Last week, with our article, The Gospel According to Piper, we caused a stir here at the Semper Reformanda Radio in our assessment of Piper on final justification and final salvation. On September 25, 2017, Piper wrote an article Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?, answering in the negative: No, God does not save us by faith alone. Our article was in response to Piper's.

Piper's expressions affirm that while justification is by faith alone, "final salvation" is not. In his September 25 article, he expressed this in multiple ways. We provide here two examples of this:

In justification, faith receives a finished work of Christ performed outside of us and counted as ours — imputed to us. ... In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith.

These works of faith [(1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11)], and this obedience of faith [(Romans 1:5; 16:26)], these fruits of the Spirit that come by faith, are necessary for our final salvation. No holiness, no heaven (Hebrews 12:14). So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone.

By such words, Piper expresses justification in terms of "faith alone" and final salvation by works that flow from faith, attempting to preserve sola fide without compromising the Scriptural emphasis on works "which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).

Our article, The Gospel According to Piper, was the work of two writers, but what may be the most controversial contribution to the article came from my hand: by "final salvation" Piper actually means "final justification," and therefore Piper was actually expressing—under a Reformed flag—the Roman Catholic view of initial justification by grace and final justification by works. In support of our position I offered the following citation from Piper which summarized one of the main points in his book, The Future of Justification:

Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation. (Piper, John, and N.T. Wright. “The Justification Debate: A Primer.” Christianity Today June 2009: 35-37)

It seemed sufficient to us that if a) in final salvation at the last judgment "faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne," and b) in future justification at the last judgment the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives is brought forward as a "confirmation of true faith," then c) we may say that Piper equates final salvation with future justification, and his description of justification and final salvation is really a description of initial justification by faith alone and final justification by faith and works.

Several of our readers considered this representation uncharitable and unfair for three main reasons:

1. in other places Piper denies such a Roman Catholic formulation,
2. by "final salvation," Piper probably meant "final glorification" rather than "final justification," and
3. we should interpret Piper through the lens of forty years of his faithful preaching

Today I will address each of these three criticisms. The first objection is justifiable and compels me to apologize to Piper for overlooking his explicit denials of the Roman Catholic view of justification. I should have found them and included them in my contributions to the original article. I was wrong to omit them. The second objection requires that I provide compelling evidence that Piper means "final justification" by "final salvation."

After addressing these two objections, I will spend considerable time on the third to explain why I remain concerned about Piper's formulations on justification based on a survey of his shifting and contradictory expressions of the doctrine of justification over time. Piper's teaching on justification has been changing for years, and is still changing now. Therefore, it is laudable but nigh impossible to defer to an ostensible continuity and clarity in Piper's teachings.

Objection 1: Piper rejects the Roman Catholic view of justification

Because Piper's statement on justification in Christianity Today grounded present justification on "the substitutionary work of Christ alone," but said that future justification "accords with our works," making mention of Christ's righteousness only in reference to present justification, it appeared to us that Piper was summarizing his own position on justification in terms of an initial justification by grace through faith, and a future justification that is based on works. The Roman Catholic Tridentine formulation on justification is that the righteousness received in justification is "preserved and also increased before God through good works," and that those works are not "merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 24). If according to Piper's own formulation our initial justification is grounded on Christ's righteousness imputed to us by faith, and our final justification "accords with our works," we could not see how his expression of justification was substantially different from Rome's similar expressions of initial, ongoing, and final justification.

Here two clarifying data pertain. First, the Christianity Today article we cited was intended as a summary of Piper's The Future of Justification, which itself was a critique of N. T. Wright's views of justification. In The Future of Justification, Piper expresses concern that Wright's expressions explicitly affirm a future justification based on works. Piper finds this "startling":

Wright makes startling statements to the effect that our future justification will be on the basis of works. (Piper, The Future of Justification (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007) 22)

Here Piper finds "startling" Wright's final justification based on works, and what startled Piper so much is that Wright's position appears to conform to that of Roman Catholicism in which the justified are finally “judged righteous (and receive eternal life) because they are truly righteous" (Piper, The Future of Justification, 183). As startling as Wright's statements are to Piper, Piper's are to us, for Piper's own formulation is just as unsettling:

Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works.  (Christianity Today June 2009: 35-37)

Why did Piper recoil at Wright's formulation, but when summarizing his own views, express a future justification that "accords with our works"? Part of the answer is how Piper differentiates between "based on works" and "according to works." He writes,

I take [Paul's] phrase 'according to' (kata;) in a sense different from 'based on.' I think the best way to bring together the various threads of Paul’s teaching on justification by faith apart from works (Rom. 3:28; 4:4–6; 11:6; Eph. 2:8) is to treat the necessity of obedience not as any part of the basis of our justification, but strictly as the evidence and confirmation of our faith in Christ whose blood and righteousness is the sole basis of our justification (Piper, The Future of Justification, 110).

Whatever one may think of Piper's various formulations on justification, in fairness to him the critic must at least acknowledge Piper's attempt at differentiating between "based on" and "according to" when formulating an expression in which final justification is according to works. This writer failed to do so.

We will return to Piper's varied, diverse and problematic formulations on justification below, but for now, I will simply acknowledge that my critics were correct to point out that Piper elsewhere objects strenuously to the Roman Catholic view of justification. It was my duty to consider those statements in my examination of Piper.

Objection 2: by "final salvation" Piper means "final glorification" rather than "final justification"

Some of my critics have said it is wrong to make "final salvation" mean "final justification" in Piper. It seems to them, rather, that Piper is talking about "final glorification" instead. For example, the following citation from Piper is taken to refer to "glorification":

So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone. Love, the fruit of faith, is the necessary confirmation that we have faith and are alive. We won’t enter heaven until we have it. There is a holiness without which we will not see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). (Piper, John, Faith Alone: How (Not) to Use a Reformed Slogan, September 13, 2017)

One problem with claiming that Piper is speaking here of glorification is that Piper repeatedly states that final glorification is our inheritance after attaining heaven or getting to heaven. Piper is in this passage speaking not of glorification but of getting into heaven prior to glorification, and the way to get into heaven is to be saved from the wrath of God on the Last Day by the fruits of faith. In fact, that was his whole point in Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?: "In final salvation at the last judgment ... we are saved through that fruit and that faith." There is a critical step between judgment and glorification and that step is "attaining heaven."

Note well that Piper elsewhere speaks of glorification as a result of attaining heaven only after final salvation is secured at the Last Judgment: "Jesus transforms us so that we really begin to love like he does so that we move toward perfection that we finally obtain in heaven" (Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006) 160). When we obtain heaven, "we are going to receive a great inheritance, including our own glorification" (Piper, Children, Heirs and Fellow Sufferers, 2002). To Piper, the holiness without which no one will see the Lord is not "glorification" but "love, the fruit of faith." To attain heaven one must first be acquitted in judgment, and to be acquitted in judgment—justified—one must have works.

Piper thus speaks of personal holiness as a "validating transformation" that will serve as evidence of true faith at the last judgment so that we can attain heaven, and he speaks of final glorification as the inheritance we receive upon attaining heaven after surviving that final judgment. Piper is speaking of, and has been speaking of, a final acquittal in judgment as a prerequisite to attaining heaven, which itself is a prerequisite to final glorification.

Yes, by "final salvation," Piper means "final justification," and "final justification" to Piper means "final salvation from future judgment."

As evidence, simply read Piper's own words. He speaks again and again of faith and works being necessary to be acquitted in the final judgment:

Final salvation from future judgment is conditional. It will not happen apart from our persevering faith. ... "salvation" refers to our future deliverance from the wrath of God at the judgment and entrance into eternal life. (Piper, John, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Piper, John, Desiring God, Multnomah Publishers, 1996) 42) (emphasis added)

[Jesus] says that on the day of judgment he really will reject people because they are "workers of lawlessness." "Then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matt. 7:23). He says people will “go away into eternal punishment” because they really failed to love their fellow believers: “As you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me” (Matt. 25:45-46). There is no doubt that Jesus saw some measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation. (John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World, 160). (emphasis added)

It is not accidental that the title of this book has a double meaning. The Future of Justification draws attention not only to where the doctrine itself may be going, but also to the critical importance of God’s future act of judgment when our justification will be confirmed. How will our obedience function in that Day? (Piper, The Future of Justification, 183-4). (emphasis added)

Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation. (Christianity Today, June 2009: 35-37) (emphasis added)

In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith. (Piper, Does God Really Save us by Faith Alone? (Desiring God, September 25, 2017) (emphasis added)

The fact is that in his own words, Piper sees "future justification" and "final salvation" as the same thing, and future justification is by faith and works.

The reader is invited to consider, as well, the fact that the summary on Piper provided from Christianity Today—in which future justification and future salvation are equated—was reviewed and confirmed by Piper himself as an accurate summary of what he was trying to say. Trevin Wax, who compiled the summary confirms this: "Please note that both John Piper and N.T. Wright looked over my work and made some slight revisions regarding their respective summaries" (Wax, Trevin, Piper vs. Wright on Justification: A Layman's Guide, June 26, 2009).

Piper's statements on final justification—final salvation from the wrath of God at the last judgment—were in response to Wright's teaching on final justification in a debate on the meaning of justification. To propose that Piper really was talking about "final glorification"—something not even mentioned in the entirety of Piper's The Future of Justification—is an unhelpful diversion that obscures the actual point Piper was making about "Wright’s view of justification  ... in the present and at the end" (Piper, The Future of Justification, 103). How are we justified at the very end? By faith and by works, according to Piper.

Objection 3: we should evaluate Piper based on decades of faithful gospel preaching

Several critics considered our criticism of Piper uncharitable because we were taking Piper's unclear teachings on justification and using them to interpret his clear teaching on justification. Instead we should consider the fact that Piper has taught clearly for decades on justification and salvation. This objection, however, assumes that Piper has taught consistently and clearly on justification until now. The fact is, Piper has wavered between several different and contradictory positions on justification, which makes it exceedingly difficult to determine which teachings of Piper are the "clear" ones, and which are the "unclear ones."

In order to understand just how unclear Piper has been over the span of his career, we provide below a survey of his thinking on justification from 1985 through 2017.

Piper through the Years

Piper received his Master of Divinity at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California (1968-1971) where he studied under Daniel Fuller and discovered the teachings of Jonathan Edwards. Piper was called to become the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1980 in which capacity he served until 2013.

It is worth noting that in his formative years, Piper was greatly influenced by Daniel Fuller who came under the displeasure of O. Palmer Robertson because of his problematic formulations on justification:

In substitution for the biblically clear distinction between the legally imputed righteousness of justification and the vitally infused righteousness of sanctification, [Daniel] Fuller opts for the flexible meanings that may be introduced into the phrase, the “obedience of faith.” Unwittingly it seems, Fuller plays on an ambiguity inherent in the phrase. When he speaks of “salvation” by the “obedience of faith,” does he mean

(1) faith as attaching to Christ altogether? (2) the obedient actions arising from faith? (3) faith considered in itself as an act of obedience?

Because of the ambiguity inherent in the phrase, Fuller may slide between its various meanings … meaning sometimes the obedience which is faith and meaning at other times the obedient actions done in faith. In other words, man is saved by doing, by keeping the revelatory law of Moses, which is the law of faith. … Fuller … leaves himself open to being understood as commending works of faith (the “obedience of faith”) as the way of justification.” (O. Palmer Robertson, Presbuterion, 1981, vol. 8, issue 1, Daniel Fuller's Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum?, A Review Article, 84-91)

Robertson's point is borne out by Fuller's work, The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity (Zondervan, 1992). Fuller built his view of justification around Jonathan Edwards' rejection of Calvin. While Edwards insisted on justification by faith alone, he struggled to grasp how a sinner could be initially justified by faith alone when the verdict on his final justification was still pending, awaiting the outcome of his perseverance. Edwards (and Fuller following) concluded that we are not actually saved by faith alone, but rather are "saved by perseverance." Thus, in the initial verdict of justification, God "has respect to" the eventual perseverance of the sinner:

"But [contrary to Calvin] we are really saved by perseverance… For, though a sinner is justified in his first act of faith; yet even then, in that act of justification, God has respect to perseverance as being virtually [implied] in the first act." (Fuller, Daniel, The Unity of the Bible (Zondervan, 1992) 296-298 (citing Edwards))

This is problematic. Our view on justification is that the righteousness God contemplates in His verdict of justification is Christ's righteousness alone, imputed to us by faith alone. The Westminster Confession insists that God justifies believers "not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, ... nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness," not even their perseverance (Westminster Confession of Faith, 11.1). Edward's problematic formulation has God contemplating the sinner's perseverance in His verdict of justification, focusing on the "thing wrought in them."

W. Robert Godfrey correctly recognized that Fuller had indeed proposed a different view of justification, and therefore a different gospel:

The clearest implication of Fuller’s work has to do with the instrumental cause of justification. What is implicit in his book is made explicit in his interactions with Robertson’s work where he states that faith and works are the instrumental cause of justification. (Godfrey, W. Robert, O. Palmer Robertson, Presbuterion, 1983, 9.1, Back to Basics, 80-81).

Godfrey's concern, too, had been borne out in Fuller's book. Let the reader keep in mind that Piper's view on justification blossomed in the same sun and soil as Fuller's. As Piper himself later acknowledged, "the plants of my pondering have grown" in Fuller's garden. As we shall see, starting with Fuller's ambiguous meaning of "obedience of faith," Piper has wavered throughout his ministry between multiple positions, and is still even now trying to find his voice on justification. Piper's apple did not fall far from Fuller's tree, and Robertson and Godfrey could write the same  today of Piper as they did of Fuller.

1985: Bethlehem Baptist Church Staff: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism

We provide the following statement to show where Piper was early in his teaching ministry. This is five years after accepting the call to pastor Bethlehem Baptist. Piper is entrenched in the justification construct Robertson and Godfrey found so disconcerting in Fuller. Piper, puzzled over how God can provide an initial verdict of justification before the sinner has even shown that he will persevere, attempts in this statement to reconcile the difficulty:

God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act. ... God does not wait to the end of our lives in order to declare us righteous.  ... Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. ...[W]e are justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith. (emphasis added)

That difficulty will continue to arise in Piper as he wrestles with the righteousness God contemplates in the initial and final justification of the believer.

1995: The Sinner is Justified by Faith in His Future Moral Improvement

It is now 1995 and Piper is still advancing Fuller's constructs on justification. While Piper does not completely agree with Fuller on everything, he nonetheless formulated his own view of justification based on the latent ambiguity in Fuller's "obedience of faith," the very construct Robertson found so reprehensible:

Daniel Fuller’s vision of the Christian life as an “obedience of faith” is the garden in which the plants of my pondering have grown. Almost three decades of dialogue on the issues in this book have left a deep imprint. … His major work, The Unity of the Bible, is the explanatory background to most of what I write. (Piper, Future Grace (1995) 7)

For Piper, “[f]aith is primarily future oriented” (Piper, Future Grace, 13), which necessarily causes the sinner to focus primarily on his future transformation rather than on the past work Christ has already accomplished for him. We see Fuller's influence as Piper explains his meaning: "future grace" is the Holy Spirit's moral transformation in the believer, and the believer is justified by faith in that moral transformation:

“…the heart-strengthening power that comes from the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 3:16) is virtually the same as what I mean by future grace.” (Piper, Future Grace (Multnomah, 1995) 69).

“And this faith in future grace is the faith through which we are justified.” (Piper, Future Grace, 191).

Thus, to Piper, both God and the sinner have the sinner's future moral improvement in mind in justification. God contemplates the sinner's future improvement—the sinner believing, and God foreseeing—that the sinner will improve over time. Take Piper's own words from Future Grace, and we have exactly what Robertson feared in Fuller: the sinner is justified by God's knowledge of, and the sinners confidence in, his future moral improvement, "for the faith through which we are justified" is faith in "the heart-strengthening power that comes from the Holy Spirit."

1999: Does James Contradict Paul?

In his 1999 sermon on James and Paul, Piper struggled to reconcile the two apostles, and could only resolve the tension by having Paul speak of the initial moment of justification at the beginning of the Christian life, and having James speak of maintaining an ongoing and final right standing with God through faith and works:

So when Paul renounces "justification by works" he renounces the view that anything we do along with faith is credited to us as righteousness. Only faith obtains the verdict, not guilty, when we become Christians. Works of any kind are not acceptable in the moment of initial justification. ... For James, "justification by works" (which he accepts) means "maintaining a right standing with God by faith along with the necessary evidence of faith, namely, the works of love. (Piper, John, Does James Contradict Paul?, August 8, 1999)

Piper repeats the construct multiple times, insisting that Paul is speaking only about justification by faith alone in initial justification: "That's how we get started in the Christian life - justified by faith alone."  James, on the other hand, is talking about how "one maintain[s] an ongoing and final right standing with God." (Piper, John, Does James Contradict Paul?, sermon audio, 28:26-34:26).

At the end of the sermon, Piper finally commends an entirely new construct to his listeners to resolve the difficulty: "justification by dependence alone on Christ alone." Piper defined "dependence" as faith at the beginning of the Christian walk, and defined "dependence" as faith and works during the middle and end of the Christian walk. Here, in an attempt to clarify, he simply muddied the water in order to preserve a Reformational sola, but in reality imported works into final justification (Piper, John, Does James Contradict Paul? ,sermon audio, 35:30-35:50).

Like his mentor Fuller, Piper thus repeatedly "leaves himself open to being understood as commending works of faith (the “obedience of faith”) as the way of justification." In fact, this 1999 sermon was simply a recapitulation of Fuller's 19th chapter of The Unity of the Bible, Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity, "Abraham's Persevering Faith" (281-304). It is important to establish this in Piper's timeline to show that in 1999, Piper was still advocating a view on justification that the reformed community found reprehensible.

2002: Counted Righteous in Christ

Something apparently had happened between 1999 and 2002. During that time, Piper wrote Counted Righteous in Christ to defend "the historic Protestant view of the relationship between faith and obedience so that the two are not conflated in the instrumentality of justification." A laudable concern, indeed, since his own mentor had conflated them, and he had as well. Gone from his writing was the ambiguous language of justification by "dependence alone on Christ alone." Absent, too, was the talk about how justification at the "beginning of the Christian life is by faith alone" but "maintaining a right standing with God" is "by faith along with ... works of love."

Had Piper finally become Protestant? Perhaps even Reformed? While reformed teachers were cheering his new work, Piper's mentor, Daniel Fuller, was deeply disappointed that he had wandered so far from the fold. "[I]s not such talk dangerous?" Fuller asked. In Fuller's eyes, Piper had stumbled into the Galatian heresy (Fuller, Daniel, Reformation & Revival Journal (vol 12, no. 4, Fall 2003, "Another Reply to Counted Righteous in Christ" 115-120).

The plants of Piper's pondering had apparently left Fuller's garden at last. Let the reader note that until he published Counted Righteous in Christ, Piper's formulations on justification did not elicit Fuller's disapproval. From his seminary years until the turn of the millennium, Piper still agreed with Fuller's erroneous construct on justification, and that status quo remained until Piper finally decided to defend "the historic Protestant view" instead of what Fuller had taught him. But the plant of Piper's pondering would soon return to its roots.

2006: What Jesus Demands from the World

Piper's 2006 work was written to instruct Christians on the need to obey Jesus' commands (Piper, John, What Jesus Demands from the World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books (2006) 17). We agree that Christians are to obey Jesus. One rather disconcerting observation, however, is found in Demand #21, in which Piper explains that Jesus will send some believers to hell "because they really failed to love their fellow believers." We cited this same example above to show that Piper means "final justification" when he speaks of "final salvation." We return to it now to demonstrate that Piper's wavering on justification is due partly to Fuller's tutelage, and partly to his own confusion.

To arrive at his conclusion that Jesus will send some believers to hell, Piper combines Matthew 7:23 "depart from me, ye that work iniquity” and Matthew 25:41-46, "Depart from me, ye cursed ... Inasmuch as ye did it not...". Piper thus shows that Jesus will send some people "'away into eternal punishment' because they really failed to love their fellow believers" (Piper, Demands, 160). The two passages say nothing of the sort.

Piper's confusion is found in his assumption that the rejected persons in each passage—"Depart from me" (Matthew 7:23, 25:41)—are "fellowbelievers" with the children of God. Yet both passages actually portray them as unbelievers. In Matthew 7:23, those who are sent away from Him are "false prophets," "ravening wolves" dressed "in sheep’s clothing" (Matthew 7:15). In Mathew 25:41, those who are sent away from Him are goats, rather than sheep. As Christ explained in John 10:26, "ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep." Only sheep believe. The people Jesus sends away to damnation are unbelieving wolves and goats. To arrive at his conclusion that Jesus will send some believers to hell, therefore, Piper had first to read "believers" into "wolves" and "goats," something completely foreign to the text.

Compounding his confusion, Piper then attempted to justify his reading of Matthew 7 and Matthew 25 by appealing to Matthew 12. In doing so, Piper interpreted Jesus' reference to faith as a reference to works, and on that basis concluded that Christians will be justified by works at the last day. Piper explained his rendering of Matthew 7 and 25, in this footnote:

Though it may cause confusion, it is possible to use the word “justify” to describe how the fruit of good behavior works in the day of judgment. The fruits can “justify” us in the sense of proving that we are believers and belong to Jesus and have a right standing with God in him. That is how I understand Matthew 12:37, “By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Piper, Demands, 161n (emphasis added))

Here Piper has read "works" into "words," completely foreign to the text. As we showed in our previous article, Jesus' reference to people being justified or condemned by their "words" on the last day was a reference to being justified by faith or condemned for unbelief, not judged by their "works." He was referring to the words of faith expressed by the Gentiles of Galilee ("Is not this the son of David?" (Matthew 12:23)) in contrast with the unbelieving words of the Pharisees ("This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils" (Matthew 12:24)).

To illustrate His point that people will either be justified or condemned by their words, Jesus gave two examples of people being justified by their words on the Last Day: the Ninevites who believed the preaching of Jonah (Matthew 12:41, Jonah 3:5), and the Queen of Sheba who believed the teaching of Solomon (Matthew 12:42, 1 Kings 10:9). Both would rise in judgment with this generation, and condemn it. The Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba had spoken words of faith upon the hearing of God's word, and this present generation had spoken words of unbelief, "for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Matthew 12:34). Jesus thus taught that we would be acquitted on the Last Day by the same righteousness we received when we first believed—just like the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba. Words here referred to "faith" or "unbelief." They do not refer to "works." To arrive at his conclusion that "the fruit of good behavior" justifies us "in the day of judgment" Piper erroneously substituted "the fruit of good behavior" for "words" and concluded that believers must be in some sense justified by their works of love on the Last Day.

Our concern with Piper's 2006 position is twofold. First, in his analysis of the role of works in justification on the Last Day, he distorted three separate passages from Jesus to get to his point. Second, it shows that the "plant of his pondering" never really left Fuller's "garden." He was still right where he was in 1999 when he explained repeatedly that initial justification is by faith alone, but it is our duty to maintain our right standing with God through works.

Piper's position in 2006 was not dissimilar to that of N. T. Wright, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St Andrews and proponent of the controversial New Perspective on Paul. The year after What Jesus Demands from the World, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) rejected Wright's formulations on the same grounds that Robertson and Godfrey had rejected Fuller's:

It would appear that Wright is inconsistent when it comes to his means for receiving present and future justification. In the present, Wright argues that the badge of justification is faith alone and that no works are involved in this (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 132). However, in reference to “final” justification, Wright argues that it is “on the basis of the whole life led.” But this is a contradiction: how can one be assured of “final justification,” if the final verdict is based on the whole life led (i.e. faith plus faithfulness/works)? Is there such a case as a person receiving present justification and not final justification?These inconsistencies seem to shift the means for receiving justification to works, since the only difference between one who receives present justification from one who receives final justification is that the latter works. (34th PCA General Assembly, Report of ad interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective and Auburn Avenue Theology (2007) 2228n)

We would ask Piper the same questions because of his own inconsistencies. Is there such a case as a person receiving present justification and not maintaining right standing with God through good works? Piper assures us that that could never happen: "None who is located by faith in God’s invincible favor will fail to have all that is necessary to demonstrate this in life" (Piper, Demands, 210). If so, then in what way does Jesus "really" send some of our "fellow believers" to hell on the Last Day?

2007: The Future of Justification

In his critique of N. T. Wright, Piper ironically criticized him for his ambiguous use of "the obedience of faith," the very thing for which Robertson had critiqued Fuller. Piper wrote,

Adding to the ambiguity of how our works function in justification is Wright’s apparent conflation of “faith,” on the one hand, and “faithfulness” (or faithful obedience), on the other hand. ... The issue is whether justification by faith really means justification by works of any kind, whether provided by God or man. That is the issue, and Wright again leaves us with the impression that human transformation and Spirit wrought acts of obedience are included in the term “faith” when he speaks of present justification being by faith alone. (Piper, The Future of Justification, 130-131).

We remind the reader that only eight years earlier, in his attempt to harmonize James and Paul, Piper was advocating for "justification by dependence alone," as noted above, explaining that our initial right standing with God is by faith alone, but our ongoing and final right standing with God is maintained by both faith and works. Both were collapsed into the single construct, "dependence alone." Like Wright, Piper was including "Spirit wrought acts of obedience" in the term "dependence," holding to justification by "dependence alone" (meaning faith alone) at the beginning of the Christian life, and justification by "dependence alone" (meaning faith and works of love) throughout the life of the believer. Piper too, had been "adding to the ambiguity of how our works function in justification" less than a decade earlier.

2009: Piper, meet Doug Wilson. Doug Wilson, meet John Piper

Back in 2003, Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, suddenly began "to suspect that what he has believed for many years may actually be a truncated form of the truth, particularly when the subject concerns the gospel and salvation" (Wilson, Douglas, “The Objectivity of the Covenant,” Credenda/Agenda, volume 15, issue 1, p. 4, 2003). Wilson had recently bought into the controversial Federal Vision theology and appeared to be expressing the gospel in terms of justification by faithfulness alone, instead of by faith alone, the very construct for which Piper had criticized Wright in The Future of Justification. The Federal Vision would eventually be judged erroneous at the 34th PCA General Assembly (2007) mentioned above. The PCA report on Federal Vision expressed concern that its adherents were creating confusion about the gospel by combining justification and sanctification together:

[T]he way Federal Vision proponents collapse the distinct benefits of this mediation (i.e. justification, adoption, sanctification) into “union with Christ” creates significant confusion. Similarly, Federal Vision’s appeal to “the biblical usage” of justification as a way to collapse forensic and transformative categories also confuses doctrines that our Standards rightly distinguish (i.e., justification and sanctification). (2225-2225)

In 2009, John Piper invited Douglas Wilson to speak at the annual Desiring God Conference because he was deeply "persuaded that Doug Wilson gets the gospel right" (John Piper, Why So Many Presbyterian Speakers This Year). Wilson's gospel is "very complicated," Piper conceded, but it is not "another gospel," and he just "gets a bad wrap from a lot of PCA guys who aren't careful about the way they think" (John Piper on Doug Wilson). [Disclosure: this writer is a member in a PCA church]. In the same discussion, Piper insisted that, for all of his criticism of him, "I don't think N. T. Wright preaches a false gospel, either. I think N. T. Wright preaches a very confusing gospel."

What is so remarkable and ironic about Piper's embrace of Wilson is that Wilson was drifting away from "the [ostensibly truncated] historic Protestant view of the relationship between faith and obedience" by conflating faith and obedience in the instrumentality of justification, at precisely the time that Piper felt compelled to distance himself from Fuller's gospel and write Counted Righteous in Christ to defend "the historic Protestant view of the relationship between faith and obedience so that the two are not conflated in the instrumentality of justification." And yet, in 2009, Piper returned to his Fullerian roots and concluded that Wilson had actually gotten the gospel right, even though he was expressing it in the same terms as Fuller and Wright—men from whom Piper had ostensibly been distancing himself since 2002.

2012: Still fine-tuning his understanding of justification

In 2012 Piper revised Future Grace, acknowledging exactly what we have been highlighting in this timeline: the inconsistent, wavering announcement of justification by [something] alone, and Future Grace's imperative of forward looking faith. Because of the latent ambiguities in his constructs on justification in the 1995 edition, and (we believe) because of the uncertain trumpet he had sounded over the years, Piper felt compelled to clarify his teaching once more:

In the never-ending question of how Christians, who are counted righteous in Christ by faith alone, should nevertheless pursue righteousness, this book is my answer. It is my fullest attempt to explain why the faith that justifies also sanctifies, without mingling or confusing those two glorious works of God.

Since publishing the first edition of Future Grace in 1995, I have walked through extended controversies surrounding the nature, ground, and instrument of justification. These controversies have sharpened my own grasp of what the Bible teaches. Some of that sharpening is captured in Counted Righteous in Christ (Crossway, 2002), The Future of Justification (Crossway, 2007), and Finally Alive (Christian Focus, 2007). Some people have felt tensions between the first edition of Future Grace and the message of those books. I hope that this revised edition will remove those tensions. (Piper, John, Future Grace, Preface to the 2012 edition (Multnomah, 2012)).

We are not convinced, however, that Future Grace can actually be corrected to fix the problem of "mingling or confusing" justification and sanctification. Just as Piper's 1999 sermon on James and Paul showed that he was still at that time in Fuller's garden, Future Grace, written four years prior, was based entirely on chapter 18 of The Unity of the Bible in which Fuller attempted to work out the implications of "faith’s futuristic orientation" and Edward's view that the sinner's perseverance is contemplated by God in His verdict of justification. We do not believe that Piper can truly extract himself from Fuller's garden while consuming the fruit that grows there. For all of his protestations, shifting positions and subsequent clarifications, Piper appears only briefly to have departed from his Fullerian roots circa 2001, and has long since returned to them.

2013: Bethlehem Baptist Church updates What we believe about the five points of Calvinism

In 2013, Piper updated his church's 1985 position on Calvinism. Correcting some of the tensions that had existed in previous expressions of justification, just as he did the previous year with Future Grace. He deleted "God justifies us [with] a view to all subsequent acts of faith," and simply stated,

God justifies us completely through the first genuine act of saving faith, but this is the sort of faith that perseveres and bears fruit in the “obedience of faith.”

Also, instead of God justifying us because He can see in our first act of faith "a life of faith with its inevitable obedience," the focus was shifted now to Christ's righteousness: "The first time we believe in Jesus we are united to Christ. In union with him, his righteousness is counted as ours, at that moment." Nevertheless, the statement on obedience being required for final salvation remained: "Obedience, evidencing inner renewal from God, is necessary for final salvation."

2017: Does God Really Save us by Faith Alone?

In 2017, Piper showed that although he was trying to resolve the tensions present in his previous formulations on justification, the ambiguous construct Robertson criticized in Fuller was still present in his thinking: "In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith." As Piper expressed back in 1995, "Final salvation" is salvation "from future judgment," and in 2009, "Future justification is ... This final judgment." He is still advancing a double justification doctrine—and initial justification by faith alone, and a final justification by faith plus works.

Conclusion

In The Future of Justification, Piper recalled that Richard Gaffin had spoken at the Pastors Conference in Monroe, Louisiana in 2005 (the namesake of the Monroe Doctrine and by some reckoning the origins of the Federal Vision). At the Pastors Conference, Gaffin had expressed what Piper believed, upon further study, to be "the true biblical understanding of the function of works in the final judgment" (Piper, The Future of Justification,115-16).

In the 1970s, throughout the Westminster Theological Seminary justification controversy surrounding the teachings of Norman Shepherd, Gaffin was Shepherd's ardent defender. At the heart of the controversy was Shepherd's view of the role of works in the justification of the believer, and Gaffin had sided with Shepherd. Shepherd's views were eventually  determined to be out of accord with the Westminster Confession and he was dismissed from the seminary in 1982. We provide here three of Shepherd's theses that were so offensive to the reformed community:

Thesis 21: The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14).

Thesis 22: The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer’s justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14).

Thesis 23: Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5; 10; 1John 3:13; 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9). (from Thirty-four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works, November 18, 1978.)

After an extensive review of Piper's teachings on justification, we cannot see how Piper's current views differ in any substantive way from Shepherd's offensive theses on justification. Thus, we stand by our original assessment of Piper's views on "final salvation" and "final justification."

We extend two closing comments for the consideration of our readers on this controversial issue. First, one of our critics agreed that even in a charitable reading of Piper, his language could still be understood to be problematic. We appreciate that even some who disagreed with us understood that it was possible that we were reading Piper charitably.

Second, some critics have suggested that we have engaged in controversy for the sake of controversy. Although, from our perspective, we are zealous to maintain the purity of the church, we nevertheless understand that we should as zealously strive to maintain its peace. We are happy for the reminder to pursue both, and concede that we are not immune to the temptation to pursue controversy for its own sake.

That said, we offer to our critics a matter for reflection: those who seek the peace of the church are just as susceptible to the opposite temptation to avoid controversy for the sake of avoiding controversy. As we examine the history of the justification controversy—it now spans two generations of theologians—we have seen the damage that is propagated when error is tolerated in order to maintain the peace of the church.

To that end, we remind our readers that this controversy did not start with Piper's 2017 article. It is by no means a new controversy. It started in 1970s when the faculty of Westminster failed to respond timely to Shepherd's errors and allowed them too long to fester within its walls. The controversy has long since metastasized and we are now dealing with the second generation of the fruit it has borne.

The history of this long standing controversy may be explored profitably starting with O. Palmer Robertson's essay, "The Current Justification Controversy." And while Piper has on occasion expressed his disagreement with the Roman Catholic view of justification, after examining his decades of attempts to express the doctrine, we are not entirely sure that Piper really understands the essence of the Roman Catholic view, much less the implications of the justification controversy itself.

To all of our readers—to those who disagree, and to those who do not—enjoy October 31, 2017 tomorrow, the 500th anniversary of the birth of the  Protestant Reformation.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Written By Tim Shaughnessy and Timothy F. Kauffman

Introduction

In every generation there arise men from within the church who stumble into the Roman Catholic view of justification, and having stumbled, then attempt to import that Roman Catholic error into the Church of God so that the children of God might stumble with them. John Piper is just the latest in a long line of such men, and he will not be the last. Remarkably, on the eve of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, Piper attempts to show that neither the Scriptures nor the Reformers held to final justification by faith alone apart from works. On September 25^th, 2017, Piper published an article entitled Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone? In the article, he maintains that initial justification is by faith alone, but introduces a concept that is completely foreign to the Bible: the concept of “final salvation” on the basis of our works and obedience. He writes,

In justification, faith receives a finished work of Christ performed outside of us and counted as ours — imputed to us. … In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith.[i]

In Piper’s new view of final salvation, he makes a distinction between justification and salvation in which we are justified by faith alone apart from works at the beginning, but we are saved by faith plus works at the end. He writes,

These works of faith, and this obedience of faith, these fruits of the Spirit that come by faith, are necessary for our final salvation. No holiness, no heaven (Hebrews 12:14). So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone.

Essential to the Christian life and necessary for final salvation is the killing of sin (Romans 8:13) and the pursuit of holiness (Hebrews 12:14).[ii]

Before we address Piper’s statements in detail, it is important to establish that when Piper says, “final salvation,” he means “final justification” or “future justification,” as evidenced by his summary of his position in the “Justification Debate” with N. T. Wright in 2009. Piper said,

"Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation." (Piper, John, and N.T. Wright. “The Justification Debate: A Primer.” Christianity Today June 2009: 35-37 (emphasis added))

We must, therefore, caution those who would otherwise be prone to vagueness and ambiguity when responding to such serious doctrinal error. It is never helpful to duck and dodge or hem and haw over issues concerning the gospel. Paul asks the question, “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Corinthians 14:8).[iii] When the gospel is at stake we must take to the battlefield to defend it, but who will get ready for battle if we give an indistinct sound. Therefore, it is necessary that we be emphatically clear in our response lest we give an indistinct sound with respect to this gospel issue.

Final Judgment, Justification & Salvation

Let’s first consider what Piper says about final judgment, final justification and final salvation. Piper has put forth the notion of a “final justification” or a “final salvation at the last judgment [in which] faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith.” He has further stated that “works of faith,” and “obedience of faith… are necessary for our final salvation.” Piper is correct about there being a final judgment which is a judgment of works. Dr. Robert Reymond writes,

Now it cannot be denied that the Scriptures uniformly represent the final judgement as a judgement of works. (Ps. 62:12; Eccles. 12:14; Matt. 16:27; 25:31-46; John 5:29; Rom. 2:5-10; 1 Cor. 3:13, 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 6:7-9; 1 Pet. 1:17; see also Westminster Confession of Faith, XXXIII/i) and that they hold forth the promise of rewards for faithful living (Exod. 20:5-6; Prov. 13:13; 25:21-22; Matt. 5:12; 6:1, 2, 4, 16, 18, 20; 10:41; 19:29; Luke 6:37-38; Col. 3:23-24; 2 Tim. 4:7-8: Heb. 11:26).[iv]

But while Piper is correct about there being a final judgment of works he is wrong to suggest that it has anything to do with our “future justification” or our “final salvation.” Rather, the works by which the believer is to be judged are merely the basis for rewards. John Murray writes,

We must maintain… justification complete and irrevocable by grace through faith and apart from works, and at the same time, future reward according to works. In reference to these two doctrines it is important to observe the following: (i) This future reward is not justification and contributes nothing to that which constitutes justification. (ii) This future reward is not salvation. Salvation is by grace and it is not as a reward for works that we are saved.[v]

In the Biblical view, this final judgement of works has absolutely nothing to do with our justification or our salvation. The concept of a future justification or a final salvation that is dependent upon our works or obedience is completely foreign to the Bible and the Protestant tradition, but it is not foreign to Roman Catholicism. In Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics Ron Rhodes writes,

Certainly, Catholics deny that their Church teaches a works salvation. They will talk about how salvation is impossible apart from the grace of God. But though things start out by grace in the Roman Catholic system of salvation…works do indeed get mixed into the picture. By virtue of the fact that a life of meritorious works is necessary to gain final salvation, it is clear that in reality, the Roman Catholic view of salvation is works-oriented. Salvation may involve grace and faith, but it is not by grace alone (sola gratia) or by faith alone (sola fide).[vi]

As we will see upon further examination of Piper, Rhodes’ assessment of Roman Catholicism— “that a life of meritorious works is necessary to gain final salvation”—is an adequate rebuttal of Piper, as well. What Piper writes is strikingly and eerily similar to what Ron Rhodes rightly identified as the Roman Catholic works-oriented system of salvation. He would talk about how salvation is impossible apart from the grace of God. But though things start out by grace in Pipers system of salvation… works do indeed get mixed into the picture. In Piper’s view, works are necessary to gain "final salvation" and works will be necessary for our “future justification.” In his view, future justification or final salvation may involve grace and faith, but they are not by grace alone (sola gratia) or by faith alone (sola fide). For Piper to say that “these works of faith, and this obedience of faith… are necessary for final salvation” is to say that works and obedience are necessary for justification and salvation. This is pure Romanism at its heart and it directly contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9 which reads, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Again, Dr. Reymond writes, “’[Salvation] is of faith, [apart from works], in order that it may be according to grace’ (Rom. 4:16). If God were to permit the intrusion of human works into the acquisition of salvation to any degree, salvation could not be by grace alone.”[vii]

Alien vs. Native Righteousness

When Piper speaks of “final salvation,” he is referring to a “future justification” that is based on faith plus works, a righteousness that is our own, not Christ’s. It is a justification based on our own personal moral improvement. It is important to point that out because in the foreword to Thomas Schreiner’s book Faith Alone—The Doctrine of Justification: What the Reformers Taught…and Why It Still Matters (The Five Solas Series), published on September 15, 2015, Piper appears to deny that our personal righteousness is the required for “justification.”:

Such faith always “works by love” and produces the “obedience of faith.” And that obedience— imperfect as it is till the day we die—is not the “basis of justification, but… a necessary evidence and fruit of justification.” In this sense, love and obedience—inherent righteousness—is “required of believers, but not for justification”—that is, required for heaven, not for entering a right-standing with God.[viii]

In reality, Piper is only denying that personal righteousness is required for initial justification. Regarding our future justification, Piper explicitly says that “obedience—inherent righteousness,” is required of believers for heaven, and is, in fact, a righteousness that is considered in our final justification. But Jesus taught that we are justified and saved, wholly and completely at the end by the same righteousness we possessed at the beginning. He did not teach an initial justification that is comprised of an alien righteousness plus a final justification based on a native righteousness developed over time through personal sanctification.

When we examine Christ’s admonition that “in the day of judgment,” the individual will be either justified or condemned “by thy words” (Matthew 12:36-37), we find that He gave two very remarkable illustrations about what He meant: the Ninevites (Matthew 12:41) and the Queen of Sheba (Matthew 12:42). Both would face “judgment with this generation” but would be justified based on their words, whereas the men of “this generation” would be condemned based on theirs. The key to understanding the passage is to examine which words Jesus contemplates in the acquittal of the Queen and the Ninevites, and He actually tells us which words they are: the words they spoke from the heart upon their first hearing and believing of the Word of God, for the Ninevites “repented at the preaching of Jonas” and the Queen of Sheba believed “the wisdom of Solomon.” “[T]he people of Nineveh believed God” upon the preaching of Jonah (Jonah 3:5) and the Queen of Sheba exclaimed, “It was a true report that I heard” (1 Kings 10:6).

When Jesus says that the believer will be justified “by thy words” on the day of judgment, the two examples He gives are the words spoken by the Queen of Sheba and by the Ninevites at the moment they first believed, and their final justification is based on the very same righteousness they possessed at the moment they first believed. Notably, Christ explained this truth at the same time He taught that a man speaks “out of the abundance of the heart” (Matthew 12:34) and also admonished the Pharisees that the only sign they would receive is the sign of Jonas, for “so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). Here Jesus has taught to us the very concept Paul would one day restate in his Epistle to the Romans:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 10:9-11)

The Queen of the Sheba and the Ninevites will be justified by their words on the last day, and those words were the overflow of the faith of their hearts—a faith that was lacking in the Pharisees.

Such men as Piper often appeal to the famous passage in which the sheep are separated from the goats in Matthew 25, desiring by the recitation of the believer’s works to prove final justification (see, for example, Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006) 276). The problem with such an appeal to Matthew 25 for final justification based on works is that the sheep and goats are separated into two groups before anyone’s works are evaluated. In other words, they are separated into two groups based on whether they are sheep or goats. Since sheep are defined as those who believe (John 10:16,26), the scene of judgment in Matthew 25:31-33 actually has the sheep separated based on faith, not works, which is to say that the sheep were separated based on a righteousness apart from works. Neither the sheep nor the Shepherd has entertained works in the separation of “His sheep” from “the goats.” Even when the works of the sheep are recited, the sheep are unaware of them and clearly had not anticipated a discussion about their works, i.e., “when saw we thee …? … when saw we thee …? … when saw we thee?” (Matthew 25:37-39). The sheep had arrived at the throne of judgment without their own personal holiness or moral improvement in mind.

The precise language of Matthew 12 and 25 is worth examining for these reasons. Whereas in Matthew 12, we have the concept of final justification on the Last Day, Jesus curiously omits works in His discussion of the verdict. Faith is what He has in mind. In Matthew 25, we have the concept of works being contemplated on the Last Day, but we do not find those works contemplated in the separation of the sheep from the goats, for sheep are separated based on faith before works are contemplated, and further, the sheep did not have their works in mind. It is a curious reality to discover that when Jesus does mention justification on the last day (Matthew 12), He leaves out works. When He mentions works (Matthew 25), He mentions them only after the sheep have already been separated based on righteousness apart from works, and the sheep had not arrived expecting to offer their works in exchange for eternal life. In both chapters of Matthew, it is clear that on the Last Day, the sheep will be set apart based on faith alone apart from works, which is exactly what the sheep are expecting.

Our point in highlighting these facts is to show what is missing in the Gospel of Jesus and Paul. What is missing is Piper’s Roman Catholic construct that with the heart man believeth unto initial righteousness and then by the accumulated holiness of works the man arriveth at the judgment seat to determine whether his personal holiness is sufficient to merit eternal life, and then entereth into final salvation that he has earned by his works. In other words, Piper has now adopted a different gospel than the one Jesus taught to Paul.

Not only is Piper’s position heresy; it is damnable heresy. It is, in fact, the Roman Catholic system of salvation by works through the gradual accumulation of the merit of personal holiness. But according to Jesus, there is no distinction to be made between one being justified and being saved, and there is no difference between the righteousness contemplated when we first believed and righteousness by which we will be acquitted on the last day. It is all, and only, Jesus’ righteousness.

Works That Follow Justification by Faith

To be sure, the works that Piper is referring to are post-justification works which every Christian ought to exhibit to some extent. The problem, however, is that Piper says these post-justification works are necessary for salvation or necessary in order to attain heaven. Again, it is highly revealing to note the consistency of Piper’s theology in what he wrote two years prior in the foreword to Thomas Schreiner’s book,

"The stunning Christian answer is: sola fide—faith alone. But be sure you hear this carefully and precisely: He says right with God by faith alone, not attain heaven by faith alone. There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions."[ix]

We should take notice of the consistency of Piper's statements over the years. What he recently wrote was not simply a slip of the pen. Here he makes the distinction between being right with God and entering into heaven. He states there are “other conditions,” besides faith, that one must meet in order to attain heaven. In making his distinction he presents faith as a “condition” we meet. In Reformed orthodoxy however, faith is not a condition we must meet to receive the righteousness of Christ. We are not declared righteous because we believe. Instead, faith is the instrumental cause of justification that God uses as the means to apply or impute Christ's righteousness to us. Through faith alone we appropriate Christ and his righteousness which is why the Larger Catechism provides the following answer to question 73. “How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?”

"Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it (Gal. 3:11; Rom. 3:28), nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification (Rom. 4:5; Rom 10:10); but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness (John 1:12; Phil 3:9; Gal 2:16)."

Not only does Piper error in making faith a condition but he suggests that there are other conditions that one must meet after being justified in order to attain heaven. What “conditions” must the believer meet in order to attain heaven? Piper is suggesting that post-justification works are necessary for us to attain salvation and heaven. John Robbins responded emphatically to this notion when he wrote,

Paul damned the Judaizers for teaching that post-[justification] works of righteousness are necessary for entrance into Heaven. The contention of both the Roman Church and the Judaizers [and now Piper] is that one cannot be saved without post-[justification], that is post-regeneration, works of righteousness. The Judaizers taught that one must be circumcised and obey other parts of the Mosaic law; the Roman Church teaches both the necessity and meritoriousness of good works of Christians for salvation;” [and now Piper teaches both the necessity of works and obedience of faith for salvation].[x]

James on Justification and Works

Piper appeals to James chapter 2 for support of his view of a final salvation that is in some way dependent on our works and obedience. He writes,

Especially as it pertains to final salvation, so many of us live in a fog of confusion. James saw in his day those who were treating “faith alone” as a doctrine that claimed you could be justified by faith which produced no good works. And he vehemently said No to such faith… The faith which alone justifies is never alone, but always bearing transforming fruit. So, when James says these controversial words, “A person is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24), I take him to mean not by faith which is alone, but which shows itself by works.[xi]

Piper is correct to point out that the faith which justifies is a faith which shows itself by works. However, he is wrong to think that these works have anything to do with our final salvation. Piper fundamentally misunderstands the point that James is making with respect to justification and works. James is speaking about bearing fruit before men, not about being declared righteous or justified before God at the final judgment. The faith that justifies is not a faith that is alone, but rather it is made manifest in works which in turn justify our profession of faith before men; not before God. Therefore verse 18 of James chapter 2 says, “I will shew thee my faith by my works.” This demonstration of faith is before men, not before God at the final judgment. To suggest or even imply that the works James is referring to have anything to do with our final salvation is to venture headlong into the citadel of Rome. This is why John Calvin wrote,

That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists [the Romanist], we must take notice of the two-fold meaning of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, “Show my thy faith,” etc.[xii]

Unfortunately, there is much confusion surrounding what James meant about justification and how it relates to what Paul meant by justification. When we compare James 2:24 with Romans 3:28 we see that both Paul and James are speaking of being justified, but we must ask, “justified in what sense?” James is referring to justification with respect to one’s profession of faith being justified or (validated) before man while Paul is referring to justification with respect to one being justified or (declared righteous) before God. James is answering the question how does one justify their profession of faith before others while Paul is answering the question how does one stand justified before God.

The reformers correctly recognized, based on Scripture alone, that a person is wholly and completely justified and saved by faith alone in Christ alone. Romans 4:5 states, “to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness..” Here we notice that righteousness unto salvation comes by faith, not by works. In the preceding verse, it reads, “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.” (Romans 4:4 ESV). If one were to work in order that they might receive salvation then they would be receiving their due wage not a gift. But the Bible makes it clear that salvation is a gift and it is not of works. In Ephesians 2:8,9 it reads, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Some theologians however, have stated that we are saved by faith alone but that works are part of faith. As O. Palmer Robertson notes, “According to [Norman Shepherd’s] view, faith is united with works as a single response to the Gospel call for justification. As a consequence, justification is by faith and by works, or by faith/works, or by the works of faith.”[xiii] This is an egregious error for if we “hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Roman 3:28 ESV) then works cannot be part of faith. Works are not part of faith nor are they united with faith but rather they are a consequence of faith. Dr. Reymond writes,

Whereas Paul is concerned with the question of how a man may achieve right standing before God, and turns to Genesis 15:6 to find his answer, James is concerned with the question of how a man is to demonstrate [before others] that he is actually justified before God and has true faith, and turns to Genesis 22: 9-10 as the probative fulfillment of Genesis 15:6 to find his answer.[xiv]

Paul condemns works added to faith while James commends works which are produced by faith. We have to be discerning here because our salvation does not rest on what we do but rather it rests entirely in what Christ has done for us. James asks the question in verse 14, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?” This is the issue James is confronting. If someone says he has faith but does not have works, then he is a liar and the truth is not in him. He is a false convert, a hypocrite who is self-deceived. James is asking what good is that profession of faith. Can that profession of faith save him? The answer is no because that is merely a false profession of faith rather than a true and living faith. James says in verse 17 “so also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” A true and living faith will inevitably manifest itself in works but it does not add anything to our salvation. Not now or ever! Unfortunately, Piper is wrong and this teaching of his is not only heretical but dangerous.

