Today's post represents the third in a series of posts about my time as a student at Knox Theological Seminary (KTS) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I originally wrote about KTS and the controversy concerning Warren Gage in a 2008 book published by the Trinity Foundation titled Imagining a Vain Thing: The Decline and Fall of Knox Seminary.

In the ten years that have elapsed since I wrote the book under the guidance of the late Dr. John W. Robbins, my conviction that what I wrote was correct remains unchanged. I stand by the book, all of it.

That said, ten years is time enough for further reflection, and it seemed good to me to write a series of posts to share with readers some of the big-picture lessons that can be taken from the disaster that overtook KTS in the fall of 2007.

A Danger of Unsound Eschatology

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

- Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.6

One of the myths advanced by Dr. Gage during my time at KTS was the idea that the Reformation had little to say about eschatology. In the Introduction to the John-Revelation Project (JRP) Gage makes the following claim, "It is instructive that Martin Luther questioned the canonicity of Revelation, lamenting that a "Revelation" should reveal, and John Calvin, who commented on every other book of the Bible, glaringly omitted commentary on the Apocalypse. The children of the Reformers have fared little better. And it is time to ask why?"

This is statement is propaganda in at least three ways. In the first place, although Luther did question the canonicity of Revelation, in the end he did accept it. Second, Revelation is not the only book John Calvin omitted from his commentary on the Bible. There were a number of books on which Calvin did not comment such as Judges, Ruth, and 1&2 Samuel. Third, there have been numerous commentaries written on Revelation by Protestants. For example, Isaac Newton (yes, that Isaac Newton), John Gill, E.B. Elliott to name just a few. In fact, it probably would shock most early 21st century Protestants just how much has been written by earlier generations of Protestants on Revelation in general and the identification of the papacy as the Antichrist in particular.

For example, the statement above is the original wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) when it was published in 1648, but was excised in a 1903 revision of the WCF by the PCUSA - the PCUSA was and is the mainline Presbyterian denomination is the United States - and today it is a rare thing indeed for a Presbyterian church to use a version of the Confession with this language.

In the 1903 revision, the PCUSA replaced the historic language of the Confession with the following, "The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of nay man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church, is unscriptural, without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring the Lord Jesus Christ.

Many years ago when I first began to get serious about studying Reformed theology, I purchased a version of the WCF published by the PCA, a more theologically conservative organization than the PCUSA. The language of 25.6 in their version runs thus, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof."

The most obvious difference between the original version and its newer counterparts is the identification of the Pope or Rome as "Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition."

Today it's considered bad manners and theologically incorrect to call the Pope of Rome Antichrist. But our Protestant forebears were no so ashamed. Consider the following quotes:

• This teaching shows very forcefully that the pope is the very Antichrist. He exalts himself above Christ and opposes Him, because he will not allow Christians to be saved without his power, which nevertheless is nothing and is neither ordained nor commanded by God...Just as we cannot worship the devil himself as Lord and God, so we cannot put up with his apostle, the pope, or Antichrist, in his regime as head or lord (Martin Luther, What Luther Says, 34).
• Daniel (Dan. 9:27] and Paul [II Thess. 2:4] foretold that Antichrist would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom (John Calvin, Institutes, 4.2.12).
• Yea, we doubt not to prove the kingdom of the Pope to be the kingdom and power of Antichrist (John Knox).
• This chapter [Revelation 15] is a preparation to the pouring out of the seven vials...and of the destruction of antichrist; and it is said to be a sign "in heaven", where John was called up, and where he had his visions; and it was "another", a different one from that in (Revelation 12:1) which represented the downfall of Paganism, but this the downfall of Popery; and it is a very "great" one, it is expressive of great things, as the fall of Babylon the great, or the judgment of the great whore... (John Gill, Commentary on Revelation)
• [S]o the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given, ad Dominus Deus noster papa - Our Lord God the pope; Deus alter in terra - Another God on earth; Idem est dominium Dei et papae - The dominion of God and the pope is the same?
• It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no same man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name (Charles Spurgeon).

One could multiply such quotes as the sand of the sea, but the sample above should serve to convince the reader that the conviction that the office of the papacy was the Antichrist of the Apostle John was widespread from the dawn of the Reformation until the end of the 19th century.

