely rational because God's mind is the final definition of rationality.

THE PILL ILLUSTRATION

The Puritan Thomas Manton said the following:

"We should not expect to see a reason for everything which we believe, for many doctrines are mysteries, and we must receive them as we do pills. We do not chew pills, but swallow them; and so we must take these truths into our souls upon the credit of the revealer."

Spurgeon makes the following comment on this:

"Many a truth when taken into the soul as a whole has proved to be very sweet to the heart. We could not understand it, but no sooner had we believed it than we were conscious of its delightful influence upon the inner nature. Who can understand the twofold nature of our Lord's person, or the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, or the predestination which does not violate free agency? And yet what a delight these truths create in minds which cheerfully accept them."⁵

Of course, it is foolish to chew most pills designed for swallowing. Some can be very bitter. Since the time of Manton and Spurgeon, we have developed the chewable pill. With this in mind, I believe we can expand our illustratrion. A religious rationalist is someone who says to God,

"I will accept only chewable pills. I want to taste doctrines with my mind to see for myself if they are good for the soul. If I can't chew them, then I won't swallow them.

Some divinely revealed truths are like chewable pills, and some others are like pills designed only for swallowing. We had best follow the instructions given by the Great Physician in His Word and not insist on trying to swallow whole what He said to chew, or on trying to chew what He said to swallow whole.

THE HUMAN MIND

Related to this whole issue of knowing and comprehending God is our understanding of the human mind. In what sense is the human mind an image of the divine Mind? Is the human mind a little piece of the divine Mind, a down-sized reproduction of the divine Mind? Or is the human mind a creaturely reflection of the divine Mind, a bounded and limited analogy to the divine Mind? I believe the latter, which is my understanding of Van Til's position. The human mind cannot transcend its creatureliness and its finitude. The reflection is true even though the human mind operates in a different plane of existence from the divine mind it reflects.

We are like God in that we reflect His communicable attributes. We possess creaturely versions of "being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth" We are also unlike God, who alone is "infinite, eternal and unchangeable." His incommunicable attributes permeate His "being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth." In contrast, our creatureliness permeates our being and experience. Consistent with this contrast, the human mind is a creaturely analogy to the divine Mind, not a down-sized reproduction of the divine Mind.

This explains why human logic is valid, why we can know truth and even understand God's revelation about Himself. Human logic is analogous on a creaturely plane to the eternal logic of the divine Mind, which is Truth itself. This also explains the limits of our knowledge, why we can never directly comprehend the Eternal. The human mind is creaturely. It is a part and parcel of creation which is bounded by the limits of space and time.

God did make this world to reflect His glory. Thus, the world of space and time is filled with divinely planned and planted analogies to the eternal Creator. Because of the divinely given capabilities of our creaturely minds and because of the objective analogies to the Eternal with which God has filled this world, the eternal God can reveal truth about Himself to finite humanity. Truth about God is knowable.

Because of our creatureliness, we reach limits in our understanding. Our world is bounded. We explore the vast garden of God's good creation and we eventually discover that it is walled. There is much in this vast garden which we have not yet fully explored and much we have not yet even begun to explore. There are also truths outside the garden which we will never be able to explore. There are truths we will never totally comprehend because we will never transcend our creatureliness. Thus, we get to a point in our understanding where we reach apparent contradictions. Some of these will always appear to be contradictions to us, even after we are glorified. By faith we know they are not contradictions to God. We know that these truths are perfectly consistent, perfectly understood, perfectly explainable within the Eternal Mind, which is not bounded by finite limits.

Thus God will always remain incomprehensible to us to some degree, not because God is irrational or unknowable but because we are creaturely. Some apparent contractions will one day become clear to us because they are due to the dimming effects of sin upon the mind. Some will one day become clear to us because the resurrection body will exist on a higher, more spiritual plane of creaturely existence. Others we will have to accept on faith even in eternity because we will always be creatures.

I understand irrationalism to be a denial of the ultimate rationality of the divine Mind. We project our mental limitations upon God and assume that our apparent contradictions are real contradictions rooted in the Creator Himself. I understand rationalism to be a denial of the qualitative limitations of our creaturely rationality. We assume there would be no apparent contradictions if only we had enough additional facts revealed to us. We fail to appreciate the qualitative difference between the Creator and the creature.

We explore the vast garden of creation and eventually discover it is walled long before we have explored everything within the walls. The irrationalist says that even God is limited by these walls. The rationalist says the walls aren't really that high and he can peek over them. I say the walls are infinitely high to me but nothing to God. I have learned to be content in my state as a redeemed creature.

THE MIND OF CHRIST

1 Corinthians 2:16 says that we have the mind of Christ. This teaching provides another way to consider God's being both knowable and incomprehensible. To understand what it means to have the mind of Christ, we must understand the incarnation. Christ is one person with two natures that are not separated, divided, mixed or confused.