Listen to our podcast discussing this topic – HERE

[i] Piper, John. “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?” Desiring God. September 25, 2017. Accessed September 27, 2017. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone.

[ii] Piper, John. “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?” Desiring God. September 25, 2017. Accessed September 27, 2017. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone.

[iii] All scripture passages are quoted from KJV unless otherwise noted.

[iv] Reymond, Robert L. A new systematic theology of the Christian faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2001. p. 750

[v] Murray, “Justification,” Collected Writings, 2:221 quoted in Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of The Christian Faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2001; p. 750 emphasis mine

[vi] Rhodes, Ron. Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics. Harvest House Publishers, 2000. pp. 121-122

[vii] Reymond, Robert L. A new systematic theology of the Christian faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2001. p. 735

[viii] Schreiner, Thomas R. Faith alone– the doctrine of justification: what the reformers taught … and why it matters. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015 (emphasis added).

[ix] Schreiner, Thomas R. Faith alone– the doctrine of justification: what the reformers taught … and why it matters. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015 (emphasis added).

[x] Robbins, John. “The Gospel According to John MacArthur.” Trinity Foundation. May & june 1993. Accessed September 20, 2017. http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193.

[xi] Piper, John. “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?” Desiring God. September 25, 2017. Accessed September 27, 2017. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone.

[xii] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, Eerdmans, 1948, 314 f. quoted in Robertson, O. Palmer. The current justification controversy. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2003. p. 18

[xiii] Robertson, O. Palmer. The current justification controversy. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2003. p. 24

[xiv] Reymond, Robert L. A new systematic theology of the Christian faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2001. p. 749

Recently, actor James Franco and Dr. Eliot Michaelson, Lecturer of Philosophy at King’s College London, both of whom are hosts of the YouTube channel Philosophy Time, interviewed Professor Liz Harman of Princeton University on abortion. Professor Harman defends the liberal position that “there is nothing morally bad about early abortion.” One might suspect that with such a high pedigree of intellectuals engaging in the conversation there would have been a robust argument put forward for the pro-choice position on abortion. However, if one is able to ignore and move past the vocal fry of Professor Harman they will soon realize that this conversation and the position put forward by the Princeton Professor amounts to nothing more than an irrational, absurd pile of nonsense.[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5SQnQjryzI[/embedyt]

At approximately 3 minutes and 4 seconds into the video Professor Harman attempts to explain away the confusion of her position by stating the following:

Right, so it might look like on my view abortion is permissible because you had the abortion but that abortion wouldn’t have been permissible if you didn’t have the abortion. That’s not quite the view, for I think two different reasons. So one reason is that, um, even you have moral status—and in my view back when you were an early fetus you had moral status—but it’s not that aborting you would have been wrong because if your mother had chosen to abort her pregnancy, then it wouldn’t have been the case that you would have had moral status because you would have died as an early fetus [which she already said had moral status], so she would have been aborting something that didn’t have moral status.”

There are two main problems when adopting this view. The first is the Fallacy of Begging the Question and the second is the Law of Contradiction.

Begging the Question

Professor Harman is suggesting that the moral compass points in whichever direction a person acts. There is no true north or absolute moral standard. Her view leads her to commit the fallacy of begging the question. Whether or not the abortion of an early fetus is wrong is contingent upon whether or not the early fetus has moral status, and whether or not the early fetus has moral status is contingent upon whether or not the early fetus is aborted.

Rejecting the Law of Contradiction

Professor Harman first grants that the early fetus has moral status when she states, “in my view back when you were an early fetus you had moral status.”  Then, she grants the mother permission to murder (abortion is murder) the early fetus on the grounds that “she would have been aborting [murdering] something [an early fetus] that didn’t have moral status.”

She states, “in my view back when you were an early fetus you had moral status—but it’s not that aborting you would have been wrong… because you would have died as an early fetus, so she [your mother] would have been aborting something that didn’t have moral status.”

Here we have a clear violation of the Law of Contradiction because “the same attribute [in this case moral status] cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject [an early fetus] and in the same respect” (John W. Robbins, “Why Study Logic?” The Trinity Review, July/August 1985, http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=39). One should keep in mind that the state of having moral status has already been determined prior to the act of aborting. In order to advance such a position, Professor Harman must reject the Law of Contradiction, but it is impossible for her to make her argument intelligible without first presupposing Law of Contradiction. As Dr. John Robbins notes, “The opponents of logic must use the Law of Contradiction in order to denounce it. They must assume its legitimacy, in order to declare it illegitimate. They must assume its truth, in order to declare it false. They must present arguments if they wish to persuade us that argumentation is invalid. Wherever they turn, they are boxed in” (“Why Study Logic?”).

Make no mistake, this Professor and the two hosts of Philosophy Time know God and are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-19). Consequently they have become “futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts [have become] darkened. Claiming to be wise, they [have become] fools” (Romans 1:21-22).

Dave Harvey. When Sinners Say “I Do”: Discovering the Power of the Gospel for Marriage. Wapwallopen, PA: Shepherd Press, 2007.

THE GOOD

This book has thoughtful research and excellent quotes from writers such as Charles Spurgeon; Thomas Watson; Matthew Henry; and John Macarthur, Owen, Newton, Calvin, Edwards, and Wesley. It's also refreshing how this book explains that a biblical mystery is not something that we can never understand, as Roman Catholicism and mystics claim; it is something that God obscured in the Old Testament but reveals or explains in the New. Harvey cites George Knight:

Unbeknownst to the people of Moses' day (it was a "mystery"), marriage was designed by God from the beginning to be a picture or parable of the relationship between Christ and the church. Back when God was planning what marriage would be like, He planned it for this great purpose: it would give a beautiful earthly picture of the relationship that would someday come about between Christ and His church. This was not known to people for many generations, and that is why Paul can call it a "mystery." But now in the New Testament age Paul reveals this mystery, and it is amazing. (qtd. in 27. Italics always in original unless noted otherwise)

Harvey furthermore does a good job of stressing how important it is for believers to solidify a biblical worldview, for no Christian can avoid theology, nor should he want to. "What we believe about God determines the quality of our marriage.... Your theology governs your entire life" (20, 21). Theory always precedes practice. It's great that Harvey emphasizes sound doctrine and the power of the gospel for maintaining a healthy Christian walk and marriage. His treatment of spousal death and difficult situations such as spousal abuse was instructive as well.

THE BAD

Unfortunately, the book has too many imbalances for me to recommend it. A major problem is that Harvey has an inadequate view of regeneration. There are two extremes. The first is instant sanctification, the belief that Christians are instantly perfected at conversion and thus no longer sin, so they don't need to grow in holiness and grace every day of their lives. The problem here is a low view of sin, for believers do still sin, and when sin is not repented of it gets worse and eventually leads to death; and even shows that the person may not be regenerated to begin with. The second extreme is the belief that Christians are forgiven but don't really change after their conversion; they remain wicked sinners in constant rebellion against God. This view undermines the power of God in our lives, and implies that believers never really mature or grow in holiness, even as they get older and learn more about God. It ignores the Bible's clear teaching about believers becoming new creatures, receiving a new nature, and continuously growing in sanctification and holiness till the day they die.

Harvey leans far towards the second extreme:

We are all the worst of sinners, so anything we do that isn't sin is simply the grace of God at work.... As the worst of sinners...I should be primarily suspicious and regularly suspicious of myself!... [M]y heart has a permanent tendency to oppose God and his ways.... You see, your wicked heart and mine are amazingly similar. They both crave vindication. They want to insist that something else made us sin...something outside of us...beyond our control. Aha--our circumstances!" (43, 64, 70)

The apostle Paul, however, affirms the opposite of what Harvey claims in Romans 7. Believers sin--not because of their circumstances--but because the law of sin, something outside of the believer, works through their flesh: "So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.... Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me" (Rom. 7:17-18, 20). Believers still sin--not because their hearts are wicked--but because their unredeemed bodies can be triggered by sensual, sinful temptations. We must therefore “die daily” (1 Cor. 15:31) because we “have crucified the flesh” (Gal. 5:24). Part of the problem is that Harvey doesn't adequately define what a sinner is. This is all I could find:

Now recall that the Bible has a specific way of describing human beings--as sinners.... We are all in this category together. It's hardly an exclusive club. To accept the designation of "sinner" is to acknowledge who I am in relation to God. It also says who I am not: I am not a neutral actor. By my very nature (which is sinful), I am an offense to God's very nature (which is perfectly holy). So the term "sinner," when used in Scripture, clearly implies there is one (at least one) who is sinned against. (41)

But believers are no longer sinners in relation to God; they are given a new "designation"--saints. A sinner--which is a legal term--is judged a criminal in God's eyes for violating the Law of God “in Adam” (1 Cor. 15:22; cf. Rom. 5:12-21) and by personal sins. A saint is a former sinner who has been forgiven by Christ's blood atonement, has a new nature, and is being perfected through the Holy Spirit. A saint also becomes legally adopted into the family of God (see Gal. 4, Heb. 12), hence God is no longer his Judge, but his Father. When a believer sins it is no longer a legal issue, but a family/domestic issue requiring fatherly correction and discipline instead of condemnation and judgment, for Christ has propitiated the wrath of God that was formerly on the believer. Formerly we were unrighteous wrongdoers, "such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11).

THE SINFULLY UGLY

It is disappointing, then, that Harvey's most emphatic point throughout the entire book, which is evident in the title itself, is that "by the gospel we understand that, although saved, we remain sinners" (25). I think he stresses this far too much and makes the Bible say what it doesn't, resulting in several doctrinal imbalances. Later Harvey cites 1 Timothy 1:15: "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost."

Harvey claims Paul "is saying, in effect, 'Look, I know my sin. And what I've seen in my own heart is darker and more awful; it's more proud, selfish, and self-exalting; and it's consistently and regularly in rebellion against God than anything I have glimpsed in the heart of anyone else' " (36). But this sounds like a description of an unregenerate, God-hating sinner! For "whoever says 'I know him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:4). How then can a born-again Christian's "heart" be "consistently and regularly in rebellion against God"? Especially when God Himself promises to

sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Eze. 36:25-27)

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col. 2:11-12)

For "even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new" (2 Cor. 5:16-17; cf. Gal. 6:15). And how can God "give you the desires of your heart" (Ps. 37:4) if your heart is perpetually evil, as Harvey claims?

Previously in verses 12-14, Paul writes, "I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." Both before and after verse 15 Paul asserts that he received mercy, and in verse 13 he says that he formerly was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent.

1 Timothy 1:15 gave me a hard time. I couldn't understand why Paul would say he is the chief of sinners in the present tense, even though twice in that passage he said he received mercy, past tense. Especially since God also promises that He "will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more" (Jer. 31:34, Heb. 10:17). If God forgives and forgets our sins, why then did Paul call himself the chief of sinners? Then I remembered that "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.... Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.... For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Jas. 4:6, 1 Pet. 5:5, Matt. 5:5, Luke 14:11). Paul therefore was humbling himself. He's saying that without God's grace and Holy Spirit he is the very worst of sinners, "but by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me" (1 Cor. 15:10).

Countless verses negate the notion of I'm-just-a-sinner-saved-by-grace: "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God" (Rom. 5:8-9). But wait, there's "more than that": "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation... For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:10-11, 19; bold emphasis always mine). Several other verses clearly distinguish sinners from saints, or the righteous (Psa. 1:5; Prov. 11:31, 13:21-22; Ecc. 9:2, Matt. 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32, 15:7; John 9:31; Rom. 3:7; 1 Pet. 4:18).

Simul justus et peccator, meaning “simultaneously righteous and a sinner,” is a strongly embedded concept in the Reformed tradition in general (see the confessions of eminent believers that A.W. Pink cites in “The Christian in Romans 7,” http://www.chapellibrary.org/book/cirs/christian-in-romans-7,-the) and Lutheranism in particular, which is why I was pleasantly surprised when I saw what John Calvin has to say on the matter:

[F]or as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner.... He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness.... [A] man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous.... We must always return to the axioms that the wrath of God lies upon all men so long as they continue sinners....

When the Lord, therefore, admits him to union, he is said to justify him, because he can neither receive him into favor, nor unite him to himself, without changing his condition from that of a sinner into that of a righteous man. We add that this is done by remission of sins. For if those whom the Lord has reconciled to himself are estimated by works, they will still prove to be in reality sinners, while they ought to be pure and free from sin. It is evident therefore, that the only way in which those whom God embraces are made righteous, is by having their pollutions wiped away by the remission of sins.... But if there is a perpetual and irreconcilable repugnance between righteousness and iniquity, so long as we remain sinners we cannot be completely received. Therefore, in order that all ground of offence may be removed, and he may completely reconcile us to himself, he, by means of the expiation set forth in the death of Christ, abolishes all the evil that is in us, so that we, formerly impure and unclean, now appear in his sight just and holy.... [A]fter the Lord has withdrawn the sinner from the abyss of perdition, and set him apart for himself by means of adoption, having begotten him again and formed him to newness of life, he embraces him as a new creature, and bestows the gifts of his Spirit." (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.xi.2, 21; IV.xvii.3, 5)

Calvin rightly recognizes that the Bible uses the term sinner to describe the legal standing of a person in God's court, namely, an unpardoned criminal. Later on, however, he writes:

As God is the fountain of all righteousness, he must necessarily be the enemy and judge of man so long as he is a sinner. Wherefore, the commencement of love is the bestowing of righteousness, as described by Paul: “He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5:21). He intimates, that by the sacrifice of Christ we obtain free justification, and become pleasing to God, though we are by nature the children of wrath, and by sin estranged from him.... But because believers, while encompassed with mortal flesh, are still sinners, and their good works only begun savor of the corruption of the flesh, God cannot be propitious either to their persons or their works, unless he embraces them more in Christ than in themselves. (Institutes IV.xvii.2, 5)

The Bible clearly teaches that we "were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph. 2:3). But Calvin seems to mean that believers are still sinners--i.e., believers still sin, not that they are criminals--because we are still "encompassed with mortal flesh," the part of us that has yet to be redeemed. The difference is that a believer is no longer a sinner by nature, not in the same sense that an unforgiven sinner is, because the believer's very nature has been regenerated. So he no longer sins by his new nature, but by the "law of sin that dwells in [his] members" (Rom. 7:23); in other words, by the law of sin working through what's left of his old nature--his body. This is why "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal. 5:24) by mastering sin (Gen. 4:7), abstaining "from every form of evil" (1 Thess. 5:22), and fasting when necessary (Matt. 6:16 ff.), "for God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness" (1 Thess. 4:7).

The flesh still wars against the Spirit but no longer has dominion over us if we walk by and are led by the Holy Spirit. This is what Paul refers to in Galatians 5 and Romans 7, though Romans 7 primarily refers to Paul’s pre-conversion experience rather than his Christian walk, yet the passage can apply to believers because they still have unredeemed bodies: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom 7:24-25).

Martin Luther--who supposedly said believers are like snow-covered dung (if anyone finds out where he said that, please let me know)--in his Bondage of the Will wrote:

For if there be nothing by which we are justified but faith only, it is evident that those who are not of faith, are not justified. And if they be not justified, they are sinners. And if they be sinners, they are evil trees and can do nothing but sin and bring forth evil fruit—Wherefore, "Free-will" is nothing but the servant of sin, of death, and of Satan, doing nothing, and being able to do or attempt nothing, but evil! (Sect. 154)

In other words, what we do does not determine who we are; what we do is a reflection of who we already are. But the more an unbeliever sins, the worse he becomes because of the corrosive nature of sin and because "every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit...for what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person" (Matt 7.17, 15.18; cf. 1 Tim. 4). I like how John Robbins puts it in his review of Chuck Colson's Loving God:

You [Colson] write that faith is “not just knowledge, but knowledge acted upon. It is not just belief, but belief lived out--practiced.” This blurring of the distinction between faith and practice is fatal to Christianity, for it makes the conclusion inescapable that we are justified by faith and works. Augustine defined faith as knowledge with assent. So should you. Practice is the result of faith, not part of faith. Faith is the cause; practice is the result. Bonhoeffer’s statement is precise and true: Only he who believes is obedient; only he who is obedient believes. If a person does not believe, he cannot be obedient, no matter how “good” his behavior is; and if a person believes, he will be obedient, as James says. To put it in more technical language, sanctification is a necessary consequence of justification; and justification is a necessary precedent for sanctification. But justification and sanctification are not the same. To confuse them is to be ignorant of the Gospel. (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=187)

I think Harvey should've defined the term "sinner" more carefully and not apply it so indiscriminately to born-again believers. I understand that he's trying to make Christians realize that they still sin, and that sin can ruin marriages and lives. But claiming that we are wicked sinners who constantly rebel against God seriously undermines what God has already done for us through Christ's finished work on the cross and continues to do for us through his Spirit. Theology is all about making proper distinctions, and Harvey should strive to be as careful as, for example, John Knox was in the Scots Confession:

Chapter 15: The Perfection of the Law and The Imperfection of Man

We confess and acknowledge that the law of God is most just, equal, holy, and perfect, commanding those things which, when perfectly done, can give life and bring man to eternal felicity; but our nature is so corrupt, weak, and imperfect, that we are never able perfectly to fulfill the works of the law. Even after we are reborn, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth of God is not in us. It is therefore essential for us to lay hold on Christ Jesus, in his righteousness and his atonement, since he is the end and consummation of the Law and since it is by him that we are set at liberty so that the curse of God may not fall upon us, even though we do not fulfill the Law in all points. For as God the Father beholds us in the body of his Son Christ Jesus, he accepts our imperfect obedience as if it were perfect, and covers our works, which are defiled with many stains, with the righteousness of his Son. We do not mean that we are so set at liberty that we owe no obedience to the Law--for we have already acknowledged its place--but we affirm that no man on earth, with the sole exception of Christ Jesus, has given, gives, or shall give in action that obedience to the Law which the Law requires. When we have done all things we must fall down and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servants. Therefore, whoever boasts of the merits of his own works or puts his trust in works of supererogation, boasts of what does not exist, and puts his trust in damnable idolatry. (qtd. in https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/simuliustus.html)

Oddly enough, Harvey also claims that Jesus never got "irritated or bitter or hostile" (71), even though he detested religious hypocrites like the Scribes and Pharisees, cursed and condemned them almost every time he encountered them (John 8, Matt. 23); and even fashioned a whip to beat money-changers out of the temple (John 2) on more than one occasion, according to some commentators (see Chapter 8 of John MacArthur’s The Jesus You Can’t Ignore. The book is an excellent corrective to the popular wimpy and pacifistic portrayals of Jesus). Not to mention that He's coming back "in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thess. 1:8).

His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Rev. 19:12ff.)

Other than that the book was ok. I recommend Tommy Nelson's teachings on marriage and the Song of Solomon (http://dbcmedia.org/), Gary Smalley's If Only He Knew, G. Craige Lewis’ teachings on creation roles and fasting (http://www.exministries.com/sermons/atcp-archive/), and Paul Washer's excellent sermon on Romans 6, “Being What You Are: Having Too Low a View of Regeneration” (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=428082310290).

Semper Reformanda Radio recently produced a series of five podcasts on the Roman Catholic view of Mary under the title Roman Catholics and their Queen. The purpose of this blog series is to provide the supporting data behind the podcasts. We hope this will be helpful to those who would like to become familiar with the Roman Catholic claims to apostolicity for their Marian position, and the historical and biblical data showing that the apostles and the Early Church knew nothing of it.

We continue this week with the supporting data for Episode 4.

Episode 4: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Roman Catholics call Mary by the title, ἀειπαρθένου, or Ever Virgin because she is alleged to have remained a virgin for her entire life—prior to Christ's birth (pre partum), during Christ's birth (in partu), and after Christ's birth (post partum). Her post partum virginity assumes that she and Joseph neither had any other children, nor ever consummated their marriage. Her in partu virginity assumes that Jesus' miraculously passed through Mary's womb into her arms, leaving her physical virginity completely uncompromised—no birth pangs, no tearing, no bleeding, nor any other discomfort associated with physical act of giving birth. The belief in the "perpetual virginity" of Mary is that she is the Ever Virgin—always, and in every stage, pre partum, in partu and post partum.

• That Mary was a virgin until Christ's birth the Scriptures plainly teach (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:27-34).
• The Roman Catholic support for her in partu and post partum virginity comes from the following argument:
  1. Typologically, as the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary's physical body was as inviolable by men as the Ark of the Old Covenant was inviolable.
  2. In Ezekiel 44, the "east gate" is shut, and remains shut, "because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it" (Ezekiel 44:2).
  3. The Protogospel of James taught that a midwife was present for Christ's delivery, and that she inspected Mary afterward and found her physical virginity to be intact.
  4. The Early Church Fathers are alleged to have taught that Mary physically remained a virgin in perpetuity.
• We list them first in summary form, and will now refute them in the same order, below.

Mary the Untouchable Ark

• Roman Catholics believe that Mary's identification as the Ark of the New Covenant supports their belief that she remained a virgin perpetually. Roman Catholic apologist, Tim Staples, makes the argument:
  • "According to multiple parallel texts in Scripture, Mary is depicted as the New Testament Ark of the Covenant. ... According to the Old Testament, no one except the high priest could touch the ark or even look inside it. If anyone else touched or looked inside the ark, the punishment was death.... If this was the case for the Old Testament type, which, according to Hebrews 10:1, is no more than a shadow of the true New Testament fulfillment, then it would seem fitting that Mary would remain 'untouched' by Joseph as well." (Tim Staples, More Reasons for Mary's Perpetual Virginity)
  • Counterevidence:
  • As we showed in part 2, the Scriptures do not identify the Ark as a type of Mary, and further, it is not until the latter part of the 4th century that we begin to see such references from patristic sources. Any evidence alleged to be earlier than that has proven to be fraudulent. The Early Church thought the Old Testament Ark signified many different things—Christ, His ministry, His people—but what is conspicuous by its absence is any reference to the Ark signifying Mary.
  • Even after the 4th century there continued to be differing opinions on what it signified:
    • Cyril of Alexandria (412 – 444 A.D.) said the ark was "the image and symbol of Christ” (Cyril of Alexandria, de Adoratione in Spiritu et Veritate, Book 9 (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 68, col. 597-598), and that Christ "is presented in figure and image" by the ark (Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium, Book IV, (Migne, P.G. 73, col. 619-622))
    • Even as late as the 6th century, Pope Gregory the Great asked, “What but the holy Church is figured by the ark?” (Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule, Book II, chapter 11).
    • In sum, the Roman Catholic claim that Mary's perpetual virginity has long been established by her identify as the Ark lacks even minimal evidence that the early church considered her to be the Ark at all—at least not until the latter part of the 4th century.

Mary, the East Gate

• Roman Catholics believe that Mary was in view when Ezekiel says the "east gate" is shut, and remains shut, "because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it" (Ezekiel 44:2). Roman Catholic apologist, Taylor Marshall, makes the argument:
  • "As the Catholic Church teaches, the Blessed Virgin Mary is perpetually a virgin – she did not have relations with Joseph after Christ’s birth in accordance with the prophecy of Ezekiel: 'and no man shall enter by [the east gate]; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.'" (Taylor Marshall, The Virgin Mary’s Womb as Ezekiel’s Closed Gate of the Messiah)
  • Counterevidence:
  • The context of this passage is that Israel had defiled the sanctuary by allowing gentiles and other unclean people to enter it (Ezekiel 44:7), so the Lord instructs Ezekiel on how Israel is to regulate "the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof" (Ezekiel 43:11, c.f. 44:5). Ezekiel is taken to a properly constructed temple (Ezekiel 40:1-3), and in the vision "the glory of the LORD came into the house" from the east, all the way "into the inner court" (Ezekiel 43:1-5). Ezekiel 44:1 refers to "the [eastern] gate of the outward sanctuary," and the angelic narrator explains to Ezekiel that the eastern gate of the outer sanctuary "shall be shut, it shall not be opened ... because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it" (Ezekiel 44:2). Roman Catholics end their analysis at this point and take the closed eastern gate of the outer court to refer to Mary. But the vision continues, and Ezekiel describes the eastern gate of the inner court, and that gate is opened every sabbath and every new moon, and was to remain so all day:
    • "The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened. ...the gate shall not be shut until the evening." (Ezekiel 46:1-2)
    • Roman Catholics only assign typological significance to the gate that remains shut, passing over the one that remains open, providing no explanation as to what the inner eastern gate signifies—even though the glory of the Lord entered by that gate, too. It is a highly selective interpretation that merely assumes, rather than proves, that the "shut gate" refers to Mary. In other words, the Roman Catholic must first assume that Mary's womb was closed in order to derive a typological connection; it is not something the text suggests to us. The Scriptures offer no connection between Mary and either of eastern gates—inner or outer—and nothing in the passage even hints that the outer gate signifies Mary's womb.
    • Second, when Roman Catholics attempt to find support for their interpretation of Ezekiel 44 in the early church, all they can come up with in the first three centuries is Origen (c. 185 - c. 234 A.D) who believed that the shut gate of Ezekiel 44:2 signified the Scriptures and their correct interpretation (Origen, Homilies on Ezekiel, Homily 14.1-3). Evidence of an early interpretation of  Ezekiel 44 as a prefiguration of Mary dates to the latter part of the 4th century. Taylor Marshall, cited above, only quotes Ambrose (340 - 397 A.D.) and Augustine (354 – 430 A.D.). As Kenneth Stevenson and Michael Glerup show in their commentaries on Daniel and Ezekiel, there is simply no evidence for the Roman Catholic interpretation prior to the latter part of the 4th century:
      • "Overview [of Ezekiel 44:1-3]: The east gate is closed, which means the importance of the right interpretation of the Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, as revealed by Christ (Origen), but it also may mean the womb of the Virgin Mary (Jerome [347 - 430 A.D.], Theodoret [393 - 457 A.D.], Ambrose [340 - 397 A.D.], Rufinus [c. 340 - 410], Cyril of Alexandria [c. 376 – 444 A.D.], John of Damascus [c. 675 – 749 A.D.])." (Kenneth Stevenson and Michael Glerup, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 13, "Ezekiel, Daniel," (Intervarsity Press, 2008) p. 141)
      • In sum, the interpretation of Ezekiel 44:2 referring to the shutting of Mary's womb and Mary's perpetual virginity is highly selective and inconsistent with the whole of Ezekiel's vision. It is a novelty dating to the latter part of the 4th century.

The Protoevangelium of James

• The "protogospel" of James is an apocryphal document of unknown origin, dated to the second century. The document attempts to establish Mary's in partu and post partum virginity. To establish the former, Christ's birth is said to have taken place in a flash of light as He simply appeared in Mary's arms and began to take her breast, with none of the painful labor of a normal delivery (Protoevangelium of James, 19). To establish the latter, the document claims that Jesus' brethren in the Scriptures were actually children of Joseph from a previous marriage (Protoevangelium of James, 9). The document is used by Roman Catholics to establish the antiquity and apostolicity of the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity.
  • By way of example, Roman Catholic Apologist James Akin, in this 3-minute video, asserts that the antiquity of the doctrine can be proven both by the Protoevangelim of James and the testimony of Jerome (Catholic Answers, How did the Church Fathers explain the perpetual virginity of Mary?)
  • Counterevidence:
  • First, the Protoevangelium essentially supports the docetic heresy that originated in apostolic times. Docetism comes from the Greek word, δοκεῖν (dokein), which means "to seem" or "to appear." The heresy alleged that Jesus had not really taken on a physical body, but only "seemed" to do so, and thus was not really incarnated, did not really suffer or die or physically rise from the dead. The early heretics attempted to pass off Jesus' body—the birth, suffering, death and resurrection—as only a phantom. Tertullian, by way of example, argued against such thinking and understood that teachings like that of the Protoevangelium of James would play right into the hands of the heretics. He thus argued against such a miraculous delivery, and countered the heretics by emphasizing the completely natural birth of Christ:
    • "At all events, he who represented the flesh of Christ to be imaginary was equally able to pass off His nativity as a phantom; so that the virgin's conception, and pregnancy, and child-bearing, and then the whole course of her infant too, would have to be regarded as putative. These facts pertaining to the nativity of Christ would escape the notice of the same eyes and the same senses as failed to grasp the full idea of His flesh." (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 1).
    • Tertullian continued, describing Mary as "a woman in travail" at Christ's delivery (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 4), and defends the incarnation as so real and so natural that in Mary's labor pain, her physical virginity was lost: “Indeed she ought rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin" (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, 23)
    • Second, even Origen, who found the idea of Joseph's children from a previous marriage to be "in harmony with reason" (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book 10, chapter 17), rejected the other claim of the Protoevangelium, denying Mary's in partu virginity, for her womb had in fact been opened in childbirth the way a bride's is opened on her wedding night:
      • “In the case of every other woman, it is not the birth of an infant but intercourse with a man that opens the womb. But the womb of the Lord’s mother was opened at the time when her offspring was brought forth …” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, Homily 14, paragraphs 7-8).
      • Third, Jerome (c. 383 A.D.) at first ridiculed the teachings of the Protoevangelium of James as "an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity." He claimed instead that Jesus' brethren in the Scriptures were not Joseph's children from a previous marriage, but were Jesus' cousins. In the process he insisted that Christ's delivery had been perfectly normal and that Mary had travailed in pain, which is a material rejection of her virginity in partu:
        • “If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. ... Add, if you like ... the other humiliations of nature, the womb for nine months growing larger, the sickness, the delivery, the blood, the swaddling-clothes. … We do not blush, we are not put to silence.” (Jerome, Against Helvidius, paragraphs 19-20)
        • Fifth, between 383 A.D. and 393 A.D., Jerome changed his tune and concluded that Mary's virginity had in fact been preserved in partu, and adopted the view of the Protoevangelium of James, although he maintained his position that Jesus' "brethren" were in fact His "cousins." He insisted nonetheless that Jesus' body was no mere phantom—it had just miraculously translated through Mary the way Jesus' resurrected body walked through closed doors after the resurrection, essentially moving the beginning of Jesus' miracles that "manifested forth his glory" 27 years earlier than the Gospel of John informs us (John 2:11):
          • “Let my critics explain to me how Jesus can have entered in through closed doors when He allowed His hands and His side to be handled, and showed that He had bones and flesh, thus proving that His was a true body and no mere phantom of one, and I will explain how the holy Mary can be at once a mother and a virgin. A mother before she was wedded, she remained a virgin after bearing her son.” (Jerome (393 A.D.) to Pammachius (letter 48, paragraph 21)
          • Finally, even Roman Catholic apologists know that the Protoevangelium of James cannot possibly be construed to convey an apostolic doctrine. Esteemed Mariologist, Juniper Carol, informs us:
            • “Whatever their origins, we have no grounds for concluding that the Apocrypha contained and transmitted an authentic apostolic tradition concerning the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity; in each instance such a tradition would have to be established—an impossible task with our present documentary sources. Moreover, in themselves, the apocryphal narratives scarcely measure up to the quality of sober objectivity characteristic of the transmission of a doctrine that is authentically apostolic in origin.” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume II, p. 267)
            • In sum, the Early Church fathers who gave credence to the Protoevangelium of James regarding Joseph's children from a previous marriage nonetheless held that Mary had lost her virginity in partu, showing that the preservation of Mary's virginity in partu was not even imagined, much less defended, until the latter part of the 4th century. Even Jerome, who is invoked to prove early belief in Mary's perpetual virginity initially rejected the Protoevangelium as an audacious invention, and insisted that Mary's childbirth had been perfectly normal, complete with "the sickness, the delivery, the blood." Ten years later he changed his tune and began arguing for Mary's in partu virginity. Additionally, even esteemed Mariologist, Juniper Carol, insisted that the Protoevangelium carried no apostolic weight at all. As evidenced by Tertullian's about a miraculous passing of Jesus through Mary's womb as a phantom, the Protoevangelim was more suited to the docetic heresies of the subaposotlic era, and was not part of the faith once delivered. There is no case made for Mary's "ever virginity" until the end of the 4th century, three centuries removed from the apostles.

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in the Early Church

Alleged Support from the Church Fathers

• Roman Catholics are unable to cite any authentic or authoritative sources on the doctrine until the latter part of the 4th century. By way of example, Mark Shea writes:
  • "Patristic sources who affirm that Mary’s perpetual virginity was taught by the apostles include the author of the Protoevangelium of James, Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Siricius I, Augustine, Leporius, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo I, and the dogmatic teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. And they’re only the beginning. For the entirety of Christian history until roughly the 17th century, Christians agreed with them – except for two guys." (Mark Shea, Perpetual Virginity as Prophetic Sign)
  • Others argue that Irenæus of Lyons (died c. 202 A.D.) and Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 A.D.) also affirmed the doctrine (see, for example, Ask Father Mateo).
  • Counterevidence:
  • Regarding Irenæus of Lyons, esteemed Mariologist, Juniper Carol, writes,
    • “…according to those authentic writings of his which have come down to us … there is nothing in these translated passages to show that Irenaeus held the permanence of Mary’s virginity” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume II, p. 266)
    • Regarding Origen, as we have already shown above, he believed that Mary did not have other children, but he insisted that Jesus' birth was completely natural, and that Mary's physical virginity was lost in childbirth.
    • Clement of Alexandria, initially appears to support Mary's perpetual virginity (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VII, chapter 16), but as Juniper Carol acknowledges, we cannot completely trust the document because the Greek original is lost, and the Latin version dates to the 6th century and was written specifically to correct offending sentiments:
      • “We cannot rely absolutely on this text, since it is a [6th century] translated adaptation [by Cassiodorus], with the expressed intention of expurgating anything that might be offensive…” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume II, p. 271)
      • Once the unreliable and questionable early sources are removed, the only remaining early support is from the latter part of the 4th century and later:
        • Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310 – c. 367). Became bishop after 350 A.D., and his 1st work, Commentary on Saint Matthew, was from about 356 A.D..
        • Athanasius (c. 296 — 373 A.D.) called Mary ἀειπαρθένου, or Ever Virgin in his Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2, chapter 70, in 360 A.D..
        • Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315 – 403 A.D.) makes an argument for her virginity in his Panarion (c. 374 A.D.).
        • Jerome (c. 347 – 420 A.D.)
        • Didymus the Blind (c. 313 – 398 A.D.)
        • Ambrose of Milan (c.340 – 397 A.D.)
        • Pope Siricius I (reigned 384 — 399 A.D.)
        • Augustine (354 – 430 A.D.)
        • Leporius (5th century monk)
        • Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376 – 444 A.D.)
        • Pope Leo I (reigned 440 — 461 A.D.)
        • 2nd Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.)

Actual Evidence from the Church Fathers

• That the Early Church did not consider Mary to be "ever virgin" is shown not only by Roman Catholicism's inability to provide credible evidence in the first three centuries, but by the actual teachings of the early writers rejecting Mary's virginity in partu. If she lost her virginity in partu, then she ceased to be a virgin. We have already shown above that Origen and Tertullian rejected Mary's virginity in partu, and that Jerome initially rejected it, too. To these we add Eusebius and Chrysostom, both of whom believed that Jesus' birth was natural, and that Mary had suffered actual labor pains:
  • Eusebius (c. 260 – 340 A.D.) understood that Jesus' birth was almost as painful as His death because He was drawn out of His "travailing mother":
    • “[Jesus] knew that His original union with our flesh, and His birth of a woman that was a Virgin was no worse experience than the suffering of death, while He speaks of His death He also mentions His birth, saying to the Father: ‘… Thou, my God and Father, like a midwife didst draw the body that had been prepared for Me by the Holy Spirit from My travailing mother…” (Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, Book X, Chapter 8 (c. 311))
    • John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407 A.D.), based on Matthew 12:50, understood that obedience makes one more a mother to Christ than Mary's actual labor pains did:
      • “For behold, He has marked out a spacious road for us; and it is granted not to women only, but to men also, to be of this rank, or rather of one yet far higher. For this makes one His mother much more, than those pangs did. So that if that were a subject for blessing, much more this, inasmuch as it is also more real.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.2).
      • We conclude this section by invoking David G. Hunter—previously Monsignor James Supple Chair of Catholic Studies at Iowa State University, currently Cottrill-Rolfes Chair of Catholic Studies at the University of Kentucky—and his work on celibacy and virginity in the early church. He observed that in the latter part of the 4th century, there was an inordinate focus on female virgins:
        • “In the later years of the fourth century the ascetic and monastic movements led male Christian writers to devote an extraordinary degree of attention to the bodies of women, especially celibate women. In the hands of ascetic authors the traditional biblical image of the virgin bride acquired new life. The ‘bride of Christ’ became the celibate Christian woman. … In the ascetic controversies of the late fourth century, the identity of the virgin bride—and specifically the question of the relationship between the individual Christian as virgin and the church as virgin—was clearly a point of contention.” (David G. Hunter, The American Society of Church History, June 2000 (283-84))
        • Hunter also highlights a man by the name of Jovinianus who was condemned by Pope Siricius I, Ambrose and Jerome for supporting married clergy and suggesting that Christ's birth was entirely normal. Hunter concluded, correctly, that Jovinianus—rather than his critics—reflected more accurately the teachings of the early church, and that the in partu virginity of Mary was built upon an untenable foundation:
          • “If there is a single conclusion to be derived from my study, it is that Jovinian stood much closer to the centre of the Christian tradition than previous critics have recognized; … Ambrose’s attraction to the ideal of virginal integrity, …, caused him to adopt a Marian doctrine (virginitas in partu) that had only a fragile basis in earlier Christian tradition.” Hunter, David G., Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient Christianity (Oxford University Press (2007) 285).
          • That "fragile basis" is comprised of the Protoevangelium of James and the other sources that even the expert Mariologist acknowledges are unreliable.

We will continue this series with part 5, on Mary’s alleged bodily assumption into heaven, and conclude the series.

Semper Reformanda Radio recently produced a series of five podcasts on the Roman Catholic view of Mary under the title Roman Catholics and their Queen. The purpose of this blog series is to provide the supporting data behind the podcasts. We hope this will be helpful to those who would like to become familiar with the Roman Catholic claims to apostolicity for their Marian position, and the historical and biblical data showing that the apostles and the Early Church knew nothing of it.

We continue this week with the supporting data for Episode 3.

Episode 3: Mary, the Immaculate Conception

Roman Catholics teach that Mary, at the moment of her conception, in view of the merits of Christ's death on the cross, was preserved free of the stain of sin, and free of concupiscence —the inclination to sin—as well.

• The Roman Catholic support for this teaching stems from the following basic premises:
  1. Typologically, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and as such is holy and pure, just as the Ark of the Old Covenant was holy and pure (Exodus 26:33, 2 Chronicles 35:3).
  2. Typologically, Mary is the New Eve, just as Christ is the New Adam, and in that parallel, Mary's sinlessness is ostensibly revealed.
  3. Biologically, Mary is the source of Jesus' humanity, and because Jesus' flesh was sinless, He must have received it from someone sinless.
  4. The Early Church Fathers are alleged to have taught that Mary was sinless.
• We list them first in summary form, and will now refute them in the same order, below.

Mary as the New Ark of Holiness

• In the allegedly infallible proclamation of Pope Pius IX in 1854, Mary was declared to be sinless "in the first instance of her conception":
  • "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854))
  • In part, Pius IX based his claim on the belief that "The Fathers and writers of the Church ... celebrated the august Virgin ... as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built."
  • Counterevidence:
  • First, Scripture nowhere makes the Ark|Mary typological parallel.
  • Second, as we noted last week, all the evidence that the Early Church Fathers celebrated Mary as "the Ark of the New Covenant" has proven to be based on documents later found to be forgeries and frauds.
  • In sum, Mary did not become identified as the Ark of the New Covenant until the latter part of the 4th century, at the earliest, and therefore it follows that the Early Church could not have derived a belief in Mary's sinlessness based on this typology before the typology was even proposed.

Mary as the New Eve

• Roman Catholics believe that as Christ is to Adam, so Mary is to Eve, and if the Early Church acknowledged the Eve-Mary parallel, it is implicit evidence of early belief that Mary must have been sinless leading up to her obedience, just as Eve was sinless leading up to the fall. Esteemed Roman Catholic Mariologist, Juniper Carol, sought to find evidence of Mary's sinlessness in Irenæus' discussion of the "Eve-Mary" parallel:
  • "[T]he Eve-Mary analogy is relevant here. Our Lady's consent to the redemptive program implicit in the Incarnation was recognized by St. Irenaeus of Lyons as constituting an act not simply of singular significance but even of exceptional moral value; it was an act of obedience (Adv Haer, lib 3, cap 22, 1; PG 7:958-959)." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume I, p. 138)
  • Counterevidence:
  • Irenæus indeed found a typological connection between Mary and Eve (Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 22) but did not believe that the parallel implied Mary's sinlessness. For example, when expounding on the incarnation, Irenæus saw a long line of sinners between Adam and Christ, Christ being the sole exception:
    • "For if the flesh were not in a position to be saved, the Word of God would in no wise have become flesh. ... He thus points out the recapitulation that should take place in his own person of the effusion of blood from the beginning, of all the righteous men and of the prophets, and that by means of Himself there should be a requisition of their blood. Now this [blood] could not be required unless it also had the capability of being saved; nor would the Lord have summed up these things in Himself, unless He had Himself been made flesh and blood after the way of the original formation [of man], saving in his own person at the end that which had in the beginning perished in Adam." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 14).
    • Needless to say, if "his own person at the end" is the sole exception in a line of descent from Adam, then Mary is not exceptional.
    • Even Juniper Carol, who very much desired to find evidence of Mary's sinlessness in Irenæus' Eve-Mary parallel, acknowledged that the Eve-Mary parallel in the Early Church did not prove that the Early Church believed Mary to be sinless:
      • "Regrettably, Irenaeus' insight into the Second or New Eve is not paralleled by any conclusion in the texts with respect to the state of her soul prior to her fiat. Did the ante-Nicene Fathers glimpse a further consequence from the analogy, an indication of Mary's sanctity? Le Bachelet, for one, surrenders such investigation: 'Who could possibly give a certain answer, one way or the other?'"(Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume I, p. 138)
      • In sum, even Early Church Fathers who identified an Eve-Mary parallel spoke plainly of Mary being sinful and Christ being the only sinless person, thus showing that an Eve-Mary parallel does not imply that Mary was sinless.

Mary as the Source of Jesus' Sinless Flesh

• Roman Catholics teach that because Jesus' flesh was sinless, He must have received it from someone who was herself sinless. For example,
  • "Mary's sinlessness derives from the fact that she is the human vessel through which God himself became man. It was from her flesh that Christ received his human nature." (Catholic Answers, Mary had to be sinless to pass on a sinless human nature to Christ)
  • Counterevidence:
  • First, the Scriptures do not teach that Mary had to be sinless, and in fact when referring to Jesus' flesh, the Scriptures describe it as the same flesh as the flesh of sinners (Hebrews 2:14-15).
  • Second, even the Roman Catholic arguments for Mary's sinlessness acknowledge that "it wasn't strictly necessary that his mother be sinless for him to receive from her a sinless human nature. God could have done it another way" (See Catholic Answers).
  • Third, the early church did not believe Mary had to be sinless for Christ to be born a sinless man. Irenæus, for example, wrote that in order to save sinful flesh—in order to sum up "human nature in His own person"—He had to take his flesh from "the thing which had perished," and he took that flesh from Mary:
    • "But if the Lord became incarnate for any other order of things, and took flesh of any other substance, He has not then summed up human nature in His own person, nor in that case can He be termed flesh. For flesh has been truly made [to consist in] a transmission of that thing moulded originally from the dust. ... But the thing which had perished possessed flesh and blood. For the Lord, taking dust from the earth, moulded man; and it was upon his behalf that all the dispensation of the Lord's advent took place. He had Himself, therefore, flesh and blood, recapitulating in Himself not a certain other, but that original handiwork of the Father, seeking out that thing which had perished. And for this cause the apostle, in the Epistle to the Colossians, says, 'And though you were formerly alienated, and enemies to His knowledge by evil works, yet now you have been reconciled in the body of His flesh, through His death, to present yourselves holy and chaste, and without fault in His sight.' [Colossians 1:21, etc.] He says, 'You have been reconciled in the body of His flesh,' because the righteous flesh has reconciled that flesh which was being kept under bondage in sin, and brought it into friendship with God." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 14).
    • Needless to say, if Jesus of necessity took His flesh from "that which had perished ... under bondage in sin," then He clearly did not take His flesh from "that which had not perished" and was not "kept under bondage in sin," which of course means that Mary was not exceptional in regard to sin in Irenæus' view, and he did not think Mary had to be sinless for Christ to become incarnate.
    • Notably, Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310 – c. 367 A.D.) also considered Mary to be sinful and “destined to undergo the scrutiny of God’s judgment, of faults that are slight” (see Hilary of Portiers, Tractatus in Ps 118; Patrologia Latina Volume 9, c. 523). Because of this, Hilary believed that Jesus was "unique" in the sense that He "did not come into existence through the passions incident to human conception" and was "not born under the defects of human conception." Such statements of necessity contrast Jesus' conception with Mary's, for Mary was certainly conceived "through the passions incident to human conception":
      • “For Christ had indeed a body, but unique, as befitted His origin. He did not come into existence through the passions incident to human conception: He came into the form of our body by an act of His own power. He bore our collective humanity in the form of a servant, but He was free from the sins and imperfections of the human body: that we might be in Him, because He was born of the Virgin, and yet our faults might not be in Him, because He is the source of His own humanity, born as man but not born under the defects of human conception. … though He was formed in fashion as a man, He knew not what sin was. For His conception was in the likeness of our nature, not in the possession of our faults.” (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book X, chapter 25).
      • The statement is even more remarkable in its implicit denial of what Roman Catholicism teaches as an apostolic truth. Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary is the source of Jesus' humanity, and therefore Mary must have been sinless. Hilary, by way of contrast, thought Mary was sinful, and therefore that Jesus must have been "the source of His own humanity" so that "our faults might not be in Him." Whatever illogic may have driven Hilary to this conclusion, he clearly believed that Mary had faults to pass on, necessitating the unique occasion of Christ's conception in Mary by the Holy Spirit, a material denial of her immaculacy.
      • In sum, the Roman Catholic belief in the necessity of Mary's sinlessness based on Christ having receiving sinless flesh from her is not taught in Scripture, and was not taught in the three centuries after the apostles.