Today, such convictions is almost never heard. And if it is spoken, it's done so in a hushed whisper so as not to attract any attention.

One reason for the decline in understanding of the office of the papacy as Antichrist is the success the Jesuit eschatological schemes of preterism and futurism have had in supplanting the source eschatology of the Reformation.

Preterism is the view that the Bible teaches Antichrist came and went in the past and that there is today no Antichrist on earth. It was developed during the Counter-Reformation by Jesuit Luis de Alcazar.

Futurism, on the other hand, holds that Antichrist is yet to come. This program was developed by Jesuit Francisco Ribera and is the majority report among America's Dispensationalists.

But the historical stance of the Reformation on Antichrist is Historicism. Historicism holds, among other things, that Antichrist has been with us in the past, currently is at work, will be destroyed in the future.

Unsound Eschatology can be just as dangerous as any other unsound doctrine. To the degree Protestants have allowed the Jesuits to do their thinking for them, to the extent Protestants have absorbed the end times theories of the Babylonian Harlot, to that degree they have rendered themselves ineffective soldiers of Christ and set themselves up to be duped by hucksters such as Warren Gage.

(To be continued...)

As a continuation of last week's post, I'd like to look a few more larger lessons that can be drawn from the events surrounding the decline and fall of Knox Theological Seminary (KTS).  As a student at the school in the fall of 2006, my stay there, however brief, allowed me to witness part of the drama firsthand. 

Last week, I outlined a couple lessons, the first of which was that God is faithful to his people, sometimes in unexpected ways.  As a personal testimony to this, I related how my stay at KTS allowed me to meet John Robbins and, with his guidance, to write the manuscript for what would become the book Imagining a Vain Thing:  The Decline and Fall of Knox Seminary. To that point in my life, it never once occurred to me that I would ever be an author.  The fact that this actually happened is something that still to this day strikes me with amazement.  I didn't go to seminary planning to write a book.  I had gone there to study for the ministry.  But God had a different plan.

A second lesson Christians can take from the problems at KTS is the danger Roman Catholic trained faculty pose to Protestant institutions of learning.  Dr. Warren Gage, the central figure in the decline and fall of KTS, nominally was a Presbyterian, but his cast of mind was distinctly Roman Catholic.  In part this can be attributed to the fact that he took his Ph.D from the University of Dallas, a Roman Catholic school.  But Dr. Gage is certainly not the only professor at a Protestant school to have received his professional training at a Roman Catholic or Jesuit university.  These Romanist trained teachers pose a genuine threat to the doctrinal soundness of the Protestant colleges and seminaries where they are employed. 

But as important as these lesson are, they are not the only ones that can be taken from the unfortunate events at KTS.  So let us move on to continue some additional points.

A Tale of Missed Opportunities 

I recently watched a series of YouTube videos on commercial air disasters.  The author of the videos used a flight simulator together with on screen text to describe the events leading up to the crashes.  One of the common threads running through  the accounts of the various disasters is that it wasn't just one problem that caused the crash.  Generally, it takes a series of mistakes to occur in a particular sequence for a disaster to take place.  If any one of the factors had been different in a particular scenario, the crash probably wouldn't have happened at all.

From my knowledge of the events at KTS, it seems to me that this same principle can be applied to crashing seminaries as well.  In the case of KTS, there were a number of opportunities - opportunities stretching from the time Gage was under consideration for a teaching position at the school right up until the time when he and his faction formally gained control of the school - for Biblically sound professors, board members and donors to have acted to put a stop to Gage's nonsense.   But, as far as I am aware, no serious attempt to do this was undertaken until the problem had grown so large as to be too little too late.  And even when a serious attempt to remove Gage was undertaken, those pushing for his removal flinched, all but ensuring their defeat.

For example, as part of my research into KTS while writing the book, I found that Dr. D. James Kennedy - Dr. Kennedy was the founder of KTS and was still the Chancellor of the school when I attended there in 2006 - did not want to hire Gage.  Some at school wanted to bring in Gage to develop what become known as the Christianity & Culture (C&C) program  at the school.  As it was described to me at the time I applied to KTS, the C&C program was a Christian great books program where influential books would be read in light of the teachings of Scripture.  For example, in the one class I had in this series we read Plato's Republic.        