According to Nestorianism, the two natures are separated and divided. This would be consistent with the Neo-orthodox position: God is not knowable. If there is a chasm between Christ's human and divine natures, then Jesus in His humanity cannot reveal to us any true knowledge of the divine. According to Eutychianism, the two natures are mixed and confused. This would be consistent with the religious rationalism position: God is not incomprehensible. If the human nature of Christ can mix directly with His divine nature, then the human has a bridge to direct comprehension of the divine. I am not here trying to comment on the actual positions of Nestorius and Eutychius on revelation, but I am using their erroneous views of the incarnation to illustrate some erroneous views of revelation

Orthodoxy says that Christ is one person with two natures that are not separated, divided, mixed or confused. The knowledge of God which Christ gives is both true knowledge and knowledge communicated on the human level. Christ is both Creator and creature, both human and divine. One reason the incarnation is necessary for God's highest revelation of Himself is because the human mind cannot think God's thoughts directly on the eternal level as God thinks them. We need a Mediator who is fully human as well as fully divine. We have access to the divine Mind not directly but through the hypostatic union. Jesus in His humanity is like the filter which enables astronomers to look at the sun through a telescope without blinding their eyes. A sun telescope magnifies and reveals but in a way adapted to the limitations of our eyes. Jesus' humanity both veils and reveals so that we can see God and live. Contrary to neo-orthodoxy, we can see God. Contrary to religious rationalists, we cannot look directly at the brightness of God's glory.

FAITH AND REASON

Let's look at one final way to consider our knowledge of God's revelation. What is the relationship of faith and reason? There are three views. One view is associated with Tertullian (160-220). He was an African lawyer who became one of the first Latin theologians; he wrote in Latin and not in Greek. His work was key in developing the theological language used in the development of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation. In later life, he joined the Montanists. He is famous for the statement "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?"

Tertullian is associated with the position "Credo quia absurdum" (I believe because it is absurd). Carl Henry says the following about this:⁶

"Tertullian's dominant emphasis falls not simply on the priority of faith, but rather on the disjunction of faith and reason: Christianity requires belief in what to the unregenerate mind appears absurd."

Now there is truth here. There are doctrines beyond our comprehension: the trinity, the incarnation, creatio ex nihilo, a divine sovereignty which allows for creaturely free agency. Tertullian also recognized that you can't mix Christianity with pagan thinking. They are oil and water. Now if that is all Tertullian is saying, then he is correct, but some believe Tertullian went beyond that. Again, Carl Henry says,

"... Tertullian's view [was not] simply an accident of the fact that he lived in an age when philosophy was shaped by Greek and Roman thinkers outside the orbit of Judeo-Christian revelation. For he objects in principle to the idea and possibility of Christian philosophy."⁷

So, rightly or wrongly, Tertullian has become associated with the position, "Credo quia absurdum" (I believe because it is absurd).

The position associated with Thomas Aquinas is "Intelligo ut credam" (I understand in order to believe). This is the position of religious rationalists. Philosophy is prior to theology, reason is prior to faith.

I agree with the position associated with Augustine and Anselm: "Credo ut intelligam" (I believe in order to understand). In his sermon on John 29.9, Augustine said, "Understanding is the reward of faith; therefore, do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand."⁸ Carl Henry says the following:

"'Believe in order to understand,' is the emphasis; without belief one will not understand. Reason still has its task, but on a new foundation and within a new climate. The revelation of the living God is the precondition and starting point for human understanding... ... divine revelation and authority are for [Augustine] the starting point of 'Christian philosophy'; not philosophical speculation but inspired Scripture constitutes the gateway to truth."⁹

---

APPENDIX
THE PARABLE OF THE 3D CUBE

The 3D Cube, an all sufficient, sovereign and unique geometric figure of three dimensions, decided to create a limited world of two dimensions to reflect its glory. The Cube filled this two dimensional world with points, lines, triangles and other two dimensional figures. The epitome of this two dimensional creation was the square. The squares were genuine images of the Cube, sharing its parallel lines of equal length and its 90 degree intersections, but the squares had no ontological continuity with the Cube. The squares were not 3D figures but 2D images of the Cube, the one and only 3D figure. Their lines and angles lacked the three dimensional depth and solidity which permeated and characterized the Cube.

The squares were able to observe their own two dimensional world only through the narrow slit of 2D vision, which limited their perception to points and lines. Even with this limitation, the glory of the creator was evident in its creation. The Cube raised up certain squares called prophets and enabled them to view their world from above, giving them a three dimensional perspective on their two dimensional world. Thus, they were able to see squares and other 2D figures in a way that revealed even more the glory of the Cube.