Mary's Sinlessness in the Early Church

Alleged Support from the Church Fathers

• Roman Catholicism claims that Mary's sinlessness was taught in the Early Church. Three primary examples are Justin Martyr, Irenæus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome:
  • Justin Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.) identified the Eve-Mary parallel, as follows:
    • "...He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled [incorrupt], having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her..." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 100)
    • Counterevidence:
    • In context, Justin's parallel does not encompass Eve's sinlessness in the comparison between Eve and Mary but her sexual innocence. All that is observed in the parallel is their respective physical virginity. Even Mariologist Juniper Carol reluctantly acknowledges his own inability to derive Mary's sinlessness from Justin Martyr's Eve-Mary parallel, finding only the "seeds" of later Roman Catholic teachings, not the "full flower":
      • "It is argued that, in St. Justin the Martyr's description of Eve as 'virgin incorrupt' there is question of Eve exempt from all corruption, and so the parallelism demands a similar exemption for Mary. The seeds of future development with respect to Mary's sanctity may be contained in the patristic Eve-Mary analogy, but they are seeds and not the full flower." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Vol. I, p. 138n)
      • Irenæus of Lyons (early 2nd century - 202 A.D.), as noted above, is also invoked because of the Eve-Mary parallel in his writings.
      • Counterevidence:
      • As also noted above, the parallel does not require that Mary be sinless, something Juniper Carol also acknowledges reluctantly:
        • "Regrettably, Irenaeus' insight into the Second or New Eve is not paralleled by any conclusion in the texts with respect to the state of her soul prior to her fiat." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume I, p. 138)
        • Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 A.D.), among others, is said to have used the word "holy" in regard to the Virgin Mary.
          • "...the adjective 'holy' is prefixed to 'Virgin.' Not often; still, it is used. St. Hippolytus of Rome, for example, states, without explanation, that 'God the Word descended into the holy Virgin Mary.' (Contra Noetum, cap 17; PG 10:825)" (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume I, p. 139)
          • Counterevidence:
          • First, the Scriptures use the same term "holy" (ἅγιος, hagios) in 1 Peter 2:9 in the context of a "holy nation" comprised of sinful people redeemed from their personal sins, showing that the use of the term holy does not of necessity imply utter sinlessness.
          • Second, even esteemed Mariologist, Juniper Carol, reluctantly acknowledges that Hippolytus' use of the term cannot be taken as proof of belief in the Immaculate Conception in the Early Church:
            • "The difficulty is, such a usage is ill-defined. The word sanctus or hagios has not always been able to boast of a clearly delimited meaning in ecclesiastical use. Does Hippolytus use hagios as a rather vague laudatory epithet, or as a title of dignity, or to imply moral excellence, or to signify the respect reserved for one who is segregated from profane things and belongs to God by some sort of consecration? The answer must, in the state of the evidence, be a confession of ignorance." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume I, p. 139)

Actual Evidence from the Church Fathers

• Pope Pius IX claimed that "illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify [of] this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin" (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus). In fact, the opposite is the case. The only sure evidence we have of the teachings of the Early Church Fathers reflects a belief in Mary's utter sinfulness:
  • Tertullian (160 – 225 A.D.) has Jesus censuring Mary's faults, and finds in Mary a "figure of the synagogue" of unbelieving Jews, and has Jesus unwilling to acknowledge His mother because of her "offense":
    • “In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. … while strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. … but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. … When denying one’s parents in indignation, one [Jesus] does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. … in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, while the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship.” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7)
    • “Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offense, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess. ” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 19).
    • Origen (185 – 254 A.D.), based on Romans 3:23, taught that the sword that would pierce Mary's heart (Luke 2:35) was unbelief:
      • “If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord’s Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if ‘all have sinned and lack God’s glory but are justified by his grace and redeemed,’ (Romans 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time.” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7)
      • As noted above, Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310 – c. 367 A.D.) also considered Mary to be sinful and “destined to undergo the scrutiny of God’s judgment, of faults that are slight” (see Hilary of Portiers, Tractatus in Ps 118; Patrologia Latina Volume 9, c. 523).
      • Basil (329-379 A.D.) agreed that the "sword" of Luke 2:35 was doubt and that Mary was not healed of her sin until after Christ died for her:
        • “The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man—to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. ... after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him” (Basil, Letter 260.8-9)
        • John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407 A.D.) had Jesus healing Mary of her sin of "vainglory," answering her "vehemently" for attempting to take credit for His miracles, and instructing her to correct this sinful behavior in the future—so "superfluous" was she her "vanity":
          • “He both healed the disease of vainglory, and rendered the due honor to His mother” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3)..
          • “For she desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like His brethren, when they said, ‘Show yourself to the world’ (John 17:4), desiring to gain credit from His miracles. Therefore He answered somewhat vehemently…” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in John, Homily 21.2)
          • “And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, ‘Woman, what have I to do with you?’ instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in John, Homily 21.3)
          • “For in fact that which she [Mary] had [tried] to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.1).
          • [We note here for good measure that Chrysostom here has criticized Mary for wanting "to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son," the very thing a Queen Mother would be perfectly entitled to do, as we discussed in part 1 of this series. When Mary appears to act in such a manner toward Christ, Chrysostom not only rejects any inherent claim of Marian authority over Christ but also considers it a gross sin for Mary even to attempt to exercise such. Thus we find that even at the latter part of the 4th century, Mary was still not considered Queen Mother of Christ the King.]
          • In a remarkably candid analysis of why Gabriel announced the incarnation to Mary prior to Christ's conception, but to Joseph afterward, Chrysostom explained that Joseph was sufficiently level-headed to bee able to handle the situation, but Mary, in her "perfect delicacy," was neither so perfect nor so delicate that she could not have entertained killing herself and Jesus with her. So Gabriel gave her advance warning—which is not the kind of thing one writes about Mary if one thinks she was free even of the inclination to sin:
            • “Why then, it may be asked, did he not so in the Virgin’s case also, and declare the good tidings to her after the conception? Lest she should be in agitation and great trouble. For it were likely that she, not knowing the certainty, might have even devised something amiss touching herself, and have gone on to strangle or to stab herself, not enduring the disgrace.  … Now she who was of such perfect delicacy would even have been distracted with dismay at the thought of her shame, not expecting, by whatever she might say, to convince any one who should hear of it, but that what had happened was adultery. Therefore to prevent these things, the angel came before the conception.” (Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 4.9)
            • Cyril of Alexandria (376-444 A.D.) had Mary as ranking lower even than the doubting apostle, reasoning that Mary simply must have doubted. After all, even Thomas doubted:
              • “And Symeon further said to the holy Virgin, 'Yea, a sword shall go through thy own soul also,' meaning by the sword the pain which she suffered for Christ, in seeing Him Whom she brought forth crucified; and not knowing at all that He would be more mighty than death, and rise again from the grave. Nor mayest thou wonder that the Virgin knew this not, when we shall find even the holy Apostles themselves with little faith thereupon: for verily the blessed Thomas, had he not thrust his hands into His side after the resurrection, and felt also the prints of the nails …” (Cyril of Alexandria, Sermons on Luke, Sermon IV)
              • In sum, Pope Pius IX's claim that "illustrious documents of venerable antiquity" testify "forcibly" of Mary's Immaculate Conception is easily refuted. Attempts by Roman Catholics to find Mary's sinlessness in Justin Martyr, Irenæus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome come up empty handed, and what the Early Church writers actually do say plainly is that Mary was sinful—sometimes embarrassingly so. The Roman Catholic encyclopedia acknowledges this early evidence for Mary's sinfulness, but conveniently relegates it to the category of "stray private opinions" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Immaculate Conception). As esteemed Mariologist Juniper Carol wryly acknowledges, the earlier writings touch on the matter of Mary's holiness "with a disinterest which is disconcerting and at times a familiarity which borders on discourtesy" (Juniper Carol, Mariology, vol. 2 (125)). In fact, Carol reports that hard evidence only surfaces three centuries after the apostolic era:
                • "A significant turning point in the Mariological consciousness of the West does not occur until 377 [A.D.], with the publication of St. Ambrose's three books On Virginity, addressed to his sister, Marcellina. ... … the attitude of Ambrose toward Mary is something novel in Latin literature." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, vol 1 (140-2))
                • "...with respect to Our Lady's holiness, the year 431 [A.D.] marks a turning point for Eastern patristic thought. Before Ephesus, Oriental theology is apparently unaware of a problem in this regard." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, vol. 2, 125)
                • The novelty of Mary's sinlessness does not arrive on the scene until 377 A.D. in the West, and even later in the East. That is a far cry from Pius IX's pretentious claim that "illustrious documents of venerable antiquity ... very forcibly testify" of Mary's Immaculate Conception. To arrive at an allegedly apostolic doctrine of Mary's sinlessness, Roman Catholicism has to ignore the early evidence for a widespread belief in Mary's sinfulness, and must import later novelties into earlier Patristic statements that cannot possibly bear the weight of Roman Catholicism's late 4th century novelties.

We will continue this series with part 4, on Mary’s alleged "perpetual virginity."

Semper Reformanda Radio recently produced a series of five podcasts on the Roman Catholic view of Mary under the title Roman Catholics and their Queen. The purpose of this blog series is to provide the supporting data behind the podcasts. We hope this will be helpful to those who would like to become familiar with the Roman Catholic claims to apostolicity for their Marian position, and the historical and biblical data showing that the apostles and the Early Church knew nothing of it.

We continue this week with the supporting data for Episode 2.

Episode 2: Mary, Ark of the Covenant

Roman Catholics teach that the Ark of the Old Covenant is a prefiguration of Mary, and that Mary, having carried in her womb the Heavenly Manna, the incarnation of the Word, and the Rod of Aaron blossoming, is therefore the Ark of the New Covenant, imperishable, holy and pure.

It is important to be familiar with Roman Catholic arguments on the Ark because the belief undergirds other Marian doctrines: Mary's sinlessness (see episode 3), Mary's perpetual virginity (see episode 4), and Mary's bodily Assumption into Heaven (see episode 5).

• The Roman Catholic support for this comes from five basic premises.
  1. Mary was “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), just as the Ark was ostensibly "covered" by a cloud in the Old Testament (Exodus 40:34).
  2. The Ark's stay in the hill country of Judæa for "three months" as depicted in 2 Samuel 6 is taken as a prefiguration of Mary’s journey to the hill country of Judæa to visit Elizabeth for "about three months" (Luke 1:39-56).
  3. The Contents of the Ark (Manna, Tablets of the Law, Rod of Aaron) are taken as prefigurations for the contents of Mary's womb, making her the new Ark.
  4. Revelation 11:19 depicts "the Ark of His testament" in heaven, followed immediately by Revelation 12:1 depicting a woman in heaven, crowned with twelve stars. The woman is taken to be Mary, making her "the ark of His testament."
  5. The Early Church ostensibly taught that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant
• Due to the amount of data to be provided under each premise, we list them first in summary form, and will now refute them in the same order, below.

Mary Overshadowed

• According to Roman Catholics, the language describing the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary at the moment of Christ's conception (Luke 1:35) is considered so similar to that used for the glory of God covering the tent of the congregation (Exodus 40:34) that it is assumed that the Holy Spirit intended to link the two. In fact, the word in Exodus 40:34 in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) is the same word used in Luke 1:35. By way of example, one Roman Catholic apologist attempts to make the connection for us:
  • "It is clear, then, that the angel Gabriel drew a parallel between God's presence in the Sanctuary and in Mary. She is the new, living Ark chosen to bear the God-Messiah; just as the glory of the Lord overshadowed and dwelt in the Old Covenant Ark, the glory of the Lord overshadowed and dwelt in Mary." (emphasis added)
  • Counterevidence:
  • We note first of all that the Roman Catholic apologist has taken the liberty of filling in for us what is actually missing in the text. Exodus 40:34 says "a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filledthe tabernacle." It says nothing about the cloud covering or filling the ark, and yet the apologist writes, "just as the glory of the Lord overshadowed and dwelt in the Old Covenant Ark...". The text says nothing like this at all, and yet the Roman Catholic apologist informs us of the link on Gabriel's high authority, i.e., "It is clear, then, that the angel Gabriel drew a parallel between God's presence in the Sanctuary and in Mary." But the parallel was not alleged by the apologist to be Sanctuary|Mary or Tent|Mary or Tabernacle|Mary, but rather Ark|Mary, and that specific parallel is precisely what is missing in the attempt to link Exodus 40:34 with Luke 1:35.
  • Second, we note that there was nothing particularly special about the word used in the Hebrew text. In the Hebrew, the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to use the word, ḵāsâ (כָּסָה), for "covered" in Exodus 40:34, the same word used to say that frogs covered Egypt (Exodus 8:8), locusts covered the earth (Exodus 10:5, 15), waters covered the chariots (Exodus 14:28) and quail covered the camp (Exodus 16:13). This shows that the Hebrew word has no intrinsic prophetic meaning apart from context.
  • Additionally, in the Greek the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to use the word episkiazo (ἐπισκιάζω), for "overshadow" in Luke 1:35, the same word used to describe the cloud overshadowing Jesus and the apostles at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, Luke 9:34). But it is also used in Acts 5:15 to say that Peter's shadow "might overshadow" the sick—again showing that the Greek word has no intrinsic prophetic meaning apart from context.
  • In sum, the Roman Catholic attempt to make a link between Exodus 40:34 and Luke 1:35 to make Mary the Ark is exceedingly difficult because first, in Exodus 40:34 it is not the Ark that is "overshadowed," and second, the words used for "cover" or "overshadow" in the two verses are not used exclusively to describe the manifestation of the presence and glory of God, so the apologist is left trying to construct a link out of nothing by importing events and forcing parallels that are absent from the text.

Mary's Journey

• According to Roman Catholics, Mary's journey to the hill country of Judæa (Luke 1:39-56) is so similar to the Ark's temporary stay in the hill country of Judæa (2 Samuel 6), that it is assumed that the Holy Spirit intended to link the two. By way of example, one Roman Catholic apologist explains the relation:
  • "Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.
    • When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, 'How can the ark of the Lord come to me?' Elizabeth uses almost the same words: 'Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?' ...
    • When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. ... When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb ... .
    • The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. ...
    • When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. ...
    • The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sm 6:12; 1 Kgs 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple.
    • It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history." (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22)." (Steve Ray, Mary, Ark of the New Covenant)
    • Counterevidence:
    • First, David refused to receive the Ark saying, “How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9) and Elizabeth welcomed Mary saying, “And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43). “Refusing” is not a type of, and does not foreshadow, “welcoming.”
    • Second, the Scripture does not say David danced before the Ark, but rather "before the LORD" (2 Samuel 6:14), and John leapt at the sound of Mary's voice, not at the presence of Jesus (Luke 1:44); additionally, David danced after the Ark had stayed "three months" in the house of Obed-edom (2 Samuel 6:11), and John leapt in Elizabeth's womb before Mary stayed "about three months" with Elizabeth (Luke 1:44), showing that there is nothing but a forced parallel to be found here.
    • Third, we note that the Ark and Mary did not both remain in the hill country of Judæa for three months.
      • The “the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months” (2 Samuel 6:11) and Mary went to visit Elizabeth in the hill country of Judah for “about three months” (Luke 1:56). "Three months" and "about three months" are not the same thing.
      • If such rough equivalents are sufficient for finding a prophetic connection, we can easily use the same flawed Roman Catholic thinking in order to prove that John the Baptist is the Ark. For example:
        • The ark was in the country of the Philistines for “seven months” (1 Samuel 6:1), before it came to the field of Joshua where there was a great stone (1 Samuel 6:14). Elizabeth “hid herself for 5 months” (Luke 1:24), and then in the 6th month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy Mary found out about it (Luke 1:36), and then had to travel about 100 miles to visit her cousin. That would be "about seven months" that John waited in Elizabeth's womb before meeting Jesus, Yeshua, the Cornerstone, and "about seven months" is close enough for the Roman Catholic apologist.
        • The Ark remained in Kirjathjearim for “twenty years” (1 Samuel 7:2), and John the Baptist as a Levitical priest would have waited until he was 20 years old to begin his priestly ministration (1 Chronicles 23:24, 31:17).
        • Thus, the “seven months” the Ark was in the country of the Philistines signified "about seven months" that John waited in Elizabeth's womb to meet Jesus in Mary's womb. Also, the 20 years the Ark spent in Kirjathjearim signified John’s youth until he became a priest, making John the Baptist the Ark of the New Covenant.
        • That is foolishness. Yet the methodology used is the same used by Roman Catholics to conclude that Mary is the New Ark.
        • Fourth, it is true that the Ark was brought to Jerusalem with shouts of joy (2 Samuel 6:15), and Elizabeth greeted Mary in "a loud voice" (Luke 1:42). However, we note that the Roman Catholic argument is a very selective one. Notice that the apologist had drawn a parallel with regard to how David greeted the Ark before its three month stay with Obed-edom (“How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?”, 2 Samuel 6:9) and Elizabeth welcomed Mary before her three month visit ("And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?", Luke 1:43). In that case, David's greeting was of dread, and Elizabeth's of joy. Lacking a sufficient parallel with regard to that greeting, the Roman Catholic apologist instead shifts to the period after the three month stay with Obed-edom, and shows the Ark greeted "with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet" (2 Samuel 6:15), trying to connect it with Elizabeth greeting Mary before the three months. In 2 Samuel the ark is greeted with shouting and joy, including trumpets, but in the case of Elizabeth's greeting, there were no trumpets.
        • Finally, we notice again how selective the Roman Catholic apologist is in his analysis of Mary's journey. When the Ark is returned after its three months in the hill country of Judæa, it is taken directly to Jerusalem and placed in the Tabernacle (2 Samuel 6:17) "where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple," but here the Roman Catholic apologist refers to an event that took place nearly 40 years later (1 Kings 8:9-11). When Mary returns from her stay of "about three months" in the hill country of Judæa, she returns not to Jerusalem but to Nazareth (Luke 1:26, 56), and then does not go to the Temple for six more months to present Jesus there. When the Ark and Mary both are depicted going to the hill country of Judæa for roughly equal amounts of time, geography and time were extremely important to the Roman Catholic apologist. But here, lacking a geographic parallel (Jerusalem vs. Nazareth), and lacking a time parallel (40 years vs. six months), suddenly time and geography are of no consequence, and the Roman Catholic apologist settles for both the Ark and Mary returning "home," and the presence of God manifesting in the Temple "eventually." That is a very loose "parallel."
        • In sum, the Roman Catholic attempt to find a parallel between 2 Samuel 6 and Mary's journey in Luke 1 is so presumptuous and selective that one would first have to believe that Mary is the Ark before one could find a parallel in the passages, just as we demonstrated with John the Baptist. That ostensible parallel is only maintained by a highly selective use of the Scriptures, and ignoring the significant differences. Further, nothing is said in the Scriptures about Mary being the fulfillment of the Ark as a type.

The Contents of the Ark

• According to Roman Catholics, having carried in her womb the Heavenly Manna, the incarnation of the Word, and the fulfillment of the Rod of Aaron blossoming, Mary is therefore the Ark of the New Covenant. Roman Catholic apologist, Steve Ray, attempts to make the argument as follows:
  • "Notice the amazing parallels: In the ark was the law of God inscribed in stone; in Mary’s womb was the Word of God in flesh. In the ark was the urn of manna, the bread from heaven that kept God’s people alive in the wilderness; in Mary’s womb is the Bread of Life come down from heaven that brings eternal life. In the ark was the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood; in Mary’s womb is the true priest." (Steve Ray, Mary, Ark of the New Covenant)
  • Counterevidence:
  • We grant that the Heavenly Manna signifies Christ, for the Scriptures inform us of this (John 6:32). Likewise, we grant that the law signifies Christ, for the Scriptures inform us that Jesus is the incarnation of the Word of God (John 1:14). But we cannot grant that the Rod of Aaron signifies Christ, for the Scriptures explicitly rule out the signification. The Rod of Aaron actually signifies a genetic lineage from Aaron:
    • "Thou and thy sons and thy father’s house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood. ... but thou and thy sons with thee shall minister before the tabernacle of witness. ... And I, behold, I have taken your brethren the Levites from among the children of Israel: to you they are given as a gift for the LORD, to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest’s office for every thing of the altar, and within the vail; and ye shall serve: I have given your priest’s office unto you as a service of gift: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. ... unto thee have I given them by reason of the anointing, and to thy sons, by an ordinance for ever." (Numbers 18:1-8)
    • What is more, the Scriptures explicitly deny that Jesus is of the genetic lineage of Aaron:
      • “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar." (Hebrews 7:11-13)
      • In sum, while the Manna and the Law prefigure Christ (for the Scriptures say as much), the Rod of Aaron cannot possibly signify Christ's priesthood (for the Scriptures tell us this), and therefore, the Rod's presence in the Ark cannot possibly signify Christ's presence in Mary, and in fact the Scriptures never identify Christ with the Rod of Aaron. Thus, the attempt to find a parallel between the Ark and Mary based on the Ark's contents is shown to be untenable.

The Ark in Revelation 11

• Roman Catholics observe that the reference to the Ark in Revelation 11:19 immediately precedes the mention of the Woman of Revelation 12, whom Roman Catholics take to be Mary. The close proximity of the mentions of the Ark in heaven and the Woman in heaven is taken to mean that the Ark mentioned in Revelation 11:19 is Mary. Roman Catholic apologist, Steve Ray, makes the connection:
  • "What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven? "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child" (Rv 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John." (Steve Ray, Mary, Ark of the New Covenant)
  • Counterevidence:
  • The Woman of Revelation 12 is shown to be "travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered" (Revelation 12:2). Labor pains are evidence of sin (Genesis 3:16), showing that the Woman of Revelation 12 is sinful, something that Roman Catholics cannot countenance if she is Mary, for Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary is sinless.
  • Additionally, the Woman of Revelation 12 is in pain, and thus her physical virginity is being compromised. This, too, is something that Roman Catholics cannot countenance if she is Mary, for Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary's physical virginity was not compromised in Christ's birth.
  • We will address both of these in episode 3, Mary's Sinlessness, and episode 4, Mary's Perpetual Virginity. For now, we simply note that Victorinus (270 – 310 A.D.), below, when commenting on Revelation 11:19, saw the Ark as a prefiguration of Christ and His ministry of evangelism, not Mary.

The Ark of the New Covenant in the Early Church

• According to Roman Catholics, the early church taught that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. We will first review the evidence provided by Roman Catholics to show that all the  early evidence is based on forgeries, frauds, misrepresentations and anachronisms, and then we will show that the Early Church, until the latter part of the 4th century, was completely unaware of any typological link between the Ark and Mary.

Alleged Support from the Church Fathers

• Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 A.D.)
  • Roman Catholic Apologist, Scott Hahn, claims that the teaching that Mary is the Ark can be traced as far back as the 3rd century. He says, “This application of the Ark of the Covenant to the Blessed Virgin is very ancient. We find that already at the beginning of the 3rd Century in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome.” (Answering Common Objections, A Closer Look at Christ’s Church, Mary, Ark of the Covenant, see “added notes”)
  • Counterevidence: Hippolytus actually taught that Jesus, not Mary, was the Ark:
    • “And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. ” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On the Psalms, Oration on ‘The Lord is My Shepherd’)
    • “And that the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body…”(Hippolytus, Fragments, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, 6).
    • Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213 – c. 270)
      • Roman Catholic Apologist, Steve Ray, compiled “evidence” from the early church fathers in his document, Ark of the New Covenant-Quotes from the Fathers. In that document he claims that Gregory Thaumaturgus taught that Mary is the Ark:
        • "Let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, 'Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the Ark of Thy sanctuary.' For the holy Virgin is in truth an Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary." (Gregory Thaumaturgus, First Homily)
        • Counterevidence:
        • The Homilies attributed to Thaumaturgus are considered, even by Roman Catholics, to be spurious. Even Thomas Livius, (whom Ray cites) conceded that the Homilies were “of doubtful genuineness” (Livius, Thomas, The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, p. 48n). Additionally, Philip Schaff, in his Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 6, lists them under doubtful or spurious works.
        • Dionysius of Alexandria (late 2nd century – 264 A.D.)
          • Steve Ray also cites Dionysius of Alexandria in support of the identification of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant:
            • “...by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God’s Virgin Mother” (S. Dionysius of Alexandria, Respons. ad Quoest. v. Pauli Samos) (Livius, Blessed Virgin, p. 81).
            • “Not in a servant did He dwell, but in His holy tabernacle not made with hands, which is Mary the Mother of God” (Ib. ad Quoest. vii.) (Livius, Blessed Virgin, p. 81).
            • Counterevidence:
            • The most obvious problem with these citations from Dionysius is that he has Mary as the Tabernacle, not the Ark. But the larger problem, a problem acknowledged by no less than Cardinal Newman, is that Dionysius’ alleged response to Paul of Samosota is a forgery (King, Benjamin J., Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England (Oxford University Press, 2009) 139 – 140). As we noted last week, the forged letter dates to the latter part of the 4th century.
            • Hesychius of Jerusalem
              • Steve Ray also cites Hesychius of Jerusalem in support of the identification of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, saying that he lived about 300 A.D.:
                • “The ark is without doubt the Virgin Mother of God (Hesychius, Orat. De Virginis laudib. Biblioth. PP. Græco-Lat. Tom. ii. p. 423) (Livius, Blessed Virgin, p. 89).
                • “Arise, Lord, into Thy rest, Thou and the Ark of Thy sanctification, which is very evidently the Virgin Mother of God. For if thou are the pearl, with good reason is she the Ark” (Serm. V. De S. Maria Deip. Patr. Gr. Tom. 93, pp. 460-4) (Livius, Blessed Virgin, p. 227).
                • Counterevidence:
                • These are citations from Greek sources, and as we noted last week, there is no evidence that the term "Mother of God" was used in Greek sources prior to the latter part of the 4th century. Additionally, even the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that Hesychius was likely from the 5th century, not the 3rd or 4th as Ray places him:
                  • “Presbyter and exegete, probably of the fifth century. Nothing certain is known as to the dates of his birth and death (433?), or, indeed concerning the events of his life.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Heyschius of Jerusalem).
                  • Hesychius can hardly be used to show an "early" teaching that Mary is the Ark.
                  • The rest of Ray's sources are from the latter part of the 4th century, and beyond. He provided no authentic sources for earlier representations of Mary as the Ark.
                  • Methodius of Olympus
                    • Roman Catholic apologetics organization, Catholicism.org, cites the Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna by Methodius of Olympus in support of the identification of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, saying that he lived about 311 A.D.:
                      • "To honor her, few words are more beautiful than those composed by St. Methodius of Olympus (+311): 'God paid such honor to the ark, which was the image and type of your sanctity, that no one but the priests could approach it, open or enter to behold it. The veil separated it off, keeping the vestibule as that of a queen. Then what sort of veneration must we, who are the least of creatures, owe to you who are indeed a queen — to you, the living ark of God, the Lawgiver — to you, the heaven that contains Him Whom none can contain?' (Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna [chapter 5])"
                      • Counterevidence:
                      • The problem is that Methodius’ Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna is so hopelessly compromised that it cannot be trusted. Parts of it appear to have been added later, and possibly have been confused and conflated with the works of a 9th century monk of the same name. Chapter 1 of the Oration actually identifies Jesus as the Ark before attempting to make Mary the Ark later in chapter 5:
                        • "Let no Jew contradict the truth, looking at the type which went before the house of Obededom. [2 Samuel 6:10] The Lord has 'manifestly come to His own.' ... The publican, when he touches this ark, comes away just; the harlot, when she approaches this, is remoulded, as it were, and becomes chaste; the leper, when he touches this, is restored whole without pain." (Methodius, Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, chapter 1)
                        • Phillip Schaff observed that the work of "Methodius the monkish artist and missionary of the ninth century has been often copied into the works” of Methodius of Olympus (Schaff, General Note on Methodius, AnteNicene Fathers, Volume 6), and even Steve Ray, when citing the same passage as Catholicism.org, correctly places it in the 9th century, where it belongs (Steve Ray, Ark of the New Covenant -Quotes from the Fathers).

Actual Evidence from the Church Fathers

• What is remarkable about the actual evidence from the Early Church is that the Ark is said to signify many different things—Christ, His ministry, His people—but what is conspicuous by its absence is any reference to Mary being the Ark:
  • Irenæus (d. 202 A.D.) taught that the Ark signified "the body of Christ pure and resplendent” (Irenæus, Fragments, Fragment 8)
  • Tertullian (155 – 240 A.D.) taught that Christ was foreseen by the twelve stones “set up for the ark of the covenant” (see Joshua 4:1-10), the stones prefiguring the twelve apostles, the Ark therefore prefiguring Christ  (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 13).  Elsewhere, Tertullian writes that “the ark of the testament" is a figure for us, "for we are temples of God, and altars, and lights, and sacred vessels” (Tertullian, De Corona, chapter 9).
  • Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 A.D), as we noted above, taught that "the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On the Psalms, Oration on ‘The Lord is My Shepherd’), "His own body" (Hippolytus, Fragments, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, 6).
  • Victorinus (270 – 310 A.D.) taught that the Ark signified Christ and His ministry of preaching: “‘And there was seen in His temple the ark of the Lord’s testament.’ The preaching of the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins, and all the gifts whatever that came with Him, he says, appeared therein.” (Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, from the eleventh chapter). Notably, Victorinus was commenting on the mention of the Ark in Revelation 11:19, immediately preceding the mention of the Woman of Revelation 12:1. And yet he does not identify the Ark with the Woman, much less, as Mary. Rather, the Ark represented "Christ" and "all the gifts whatever that came with Him."
  • Gregory Nazianzen (329 – 390 A.D.) taught that when Christ was conceived in Mary, the Ark had finally arrived, or come to rest, which makes the Ark signify Christ’s body, rather than Mary’s, connecting David's and John's leaping to our leaping before Christ, not Mary: “Now then I pray you accept His Conception, and leap before Him; if not like John from the womb, [Luke 1:41] yet like David, because of the resting of the Ark.” (Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 38, On the Theophany, paragraph 17).
  • In sum, it is not until the latter part of the 4th century that we begin to see references to Mary being the Ark. Any evidence alleged to be earlier than that has proven to be fraudulent.

We will continue this series with part 3, on Mary's alleged sinlessness.

Semper Reformanda Radio recently produced five podcasts on the Roman Catholic view of Mary under the title Roman Catholics and their Queen. The purpose of this series of blog entries is simply to provide the data supporting those five episodes for listeners who would like to study the matter further on their own. Under each topic, we provide the Roman Catholic position and supporting data, and then provide countervailing evidence showing that the Roman Catholic position is actually a novelty.

The summary is simple: Roman Catholic beliefs about Mary originate not with the apostles or the Scriptures, but with novelties than can be traced, for the most part, to the latter part of the 4th century and beyond. For the first three centuries of Christianity, the Church believed as Protestants do today about Christ's mother.

Episode 1: Queen Mary, Mother of God

Queen Mother

Roman Catholics teach that Mary, as mother of the King, enjoys powers, prerogatives, privileges and influence in that role, and is legitimately called the Queen Mother, with all the attendant royal honors.

• The Roman Catholic support for this position comes from three basic premises:
  • Davidic Kings are identified along with their mothers in the historical record.
    • counterevidence:
    • Jehoram (2 Kings 8:16) and Ahaz (2 Kings 16:2) were both kings of the Davidic line, and yet were not identified with their mothers at their ascension
    • the term "Gebirah" is a term used of the Queen Mother of the Davidic line in the Old Testament, making Mary the permanent Gebirah.
      • counterevidence:
      • The term occurs only six times in the Old Testament, and four of those six refer to a woman who was not the the mother of a Davidic King:
      • one use refers to the wife of the King of Egypt (1 Kings 11:19); two uses refer to the grandmother of king Asa (1 Kings 15:13, 1 Chronicles 15:16); One use refers to Jezebel, the mother of a king of Israel (2 Kings 10:13, i.e., not a Davidic King)
      • Only two uses refer to the king’s mother in the Davidic line (Jeremiah 13:18, 29:2).
      • politically powerful women served in the royal court, and those women were the mothers of the presiding king. There are six such examples: Jezebel, Athaliah, Bathsheba, Maachah, Hamutal, Nehushta.
        • counterevidence:
        • Jezebel is dismissed from consideration because she was of the house of Israel not Judah (1 Kings 16:31, 2 Kings 10:13), and therefore was not the politically powerful mother of a Davidic King. Athaliah (2 Kings 8:26) is dismissed because her political power is manifested only after her son is dead, not during his reign (2 Kings 11:1-3). Neither would qualify as prefigurations of Mary.
        • The remaining four (Bathsheba, Maachah, Hamutal, Nehushta) are mothers of kings who were not the heirs apparent, but took the throne because of the influence of the mother
          1. Bathsheba’s son, Solomon, was not the next in line (1 Chronicles 3)
          2. Maacah’s son, Abijah, was not the next in line for the throne (2 Chr 11:18-23)
          3. Hamutal's son Jehoahaz was not the next in line for the throne (2 Kings 23:31,36)
          4. Nehushta’s son, Jehoiachin, was not next in line to the throne (2 Kings 24:8-18, 2 Chr 36:9-11)
        • Since Jesus is the legitimate heir to the throne, and did not need His mother's influence to secure the throne, none of these examples qualify as prefigurations of Mary.
        • In summary, we cite the conclusion of a Jewish scholar on the Gebirah in ancient Israel, based on the Old Testament record:
          • “These circumstances lead us to conclude that, as a rule, the gĕbîrâ or queen mother had no official political status in the kingdom, and the mere fact of her being a queen mother did not bestow upon her any official political status beyond the honor due to her by virtue of her position as mother. On the other hand, in those cases in which the gĕbîrâ did rise to a position of power in her son's domain, we confront a purely individual occurrence which is the direct consequence of the woman's character, ambition, and personal abilities. This highly circumscribed evidence can hardly be taken as testimony of the status and prerogatives of the gĕbîrâ. It points out the historical circumstances in which exceptional women were able to secure the royal succession for their sons, thereby themselves laying claim to a position of power in the realm.” (The Status and Right of the Gĕbîrâ: Zafrira Ben-Barak (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 110, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 23-34))
          • Notably, in passages of Scripture where Mary appears to exercise power or prerogative in her relationship to Jesus, the Early Church took it as evidence of her sin, vaingloriousness and pride rather than evidence of her ostensible queenship. (See Mary's Sinlessness, in episode 3). In any case, since the Assumption of Mary is considered the precursor to her coronation in heaven, and there is no evidence for the Assumption of Mary until after the 4th century (see The Assumption of Mary, in episode 5), we can safely place the origins of the queenship of Mary after the 4th century as well. The Early Church was completely unaware of it.

Mother of God

Roman Catholics teach that Mary, as mother of Jesus, is therefore to be addressed as Mother of God.

It should be stated first that there is an actual Greek term for Mother of God, "μήτηρα τοῦ Θεοῦ," and second that the Early Church did not use the term. The title "Theotokos" (θεοτοκος) was deliberately chosen by the Early Church precisely because it avoided identifying Mary's maternity with Christ's divinity. Rather, early writers went out of their way to declare that in Christ's divinity He was motherless. There is simply no logical means to get from the Early Church's point A ("In Christ's divinity He was motherless") to Roman Catholicism's point B ("Mary is the Mother of God") without significant leaps and theological innovation. As we will demonstrate, that innovation occurred in the latter part of the 4th century.

• The Roman Catholic support from the Early Church comes from the following five sources:
  • Papyrus 470 in the John Rylands Library, on which is found a prayer for the protection of the Theotokos. Based on the opinion of papyrologist Edgar Lobel, Roman Catholics place it in the 3rd century and consider it evidence for ante-Niceæn prayers to Mary (see The John Rylands Library (Manchester), Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri, Volume III, Theological and Literary Texts (Nos. 457-551), ed., C. H. Roberts, M.A. (Manchester University Press (1938) 46-47).
    • counterevidence:
    • It is true that Lobel was "unwilling to place [papyrus] 470 later than the third century," but papyrologist C. H. Roberts, editor of the Catalogue, disagreed in the strongest terms: "...such individual hands are hard to date, and it is almost incredible that a prayer addressed directly to the Virgin in these terms could be written in the third century. The Virgin was spoken of as by Athanasius; but there is no evidence even for private prayer addressed to her (cf. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxiv. II) before the latter part of the fourth century, and I find it difficult to think that our text was written earlier than that" (John Rylands Library, Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri, Volume III, 46).
    • Other sources have it "mostly dated to after 450" A.D.. There is no compelling evidence placing it earlier than the latter part of the 4th century. Even esteemed Roman Catholic Mariologist, Juniper Carol, can only say that it "was written certainly before the close of the fourth century."
    • Hippolytus (170 – 235 A.D) is said to have used the term Theotokos in his third century work, De Benedictionibus Patriarcharum.
      • counterevidence:
      • Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that "the title Theotokos was an interpolation" in de Benedictionibus, and was not found in the original text (O'Carroll, Michael, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (The Liturgical Press, 1982) 172)
      • Origen (185 – 254 A.D.). It is reported by historian Socrates (5th century) that Origen used the term in his Commentary on Romans (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book VII, chapter 32).
        • counterevidence:
        • There are no extant copies of Origen's alleged Commentary on Romans. As the New World Encyclopedia states, Origen "is cited as the earliest author to use the title Theotokos for Mary but the text upon which this assertion is based is not genuine."
        • Dionysius of Alexandia (d. 264 A.D.) is alleged to have used the term "ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ μου" (the Mother of my God) in his epistle Against Paul of Samosata.
          • counterevidence:
          • Even Roman Catholic apologists agree that Dionysius' letter is a forgery from the late 4th century: "Subsequent criticism has proved that it [the epistle Against Paul of Samosata] is a forgery of the 4th century," specifically a forgery of the Apollonarian era (The Witness of Heretical Bodies of Mariology (Dublin Review, No. XX, (London: Burnes, Oates & Co.) April 1868) 320-361), which "flourished in the latter half of the fourth century" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Apollonarianism). John Cardinal Newman, erstwhile Anglican turned Roman Catholic, also acknowledged that the letter ostensibly from Dionysius of Alexandria to Paul of Samosata is "certainly spurious" (Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Volume 2).
          • Roman Catholic Mariologist, Fr. Michael O'Carroll, acknowledges “the first certain literary use of the title [Theotokos] is attributed to Alexander of Alexandria” in about 324-325 A.D., just before the Council of Nicæa (Fr. Michael O'Caroll, The History of the Term Theotókos). We concur with this. The problem for Roman Catholics is that Alexander used the term in a way that Protestants find entirely unobjectionable and that is completely incompatible with the Roman Catholic Latinization, "Mother of God."
            • Alexander's use of Theotokos occurs in his Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius in which he juxtaposes two terms—theogonias and theotokos—in order to distinguish between Jesus' divine generation by His Father, and His reception of a body from Mary:
              • "...rational beings cannot receive the knowledge of His theogonias (θεογονιας, divine generation) by the Father. ... our Lord Jesus Christ, who in very deed, and not in appearance merely, carried a body, of Mary, theotokos (θεοτοκου, bearer of God)" (Alexander of Alexandria, Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius, chapter 12).
              • Here Alexander uses Theogonias in contradistinction to Theotokos, separating the concept of Christ's divine generation by His Father (θεογονιας), and His body carried in Mary's womb (θεοτοκου).
              • By juxtaposing the two terms, Alexander effectively ruled out the later Latinization—"Dei Genitrix" or "Dei Mater" (Mother of God)—of the term "Theotokos." Note that the terms "γονιας (gonias)" and "genitrix" are the Greek and Latin roots for the organs of generation in English (gonads, genitals). In other words, in regard to His divine generation, Jesus did not have a mother, but in regards to His flesh, He did. In saying it this way, Alexander avoided linking Christ's divine generation to Mary's physical motherhood. This is consistent with other early writers' expressions:
                • Lactantius (250-325 A.D.): "For in His first nativity, which was spiritual, He was 'motherless,' because He was begotten by God the Father alone, without the office of a mother. But in His second, which was in the flesh, He was born of a virgin's womb without the office of a father...” (Divine Institutes, Book IV, chapter 13,)
                • Eusebius (c. 333) used the term Θεοτοκου in his commentary on Psalm 110:3 (109:4), specifically, "..in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning... ." Commenting on this verse, Eusebius repeatedly emphasizes that the Psalm foresees the generation of Christ's flesh in the womb of Mary by the Spirit, i.e., “της ενσαρκου γεννησεως” and “την ενσαρκον γεννησιν” (Migne, Patrologia Græca (P.G.), vol. 23, cols 1341-1344). The eternal generation of Christ by the Father is not in view.
                • Athanasius (c. 356 A.D.) “[The Scripture] contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary, bearer of God (θεοτοκου), and was made man." (Against the Arians, Discourse III, paragraph 29)
                • Augustine (354 – 450 A.D.),  “... without a mother He was God ... . According as He was God, He had not a mother; ... She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity... .”(Lectures on the Gospel of John, Lecture 8, paragraphs 8-9), paragraph)
                • Such statements as in His divine generation "He was motherless" and "without a mother" and "He had not a mother" are wholly irreconcilable with "Dei Genitrix," "Mater Dei," (Mother of God), the errant Latinization of Theotokos. When the early church used the term Θεοτοκου, it was in view of the generation of His flesh, not His divinity. Lactantius, Eusebius, Alexander, Athanasius and Augustine are consistent on that point, showing just how inappropriate it was to render the term as "Dei Genitrix" later in Latin.
                • That inappropriate Latin rendering of Theotokos (Dei Genitrix, Dei matre, Matrem Dei, etc.) does not actually manifest until the latter part of the 4th century and the early 5th:
                  • Ambrose, de Virginibus (377 A.D.), Book II, paragraph 7: "Dei matre," (Migne, Patrologia Latina (P.L.), vol. 16, col. 209)
                  • John Cassian, de Incarnatione Christi (419 A.D.), Book II, chapter 2: "Matrem Dei," (Migne, P.L., vol. 50, cols. 32, 35); "Dei mater" (cols. 36-37); Book II, chapter 5: "genitrix Dei,""Dei matrem,"  (Migne, P.L., vol. 50, col. 44); Book II, chapter 6 "Dei matrem" (Migne, P.L., vol. 50, col. 46); Book VII, chapter 25: "Matrem Dei,"  (Migne, P.L., vol. 50, col. 254).
                  • In sum, we do not object to the Early Church's use of Theotokos, because the Early Church used it in order to avoid calling Mary the Mother of God. Roman Catholicism is ever eager to find early use of the Greek term θεοτοκος in order to justify the later incorrect Latinization, Dei Genitrix or Mater Dei. However, the earliest confirmed use of θεοτοκος is found in juxtaposition with θεογονιας, and is clearly used to distinguish between Jesus' divine generation by His Father, and His reception of a body from Mary (as in Eusebius), isolating Mary's maternity from Jesus' divine generation. This is consistent with the Early Church's belief and explicit statements that in His divinity, Jesus had no mother. The statement "in His divinity He was motherless" simply cannot be reconciled with the later Roman Catholic innovation, "Mother of God." In fact, that actual term does not arise in Latin until the latter part of the 4th century, and Roman Catholic claims to have found the actual title "Mother of God" in Greek sources are based on a document that was later found to be a late 4th century forgery (Dionysius' letter Against Paul of Samosata).

We hope this raw data will be of assistance to those evaluating and studying the unscriptural Roman Catholic view of Mary. We will continue this series with part 2, on Mary as "Ark of the New Covenant."

Had it not been primarily for the work of John Robbins and The Trinity Foundation, the legacy and theology of Gordon H. Clark might have largely fallen into obscurity and Clark himself would have remained an unknown figure to many in this new generation of believers. At the present time, there is a small, but ever-growing, movement of believers that is dedicated to rediscovering and promoting the views of Gordon Clark. What these writers, bloggers, podcasters, and pastors have discovered however in their attempt to promote the ideas of Clark is that he has largely been ignored and misrepresented as much as he has been attacked and marginalized. Unfortunately, this has led many people to believe things about Clark that are wrong and it has caused many others to dismiss him without properly understanding his views. Clark is not difficult to understand for those who may wish to read his work for themselves. Moreover, his contributions to the faith are significant and should be given serious consideration. The problem today is that many persist in rejecting Clark and continue to speak out against him while remaining ignorant of what he said and wrote. While many who disagree with Clark profess to have read him, often their bias against him is outweighed only by their ignorance of him. We have encountered many followers of Cornelius Van Til who adamantly disagree with Clark and yet do not understand or represent him accurately. The purpose of this article is to showcase one such example and to present an argument in favor of Clark’s criticism against Van Til’s notion of analogy, as it was presented in “The Complaint.”

Recently Tyler Vela of The Freed Thinker Podcast attempted to argue against Clark’s criticism of Van Til’s notion of analogy and in the process demonstrated his ignorance of Clark and the issue. The discussion ensued shortly after I posted the following comment to the Bible Thumping Wingnut Facebook group.

Original Post

We do not just have an analogy of the truth we have the truth itself, and this in no way harms the Creator/ creature distinction.

This post was meant to express a favorable disposition of Clark’s view with regards to the most disputed theological topic in the Clark-Van Til Controversy. It is possible, however, that some readers may not be familiar with the controversy.

Following in the tradition of his father and grandfather, Clark sought to become an ordained minister in the faith and to that end he was ordained as a teaching elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church by the Philadelphia Presbytery on August 9, 1944. But shortly after he was ordained to the ministry, a protest ensued as 12 elders, including Cornelius Van Til, issued a formal complaint against his ordination. These elders produced a document, which came to be known as “The Complaint.” This document, which was read during a meeting of the Presbytery of Philadelphia on November 20, 1944, would lay the groundwork for what later became known as the “Clark-Van Til Controversy.” The document identified four theological topics of the dispute but the main theological point of dispute was over the incomprehensibility of God. This dispute over the incomprehensibility of God was chiefly concerned with the way in which man’s knowledge relates to God’s knowledge.

Doug Douma, author of The Presbyterian Philosopher points out the following:

Van Til used the term "analogy" to describe the relationship between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge… Van Til used "analogy" to mean that man’s knowledge itself is an analogy of God’s knowledge... Echoing Van Til, “The Complaint” declared, "Because of his very nature as infinite and absolute the knowledge which God possesses of himself and of all things must remain a mystery which the finite mind of man cannot penetrate." And in the strongest form possible, the phrase for which “The Complaint” became most well-known, "We dare not maintain that [God's] knowledge and our knowledge coincide at any single point."

In critiquing Van Til’s theory of analogy, Clark argued that if God’s knowledge has no point in common with ours, then we know nothing that is true, for God knows all truths. In “The Answer,” [a response to “The Complaint”] his arguments for this conclusion is presented; ‘The Presbytery wishes to suggest that if man does not know at least one truth that God knows, if man’s knowledge and God’s knowledge do not coincide in at least one detail, then man knows nothing at all. God knows all truth, and if man’s mind cannot grasp one truth, then man’s mind grasps no truth. Far from being a test of orthodoxy, this test imposed by “The Complaint” is nothing else than skepticism and irrationalism."[i]

Clark argued that skepticism and irrationalism were the results of Van Til’s position. Dr. Gary Crampton has also argued this point against Van Til's notion of analogy. Crampton writes,

...there is the Van Tilian notion of analogy; that is, that all human knowledge is, and can only be, analogical to God’s knowledge. There is no point at which God’s knowledge meets man’s knowledge. Dr. Van Til is not just teaching that there is a difference in the quantity of God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge (a belief with which all Christians should agree), but that there is also a difference in the content of knowledge. Astonishingly, Dr. Van Til writes: Man could not have the same thought content in his mind that God has in His mind unless he were himself divine. Elsewhere he states that man’s knowledge of God and His Word is at no point identical with the content of God’s mind. And it is because of the fact that all human knowledge is only analogical to God’s knowledge that all teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory.

Such a view, if carried to its logical conclusion, would lead to complete skepticism.[ii]

This quote from Crampton’s article was the one that was posted on the original thread in the comments section in the hope that it would explain, in more detail, the position taken with respect to the original post. Crampton points out the same thing Clark himself pointed out, namely that this view of Van Til's leads to skepticism. However, Tyler replied that “the claim that it would lead to skepticism is just absurd because it ignores the fact of revelatory knowledge based on Scriptures.”

In response to Tyler's comments, I stated, “That is the logically necessary result of such a position.” Tyler then challenged me to produce a syllogism to show this to be the case. Tyler wrote, “Without citing ideological articles, can you present the syllogism that shows it is logically NECESSARY?” He then provided his own syllogism which, unfortunately for him, only served to highlight his failure to grasp the substance of the Clarkian criticism. Tyler wrote:

1 What God has revealed, we can know.

2 God has revealed reliable anthropomorphic truths about himself.

Therefore,

We can have reliable anthropomorphic knowledge of God.

I don’t see how that “logically necessitates” skepticism.

The reason Tyler can’t “see how that [syllogism] ‘logically necessitates’ skepticism” is that it doesn’t, and that is not what Clark said would lead to skepticism. Clark never denied the use of analogies or anthropomorphisms in relation to our knowledge of God or anything thing else for that matter. With such confusion, it is no wonder then that Tyler can’t “see how that ‘logically necessitates’ skepticism.” In the original conversation thread, I quoted and agreed with Crampton who wrote, “Such a view, if carried to its logical conclusion, would lead to complete skepticism.” What view was Crampton referring too? Was it that “God has revealed anthropomorphic truths about himself and therefore, we can have reliable anthropomorphic knowledge of God” as Tyler argued in his syllogism? No, it was the view that “all human knowledge is, and can only be, analogical to God’s knowledge.” The contention, which Tyler apparently failed to grasp, was not over analogical knowledge of God but rather over the idea that all of man’s knowledge is analogical and that there is no point at which God’s knowledge meets man’s knowledge. Simply put, Van Til did not do what Tyler has done in that syllogism; that is to limit the use of analogy to our knowledge of God. Van Til wrote, “The fact that man’s knowledge must always remain analogical is applicable to his knowledge of God as well as to his knowledge of the universe.”[iii] Van Til held that all our knowledge was analogical and that is partly what Clarkians argue will lead to skepticism if drawn to its logical conclusion. Unfortunately, this reveals a significant lack of understanding on Tyler’s part. He would later go on to ask, “Does God have a mighty arm or is it [an] analogy? If it is an analogy, does it not teach us anything that we can then know about God? Does that fact that it is analogy mean that we are stuck with abject skepticism of what it means.” Again, this is highly revealing on Tyler’s part.

In order to properly address Tyler’s confusion, we will answer his questions more directly as we consider what Clark wrote about analogy. Then we will address the overlying issue at hand and examine Van Til’s notion of analogy from two different points of consideration. First, we will examine the notion “that all human knowledge is, and can only be, analogical to God’s knowledge.” Then we will examine Van Til’s notion. “that [God’s] knowledge and our knowledge [do not] coincide at any single point.”

Does Analogy automatically lead to “abject skepticism?"

First, let’s look at what Clark wrote and then we can answer Tyler’s questions more directly. Clark wrote,

Of course, there are figures of speech, metaphors, anthropomorphisms, [analogies] and the like. But these would be meaningless if there were no literal statements to give them meaning. For example, 2 Chronicles 16:9 - “The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth” - is ludicrously ridiculous if taken literally: little eyeballs rolling over the dusty ground. But unless the statement, God is omniscient, is literal, the figure has nothing to refer to.[iv]

Now let’s answer Tyler's questions, “Does God have a mighty arm or is it analogy. If it is analogy, does it not teach us anything that we can then know about God?” Of course, it is an analogy, but unless there is a literal truth, such as God is powerful and mighty, to give it meaning then it tells us nothing about God. Tyler then asked, “Does the fact that it is analogy mean that we are stuck with abject skepticism of what it means.” Again, this is not what Clark or his followers argue will lead to skepticism so the answer is no, not if there is a literal statement to give it meaning. Tyler apparently thinks that Clarkians believe analogy automatically leads to skepticism. If he had read Clark for himself then he may have read when Clark wrote the following.

Those who defend the Bible as a true revelation must insist that it conveys literal truth. This does not mean the God cannot sometimes use symbolism and metaphor [or analogy]. Of course, there is symbolism in Ezekiel, there are parables in the gospels, and there are metaphors scattered throughout. God might have used even mythology and fable. But unless there are literal statements along with these figures of speech - or at the very least, unless figures of speech can be translated into literal truth - a book conveys no definite meaning.