Dr. Kennedy was skeptical of the whole idea behind C&C, fearing, rightly as it turned out, that the program would turn into a sort of Trojan Horse, where instead of the culture being judged by the Bible, the Bible would be judged by the culture.  But for all his objections, both to the C&C program in general and to the hiring of Dr. Gage in particular, those in favor of both prevailed upon Dr. Kennedy and the decision to move forward was made.  Had Dr. Kennedy stuck to his guns, perhaps KTS would still be a sound seminary. 

Dr. Gage began teaching at KTS in the fall of 2002 and had already been at the school for four years when I arrived in 2006.  I was astounded at how unbiblical his teaching was, but, at least on the surface, it seemed that everyone thought he was great.  It wasn't until I began my research on the book  that  I learned that Dr. Gage had had his hand slapped a few times over the years for his distinctively unreformed doctrine, but no serious effort had been made to remove him from his teaching position.  Had Gage's unorthodox ideas received the scrutiny they deserved, perhaps he could have been removed from the school before he caused serious, lasting damage.  But this was not done, and his leaven was allowed to go on leavening the whole KTS lump for years until it was too late. 

Even up until the fall of 2007, KTS still had the opportunity to right its listing ship.  Prompted by a student complaint, Dr. R. Fowler White conducted an investigation into Gage's classroom teaching, an investigation which concluded that Gage was guilty of 1) teaching contrary to the Westminster Confession that individual passages of Scripture had more than one meaning, and 2) disparaging logic and systematic theology.  These charges were spot on, and when the evidence for them were presented to the Executive Committee of the seminary's Board of Directors, the decision was made to terminate Gage's employment.  Had the Executive Committee's decision stuck, KTS may have survived intact.  As it turned out, the full Board of Directors of KTS shied away from taking this decisive step, instead electing to suspend Gage with full pay for the remainder of the fall 2007 semester. 

As it turned out, the Board's failure to take decisive action against Gage was the last chance KTS had to recover its reputation for doctrinal soundness.  Taking full advantage of his reprieve, Gage appealed his suspension to the Session of CRPC.  Not only did Gage succeed in having his suspension reversed, but he also was able to oust those on the Board and Faculty of the school who had opposed him.  Had the Board of KTS stood its ground and fired Gage when it had the chance, in this author's opinion the school's subsequent history very likely would have been much different.  This was a tragic missed opportunity.

The story of the decline and fall of KTS is a cautionary tale of what can happen when individuals fail to take advantage of the opportunities God provides to take a stand for the truth.  Scripture enjoins us to, "mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them," but this is easy to ignore.  In our sinfulness we fear men, we fear the loss of our jobs and reputations more than we fear God. This author is certainly aware of his own failings in this regard, so it is not my intention to point a finger at others while exempting myself.  That said, KTS's fall from being among the most doctrinally sound reformed seminaries is - as is the case with many airliner disasters - the tale of multiple missed opportunities  that, when taken together, ended up spelling disaster.

In a Dispute, the More Consistent Party Will Prevail, the Less Consistent Will Lose

"The logical and psychological principle that explains this whole tragic farce is this: When two parties accept the same premises, the more consistent party will prevail in the long run, and the less consistent party will not.  That is why the Bible is replete with warnings about the 'world,' 'the wisdom of the world,' and 'human tradition.' There can be no compromise of sola scriptura." 

The words quoted above are from a private email to me from John Robbins during the writing of my book on KTS.  The specific context of these remarks from John came in response to some disturbing discoveries I had made about the theological position of Gage's opponents.  As it turned out, the very people who rightfully criticized Gages for his fanciful typology and wanted to see him suspended from KTS actually agreed with Gage on an important point about typology.  This agreement prevented them from launching the vigorous attack on Gage's typology that the circumstances required.      

The point of agreement among Gage and his critics was this:  it is possible to discern type / anti-type relationships in Scripture by means other than explicit statement. 

In his 2006 book Lamb of God, Dr. Robert L. Reymond discussed typology and approvingly quoted Geerhardus Vos' comments in his Biblical Theology where he wrote, "the mere fact that no writer in the N.T. refers to a trait as typical, affords no proof of its lacking typical significance" (22).  In a footnote on the same page, Reymond wrote, "Bishop Herbert Marsh's dictum in his Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible (London, 1838), 373, that the interpreter should regard as Old Testament types only what the New Testament expressly declares to be so seems to me to be extreme and without scriptural warrant."