The greatest revelation of all was the Drawing. The Drawing was two intersecting squares with the corresponding corners connected by four parallel lines. The Drawing, an accurate two dimensional reflection of the Cube, revealed to the 2D world genuine truth about the Cube. This revelation was a 2D replica and not a 3D reproduction of the Cube because no square could experience or understand three dimensional depth.

Although the squares now had true knowledge about the Cube, the Cube in its three dimensional existence remained incomprehensible to the squares. The only way a square could directly comprehend the tri-plane existence and the solidity of the Cube was for the square to become three dimensional itself. That simply was not possible. For a square to become three dimensional would be divinization, a blurring of the vital ontological distinction between the 3D creator and the 2D creature. The squares had to trust that what appeared to be inconsistent about the Cube when revealed in a 2D world was perfectly consistent in terms of the creator's 3D mind. Concepts such as depth and solidity were not ultimately irrational; they were merely beyond two dimensional thought and experience.

There arose division among the squares as to the nature of the 2D revelation called the Drawing. Some argued that the Drawing was not a 2D image-reflection but a 3D reproduction of the Cube. The Drawing, they argued, is either a 3D revelation or no revelation; there is no other option. For these squares, their 2D minds became their ultimate measure of all truth, including revealed truth about the Cube. They viewed 2D logic as a downsized version of 3D logic, less powerful but essentially the same. These squares were the 2D rationalists.

The more radical of the 2D rationalists claimed that the Cube was really a great square. They said that a three dimensional figure was a logical absurdity, that a tri-plane figure was a three headed monster. This group became known as the Geometric Witnesses.

Other much less radical 2D rationalists continued to accept the tri-plane nature of the Cube. Yet they said that there is basically nothing in 3D existence that the 2D mind cannot comprehend. The Cube is incomprehensible only to the extent that it has not revealed everything about itself. They claimed that squares could essentially understand tri-plane existence and 3D solidity. There was no fundamental 3D mystery beyond the 2D mind. To teach otherwise, they claimed, was to open up the possibility that the Cube was a square circle or some other logical absurdity. They also claimed that both two squared and two cubed equal four.

There was another school of thought called neo-geometry or crisis geometry. These squares also believed that the Drawing was either a 3D revelation or no revelation, and they championed the no revelation option. The world of 3D is incomprehensible to the 2D mind and beyond 2D experience; therefore, nothing can be known about it. There is no propositional truth to be found in the Drawing. All a square can do is to meditate upon the Drawing and hope that the aroused feelings of a crisis experience will somehow put the square in touch with the wholly other Cube in a mystical and irrational communion.

A third view was championed by a square named Van Cube. He taught that the Drawing was a true 2D revelation of the 3D Cube, and that the Cube was both truly knowable and truly incomprehensible to the 2D mind. On the one hand, the 2D rationalists charged that Van Cube's teaching was really a form of neo-geometry that denied the possibility of true revelation. On the other hand, the followers of neo-geometry charged that Van Cube was really a 2D rationalist who put the Cube in a 2D box. Of course, the critics on both sides of Van Cube misrepresented his teaching, and the controversy continued through the years.

---

FOOTNOTES

1	taken from the INFOsearch illustration collection, P.O. Box 11749, Arlington, TX 76003, 817-468-0074.
2	taken from the INFOsearch illustration collection.
3	Hebrews 8:5 refers to an earthly copy of a heavenly realty as a shadow; a shadow is a two-dimensional representation of the three dimensional.
4	"For, of those things which it is neither given nor lawful to know, ignorance is learned; the craving to know, a kind of madness." John Calvin; Ford Lewis Battles, Translator, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), 957 (III.XXIII.8.).
	"And let us not be ashamed to be ignorant of something in this matter, wherein there is a certain learned ignorance. Rather, let us willingly refrain from inquiring into a kind of knowledge, the ardent desire for which is both foolish and dangerous, nay, even deadly." Ibid., 923 (III.XXI.2.)
	"Let us, I say, permit the Christian man to open his mind and ears to every utterance of God directed to him, provided it be with such restraint that when the Lord closes his holy lips, he also shall at once close the way to inquiry. The best limit of sobriety for us will be not only to follow God's lead always in learning but, when he sets an end to teaching, to stop trying to be wise." Ibid., 924 (III.XXI.3.)
5	C.H. Spurgeon, Flowers from a Puritan's Garden (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1976), 42.
6	Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority; Volume I: God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations (Waco, Texas: Word Book, Publisher, 1976), 182.
7	Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority; Volume I: God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations, 183.
8	Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready (Atlanta, Georgia: American Vision and Texarkana, Arkansas: Covenant Media Foundation, 1996), 88.
9	Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority; Volume I: God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations, 183-184.