Let a person say that the cross symbolizes the love of God. However, if all language or all religious language is symbolical, the statement that the cross symbolizes the love of God is itself a symbol. A symbol of what? When this last question is answered, we shall find that this answer is again a symbol. Then another symbol will be needed, and another. And the whole process will be meaningless.

This contemporary theory of language is open to the same objections that were raised against the Thomistic [and the Van Tilian] notion of analogical knowledge. In order to have meaning, an analogy, a metaphor, or a symbol must be supported by some literal truth. If Samson was as strong as an ox, then an ox must literally be strong. If Christ is the lion of the tribe of Judah, then something must be literally true about lions and about Christ also. No matter with what literary embellishment the comparison be made there must be a strictly true statement that has given rise to it. And a theory that says all language is symbolic is a theory that cannot be taken as literally true.[v]

Clearly then, Clark did not reject the use of analogy, symbolism, or anthropomorphism. Nor did he claim that analogical or anthropomorphic descriptions of God would automatically lead to skepticism. This level of confusion and ignorance raises suspicion for one who claims to have read both sides. Tyler is without excuse because he was encouraged to, “read some Gordon Clark,” to which he replied, “I have read Clark.” After I quoted Crampton I stated that Clark had already refuted Van Til’s notion of analogy to which Tyler responded by saying, “‘Refuted’ is FAR too strong a term btw. Almost laughably so to anyone who had read both sides.” Is it not “the fool [who] rages and laughs.” (Proverbs 29:9) Tyler ought to be careful if he finds himself tempted to laugh at Clark or his followers. But perhaps he was merely posturing in the discussion when he claimed to have read both sides. After this encounter with Tyler, I seriously doubt he has read both sides.

All of this is to merely to highlight Tyler's confusion and what many Van Tilians tend to do in discussions about Clark. Their obstinacy toward Clark is outweighed only by their ignorance of Clark. But Tyler did request a Syllogism to demonstrate that Van Til’s view of analogy logically necessitated skepticism.

All Human Knowledge Is Analogical

It would appear by and large that when Van Tilians make the claim that all of man’s knowledge is analogical to God’s knowledge they intend for this proposition to be regarded as something that is literally true. However, we can provide a syllogism to show that this is only can only be an analogy.

Premise 1: All man's knowledge is analogical to God’s Knowledge

Premise 2: "All man's knowledge is analogical to God's knowledge" is a knowledge claim made by a man

Conclusion: Therefore "all man's knowledge is analogical to God's knowledge" is an analogy.

Clark had already pointed this out when he wrote:

On the complainants’ theory, the proposition “the truth man has is analogical” is itself only an analogy. It is not the truth that God has. Nor could man know that it was God who was revealing such a proposition, for again the proposition “God is revealing that truth is analogical” is only an analogy of the truth. ("The Answer" Pg 22)

If this proposition, all man’s knowledge is analogical, is not to be regarded as literally true then it must be analogous to something that is literally true. To understand the analogy, we must also know and understand the literal truth which gives it meaning. It is important to recognize that the truth of Jesus’ parables was obscured from those who were not given the literal meaning of the parable. In Luke 8:4-8 we read the parable of the sower.

⁴ And when a great crowd was gathering and people from town after town came to him, he said in a parable, ⁵ "A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell along the path and was trampled underfoot, and the birds of the air devoured it. ⁶ And some fell on the rock, and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. ⁷ And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up with it and choked it. ⁸ And some fell into good soil and grew and yielded a hundredfold." As he said these things, he called out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Jesus gives the parable and it is clear from the text that nobody understood what it meant until he provided the literal meaning of the parable. In verses 9-10 we read, "⁹ And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, ¹⁰ he said, 'To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that 'seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.'" All that the “others” were given was a parable or an analogy, and although they heard they did not understand. If all we have is an analogy with no support or connection to a literal truth then we are no better off than these people. Therefore, Jesus had to take his disciples aside and give them the literal meaning of the parable so that they might understand.

¹¹ Now the parable is this: The seed is [analogous to] the word of God. ¹² The ones along the path are [analogous to] those who have heard; then the devil [the birds are an analogy of the devil] comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. ¹³ And the ones on the rock are [analogous to] those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away. ¹⁴ And as for what fell among the thorns, they are [analogous to] those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. ¹⁵ As for that in the good soil, they are [analogous to] those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience. (Luke 8:9-15)

It’s also important to remember that we can draw a valid deduction from a false premise. As a Clarkian, I'm not interested in defending Van Til’s irrational notion of analogy and I would argue that the first premise is false. I do not believe that all of man’s knowledge is analogical. Here I'm going to give Tyler an ad hominem reply and accept the first premise as true for the sake of argument. Unfortunately, however, before we can proceed any further, we must correct a very common misunderstanding, one which Tyler has previously made, that all ad hominem replies are fallacious. Here we must caution the would-be philosopher to avoid making this mistake. Gordon Clark wrote:

ad hominem – Latin meaning “to the man.” A form of argument that accepts a proposition espoused by another for the purpose of deducing from it contradictory propositions or propositions that would be rejected by the other person. AD HOMINEM SHOULD BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE INFORMAL FALLACY OF ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM. (Emphasis Clark’s)[vi]

Clark rightly distinguished between an ad hominem reply and an abusive ad hominem fallacy. This view, though largely misunderstood, is not particular to Clark. I am going to accept the proposition “all man’s knowledge is analogical to God’s knowledge,” which accurately reflects Van Til’s notion of analogy, for the purpose of deducing from it contradictory propositions or propositions that would be rejected by Tyler. First, we will use the Modus Ponens syllogism to show it to be self-contradictory if it is to be taken as literally true. Then we will use the Modus Tollens syllogism to reduce it to absurdity if it is not to be taken as literally true. Since we have shown that the claim, “all man’s knowledge is analogical to God’s knowledge” is itself an analogy we can proceed to show that it is self-contradictory if the Van Tilian intends for it to be taken as literally true. To do this we will use of a Modus Ponens syllogism.

Premise 1: (If P) If the claim "all human knowledge is analogical to God's knowledge" is an analogy (then Q) then it cannot be literally true.

Premise: 2 (P) The claim is an analogy

Conclusion: (Therefore Q) Therefore it cannot be literally true.

It would appear that the Van Tilian claim, that all knowledge is analogical, is to be regarded as literally true. If that is the case then it is clearly self-contradictory and therefore self-refuting. We should also point out that the mind is compelled to reject contradictions because we are made in the image of God and it is only by suppressing the truth that they are maintained and professed. However, if the knowledge claim itself is not literal but analogical then it must be supported by some literal truth if it is to convey any truth or meaning. We can show by using the Modus Tollens syllogism how this is reduced to absurdity and leads to a position that Tyler and every other Van Tilian would reject.

Premise 1: (If P) If this analogy "all human knowledge is analogical to God's knowledge" is to convey any truth or meaning (then Q) then it must be supported by some literal truth which is knowable to man.

Premise 2: (Not Q) No literal truth is accessible to man for all of man’s knowledge is analogical

Conclusion: (Therefore Not P) therefore this analogy conveys no truth or meaning.

First, we showed that Van Til’s notion of analogy is itself an analogy. Then we gave an ad hominem reply and accepted the position as true so for the sake of argument in order to show it to be either self-contradictory or absurd. We used the Modus Ponens syllogism to show that if this analogy is to be regarded as literally true then it is self-contradictory and therefore must be false. We then used the Modus Tollens syllogism to show that if it is not to be regarded as literal but rather it is analogical then it is reduced to absurdity on the account that it conveys not truth or meaning. Certainly, Tyler would reject these propositions, which have been properly deduced from Van Til’s theory of analogy.

No Point of Coincidence

By this point, the problem with Van Til's notion of analogy should clear but let’s take it a little further and address some of Tyler’s other points. Tyler argued,

Again, do the analogies contained within scripture not teach us real truth? As a Clarkian, IF your argument were valid, [Clark’s arguments are valid] you would have just undermined all truths of scripture learned via analogy, anthropomorphism, metaphor, symbolism, etc. You see the irony of a Clarkian doing that? If a Clarkian wants to say that analogous knowledge has no truth value then they have undermined ALL non-didactic/straight historic sections of the scripture as having any truth value.

First, we need to point out again that the Clarkian criticism is not leveled against the use of analogy itself, but rather it is leveled against Van Til's theory of analogy. If Tyler understood this then he wouldn’t be asking such questions. Tyler stated, “IF your argument were valid [they are valid], you would have just undermined all truths of scripture learned via analogy, anthropomorphism, metaphor, symbolism, etc. You see the irony of a Clarkian doing that right?” The true irony in all this is that it was Van Til's notion of analogy that undermined “all truths of scripture learned via analogy, anthropomorphism, metaphor, symbolism, etc.” Again, no Clarkian is saying that “analogous knowledge has no truth value” and we have not undermined “ALL non-didactic/straight historic sections of the scripture” because neither Clark nor his followers have rejected the use of analogy or made the claim that it has “no truth value.”

Tyler doesn’t understand the substance of the debate especially when he makes comments like the following:

Just because I don't believe we have knowledge in the same way that God has knowledge doesn't entail skepticism, let alone make it "logically necessary.”

This shows once again that Tyler does not grasp the actual issue. Clarkians also “don't believe we have knowledge in the same way that God has knowledge,” and neither do we believe that this is what will, “entail skepticism, let alone make it ‘logically necessary.’” Dr. Reymond wrote, “It is important to note here that it is not the way that God and human beings know a thing that "The Complaint" declares is different. Both the complaints and Clark agreed that God knows everything by eternal intuition whereas people learn what they know (excluding certain innate ideas) discursively. Rather, insists Van Til and certain of his students, it is the content of man’s knowledge that is qualitatively distinct from God’s knowledge.”[vii]

"The Complaint" which declared, “We dare not maintain that [God’s] knowledge and our knowledge coincide at any single point,” also stated that it was a “tragic fact” that Clark’s position, “has lead him to obliterate the qualitative distinction between the contents of the divine mind and the knowledge which is possible to the creature.” In other words, Van Til and his cohorts accused Clark of harming the Creator/ creature distinction and insisted that in order to maintain that distinction we must maintain that our knowledge does not coincide with God’s knowledge at any single point. This is what the actual issue was over. So let’s take a closer look at these positions.

The problem that Van Til faced was similar to, if not the same, to that of Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) with respect to his theory of analogy. Aquinas was the first theologian to propose the use of analogy as a way of explaining the relation of being between God and man. This point of criticism against Van Til by way of comparison to Aquinas is nothing new and most well informed Van Tilians are aware of it. Dr. Scott Oliphint has stated the following.

Van Til’s notion of “analogy” or “analogical,” as it applies to knowledge and to predication, is central to his theology and apologetic.  Though the term itself is confusing in that it carries with it a host of assumptions in Thomism, it should not be confused or in any way identified with Thomas’s understanding of analogy.  Though for Thomas there was an analogy of being, for Van Til, the notion of analogy was meant to communicate the ontological and epistemological difference between God and man.  This difference has been expressed historically in terms of an archetypal/ ectypal relationship.[viii]

Despite all attempts by Van Til’s disciples to rescue his theory of analogy from criticism by distinguishing it from that of Thomas Aquinas’ the problem of skepticism still persisted. Let’s take a moment to ask why as we examine the issue. Dr. Oliphint pointed out that for Thomas there was an analogy of being which is to say that he held that nothing can be predicated of God and man in a univocal sense. Dr. Reymond points out, “A given predicate applied to separate subjects [such as God and man] univocally would intend that the subjects possess the predicate in a precisely identical sense.”[ix] This is why we cannot say for example, that both God and man are “intelligent, good or upright” in a univocal sense. This would imply that both God and man possess the predicates “intelligent, good or upright” in a precisely identical sense and Aquinas recognized that this would destroy the Creator-creature distinction.

However, the opposite of univocality is equivocality and it has its own problem. A given predicate applied to separate subjects equivocally would intend that the subjects possess the predicate in a completely unrelated and altogether different sense. Aquinas also understood that to suggest that God and man are “intelligent, good or upright” in a completely equivocal sense would result in utter skepticism for it would be completely ambiguous. In sum, a complete univocality destroys the Creator-creature distinction while a complete equivocality results in skepticism. Therefore, Aquinas proposed the use of “proportionality or analogy” as a third option for univocality and equivocality. This means that when we say, for example, that “God and man are intelligent,” it is analogical in the sense that God’s intelligence is proportional to God’s intelligence as man’s intelligence is proportional to man’s intelligence and it also means that the “intelligence” intended cannot be the same for both God and man. This sounds all well and good until we remember that Aquinas held that nothing could be predicated in the univocal sense between God and man. But why is this a problem? It is because the only thing that can keep an analogy from becoming a complete equivocality is the univocal element that is implicit within it. Dr. Reymond points out,

If I assert that an analogy may be drawn between an apple and an orange, do I not intend to suggest that the apple and the orange, obviously different in some respects, are the same in at least one respect? Why otherwise would I draw attention to the relationship between them? While it is true that the one respect in which I perceive that they are similar will not be immediately apparent to anyone else without further explanation on my part, it should be clear nonetheless to everyone, if I asserted that they are analogous one to the other, that I believe that in some sense a univocal feature exists between them--in this case, it may be that I have in mind that they are both fruit, or that they are both spherical, or that they both have extension in space and have mass. I intend to suggest that, for all their differences, they have something in common.[x]

The same is true for the univocal elements which are implicit in the parable of the sower. Christ was asserting that an analogy can be drawn between a seed and the word of God. To borrow the language of Dr. Reymond, Christ is clearly suggesting to his disciples that the seed and the word of God, although different in many ways, are the same in at least one respect. Why else would he be drawing their attention to them? It is true that the one respect in which Jesus perceive that the seed and the word of God are similar was not immediately apparent to anyone else without further explanation on his part but “it should be clear nonetheless to everyone, if [Christ] asserted that they are analogous one to the other, that [he did] believe that in some sense a univocal feature exist between them.” In this case, it is that both the word of God and the seed must take root and grow in good soil in order to have the proper effects of life, growth and bearing fruit. The univocal features for the rest of the parable are further explained by Christ. For example, the univocal feature between the birds and the devil is that they both come to take away the seed. The univocal feature between those whom the path represents and the path itself is that they both have left the seed open to attack. That is to say that they have heard the word, which has fallen on deaf ears, just as if the seed has fallen on the ground by the wayside. The word of God has not sunk into their hearts and minds just as the seed has not sunk into the ground. These people hear the word of God, do not care, do not meditate on it or think deeply about it, and are altogether intellectually shallow. So then, the word of God, which the seed, represents is left open to attack and the word is easily plucked out by the devil who snatches it away like a bird snatches the seed from the ground.

Is it not obvious then, that for all the differences between these subjects if an analogy is drawn between them then there must be something that is equally true of both of them. It is the predicate that indicates that they have something in common. The problem with Aquinas was that he denied any univocal coincidence in prediction between God and man. Therefore, he could not avoid equivocality because he could not account for the univocal elements within his theory of analogy. Van Til’s view faced the same problem, for he held that all of man’s knowledge was analogical to God’s knowledge and God’s knowledge and our knowledge did not coincide at any single point. This did not allow for any univocal element within his view of analogy and therefore he could avoid total equivocality. Dr. Reymond writes, “It is difficult to see how, with his explicit rejection of the univocal element (see his “corresponds at no single point”) in man’s so-called “analogical” knowledge of God, Van Til can rescue such knowledge from being in actuality a total equivocality and no true knowledge at all. Doug Douma points out that Paul Moser is quoted as saying, “Admittedly, Van Til’s theory of analogy is not identical with that of Thomas; but the distinction between the two is not one that commends Van Til’s theory; for his view if held consistently, implies pure equivocism.”[xi]

To be sure, and to satisfy Tyler’s demands for a syllogism, for otherwise, he may not see the points being made, let’s give another ad hominem reply. Let’s accept the position that Van Til and the other faculty members who signed "The Complaint" put forth for the sake of argument and deduce from it propositions that Tyler would be forced to reject. We can show this by virtue of two Modus Tollens syllogism.

Premise 1: (If P) If man is to knows any truth at all (Then Q) then man’s knowledge must coincide with God’s knowledge at some point for God knows all truth.

Premise 2: (Not Q) Man’s knowledge does not coincide with God’s knowledge at any single point.

Conclusion: (Therefore Not P) Therefore man does not know any truth at all.

Premise 1: (If P) If Van Til’s notion of analogy is to keep from becoming a complete equivocality (Then Q) then his notion of analogy must allow for a univocal feature to be contained within an analogy

Premise 2: (Not Q) Van Til’s notion of analogy does not allow for a univocal feature to be contained within an analogy

Conclusion: (Therefore Not P) Therefore Van Til’s notion of analogy cannot keep from becoming a complete equivocality.

Conclusion

Certainly, much more could be said on this but for now this will suffice. It is worth noting that perhaps Aquinas’ theory of analogy could have been salvaged if he instead held that nothing can be predicated of God and man in a completely univocal sense. Perhaps too, Van Til’s theory of analogy could have been salvaged during the controversy if he would have allowed for a point of coincidence between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge. Unfortunately, however, that was not the case and it is why Clark said, “Unless the analogy is based on a literal and univocal similarity, there could be no analogy at all. And I would use this argument to pay my respects to Thomas Aquinas and Cornelius Van Til.” (Clark - Language, Truth, and Revelation, Part 1, minute 27)[xii] It is likely that Van Til and the other complainants felt the full weight of Clark’s criticism because they later conceded to his arguments and accepted a “point of contact” between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge. They also attempted to change the definition of “content.” Clark’s criticism was utterly devastating![xiii]

It is worth noting that it was here on this hill of analogy that Van Til so fervently fought against the ordination of Gordon Clark. This was the hill the complainants erected and it was the hill they defended during the controversy. Let the reader of this article note that I, a Clarkian, have just used "hill" as an analogy for "theological position." When we draw out the Van Til position, as established by "The Complaint," to its logical conclusion we are left with skepticism. This is the Clarkian position and more importantly, it is the Biblical position.

[i] DOUMA, DOUG J. "The Arguments of The Ordination Controversy." PRESBYTERIAN PHILOSOPHER. S.l.: WIPF & STOCK PUB, 2017. 112-14. Print.

[ii] Crampton, W. Gary. "Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis." Trinity Foundation. Trinity Foundation, June-July 2000. Web. 02 June 2017. <http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=128>.

[iii] Til, Cornelius Van. A Survey of Christian Epistemology. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980.Presuppositionalism 101. Web. Apr.-May 2017. <https://presupp101.wordpress.com/downloads/>.

[iv] Clark, Gordon Haddon. God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2011. Print

[v]. Clark, Gordon Haddon. God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2011. Print.

[vi] Clark, Gordon Haddon. Logic. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2004. Print.

[vii] Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Second ed. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2001. Print.

[viii] Til, Cornelius Van, and K. Scott Oliphint. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2008. 62. Print.

[ix] Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Second ed. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2001. Print.

[x] Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Second ed. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2001. Print.

[xi] DOUMA, DOUG J. "The Arguments of The Ordination Controversy." PRESBYTERIAN PHILOSOPHER. S.l.: WIPF & STOCK PUB, 2017. 112-14. Print.

[xii] This quote was found by Doug Douma and provide in the footnotes of his book.

[xiii] For more information on the change in Van Til’s position the reader of this article is encouraged to read: DOUMA, DOUG J. "Chapter 8, The Continued Controversy and Its Results."PRESBYTERIAN PHILOSOPHER. S.l.: WIPF & STOCK PUB, 2017. 157-62. Print.

Wills, Garry. What Jesus Meant. New York: Viking, 2006. Print.

It's not uncommon for liberal scholars who can read the New Testament in its original language to remain utterly clueless as to what it truly teaches. Garry Wills, a historian and classicist who is proficient in Greek, ironically wrote What Jesus Meant to dispel popular cultural misunderstandings of Jesus, not realizing that his polluted theological presumptions grossly distort Christ's teachings and promote a perverted anti-Christ agenda.

This book is terrible, but it's interesting how Wills, a practicing Catholic--albeit an unorthodox one according to Roman Catholic dogma, though ironically he and Pope Francis seem to have much in common (see Richard Bennett, "Francis: Stalwart Reformer or Diehard Pontiff?", http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=297)--criticizes and rejects the papacy, knowing that Jesus would have too (15), and argues that the New Testament has no sacrificial system of priests like the Roman Catholic church does (67ff.). He also provides his own translations of all the New Testament passages he quotes, which are sometimes, though not always, better than popular translations, such as John 3:16: "Such was God's love for the creation [world] that he gave his only-begotten [unique] Son to keep anyone believing in him from perishing, to have a life eternal" (122). This does a better job of rendering πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων--"everyone believing"--into the present progressive, which delimits "the world" to refer to believers only.

Unfortunately, Wills completely distorts what Jesus really meant.

The Money-Hatin' Jesus

Wills rightly says "that Jesus wore no gorgeous vestments. He neither owned nor used golden chalices or precious vessels. He had no jeweled ring to be kissed" (44); but then he goes too far, claiming that, "though the gospels make it clear that riches are the enemy of the spirit, they raise an even more urgent warning against power, and especially against spiritual power" (44). According to the Bible riches in themselves are not evil; "the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs" (1 Tim. 6:10). Jesus even promised: "There is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel's sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life" (Mark 10:29-30).

The Rebellious Ahistorical Jesus

Wills imposes his irrational, mystical unbelief--"Jesus as a person does not exist outside the gospels, and the only reason he exists there is because of their authors' faith in the Resurrection.... So this book...will treat the Jesus of faith, since there is no other. The 'historical Jesus' does not exist for us" (xxvi, xxviii)--and his anti-Christian ethics into the Gospels, resulting in a pro-homosexual, social justice, pacifistic, egalitarian, inclusive, disobedient, rebellious Jesus who

went a different way,...neglecting (no doubt) the family business of cabinetmaking.... Though we are not explicitly told anything about "the hidden years" beyond Luke's description of his running away from his parents when he was twelve, the stance of the rebel who would not be contained in the expectations of his hometown comes out again and again when family ties are mentioned. (6, 7)

In an effort to criticize Christian leaders who "have often rebuked the rebelliousness of young people by offering them a pastel picture of the young Jesus as a model of compliance and good behavior" (7), Wills eisegetes the Gospels. The Bible never says that Jesus was disobedient and ran away from his parents. On the contrary, Jesus "went down with [His parents] and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart. And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men" (Luke 2:51-52). Jesus never broke God's law; He is the only person in existence that has kept the law fully and perfectly:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.... For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.... For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. (Matt. 5:17, Rom. 5:19; Heb. 5:14)

The Cultic Jesus

Wills also claims that "when [Jesus] moved from the spiritual isolation of the Essenes to the activist denunciations of [John] the Baptist, that would have dismayed his family even more profoundly. They would have felt what families feel today when their sons and daughters join a 'cult' " (11). But the Bible says nothing about Jesus being an Essene, and why would Jesus' family think that He joined a cult with John the Baptist if "everyone considered John to have been a real prophet"? (Mark 11:32) Far from being Essenic, "cultic" leaders, prophets played an integral role in Jewish society.

Additionally, Wills claims that John the Baptist mentored Jesus, though the Bible says that they were almost the same age, and John himself said he wasn't worthy to untie Jesus' sandals: "One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Luke 3:16). Wills promotes the typical Catholic portrayal of Jesus as a weak and frail ascetic, though neither He nor His disciples fasted (Luke 5:33); but He did do the hard work of a carpenter and was strong enough to turn tables over and whip money changers out of the temple (John 2:13ff.). Wills seems to forget that Christ couldn't carry the cross because He was beaten mercilessly beforehand, not because He was naturally weak (23).

The Quixotically Pacifistic Jesus

Next, Wills claims that, "though [Jesus] is opposed to war and violence, he is choosing followers for a form of spiritual warfare.... Jesus consistently opposed violence. He ordered Peter not to use the sword, even to protect his Lord... he never accepted violence as justified" (25, 53-54). Jesus Himself, however, told the disciples to buy swords so that, when the time came, they could defend themselves, not Him:

"Whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'And He was numbered with transgressors'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." (Luke 22:35ff.)

Wills, furthermore, doesn't believe in demons and tries to explain away certain passages which describe demons possessing people: "Many of Jesus' miracles are worked for outsiders...with whom observant Jews are to have no dealings...with those made unclean by their illnesses (therefore "possessed").... He casts the uncleanness out of one man into forbidden animals, into pigs (Mk 5.13), to show that no person made in God's image should be treated as unclean" (30). But if demons don't exist, then why was Jesus "choosing followers for a form of spiritual warfare"? (25) If Wills was consistent, he would have to say that Jesus was certifiably insane for talking to Satan, who, according to Wills, doesn't actually exist because he is merely evil personified (120).

Wills also argues that the Father's "love is undiscriminating and inclusive, not graduated and exclusive" (29). But doesn't God love Esau and hate Jacob, and prepare vessels of wrath that are fitted for destruction? (Rom. 9) Are not "the wicked reserved for the day of doom" and also "be brought out on the day of wrath"? (Job 21:30, cf. Prov. 16:4) Wills asks:

Why did the payment [of sin] include Jesus' death, and such a horrible death? Was the creditor so exacting? Behind this conclusion lies the imagery of an angry God, hard to appease but by the most terrible of sacrifices. This is a view that some people call 'gruesome.'... If we talk of salvation as sacrificial in the sense of appeasement or propitiation, there is a note of assuaging an angry God. If we talk of it as rescue, the power from which mankind has to be rescued is not God but the forces at work against God--all the accumulated sins that cripple human freedom.... He sheds his blood with and for us, in our defense, not as a libation to an angry Father.... God initiates [Christ's sacrifice] to conquer sin, not to placate himself.... it is a proof of God's love, not his anger. (115, 121, 122)

Here Wills denies the most fundamental doctrine of the Biblical Gospel--propitiation. He tries to impose his passive god into the Bible and fails miserably, completely ignoring all the verses that speak of God's wrath. I would like to see how Wills would reconcile his pathetic, pacifistic Jesus and Father with passages like

Romans 12:19--"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord" (NASB);

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9--"the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power";

2 Peter 3:7--"But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men";

Jude 14-15--"the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him";

and Revelation 19:11-16--

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

And let's not forget the passage where Jesus violently whips the money changers out of the temple (John 2). Or this one: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). Or this one: "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" (Rom. 5:9-10). This one too: "The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity" (Ps. 5:5). And last but not least: "God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day" (Ps. 7:11).

Wills rejects the doctrine of propitiation, even though it's clearly taught in the Bible, because it means that God is angry with unrepentant sinners, and the only way He could forgive them is by crushing His unique Son: "The LORD was pleased To crush Him [Christ], putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering...whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness" (Isa. 53:10; Rom. 3:25) and to satisfy His wrath, the wrath that we deserve, so "that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26).

The Social Justice Jesus

Wills asks another important question but gives another horrible answer:

What are the tests for entry into the reign or exclusion from it? They are very simple. One will not be asked whether one voted, whether one was a good citizen, or even whether one dealt justly. That is not enough.... The simple test is this. Did you treat everyone, high and low, as if dealing with Jesus himself, with his own inclusive and gratuitous love... "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me." [This] means that...those who despise the poor are despising Jesus. Those neglecting the homeless are neglecting Jesus. Those persecuting gays are persecuting Jesus.... Our test for entry into heaven's reign is whether we fed Jesus in the hungry, clothed him in the naked, welcomed him in the outcast. (58, 137)

Contrary to the Biblical teaching of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Eph. 2), according to Wills' social justice Jesus, if we don't love everyone, help the poor, and affirm homosexuals, then we will not be saved. But it gets worse: "How can we tell who among us is securely affixed to the Vine? We cannot. He [Jesus] told us as much" (140). The real Jesus, however, told us, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37), and John the apostle wrote his letter "to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13, bold emphasis always mine). Wills continuously misapplies verses to make them fit his fictional Jesus. Matthew 25:35-40 does not command Christians to help the poor; it commands Christians to help other Christians--brothers--when they are in need, especially during persecution. Jesus also said,

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'... For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day. (Matt. 7:21-23, John 6:40)

According to the Bible, salvation is by grace "through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10).

The Unclean Jesus

This is one of the worst parts of the book. Wills asks:

Who are the Jews of our day? Who are the cursed? Some Christians tell us who. At the funeral of a well-known gay man who died of AIDS, a "Christian" group showed up with placards saying "God hates fags." In the San Diego diocese, a Catholic bishop forbade Christian burial to an openly gay man. Is there any doubt where Jesus would have stood in these episodes--where, in his mystical members, he was standing then? He was with the gay man, not with his haters. This is made all the clearer by the fact that gays are called unclean for the same reason as were other outcasts of Jesus' time--because they violate the Holiness Code of the Book of Leviticus. (32)

Unless they become new creatures by repenting of their sins and believing in Christ, God is with neither the gay man nor his haters, "for unless you believe that I [Jesus] am He, you will die in your sins...unless you repent you will all likewise perish" (John 8:24, Luke 13:3). And if gays are called unclean (an abomination, actually, cf. Lev. 18.22, 20.13) because they violate the Holiness Code of Leviticus, then why does God still condemn homosexuality in Genesis 19, Ezekiel 16:50, Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Jude 7, etc., none of which are a part of the Holiness Code? Because homosexuality violates God's natural order and is done outside of the Biblical definition of marriage. Wills, however, conveniently leaves these passages out.

The Heretical Jesus and Heroic Judas

Wills also makes a blunder I'd never seen before. He claims that Jesus shared His divinity with the Father, implying that He was not fully divine in Himself:

[Christ's] own divinity is a divinity in the Father, not apart from him. He will not test the Father, because he is too closely identified with him. It would be putting himself on trial. As he says in John's gospel: "The Son, I tell you the truth, can do nothing but what he sees the Father doing. And whatever he does, the Son does in his turn. For the Father loves the Son, and shows him whatever he does" (Jn 5.19-20). (16-17)

Wills distorts this passage, which actually teaches that the Father and the Son are so close that they are united in will, not that they share divinity. Christ Himself is fully God, just as the Father and Holy Spirit are, "For in Him [Christ] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form...and He is the head over all rule and authority" (Col. 2:9, 10). Wills should read the Athanasian Creed:

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

But Wills doesn't just fictionalize Jesus; he turns the traitorous thief, Judas Iscariot, into a good guy as well:

There must have been some good in the man for Jesus to have chosen him not only to follow him but to be one of the Twelve and the trusted bearer of the common purse (Jn 13.29). Judas is a practical man, who deplores the waste of money on precious oils, but he seems idealistic as well, wanting to save money for the poor (Jn 12.4-5).... Jesus knows that Judas is fulfilling the plan of the Father, which leads to the disgraceful death and burial of both men. He says of his followers in general: "Not one of them is lost but the one marked out to be lost to fulfill the scripture" (Jn 17.12). Judas is involuntarily following the will of the Father, as Jesus does voluntarily. (101)

Wills doesn't believe in radical depravity either, the Biblical teaching that all men are naturally evil and thus unable to do any good (Rom. 3, Rom. 8). Jesus chose Judas to fulfill the prophecy, not because there was something good in him: "I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition [Judas], so that the Scripture would be fulfilled" (John 17:12). Judas was not an "idealist" at all. The reason he didn't want the money to be wasted on precious oils was "not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it" (John 12:6). Judas was not "involuntarily following the will of the Father" because he himself "was intending to betray Him [Jesus]" (John 12:4). He also claims that Judas

killed himself for having killed God. It was an act of contrition that redeems him, makes him a kind of comrade for all of us who have betrayed Jesus. He is our patron. Saint Judas.... I believe the Shepherd [Jesus, when He supposedly descended into hell after He died] was first seeking out his special lost one, Judas. (104)

Aside from the fact that we're saved by grace through faith, not by "acts of contrition," Judas was not redeemed; he was the "son of perdition," which means he was damned to hell for being a wicked, God-hating sinner who betrayed Christ. "Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place" (Acts 1:25 NKJV).

What Jesus Meant is the worst interpretation of the Gospels I've ever read. I find it fitting to conclude with a message for Garry Wills from the historical, complementarian, divinely just, exclusive, obedient, King of kings and Lord of lords Jesus: "You blind guide, who strains out a gnat and swallows a camel!" (Matt. 23:24) That's what Jesus meant.

Rev 5/17

William P. Young, in collaboration with Wayne Jacobsen and Brad Cummings. The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity. Ca: Windblown Media, 2007. Print.

One of William P. Young’s major themes in The Shack is how God relates to people in diverse ways. “For any created being, autonomy is lunacy. Freedom involves trust and obedience inside a relationship of love” (Young 132). Young makes humans incredibly powerful and autonomous when compared to God, to the point where God Himself (or herself, according to Young) must work out His own will “without the violation of one human will” (125). The nature of God, how God relates to man and how He communicates to us, obedience, free will, expectations, election and predestination, submission, and the law of God are some of the Christian doctrines that Young severely, even blasphemously and heretically, distorts in The Shack.

Young seems confused at best when he answers important questions about Christianity. The following quote contradicts the one previously stated: “To force my [Jesus’] will on you [Mack]…is exactly what love does not do… Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we [the Trinity] are submitted to you in the same way” (145).[1] Young stresses a “relationship of love” with God and claims that submission is not about obedience or authority—even though Christ commanded, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15)[2]—yet he also asserts that freedom is about obedience, so is obedience part of it or not? Despite these contradictions, we will see that Young ultimately does not advocate any type of obedience.

The Shack’s passive and pagan mama-god complex

According to the Bible, God does force or impose His will on people: “The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes” (Prov. 21:1). He has no alternative because “there is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside” (Romans 3:10-12). Moses did not want to stand up to Pharaoh, but God never gave him a choice: “Moses said to the LORD, ‘I am slow of speech and slow of tongue’… Then the anger of the LORD burned against Moses, and He said…‘You are to speak to [Aaron] and put the words in his mouth; and I, even I, will be with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach you what you are to do” (Exodus 4:10, 14-15). And contrary to what the god of The Shack teaches, the God of the Bible does get disappointed with people, including His own, because He holds all of them accountable for their thoughts, words, and actions, and will judge them according to the standard He has set forth in Scripture:

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent… It is for discipline that you [believers] endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are [bastards] and not sons… For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome…let us [therefore] keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. (Revelation 3:19; Hebrews 12:7-8; I John 5:3; Philippians 3:16)

If a person is not disciplined and rebuked by God, then he is not God’s adopted son, which is the exact opposite of what Papa—Young’s blasphemous and idolatrous portrayal of God the Father as an overweight black woman—tells Mack: “Honey, I’ve never placed an expectation on you or anyone else… And beyond that, because I have no expectations, you never disappoint me” (206). The reality is quite the contrary, for it would be impossible to grieve and disappoint the Spirit of God if He never places any expectations on us as Young alleges: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30). God judges unrepentant sinners and condemns them to hell because they are guilty criminals who have broken His righteous, holy law (Psalm 7:11; John 3:36; I Corinthians 6:9-10). The reason repentant, born-again believers are no longer condemned is that they have the blood of Jesus as a propitiation—appeasement of God’s holy wrath—for all their sin. They are thus forgiven and are no longer sinners and criminals in God’s eyes but have been regenerated, washed, and sanctified through the Holy Spirit, and become adopted sons and daughters, and saints of God (Galatians 4:5; Titus 3:5). Contrary to what Papa says about expectations, the God of the Bible expects many things from His people,

for we [believers] are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them… [Jesus] appointed [us] that [we] would go and bear fruit… Therefore, beloved, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless… Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification [holiness] without which no one will see the Lord. (Ephesians 2:10; John 15:16; II Peter 3:14; Hebrews 12:14)

Believers are constantly exhorted throughout the Scriptures to be obedient followers of Christ and to maintain a holy, righteous, loving, and godly standard in their lives. The end of almost every New Testament letter commands believers to do something that God expects of them. Christians are called to be “the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men” (Matthew 5:13).

To choose, or not to choose, that is the question

Just as it was in the Old Testament with Moses having no choice, so it is in the New. God did not give Mary a choice because she was already chosen, and there was nothing she could do to change that: “Behold, you [Mary] will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus… The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:31, 35). God did not ask Mary permission to use her womb, just as He never asked Paul to go to Damascus—He commanded them. In fact, God has never given anyone a choice because He “commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man [Jesus] whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31, cf. Luke 13:3, John 14:15), even though He has already chosen whom He will save:

All that the Father gives Me [Jesus] will come to Me… No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him… You did not choose Me [Jesus] but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit… He [God the Father] predestined us [believers] to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will…having been predestined according to His purpose [not ours]… For many are called, but few are chosen…who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God [alone]. (John 6:37, 44, 15:16; Ephesians 1:5, 11; Matthew 22:14; John 1:13, NASB)

The Bible teaches election and predestination, for God “has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires… So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Romans 9:18, 16). Ultimately it is up to God to determine whether he will save someone because he has foreordained all things to come to pass according to his will: “and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). God does not consider human free will because it doesn’t exist; the will has been in complete bondage to sin ever since the curse of sin came into the world,

because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God… Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil… The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked… Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned…much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (Romans 8:7-8; Jeremiah 13:23, 17:9; Romans 5:12, 15; cf. Genesis 3, Romans 3, 8:18-25)

The Jesus of The Shack, however, tells Mack the very opposite: “You’re not supposed to do anything. You’re free to do whatever you like” (89). I’ll address this antinomianism (lawlessness) shortly, but Sarayu—Young’s blasphemous and idolatrous feminine portrayal of the Holy Spirit as a “windy” oriental woman—also tells Mack, “Relationships are never about power… We carefully respect your choices,” and Papa later tells him, “We won’t use you [without your consent]” (106, 123-124). All of this blatantly contradicts the Bible, which states that a person must become a “born-again” slave of righteousness to become a true follower of Jesus Christ:

Most assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God… Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (John 3:3; Romans 6:16-19)

Do what thou wilt

Concerning the relationship that Jesus wants with His chosen people, the Jesus of The Shack once again tells Mack the opposite of what the real Jesus says in Scripture: “I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me…[but] we will never force that union on you” (146, 149). This is partly based on the assumption that “true love never forces” (190). Yet the Jesus of the Bible says, “No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him… If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross day by day and follow Me… No servant can serve [Greek douleuein, derived from doulos ‘slave’] two masters… A pupil is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master… He who has My orders and observes them loves Me” (John 6:44; Luke 9:23, 16:13; Matthew 10:24; John 14:21, MLB; see also Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English). Christians are commanded to “glorify God in [their] bodies” (1 Cor. 6:20) and to present themselves “as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God…[for] [they] were bought with a price” (Romans 12:1; I Corinthians 6:20). The Bible commands sinners to repent, deny themselves, and follow Christ, who becomes their Master, “for whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25, cf. 16:24). Young contradicts Scripture when he has Jesus say things like, “I don’t want slaves to my will,” because that’s exactly what God wants.

Moreover, Papa and Sarayu teach Mack antinomianism, or lawlessness:

“The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules… Just don’t look for rules and principles; look for relationship…

…………..

“Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?”...[Sarayu answers,] “Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful….”

“Trying to keep the law is actually a declaration of independence, a way of keeping control….”

“Enforcing rules, especially in its more subtle expressions like responsibility and expectation, is a vain attempt to create certainty out of uncertainty. And contrary to what you might think, I have a great fondness for uncertainty. Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to accuse.”

“Whoa!” Mack suddenly realized what Sarayu had said. “Are you telling me that responsibility and expectation are just another form of rules we are no longer under? Did I hear you right?”

“Yup”, Papa interjected again.  (197-198, 203)

To Young’s dismay, the Bible does teach you to follow rules and obey commands—obedience is the very mark of a Christian’s love for Christ: “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (I John 2:3-4). Young is promoting the heresy of antinomianism, or, in the words of Jesus, the doctrine of those “who practice lawlessness” (Matt. 7:23). Jesus warns against this kind of false teaching: “Many will say to Me on that day [of judgment], 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness' ” (Matthew 7:22-23). Yet the Jesus of The Shack also tells Mack, “Seriously, my life was not meant to be an example to copy. Being my follower is not trying to ‘be like Jesus,’ it means for your independence to be killed…. But, we will never force that union on you” (149). Young clearly has no regard for what the Bible says, for he is at odds with the Apostle Paul: “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” (I Corinthians 11:1). It’s no wonder that he attacks and undermines Sola Scriptura—the Bible as the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice—all throughout The Shack:

Try as he might, Mack could not escape the desperate possibility that the note just might be from God after all, even if the thought of God passing notes did not fit well with his theological training. In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?  (65-66)

Can’t we all just get saved?

The Shack contradicts the Bible on numerous levels and presents an entirely different God. Young flirts with universalism, the belief that everyone—including unbelievers—will eventually be saved, regardless of their belief about Christ. This is evident when Papa tells Mack, “Son, this is not about shaming you. I don't do humiliation, or guilt, or condemnation. They don't produce one speck of wholeness or righteousness, and that is why they were nailed into Jesus on the cross" (223). It gets worse when Jesus tells Mack:

“I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu. To see me is to see them. The love you sense from me is no different from how they love you. And believe me, Papa and Sarayu are just as real as I am, though as you’ve seen in far different ways.”

“Speaking of Sarayu, is she the Holy Spirit?”

“Yes. She is Creativity; she is Action; she is the Breathing of Life; she is much more. She is my Spirit.” (110)

It doesn’t take much to see that the Bible reveals an altogether different God:

The boastful shall not stand in Your [God’s] sight; You hate all workers of iniquity… God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day…God [is] the Judge of all… For the LORD is our Judge, The LORD is our Lawgiver, The LORD is our King; He will save us… God is the Judge: He puts down one, And exalts another… He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God… He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him (Psalm 5:5, 7:11; Hebrews 12:23; Isaiah 33:22; Psalm 75:7; John 3:18, 36)

Problem Seven: A Wrong View of the Way of Salvation

Another problem emerges in the message of The Shack. According to Young, Christ is just the “best” way to relate to the Father, not the only way (109). The “best” does not necessarily imply the only way, which then means that there may be other ways to relate to God. Such an assertion is contrary to Jesus’ claim, “I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes unto the Father except through me” (John14:6).  He added, “He who believes in Him [Christ] is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of  the only begotten Son of God” (Jn. 3:18). Jesus is not merely the best way, but He is the only way to God. Paul declared: “There is one God and one mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).[3]

What’s worse is that Young calls God the Father “Papa” yet blasphemously and idolatrously portrays and embodies Him as an obese black woman:

I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature.  If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it’s because I love you.  For me to appear as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning. (93)

My criticisms are not based on racism or sexism. The problem is that Young wants us to shake off the “religious conditioning” that the Bible itself imposes on us, since it always and only refers to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit with masculine pronouns, and whenever He appeared in human form it was always and only as a man. Not to mention that the reason God expresses and manifests so much wrath and retribution on sinners is because of the rampant idolatry and “humanizing” of God that The Shack shamelessly promotes:

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (Exodus 20:2-4)

…although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:22-25)

Look! It’s the Father! No, it’s the Son! No, it’s the Spirit! No, it’s all three!

Young attempts to affirm the orthodox view of the Trinity when Papa explains to Mack: “We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker. I am one God and I am three persons, and each of the three is fully and entirely the one” (101). But he disregards this definition by promoting the heresy of patripassionism:

Patripassionism is a theological error dealing with the Godhead which states that the Father became incarnate, was born, suffered, and died on the cross, hence, the Father's (patri) passion (suffer) on the cross.

This is an error because we know that Jesus spoke to the person of the Father, and that it was Jesus who went to the cross. If the Father and Son are the same person, that how is it possible for the Father and Son to speak to one another and have separate wills? It is not. Therefore, the doctrine of patripassianism is incorrect and heretical.[4]

The Shack unabashedly promotes this heresy, such as when Sarayu (Young’s version of the “Holy Spirit”) says, "Haven't you seen the [crucifixion] wounds on Papa too?" (164). But Young doesn’t stop there; he compounds his heresy by including the Holy Spirit in Christ’s suffering for good measure, as if portraying all three persons as humans, two of them as women, wasn’t bad enough:

When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human.  We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed.  Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood… Don’t ever think that what my son chose to do didn’t cost us dearly.  Love always leaves a significant mark… We were there together.  (99; 96)

Patripassionism also presupposes the heresy of modalism:

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God.  It is a denial of the Trinity. Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son; and after Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, this view states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time--only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.[5]

These are illogical heresies because, rather than suffer with Christ, God the Father was pleased to pour out His own wrath on Christ to satisfy His perfect justice, for

it pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin… (Isaiah 53:10)

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  (Romans 3:23-26)

It should be obvious that God the Father has no body because “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24), and the Holy Spirit is, well, spirit. Another odd Trinitarian heresy promoted in the book is that all of the persons in the Trinity are equally submitted, not only to each other, but to mankind as well: “Papa is as much submitted to me [Jesus] as I to him, or Sarayu [Young’s “Holy Spirit”] to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way” (145). This denies in the worst possible way the orthodox understanding of the economic Trinity regarding authority and order: that the Father is preeminent—“My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)—that the Son submits to and proceeds from the Father, and "who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a slave, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 1:6-9). And that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son[6]:

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me." (John 15:26)

1. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

2. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

3. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. (The Athanasian Creed)[7]

But it’s just fiction...

It’s convenient to say that The Shack is just a novel because it gives Young plausible deniability. Earlier self-defensive poets like Geoffrey Chaucer used dream visions and allegory, partly to detach themselves from their writing and avoid suspicion from church and state:

And afterward the story I engage

To tell you of our common pilgrimage.

But first, I pray you, of your courtesy,

You'll not ascribe it to vulgarity

Though I speak plainly of this matter here,

Retailing you their words and means of cheer;

Nor though I use their very terms, nor lie.

For this thing do you know as well as I:

When one repeats a tale told by a man,

He must report, as nearly as he can,

Every least word, if he remember it,

However rude it be, or how unfit;

Or else he may be telling what's untrue,

Embellishing and fictionizing too.

He may not spare, although it were his brother;

He must as well say one word as another.

Christ spoke right broadly out, in holy writ,

And, you know well, there's nothing low in it.

And Plato says, to those able to read:

"The word should be the cousin to the deed."[8]

Many defend The Shack in a similar way that some defend Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code because they are novels, even though they promote anti-Christian agendas. After all, it’s just a dream, right? It’s just a work of fiction, right? Here’s one prominent example from CBN:

The Shack's depiction of God is an interesting portrait that isn’t meant to be taken literally as much as it is meant to capture many of the attributes of God that we read about in the Bible. These characters’ interactions with Mack show that God is compassionate, loving, and that He desires a close relationship with each of us.

God relates to us in the ways that we will best be able to hear Him. Because of Mack’s painful childhood memories of an abusive dad, perhaps he would not have embraced God the way we typically see Him portrayed, as a Father-figure.[9]

The problem is that the ways in which Young “captures” the many attributes of God are utterly opposed to what “we read about in the Bible.” God relates to us through His Word, and the Word reveals God as a holy, just judge and a Father who rebukes those he loves, so if Young cannot embrace God as a “Father-figure,” then he’s embracing an idol of his imagination, which is what The Shack is a product of.

The Shack is such a wild and synergistic concoction of heresies that new theological terms and categories must be coined to accommodate them. I couldn’t find hardly anything in the book that was Biblical. I marvel how so much heresy, blasphemy, and idolatry can be packed into one book and be marketed as Christian literature and, in the words of Eugene Peterson,[10] author of The Message bible, even be compared to Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, which has virtually nothing in common with The Shack, because The Shack has virtually nothing in common with the Bible. I have never read a book claiming to promote Christianity that is so blatantly blasphemous and offensive. It is no wonder that Scripture warns how “false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect…. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light” (Matt. 24:24; Luke 16:8).

Don't stop here! Put on heresy repellant with these resources:

• The Shack: Uncovered (Full Sermon) - Michael Youssef, https://vimeo.com/4479699

• Paul Flynn’s The Shack: Its Dangerous Theology and Error (Full Documentary Film), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epEQv6-5u0U

• Matt Slick’s book review of The Shack and interview with the author, William P. Young, https://carm.org/the-shack

• Tim Challies’ book review of The Shack, http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/a-review-of-the-shack-download-it-here

• Theology Gals | Episode 5 | The Shack & Christian Discernment, http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2017/03/07/theology-gals-episode-5-shack-christian-discernment/

• Coleen Sharp, “Why The Shack Isn’t for Christians,” http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2017/02/23/why-the-shack-isnt-for-christians/

• Tim Hurd, “Is Paul Young (Author of “The Shack”) Really A Universalist?”, http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2017/03/10/paul-young-author-shack-really-universalist/

• Al Mohler, “The Shack — The Missing Art of Evangelical Discernment,” http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/01/27/the-shack-the-missing-art-of-evangelical-discernment/

• David Ruzicka, http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-shack-book-was-totally-whack-will-the-movie-be-like-that-175857/

• http://inplainsite.org/html/the_shack.html

Notes

[1] Bold emphasis always mine.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references are taken from the New King James Version (NKJV).