Herbert Marsh was a 19th Church of England Bishop for whom Marsh's dictum is named.  In his book Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, Marsh wrote,

Whatever persons or things, therefore, recorded in the Old Testament, were expressly declared by Christ, or by his Apostles, to have been designed as pre-figurations of person or things relating to the New Testament, such persons or things, so recorded in the former, are types of the persons or things, with which they are compared in the latter. But if we assert, that a person, or thing, was designed to pre-figure another person or thing, where no such pre-figuration has been declared by divine authority, we make an assertion, for which we neither have, nor can have, the slightest foundation. And even when comparisons are instituted in the New Testament between antecedent and subsequent persons or things, we must be careful to distinguish the examples, where a comparison is instituted merely for the sake of illustration, from the examples, where such a connexion is declared, as exists in the relation of a type to its antitype (372-373).

This is Marsh's dictum:  The Bible must explicitly state types and anti-types.  Dr. Reymond tells us this is without scriptural warrant.  And yet, Marsh's dictum, does not leave us in uncertainty as to whether a type / anti-type relationship exists, which, as we shall see below, is a major advantage over Vos' approach. 

Reymond continues his quotation from Vos, adding, "Of course it is inevitable that into this kind of interpretation of O.T. figures an element of uncertainty must enter.  But after all this is an element that enters into all [extra-biblical] exegesis" (brackets in Reymond's text).  By quoting Vos as he does, Reymond admits that engaging in typology apart from the explicit statements of Scripture leads to uncertainty, yet he advocates Vos' typology anyway, while at the same time rejecting Herbert Marsh.  Such a position does not seem consistent with a Reformed approach to the interpretation of Scripture. What is worse, this approach to typology made it very difficult for Gage's critics to take him on, seeing that both sides agreed that typology was some mysterious thing that could be understood only by rejecting logic and embracing uncertainty.     

Although Dr. Reymond - while I was a student at KTS and throughout the time of the 2007 controversy over Warren Gage, Dr. Reymond held the title Professor of Systematic Theology, Emeritus at KTS - was not, as far as I am aware, himself directly involved in the Gage controversy on either side, his rejection of Marsh and support of Vos' speculative typology was echoed by Gage's leading critics.  As Dr. E. Calvin Beisner wrote in a blog post, "Anyone who thinks the former Knox board's decision to suspend Dr. Gage was because he was teaching Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics or Typology clearly does not know the facts.  His chief theological critics at Knox - (now former) board members R. C. Sproul, Rick Phillips, and Cortez Cooper, and faculty members Robert Reymond, Fowleer White, and I - all affirm and use RH and T and admire it in Vos and many others."

Perhaps no other statement from the Gage controversy better sums up the reason for the failure of Gage's opponents.  Gage believed that type / anti-type relationships could be discerned by use of literary patterns, intuition and imagination.  Gage's opponents believed that types and ant-types could be determined by some form of uncertain speculation.  Both sides agreed that Marsh was wrong.      

In the end, Gage's critics agreed with him that types could be determined in some touchy-feely, irrational fashion.  Their main complaint seemed to be, not that Gage used his "poetic imagination," his intuition and literary patterns to find types and anti-types in the Scriptures - Gage's method was in direct contradiction of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 which posits only the explicit statements and necessary inferences of Scripture are binding on Christians; Gage also violated the single meaning clause in Westminster Confession of Faith 1.9 -   but that he simply went too far for their taste.  Doing so make Gage's critics appear weak and uncertain.  As a result, not only did they lose the argument, but they deserved to lose it. 

On the flip side of things, I must grudgingly admit that, as obviously heretical as Gage's teaching was, he had the courage of his convictions and never wavered from them.  Gages was a heretic, but he was a consistent and bold heretic.  His critics were inconsistent and weak.    

The more consistent side will prevail in the long run and the less consistent will lose.  That is one of the big lessons of controversy at KTS.  So what does this mean for us?  Let us make sure that we fight the Lord's battles in the Lord's way.  There's no reason to give an inch to false teachers.  In any theological controversy, we must pray to God that he would grant us the knowledge and the wisdom not merely to oppose false teaching, but to do so thoroughly, boldly and with logical consistency.   Doing so doesn't mean we will win every battle.  But we will win the war.   

(To be continued...)                  

This past week I had the privilege of recording a podcast interview with two new friends and brothers in Christ, Tim Shaughnessy and Carlos Montijo, the hosts of the Semper Reformanda Radio podcast. 

The subject of our interview was a book I wrote - unbelievably for me to think this, ten years ago - titled Imagining a Vain Thing:  The Decline and Fall of Knox Seminary.  As the title states, the subject of the book is about the events that transformed Knox Theological Seminary (KTS) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a school founded by D. James Kennedy and subject to the session of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (CRPC), from a school noted for its fidelity to Scripture to an institution that speaks forth quite a different message. 

In the book, I recounted the events in some detail.  Here, I'll give you the short version, which runs something like this:  Contrary to Dr. Kennedy's best judgment, in 2002 the school hired Dr. Warren Gage to teach Old Testament and head the schools new Culture and Christianity program.   Dr. Gage, who had recently taken his Ph.D from the Roman Catholic University of Dallas, had a distinctly unreformed view of hermeneutics and typology, ideas which he had expressed very clearly in his doctoral dissertation.  Further, Dr. Gage carried these ideas over into this teaching at KTS. Although the school officially backed Gage's distinctive, and Roman Catholic influenced, teaching, there was an undercurrent of resistance. 

In May 2007, a graduate of the school approached Dr. R. Fowler White with her concerns about Gage, prompting an investigation by Dr. White into Gage's teaching.  The report resulting from White's investigation concluded, correctly I must emphasize, that 1) Gage taught, contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith, that individual passages of Scripture have more than on meaning, and 2) he regularly disparaged logic and systematic theology in the classroom.

As a result of the report's findings, the Executive Committee of the KTS Board of Directors wanted to terminate Gage's employment at the school.  This was the correct decision, which it had stuck, likely would have saved KTS.  Unfortunately, the full board voted to suspend Gage with full pay rather than to fire him.  During his time away from the school, Gage was supposed to "contemplate his willingness to subordinate himself fully to the doctrinal standards of the Seminary and the P.C.A.," according to a letter written by R.C. Sproul, Interim Chairman of the Board of Knox Seminary, to the Session of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church.      

But instead of taking time to think about, and repent of, his many glaring theological errors, Gage, a trained lawyer with many years of practice to his credit,  used this opportunity to overturn his suspension by making appeal to the Session of CRPC.  Gage's five years at the school had allowed him to insinuate himself into the KTS community, and, with the help of his supporters, not only was he able to have his suspension reversed, but, quite remarkably, was able to oust all those who had opposed him, both on the Board of Directors and among the faculty. 

After the remarkable events in the fall of 2007, Dr. Gage went on to teach at KTS through the 2013-2014 academic year, retiring from the school in the spring of 2014.  One ironic twist to the story is that during this nearly seven year period, Gage went on to serve as Dean of Faculty at the school that had once seen fit to fire him.

In addition to the book and the 2014 Trinity Review I wrote at the time Gage retired, I have on occasion published blog posts on KTS  (see here, here and here).  But until last week's interview, admittedly it's been a while since I've publically commented on, or privately thought much about, KTS.  Yet after talking to Carlos and Tim, I realized that there are some aspects of my time at KTS that are worth reviewing.  Specifically, I believe there are important general lessons that Christians can take from my experience at seminary and the larger events that upended KTS back in 2007.  I'd like to take this occasion to set them forth.

God is faithful in ways that aren't always immediately clear   

When in August 2006 I uprooted my life to move to Fort Lauderdale and attend KTS, I did so with the intention of studying for the ministry.  It was a goal that I had thought seriously about for a number of years leading up to my decision to attend seminary.  I confess that I was slightly terrified at the thought of making the move, but it seemed that God was calling me and now was the time to act.

When a little over four months later  I found myself packing a U-Haul to return to Cincinnati, I was more than a bit disappointed.  A goal, a dream that I had held for many years was coming to an end, and that before it had really ever begun.    