[3] “The Shack: Helpful or Heretical?” A Critical Review by Norman L. Geisler and Bill Roach, http://inplainsite.org/html/the_shack.html#Shack4

[4] Matt Slick, “Patripassianism,” https://carm.org/patripassianism

[5] Matt Slick, “Modalism,” https://carm.org/modalism

[6] See Matt Slick’s “What is the filioque clause controversy? Is it biblical?”, https://carm.org/what-is-the-filioque-clause-controversy-biblical

[7]http://reformed.org/documents/index.html

[8] Geoffrey Chaucer, “The General Prologue,” The Canterbury Tales, Translated by Edwin Duncan, Lines 723-742, https://tigerweb.towson.edu/duncan/chaucer/duallang8.htm

[9] Belinda Elliott, “What’s So Bad about The Shack?”, CBN, http://www1.cbn.com/books/whats-so-bad-about-the-shack

[10] “When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of ‘The Shack.’ This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ did for his. It’s that good!” –Eugene Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology, Regent College, Vancouver, B.C., quoted in Ken Silva, “STAY AWAY FROM ‘THE SHACK,’” http://apprising.org/2008/09/15/stay-away-from-the-shack/

Updated 11/30/2020

What makes a true Clarkian? How much and what do you have to agree with Clark on? Which of Clark’s protégés carries the truest banner of his legacy? These questions have stirred much controversy and division amongst those who follow the teachings of Reformed philosopher-theologian Gordon Haddon Clark.

But such questions are distractions. What’s far more important than identifying “true” Clarkians is to understand what Clark himself taught, know how to evaluate secondary sources, and develop the maturity to disagree biblically, whether it’s with Clark, Clarkians, or other Christians, without unnecessary denouncements. It's foolish to judge who is or isn't a "true" Clarkian; it only damages Clark's legacy and breeds unnecessary infighting, and the history of some of Clark's followers sadly attests to this even now. All of us who value Clark—especially the coming generation of pastors, preachers, teachers—would do well to get along. There's already too much internal strife as it is, and while Clark’s influence is slowly growing, we’re still a small piece of the Reformed pie.

This isn’t the worst-case scenario we’ve witnessed, but Jason Petersen, a student at Whitefield Theological Seminary, recently denounced Luke Miner, a Scripturalism.com contributor (Jason is also a contributor), as a self-deceived Clarkian. Jason recounts in his blog:

While I have no doubt that Luke believes he is a Clarkian, he is not a Clarkian. Clark never defined knowledge as justified-true belief, yet Luke attempted to articulate (in a different thread) that notion in the Clarkian Apologetics [Facebook] Group (or at the very least, that “true belief” is not enough and that a qualifier is needed. Clark would never agree with this).  Clark instead defined knowledge as true belief, or more specifically, possession of the truth by a mind. This, and my conversation with Luke, is exactly why I proclaimed that he is not a Clarkian. Perhaps he respects Clark and agrees with him on many aspects (such as Clark’s rejection of metaphysics), but he should not call himself a Clarkian.[1]

According to Jason, a "true" Clarkian must at least agree with Clark's epistemology and maintain key terms as Clark defined them, that is, according to Jason's interpretation. Jason is making amends with Luke and others involved, though Luke "and Cjay will remain out of the [Clarkian Apologetics Facebook] group."[2]

We don’t care for petty conflicts, but this illustrates a growing tendency in some. If these little foxes are left unchecked, they will ruin their vineyard. The biblical and productive approach is to simply correct misunderstandings or misrepresentations of Clark, without pronouncements as to who the "real" Clarkian is. Especially because the accuser could be wrong. Those who denounce fellow Clarkians this way resemble Diotrephes,

who likes to put himself first, [and] does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.  (3 John 9-10)

Does Jason "like to put himself first"? Judge for yourselves:

Imagine being a professor and then having a student try to take over the class. Anyone who knows me is aware that I have little tolerance for such antics. It is also worthy to note that the Clarkian Apologetics Group is a direct product of the Gordon Clark Foundation, which, by the way, endorses this [Jason's] website.[3]

Isn’t this the carnal sectarianism that Paul warned against in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, 3:1-4? For when one says, "I am of Clark and you are not," are you not carnal? Is Christ divided? It is a sad but common practice in our day for immature believers to seek online platforms and tout spiritual influence and authority when they’re neither ready nor qualified nor called by God to do so. “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).

A Justified True Clarkian

In any case, is Jason's claim true, that Clark rejected justified true belief (JTB) and "instead defined knowledge as true belief, or more specifically, possession of the truth by a mind"? Not according to Clark himself:

A systematic philosophy must take care of epistemology. Knowledge must be accounted for. It may be that the a priori forms cannot be listed; it may be that botany or some other subject remains obscure; but knowledge of some sort must be provided.[4] ..................................................

What account shall be given of everyday “knowledge” that common sense thinks it silly to doubt? Don’t I know when I am hungry? Can’t I use road maps to drive to Boston to Los Angeles? Indeed, how can I know what the Bible says without reading its pages with my own eyes? It was one secular philosopher criticizing another, who said that knowledge is a fact and that any theory that did not account for it should be abandoned. But all such criticisms miss the point. The status of common opinion is not fixed until a theory has been accepted. One may admit that a number of propositions commonly believed are true; but no one can deny that many such are false. The problem is to elaborate a method by which the two classes can be distinguished. Plato, too, granted a place to opinion as distinct from knowledge; he even admitted that in some circumstances opinion was as useful as knowledge with a capital K. But to dispose of the whole matter by an appeal to road maps that we can see with our own eyes is to ignore everything said above about Aristotle.[5]

Clark then proceeds by arguing that there is no account of this common sense “knowledge,” and is thus not knowledge but opinion. For an opinion to be knowledge it must be both true and accounted for. Clark's unpublished paper on Plato’s theory of knowledge from the Gordon H. Clark Foundation runs along the same lines:

The term “knowledge” is very ambiguous, and, until all its meanings have been revealed, false judgment cannot really be explained. Socrates’ discussion has pointed out some of its meaning. Plato’s analysis of false judgment is included in the Sophist when the Forms have been introduced.

The “pieces of knowledge” stored in the mind are no more than true beliefs. Our attitude toward a false belief is the same as it is toward a true one. Our confidence in belief is not based on reason. Socrates contrasts a jury’s second-hand belief when convinced of the facts to the direct knowledge of the eye-witness who has seen the fact. Even if the jury finds the right verdict, they are still judging without knowledge, only belief. If true belief and knowledge were the same, a juryman could never have a correct belief without knowledge. Therefore, knowledge cannot be defined as true belief.

True belief lacked something which was necessary in order to call it knowledge. So Theaetetus suggests that knowledge is true belief accompanied by an account or explanation. Plato considers the various possible meanings of “account” and finally rejects the suggestion. The account is not enough to raise correct opinion to the level of knowledge.[6]

In Lord God of Truth Clark again concurs with Plato:

Accordingly the knowledge possible for human beings consists of the axioms of and the deductions from Scripture. We can indeed entertain opinions about Columbus, and by accident or good luck they may be true; but we could not know it. Our dear pagan Plato, at the end of his Meno (98b) declared, "That there is a difference between right opinion and knowledge (ōrtheme) is not at all a conjecture with me, but something I would particularly assert that I knew."[7]

While Clark doesn't necessarily use the term justified true belief—likely because it didn’t gain traction til the late 1970’s,[8] and he died in 1985—he clearly affirms the concept. He agrees with Plato on the distinction between belief/opinion and knowledge, as do many of his pupils. So according to his standard of "true" Clarkianism, Jason would also have to denounce Clark himself, as well as Clarkians who are more knowledgeable such as Sean Gerety, Robert Reymond, John Robbins, Gary Crampton, and even his mentor Kenneth Talbot. While Jason claims that "Clark never defined knowledge as justified-true belief,” Sean Gerety

find[s] it strange how many who claim to hold to the biblical epistemology of Gordon Clark fail to understand even the first principles of his theory. For Clark knowledge requires an account. That is, for a proposition to rise to the level of knowledge it has to be justified.[9]

Gerety explains that "knowledge, which is true belief with an account of its truth, or, simply, justified true belief (belief being the operative word), is the gift of God."[10]  In The Justification of Knowledge—the title itself is a dead giveaway—Robert Reymond argues that

Clark is a brilliant Reformed philosopher–theologian. I deeply appreciate the reflection of the Reformed view of Scripture in his assumption, on dogmatic grounds, of the self–authenticating Word of God as his axiom for knowing God or anything else as it ought to be known. I concur with him that unless one begins with God he will not arrive at a knowledge of God, nor will he be able to justify any knowledge claim.[11]

Reymond moreover "would agree that, without innate self–evident truths and without a revelational pou sto as a given, the justification of knowledge is impossible,"[12] and thus concludes:

The Church cannot expect to know the fullest blessing of God upon its evangelistic endeavors until it sets aside all accommodations to the autonomy of unbelieving man and insists, in conjunction with the proclamation of the Reformed gospel, that the authority of the word of the self–attesting Christ of Scripture is the only ground sufficiently ultimate to justify human truth claims, and that until His word is acknowledged as authoritative and placed at the basis of a given human knowledge system, that system remains unjustified and no truth assertion within it can be shown to have any meaning at all.[13]

John Robbins also makes important distinctions regarding knowledge:

There are three sorts of cognitive states: knowledge, opinion, and ignorance. Ignorance is simply the lack of ideas. Complete ignorance is the state of mind that empiricists say we are born with: We are all born with blank minds, tabula rasa, to use John Locke's phrase. (Incidentally, a tabula rasa mind - a blank mind - is an impossibility. A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Empiricism rests on a contradiction.) At the other extreme from ignorance is knowledge. Knowledge is not simply possessing thoughts or ideas, as some think. Knowledge is possessing true ideas and knowing them to be true. Knowledge is, by definition, knowledge of the truth. We do not say that a person "knows" that 2 plus 2 is 5. We may say he thinks it, but he does not know it. It would be better to say that he opines it.

Now, most of what we colloquially call knowledge is actually opinion: We "know" that we are in Pennsylvania; we "know" that Clinton - either Bill or Hillary - is President of the United States, and so forth. Opinions can be true or false; we just don't know which. History, except for revealed history, is opinion. Science is opinion. Archaeology is opinion. John Calvin said, "I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets." Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth.[14]

In order to possess the truth, you have to know that your belief is true. That is Justified True Belief, and that is why Gary Crampton, a professor at Whitefield Theological Seminary, argues that

An important part of the Scripturalist worldview is the epistemological distinction between knowledge and opinion. Throughout the history of Western thought, philosophers such as Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle, have correctly differentiated between these two. Augustine and Gordon Clark are just two examples of Christian philosophers who have done the same. There is a difference between that which we “know” and that about which we may have opinions.

In the Scripturalist worldview, knowledge is not only possessing ideas or thoughts; it is possessing true ideas or thoughts. Knowledge is knowledge of the truth. It is justified true belief. Only the Word of God (that which, as the Westminster Confession [1:6] says, “is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”) gives us such knowledge.

Opinions, on the other hand, may be true or false. Natural science is opinion; archaeology is opinion; history (with the exception of Biblical history) is opinion. In these disciplines we are not dealing with “facts.” In them there is no justified true belief. To “opine” something is not to “know” it. Justified truth is found only in the Word of God.[15]

Crampton also highlights what Jason misconstrues: that Clark's definition of knowledge as a mind's possession of truth is JTB, because possessing the truth requires not just a true belief/opinion, as Jason claims, but also an account of its truth from Scripture. Otherwise it's just an opinion that happens to be true.

Jason claims that Clark defined knowledge as only true belief because he equates “true belief” with “possession of truth by a mind”—which Clark never did. Jason fails to cite where Clark rejected JTB or defined knowledge as true belief; the only source he gives is one of Clark’s obscure encyclopedic articles on knowledge[16] whom hardly anyone knows about, much less read, and the article itself makes no such claim. And from this foundation built on sand he denounces those who disagree, but not without sinking himself. Clark and many of his most prominent followers clearly affirm JTB, so is he ready to denounce Sean Gerety, Robert Reymond, John Robbins, Gary Crampton, and Clark himself as self-deceived Clarkians?

Notitia, Assensus, and…Faith?

There's yet another issue, more theological than philosophical. Throughout many of his writings, Clark emphasizes faith as an important doctrine, biblically clarifies what it means, and refutes deficient views. That’s why he wrote two treatises on it, Fa­­ith and Saving Faith and The Johannine Logos. In Faith and Saving Faith, Clark writes: "Faith and belief have been emphasized. Even apart from these introductory inducements the nature of saving faith is an important division of theology."[17] Clark’s treatment of faith is one of his major theological contributions. To disagree with his view of faith is significant, so much so that, if we follow Jason’s logic, it surely would not make you a “true” Clarkian.

Clark’s definition of faith is simple and biblical. In What Is Saving Faith? he explains that “Faith, by definition, is assent to understood propositions. Not all cases of assent, even assent to Biblical propositions, are saving faith, but all saving faith is assent to one or more Biblical propositions.”[18]

Clark consistently defines faith as understanding (notitia) with assent (assensus) throughout his writings, both published and unpublished. Note the complete absence of “trust” (fiducia). Some groundlessly accuse John Robbins of dishonestly altering Clark’s books—including Jason himself, who unfortunately parrots the views of his mentors from Whitefield Seminary, the president of which is Dr. Kenneth G. Talbot, and they have poisoned the well in Facebook groups to dissuade people from trusting Robbins and The Trinity Foundation,[19] which is by far the best and most reliable source of Gordon Clark’s thought and work. But in one of his unpublished papers on faith from the Gordon H. Clark Foundation—“a ministry of Whitefield College & Theological Seminary”—Clark cites Augustine’s definition of faith:

Augustine was probably the first to define faith. In his treatise Concerning the Predestination of the Saints he said, “Thinking is prior to believing… To believe is nothing other than to think with assent. For not all who think believe… but all who believe think; and they think believing and believe thinking.”[20]

And then agrees with him: “A person may know or understand a proposition and yet not believe it. To believe is to think with assent. Assent is an act of will: it is the voluntary acceptance of the proposition as true.”[21]

Even so, both Drs. Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton diverge from Clark's view of faith. Not only that, but in their book Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism they claim that the “historical” view of faith which Clark believed and taught cannot justify:

First, not all faith is justifying faith. The Bible speaks of several kinds of faith, only one of which is genuine, justifying faith. Historical faith is one kind of non-justifying faith. All that is involved here is an historical assent to the truth claims of the gospel. As taught in James 2:19, even the demons have this kind of faith: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe — and tremble!”[22]

But how is it that demons “assenting to the truth claims of the gospel” invalidates saving faith as believing—understanding and agreeing with—the gospel? Whether demons believe the gospel or not (they don’t) is irrelevant, because Christ died only for fallen man, not demons. Or is it because Talbot and Crampton debase it as a “non-justifying,” “historical” faith? The verse only says that the demons believe in one God, not that they believe the gospel. Clark repeatedly refuted this misapplication of James 2:19:

[The] argument here is that since the devils assent and true believers also assent, something other than assent is needed for saving faith [e.g. trust or fiducia]. This is a logical blunder. The text says the devils believe in monotheism. Why cannot the difference between the devils and Christians be the different propositions believed, rather than a psychological element in belief? [This] assumes a different psychology is needed. It is better to say a different object of belief is needed….[23]

It is illogical to conclude that belief is not assent just because belief in monotheism does not save. The clearer inference is that if belief in monotheism does not save, then one ought to believe something else in addition. Not assent, but monotheism is inadequate.[24]

And if Talbot’s and Crampton’s “historical” faith and “gospel-assenting” demons weren’t bad enough, they stray further still:

In justifying faith the believer appropriates and rests on Christ alone as Mediator in all his offices, based upon the divine testimony of God’s Word. Therefore, orthodox Christianity teaches that justifying faith involves three elements: knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia). It is not enough to know the truth about Jesus Christ; nor is it sufficient merely to assent to the truth claims of the gospel (as in historical faith), as essential as these are. Saving faith is that which also whole-heartedly acquiesces to the Christ revealed in Scripture. Biblical conversion entails a whole-souled commitment. Justifying faith is a faith that makes a fiducial (i.e., a trusting) response to the gospel promises.[25]

But does not “whole-heartedly acquiesce” mean to “whole-heartedly” accept as true? How is this any different from assent? Merriam-Webster defines acquiesce as “to accept, comply, or submit tacitly or passively.” This is why Clark stressed that adding fiducia to faith is a tautology: “The crux of the difficulty with the popular analysis of faith into notitia (understanding), assensus (assent), and fiducia (trust), is that fiducia comes from the same root as fides (faith). Hence this popular analysis reduces to the obviously absurd definition that faith consists of understanding, assent, and faith. Something better than this tautology must be found.”[26]

Clark is one of very few theologians who tirelessly refuted the “necessity” of fiducia, the extra psychological element that many Protestants add to faith, as confused, meaningless, and redundant. Yet Crampton wrote an article called “Justification by Faith Alone” where he makes the same arguments listed above and heartily approves Jonathan Edwards’ discussion of trust (fiducia):

And clearly for Edwards, saving faith is one that involves trust (fiducia). Saving faith, he wrote, “is the whole soul’s active agreeing, according, and symphonizing with this truth [of the gospel].” It is an “adhering to the truth, and acquiescing in it.” It is an “embracing the promises of God, and fiducial relying on them, through Christ for salvation.” “There is a difference,” preached Edwards, in a sermon on Matthew 16:17, “between having a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense [taste] of its sweetness.” The same is true regarding saving faith: There is “a true sense of the divine and superlative excellency of God and Jesus Christ, and of the work of redemption, and the ways and works of God.” There is “a true sense of the divine excellency of the things of God’s Word [which] does more directly and immediately convince us of their truth.” When one has this “sense,” he acquiesces to the “light of the glorious gospel of Christ.”[27]

Clark also chided theologians who use analogies involving physical actions to represent “trust,” because faith is a purely internal, mental act of understanding and assenting to propositions. If it were a physical or external act, it would be a work. Here are more examples from Clark’s articles on faith, reason, and knowledge posted on the Gordon H. Clark Foundation:

The element of trust [fiducia], which Protestants emphasize, defies all explanation and remains in utter confusion. Illustrations, such as actually depositing money in a bank rather than merely believing that the bank is sound, depend on a physical action, in addition to the mental act of believing. Such additional external action is inappropriate to represent the thoroughly inner mental act of faith. Knowledge is an integral part of faith, and not its antithesis.[28]

………………………………………………………..

In describing the nature of faith, fundamentalists, evangelicals and even modernists in a certain way stress the element of trust. A preacher may draw a parallel between trusting in Christ and trusting in a chair. Belief that the chair is solid and comfortable, mere intellectual assent to such a proposition, will not rest your weary bones. You must, the preacher insists, actually sit in the chair. Similarly, so goes the argument, you can believe all that the Bible says about Christ and it will do you no good. Such illustrations as these are constantly used, in spite of the fact that the Bible says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”[29]

………………………………………………………..

Is there such a thing as “mere belief,” or “mere intellectual assent?” Indeed, is there such a distinguishable phenomenon as a “mere” act of will? Intellectual assent is itself an act of will; and conversely, no volitional action could possibly take place without belief. If you will to eat ice cream, you must believe at least that there is some ice cream to be eaten. Intellect and will are not two separate “faculties”; rather they so interpenetrate in a single mental state that it is difficult and perhaps impossible not only to separate them in time but even in definition.[30]

Keep in mind that Clark’s published writings are weightier than his unpublished papers; there could be many reasons as to why he didn’t publish them. Nevertheless, Clark’s published material from The Trinity Foundation and unpublished papers from The Gordon H. Clark Foundation reveal the same mind at work—the exact same view of faith as understanding with assent and rejection of tautological trust. Talbot and Crampton have almost completely disregarded their mentor here. So if Jason will denounce Clarkians who affirm JTB and who attribute it to Clark, what’s to stop him from denouncing Drs. Talbot and Crampton who disregard Clark on such a vital issue as faith, and go as far as degrading Clark’s view to a “historical” faith that cannot justify?

Can the Blind Lead the Blind?

Our point is not to denounce Talbot, Crampton, and Jason as pseudo-Clarkians; our point is that Jason’s Diotrephesian demeaner betrays him. Not only did he denounce someone who didn’t accord with his own misrepresentations of Clark—exposing his own ignorance in the process—he has shown himself to be an unreliable source who’s not nearly as familiar with Clark as he claims to be. Jason evidently hasn't read much of Clark because he seems unfamiliar with a basic catalog of his publications. In his response to Luke Miner, for example, he claims that “there is a nature of man, and Clark wrote about this at length in many books, but perhaps most in depth, in his book, “What do Presbyterians Believe?” If one makes ontological statements, one cannot dismiss the term, ‘ontology.’ ”[31]

Jason refers to a 13-page chapter as "perhaps [Clark's] most in depth" discussion on man, even though Clark also wrote a 130-page treatise called The Biblical Doctrine of Man.[32] He rarely quotes Clark directly and misleadingly presents his own views as Clark’s. It’s hard to find primary source treatment of Clark’s works on his website or Facebook posts other than excuses as to why he can’t furnish citations. Jason has much to learn from men like John Robbins, whom he would do well to read rather than malign: “One of the characteristics of a competent historian [and teacher, scholar, etc.] is his practice of citing primary sources for his statements. If he makes an assertion about a person's views, for example, he quotes the words of that person. He does not merely quote or cite someone else, especially an opponent or critic of that person.”[33]

Instead of self-aggrandizing our platforms to lord it over others, and making false, unjustified (pun intended) assertions without substantiating references to push self-promoting agendas and those of schismatic seminary faculties—we need humility to sharpen and be sharpened by our peers.

There’s more to this than a petty Facebook scuffle. It’s about the damage being done to Clark and his followers by self-proclaimed experts who misrepresent and promote factious agendas that slander, defame, and undermine the valuable, edifying work of other Clarkians and their ministries. We can and should seek to be of one mind as Christians, especially if we share similar Reformed convictions and appreciation for one of the greatest Christian philosophers and theologians of all time. But it will not happen until Jason and those like him take heed and repent.

Imperious Presbyterians [and Christians from any denomination] seriously err in their emphasis by behaving as if authority is the essence of ecclesiastical office, rather than service.

Sadly, there is a Scriptural example pertaining to the distorted outlook of the Imperious Presbyterians. It is Diotrephes, who loved “to have the preeminence” (3 John 9) and abused his position to thwart the Apostle John. It is a tragic case when men in our day, professing to be Presbyterian pastors, exhibit more of the spirit of Diotrephes than of the Spirit of Christ and Paul.[34]

Semper Reformanda,

Carlos Montijo and Tim Shaughnessy

Postscript

1/10/2016 - Last night, Jason posted the following on the Clarkian Apologetics Facebook group:

Jason L. Petersen 10 hrs · Pensacola, FL

Thank you all for your support in this group. We are very, very, appreciative of your participation and understanding concerning the rules that we have laid out. At some parts of this post, I will be repeating what has been told to me by the Foundation, and at other parts, I will be speaking for myself.

Unfortunately, the Gordon Clark Foundation has concluded that the format we have chosen for this group will not work either. At first, we allowed for a discussion group that also would allow the admins to post content that we think is informative and edifying for the group. Unfortunately, there were some who just wanted to pick a fight.

After having issues with people who wanted to pick a fight on social media, we decided to change the format so that some discussion would be had. We laid out a very specific and strict set of rules. Unfortunately, some did not wish to adhere to the rules, and instead of respecting the intentions and rules of the group, they sought to teach everyone that the information we provided was not trustworthy. This was set to be a sort of classroom-like setting, but the tools given to us on Facebook is not enough to support such a format.

Now, I personally have made some mistakes in this group. First, I blocked two people that I still maintain respect for when it was not necessary. Second, I publicly stated that John Robbins edited Dr. Clark's work on faith without having the resources immediately at the ready. I personally apologize and repent for both of these things.

I'd also like to say that I am not one that is officially a part of the Gordon Clark foundation. I am endorsed by the foundation, but I simply help out. With all of the feuds that has started with some individuals from the Gordon Clark Discussion Group, it has been determined that a format such as this is not appropriate for the foundation.

At this time, we plan to start a new group. There will be no members (except for admins) allowed in this group. The group will be open to the public. The public may choose to read the content that we post or ignore it. The goal of the Gordon Clark Foundation is to get Clark's writings, published and unpublished out into the open. One issue that surfaces when one is trying to achieve this goal is that there may be some who may add a thought (be it in an apparent agreement or disagreement) that is not exactly what Dr. Clark believed. The main goal of the foundation in starting a group like this was to get the content from the Foundation out there. Ricky W. Roldan and I were the main participants, but the actual members of the Foundation did not participate very much because they did not like the way the format was working out. There are a few very qualified individuals that have expressed a willingness to help out in producing content for the Foundation, but some have held back because they do not want to risk getting involved in a time-wasting social media debate.

Therefore, we will start a new group where people can either choose to read Dr. Clark's articles and our own musings, or ignore us entirely.

As for this group, I will either take it over myself from the Foundation, or I will remove it from Facebook. I am not entirely sure of what I wish to do with it yet (I would appreciate some feedback on it).

Although there have been a lot of people who have speculated that our intention is to censor the ideas of others, and that we are "not teachable," and other bad things, many of you have been very supportive and expressed a desire for the type of format that we have now. I am very sorry that it did not work out. The choice we faced was either to let the group spin out of control and undermine the intentions that we had when we started the group, or to remove people (as we did) for violating the rules, and then allow them to speculate about and misconstrue our intent for removing them. For us, this is truly a no-win situation. The only thing to do is to create a new group and go from there.

I thank you all again. You have been a great encouragement. I will post more information in this group when I have it. Blessings.

Jason’s prompt response appears to be a step in the right direction; we look forward to working things out with him.

4/1/2017 - Jason has reached out to us and made amends, and we're discussing these matters with him in a spirit of brotherly love and hope to interview him on Semper Reformanda Radio soon. He no longer believes that John Robbins altered Gordon Clark’s books and appears to lean towards knowledge as Justified True Belief as well (see http://answersforhope.org/39-distinguish-knowledge-opinion/).

Notes

[1] Jason Petersen, "A Conversation with Luke Miner," Answers for Hope, 30 Dec 2015, accessed 1 Jan 2016, http://answersforhope.org/a-conversation-with-luke-miner/

[2] Petersen, http://answersforhope.org/a-conversation-with-luke-miner/. Jason eventually kicked out Tim Shaughnessy from the Facebook group for questioning his unfounded claim that Robbins allegedly altered Clark’s books.

[3] Petersen, http://answersforhope.org/a-conversation-with-luke-miner/.

[4] Gordon H. Clark, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, in The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark, Volume 4 (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2004), p. 300-301. Bold emphasis ours. Quoted in Sean Gerety's comment on 26 April 2007, "Must Clarkians use some Emperical Analysis & Inductive Reasoning?", Puritan Board, http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/20726-Must-Clarkians-use-some-Emperical-Analysis-amp-Inductive-Reasoning/page2

[5] Clark, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, p. 322. Bold emphasis ours. Quoted in Sean Gerety, "Biblical Epistemology 101," God's Hammer, 27 Jan 2013, https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/ink-marks-on-a-page/

[6] Gordon H. Clark, "Plato's Theory of Knowledge," The Gordon H. Clark Foundation, accessed 1 Jan 2016, http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/platos-theory-of-knowledge-by-gordon-h-clark/

[7] Gordon H. Clark, Lord God of Truth (Hobbs, NM: The Trinity Foundation, 1994), p. 40. Bold emphasis ours. Thanks to CJay Engel for finding this quote. For "a reasonably complete proof that Gordon Clark did, indeed, consistently use the term “knowledge” distinctly from true belief (or true opinion)," see his and Luke Miner’s article, "Gordon Clark and Knowledge: On Justification," http://scripturalism.com/gordon-clark-and-knowledge-on-justification/

[8] See a Google Books Ngram Viewer analysis of "justified true belief" from 1500 to 1985 at https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=justified+true+belief&case_insensitive=on&year_start=0&year_end=1985&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cjustified%20true%20belief%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bjustified%20true%20belief%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BJustified%20True%20Belief%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BJustified%20true%20belief%3B%2Cc0

[9] Sean Gerety, "Biblical Epistemology 101," God's Hammer, 27 Jan 2013, accessed 3 Jan 2016, https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/biblical-epistemology-101/

[10] Sean Gerety, "Ink Marks on a Page," God's Hammer, 24 Jan 2009, accessed 3 Jan 2016, https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/ink-marks-on-a-page/

[11] Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge: An Introductory Study in Christian Apologetic Methodology (San Jose, CA: Pacific Institute of Religious Studies, 1998), p. 68, http://www.sgbcsv.org/literature/JustificationOfKnowledge.pdf.

[12] Reymond, Justification of Knowledge, p. 70.

[13] Reymond, Justification of Knowledge, p. 100.

[14] John W. Robbins, "An Introduction to Gordon H. Clark," The Trinity Review (July/Aug 1993), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=192. Emphasis ours.

[15] W. Gary Crampton, "Scripturalism: A Christian Worldview," The Trinity Review 299 (March/May 2011), http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=276. Bold emphasis ours. See also Crampton’s The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1999), p. 46:

An important part of Gordon Clark’s epistemology is his distinction between knowledge and opinion. There is a difference between that which we know and that which we opine. Knowledge is not only possessing ideas or thoughts; it is possessing true ideas or thoughts. Knowledge is knowledge of the truth; it is justified true belief. Only the Word of God (that which “is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”) gives such knowledge.

[16] Gordon H. Clark, "Know, Knowledge," The Gordon H. Clark Foundation, accessed 6 Jan 2016, http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/know-knowledge-by-gordon-h-clark/

[17] Gordon H. Clark, "What Is Saving Faith?", The Trinity Review 206 (Jan/Feb 2004), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=102

[18] Gordon H. Clark, What Is Saving Faith? (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2004), p. 88, http://www.trinitylectures.org/what-is-saving-faith-p-60.html. Emphasis ours. This book combines Faith and Saving Faith and The Johannine Logos into one volume.

[19] On 26 September 2015, we messaged Dr. Kenneth Talbot privately to inquire about his attacks on John Robbins. He thanked us for expressing our concern but declined to comment. Here’s what Tim asked:

My friend Carlos and I have strongly considered attending your school in the future and I am grateful for your presence in the ministry of Christ. I count you as a brother in the Lord and have benefitted from you personally. That’s why I find this difficult now.

I want to approach this carefully and respectfully, but I feel that I need to say something. I have recently found myself discouraged and even troubled to some extent by the way you speak about John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation. I have heard you speak negatively of Robbins and the TF in the past and have ignored it. Recently on Jason Petersen’s wall you said the following:

View fullsize

This is not the first time I have heard you say something like this and I am disturbed by it. I don’t know anything really about Cheung but I find it surprising that you would say such things about Robbins.

I have benefited greatly from Dr. Robbins’ writings and the Trinity Foundation which has been committed to keeping and defending the legacy of Dr. Clark. I have used Dr. Robbins’ work in my own writings and have a high regard for the man. I don’t share in your assessment of Robbins or the TF and I wanted to know if this is the impression you give your students. I should also tell you that when I first heard of your school I asked Tom Juodaitis about it and he affirmed that it was the only school that was favorable to Clark and he had nothing negative to say about you or your school. I will not have time to reply back to you right now but I look forward to hearing from you.

You can also check out my writing and see if it reflects the type of attitude you have a problem with.

God Bless, Tim

Here’s what I (Carlos) asked:

Dr. Talbot you criticized Robbins publicly so we didn't think you'd have a problem giving details. Isn't the attitude you express against him the same attitude you're accusing Robbins of? Why would you defame a man who loved Clark and dedicated his life to promoting and preserving his legacy? Clark obviously held Robbins in high regard if he asked him to finish his book [The Incarnation] on his deathbed. It sounds like you're slandering him. I don't understand why you defame Robbins and the Trinity Foundation—who defend and promote Clark—while you also affiliate with people who criticize Clark and have no regard for him like Joel McDurmon [listen to “An interview of Joel McDurmon: Researcher and Writer for American Vision”] and Jeff Durban, who had Oliphint recklessly misrepresent Clark and falsely accuse him of heresy on his show (https://www.facebook.com/ApologiaRadio/posts/324063354406639).

These are some of the reasons Tim and I are no longer considering Whitefield Seminary, and no longer recommend it even though they're one of the few seminaries that incorporate Gordon Clark into their curriculum. For more information see Sean Gerety’s “Faith Is Understanding With Assent” and “Whitefield Follies,” as well as Luke Miner’s “Clark on Saving Faith in 1961.” There are still very strong misrepresentations–even slanders–of Clark today, particularly from Van Tilians. Here are a few examples from Scott Oliphint, Apologia Radio, and Reformed Forum:

• https://www.facebook.com/groups/CFDD1/permalink/791646060853020/

• https://www.facebook.com/ApologiaRadio/posts/324063354406639

• http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc163/

• http://www.apologiaradio.com/?p=482

[20] Gordon H. Clark, "Faith," The Gordon H. Clark Foundation, accessed 3 Jan 2016, http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/faith-by-gordon-h-clark/

[21] Clark, "Faith," http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/faith-by-gordon-h-clark/

[22] Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism: A Theological Primer, 3rd ed. (1990), p. 112. To request the free ebook version, see http://whitefieldmedia.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=2209ac66c06c8383a9ce36dfd&id=f5a1e983ce

[23] Clark, What Is Saving Faith?, p. 152.

[24] Clark, What Is Saving Faith?, p. 153.

[25] Talbot and Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, p. 114. See also John Robbins’ “R. C. Sproul on Saving Faith,” http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=238. Talbot and Crampton’s view of faith is like Sproul’s.

[26] Gordon H. Clark, "Saving Faith", The Trinity Review (Dec 1979), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=10

[27] W. Gary Crampton, “Justification by Faith Alone,” A Puritan’s Mind, accessed 31 Dec 2015, http://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/justification-by-faith-alone-by-w-gary-crampton-th-d/

[28] Clark, "Know, Knowledge," http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/know-knowledge-by-gordon-h-clark/

[29] Clark, "Faith and Reason," http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/faith-and-reason-by-gordon-h-clark/. Emphasis ours.

[30] Gordon H. Clark, "Faith and Reason," The Gordon H. Clark Foundation, accessed 6 Jan 2016, http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/faith-and-reason-by-gordon-h-clark/. Emphasis ours.

[31] Petersen, http://answersforhope.org/a-conversation-with-luke-miner/

[32] Gordon H. Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man, 2nd ed. (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1992), http://www.trinitylectures.org/biblical-doctrine-of-man-the-p-50.html

[33] John W. Robbins, Can the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Be Saved? (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2004), p. 13, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=232

[34] Kevin Reed, “Imperious Presbyterianism,” The Trinity Review (June/Aug 2008), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=254v

The task of Christian Apologetics is to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3). This requires you to “always [be] prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15), and to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). It is to provide a rational justification for the faith and refute arguments made against the Christian worldview, which is defined entirely and exclusively by the Bible. Apologetics then is nothing more than the intellectual defense of the of the truth of propositional revelation. Unfortunately, there is much confusion in today's churches regarding the topic of Christian apologetics. Some Christians disparage and refrain from the task of apologetics because they view it as argumentative and confrontational. Often they cite their own personal experience or shortcomings as the basis for their position. We hear statements like, “we should be trying to win people not trying to win arguments.” Rather than encouraging apologetics, they attack it out of false piety.

Yet many others who actually do engage in apologetics seem to misunderstand its purpose. The purpose of apologetics is not to try to prove to the unbeliever what he already knows; that is, God exists. Romans chapter one tells us that the unbeliever knows God. “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them,” (Romans 1:19) but that “by their unrighteousness [they] suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18). It should be clear from the plain reading of the text that the unbeliever already knows that God is real. We, therefore, should not spend any of our time trying to prove to the unbelievers what they already know.

It would seem, however, that many Christian apologists are predominantly concerned with trying to prove to the unbeliever that God exists. What is even more surprising is that many Van Tilian Presuppositionalists are under the mistaken impression that they can prove the existence of God by using the transcendental argument. We often hear these presuppositionalist repeat Greg Bahnsen and claim, “we can prove God by the impossibility of the contrary.” The Scripturalist has long since corrected this misunderstanding among the proponents of the Van Tilian presuppositional method. In order to be a presuppositionalist who is bent on trying to prove that God exists one would have to be thoroughly confused. Dr. Gary Crampton rightly points out, “is it not obvious that, by definition, a presupposition is not provable? And if one is a presuppositionalist, he cannot logically believe in the legitimate use of theistic proofs for the existence of God.”[i] Presuppositions are assumptions and one cannot prove what they must first assume. Crampton goes on to write, “The absolutely certain proof of the transcendental argument is imaginary. The Van Tilian position is a confused form of evidentialism; it is certainly not presuppositionalism.”[ii]

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The transcendental argument can still be very useful in apologetics. Crampton continues, “This is not to say that a form of the transcendental argument cannot be used in an ad hominem fashion, that is, a reductio ad absurdum. Reducing an opponent's arguments to the level of absurdity, thereby showing him the vacuous nature of his own worldview, is an excellent apologetical tool. All of Gordon Clark’s books are examples of such argumentation.”[iii]

The Scripturalist argues that the transcendental argument cannot be used to prove the existence of God but that it can be used in an ad hominem response. However, before we proceed any further, we must correct a very common misunderstanding that all ad hominem replies are fallacious. Here we must caution the would-be philosopher to avoid making this mistake. Gordon Clark wrote:

ad hominem - Latin meaning "to the man." A form of argument that accepts a proposition espoused by another for the purpose of deducing from it contradictory propositions or propositions that would be rejected by the other person. AD HOMINEM SHOULD BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE INFORMAL FALLACY OF ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM. (Emphasis Clark’s)[iv]

Clark emphatically points out that an ad hominem should be distinguished from an abusive ad hominem fallacy. An abusive ad hominem fallacy is made when one attacks the other person’s character or some other personal trait that is irrelevant to the argument. However, a valid ad hominem reply can be made, if instead of attacking the person’s character, we attack their presuppositions. This is what we have in mind when we use the transcendental argument in an ad hominem fashion. An ad hominem reply of this nature is valid because the unbeliever's presuppositions are relevant to the discussion, whereas their character may not be relevant to the discussion. Presuppositions are the basis on which arguments are made. If the basic presuppositions are false then the arguments from which they are derived and from which they proceed are altogether worthless. This type of ad hominem reply is not irrelevant and therefore it is not fallacious.

The Clarkian use of the transcendental argument in an ad hominem fashion also allows the Christian to fulfill the apologetic method prescribed in Proverbs 26:4-5.

Answer not a fool according to his folly,

lest you be like him yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly,

lest he be wise in his own eyes.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly." That is, do not accept his false presuppositions as your own, "lest you be like him yourself."

"Answer a fool according to his folly." That is, do accept his false presuppositions for the sake of argument, so that you may deduce from them contradictory proposition or reduce them to absurdity, "lest he be wise in his own eyes."

Many Christian apologists have failed to regard this passage in their apologetic method and consequently, they have become like the fool. Instead of accepting the folly of the fool as our own we should accept it only for the sake of argument. For example, we can make an argument “toward the man” (the empiricist) and accept his false assumption of empiricism as true for the sake of argument. That is you answer him according to his folly of empiricism, so that you may reduce it to absurdity.

While working at the firehouse a number of years ago, I found myself engaging fellow firefighters about my faith. To my surprise, most of the firefighters were very open about discussing what they believed, and at times I found an ally or two. Still, there were a handful of outspoken atheists, but it was a great experience, however, because God granted me favor with these individuals and I had the opportunity to share the gospel with them. I came to appreciate these late night firehouse chats as we engaged in some productive discussion.

One evening at the fire station I asked my friend why he didn’t believe in God, to which he confidently replied, “there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God.” Fortunately, by this time I had already been introduced to Scripturalist apologetics and I was able to offer an ad hominem reply.  I didn’t accept my friends standard of empiricism as my own standard; rather, I accepted it for the sake of argument in order to reduced it to absurdity.  I replied that if empiricism is true then he could not know that it is true. Empiricism holds that all knowledge is gained via the senses yet he had just made a knowledge claim that could not be known by the sense. It is, therefore, contradictory and self-refuting. I challenged him to establish the standard of empiricism on its own terms before he make any demands that I establish God’s existence by the false standard of empiricism. I further pointed out that the empiricist puts forth a universal claim that all knowledge is gained via the senses yet the empiricist cannot establish any universal claim through sense perception. This is because his sense perceptions are limited in the past and non-existent in the future with the result that his claim rests on an impossible induction, which cannot be completed. Therefore, the empiricist commits the fallacy of induction in his attempt to establish a universal claim from a limited set of particular instances. Furthermore, the empiricist cannot account for the laws of Logic via sense perception yet their arguments require the use of the laws of logic. One reason for this is that the laws of logic are universal and as we just pointed out the empiricist cannot establish universals on empiricism. My friend had advanced an unargued philosophical presupposition of empiricism and I accepted it for the sake of argument in order to reduce it to absurdity and show it to be self-contradictory. By casting down his lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God I was then able to share the gospel.

As I told him about his need for Christ I switched from apologetics to evangelism, however, the task of apologetics wasn’t over. I warned him of the judgment to come and that he would have to stand before a Holy and Righteous God when he died. He responded by telling me that when we die nothing happens and that we don’t have a soul. He then asked me if I had ever seen the TV series Cosmos. He stated something to the effect that there was no heaven or hell and all that ever existed was the Cosmos. At that point, I realized that he had presupposed a materialistic worldview.

Materialism is the philosophical view that nothing exists apart from the physical or material universe. This view is quite popular among unbelievers because it excludes the supernatural and the spiritual. All that exists is matter and energy in motion. My friend had clearly been influenced by Carl Sagan’s opening line in the 1980 hit television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage in which Sagan famously stated, “The Cosmos [matter and energy] is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” This statement and the original video clip of Sagan standing on the beach was repeated in the 2014 sequel series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey which featured astrophysicist and cosmologist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Both Sagan and Tyson, along with many others, appear to share this view of materialism. The underlying presupposition of materialism was the basis on which my friend put forth the claim that there was no heaven or hell, he had no soul, there was no afterlife, and there was no God. During a Q&A session featuring Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson, published on Youtube on Nov. 13, 2011, Tyson stated the following, “I would request, that my body in death be buried not cremated so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth so the flora and fauna can dine upon it just as I have dined upon flora and fauna throughout my life.”[v] This once again presupposes a materialistic worldview.

I asked my friend if he believed there was anything beyond the material to which he replied that he did not. Rather than accepting his position of materialism as my own presupposition, I accepted it for the sake of argument in order to reduce it to absurdity. I replied that if materialism is true the materialist cannot make his arguments in favor of his materialism intelligible. The problem is that the materialist cannot account for immaterial laws in a materialistic worldview. Some may wish to disregard the existence of immaterial moral laws, but the case against materialism becomes indisputable when one considers the laws of logic. This is because it is impossible to argue for a materialistic worldview without first presupposing the immaterial laws of logic. The arguments for materialism would not be intelligible without these immaterial laws and this is not difficult to demonstrate. I pointed out that when Carl Sagan said, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be” he did not intend for his audience to understand that to mean “The Cosmos is not all that is or ever was or ever will be,” for that would contradict his claim. He is therefore already committed to the immaterial law of contradiction. Furthermore, I pointed out that every word in his claim has a specific meaning. The word “Cosmos” does not mean baseball and the phrase “all that is” does not mean none there was. One may notice that there are thirteen words in Sagan’s claim, and if the law of contradiction is rejected then we can say that his words carry the meaning of these thirteen words, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalm 19:1 KJV). Of course, Sagan and Tyson would both reject this understanding of what Sagan said because that is not what he was trying to communicate and it contradicts their views.

The problem facing the Materialist should, therefore, be obvious. These men are inescapably committed to the immaterial law of contradiction. However, in their worldview, the laws of logic are nowhere to be found. Not only are the immaterial laws not accounted for in the materialistic worldview, but they are necessarily excluded. The fact that such arguments are intelligible and can be understood demonstrates that they are false and irrational.

The Van Tilian presuppositionalist is already engaged in this tactic to some extent. What the Clarkian refers to as an ad hominem reply the Van Tilian refers to as an “internal critique.” It would appear then that both the Van Tilian Presuppositionalist and the Clarkian Scripturalist are using the transcendental argument in the same way but we disagree on what it accomplishes. To give an example of a Van Tilian Presuppositionalist giving an ad hominem reply we should look no further than Greg Bahnsen. Dr. Bahnsen gave a brilliant ad hominem reply against naturalism. He stated the following:

… if naturalism is true then the naturalist has no reason to believe his naturalism… If naturalism is true the naturalist has no reason to believe it... Because you see, naturalism says all of our thinking is just electrical chemical responses. All of our thinking is subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, which is to say all of our thinking is determined by the factors in the physical world or in the physical brain in the environment around us. All of our thinking is in principle predictable then because it's just following the laws of nature. Usually more sophisticatedly put, the laws of physics and biology and chemistry and so forth. But the point is that human thinking is just a species of the physical world and its operation. Human thinking is just, it’s on the same order but not on the same level of sophistication as weeds growing. And so if naturalism is true then the person who's propounding it is propounding it why, because his or her brain is required them by the laws of physics, and chemistry and biology to say this sort of thing. It’s not as though they have the freedom and self-awareness to think about different theories evaluate evidence and make a choice as to which is right or wrong. They just have to say whatever they have to say and that's why the irony is that a naturalist would promote naturalism and try to tell people it’s true, you should believe that and not supernaturalism. The answer is that if naturalism is true so that your brain is just working on the laws of physics then you have no reason to believe naturalism is true, it’s just the laws of physics requiring you to say that, which is just to say that if naturalism is true then there is no reason to say that naturalism is true; you’re just forced to say that just like I’m forced by the laws of physics to say the opposite. Unbelievers cannot even account for why we argue with each other then, can they? On their assumption there is no argument because there is no freedom to choose the truth over against error, there are just the laws of physics governing my brain so say and do whatever it does.[vi]

Bahnsen does not accept the position of naturalism as his own presupposition but rather he accepted it for the purpose of reducing it to absurdity. He aptly answers the fool according to his folly. This cannot prove Christian theism simply on the grounds that he showed the impossibility of the contrary, which in this case is naturalism. However that is not our task in apologetics. It is simply to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3), to “always [be] prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15), and to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). Bahnsen gave an outstanding argument that one can use in an ad hominem fashion.

[i] Crampton, Gary W. "Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis." Trinity Foundation. June & july 2000. Accessed March 27, 2017. http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=128.

[ii] Crampton, Gary W. "Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis." Trinity Foundation. June & july 2000. Accessed March 27, 2017. http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=128.

[iii] Crampton, Gary W. "Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis." Trinity Foundation. June & july 2000. Accessed March 27, 2017. http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=128.

[iv] Clark, Gordon H. Logic. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2004.

[v] Thiscantbeitagain. "Neil deGrasse Tyson stops a religious troll (w/captions)." YouTube. September 28, 2010. Accessed March 27, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afGkv0IT4dU.

[vi] "Greg Bahnsen debunks atheist Dogma (Presuppositional Apologetics)." YouTube. August 08, 2013. Accessed March 27, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRq6qKp78W8&t=13s.

SRR #4 | The New Covenant Kids on the Block

07/19/2016 by Bible Thumping Wingnut

http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2016/07/20/srr-episode-4-the-new-covenant-kids-on-the-block/

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming for an important public service announcement! Your co-hosts Tim and Carlos give their overall impressions of New Covenant Theology and Conversations from the Porch, our fellow podcasters from the Bible Thumping Wingnut Network. We also critique their views of Covenant Theology. Got questions? Comments? Feedback? You can now email us at semper.reformanda.radio@gmail.com!

References (Recommended ones are labeled with a ‘+’)

- https://soundcloud.com/biblethumpingwingnut/cftp-episode-1

- http://crosstocrown.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NCT-Questions.pdf

+“A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF,” http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

+Collection 10: Christian Theology, “What Do Presbyterians Believe?” by Gordon H. Clark, http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3_downloads.php

---

SRR #5 | Quarrels About Systematic Theology and the Law

07/27/2016 by Bible Thumping Wingnut

http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2016/07/27/srr-episode-5-quarrels-about-systematic-theology-and-the-law/

In this episode, Tim and Carlos recap their criticisms of New Covenant Theology and take on the "NCT gauntlet" thrown down by Christopher Fales in Conversations From The Porch. The challenge is whether the Bible distinguishes the ceremonial, civil, and moral parts of the Mosaic law. They answer with the words of the Master Himself, presenting a Biblical case for the tripartite distinction of the law and discuss the relationship between justification and the law. Questions? Comments? Feedback? You can now email us at semper.reformanda.radio@gmail.com!

References (Recommended ones are labeled with a ‘+’)

+“The Threefold Division of the Law” by Jonathan F. Bayes, http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/the-threefold-division-of-the-law.pdf

+"Biblical Apologetics: Jesus and Logic" by John Robbins, Collection 4: Defending the Faith, Level 1, The Trinity Foundation, http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Biblical_Apologetics,_Jesus_and_Logic.mp3

+"Church History – The Footprints of God" by Tommy Nelson, Denton Bible Church, http://www.dbcmedia.org/sermons/church-history-the-footprints-of-god-volume-1-of-2/

- https://soundcloud.com/biblethumpingwingnut/cftp-episode-1

- http://crosstocrown.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NCT-Questions.pdf

+“A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF,” www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

+What Do Presbyterians Believe? by Gordon H. Clark, Collection 10: Christian Theology, The Trinity Foundation, www.trinitylectures.org/MP3_downloads.php

- "Consequently, we who overtly advocate new-covenant theology must not repeat the mistake of many in the past and turn any Confession - any Confession, even one of our own ~ into a shibboleth. If any of us should be silly enough to try to capture new covenant theology in some definitive, final statement, so that it becomes, as covenant theology has, set in concrete, then we would be working directly against the very spirit of new-covenant theology. One of its features - to my mind, its leading feature - is that it tries to come to Scripture unfiltered by any system or Confession. Every believer, in a sence, must do this for himself. To turn new-covenant theology into a system would be a contradiction in terms." (David Gay, Redemption History Through Covenants)

---

SRR #6 | The Sabbath, Logic, and NCT's Straw Man Army | From Russia, With Love

08/03/2016 by Bible Thumping Wingnut

http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2016/08/03/srr-episode-6-the-sabbath-logic-and-ncts-straw-man-army-from-russia-with-love/

Tim and Carlos are excited to introduce Owen Paun, missionary to Bulgaria, to the podcast! In this episode, they discuss Russia's draconian, anti-evangelism laws; the Sabbath; quotes by New Covenant Theology (NCT) authors John Reisinger and David Gay; logic; NCT's army of fallacies; confessions; the tripartite distinction of the Mosaic law; and more. “I apologize if I offended anyone when describing the Pharisees as retarded in a previous episode. I was not referring to the mentally handicapped, but to those who willfully deceive themselves and others.” –Carlos

Questions? Comments? Feedback? Email us at semper.reformanda.radio@gmail.com!