But on my way from Fort Lauderdale to Cincinnati, I know that I  would be passing through east Tennessee, where John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation lived and worked.  I'd wanted to meet John - I call him John, not to give you the impression that I was part of some inner circle, but because that's how he preferred to be called  - for a long time, and this was the best opportunity that I was likely to get. 

Well, long story short, I was able to arrange with John to stop by his house on the way back.  I parked my U-Haul in a gravel turnaround at the bottom of the street where he lived and a few minutes later, a blue car (at least that's how I remember it) pulled up with John in it dressed in (I think) jeans, work boots, a flannel shirt.  His appearance was more that of a lumberjack than the brilliant scholar he was.  I hopped in his car and road with him the short distance to his house, where we sat and talked in his study for about three hours about KTS.  It was as if I'd known John for years and I'd just met him.

I remember him saying that he was familiar with Gage's work as the KTS website had for some time prominently featured The John-Revelation Project, Gage's magnum opus on typology based upon his University of Dallas doctoral dissertation.  John told me that for some time he had considered writing about Gage's work, which he aptly described as, "Some of the most bizarre stuff I've ever seen."  Coming from John who had founded The Trinity Foundation 30 years earlier and had spent the ensuing decades refuting all manner of strange and heretical teaching, this was saying quite a lot indeed.   

Then came the kicker.  "Would you like to do the job?" John asked me.  "I knew he was going to ask me that!" I thought to myself.  Excited, intrigued and a bit daunted, I replied, "Yes." 

Here I was, some guy with hardly any formal training in theology or philosophy or, for that matter, even a graduate degree of any sort, being commissioned to critique the work of a Ph.D. seminary professor. "God help me," I thought to myself.  And he did.

As a bit of an aside, it's worth noting that John Robbins, among many other admirable qualities, was possessed of a sense of humor.  As I was leaving his basement study and having earlier noticed a New York Yankees pennant on the wall, I commented to him, "John, there's really only one thing I disagree with you on."  "What's that?," he asked me.  "You're a Yankees fan," I told him.  "I've always thought of them as the evil empire."  John got a good laugh out of that.    

Well, by God's grace and with John's editing skill, I went on to write that critique of Gage's bizarre theology, which also ended up being a post mortem on KTS following the blow up in the late summer and fall of 2007.  What had begun as a paper expanded to a book.

When the book came out in, if I recall correctly, late August or early September 2008, it was a bittersweet time for me.  While I was thrilled to see the book in print, I was grieved that John, the man who had commissioned me for the job and who had been my mentor and friend throughout the writing process, had died of an illness just a few weeks earlier.  What was going to happen to his work?  Would it be forgotten?  Would The Trinity Foundation even survive? These questions and others were very much on my mind.  

After some time of reflection and prayer, it seemed to me that the best way to honor John's memory would be, as far as I was able, to continue his work.  But how?  It was then that I began to think of about the then relatively new medium of blogging.  It was about six months after my book was published that I wrote my first blog post on Lux Luxet, a blog that has continued to this day. 

Time would fail me if  I recounted all the blessings that have accrued to me over the years since as a result of the blog.  But the big takeaway that I'd like to leave you with is that God has been faithful to me in a remarkable way that I never could have imagined after my "failure" at seminary way back in 2006.  Dropping out after the first semester, in part because I could see where the school was headed due to its tolerance of Gage and his false teaching, seemed like as disaster at the time.  But - and take it from this natural pessimist - God is faithful to his people and works all things to their good, even if it doesn't seem that way in the midst of our disappointments and difficulties.

Roman Catholic trained professors pose a real danger to Protestant colleges and seminaries 

As I mentioned above, Warren Gage received his Ph.D from the University of Dallas, a Roman Catholic institution.  This was no accident on the part of Gage.  For throughout my semester at Knox, he made it very clear, sometimes in obvious ways, at other times more subtly, that he had a clear case of what could be called papal envy.  As I recall, Gage had on his office door a medieval image of a pope on his throne that was doctored with a picture of Gage's own face. As I said, the man had papal envy, but this was a small thing compared to what he taught in the classrooms of KTS. 

The class that I had with Gage was Old Testament Survey.  Now one would suppose that a class titled Old Testament Survey would be focused on the Old Testament.  But this was not a safe assumption in Dr. Gage's OT class, for in it he aggressively pushed his major work titled The John Revelation Project (JRP) which, as you probably have gathered from the name, was all about the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation.  I have archived the full text of the John-Revelation Project here for your reference. 

In the JRP,  Gage made very clear his dislike of the Puritans and love of Rome.  For example, Gage chided the Puritans, whining, "For it was our Puritan forebears who closed down the Elizabethan theater, fearing the nature of the theatre to explore the comedic imagination, which was suspected (especially in Shakespeare!) of undermining good morals."  Given the gross immorality of Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general, maybe the Puritans concerns about the theatre were well founded, but Gage takes them to task. 

On the other hand, while he felt free to chastise the Puritans, Gage was generous with his praise of the Roman Church-State and sought in his work to rescue the well-deserved bad reputation of this spiritual harlot.  Gage wrote, "On the other hand, this vindication of reformed soteriology against Rome is at the price of falsifying the unilateral and most common historical identification of the whore of Revelation within Protestant circles, which, consequently, becomes five full centuries of slander." Gage had this odd idea that the Babylonian Harlot of Revelation, not only did not represent the Church of Rome, but actually was a figure for God's people who were called from their spiritual harlotry and transformed into the chaste Bride of Christ.  In light of what Revelation says about the end of the Woman Who Rides the Beast - Revelation 17:17 says the woman will be made desolate and naked, have her flesh eaten and be burned with fire - this seems to be an extraordinary leap of logic.       

So you see, not only were the Puritans a bunch of Puritanical wet blankets for shutting down the theatre, but also they were slanderers for identifying the murderous Roman Church-State, an organization that had anathematized the Gospel of Jesus Christ and all who believed it, with Mystery Babylon of Revelation 17.    

That Gage would push this point of view in print and in the classroom should come as no surprise.  What else would you expect a Roman Catholic trained professor to do?  As John Robbins wrote, "Rome realizes what the central theological issue is, and Rome is moving deliberately and effectively to heal the wound inflicted on her in the sixteenth century by the preaching of the Gospel.  Rome apparently is finding plenty of eager dupes - useful idiots, Lenin called them - among the ersatz-evangelicals to accomplish its goal."  And one of those useful idiots was Warren Gage.  

Writing in the most recent Trinity Review, Tom Juodaitis commented, "It's no wonder the church is in the shape it is in this country, including the Reformed churches, because many of the professors at the seminaries which train the pastors have been trained at Roman Catholic and even Jesuit institutions.  I graduated from Covenant College, the college of the Presbyterian Church in America, and their current president earned his PhD in history from Loyola University in Chicago, and his Jesuit priest dissertation supervisor attended his inauguration service." 

After citing my experience with Roman Catholic trained Warren Gage, Juodaitis continues, "A search of the web sites of Reformed and Presbyterian and Conservative Baptist seminaries resulted in finding 16 professors who had Master or Doctorate degrees of extra doctoral work from the following Romanist or Jesuit institutions:  Catholic University of America Washington, D.C.), Loyola University (Chicago), St. Louis University (St. Louis), University of Dallas (Dallas), and University of Notre Dame (South Bend, Indiana)." 

He concludes, "Is it any wonder why the Reformed churches are having problems with the Gospel and moral issues?"  The obvious answer to this rhetorical question is, "No, it's no wonder at all.  In fact, it's to be expected."

Why, oh why, have the churches of the Reformation gone begging intellectual bread from the Romanists!?  Is there no balm in Gilead? Have we not over 500 years of solid Protestant scholarship - from John Wycliffe all the way up to Gordon Clark and John Robbins - on which to draw that we need to seek help from the Whore of Babylon, the Roman Catholic Church-State, to answer the great questions of our day?

Good grief!  When Israel and Judah turned to Assyria and Egypt for military help against their foes, was God well pleased with them?  Quite obviously he was not.  Why then do we expect God to honor our efforts when we go cap in hand to the Tiber seeking the aid of the Antichrist popes and their minions to advance the Gospel or to win the culture war or to stop abortion?  Ecumenism, what is it if not vanity and chasing after the wind?

(To be continued...)

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.