References (Recommended ones are labeled with a ‘+’)

+http://www.christusvictornetwork.com/ask-a-millennial-christian/rules-of-rhetoric-or-how-to-win-an-argument-without-even-trying/

+Voddie Baucham, “The Sabbath Before the Command,” http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=410151353280

+Gordon H. Clark, "God and Logic," http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=16

+Michael D. Marlowe, "The Westminster Confession of Faith: According to the Text of the First Edition, and with the Original Scripture Proofs. With Notes Showing the Changes Introduced by Church Synods up to the Present Day," http://www.bible-researcher.com/wescon01.html

+“American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith," http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_orig.html

+What Do Presbyterians Believe? by Gordon H. Clark, Collection 10: Christian Theology, www.trinitylectures.org/MP3_downloads.php

- David Gay, Redemption History Through Covenants, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw8DX7Vtr3vJckUza1VQYnFGcE0/view

- John Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds, http://worldwithoutend.info/bbc/books/NC/abrahams_seed/intro.htm

+Tim Shaughnessy, “Christianity and Logic,” http://www.biblethumpingwingnut.com/#!Christianity-and-Logic/c16h1/57a26b2c0cf2fd413b4bf948

+Elihu Carranza, The Logic Classroom, http://logic-classroom.weebly.com/

+Jonathan F. Bayes, “The Threefold Division of the Law,” http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/the-threefold-division-of-the-law.pdf

-Augustine, Contra Faustum, VI.2, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140606.htm

+Justin Martyr, "Chapter XLV: Those who were righteous before and under the law shall be saved by Christ," Dialogue with Trypho, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xlv.html

+John Calvin, "Of Civil Government," Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 20, Section 14, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xxi.html

- Thomas Aquinas, "Of the Precepts of the Old Law," Summa Theologica, 2a, Question 99, Article 4, http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FS/FS099.html

---

SRR #9 | Hacking New Covenant Theology's Growing Straw Man Army to Pieces | Reformed Use of the Law

08/25/2016 by Bible Thumping Wingnut

http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2016/08/25/srr-9-hacking-new-covenant-theologys-growing-straw-man-army-to-pieces-reformed-use-of-the-law/

Join Tim, Carlos, and Owen as they clear the air regarding recent interactions with the hosts of “Conversations From The Porch,” a New Covenant Theology podcast, and take a look at the claims and straw mans that Pastor Shane Kastler made on their podcast regarding Reformed Baptists, Covenant Theology, and John Calvin and the Reformed view of the Law.

ADDENDUM: I, Carlos, sincerely apologize to Pastor Shane Kastler. I'm primarily responsible for leading the charge against him. My zeal got out of hand and I apologize for that and for saying he sounded postmodern and that he was sloppy. It was very uncharitable of me. I was confused by his comments on CFTP 16 at around 1:26:00 (https://soundcloud.com/biblethumpingwingnut/cftp-episode-16-special-guest-shane-kastler-comparing-the-confessions-the-1646-the-1689-lbcf) and when he said it doesn't matter if all the 1644 LBCF authors held to covenant theology, but he reached out to us and said he affirms the importance of authorial intent. He was very gracious and even willing to come on the show. We look forward to clearing the air and discussing our disagreements in brotherly love. So stay tuned! Questions? Comments? Feedback? Email us at semper.reformanda.radio@gmail.com!

References (Recommended ones are labeled with a ‘+’)

- https://soundcloud.com/biblethumpingwingnut/cftp-episode-16-special-guest-shane-kastler-comparing-the-confessions-the-1646-the-1689-lbcf

- https://soundcloud.com/biblethumpingwingnut/cftp-episode-17-house-keeping-comparing-the-confessions-the-1646-the-1689-lbcf-pt-2

- http://shanekastler.typepad.com/pastor_shanes_blog/2016/02/refuting-john-calvins-three-uses-of-the-law.html

+Richard C. Barcellos, In Defense of the Decalogue: A Critique of New Covenant Theology, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/467909.In_Defense_of_the_Decalogue_

+“A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF,” www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

+Gadsby’s Catechism, http://www.chapellibrary.org/book/gcat/gadsbys-catechism

+ http://www.christusvictornetwork.com/ask-a-millennial-christian/hermeneutics-the-art-and-science-of-interpretation/

+Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?, Collection 10: Christian Theology, www.trinitylectures.org/MP3_downloads.php

---

SRR #10 | Where's New Covenant Theology? A Closer Look at the Confessions

09/01/2016 by Bible Thumping Wingnut

http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2016/09/01/srr-10-wheres-new-covenant-theology-a-closer-look-at-the-london-baptist-confessions/

Take a closer look at the context and content of historic Baptist confessions of faith with Carlos and Owen as they investigate New Covenant Theology's (NCT) attempts to find itself in the 1st London Baptist Confession of 1644/46; NCT’s claims regarding the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689 and its authors; and the implications this has on the Law, Evangelism, and Covenant Theology. Questions? Comments? Feedback? Email us at semper.reformanda.radio@gmail.com!

Check out our blog: http://www.biblethumpingwingnut.com/#!semper-reformanda-radio/a0zyx

Rate and Review us on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bible%E2%80%A6t/id901586827?mt

 References (Recommended ones are labeled with a ‘+’)

+"A Comparison of the 1644 & 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith", http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Church%20History/Bapt%20Conf/index.html

- http://www.ncbcnorcal.com/#!1644/c19o6

+http://www.chapellibrary.org/book/lbco/london-baptist-confession-of-faith-_-1689

+James M. Renihan, "CONFESSING THE FAITH IN 1644 AND 1689", http://www.reformedreader.org/ctf.htm

+"Reformed Resources from a 1689 Perspective: Of New Covenant Theology [Resource Roundup]", includes Dr. James Renihan’s exposition of the entire 1st LBC 1644/1646, http://confessingbaptist.com/nct/

+Richard C. Barcellos, In Defense of the Decalogue: A Critique of New Covenant Theology, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/467909.In_Defense_of_the_Decalogue_

+Reformed Resources from a 1689 Perspective, "Tag: New Covenant Theology", http://confessingbaptist.com/tag/New-Covenant-Theology/

+http://www.1689federalism.com/

+http://www.1689conference.org/

+http://www.chapellibrary.org/

+"A Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist Covenant Theology", From Recovering a Covenantal Heritage: Essays in Baptist Covenant Theology, ed. Richard C. Barcellos, RBAP, 2014, http://www.unherautdansle.net/by-farther-steps-part-1/

+Micah and Samuel Renihan, "REFORMED BAPTIST COVENANT THEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL THEOLOGY", https://thelogcollege.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rb-cov-theo-renihans.pdf

+Denault, Pascal, Mac Wigfield, and Elizabeth Wigfield. 2013. The distinctiveness of Baptist covenant theology: a comparison between seventeenth-century Particular Baptist and paedobaptist federalism, https://www.amazon.com/Distinctiveness-Baptist-Covenant-Theology-Seventeenth-Century-ebook/dp/B00QZNH38S/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

+Coxe, Nehemiah, Ronald D. Miller, James M. Renihan, Francisco Orozco, John Owen, and Nehemiah Coxe. 2005. Covenant theology from Adam to Christ, https://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Theology-Christ-Nehemiah-Coxe-ebook/dp/B00YCX8I96/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1470764564&sr=8-2

---

SRR #13 | SFE Debriefing and Discussion: Covenant Theology vs New Covenant Theology, Part I

09/21/2016 by Bible Thumping Wingnut

http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2016/09/22/srr-13-sfe-debriefing-and-discussion-covenant-theology-vs-new-covenant-theology-part-i/

Join Owen, Carlos, and Tim as they debrief the Striving for Eternity Theological Discussion between Carlos Montijo, representing Baptist Covenant Theology, and Louis Lyons (http://www.emmausroadsugarland.org/), representing New Covenant Theology, on the topic of Covenant Theology vs. New Covenant Theology that took place on 19 September 2016. Watch the full discussion @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuuUQ7v1zMw. And thanks to Andrew Rappaport from Striving for Eternity Ministries (http://strivingforeternity.org/), we’re providing the audio of the first half of the discussion! We’ll publish the second half on our next episode so stay tuned. A big shout out to brother Andrew for setting it up and to brother Louis for his willingness to dialogue! Questions? Comments? Feedback? Email us at semper.reformanda.radio@gmail.com!

Our blog: http://www.biblethumpingwingnut.com/semper-reformanda-radio

Rate and Review us on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bible%E2%80%A6t/id901586827?mt

 References (Recommended ones are labeled with a ‘+’)

+Voddie Baucham, “The Sabbath Before the Command,” http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=410151353280

+New Covenant Theology, Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2002), reviewed by Richard C. Barcellos, http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/bom/newcovenanttheologycritique.htm

+Sam Waldren, “THEONOMY, A REFORMED BAPTIST ASSESSMENT”, http://www.reformedreader.org/rbs/tarba.htm

+“Was the Mosaic Covenant THE Covenant of Works?” http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/was-the-mosaic-covenant-the-covenant-of-works/

+“Of Marriage, Chapter Twenty-Five of the 1689 Baptist Confession [Audio] – Daniel Chamberlin,” http://confessingbaptist.com/of-marriage-chapter-twenty-five-of-the-1689-baptist-confession-audio-daniel-chamberlin/

+John Greer, “One Day in Seven,” http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=13116514580

+“Covenant Theology Lectures – Sam Renihan”, http://www.1689federalism.com/covenant-theology-lectures-sam-renihan/

+“Reformed Baptist Fellowship and Theology Forum” Facebook Group, https://www.facebook.com/groups/reformedbaptist/

+“A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF,” http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

+1689 Federalism Playlist, https://youtu.be/_lKe2VopL9k?list=PL31jRTd9ppYsoclH-9_ZnIoSSoj3IEsvP

- Joel McDurmon, Incest is “holy in God’s sight”?: a Westminster West grad gets consistent with his R2K, http://americanvision.org/9836/incest-holy-gods-sight-westminster-west-grad-gets-consistent-r2k/

- https://soundcloud.com/biblethumpingwingnut/cftp-episode-21-hell-debate-brother-rc-striving-for-eternity-discussion-hangout

- David Gay, “No Confession? Nothing to Debate!”, http://media.sermonaudio.com/articles/da-8261610237-1.PDF

- Louis Lyons, “Proving New Covenant Theology with Only One Bible Verse”, http://www.thepastorspen.org/2016/04/proving-new-covenant-theology-with-only.html

---

SRR #14 | SFE Discussion: Covenant Theology vs New Covenant Theology, Part 2 | Response to CFTP

09/28/2016 by Bible Thumping Wingnut

http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2016/09/29/srr-14-response-to-cftp-sfe-discussion-covenant-theology-vs-new-covenant-theology-part-2/

Join Carlos, Tim, and Owen as they answer the Conversations From The Porch’s (CFTP) marathon episode about SRR, and for the second half of the Striving for Eternity Theological Discussion between Carlos Montijo, representing Covenant Theology, and Louis Lyons (http://www.emmausroadsugarland.org/), representing New Covenant Theology, on the topic of Covenant Theology vs. New Covenant Theology that took place on 19 September 2016. Watch the full SFE discussion @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuuUQ7v1zMw. Thanks to Andrew Rappaport from Striving for Eternity Ministries! (http://strivingforeternity.org/) Questions? Comments? Feedback? Email us at semper.reformanda.radio@gmail.com

Our blog: http://www.biblethumpingwingnut.com/semper-reformanda-radio

Rate and Review us on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bible%E2%80%A6t/id901586827?mt

 References (Recommended ones are labeled with a ‘+’)

+New Covenant Theology, Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2002), reviewed by Richard C. Barcellos, http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/bom/newcovenanttheologycritique.htm

+Sam Waldren, “THEONOMY, A REFORMED BAPTIST ASSESSMENT”, http://www.reformedreader.org/rbs/tarba.htm

+“Was the Mosaic Covenant THE Covenant of Works?” http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/was-the-mosaic-covenant-the-covenant-of-works/

+“Of Marriage, Chapter Twenty-Five of the 1689 Baptist Confession [Audio] – Daniel Chamberlin,” http://confessingbaptist.com/of-marriage-chapter-twenty-five-of-the-1689-baptist-confession-audio-daniel-chamberlin/

+John Greer, “One Day in Seven,” http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=13116514580

+“Covenant Theology Lectures – Sam Renihan”, http://www.1689federalism.com/covenant-theology-lectures-sam-renihan/

+“Reformed Baptist Fellowship and Theology Forum” Facebook Group, https://www.facebook.com/groups/reformedbaptist/

+“A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF,” http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

+1689 Federalism Playlist, https://youtu.be/_lKe2VopL9k?list=PL31jRTd9ppYsoclH-9_ZnIoSSoj3IEsvP

+Voddie Baucham, “The Sabbath Before the Command,” http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=410151353280

+JD Hall, “Count the Cost of Being a Polemicist,” http://pca.st/COJ6

+JD Hall, “More On Sectarian Minimalism,” http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=9231622801

- https://soundcloud.com/biblethumpingwingnut/cftp-episode-18-new-covenant-theologys-straw-man-army-responds-to-srr-pack-a-lunch?in=biblethumpingwingnut/sets/conversations-from-the-porch

- Joel McDurmon, Incest is “holy in God’s sight”?: a Westminster West grad gets consistent with his R2K, http://americanvision.org/9836/incest-holy-gods-sight-westminster-west-grad-gets-consistent-r2k/

- David Gay, “No Confession? Nothing to Debate!”, http://media.sermonaudio.com/articles/da-8261610237-1.PDF

- Louis Lyons, “Proving New Covenant Theology with Only One Bible Verse”, http://www.thepastorspen.org/2016/04/proving-new-covenant-theology-with-only.html

---

Additional Recommended Resources

+David J. Engelsma and Herman Hanko, Be Ye Holy: The Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification, http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/books/item/5005-be-ye-holy-the-reformed-doctrine-of-sanctification

+Logical Belief Ministries, LBM Podcast 0050 | A critique of New Covenant Theology, http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2016/08/16/lbm-podcast-0050-critique-new-covenant-theology/

+ Richard Barcellos interviewed on upcoming book [AUDIO | Regular Reformed Guys] 02/14/2017 by Jason Web player: http://podplayer.net/#/?id=30743020 Episode: http://media.blubrry.com/regular_reformed/p/www.regularreformed.com/podcast/regreformed021317.mp3 Regular Reformed Guys Podcast: Dr. Richard Barcellos Episode 37: Getting the Garden Right Pastor Richard Barcellos joins the Regular Reformed Guys to talk about his upcoming, as yet unnamed book about the Covenant of Works, the Garden of Eden and a number of other questions in relation to the New Covenant Theology… AUDIO [81-min.]

+ $4 Kindle, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism [Revised Edition] by Pascal Denault:

The First London Confession of Faith (1644–1646) reveals itself equally as an important source. Although it does not present a covenant theology in substance, it allows us to ascertain that, from their beginnings, the Baptists adhered to the Reformed approach for understanding the Scriptures and salvation in a covenantal fframework. 11 What is more, as we will see, already in 1644 the Baptists had a unique comprehension of the covenant of grace and of the new covenant. Start reading this book for free: http://a.co/55sG6U6

+ $5 Kindle, Renihan, James M. Faith and Life for Baptists: The Documents of the London Particular Baptist General Assemblies, 1689-1694. 2016. This book will help you appreciate true Baptist history:

https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Life-Baptists-Particular-Assemblies-ebook/dp/B01LQZIPN6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1473331469&sr=1-1&linkCode=sl1&tag=theconfbapt-20&linkId=f618a247ae1d787fd9141189925c4ee4

In part 1 we proposed first that the four-way division of Alexander's empire must have been established after 288 B.C., before which there were still five family lines in contention for his dominions, but prior to 281 B.C. at the Battle of Corupedium, after which only three family lines remained. We proposed, as well, that the four-way division of his empire "toward the four winds of heaven" (Daniel 8:8, 11:4)—would have been established at that time such that Thrace and Asia Minor (within the Taurus mountains) would constitute the northern kingdom, Egypt's territories the southern, Syria and beyond to Babylon the eastern, and Macedonia the western. Historically, biblical scholars in general and eschatologists in particular have struggled with the identification of the territories of Alexander's successors. The cause of the struggle is not difficult to understand. While Asia Minor with Thrace appears, at the outset, to be the Northern kingdom, and Egypt the Southern in accordance with Daniel 11:4, the detailed prophecy of a conflict between the kings of the North and South starting in 11:5 appears to have been fulfilled in the wars between the East and the South—that is, between the Seleucids in Syria and the Ptolemies in Egypt. Neither Daniel nor his angelic narrator pause to explain why.

The Inadequacy of the Shifting Frame

That apparent inconsistency has led to some rather creative cartography in the history of Danielic eschatology through the introduction of a Shifting Frame of Reference. In Daniel 11:4, Asia Minor with Thrace appears to be the northern kingdom in what we might call an Alexandrian Frame of Reference, centered as it is on Alexander's former domains. Then, between Daniel 11:4 and 11:5, the frame of reference suddenly and inexplicably changes, and from that point forward (so the theories go), Syria is the Northern kingdom. We call this the Judæan Frame of Reference, centered as it is on Judæa, with Syria to the North, and Egypt to the South.

Jerome's Use of the Shifting Frame

Jerome (347 – 420 A.D.) was the first patristic writer to attempt to solve the inconsistency between the prophecy and its fulfillment through the introduction of a Shifting Frame of Reference. After identifying "Asia Minor and Pontus and of the other provinces in that whole area" as "the north" in Daniel 11:4, Jerome reasoned that Daniel must have changed his frame of reference in the next verse “because Judaea lay in a midway position” between Syria and Egypt (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 11:4-5). There is hardly a commentary on Daniel 11 that does not in some way invoke that Judæan Frame of Reference to solve the difficulty.

Calvin's Use of the Shifting Frame

Calvin appealed to that shifting frame of reference in similar fashion. In his commentary on Daniel 8:8, Calvin described the division of the empire in an Alexandrian Frame of Reference. Cassander was to the west in Macedonia, Ptolemy was to the south in Egypt, while "the kingdom of Persia, which was possessed by Seleucus, was towards the east and united with Syria; the kingdom of Asia [Minor] was to the north" (Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 8:8; see Figure 1, below).

But when Calvin commented on Daniel 11, he shifted to a Judæan Frame of Reference. Macedonia was still West and Egypt was still South, but Asia Minor was now East, and Syria had become North, "[f]or Egypt was situated to the south of Judea, and Syria to the north"(Calvin, Commentary on Daniel, 11:4; see Figure 2, below).

The Underlying Invalid Assumption

From Jerome to Calvin, and for many centuries beyond, the Shifting Frame of Reference in chapter 11 has been a staple of Danielic eschatology. We have been told that the frame of reference simply must have changed mid-prophecy, for that is the only way to make sense of wars foreseen to occur between North and South, but apparently fulfilled between East and South.

In truth, however, the difficulty is of our own making. The underlying issue that has made the Shifting Frame of Reference an eschatological necessity is the invalid assumption that the appellation "king of the north" must be dynastic in nature, attached to a family line. If we assume that "king of the north" refers to a family line, then "the north" of necessity must refer only to the Seleucids—making Syria "north" regarding the wars, even though it is "east" regarding the division. However, as we argued in part 1, the appellation should rather be a geographic one, attached not to a family line but to a territory. Under that rubric, the title "king of the north" would only attach to whomever was the rightful king over the northern territory.

The "Northern Period" of the Seleucids

Such a situation as we have described compels us to reevaluate how Daniel 11 is interpreted, for the geographic data invalidate the Shifting Frame that has for almost two thousand years informed our understanding of Daniel 11. To illustrate the significance of such a change, we will walk through the verses that refer to the "king of the north." In doing so we will refer often to the commentary of Jerome because his geographic errors are of great consequence and have had an inordinate influence on the later commentaries. As we have affirmed and will here demonstrate, "king of the north" applies to the Seleucids only when they reign in Asia Minor, i.e., during periods when they hold the double crown, both East and North.

Daniel 11:6

"And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement ..."

It is 252 B.C.. The "king of the north" is Antiochus II, the third generation of Seleucid kings to claim the northern territory. The "king's daughter of the south" is Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II, king of Egypt. Here Jerome committed one of his several geographic mistakes by assuming that Antiochus II must have been ruling in Syria at the time of the fulfillment (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 11:6). As we noted last week, Antiochus II was actually reigning in Ephesus with his wife, Laodice, when Ptolemy II approached him to offer his daughter in marriage. Antiochus II only relocated to Antioch after the agreement with Ptolemy, in order to set up a second household with Berenice. Antiochus was truly "king of the north," that is, Asia Minor and Thrace, when Berenice was offered to him, and as we noted last week, he maintained a household in Ephesus, and eventually abandoned Berenice in Antioch and returned to his first love in Asia Minor.

Daniel 11:7

"But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail:"

It is 246 B.C.. The "branch of her roots" refers to Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III. Their father, Ptolemy II, had since died, and Berenice and her child by Antiochus II had been murdered at the instigation of Laodice (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars, 65). Antiochus II, now dead, left his son, Seleucus II, reigning in Ephesus with his mother, Laodice. It is here again that Jerome, following Porphyry, makes significant geographic mistake, assuming under a Judæan Frame of Reference that Seleucus II must have been reigning in Antioch at the time:

"He [Ptolemy III] came up with a great army and advanced into the province of the king of the North, that is Seleucus [II] Callinicus, who together with his mother Laodice was ruling in Syria" (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 11:7-9)

The truth is, the ascension of Seleucus II occurred not in Syria, but rather in Asia Minor where Antiochus II died, and where Seleucus II had been under the care of his mother, Laodice, since Antiochus' marriage to Berenice (Eusebius, Chronicle [p. 249-51]).

After the murder of his sister, Ptolemy III could not stand idly by, so he launched an all out offensive against the Seleucids. The commentaries typically focus only on Ptolemy III's eastern offensive, in which he "secured for himself the whole country from Taurus to India, without a single engagement” (Polyænus, Strategems, Book 8, Chapter 50.1). That campaign is typically taken to be the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy that the king of the south "shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail," but such an interpretation assumes a Judæan Frame of Reference in which Syria is north. In an Alexandrian Frame of Reference in which Asia Minor is north, Ptolemy would have invaded Asia Minor and Thrace where the Seleucids currently lived. The historical record shows that he did exactly that.

In this war, Ptolemy III launched an invasion not only in the east, but also in the north, subduing major parts of Thrace and Asia Minor. Ptolemy III's offensive is thus described in the historical record as a “campaign against the two lands of Asia” (Canopus Decree, 6), both Major and Minor, East and North. In this campaign against the house of Seleucus, Ptolemy III had "become master of ... Pamphylia and Ionia [in Asia Minor] and the Hellespont and Thrace..." (The Adoulis Inscription, Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae (OGIS) 54). Truly, the king of the south had "enter[ed] into the fortress of the king of the north," capturing both Sardis and Ephesus in his northern campaign (Eusebius, Chronicle [p. 249-51]).

Daniel 11:8-9

"And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land."

It is about 241 B.C., and Ptolemy III the victor returns to Egypt with his accumulated treasures. The commentaries typically refer here to Ptolemy's conquest of the east and the return of eastern treasures to Egypt. We simply highlight here, from the Adoulis Inscription referenced above, that Ptolemy had conquered not only the whole east, but also major portions of the north, returning to Egypt with the treasures from both kingdoms:

“Having become master of all the land this side of the Euphrates and of Cilicia and Pamphylia and Ionia and the Hellespont and Thrace and of all the forces and Indian elephants in these lands, and having made subject all the princes in the (various) regions, he crossed the Euphrates river and after subjecting to himself Mesopotamia and Babylonia and Sousiana and Persis and Media and all the rest of the land up to Bactria and having sought out all the temple belongings that had been carried out of Egypt by the Persians and having brought them back with the rest of the treasure from the (various) regions he sent his forces to Egypt through the canals that had been dug.” (The Adoulis Inscription, OGIS 54).

It is only after invading both the East and the North that the southern king brought back the accumulated treasures to Egypt, and those treasures included the spoils of Asia Minor and Thrace, the northern kingdom.

A Brief Interlude

In Ptolemy III's incursion into Asia Minor and Thrace, the Seleucids had been pushed as far north as Smyrna, where we find Seleucus II in 242 B.C. making his preparations to cross into Syria to recover his Eastern kingdom from Ptolemy III (Bagnall, Roger S., Derow, Peter, The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation, Smyrnaean Inscription (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, ©2004) 56-62). The war in Syria does not go well and Seleucus II “despatched a letter to his brother Antiochus" in Asia Minor requesting help. Instead, Antiochus simply usurps the throne from Seleucus II and claims Asia Minor as his own. Seleucus II was forced to secure a hasty truce from Ptolemy III and returned to Asia Minor to deal with his rebellious younger brother (Justinus’ Epitome of the Philippic History, Book XXVII.2). The rivalry ended in catastrophe for the Seleucid line. When all the dust had settled, the Seleucids had been overthrown from the north, and King Attalus of Pergamon "had appropriated all [the Seleucid] dominions on this side of the Taurus" in Asia Minor (Polybius, The Histories, Book 4.48.7). Both Seleucus II, and his younger brother died outside of Asia Minor as exiles (Justinus’ Epitome of the Philippic History, Book XXVII.4).

Quite notably, and very much to our point, the angel completely skips over this brief period of Seleucid exile from Asia Minor, making no mention of these events in chapter 11. When the angel takes up the narrative with the sons of Seleucus II, they are in exile as their father had been, and making plans to take back the northern kingdom from Attalus. As we shall see, the angel withholds from them the title "king of the north" until after Asia Minor is back in the hands of the House of Seleucus.

Daniel 11:10

"But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress."

It is now 226 B.C.. Fifteen years have elapsed since verse 9. Seleucus II has died, and his sons are still in exile. Upon taking the crown, the elder son Seleucus III "crossed the Taurus at the head of a great army" to recover his father's former dominions, but soon perished. His kinsman, Achæus, sent immediately for Antiochus III to come to Asia Minor from the East and take his fallen brother's crown and throne.

While he waited for Antiochus III to arrive in Asia Minor, Achæus continued the mission and "recovered the whole of the country on this side of Taurus." In an act of deference, Achæus initially refused to take the crown, "holding the throne for the younger brother Antiochus [III]" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 4.48.6-10). Upon his ascension, Antiochus III "began to reign, entrusting the government of Asia on this side of Taurus to Achaeus and that of the upper provinces to Molon and his brother Alexander, Molon being satrap of Media and Alexander of Persia" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.40.6). With his kingdom so arranged Antiochus III turns his attention to Ptolemy III and the task of taking Coele-Syria.

It is now 220 B.C., and Ptolemy III has died, succeeded by Ptolemy IV. Antiochus III has assembled his army and is "ready and eager to invade Coele-Syria" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.42.9). But there is a significant matter requiring the king's attention: Ptolemy IV still occupies "Seleucia which was the capital seat and, one might almost say, the sacred hearth of their empire." The Syrian city "had been garrisoned by the kings of Egypt ever since ... the murder of Berenice" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.58.1-9). Convinced by his generals of the importance of the city, Antiochus III sets aside his designs on Coele-Syria, and instead takes back Seleucia in 219 B.C. (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.60-61).

Thus were Seleucus II's sons both "stirred up" to assemble a multitude of forces, but only one actually returned, and was "stirred up, even to his fortress."

Daniel 11:11

"And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand"

The year is 217 B.C.. After some initial victories in Coele-Syria (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.70-71), Antiochus III presses on to Raphia where Ptolemy IV destroys his forces in a decisive battle:

"His losses in killed alone had amounted to nearly ten thousand footmen and more than three hundred horsemen, while more than four thousand had been taken prisoners." (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.86.5)

Antiochus III sues for peace, and turns his attention back to Asia Minor where Achæus has rebelled, but with only moderate success because the army refused to support him against "their original and natural king" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.57.6). Antiochus III pursues Achæus to Sardis, captures him, and executes him for his crime (Polybius, The Histories, Book 8.21). The year is 213 B.C..

Daniel 11:12

"And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it."

The outcome of Ptolemy IV's decisive victory against Antiochus III yields the opposite of what he expected back home in Egypt. His army, emboldened by its victory, turned on Ptolemy IV and seceded, taking Upper Egypt with them (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.107.1-3). What is more, his victory at Raphia did not secure his possession of Coele-Syria, for Antiochus III would eventually return and take it from him.

Daniel 11:13

"For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches."

In the years since his defeat at Raphia, Antiochus III has not been idle. He is still governing as king of Asia Minor, as evidenced by his letters to the people at Sardis in 213 B.C. (Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum: 39.1283-12856). In 205 B.C. he is resettling "two thousand families of Jews" from Mesopotamia and Babylon to Phrygia and Lydia, in the interior of Asia Minor, being "persuaded that they will be well-disposed guardians of our possessions" there (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, chapter 147). In 204 B.C., he receives the adulation of the city of Teos on the western coast of Asia Minor "concerning the foundation of the cult in honor of King Antiochos III" and his wife, the queen ("Divine Honors for Antiochos and Laodike at Teos and Iasos," Franciszek Sokolowski, Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies, 13, 171-6 (1972)). It is during this period also that Antiochus III receives the epithet, "Magnus" during his successful expeditions in the east (Appian, Syrian Wars, 1.1).

In his newfound strength and wealth, Antiochus III returns to fight the king of Egypt, still holding both crowns, East and North. This time he utterly destroys the army of the child king Ptolemy V, under the command of Scopas at Panium, and at last takes possession of Coele-Syria (Polybius, The Histories, Book 16.18-19). The year is 200 B.C..

Daniel 11:14

"And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall."

The angelic narrator pauses to describe the general state of affairs for the king of the south and the Jews during "those times." As noted under verse 12, Ptolemy IV's victory at Raphia, rather than solidifying his army's loyalty, instead emboldened them to seek independence from him. As Günther Hölbl, historian of the Ptolemaic Empire, describes, the period after Raphia was defined by instability, rebellion, insurrection and civil war in Egypt:

"In the years following 217, some men of the new military class led a revolt against the Ptolemaic regime in the northern part of the country. ... A papyrus dating to the end of the third century, probably sill during [Ptolemy IV's] reign, describes how Egyptian bandits attacked a military post and a temple precinct; ... From the Rosetta Stone we also know that, at the end of [Ptolemy IV's] reign, civil war raged in the Delta." (Hölbl, Günthner, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (London and New York: Routledge (2001) 154)

Under the reign of his son, Ptolemy V, who was just a child when he took the throne, Antiochus III and Phillip of Macedon immediately set upon his dominions, "tearing to shreds the boy's kingdom" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 15.20.6). Thus did "many stand up against the king of the south" ... "in those times."

During the same period, the tax-farming, phil-hellenic Jewish Tobiads arose to prominence in Judæa under Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy V, gladly switching sides to Antiochus III after his victory at Panium (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, 154-185). The rise of these phil-hellenic Jews set the stage for a watershed conflict that would unfold between the Tobiads and the Maccabees later under Antiochus IV.

Daniel 11:15

"So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand."

Antiochus III is still king in Asia Minor within the Taurus mountains. After his victory at Panium, he quarters for winter and then proceeds to reduce Ptolemy V's fortified citadels along the southern coast of Asia Minor.

The commentaries typically relate that Antiochus III "besieged [Scopas] in Sidon together with ten thousand of his soldiers" (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 11:15-16). However, no evidence of this siege has ever been found, except the mentions made of it in Jerome's and Porphyry's commentaries on Daniel. No Greek or Roman historian ever made note of it.

The evidence we do have for the fulfillment of the prophecy is from Livius, who describes Antiochus III's naval campaign as it is in progress against Ptolemy V's fortified citadels that dotted the southern coast of Asia Minor, south of the Taurus mountains:

“His object was … to attempt the reduction of the cities along the whole coastline of Cilicia, Lycia and Caria which owed allegiance to Ptolemy... He had so far secured Zephyrium, Soli, Aphrodisias and Corycus, and after rounding Anemurium—another Cilician headland—had captured Selinus. All these towns and other fortified places on this coast had submitted to him either voluntarily or under the stress of fear, but Coracesium unexpectedly shut its gates against him.” (Livius, History of Rome, Book 33.19-20)

Facing resistance, Antiochus III had no option but to surround and besiege Coracesium, one of Ptolemy V's most prized strongholds. Unable to defend his own fortresses, the Romans attempted to intervene and demanded that Antiochus III "restore to Ptolemy [V] all the towns that he had taken from him after the death of Ptolemy [IV]" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 18.1.14)

Loss of the Northern Crown

This concludes the section of Daniel 11 that deals with the Northern Period of the House of Seleucus. As we noted in part 1, the next verses of Daniel 11 address the defeat of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 B.C., and the eviction of the Seleucid line from Asia Minor and Thrace under the terms of the Treaty of Apamea in 188 B.C.. From that point onward, the northern territory of Asia Minor and Thrace was forbidden to the Seleucids, and they were confined to the east as Kings of Syria. After Antiochus III dies, his sons rule after him in Syria, the younger of whom will "obtain the kingdom by flatteries" (Daniel 11:21) and become a significant figure through Daniel 11:39. Notably, the angel keeps talking about the Seleucids, but simply stops calling them "king of the north." That leads us to a conclusion about Daniel 11 that completely eliminates the need for the Shifting Frame introduced by Jerome at 11:5. The frame of reference appears to have remained static since verse 5.

The Shifting Frame was Unnecessary

As the historical record bears out, the Seleucids actually ruled in Asia Minor and Thrace in the early years depicted in Daniel 11, and whenever the angelic narrator foresees them as "king of the north," the prophecy is fulfilled by Seleucids who are in possession of the north. Then the Seleucids are evicted, ruling thenceforth only the east, and the angel simply stops calling them "king of the north." In other words, what was "north" in Daniel 8:8 and 11:4 remained "north" for the whole prophecy, and there was never a need to impose a Judæan Frame of Reference at all. The single Alexandrian Frame of Reference in which the chapter was apparently written was sufficient all along.

The Eschatological Implications

The implications of approaching Daniel 11 in a single frame of reference are far reaching, but we will address only one of them here. The "king of the north" is mentioned again in Daniel 11:40, and though Porphyry tried in vain to show that Antiochus IV made one last foray into Egypt, the historical record shows otherwise. The reality is that nothing about Daniel 11:40-45 even remotely resembles the career of any Seleucid kings, but the angel just kept on narrating as if foreseeing a continuous history of the Greek empire—start to finish.

Unable to find a clear fulfillment in the Seleucids at the end of the chapter, eschatologists typically resort again to a shifting frame. Some initiate a new frame of reference as early as verse 21, others as late as verse 40. The governing assumption of the new frame is that there must be yet another unannounced discontinuity in the prophecy, causing the latter part of the chapter to be centered on the location of a distant future antagonist. Jerome, for example, suggested that the prophecies after verse 24 "are spoken prophetically of the Antichrist who is to arise in the end time" (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 11:24).

We suggest, however, that if the Shifting Frame of Reference was unnecessary earlier in the chapter, then yet another frame is also unnecessary at the end. There is a simpler solution than to keep changing the frame of reference to make the prophecy fit historical events. In any case the text (we hasten to add) only mentions one reference frame in the first place.

The solution we offer is a very simple one: if chapter 11 is a continuous narrative written in a single frame of reference (as it appears to be), and the title "king of the north" is geographic rather than dynastic (as the evidence shows), then the answer to the mystery of Daniel 11:40-45 is not to be found in Syria or in the Seleucids or even in a distant future antagonist by importing yet another frame of reference. The answer is rather to be found in Asia Minor and Thrace, to the north. We should simply look there to find out who was "king of the north." It certainly was not the Syrian Seleucids, banned forever from the northern territory by the Romans.

But somebody eventually became "king of the north"—king over Asia Minor and Thrace—years after the eviction of the Seleucids, and that somebody did exactly what he was prophesied to do, fulfilling the entirety of Daniel 11:40-45 before Rome even had her first emperor. The fulfillment has been overlooked, at least in part, because our eyes have been drawn ever eastward—thanks to Jerome and his Shifting Frame of Reference—when we should have been looking north.

We will address the remaining verses of Daniel 11 in a later series.

"… Asia Minor rather than Syria or the East seems [to have been] the chief sphere of Seleucid activity..." — Edwyn Robert Bevan (1902)

When Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C., his family, his generals and his closest friends spent the following decades trying to sort out the future and face of Hellenism in a post-Alexandrian world. It was not a simple undertaking. The process was riddled with murder, backstabbing, betrayal and geopolitical intrigue that spanned four decades and three continents. Alexander's potential successors, the Diadochi, as history would come to know them, were reduced from about 20 in 323 B.C. to just five viable family lines after the Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C.. The Diodochi were subsequently reduced to four in 288 B.C. when one of the family lines was reduced to obscurity and no longer in contention. In 281 B.C. at the Battle of Corupedium, the Diodochi were reduced to just three. There is a great deal of history to sort through to understand the reduction of the Diadochi, how they related to each other, and how they understood the boundaries of their dominions. However, if we are to take seriously the prophetic implications of the visions of Daniel, the period between 288 and 281 B.C. is of paramount importance, and we should become familiar with it. No eschatology can be complete without understanding it. It is the only post-Alexandrian period during which Hellenism enjoyed exactly four successor kings in Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria and Macedonia—north, south, east and west—respectively. Their identities and territories matter.

Their identities and territories matter to us first because the Book of Daniel repeatedly describes—both explicitly and figuratively—four successor kingdoms after Alexander, "divided toward the four winds of heaven" (see Daniel 7:6, 8:8, 8:22, 11:4). Before 288 B.C., there were too many kings, and after 281 B.C. there appear to be too few. Something significant happened during those seven years in the early 3rd century B.C., and as we shall demonstrate, the contemporary Greek world took note of it. They knew very well that Alexander's dominions had been divided four ways, a status quo that endured even when only three families of the Diodochi remained.

Second, their identities and territories matter to us because the ensuing conflict between the king of the north and the king of the south occupies a significant portion of the narrative of Daniel 11. Each king is repeatedly invading the other's territory. Unless we can identify their territories, we can make no sense of the conflict. What makes the chapter especially challenging is that the nations and boundaries of the warring kings are never explicitly described. The angel refers repeatedly and explicitly to countries, regions, territories, cities and other locations with varying degrees of geographic specificity: Media (v. 1), Persia (v. 2), Greece (v. 2), Egypt (vv. 8, 42, 43), Israel (i.e., the glorious land, vv. 16, 41, 20, cf. Ezekiel 20:15), the Greek Isles (v. 18), Chittim (v. 30), Edom, Moab and Ammon (v. 41), Libya, (v. 43), Ethiopia (v. 43), and the temple mount (v. 45). Yet despite the extensive use of specific geographic designations, the angelic narrator nonetheless refrains from referring to the territories of the warring kings except by the cardinal directions, north and south. Their boundaries are unknown to us except in the fulfillment of prophecy.

Although the text does not actually specify it, the king of the north has traditionally been identified with the territory of Syria. We propose that upon examination of the Scriptural evidence and the historical record, the king of the north should instead be identified with Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) and Thrace. We do not deny that the early prophecies of Daniel 11—from verses 5 to 39—deal exclusively with a Syrian king in conflict with an Egyptian king. In fact we insist that such is the case. What we shall demonstrate, however, is that the Syrian king is called "king of the north" only during the periods when he held both the eastern crown and the northern crown, reigning over both Syria and Asia Minor. Although the Syrian king fulfills the prophecies of Daniel 11:5-39, he is never called "king of the north" unless he is actually ruling over the northern territory of Asia Minor and Thrace.

This, of course, has significant implications for our understanding of Daniel 11:40-45, the last time the "king of the north" is mentioned in Scripture. But let us for now turn our attention to the Diadochi.

Reduction to Five (323 - 301 B.C.)

The most notorious reductions of the Diadochi were performed by Alexander’s own bereaved mother, Olympias, and his general Cassander. Olympias murdered Alexander’s half-brother Aridæus in 317 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History,Book 19.11.5), and Cassander then murdered Olympias in 316 B.C, to safeguard his claims to the Macedonian throne (Diodorus Siculus, Book 19.51.4-5). Cassander then put to death Alexander’s mistress, Barsine, and his son by her, Hercules, in 309 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus, Book 20.28.1-3; Pausanias, Description of Greece 9.7.2; Justinus, Epitome 15.2) and eliminated Alexander’s wife, Roxanne, and her son Alexander IV in 310 B.C. (Justinus, Epitome 15.2, Pausanias, Description of Greece 9.7.2).

With Alexander’s mother, wife, mistress, brother and sons removed from the picture, the remaining Diadochi each began to claim the right of succession. Alexander's general, Antigonus, was first to take the crown, claiming it also for his son Demetrius as co-regent (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 20.47-53; Justinus, Epitome 15.2). Alexander's other friends and generals—Seleucus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Cassander—quickly followed suit and took crowns as well (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 20.53.2-4; Justinus, Epitome 15.2; Plutarch, Life of Demetrius 18:1-2). Fearing the growing dominance and belligerence of the co-regents of the Antigonid line, “Ptolemy and Cassander, forming an alliance with Lysimachus and Seleucus, made vigorous preparations for war by land and sea” (Justinus, Epitome 15.1). Antigonus in turn summoned Demetrius to his side “since all the kings had united against him” (Diodorus, Book 20.109.5).

This was the prelude to the watershed Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C. where Antigonus and Demetrius together “made war against a coalition of four kings, Ptolemy, son of Lagus, king of Egypt, Seleucus, king of Babylonia, Lysimachus, king of Thrace, and Cassander, son of Antipater, king of Macedonia” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Fragments of Book 21.4b). At the conclusion of that battle, Antigonus was dead (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 29.5) and Demetrius was on the run with only 5,000 soldiers and 4,000 horses remaining (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 30.1). The remainder of Alexander’s empire was thus left to the victors, Ptolemy, Cassander, Seleucus and Lysimachus (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 30.1). Or so it would seem. But it would be a mistake to count out the Antigonid line so soon. Demetrius had been defeated but he was not dead. He had merely retreated to fight another day.

Defeated but not destroyed, Demetrius retired to Ephesus to regroup (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Fragments of Book 21.4b; Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 30.2; Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 247)), “and gathered up … the remnants of his [father’s] imperium” (Justinus, Prologi, XV). He retained Cyprus and controlled the eastern Mediterranean Sea (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 33.1-4). Within a few years he was a regional superpower again, fielding both an army and a navy almost as impressive as any that Alexander had ever deployed (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.1). Ipsus had not reduced the Diadochi to four. It had only reduced them to five:

• The Antigonid Line: Demetrius, son of Antigonus; • The Seleucid Line: Seleucus I “Nicator”; • The Lagid Line: Ptolemy I “Soter,” son of Lagus; • The Lysimachæan Line: Lysimachus of Thrace; and • The Antipatrid Line: Cassander of Macedonia

Reduction to Four (301 - 288 B.C.)

Within four years of Ipsus, Cassander died, leaving his unstable Macedonian kingdom to his three sons, Philippus, Alexander and Antipater. Philippus “died soon after his father,” and the remaining two “were perpetually at variance” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 36.1), and Demetrius was now threatening the unstable kingdom. Lysimachus, king of Thrace and with vast holdings in Asia Minor, failed to persuade the warring brothers to make peace with each other (Justinus, Epitome 16.1). Demetrius soon had Cassander's son, Alexander, killed (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 36:1-6), and then convinced the people of Macedonia that it would be unfitting for anyone in Cassander’s line—which was responsible for the murder of Alexander’s mother, wife, mistress and children—to occupy Alexander’s former throne. Accepting this rationale, the people made Demetrius king of Macedonia in 294 B.C. (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius 37:2-3; Justinus, Epitome 16.1).

About this time Ptolemy had taken back Cyprus from Demetrius (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 35.3) and maintained control of his territories in “Egypt, with the greater part of Africa, Cyprus, and Phoenicia” (Justinus, Epitome 15.1). Seleucus was firmly entrenched in the eastern provinces “from India to the Syrian Sea” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 32.7) and Demetrius was king of Macedonia. With Cassander’s line no longer in contention for a crown, the Diadochi had been reduced to four.

With only four left, each of sufficient strength to engage but not dominate the others, new alliances formed. Seleucus married Demetrius’ daughter in an attempt to forge an east-west alliance with Macedonia. Lysimachus and his son each married a daughter of Ptolemy, in an attempt to forge a north-south alliance with Egypt (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 31.5). The alliances did not last long.

Demetrius seized Cilicia from his new brother-in-law, and refused Seleucus’ offer to purchase it back from him (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 46.7). Nor would Demetrius cede to him control of Tyre and Sidon (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 32.7). Demetrius, having now regained his strength (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 31.3) was also “master of Macedonia and Thessaly,” as well as a “great part of Peloponnesus too, and the cities of Megara and Athens” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 39.1). Attempting to restore the empire of his father (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 43.2), he now set his sights on Asia Minor. He raised an army of 98,000 men and 12,000 horses and was building 500 ships (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 43.3-4), preparing “such an armament for the invasion of Asia as no man ever had before him, except Alexander the Great” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.1).

With Demetrius renewing his belligerence, the others—Seleucus in the east, Ptolemy in the south, and Lysimachus in the north—had no option but once again to form an alliance against him. They invited Pyrrhus, king of Epirus to join them (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.1). As Lysimachus invaded Macedonia from Thrace, and Ptolemy sent a fleet from Egypt, Pyrrhus was troubling Demetrius from the west, and in the end, Lysimachus and Pyrrhus divided Macedonia between themselves (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.2-3).

Despairing, but not defeated, Demetrius’ hope for a kingdom seemed to be entirely extinguished. "[A]nd yet," Plutarch informs us, "it broke out again, and shone with new splendour. Fresh forces came in, and gradually filled up the measure of his hopes.” Demetrius “collected all his ships, embarked his army, which consisted of 11,000 foot, besides cavalry, and sailed to Asia,” hoping to take some of Lysimachus’ territories in Asia Minor (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 45:4). He marched through Caria and Lydia, and on to Phrygia in Asia Minor “with an intention to seize Armenia, and then to try Media and the Upper Provinces” of Asia Major (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 46.7). Lysimachus’ son, Agathocles, followed at a distance through Asia Minor, cutting off Demetrius’ supply lines, and when Demetrius crossed the Taurus Mountains into Cilicia, Agathocles sealed off the mountain passes, trapping him there (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 46.7-47.2). Seeing Demetrius unable to retreat, Seleucus recognized the opportunity to recover a coveted territory. “Seleucus marched into Cilicia with a great army,” and engaged in multiple skirmishes and battles with Demetrius, and at some considerable cost finally gained the upper hand (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 47.5-49).

Hungry, and without options, his forces diminished by plague, famine, attrition and abandonment, Demetrius finally surrendered to Seleucus, and was held under arrest until his death (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 47-50). In 288 B.C., while in Seleucus’ custody, Demetrius formally abandoned his ambitions, and released his claim to the crown by a letter to his son, Antigonus Gonatas, ceding to him his "cities and all his remaining estates” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 51.1). It is at this point that Antigonus Gonatas took the crown in his father’s stead, but was not to regain control of Macedonia for another ten years (Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 237)). After Demetrius’ abdication, a period of chaos resulted as rulership of Macedonia changed hands repeatedly, but finally returned to Antigonus Gonatas, and remained in Antigonid hands for more than 100 years, until Macedonia finally capitulated to Rome in 168 B.C. (Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 239)).

Thus, were the lines of the Diadochi finally reduced to four, and it is here at last that we can identify their respective territories. Lysimachus was in possession of Thrace and the territories within the Taurus Mountains of Asia Minor to the north; Ptolemy was secure in Egypt, Africa, Cyprus, and Phoenicia to the south, also having gained control of the southern coast of Asia Minor, just a sliver of land south of the Taurus Mountains; Seleucus had taken all the territory east of the Taurus range from Cilicia and Syria to Babylon; and Demetrius' son, Antigonus Gonatas, was claiming sovereign rights over Macedonia in the west.

Reduction to Three (288 - 281 B.C.)

Four kingdoms were thus established—north, south, east and west—forged over a 35-year period in the chaotic crucible of a post-Alexandrian world, resulting in what would turn out to be a brief, unsustainable equilibrium. Each king kept his covetous gaze warily focused on his neighbor's territory, and in 281 B.C., the equilibrium collapsed. Seleucus crossed the Taurus Mountains into Asia Minor and engaged Lysimachus at the Battle of Corupedium. He defeated and killed Lysimachus, and shortly thereafter, Seleucus himself was murdered after his conquest of Thrace (Pausianas, Description of Greece, Book 1.16.2). His son, Antiochus I, thus took the crown and ruled over the territory.

The Seleucid Dynasty in Asia Minor (281 - 190 B.C.)

The outcome of the Battle of Corupedium is one of the most remarkable and most frequently overlooked facts of post-Alexandrian Hellenism. From this point forward, until the Battle of Magnesia in 190 B.C., the Seleucids reigned in Asia Minor. They retained their territories in the east, but lived in, and reigned primarily from, the north, holding court in Sardis and living in Ephesus.

Esteemed historian of the Seleucid dynasty, Edwyn Robert Bevan, arrived at precisely this conclusion in his two-volume work, The House of Seleucus. Once Seleucus defeated Lysimachus at Corupedium, the descendants of the Seleucid line made their home quite comfortably in Asia Minor and Thrace, and in fact preferred it over their other dominions. It was the seat of the Seleucid empire until their catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Romans at Magnesia. It is only then that the Seleucids go back to being “Syrian” kings. Of this astonishing fact, Bevan writes,

“… Asia Minor rather than Syria or the East seems, till after Magnesia, the chief sphere of Seleucid activity. One may well believe that it was the part of their dominions to which the Seleucid kings attached the greatest value. It is never so inappropriate to speak of the dynasty as ‘Syrian’ as in these earlier reigns.” (Bevan, Edwyn Robert, The House of Seleucus, vol 1, London: Edward Arnold (1902) 150-51)

“Asia Minor was in fact considered the real home of the earlier Seleucids.” (Bevan, The House of Seleucus, vol 1, 151n)

It is from Asia Minor that the Seleucids administered their vast empire, from 281 B.C. onward, until Magnesia. Shortly after Corupedium, Seleucus was murdered in Thrace (Pausianas, Description of Greece, Book 1.16.2) and his son, Antiochus I stepped in and ruled over the territory. Antiochus I’s activities within the Taurus Mountains were extensive, and we have numismatic evidence that Antiochus I’s rule was recognized as far as Thrace, for coins have been found in Europe bearing his name and image (Ernest Babelon, Catalogue des monnaies grecques: Les rois de Syrie, d’Arménie, et de Commagène (Bibliothèque nationale (1890) XLVIII).

When Antiochus I died (261 B.C.), his son Antiochus II rose up in his place, earning the appellation Theos for rescuing the Bithynians from the tyrant Timarchus (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars, 65; OGIS 26). At times, Antiochus II is found pressing his affairs well into Europe, as when he “besieged Cypsela, a city in Thrace,” for “he had in his army many Thracians of good rank and family” (Polyaenus, Strategems, Book 4, Chapter 16.1). Antiochus II reigned in Asia Minor until his death in 246 B.C.. His son and grandsons after him would call Asia Minor home, and would continue claiming sovereign rights to the northern territory for another six decades.

The Two Wives, and Two Kingdoms, of Antiochus II

This obscure period during which the Seleucids lived, loved and reigned in Asia Minor and Thrace is significant to us because the 11th chapter of Daniel does not even make mention of the "king of the north" until the reign of Antiochus II (261 to 246 B.C.) by which time the Seleucids had been established in the north for generations. It is only when Ptolemy, "king of the south," arranges the marriage of his daughter, Berenice, to Antiochus II that the "king of the north" is mentioned in the narrative:

"...for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement..." (Daniel 11:6)

The year is 252 B.C., and Antiochus II is currently living in Ephesus with his wife, Laodice. But Ptolemy has made an offer that he cannot refuse. Lest his most precious properties in Asia Minor fall into the hands of Berenice by marriage, Antiochus II hastily deeds them to Laodice as part of the terms of divorce, recording the settlement in temples throughout Asia Minor and Thrace (Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae (OGIS) 225).

His Northern kingdom thus arranged, Antiochus II crossed the Taurus Mountains to Antioch to be with Berenice in the East. The divorce, however, had been but a formality. Antiochus II in reality was maintaining “two wives, Laodice [in Ephesus] and Berenice [in Antioch], the former a love-match, the latter a daughter pledged to him by Ptolemy [II]” (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars, 65). The arrangement in Syria would not last long. Political necessity had brought him to Antioch, but love brought him back to Ephesus. The Taurus Mountains could not keep Antiochus away from his first love, and before he dies, he is back in the arms of Laodice (Eusebius, Chronicle). But Laodice does not suffer bigamists well, and is believed to have poisoned him (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars, 65), lest his affections drift eastward again to Syria, and her children lose their crown rights to the interloper queen from Egypt. It is in Ephesus that Antiochus dies.

The King of the North was King of the North

Lest we fail to state the obvious, Antiochus II was living in the north (Asia Minor) rather than the east (Syria) when Ptolemy, king of the south, approached him with the offer of marriage to Berenice. He was in possession of both the northern crown and the eastern crown at the time, but both his heart and his throne were in Asia Minor. He was not living in Antioch when the offer was made, and his marriage and living arrangements with Ptolemy's daughter in Syria were crafted in such a way as to maximize political gain, but minimize the risk of losing his northern kingdom. As Bevan noted above, “Asia Minor was in fact considered the real home of the earlier Seleucids” (Bevan, The House of Seleucus, vol 1, 151n). Asia Minor, with Thrace, was the northern territory of Daniel's narrative in chapter 11, not Syria.

The Eviction of the Seleucids

This matter of the northern king's territory becomes strikingly apparent when a later Seleucid king, Antiochus III, evokes the ire of the nascent Roman republic to the west. His activities in Thrace were interpreted as a threat, but Antiochus III insists that he is simply maintaining Seleucid territories that had been in his family since Corupedium (Polybius, The Histories, Book 18.49-51). Antiochus III underestimates the resolve of the new western republic and advances undaunted into the Greek Isles. It was a momentous miscalculation.

Rome had had enough, moved in to meet him on the field of battle, and "completely defeated Antiochus in the great battle of Magnesia” in 190 B.C. (Livius, History of Rome, Book 38.58). The Seleucid reign in the north was over. According to the terms dictated to them at the Treaty of Apamea in 188 B.C., the Seleucids “must retire from Europe and from all Asia on this side [of the] Taurus” (Polybius, The Histories, Book 21.17.3). After being evicted from his Northern territory, Antiochus III returned to the East and died in Elam (Babylonian King List 6(r); Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 28.3, Book 29.15)). These events fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel 11:18-19:

"After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found."

From the East the Seleucids had come. To the East they had returned. But from 281 - 190 B.C., they were truly, and emphatically, kings of Asia Minor and Thrace, the northern kingdom.

Remarkably, from this point forward in Daniel 11, no king of the Seleucid line is ever called "king of the north" again. The Seleucids six times had been styled by the narrator as “king of the north”  (Daniel 11:6, 7, 8, 11, 13 & 15), but when they were evicted from Asia Minor and Thrace, the title was no longer applied to them.

Undoubtedly, with only brief interruptions, the Seleucid kings were truly kings over the Syrian territory throughout the entire period depicted in Daniel 11:5-39. As we noted above, the wars between the king of the north and the king of the south were between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, the kings of Syria and Egypt, respectively. We do not deny it. What is significant to us, however, is that the appellation "king of the north" is a geographic one, not a dynastic one—it follows the territory, not the family. Whoever reigned over Asia Minor and Thrace was "king of the north," and it is for this reason alone that the Seleucids were so designated from Daniel 11:5 to Daniel 11:17. During that period, they wore both crowns, East and North. Once evicted from Asia Minor and Thrace, they lost the northern crown and from that point forward in the prophetic record the Seleucids are no longer identified as "king of the north" (Daniel 11:18-39).

Our conclusion, upon examination of the Scriptural evidence and the historical record, is that "the king of the north" in Daniel 11 should be identified with Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) and Thrace instead of Syria. The prophetic evidence and the historical record support that proposition.

We will examine more evidence in support of this proposition and its eschatological implications in part 2.

Most of us, from a very young age, have been familiar with the great statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream:

"This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay." (Daniel 2:32-33)

What Nebuchadnezzar had seen was a succession of four empires. A Stone arrives toward the end of his vision and breaks the statue to pieces, "and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth" (Daniel 2:34-35). The meaning of the dream was revealed to the prophet, and the Stone in particular has ever since been of great interest to the Church:

"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Daniel 2:44)

The Stone strikes the statue, the Kingdom of God is established, and "all these kingdoms" crumbled to dust, and "no place was found for them" (Daniel 2:34). There is an emphatic finality in the phrase, "no place was found for them." They are gone, for they have become "like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away."

Daniel's Subtle Clue

The common interpretation is pretty straightforward: after a succession of four empires (Daniel 2:37-44), the Stone is clearly the Church growing up into a global earthly entity, covering the earth like a mountain, the fifth kingdom in a succession of kingdoms. The rise of the Church after the Roman empire is very clearly depicted in the historical record, and the prophetic record seems to indicate exactly that.

Or does it?

Had Daniel only recorded two chapters, there would not be much more to discuss. But in Daniel 7, the prophet records a very subtle observation that has great bearing on the meaning of Daniel 2.

In Daniel 7, the prophet's dream also depicts a series of four empires, after which the saints take possession of the kingdom, just as in Daniel 2:

"These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever." (Daniel 7:17-18)

So far so good. Just like in Daniel 2, there are four empires in a row, and then the saints appear to get the fifth kingdom. And just as the impact of the Stone in Daniel 2 strikes the Fourth Empire, the "body" of the Fourth Empire of Daniel 7 is burned up and destroyed as well. A judgment against the fourth empire seems to be the harbinger of the rise of the Church to global prominence.

But in Chapter 7, Daniel adds an additional detail that gives us pause. He does not say that the Fourth Empire and all the preceding empires with it are utterly removed after the judgment against the fourth empire. Instead he says quite the opposite. Those preceding empires are not immediately destroyed at all, and in stark contrast with Daniel 2, they live on:

"I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." (Daniel 7:11-12)

Contrast the finality of the statement regarding the other kingdoms in Daniel 2 after the fourth empire is struck...

"... no place was found for them" (Daniel 2:34).

... with the extension of life for the other kingdoms described in Daniel 7 after the fourth empire is burned up ...

"... yet their lives were prolonged ..." (Daniel 7:11-12)

We suggest that if their lives were prolonged, then clearly a "place" was indeed found for them, and if "no place was found for them" then their lives were not prolonged. The two depictions seem to be at odds with each other, unless we have been looking at it the wrong way.

And there must be another way of looking at it. The Daniel of chapter 2 and the Daniel of chapter 7 received similar revelations from the same source (Daniel 2:28, 7:16). There would be Four Kingdoms on earth, and then "the God of heaven [shall] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed" (Daniel 2:37-44). There are Four Kingdoms to come on earth, but "the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom" (Daniel 7:17-18). These are very consistent statements.

Then why the subtle discrepancy? Why, after the impact of the Stone against the fourth empire in Daniel 2, are the preceding empires removed, but after the destruction of the fourth empire of Daniel 7, the preceding empires live on?

The Interim Kingdom

There is, of course, no real discrepancy at all. After the fourth kingdom of Daniel 7, an antagonist arises, "a little horn" that comes up from among the remnants of the fourth empire (Daniel 7:8). That "little horn" has an earthly dominion (Daniel 7:21-26), speaks arrogantly against God (Daniel 7:8,11,25), and makes war against the saints and prevails (Daniel 7:21,25). That "little horn" shares the same attributes with the Sea Beast of Revelation 13, which also has an earthly dominion (Revelation 13:7), speaks arrogantly against God (Revelation 13:5), and makes war against the saints and prevails (Revelation 13:7). And most importantly, the Sea Beast of Revelation 13 is comprised of all the preceding empires of Daniel's vision of chapter 7 (Revelation 13:2).

Our point here is that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is a conglomeration of "all these kingdoms" of Daniel 2:44, the manifestation of "the rest of the beasts" in Daniel 7. It is through the "little horn"—the Sea Beast of Revelation 13—that the lives of "the rest of the beasts" were prolonged. And thus, we have a very subtle but meaningful clue from the hand of the prophet. If the lives of "the rest of the beasts" were prolonged after the judgment against the fourth empire (Daniel 7:12), then Daniel 7:12 must necessarily occur after the impact of the Stone against the fourth empire in Daniel 2:34. And if Daniel 2:35 says the preceding empires are completely and utterly destroyed, then Daniel 2:35 must necessarily occur after Daniel 7:12 which says they were allowed to live on. That places Daniel 7:12 squarely between Daniel 2:34 and Daniel 2:35.

To put it another way, the "little horn" of Daniel 7—which is none other than Sea Beast of Revelation 13—must arise between Daniel 2:34 and 2:35 as the fifth earthly empire in the succession of Daniel's visions, and thus, Daniel 2:34 and 2:35 must depict two separate strikes of the Stone. In fact, the verses are written that way. Daniel 2:34 says the Stone struck and broke only the iron and clay feet to pieces, and Daniel 2:35 and 2:45 say that the Stone broke all of them to pieces at once, grinding them to chaff. Those are two different impacts of the Stone against the statue.

The Earthly Kingdom of the Saints

Part of the reason the Stone has historically been interpreted as the fifth earthly empire in succession is because Daniel 2:34-35 is interpreted as a single strike during the Roman Empire, and the Stone is depicted as filling "the whole earth" immediately following that strike. But what is notable is that the Kingdom the saints inherit after four preceding kingdoms is not earthly, but heavenly. Notice the language used in both chapters to describe the kingdom received by the saints "in the days of these kings" of the feet of the statue:

"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom..." (Daniel 2:44)

"These ... are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom ..." (Daniel 7:18)

There is no mention of an earthly kingdom for the saints, and we know that the kingdom Jesus came announcing during the fourth empire was "not of this world" (John 18:36). The kingdom the saints receive during the fourth empire is heavenly.

But at the end of the visions, there is a sudden and perceptible shift in the language used to describe the kingdom given to the saints. It is finally earthly, "under heaven," filling "the whole earth":

"... and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." (Daniel 2:35)

"...and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High..." (Daniel 7:27)

Notably, the kingdom of the saints does not fill "the whole earth" immediately after the Stone strikes the feet, but only after "all these kingdoms" are broken to pieces and consumed and "no place was found for them" (Daniel 2:35,44-45). The saints are not given a kingdom "under the whole heaven" immediately after the fourth beast is destroyed, but only after the dominion of the little horn is consumed and destroyed to the uttermost (Daniel 7:26). Then, and only then, does the Kingdom of Heaven come to earth. Only after the fifth empire's dominion is taken away. The Church will be the sixth earthly empire of Daniel's visions, not the fifth. The fifth earthly empire is the earthly dominion of the Little Horn, not the kingdom of the saints.

Two Strikes of the Stone

By evaluating Daniel 2 and 7 together, we find that chapter 2 depicts an initial strike of the Stone against the fourth empire, and the saints of God receiving a heavenly kingdom, and chapter 7 depicts an initial judgment against the fourth empire, and the Little Horn receiving an earthly kingdom. Revelation 13 depicts that Little Horn as the manifestation of all the preceding empires, which are given a prolongation of life after the judgment against the fourth empire (Daniel 7:12). Only much later, after all the empires are ground to dust by the second strike of the Stone (Daniel 2:35) at the destruction of the Little Horn (Daniel 7:26) do the saints actually receive an earthly kingdom.

In short, the saints of God do not receive the fifth earthly kingdom of Daniel's visions, but rather the sixth. It is not the Church but rather the Little Horn of Daniel 7, the Beast of Revelation 13:2, that receives the fifth earthly kingdom immediately following the Roman empire.

The significance of this to the Christian is that a cursory reading of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 without first harmonizing them may mislead one into expecting an earthly Christianized kingdom immediately following the Roman empire. Many a student of Scripture and history has stumbled at that very point, thinking that Daniel 2:34-35 depicted a single strike, and thus that the politically influential Roman Church State arising from the fragments of the Roman Empire was the manifestation of the Stone filling the whole earth.

However, when Daniel 2:34-35 are seen to depict two separate strikes of the Stone, it becomes clear that we should not expect or seek an earthy kingdom immediately after the Roman Empire. In fact, to the contrary, Daniel and Revelation warn sternly against that expectation, and admonish us not to seek an earthly kingdom until after the Little Horn is utterly and finally removed from the earth. Only then do the saints receive an earthly kingdom.

And thus, we offer this modest eschatological proposal: Daniel 2 depicts not one, but two, separate strikes of the Stone. The fifth empire of Daniel's visions, therefore, was not the Church but rather the very thing the Church was warned to avoid.

At the time of the Council of Nicæa, Alexandria and Antioch were located together in one diocese, just like Rome and Milan.

The decade from 373 to 383 A.D. is one of the most critical periods in the post-apostolic era, not because of what was happening in the Church, but because of what happened in the Roman Empire. Sometime during those ten years, the civil Diocese of Egypt was created by splitting the Diocese of Oriens in two. As we shall demonstrate, that late 4th century creation of the Diocese of Egypt is one of the most important developments in the history of ecclesiology, and it went almost completely unnoticed until the 16th century. By then, the damage was done, and even today church history, as an academic discipline, struggles to recover from the oversight.

The Formation of the Diocese of Egypt

In 293 A.D., Emperor Diocletian established the tetrarchy, dividing the empire into twelve dioceses, and assigning to each tetrarch capital the administration of three of the twelve dioceses as shown in Table 1, below:

Table 1: The Original Diocesan Division of the Empire

Each diocese was itself subdivided into numerous smaller units called provinces. Evidence for this specific twelve-way division dates to 314 A.D., and is attested by the Laterculus Veronensis.[1] Notably, there was no “Diocese of Egypt” at the time, which left Antioch and Alexandria together in the Diocese of Oriens, as shown in the map at the head of this article. Of similar relevance to our discussion, Milan became the chief metropolis of Italy, being located together with Rome in the Diocese of Italy, also depicted above.

The tetrarchy collapsed over the course of the next century, but the diocesan system endured. Several notable changes occurred in the arrangement and number of dioceses, yielding a final count of thirteen by the end of the 4th century. The Diocese of Moesia had been broken up into the two Dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia. The Dioceses of Gaul and Vienne had been combined into the single Diocese of Gaul. And finally, the Diocese of Oriens had been divided into the two Dioceses of Oriens and Egypt.[2] When the 4th century came to a close, the Roman Empire had been effectively divided into the following thirteen dioceses as shown in Table 2, below:

Table 2: Final Diocesan Division of the Empire

Evidence for this specific thirteen-way division late in the 4th century dates to 400 A.D. and is attested by the Notitia Dignitatum.

Of particular interest to us is the timing of the formation of the Diocese of Egypt. It was not part of Diocletian’s original diocesan division, and the evidence shows that it was a very late element of the reorganization. As late as 373 A.D., we have evidence that Alexandria was still located within the civil Diocese of Oriens, showing that even then the Diocese of Egypt still had not been formed.[3] It is not until 383 A.D. that we have an explicit reference in the civil records to Dioecesis Ægyptiaca, the Diocese of Egypt.[4] Sometime between 373 A.D. and 383 A.D., the Diocese of Egypt had been created.

The Significance of the Diocese of Egypt

The reason the late creation of the Diocese of Egypt is so important to the history of Christianity is because knowledge of the arrangement of the dioceses—and specifically knowledge of the timing of the creation of the Diocese of Egypt—is absolutely necessary to a proper understanding of Canon 6 of the Council of Nicæa (325 A.D.). In Diocletian’s original reorganization of the empire, Milan and Rome were located together in the Diocese of Italy. Milan was the chief of the diocese, but neither Milan nor Rome administered the whole. Likewise, the two cities of Antioch and Alexandria were located together in the Diocese of Oriens. By the time of the Council of Nicæa that status quo remained unchanged, and Canon 6 was written in that specific geographic context. Canon 6 cannot be understood without this information, yet much of it lay hidden in obscurity for over twelve hundred years. It was only in the 16th century that the history of the late formation of the Diocese of Egypt came to light, but by then more than a millennium of canonical interpretation had already transpired. The ostensible meaning of Canon 6 had long since been established in ignorance.

The matter being addressed in Canon 6 was that Meletius of Thebaid in Oriens had presumed to ordain bishops who were within the Diocese of Oriens, but were under Alexandrian jurisdiction. Peter of Alexandria accused Meletius of “entering our parish”[5] to perform the ordinations. Thus, the dispute involved the recognition and enforcement of episcopal boundaries within the Diocese of Oriens. The particular challenge facing the Council of Nicæa was how to define Alexandrian jurisdiction within a diocese that, in the civil realm, was administered from Antioch. Had the Diocese of Egypt already existed at the time, the solution would have been as simple as telling each bishop to stay in his own diocese. But that option was not available at the time. Alexandria and Antioch coexisted together in the same diocese, and a jurisdictional solution would have to be crafted with that in mind.

When we examine the canon in question, it becomes immediately apparent that the Council was compelled to define Alexandrian metropolitan jurisdiction in terms of several provinces of the Diocese of Oriens. Of equal significance, Antioch’s metropolitan jurisdiction was described in terms of the other provinces of the diocese:

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.” (Nicæa, Canon 6).

It would have been simple enough had the council merely stated that Alexandria should administer a few specific provinces in Oriens and that Antioch should administer the rest, but the council went on and provided its rationale for the decision: “…since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.” What could this mean? Why was a custom of a bishop in a completely different diocese invoked in order to settle an internal boundary dispute between bishops in the Diocese of Oriens?

The answer to the question is remarkably simple when the contemporary topography is taken into account. Diocletian’s reorganization had placed both Milan and Rome within the civil Diocese of Italy, and had also placed both Antioch and Alexandria within the civil Diocese of Oriens. In Italy, Diocletian had avoided administrative conflicts by making Milan the chief metropolis while relegating to Rome a few suburbicarian provinces adjacent to the city. By the time of Nicæa the church had adapted to the new civil boundaries, so the structural congruency between Alexandria and Rome was obvious to anyone familiar with current events. When boundary disputes arose within Oriens between Antioch and Alexandria, a solution presented itself immediately: just as the Bishop of Rome administered a few provinces within the Diocese of Italy (the rest being administered from Milan), Alexandria could administer a few provinces within the Diocese of Oriens (the rest being administered from Antioch). The solution was as elegant as it was simple.

Evidence for this geographic arrangement in Italy is abundant in the historical record. In the mid-4th century Milan was still being called the “Metropolis of Italy,”[6] and its bishop the “Metropolitan of Italy.”[7] Also at that time writers were still distinguishing between “Italy” and “these parts [of Rome]”[8] or “the city of Rome and the parts of Italy,”[9] as if they were two different administrative regions, “the parts of Italy,” which were administered by Milan, and “these parts” administered by Rome, mirroring the civil order in that diocese. The church had clearly adapted to the civil boundaries established within Italy, and in Canon 6 that same arrangement was applied to Oriens. The earliest Latin translation of Canon 6 recites the limited jurisdiction of the Bishop of the City of Rome—the suburban provinces (in suburbicaria loca sollicitudinem gerat)[10]—showing that in the west, the church had understood exactly why the example of the Bishop of Rome was invoked: not because his jurisdiction was so great, but rather because his jurisdiction was defined in terms of a few provinces of another metropolitan’s diocese. That was exactly the situation Alexandria faced in the Diocese of Oriens, so the council simply recognized Alexandria’s position over several provinces within the diocese on the basis of a similar custom for the Bishop of Rome within the Diocese of Italy.

That solution, of course, left the Bishop of Jerusalem still within the boundaries of Antioch’s portion of the diocese. To prevent any further disputes, the Council simply extended titular honors to Jerusalem in the next canon, leaving the bishop of Antioch as the ranking metropolitan (Nicæa, Canon 7).

As the century wore on, this understanding of what Nicæa had done for Alexandria was retained in the corporate memory of the church. In 347 A.D., Athanasius’ defenders were still describing his jurisdiction in provincial terms (Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis) rather than diocesan terms.[11] In 351 A.D., Athanasius was still identifying his jurisdiction in those same provincial terms even when identifying other bishops by their respective civil dioceses.[12] Clearly, there was still no “Diocese of Egypt” even in the mid-4th century.

But by 381 A.D., something had changed. The Diocese of Egypt must have been formed during that critical decade from 373 to 383 A.D., and knowledge of the newly created diocese had reached the assembled bishops in the capital of the empire. The 2nd canon of Constantinople reflected the new status quo, and Alexandrian jurisdiction was no longer being described in provincial terms, but rather in explicitly diocesan terms. Likewise, Antioch’s jurisdiction was no longer being described in terms of “the rest of the provinces,” but rather in terms of the Diocese of Oriens:

“The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt [Ægypto tantum]; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone [Orientem solum], the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved.” (Council of Constantinople, canon 2)[13]

The bishops at Constantinople had essentially restated the substance of Canons 6 and 7 of Nicæa in contemporary terms, reflecting the creation of a new diocese. A new geographic reality was present to them that had not been available to the preceding council: the existence of the Diocese of Egypt created out of provinces formerly attached to the now smaller Diocese of Oriens.

When viewed through the lens of the contemporary boundary disputes taking place within the diocese of Oriens, the provincial language used by Nicæa to define Alexandrian and Antiochian jurisdiction makes perfect sense. So does the provincial language used by Athanasius and his defenders even past the middle of the 4th century, because the Diocese of Egypt still did not exist yet at the time. Then, when the Diocese of Egypt was created sometime between 373 and 383 A.D., it made perfect sense to start describing the jurisdiction of Alexandria in terms of the new Diocese of Egypt, as well as to describe the jurisdiction of Antioch in terms of the now smaller Diocese of Oriens, which is exactly what Canon 2 of Constantinople did.

The Origin of the Myth

But what did not make sense was to attribute this to the Council of Nicæa. Nicæa could not have assigned Alexandrian and Antiochian jurisdiction in diocesan terms that were five decades ahead of their time. The Council of Nicæa had not assigned Egypt to Alexandria or Oriens to Antioch. It just was not possible. The Diocese of Egypt had not yet been formed, and the Diocese of Oriens still included Alexandria and the several provinces over which its bishop presided.

Nevertheless, after Constantinople, the language of Nicæa was gradually modified in contemporary literature, and the elegant simplicity of Nicæa’s provincial solution was soon lost in the fog of history. It was as if the church had simply forgotten when the Diocese of Egypt had been created. A collective amnesia set in, and they forgot that Nicæa had only solved an episcopal boundary dispute by assigning to Alexandria several provinces of a diocese that, in the civil realm, was entirely under the jurisdiction of Antioch.

The rewriting of Nicæa first manifested in the last years of the 4th century in Jerome’s letter to Pammachius (398 A.D.). “Unless I am deceived,” he insisted, the Council of Nicæa had assigned to Antioch “the whole of the East (totius Orientis).”[14] But Jerome was deceived, for he had assumed that the Diocese of Egypt must have already been in existence at Nicæa and that the council had therefore assigned all of Oriens to Antioch, a historical impossibility.

In 403 A.D., Rufinus of Aquileia perpetuated the error by saying that the 6th of Nicæa had granted to Alexandria “the charge of Egypt (Ægypti),”[15] which was not true. The council had granted to Alexandria several provinces of Oriens—Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis—precisely because there was no Diocese of Egypt to assign.

By 411 A.D., the confusion was advanced by Pope Innocent I in his epistle to Alexander of Antioch. In that letter he explained that Nicæa had established Antioch “over a diocese” (super diœcesim),[16] which was not true. Nicæa did not, and could not, establish Antioch over a diocese for the very simple reason that Alexandria was still located within Oriens at the time, and was in fact presiding over several of its provinces.

By 451 A.D. at the council of Chalcedon, both the eastern and the western bishops were reciting Canon 6 as if Nicæa had done the impossible: assign the Diocese of Egypt to Alexandria. Notably, the West was already appropriating the inaccurate language to advance a case for Roman episcopal primacy:

Western Bishops’ version: “The church of Rome has always had primacy. Egypt is therefore also to enjoy the right that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over everything, since this is the custom for the Roman bishop also. Likewise both the one appointed in Antioch, and in the other provinces the churches of the larger cities, are to enjoy primacy.”[17]

Eastern bishops’ version: “Let the ancient customs in Egypt prevail, namely that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over everything, since this is customary for the bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch also and in the other provinces let the privileges be preserved in the churches.”[18]

We emphasize the phrase, “authority over everything,” to showcase the remarkable historical gloss that occurred since the creation of Egypt as a diocese after 373 A.D.. The last thing the bishops at Nicæa would have ever said of either Alexandria or Rome is that either bishop “has authority over everything.” The council had been in no position to place either Alexandria “over everything” in Oriens, or Rome "over everything" in Italy, since each was located in a civil diocese with another metropolitan bishop—Alexandria with Antioch, and Rome with Milan. All Nicæa could do was say that Alexandria was to “have jurisdiction in all these” provinces of Oriens, just as Rome is over a several provinces in Italy, and assign to Antioch “the rest of the provinces" in Oriens, which obviously carries a much different meaning than “authority over everything.”

Thus, between Nicæa and Chalcedon the prevailing cultural knowledge that Nicæa had set Alexandria over only a few provinces of Oriens gradually became more and more obscure. Absent from the new wording of the Nicæan canons was the limited, provincial language that made sense in the early 4th century topography. Gone was any notion that at the time of the council Alexandria and Antioch had been located together in the same civil diocese, just like Rome and Milan were in Italy. Looking back from Chalcedon, it appeared that the Diocese of Egypt had existed all along, and that Oriens had never included Egypt and Libya, and that the Dioceses of Italy and Oriens had never been so similarly situated, each compelled by geography to share an entire diocese between two metropolitan bishops.

All these men—Jerome, Rufinus, Innocent and the assembled bishops at Chalcedon—assumed that Nicæa in 325 A.D. had granted to Alexandria a diocese that could not have even existed until at least 373 A.D.. Thus, in the dusk of the 4th century and the dawn of the 5th, the die was cast, and the myth was born that of the Diocese of Egypt had been in existence at the time of Nicæa. Nicæa’s simple and elegant solution to an administrative problem in Oriens was lost.

The Expansion of the Myth

The historical error grew larger and more expansive with time. Historians who by then should have known better continued to assume that the Diocese of Egypt had existed at the time of Nicæa and that it had been assigned to Alexandria by Canon 6. The myth manifested in two ways—either by an outright claim that the Council had assigned the Diocese of Egypt to Alexandria, or indirectly by claiming that the Council had assigned the whole Diocese of Oriens to Antioch.

In 1576 A.D., Roberti Bellarmini wrote that Nicæa had assigned all of Oriens (totum Orientem) to Antioch,[19] a historical impossibility.

In 1671, Henrici Justellus claimed that Nicæa had granted “the whole diocese of Egypt” to Alexandria,[20] a colossal anachronism.

In 1855, Carl Joseph von Hefele stated that Nicæa had granted “the whole (civil) Diocese of Egypt” to Alexandria,[21] and further that Antioch’s jurisdiction must have been “the civil diocese of Oriens” at the time,[22] two geographic impossibilities.

In 1880, Fr. James Loughlin was still claiming that the Bishop of Antioch presided “throughout the great diocese of Oriens”[23] at the time of Nicæa, which of course, was impossible.

Not one of their claims was true.

Since the Diocese of Egypt did not yet exist at the time of Nicæa, and Alexandria was at the time located within the Diocese of Oriens, the Council simply did not have at its disposal the option of assigning to Alexandria “the whole diocese of Egypt” or to Antioch “all of Oriens.” It certainly did not place either of them “over everything.” It was geographically and historically impossible. That is precisely why the council had to define Alexandrian and Antiochian jurisdiction in provincial rather than diocesan terms in the first place. Jerome, Rufinus, Innocent, Chalcedon, Bellarmini, Justellus, Hefele and Loughlin were all wrong. The existence of the Diocese of Egypt at the time of Nicæa was nothing but a myth forged in ignorance in the waning years of the 4th century. The true origins of the Diocese of Egypt had lain hidden in obscurity for centuries, while the myth lived on.

The Roman Catholic Implications of the Myth

And it was a myth with legs. It does not take much imagination to realize why the myth is so beloved of Roman Catholic apologists. Upon that myth was built an even larger, and much more insidious, claim. Grant for a moment that the core elements of the myth are true: at the time of Nicæa the Bishop of Alexandria was presiding over the Diocese of Egypt, and the Bishop of Antioch was presiding over the whole Diocese of Oriens. If those are true, Canon 6 of Nicæa says these two bishops were to continue presiding over their own dioceses based on a custom of the Bishop of Rome.

What else could this mean, but Roman episcopal primacy?

What was the canon if not an acknowledgment of the ancient practice of even eastern metropolitans being assigned to their dioceses by the Bishop of Rome?

Even to this day, that is precisely how the myth has been employed by Roman Catholics in their interpretation of Canon 6. We list here a few examples spanning the time from Chalcedon to the present:

Western Bishops at Chalcedon (431 A.D.): “The church of Rome has always had primacy. Egypt is therefore also to enjoy the right that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over everything, since this is the custom for the Roman bishop also.”

Bellarmini (1576): “…because the Roman Bishop, before any definition of the Councils [i.e., from antiquity] used to allow the bishop of Alexandria to govern Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.”[24]

Loughlin (1880): “[T]he clause in question can bear no other interpretation than this: ‘Alexandria and the other great Sees must retain their ancient sway because the Roman Pontiff wishes it.’”[25]

Unam Sanctam Catholicam (2016): “Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, since assigning this jurisdiction is an ancient custom established by the Bishop of Rome and reiterated now by this Nicene Council.”[26]

These Roman Catholic interpretations of Canon 6 only make sense if the Diocese of Egypt already existed at Nicæa, and the boundaries of Oriens were already pared back to their late 4th century limits at the time of the Council. But it is just a myth. The diocese of Egypt was not even created until some time between 373 and 383 A.D., and the Diocese of Oriens at the time of Nicæa still included Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.

Place the Diocese of Egypt back in its native context in the late 4th century, and the original meaning of the 6th of Nicæa is restored as well:

Milan was the chief metropolis of the Diocese of Italy, but Rome had been allowed by custom to preside over a few of its provinces. Antioch was the chief metropolis of Oriens, but Alexandria would be allowed to preside over a few of its provinces, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.

What was similar between Alexandria and Rome was not that either had “authority over everything,” but rather that each had limited authority over a subset of provinces within another metropolitan’s diocese. That was the only reason the example of Rome had been invoked at all.

The Relentless Persistence of the Myth

As an example of just how persistent the myth and its implications have been even within academia, we offer the example of Dr. Sara Parvis from her 2007 book, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy. Dr. Parvis is Senior Lecturer in Patristics at the School of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, and in her book, she commented on the geographic diversity of the bishops who attended the 335 A.D. synod of Tyre. Notice in her assessment of the council that she places Egypt and Libya outside of the civil diocese of Oriens, an anachronism at least four decades removed from reality:

“[I]t is clear from the list of provinces that it was basically a synod of the civil diocese of Oriens (Cilicia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Arabia, and Palestine) … supplemented by a handful of bishops from the Egyptian provinces (mainly Melitians) and Libya, and few others from further afield.”[27] (emphasis added)

As we have noted, as late as 373 A.D., and certainly at the time of the synod of Tyre, Egypt and Libya were located within the civil Diocese of Oriens. Parvis’ geographic anachronism was largely inconsequential in her analysis of Tyre, but in any analysis of the canons of Nicæa, an understanding of the contemporary topography of the empire is absolutely critical. The persistence of the myth even within academia has greatly hampered and distorted the historical attempts to understand the canons of Nicæa, and has only given license to Rome to claim Nicæan antiquity for Roman episcopal primacy.

Unraveling the Myth

Roman Catholicism’s claims of papal primacy based on Canon 6 of Nicæa are founded entirely upon the myth of the early existence of the Diocese of Egypt. By understanding the events that took place in that critical decade toward the end of the 4th century we can unravel that myth, and with it, the entirety of Roman Catholicism’s Nicæan argument for Roman episcopal primacy. In view of the geographic arrangement of the empire at the time, Nicæa’s reference to a similar custom regarding the Bishop of Rome was not an appeal to his ancient, limitless patriarchal sway after all, but rather to his very limited, provincial jurisdiction within the Diocese of Italy—an arrangement that perfectly mirrored Alexandria’s limited, provincial jurisdiction within the Diocese of Oriens, just as the Latins acknowledged in the earliest translation of the Nicæan canons. The Roman Bishop’s diminutive jurisdiction in a diocese that was otherwise administered from Milan provided just the precedent Nicæa needed to define Alexandria’s limited jurisdiction in a diocese that was otherwise administered by Antioch.

Without knowledge of the creation of the Diocese of Egypt, Roman Catholicism and her apologists run roughshod over the historical record and impose a late 4th century topography on an early 4th century council, and from that anachronism, extrapolate a revision of history that places the Bishop of Rome over all the churches of the world as early as 325 A.D.. However, equipped with the correct dating of the creation of the Diocese of Egypt in the late 4th century, we can completely deconstruct the Roman Catholic revisionism. That makes 373 to 383 A.D. one of the most important periods in the history of ecclesiology—not because of what was happening in the Church but because of what happened in the final arrangement of Diocletian’s diocesan reorganization of the empire.

(For more information on the origins of the myth, see the author's additional articles: False Teeth, "Unless I am Deceived...", Nicæa and the Roman Precedent.)

________________________

[1] Timothy David Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 201–208

[2] Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol 2, Appendix 11 “Dioceses and Provinces”, (London: Methuen & Co., ©1901) 548

[3] Pharr, Clyde, The Theodosian Code and Novels, and the Sirmondian Constitutions, (CTh hereafter) 12.1.63, (Princeton University Press, 1952), 351.

[4] Pharr, CTh 12.1.97, 356.

[5] So the Latin fragment indicates: “…sed insuper ingressam nostram parœciam…” (Peter of Alexandria, Fragments, Epistola ad Ecclesiam Alexandrinam, 1. Migne, PG, volume 18, 509).

[6] Athanasius, Historia Arianorum, Part IV, 28 & 33. NPNF-02, volume 4.

[7] Athanasius of Alexandria, Apologia de Fuga, 4. NPNF-02, volume 4.

[8] Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, 2, 26. NPNF-02, volume 4. See Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca (PG hereafter), volume 25 (Imprimerie Catholique, Paris, 1857), 292. “Attamen necessum est vobis significare, etiamsi solus scripserim, non ideo mei solius esse illam sententiam, sed et omnium qui in Italia sunt, et qui in his partibus degunt episcoporum.”

[9] Athanasius, Historia Acephala, 1, 2. See Migne, PG, volume 26, 1443, “Athanasius reversus est ex Urbe, et partibus Italiæ, et ingressos est Alexandriam….”

[10] Cuthbertus Hamilton Turner, Ecclesiae Occidentalis, vol 1, (1899) 120.

[11] Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part II, 6, 71. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series NPNF-02 volume 4. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, editors, M. Atkinson and Archibald Robertson, translators (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892); Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, 1, 19, “Encyclical Letter of the Council of Egypt.” NPNF-02, volume 4.

[12] Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part II, 6, 89. NPNF-02, volume 4.

[13] Henry R. Percival, editor, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, (Oxford: James Parker & Company, 1900), 176.

[14] Jerome, To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem, 37. NPNF-02, vol 6. See Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina (P.L.), vol 23 (Imprimerie Catholique, Paris, 1854) 389

[15] Rufinus of Aquileia, Church History, Book 10.6, trans. Philip R. Amidon, S.J. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) 14, 44n, “Et ut apud Alexandriam vel in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, quia vel ille Ægypti vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat.”

[16] Innocent I, Epistle XXIV, 1. Migne, P.L. vol 20, 547

[17] Richard Price & Michael Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, vol 3, in Gillian Clark, Mark Humphries & Mary Whitby, Translated Texts for Historians, vol 45 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005) 85

[18] Price & Gaddis,  86

[19] Roberti Bellarmini, Disputationes, Tomus I (1576 ad) (Coloniæ Agrippinæ: Sumptibus Antonij & Arnoldi Hieratorum Fratrum, 1613), Book II, Chapter XIII, 165. “Nam Antiochenus habuit totum Orientem….”

[20] Gulielmi Voelli & Henrici Justellus, Bibliotheca Iuris Canonici Veteris, Tome 1 (Lutetiæ Parisorum, 1671), 71, columns. 1-2. “Haec ἐξουσία est potestas Metropolitani, quam Nicaeni Patres decernunt deberi in tribus provinciis hoc Canone denominatis, Aegypto, Libya, & Pentapoli, quae totam Aegyptiacam diœcesim constituebant tam in civilibus quam Ecclesiasticus.”

[21] Carl Joseph von Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2nd edition, (Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, 1855), 390. “Die ersten Worte unseres Canons besagen sonach: ‘dem Bischof von Alexandrien soll sein altes Borrecht, wonach die ganze (bürgerliche) Diöcese Aegypten unter seiner (geistlichen) Oberleitung steht, bestätigt werden.’”

[22] Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils, William R. Clark, translator, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1871), 393, emphasis added.

[23] Loughlin, James F., “The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy,” American Catholic Quarterly Review, volume 5, January to October 1880, (Philadelphia, PA: Hardy & Mahony, 1880), 237.

[24] Bellarmini,165, “…id est, quia Romanus Episc., ante omnem Conciliorum diffinitionem consueuit permittere Episcopo Alexandrino regimen Ægypti, Lybiæ & Pentapolis.”

[25] Loughlin, 230.

[26]Unam Sanctam Catholicam, “Papal Primacy in the First Councils”, January 31, 2016 http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historical-apologetics/79-history/98-papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils.html.

[27] Parvis, Sarah, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325-345 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006) 125.

I believe he [God] is “really there” because, without him as the universe’s final Reality, there would be no intelligibility anywhere. (Robert Reymond, etc.)[1] Dr. Reymond’s statement is both profound and insightful. Without God, there is no intelligibility. While the unbeliever cannot account for and at times disregards logic, he must still rely on logic in his own thinking and argumentation. The unbeliever must use the laws of logic in order to make his case against Christianity intelligible, yet it is only the Christian worldview that can account for these laws. He is therefore required to “steal” from the Christian worldview to argue for his worldview. By this, the unbeliever shows that he is inconsistent and demonstrates that his own worldview is wrong. One cannot make a counter argument to this without first presupposing the laws of logic, and it is impossible to account for the laws of logic apart from the God of Scripture.

Only if the God of the Bible exists do we have the laws of Logic and only if the laws of logic exist do we have intelligibility. This necessarily includes the intelligibility of moral judgments. While the laws of logic are necessary for the intelligibility of moral judgments, they cannot tell us what is morally right or wrong. For that, we need an objective moral standard. The charge against atheism, secular humanism or any worldview which rejects the Bible is that it cannot establish an objective moral standard and therefore it cannot rationally justify any moral judgments. Only if the God of the Bible is our lawgiver do we have an objective moral standard, and only if we have an objective moral standard do we have a basis for moral judgments. In the Christian worldview it is God's character, his commandments, and his authority that establish an objective moral standard as the basis for making moral judgments indissoluble (perpetually binding or obligatory), and it is Jesus --the Logos of God--who endows the mind of man with the logic necessary to make those moral judgments intelligible (capable of being understood or comprehended). The unbeliever cannot account for either of these two necessary conditions in his own worldview. He cannot account for the laws of logic necessary to make moral judgments intelligible, nor can he account for an objective moral standard by which to make moral judgments indissoluble.

Objective Vs Subjective

That which is objective is true, independent of personal belief or opinion. We may simply say that truth is objective. Although this may seem obvious to most people, it is possible that in some postmodern academic circles someone will argue that there is no such thing as objective truth. When such irrational objections are raised we might ask their proponents if it is objectively true that there is no objective truth. If they say no then we can simply agree that their statement was wrong. However, if they say yes, then they have refuted themselves by claiming it is objectively true that there is no objective truth.

By contrast, that which is subjective is merely regarded as personal belief or opinion which may or may not reflect the truth. It’s not difficult to see that many people hold opinions that are not true. Whatever is subjective is not universally true or binding for all people; it is a matter of personal opinion. Many times people equate or confuse subjective opinion with objective reality. Some people will argue something similar to this: Mike sees a green maple leaf but Terry sees a yellow maple leaf and both perspectives are equally valid and true. But as Dr. John Robbins rightly points out, “The law [of non-contradiction] is expressed symbolically as: ‘Not both A and not-A.’ [This means that] a maple leaf may be both green and not-green (yellow) but it cannot be both green and yellow at the same time and in the same respect—it is green in the summer, yellow in the fall. If it is green and yellow at the same time then it cannot be green and yellow in the same respect; one part, however small, will be green, another yellow.”[2] Mike and Terry may have observed the maple leaf at different times or they may have observed different parts of the maple leaf in order to reach their conclusions, but if they are observing the same areas of the same leaf at the same time then they cannot both be right about the color. The Christian should understand that subjective opinion can only be validated by objective truth. It is objectively true that each of them is of a different opinion about the color of the leaf, but it is not true in any sense that both opinions are correct if, in fact, they are contrary. The terms objective and absolute are many times used synonymously as well as the terms subjective and relative. That which is objectively true is regarded as absolutely true in all instances and that which is subjectively true is only regarded as relatively true in particular instances.

Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism holds two main tenets. The first is that there are no moral absolutes which apply universally to all people. Instead of moral judgments being absolute they are only relative to individual preference or perspective. The second tenet is that there is no objective moral standard which is universally binding and unchanging. Instead of an objective moral standard, which is true, independent of personal opinion, relativism stipulates that all moral judgments are subject to individual preference or perspective. True moral judgments can, therefore, differ from person to person, and can even change over time. Every person can choose for themselves what is morally right or wrong. According to the relativist’s view, that which is morally wicked for one person may be morally righteous for another.

Those who subscribe to this view of morality often seek the moral freedom it offers. We can decide for ourselves what is morally right and wrong. This view often resonates with those who support the homosexual agenda and those of the pro-abortion movement. While the moral relativists seek to empower every person by giving moral authority to each individual, they inevitably make it impossible for moral judgments to be intelligible. This is because the inevitable result of moral relativism is that contradictory judgments of morality must be true at the same time, but it is impossible for contradictions to be true. The result is a worldview in which murder, rape, and child abuse are both morally right and wrong at the same time.

Let’s consider an example in which a father physically abuses his children. From the father’s perspective, his actions are morally right. He believes he is conditioning his children for the real world and that he is teaching them to be tough. Now let’s suppose that his youngest daughter dies as a result of the injuries inflicted from the physical abuse. We might expect at this point that there would be an admission of wrongdoing from the father but to the contrary, he stands firm and professes that his actions are nothing less than merciful. Perhaps this response from the father is too extreme to even be considered possible, but before we dismiss it altogether, let us remember that it was abortion icon Margaret Sanger who said, “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."[3] While the father feels that what he has done is morally right and even merciful, the mother and his other children view his actions as morally wrong. Because the moral relativists say that what is morally right or wrong is determined by individual perspective, the inescapable conclusion is that the very same actions of child abuse and murder are both morally right and not morally right (morally wrong) at the same time.

Here we have a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction because "the same attribute [in this case moral rightness] cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject [child abuse and murder] and in the same respect.”[4] The Relativist intends to argue that moral judgments held by different individuals, which are contradictory, are equally valid and true. This view, however, requires the rejection of logic which in turn provides a sanction for evil because it refuses to properly distinguish right moral judgments from wrong moral judgments. This rejection of logic makes morality unintelligible. If such contradictory moral judgments were made in reference to the same moral action then those moral judgments would be unintelligible. The inevitable result would be a state of confusion in which we could not know whether or not child abuse was morally right or wrong. If all moral judgments are shown to be contradictory then all moral judgments are reduced to absurdity. While the relativist may wish to disregard logic at this point he is still required to use logic in his own argument and he cannot advocate his own views without first presupposing the law of non-contradiction.

Not only does moral relativism fail to make moral judgments intelligible, it also fails to make moral judgments indissoluble; that is perpetually binding or obligatory for all people. This is due to the fact that all moral judgments in this view are grounded entirely in subjective arbitrary opinions which have no universal significance at all. It is important to understand that whatever the moral relativist may propose as morally right or wrong is not to be regarded as universally true or obligatory for all people. On moral relativism, there are no universal moral obligations that one should live by. This concept, however, seems to stand in direct opposition to our thinking when it comes to certain moral judgments.

When we make the moral judgment, for instance, that murder (the unjustifiable killing of an innocent person) is morally wrong, we intend to imply that murder is morally wrong for everyone. It does not matter if the person committing the murder is someone of wealth, influence, status or power; wrong is wrong and murder is morally wrong. This, of course, is not a new concept and one should only keep in mind the history of tyrannical dictatorships when considering the indissoluble nature of certain moral judgments. History is full of dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and many others who murdered millions of people. These tyrants are a sobering reminder that everyone, including the person in power, has a moral obligation to act justly and refrain from murder. Murder, however, cannot be considered morally wrong for all people unless all people have the same moral obligation to not murder. This creates a problem for the moral relativist because in their view there aren’t any indissoluble moral obligations. This means that the moral relativist has no foundation upon which to stand and criticize the actions of people like Adolf Hitler or anybody else for that matter. According to the moral relativist, Hitler could decide for himself what was morally right or wrong even if that meant the systematic genocide of an entire group of people.

In other words, if there are no indissoluble moral judgments then there are no moral absolutes. It stands to reason, though, that if every person has the same moral obligation to refrain from murder then the wrongness of murder stands as a moral absolute. We could simply say that murder is absolutely wrong. The moral relativist, however, denies moral absolutes and does not ultimately believe that murder is absolutely wrong. Similarly, they do not believe that child abuse or rape are absolutely wrong either. We should press the issue here and ask the relativist, “Since you believe that murder, rape, and child abuse are not absolutely wrong then can you give some examples of when these things are not morally wrong and are morally right?”

When asking questions like this to someone who holds this view of morality the reply is often nothing more than an assertion of the obvious. They will reply that “to them” things like rape, child abuse, and murder are morally wrong, but “to someone else” these things might be viewed as morally right. This reply is nothing new or insightful and it offers no hope of establishing a system of morality. This is a very popular view of morality known as descriptive moral relativism, and although it is widely held, it too fails to make moral judgments indissoluble or intelligible because it merely states the obvious; that different people have different views about what is morally right and wrong. Descriptive relativism can tell us nothing about what actually is morally right or wrong; nor can it tell us what we should do. Because moral relativism cannot substantiate any intelligible or indissoluble moral judgments the moral relativist cannot establish any ethical normative conclusions or moral imperatives. They simply cannot provide us a coherent, rational view of morality.

Morality is either subjectively based or it is objectively based. These are two mutually exclusive positions and there is no third option. If morality cannot be grounded or rationally justified from a subjective standpoint then that leaves us with the only other alternative. Morality must be grounded in an objective standard. For the Christian worldview, God’s divine law provides us an objective standard by which we can say what is right and wrong as well as advocate what we should or should not do. This view is most often recognized as the divine command theory. This view stipulates that morality depends on God and his commandments.

Euthyphro’s Dilemma

Plato’s dialogue the Euthyphro Dilemma has become an enduring inspiration for argumentation against the Christian position that morality depends on God. In this dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates, which takes place outside of a courthouse in Athens, Plato examines the essence of piety. This short dialogue has inspired many unbelievers to ask the question: Is something right or good because God decreed that it is, or is it decreed by God as right or good because it is right or good? The question is presented as a dilemma, a choice between two options, which ultimately lead to unsatisfactory conclusions for the Christian. If the Christian chooses the first option, that something is right or good because God decreed it to be so, then the implication is that God’s decree is completely arbitrary. This means that God could have decreed that murder and lying were good. If the Christian chooses the second option, that God decrees something is right or good because it is right or good, then the implication is that God must abide by a higher standard or authority than himself. This means that there is something greater than God and that he is not the ultimate source of goodness.

It is very likely that the Christian will hear some variation of this argument in a debate over morality. While some people may think this argument is sophisticated and persuasive, we should point out that it is fallacious because it presents a false dilemma. The argument only offers two options when in fact there is a third option. The third option is this: God’s decrees that something is right or good because it is in accordance with His own good character and righteous will. The standard for what is morally right and good is what God commands but it is vitally important to note that his commands are based on his own character and will. "Not only is God the governor and judge; prior to this, he is the legislator. It is his will that establishes the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong; it is his will that sets the norms of righteous conduct."[5] Only God has the power and authority to legislate right and wrong, to judge between good and evil and to execute punishment to those who break his law. God has established the virtue of his own character as the basis for universal moral commands, while particular commands are based on his will. The universal moral commands are often referred to as moral law while the particular commands are often referred to as positive law. However, these distinctions are not mutually exclusive and there is overlap. Therefore, it is both his character and his will that are the basis for his commands. This means that God is neither arbitrary in his commands nor is he forced to appeal to a higher moral authority than himself. Scripture tells us, “For when God made a promise to Abraham since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself” (Hebrews 6:13). Clearly, there is no greater authority than God.

Some Christian apologists have argued that God’s commands are the basis for that which is morally right and good, while others have argued that it is His character. Although, it would seem that most Christian apologists who attempt to answer the Euthyphro Dilemma will argue that it is only God’s character and not his commands that are the basis for morality. Clearly, they are attempting to avoid the charge of God’s commands being arbitrary, but this misses the full picture.

Therefore, we must ask: is it God’s commands or it is His character that is the basis for morality? To answer this, we need to make a distinction between an ontological basis and epistemological basis for morality. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question concerning what is real or what exist. The ontological basis for that which is morally right and good is God’s character, and in some instances, it is his sovereign will. Without God’s character and will as the transcendent ontological basis for morality, then right and wrong are reduced to subjective opinion and preference. In other words, there would be no actual right and wrong but only a difference of opinion and preference.

On the other hand, Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question concerning how we can know something, and without God’s revelation, we could not know his righteous decrees or his moral standard. Therefore, the epistemological basis for that which is morally right and good is God’s revelation which is given authoritatively and most clearly in the form of Divine commands. It is, therefore, appropriate to say that God’s commands are the basis for that which is morally right and wrong, and his character and will are the basis for that which He commands. The question often arises, though; “how can we account for the fact that actions such as lying and murder were wrong prior to the issuance of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai?” Certainly, it was morally wrong for Cain to murder Abel even though it happened prior to God giving the command to Moses “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Because God’s character and will are the ontological basis for what is morally good this means that objective right and wrong existed prior to Moses receiving the Ten Commandments. The Scriptures say that God is good (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19), and that he is eternal (Revelation 1:8), which means that that which is good has existed in the eternal, unchanging character of God.

Now, this raises the question; “how can God find fault with Cain for murdering his brother Abel if he had not read the Ten Commandments?” There must be a revealed law in order for this act to be a sin. It cannot merely be based on God’s character. Clark notes, “The Scripture says precisely what sin is. ‘Sin is the transgression of the law’ (1 John 3:4). ‘Where no law is, there is no transgression’ (Romans 4:15). ‘Through the law cometh the knowledge of sin’ (Romans 3:20). It should be clear then that sin is always defined by the law. Unless one knows the law of God, he cannot know what is wrong, evil or sinful.”[6] How can God punish those who have not received expressed commands and how is it possible to know right and wrong prior to God giving the commands if that knowledge depends on God’s revelation? Here we must point out that no one is ignorant of God’s moral law (ie the Ten Commandments). The answer to this question of supposed ignorance to the moral law is God’s revelation, but not in the form of divine commands. Remember, revelation is the epistemological foundation for the knowledge of right and wrong, but there are two categories of revelation that must be considered in order to properly address this question. The first category is a general revelation which is given through innate knowledge in the form of a moral conscience and the second category is a special revelation which is given in the form of divine commands.

General Revelation and Morality

General revelation is the category of Christian epistemology that allows us to address how we can know what is morally right and wrong apart from the expressed commands of God given in Scripture. Matt Slick writes, “General revelation is the knowledge of God, as well as the knowledge of right and wrong, that can be obtained through nature. This general revelation of God’s existence and basic morality is known by everyone.”[7] The Christian can account for the fact that all people inherently know that actions such as lying and murder are morally wrong even if some people have not read the Scriptures. This is because we are made in the image of God. God is a moral agent and because we are imaged in his likeness we too are moral agents. We are not only endowed by God with the gift of rationality but we are also endowed with the gift of morality. We have been given the knowledge of right and wrong in the form of a conscience. Jesus Christ is “the true light, which gives light [knowledge] to everyone” (John 1:9), and part of that light is a moral conscience. The word conscience contains the prefix con, from the Latin com, meaning “with or together,” and the suffix science from the Latin scire, meaning “to know.” The mind of man is illuminated by Christ with a moral conscience that provides us with (con) the knowledge (science) of right and wrong.

While this answers the question of moral knowledge prior to the issuance of the Ten Commandments to Moses it may appear contradictory to what Paul says in Romans chapter 7. How can we suggest that people had the knowledge of right and wrong prior to the Ten Commandments (the moral law) when Paul says, “Yet if it had not been for the law [Ten Commandments], I would not have known sin? For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet” (Romans 7:7). It is important to note that Paul is quoting Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 in this verse. Paul is saying that he would not have known that coveting or even that lying and murder were wrong apart from the Ten Commandments. This may appear to contradict the view that man had a knowledge of right and wrong prior to the Ten Commandments being given to Moses?

Paul does affirm that our knowledge of right and wrong depends on the knowledge of God’s moral law but he does not say that the moral law was first given to Moses. This is nothing more than an apparent contradiction and any perceived tension can easily be resolved. The answer is given earlier when Paul says concerning the Gentiles who do not have the law that; “...the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” This is why the 1689 London Baptist Confession states, “God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, (19.1) and that “the same [moral] law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man” (19.2).

It is also important to note that the first chapter of Romans points to an innate knowledge of God and his laws. In verse 20 we read, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature [character], have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” God’s invisible attributes include His rationality and His morality which are part of his divine nature, and these attributes are clearly perceived in the creation of man who is the very image of God. God’s moral law is a direct reflection of His character. Lying is wrong because God is a God of truth and murder is wrong because God is a God of justice. Adultery is wrong because God is always faithful. God’s moral law is a reflection of who God is and it is because God has made himself known to us innately that we are without excuse. Knowledge of the moral law is given innately to all people. The knowledge of his decree is innate knowledge which is why Paul says, “they know God’s righteous decree” (Romans 1:32).

Special Revelation and Morality

While general revelation makes God’s commands known innately, it is special revelation that provides us with expressed commands given in Scripture. However, there are two different categories of divine commands that we find in Scripture. There are universal commands which are morally binding for all people (referred to as moral law), and then there are particular commands given to certain individuals (referred to as positive law). The universal commands are primarily an outworking of God’s character while particular commands are primarily an outworking of his will. The moral law (i.e. the Ten Commandments) comprise a set of universal commands that are morally obligatory for all people, but God has also issued commands to individuals that are not morally obligatory for all people. Particular commands are replete throughout scripture. God commands Noah, “Make yourself an ark of gopher wood” (Genesis 6:14). Surely, we don’t have to obey this command and build an ark out of gopher wood, but Noah had obligation to obey this command. It would have been wrong for him to disobey it. This particular command given to Noah was based on God’s will which was to show mercy and preserve mankind through Noah and his family while bringing judgment upon the rest of mankind for their wickedness.

In a similar manner, God commands Jonah, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me” (Jonah 1:2). For Jonah, this particular command from God was a moral duty and he had an obligation to obey, but we are not all called to go to Nineveh and preach against it. When Jonah did not obey God’s command to go to Nineveh we see that God punished him; “And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights” (Jonah 1:17). These types of commands reveal God’s will and they are morally obligatory for their recipients, yet they are not morally obligatory for all people. We will not be judged for our lack of obedience to any particular command of God unless we are the direct recipients of such commands.

It is important to point out that commands that are primarily based on God’s will and those that are primarily based on his character both reflect God’s goodness and never contradict. Some people have suggested that God’s particular commands have conflicted with his universal commands, but this would result in a contradiction. In other words, God would be self-contradictory and double minded. As an example, we can consider God’s universal command not to murder (Exodus 20:13), and contrast that with God’s particular command to the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanite clans (Deuteronomy 7.1-2; 20.16-18).

The KJV renders Exodus 20:13 as “Thou shalt not kill,” and this is perhaps the reason for some of the confusion. This passage is better translated “Thou shalt not murder,” and most, if not all, other Bible translations correctly translate the passage with the verb “murder.” God commands us not to murder and some have misunderstood this to mean that God commanded us not to kill. We need to understand the difference between killing and murdering. Most people tend to recognize that there is a distinction to be made, and may even try to think of scenarios in which killing is not considered murder. Often these scenarios involve situations of war or self-defense in which there is no other option but to kill another person in order to preserve one’s own life or protect someone else. In such cases, killing is not always morally wrong, however, murder is always morally wrong and should never be condoned. Simply put, murder is the wrongful killing of another person.

Just as the state may be justified in the execution of a guilty criminal so too God is justified in the death of the wicked. This certainly was true of the Canaanites. By the time God had commanded the destruction of the Canaanites, their wickedness was no longer restrained and their evil was exceedingly great. In fact, their iniquity was complete. As a society, they were completely given over to practices such as homosexuality, bestiality, ritual prostitution, and even child sacrifice. Infants and children up to age four were often sacrificed to the pagan god Moloch by being burned alive. It is important to point out just how patient and longsuffering God was with these people. In Genesis 15:16 God says, “the iniquity of the Amorites [a clan of the Canaanites] is not yet complete” and we see that God withheld his judgment against the Canaanites for 400 years. God waited until their entire society became exceedingly wicked and they were completely given over to their sin. We should also remember that God was willing to spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of only 10 righteous people. Although no petition of mercy was ever made on the behalf of the Canaanites, and there was no obligation for God to be merciful, we can certainly suppose that God would have shown mercy for the sake of 10 righteous Canaanites. What we do see is that God waits until their iniquity is complete. This means there were no righteous Canaanites to be found among them. This should give us some perspective as to just how wicked the Canaanite societies were and just how patient and longsuffering God is in his judgments.

When God finally dealt with the Canaanites he used the Israelites to execute his judgment. The Israelites, in effect, became the instrument of judgment by which God punished them for their wickedness. There is, therefore, no contradiction between God’s universal moral command and his particular command. God commanded the Israelites to kill, but not in the same sense in which he had previously commanded them not to kill; that is not to murder.

While these particular commands are morally obligatory only for their recipients a system of morality, a theory of ethics requires universal commands that are morally obligatory for all people. These commands or laws must be universal and fixed. The Christian worldview provides such universal and fixed moral commands, yet the unbeliever’s worldview cannot establish any universal and fixed moral command or law. This is an important point to make with the unbeliever.

Universal and Fixed Laws

Earlier it was argued that only if God exists do we have an objective moral standard and only if we have an objective moral standard do we have a basis for moral judgments. An objective moral standard can also be referred to as an objective moral law. The argument is still the same though because only if there is a moral lawgiver do we have an objective moral law and only if we have an objective moral law do we have a basis for moral judgments. The Christian worldview is able to establish an objective moral law because “the LORD is our Lawgiver” (Isa. 33:22). Unless a moral standard is objectively binding and unchanging it cannot be regarded as a universal and fixed moral law. God’s revealed moral law is an objectively binding moral standard because He has the authority and power to punish those who break his law. This makes His law a universally binding moral standard. His moral law is also fixed because it will not arbitrarily change from one day to the next. Laws which reside in the eternal and immutable character of God, whether the laws of logic or the laws of morality are universal and fixed. However, it is important to note that the laws of physics are only universal and fixed as long as God chooses to uphold the universe in a law-like fashion, but the laws of logic reflect the eternal character of God’s thinking. While God may break the laws of physics he can never break the laws of logic. These two types of laws should not be equated. The moral laws are similar to the laws of logic in that they reflect the eternal character of God’s goodness and righteousness. The laws of logic are God's standard for rational thought and the moral laws are God's standard for moral conduct. The problem for the unbeliever is that he cannot account for nor can he establish any universal and fixed laws in his worldview.

Moral laws are universal because they apply everywhere and to everyone, but the unbeliever cannot rationally justify any universal law from his worldview. Without divine revelation from an all-knowing God, he is limited to his own observation and experience and no universal law can be deduced from observation or experience. Of course, we can expect that an observant unbeliever will point out that universal laws are not arrived at by a deductive method of reasoning but are rather based on an inductive method of reasoning. But here the unbeliever is committing the fallacy of induction if he intends to establish any universal law, moral or otherwise, on the basis of his own limited observation or experience. “Induction is the attempt to derive a general [universal] law from particular instances”[8] and unless the induction is completed it is always fallacious. “As Hume amply showed, our experience is limited in the past and non-existent in the future, with the result that we cannot know that all bread is nourishing, or that all arsenic is poisonous, or that all motions require a cause.”[9] In the unbeliever’s worldview, there is no epistemological foundation which would allow him to establish that murder is universally wrong. The unbeliever cannot establish any universal moral judgments in his worldview. This is once again because universal judgments are contingent upon universal laws and universal laws cannot be established on the basis of limited observation or experience.

Not only are the moral laws universal but they are also fixed because they will not arbitrarily change from one day to the next. This is true of moral laws just as it is true of the laws of logic. Moral judgments concerning the future will reflect past moral judgments if they are based upon unchanging moral laws. In the same way, that we can ask the unbeliever how he knows that contradictions are always false, we can also ask how he knows that murder is always morally wrong. The unbeliever may wish to say that the Nazi genocide of the Jews during WWII was morally wrong, but how can he say that a future genocide will be just as morally wrong. To say that we should not murder because it would be morally wrong is to make a judgment on a future action. The unbeliever cannot provide an epistemological foundation by which he can say that the future act of murder will be just as morally wrong as past acts of murder without fallaciously begging the question that the future will be like the past because of past experience. To suggest that the future will be like the past on the basis of past observation or experience is circular. Because his worldview is unable to provide a non-circular justification for saying that the future will be like the past he cannot affirm any timeless moral laws without being fallacious. He cannot say we should not murder because it will be morally wrong on the basis that it was wrong in the past. He has nothing outside of his own limited past experience to provide a basis for his judgments. Again, Hume pointed out that “our experience is limited in the past and non-existent in the future” with the result that we cannot know that the future will be like the past on the basis of observation and experiences. The reason is simple; no one has ever observed or experienced the future. In the unbeliever’s worldview there no justification for arguing that we should not murder tomorrow because it would be morally wrong, for that bears judgment on future actions which he has not yet observed or experienced. He, therefore, cannot advocate any moral imperatives in his worldview.

Contrary to the unbeliever’s inability to account for universal and fixed moral laws the Christian is able to account for such laws from the Bible. Scripture is the epistemological foundation for the Christian’s worldview which means that we have an epistemological foundation for universal and fixed laws. The Christian does not rely on observation or experience but rests wholly on the word of God. God, who is the lawgiver, has established his law as the universal and fixed rule of life. We know that His law is universal because everyone is held accountable to that standard. Paul writes, “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (Romans 3:19). John further tells us, “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:14) and we know from Paul that, “all have sinned [broken the law] and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). This is why God “commands all people everywhere to repent,” (Acts 17:31). We should note the universal terms in these passages: “every mouth; whole world; all;” and “all people.” These laws are the universal standard of morality. But the laws are also fixed and will not arbitrarily change from one day to the next. Jesus said, “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void” (Luke 16:17).

Far from the Euthyphro dilemma being a problem for the Christian worldview, we find instead that it is the Atheist who is lacking. We should point out for the Atheist that using the Euthyphro argument is an exercise in futility. It is clear that those who advance the argument are aware that being arbitrary is unacceptable and recognize the need for an objective standard. At this point, the Christian may want to turn the tables on the Atheist and ask: Is something right or good because you said that it is, or did you say it is right or good because it is right or good? We can refer to this as the Atheist’s dilemma and to help the Atheist see the problem they are facing we can also ask: Is murder wrong because you say so, or did you say murder is wrong because it is wrong.

While this is a false dilemma when used against the God of the Bible it is a true dilemma when applied to the unbeliever. Every moral judgment the unbeliever makes must be established on the basis of one of these two options and neither option is satisfactory. If he says that murder is morally wrong because he said so, then we may just as well ask who made him the boss. In this reply, he is not claiming to be a moral relativist but is rather claiming to have moral authority over everyone else. Not only is this extremely egocentric and narcissistic but it is equally delusional. Hopefully, the unbeliever will recognize that they personally don’t have the moral authority to determine what is right or good for everyone else. We should point out again that their subjective opinion is not morally binding for others. What makes them the moral authority for all humanity? We should ask them; “does everyone have to abide by your subjective, arbitrary moral opinion?” I have yet to hear someone argue in the affirmative to that question.

This leaves the unbeliever the other option; which is to say that murder is wrong because it is wrong. If he says that murder is wrong, not because he said so, but because it is wrong, then he is appealing to an objective moral standard that does not depend on his own personal belief or opinion. The problem is that in his worldview there no objective moral standard by which to make such judgments. As we have already seen, any moral standard established on the basis of individual opinion is purely subjective and every individual lacks the moral authority to establish universal indissoluble moral judgments. The unbeliever cannot establish an objective moral standard from the subjective opinion of the individual. This is why the unbeliever must now appeal to a standard outside of himself, an objective moral standard, to say that murder is wrong because it is wrong. When such a reply is given we can simply ask: “based on what objective standard?”

[1] Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1998. [2] Robbins, John W. "Why Study Logic?" Trinity Foundation RSS. July/August 1985. Accessed June 28, 2016. http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=39. [3] Sanger, Margaret. Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentano's, 1920. [4] Robbins, “Why Study Logic?”, 2. [5] Clark, Gordon H. Religion, Reason and Revelation. Vol. 4. Signature. TN: Trinity Foundation, 2012. Pg. 137 [6] Clark, Gordon H. What Is The Christian Life. TN: Trinity Foundation, 2016. [7] Slick, Matt. "What is general revelation and special revelation?" CARM.org. Accessed December 12, 2016. https://carm.org/questions/about-bible/what-general-and-special-revelation [8] Crampton, Gary. "The Biblical View of Science." Trinity Foundation. http://trinithttp://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=163yfoundation.org/journal.php?id=163. [9] Clark, Gordon H. Christian Philosophy, The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark. Vol. 4. Signature. TN: Trinity Foundation.

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Keller, Timothy. The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith. New York: Dutton, 2008. Kindle edition. Although Keller is a Reformed pastor in good standing with the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), he strays considerably from sound biblical doctrine and compromises the gospel in one of his better-known publications, The Prodigal God. More unfortunate is that few seem to realize this. This review will apply Scripture to correct the doctrinal errors in Keller’s The Prodigal God, for “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tm 3:16).[1]

It is not enough to simply recognize doctrinal errors; they must be corrected publicly. Any pastor who recognizes such errors, especially ones that pertain to the essentials of the faith, yet remains silent is derelict in his duty to uphold sound doctrine. This is why Paul tells Titus that an elder is to “give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Ti 1:9). It is important to examine popular and influential works like The Prodigal God in light of what the Bible mandates in places such as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and Acts 17:9-11.

The purpose and target audience of The Prodigal God are clearly stated by Keller in the introduction:

THIS short book is meant to lay out the essentials of the Christian message, the gospel. It can, therefore, serve as an introduction to the Christian faith for those who are unfamiliar with its teachings or who may have been away from them for some time.

This volume is not just for seekers, however. Many lifelong Christian believers feel they understand the basics of the Christian faith quite well and don’t think they need a primer. Nevertheless, one of the signs that you many not grasp the unique radical nature of the gospel is that you are certain that you do.

This book, then, is written to both curious outsiders and established insiders of the faith both to those Jesus calls “younger brothers” and those he calls “elder brothers” in the famous Parable of the Prodigal Son.[2]

Keller states that his book “lays out the essentials of the Christian message,” which he correctly identifies as the gospel, and it is for this reason that we will examine what Keller teaches about the gospel. The reader should keep in mind that Keller wrote this book for “seekers” and “curious outsiders” as well as “established insiders of the faith.” That Keller is writing to non-Christians as well as mature Christians is troublesome, considering the book’s doctrinal errors. We can also wonder why there aren’t more Christians calling Keller to give an account of his many false teachings in this book.

Throughout The Prodigal God Keller identifies the “curious outsiders” as the younger brother and the “established insiders of the faith” as the elder brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. While Keller rightly identifies the elder brother in the parable as the Pharisees, he also calls them “established insiders of the faith,” which is confusing and misleading because the Pharisees adamantly rejected Christ. And while Scripture states that we are to “examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith” (2 Cor 13:5), Keller nevertheless calls them “established insiders of the faith.” One has to ask: What is the criterion Keller uses to identify the Pharisees as “established insiders of the faith?” And what “faith” is he referring too? We will take a closer look at this too and show from Scripture that in order to make this portrayal, Keller has to ignore—and often blatantly contradict—what the Bible teaches concerning the Pharisees.

One of the most troubling statements made by Keller in the introduction is that “one of the signs that you may not grasp the unique radical nature of the gospel is that you are certain that you do.” Not only is this absurd, it is troubling in light of what Keller says regarding the believer’s assurance of salvation in later chapters of the book. This statement is for the “established insiders of the faith” who “think they don’t need a primer” on the Christian faith. If it is true, though, that one of the signs you may not grasp the gospel is that you are certain that you do, then you can never be certain of your salvation. If you are certain that you have grasped the gospel message, then that is one of the signs that you may not have grasped it at all! This is a serious problem because understanding the gospel is necessary for salvation. Why else did Paul write, “Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ”? (Gal 2:16). Is Paul’s confidence in having grasped the gospel to be taken as a sign that he has not grasped it at all? Why did John “write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God”? Answer: “That you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 Jn 5:13). The truth is that believers can be certain of their salvation because of what Christ has done on the cross. We will compare this statement further with what Keller describes as assurance later in this review.

The Elder Brother and the Pharisees

Keller’s portrayal of the elder brother is sure to leave his readers with an unbiblical understanding of the Pharisees. We will first look at what Keller says about the elder brother and then what he says concerning the Pharisees. We also need to consider why he portrays the Pharisees the way he does.

Keller and the elder brother

Keller correctly identifies who the elder brother in Jesus’ parable represents and to whom the parable is directed. He knows Jesus is using the elder brother as an illustration of the Pharisees and that he is directing his parable at them:

The second group of listeners was the “Pharisees and the teachers of the Law,” who were represented by the elder brother. (7)

So to whom is Jesus’s teaching in this parable directed? It is to the second group, the scribes, and Pharisees. (7)

It is because the real audience for this story is the Pharisees, the elder brothers. Jesus is pleading with his enemies to respond to his message. (27)

The elder brother gets no harsh condemnation but a loving plea to turn from his anger and self-righteousness. Jesus is pleading in love with his deadliest enemies. (74)

So while Keller correctly identifies the elder brother as representative of the Pharisees and even correctly calls them the “enemies” and the “deadliest enemies” of Christ, he also calls them “insiders of the faith”:

This book, then, is written to both curious outsiders and established insiders of the faith both to those Jesus calls “younger brothers” and those he calls “elder brothers” in the famous Parable of the Prodigal Son.” (Introduction)

The targets of this story are not “wayward sinners” but religious people who do everything the Bible requires. Jesus is pleading not so much with immoral outsiders as with moral insiders.” (8)

Keller identifies the Pharisees as both the “moral insiders” and “established insiders of the faith,” the same Pharisees who were the “deadliest enemies” of Jesus. While it may be true that many churches today have legalistic “elder brother Pharisees,” no legalistic Pharisee is “in the faith.” Keller applies the illustration of the elder brother to modern-day Christians, even though it’s impossible for a true Christian to be a legalistic Pharisee. Jesus is not directing his teaching to “insiders of the faith.” It appears that from Keller’s perspective it is possible to be an “established insider of the faith” and yet at the same time be an “enemy” of Jesus. Of course, a person can “profess” to be a Christian, attend a church every Sunday, and yet be a legalistic Pharisee, but Keller never makes this distinction.

Keller and Pharisees

So what does a Pharisee look like from Keller’s perspective? Keller identifies the Pharisees as the moral conformists who believe and obey the Bible and put the will of God and the community first. He blurs the line between a Christian believer and a Pharisee, which seems hard to do since they are polar opposites. In other words, Keller portrays the Pharisee as a picture of what Christians should be! He argues that the second group of listeners was the

Pharisees and the teachers of the law, who were represented by the elder brother… They studied and obeyed the Scriptures. They worshiped faithfully and prayed constantly. (7)

So to whom is Jesus’s teaching in this parable directed? It is the second group, the scribes, and Pharisees… The targets of this story are not “wayward sinners” but religious people who do everything the Bible requires. Jesus is pleading not so much with immoral outsiders as with moral insiders. (8)

Jesus’s teaching consistently attracted the irreligious while offending the Bible-believing religious people of his day. (15)

So from the quotes above, we have the Pharisees depicted as the Bible-believing religious people of Jesus day who studied and obeyed the Scriptures and did everything the Bible requires. Let’s compare this with how the Bible describes the Pharisees and ask some basic questions.

First, even though the Pharisees read and studied the scriptures, did they believe and obey them? Note that the “Scriptures” the Pharisees had at the time was the Old Testament.

Jesus said to the Pharisees, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (Jn 5:46)

Jesus also said, “But you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (Jn 10:26-27).

The Pharisees did not believe Jesus and therefore did not believe what Moses wrote. They did not believe the Scriptures and they were not the “Bible-believing religious people of [Jesus’] day.” John Robbins writes, “It is a complete fiction to say that Orthodox Jews believe the Old Testament. Those who assert that unrepentant Jews believe the Old Testament call Christ a liar.”[3] In passages like John 10:26-27 Jesus plainly says that they did not believe because “You are not part of my flock.”

Second, did the Pharisees obey Scripture as Keller asserts? It is clear from Jesus’ own words that they did not obey. Jesus said they were lawless hypocrites: "Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" (Mt 23:26). Just as the reprobate cannot be the elect, a person cannot be both lawless and obedient at the same time. The Pharisees had an outward expression of obedience but they did not actually obey the Scriptures: “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men… You have a fine way of rejecting the commandments of God in order to establish your own tradition” (Mk 7:8-9). Unfortunately, Keller does not point any of this out and contradicts what the Bible says by stating that they were “religious people who do everything the Bible requires.”

And while Keller says that “they worshiped faithfully,” the Bible says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me” (Mk 7:6-7). The Pharisees may have been devoted false worshipers but Keller makes it appear as if they were faithfully worshiping the one true God.

Keller also knows that he can’t press every single detail literally from the metaphor:

Let me be careful to avoid a misunderstanding here. This story is a great metaphor of sin and salvation, but we can’t press every single detail literally. Neither Jesus nor any author of the Bible ever implies that any human being is flawless, without sin or fault, except Jesus himself.” (74)

While Keller gives this disclaimer he nevertheless continually draws out details from the parable that contradict the Bible. He is correct in saying that no “human being is flawless, without sin or fault, except Jesus himself,” yet he neglects what the Bible actually teaches concerning the true condition of man’s depravity. This is only part of the truth; which he continually betrays in what he writes about the Pharisees. This “Reformed” pastor undermines the Biblical doctrine of total depravity, especially when he attempts to make a distinction between the Pharisee and the true believer by claiming that the Pharisees are “being good”:

They key difference between a Pharisee and a believer in Jesus is inner-heart motivation. Pharisees are being good but out of a fear-fueled need to control God. They don’t really trust him or love him. To them, God is an exacting boss, not a loving father. (85)

So while Keller virtually erases the line between a Christian and Pharisee and actually applies the elder brother image to true Christians, he does make a distinction between Pharisee and true believer. Normally this would be helpful but unfortunately, he once again ignores what the Bible says and creates false distinctions and contradictions.

It would appear by and large that many young, restless, and reformed readers are not even batting an eye when they read this book. Let’s compare again Keller’s teachings with the Bible. He says that the Pharisees are “being good” but Jesus said, “no one is good except God alone” (Lk 18:19).

One might argue that Keller doesn’t exactly call them good in the quote, but rather he just says they are “being good.” This is still baffling! When were they ever “being good?” Was it when they “were persecuting Jesus” (Jn 5:16)? Or how about when they “were seeking all the more to kill him” (Jn 5:18)? Were they being good when Christ called them lawless hypocrites (Mt 23:26)? Or when he told them they were doing the desires of their father the Devil (Jn 8:48)? Were they being good when they were going to stone him (Jn 10:33)? Or was it when they cried, “Crucify him!” (Lk 23:21)?

Keller argues that the “key difference” is “inner-heart motivation.” It’s not repentance, it’s not faith in Christ, it’s not that one has Satan as their father and the other is the child of God, it’s not that one is in the kingdom of darkness and one in the kingdom of light, and it’s not even their unconverted human depravity. No, it’s just their “heart motivation.” Keller says that the “inner-heart motivation” is the problem but then identifies this inner-heart motivation as a “fear-fueled need to control God.” Yet the Bible clearly says that “there is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom 3:18). Jesus said, “Out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks,” and the inner heart-motivation of the Pharisees was revealed when “they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” (Lk 23:21). The true difference between a Christian and a Pharisee is repentance and faith in the redemptive work of Jesus that bears fruit in keeping with repentance (Lk 3:8).

Keller also says “they don’t really trust him or love him,” and he is correct but he fails to mention the true disposition of the unconverted sinner, which is that they’re all “haters of God” (Rom 1:30). Perhaps this would be too offensive to his curious outsiders. He writes, “to them God is an exacting boss, not a loving father,” suggesting that the problem rests in their perception of God rather than identifying man’s actual relationship with God as the real problem. To them, God is not a loving father because they have a different father, as previously mentioned.

Such a trivial distinction doesn’t matter though because the Bible makes it clear that “no one does good, not even one,” (Rom 3:12) as long as we remain unconverted. Only after we are made alive in Christ can we do any good works “which God prepared beforehand, that we should just walk in them” (Eph 2:10). The Bible thunderously denounces all merit placed in man outside of faith in Christ: “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23), for “all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” (Is 64:6).

So from the Bible we can see that the Pharisees were not the Bible-believing religious people of Jesus day. They did not obey the Scriptures, they did not do everything the Bible required, and they did not put the will of God first. Keller abuses the text and wrongly portrays the Pharisees as what Christians should look like, while at the same time misapplying the illustration of the elder brother to this same group of “Christians,” or, as he puts it, “insiders of the faith.” Why does Keller distort the Biblical view of the Pharisees so much and equate them with conservative Christians? Keller claims that “if our churches aren’t appealing to the younger brothers, they must be more full of elder brothers than we’d like to think” (14). He seems to think that because our churches have “conservative, buttoned-down, moralistic people” (14) in them, that is why “the licentious and liberated or broken and marginal avoid church” (14). Dr. E.S. Williams writes:

Keller uses the image of the elder brother to caricature conservative Christians as judgmental, hostile bigots. In Keller’s mind, the reason that conservative churches are so unpleasant is because they are filled with elder brothers (conservative Christians), who speak out against liberal, immoral values on sex and politics. Keller is profoundly hostile towards conservative Christians, whom he regards as the major cause of most problems in the world. So we have the remarkable paradox of a leading Presbyterian theologian who is vehemently opposed to the Reformed Christian faith. Even more amazing is the fact that he is the leader of The Gospel Coalition.[4]

Keller’s motive for writing such things is irrelevant if he is unfaithful to Scripture. It is egregious that Keller makes the Pharisees look like Christians, applies the elder brother image to Christians, and then makes a false distinction between the Christian and Pharisee. In so doing he contradicts the Bible repeatedly. This, however, is not the only problem with the book.

Redefining Sin

The title of Chapter 3 is “Redefining Sin.” Keller here distorts the biblical view of sin and attaches his own view to the parable of the prodigal son while at the same time appealing to the authority of Jesus. It is not uncommon for liberals, heretics, and false teachers to use orthodox language only to redefine the language in their teachings. Both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses use the name of Jesus only to redefine the biblical doctrine of Christ. It is also very common for false teachers to make appeals of authority to Jesus in an attempt to pass off their unbiblical teachings. Many false prosperity preachers likewise appeal to Jesus’ own words in John 10:10, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly,” to preach their false health, wealth, prosperity gospel. In this chapter Keller once again injects his own views into the biblical text, contradicts the Bible, and makes a false appeal to Jesus as the one who is teaching what Keller is teaching:

Why doesn’t the elder brother go in? He himself gives the reason: “Because I’ve never disobeyed you.” The elder brother is not losing the father’s love in spite of his goodness, but because of it. It is not his sins that create the barrier between him and his father, it’s the pride he has in his moral record: it’s not his wrongdoing but his righteousness that is keeping him from sharing in the feast of the fathers.” (33)

Keller says that it is because of the elder son’s “goodness” that he is losing the father’s love and that creates a barrier between them, rather than his sins. Keep in mind that the elder brother represents the Pharisaical moral insiders of the faith and the father is a representation of Jesus. Can we lose God’s love because of our goodness? What else but sin could create a barrier between us and God? Can goodness and righteousness separate us from God?

Keller contradicts what Jesus said to the rich young ruler in Luke 18:19. While Keller affirms that the elder brother is good and righteous, Jesus, on the other hand, tells the rich young ruler, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” Once again Scripture says, “None is righteous, no, not one” (Rom 3:10). What definition of righteous and good is Keller using if not a Biblical one? Apart from Christ, we have no righteousness or goodness. Keller identifies pride as the real problem but this pride is nothing less than sinful and is, therefore, wrong. Therefore, it would be the elder son’s wrongdoing, not his “goodness” that keeps him from sharing in the feast.

But Keller claims the opposite. He says that “the elder brother is not losing the father’s love in spite of his goodness, but because of it.” Yet when the rich young ruler boasted of his own goodness by saying, “All these [commandments] I have kept from my youth” (Lk 18:21), Jesus did not tell him that he was losing the father’s love because of his goodness. Instead, Jesus pointed him back to the first commandment by showing him that he loved his money more than God when he told him to “sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven” (Lk 18:22). Jesus’ response to the young man was consistent with what he said in response to the question about the greatest commandment to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment” (Mt 22:36). By loving his money more than God he was violating the first and greatest commandment. The young man left very sad because he was very rich (Lk 18:23). Notice that Jesus didn’t affirm the rich young ruler’s goodness in Luke 18, nor did he affirm the Pharisees’ goodness through the parable of the prodigal son. Jesus tells the Pharisees in Luke 16:15, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” So Jesus in no way intended to affirm the “goodness” of the Pharisees in the parable because they are “an abomination in the sight of God.”

And Jesus certainly did not intend to teach that it was “not his sins that create the barrier between him and his father.” Keller is a terrible expositor. Of course, it is our sin that creates a barrier between us and God! This is why Jesus pointed the rich young ruler back to the law to show him his sin. This is why Galatians 3:24 says the law was our schoolmaster, and why Paul says in Romans 7:7, “Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.” Jesus showed the rich young ruler it was his sin that was the problem, not his goodness. So while Keller says it was not his sin that created a barrier, Isaiah 59:2 reads, “It's your sins that have cut you off [created a barrier] from God. Because of your sins, he has turned away and will not listen anymore.” Clearly then, the real problem is the elder brother’s sin, not his “goodness” and “righteousness.”

Keller unravels his false teaching further:

Each one [of the sons], in other words, rebelled—but one did so by being very bad and the other by being extremely good.

Do you realize, then, what Jesus is teaching? Neither son loved the father for himself. They both were using the father for their own self-centered ends rather than loving, enjoying, and serving him for his own sake. This means that you can rebel against God and be alienated from him either by breaking his rules or by keeping all of them diligently.” (36)

How can a person rebel against God by being extremely good? If a person is rebelling against God at all then they clearly are not being good in any sense. It is impossible to rebel against God by being extremely good because the qualities of rebellion and goodness are contradictory. That is, unless you equivocate on the terms good and evil, in which case you should consider Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”

In the second part of the quote, Keller attributes his false teaching onto Jesus. He says that Jesus is teaching that “you can rebel against God and be alienated from him either by breaking his rules or by keeping all of them diligently”; yet this is not what Jesus told the rich young ruler, and it’s not at all what Jesus is teaching in the parable. He did not tell the young ruler that he was “alienated” from God for keeping all of the laws since his youth, but instead showed the man that he was in trouble for not keeping the law. Perhaps it’s true that both sons in the parable were using the father but the conclusion Keller draws is false. While Keller says that we can be alienated and can rebel against God by “keeping all of the rules diligently,” the Psalmist writes, “You have commanded your precepts to be kept diligently” (Ps119:4)! Keller contradicts the Bible yet again, for God commands us to keep his moral laws diligently! The real problem is that we fail to keep them, and this is sin.

Here is another of Keller’s false appeals to Jesus:

With this parable, Jesus gives us a much deeper concept of “sin” than any of us would have if he didn’t supply it. Most people think of sin as failing to keep God’s rules of conduct, but, while not less than that, Jesus’s definition of sin goes beyond it.” (34)

Here, then, is Jesus’s radical redefinition of what is wrong with us. Nearly everyone defines sin as breaking a list of rules. Jesus, though, shows us that a man who has violated virtually nothing on the list of moral misbehaviors can be every bit as spiritually lost as the most profligate, immoral person. Why? Because sin is not just breaking the rules, it is putting yourself in the placed of God as Savior, Lord, and Judge just as each son sought to displace the authority of the father in his own life.” (42)

It’s hard to imagine that one of the founders of the Gospel Coalition could be such a terrible expositor. Keller wants us to believe that Jesus told the parable to provide us with a much deeper concept of sin, even though Jesus himself said, “This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Mt 13:13). Jesus spoke in parables to confuse his hearers and to keep them from understanding, and the prodigal son parable was meant to mock the Pharisees’ self-righteousness and total ignorance of God (Lk 15:1-3). How is it that Keller thinks that only in this parable do we have access to this deeper understanding of sin when Jesus magnified the law and gave a deeper understanding of sin in Matthew 5 when he discussed anger and lust?

Keller wants his readers to believe that Jesus is redefining sin, but Jesus was always consistent and in perfect harmony with Scripture. Jesus is not redefining anything at all in this parable. Keller wants us to believe that “sin is not just breaking the rules [commandments], it is putting yourself in the place of God.” But putting yourself in the place of God is breaking the very first rule! “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:3). This is exactly what Satan did when he said, “I will make myself like the Most High” (Is 14:14). Sin, whether in thought or deed, is a violation of God’s holy standard. This is why the Westminster Confession (which Keller is also fond of contradicting) reads in Chapter VI.6, “Every sin—both original and actual—is a transgression of the righteous lawof God and contrary to it.” What Keller writes is nothing short of confusion, yet he intends this book to be an introduction to the Christian faith for outsiders and a primer for “established insiders.” No, thank you. Paul tells Titus to “teach what accords with sound doctrine” (Ti 2:1), but Keller’s teaching does not accord with sound doctrine.

Keller’s Gospel

While Keller intends The Prodigal God to be a sort of primer which “is meant to lay out the essentials of the Christian message, the gospel,” it is Keller himself who distorts the biblical doctrine of atonement and compromises the gospel.

Keller writes that “one of the signs that you many not grasp the unique radical nature of the gospel is that you are certain that you do,” but he later writes, “The inevitable sign that you know you are a sinner saved by sheer, costly grace is a sensitive social conscience and a life poured out in deeds of service to the poor.” (112)

Keller suggests that you really can’t know if you're saved by believing in what Jesus has done, but that you can have assurance of your salvation based on what you have done. This is Romanism at its heart: “The Romanists held that a man is to believe in the mercy of God and the merits of Christ, but that this belief brought with it no assurance of justification; though possibly, if the man lived a very holy life, God might before he died reveal his grace to him, and give him assurance.”[5] The Protestant view of assurance is rooted in the knowledge of the historical redemptive work of Jesus on the cross.

It is also wrong to say that the “inevitable sign” that you are saved is a “sensitive social conscience and a life poured out in deeds of service to the poor” simply because many who are not saved do this. What about repentance and faith in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins?

Keller contradicts himself still further and betrays the gospel of justification by faith alone when he writes, “As long as you are trying to earn your salvation by controlling God through goodness, you will never be sure you have been good enough for him. You simply aren’t sure God loves and delights in you” (61). This is a lie. By making the problem of a works-based salvation one of assurance, Keller compromises the gospel and allows his readers to keep the idea that the only thing lacking is assurance of salvation, not salvation itself when they attempt to earn salvation. The problem for those who are trying to earn their salvation is not a lack of assurance but a forfeiture of the gospel. If a person is trying to earn their salvation, then they are not saved because they are not trusting in the finished work of Christ. Keller blurs the true distinction between the true gospel of justification by faith alone and a false gospel which includes works. Paul writes, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). In fact, it is the one who does not work but believes that is justified. “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom 4:5).

Keller also seems to think that if we are not attracting people to our churches then it must mean that we are not preaching the same message as Jesus.

The kind of outsiders Jesus attracted are not attracted to the contemporary churches, even our most avant-garde ones.

If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners do not have the same effect on the people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did. (14)

Paul warns Timothy to “follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me,” (2 Tm 1:13), and he commands Titus to “teach what accords with sound doctrine” (Ti 2:1), but never does he attribute the lack of success in ministry to a compromising of the message of Jesus. In fact, we see just the opposite. Those who compromise sound biblical doctrine often have the biggest ministries, which is why Paul warns, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” (2 Tm 4:3). Paul does not say that if you are not filling your churches then you must not be preaching the same message as Jesus. This kind of thinking leads to tampering with the message of Jesus, which is exactly what Keller has done in this book. Keller reduces the gospel to a message of feigned humility:

Jesus says: “The humble are in and the proud are out” (see Luke 18:14). The people who confess they aren’t particularly good or open-minded are moving toward God because the prerequisite for receiving the grace of God is to know that you need it. The people, who think they are just fine, thank you, are moving away from God. “The Lord… cares for the humble, but he keeps his distance from the proud” (Psalm 138:6 – New Living Translation).

When a newspaper posed the question, “What’s Wrong with the World?” the Catholic thinker G.K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: “Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton.” That is the attitude of someone who grasped the message of Jesus. (45)

Keller once again attributes his false teaching to Jesus by misquoting him from the text in Luke 18:14. The verse actually reads, “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” The reader should note that Jesus never says, “The humble are in and the proud are out.” Keller misleads his readers on two accounts here. First by misquoting Jesus and second by the conclusion he makes from the text he misquotes. The verse says that “this man [the tax collector] went down to his house justified,” but why was he justified? It was not simply because he was humble, as Keller claims. It is true that the man showed humility but that was only part of the whole message, and Keller substitutes the part for the whole in order reduce the gospel to an issue of humility. Jesus was speaking the parable to “some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous” (Lk 18:9), but it was the tax collector who said, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” (Lk 18:13). Furthermore, the Greek word for “be merciful” is hilasthēti, which literally means “be propitious.” The tax collector cried out and asked God to be propitious—to turn away His wrath from him. This is not just a depiction of humility but rather a depiction of saving faith. We see that the Pharisees trusted in their works and good deeds but it was the tax collector who was justified by rightly understanding his depravity and expressing saving faith.

Keller’s false gospel manifests itself by giving as an example someone who did not believe in the gospel of justification by faith alone. Keller, a Reformed pastor, affirms G. K. Chesterton, a Roman Catholic, as “someone who grasped the message of Jesus” on the basis of nothing more than a feigned expression of humility. The message of Jesus was, “Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15), but as a Roman Catholic Chesterton did not believe the true gospel of justification by faith alone. He was hostile to the Protestant faith, became an apostate, and affirmed the false gospel of justification by faith and works. He was nothing less than an Antichrist who opposed the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me” (Mt 12:30), and those who oppose the true gospel set themselves against Christ himself. It is remarkable that Keller affirms a Roman Catholic who affirmed a false gospel as someone who grasped the message of Jesus. This is the necessary consequence of Keller's false gospel that the “humble are in.”

Keller also has a history of ecumenism and fondness for Roman Catholicism. Timothy Kauffman has made mention of this on his blog:

Tim Keller (PCA Minister): “The best things that have been written [on meditation] almost are by Catholics during the counter-reformation—Ignatius Loyola, Francis de Sales, John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila—great stuff!”[6]

These people whom Keller endorsed to his own church led the Counter-Reformation and wanted nothing more than to rid the world of justification by faith alone. They vehemently opposed Luther and Calvin and despised the true gospel. Keller has been known to frequently use and even endorse those who preach a false gospel. He quotes N.T. Wright liberally in The Reason for God, yet Wright teaches a works-based salvation. Paul wrote, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom 16:17 KJV). Yet we have the leader and co-founder of the Gospel Coalition endorsing and affirming those who preach a false gospel. Shame on Keller.

Unfortunately, that isn’t all. Keller distorts the gospel further by substituting the biblical doctrine of atonement for heresy.

He came and experienced the exile that we deserved. He was expelled from the presence of the father, He was thrust into darkness, the uttermost despair of spiritual alienation – in our place. He took upon himself the full curse of human rebellion, cosmic homelessness, so that we could be welcomed into our true home. (101)

This is heresy. “The full curse of human rebellion” is not “cosmic homelessness”; it is God’s wrath. Keller only talks about exile, alienation, and homelessness in his book as the sole punishment that befalls wicked sinners. He never mentions the wrath of God that abides on sinners and instead eliminates it by claiming that the full curse is “cosmic homelessness.”

This distorts the gospel by denying the doctrine of propitiation. The word propitiation refers to the satisfying of God’s wrath against the sinner through the substitutionary atonement of Jesus on the cross. If we exclude propitiation by excluding God’s wrath, then we forfeit the gospel, and that is exactly what Keller has done in this book. Jesus did not redeem us from the curse of the law and become a curse for us (Gal 3:13) by merely being forsaken or becoming spiritually “homeless”; He suffered and bore the full wrath of God.

Paul tells us that we were by nature “children of wrath” (Eph 2:3). If propitiation is removed from the gospel, then the wrath of God still abides on the sinner’s head and we have no gospel at all. If Jesus only saved us from exile, then He did not ultimately satisfy or propitiate the wrath of God on behalf of his people. Paul tells us that it was Jesus “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith…. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:25, 26). Without propitiation, there can be no justification. Jesus, therefore, did not just experience exile or homelessness as Keller teaches, for “it was the will of the Lord to crush him” (Is 53:10) as well.

Keller distorts the gospel in The Prodigal God along with various other doctrines and must be held accountable for what he teaches. I, therefore, do not recommend this book or its author.

________________________________________

[1] Scripture references are ESV unless otherwise noted. All emphases in Scripture quotations are mine.

[2] Brackets and emphases are mine.

[3] John W. Robbins, “The White Horse Inn: Nonsense on Tap,” The Trinity Review 271 (September/October, 2007), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=245.

[4] E.S. Williams, “The Prodigal God,” review of The Prodigal God, by Timothy Keller, The New Calvinists, accessed March 10, 2014, Keller’s books, http://www.newcalvinist.com/tim-kellers-false-gospel/the-prodigal-god/.

[5] Horatius Bonar, “Assurance of Salvation,” The Trinity Review (April, 1994), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=185.

[6] Timothy Kauffman, "And the Diviners Have Seen a Lie," accessed June 1, 2014, http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/05/18/and-the-diviners-have-seen-a-lie/.

[7] See E.S. Williams, “Keller redefines the gospel,” The New Calvinists, http://www.newcalvinist.com/tim-kellers-false-gospel/keller-redefines-gospel/.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]