- Romans 1:20

If you've ever read a book or heard a lecture on Christian apologetics, there's a good chance Romans 1:19-20 were brought up.  Perhaps these verses were cited as proof that all men know God, so that no one could claim ignorance of God on judgment day.  That, of course, is true.  Responsibility is based on knowledge, and since God has revealed himself to all men, all men are accountable to him. 

Bible commentators, as well as the authors of the Westminster Confession, have identified two ways in which God reveals himself to men:  general revelation and special revelation.

Special revelation is identical with the 66 books of the Bible.  The Scriptures are God's written, propositional revelation, which principally teach us, "What man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man," in the words of the Shorter Catechism.    

But what about general revelation?  Just what is it that is meant by this term?  The most common answer is that general revelation is identical with nature.  We are told that when men look to the heavens and see the stars, or cast their eyes upon the majestic mountains they behold God's attributes and, to that extent, know him and are therefore rightfully held responsible by him, even if they have never so much as heard the name of Jesus Christ.

Here's one example of this line of reasoning.

Paul stresses the reality and universality of divine revelation, which is perpetual ("since the creation," v.20) and perspicuous ("clearly seen," v.20).  Divine invisibility, eternity, and power are all expressed in and through the created order...The invisible God is revealed through the visible medium of creation.  This revelation is manifest; it is not obscured but clearly seen (New Geneva Study Bible).    

The commentators manifestly argue that one can reason from visible creation to an invisible God, but does this really make sense?   On one hand, such an argument is appealing to Christians.  We believe in God and rightfully want others to share that belief.  But simply because we like the conclusion of an argument does not mean that it is a good argument.  This is the case even if the conclusion of argument - that there is an immortal, invisible all wise God who created and sustains the world - is true.

So what is the problem of reasoning to an invisible God from the visible world?  One of the most basic concepts in logic is that the conclusion of an argument cannot contain an idea that was not present in its premises.  In logic textbooks students often run across a model argument that runs like this:

Major Premise:  All men are mortal. 

Minor Premise: Socrates is a man. 

Conclusion:  Therefore, Socrates is mortal.    

Notice that the conclusion "Therefore, Socrates is mortal" contains the same terms - here we're talking about "Socrates" and "mortal" - that are found in the premises.  Logicians call this a valid argument.

But let's suppose someone made this argument,

Major Premise:  All men are mortal.

Minor Premise:  Socrates is a man. 

Conclusion:  Therefore, Socrates won a gold medal in Curling during the Winter Olympics.

The problem with this second argument is clearly seen, such that you probably don't need me to point it out to you.  Although neither of the argument's premises says anything about an Olympic gold medal in Curling, it shows up in the conclusion anyway.  This is an example of an invalid argument.  And it is an invalid argument, because the conclusion contains a term - won a gold medal in Curling during the Winter Olympics - that is nowhere found in the premises.  

This is the same problem with the argument that an invisible God can be deduced from visible creation.  We cannot reason from rocks, trees and oceans - all things which are visible to the eyes - to an invisible God.  To do so would be to violate the logical principle established above that an argument cannot contain terms not found in the premises. 

The same could be said for the claim that God's eternity can be clearly seen in creation.  Lakes dry up, living creatures die, and, at least is you listen to Al Gore, polar ice caps melt away to nothing.  Scientists even claim that stars have a life cycle, some ending up as supernovas, and others becoming white dwarfs.  If anything, the observation of nature could lead one to conclude that the god who created it, if indeed there is a god at all, is of limited power and may him/her/itself be mortal.   

But even though there are significant, manifest problems with the standard explanation of Romans 1:19-20,  it largely goes unchallenged by theologians.

John Robbins was one scholar who did challenge the standard explanation of Romans 1.  For him, the key was arriving at a correct definition of the term "the things that are made."  In the quotation from the New Geneva Study Bible cited above, the commentators take the line that the term "the things that are made" refers to the creation. 

But Robbins does not accept this.  He argues, persuasively I would add, that "the things that are made" does not refer to the heavens or to mountains or trees or whales, but to men themselves.  Men are "the things that are made," not general creation.  This is another way of saying that all men have innate knowledge of God. 

For your consideration, please see the transcript below, which I made this myself from the Trinity Foundation lecture "How Not to Do Apologetics:  Evidentialism" by John Robbins.   The excerpted portion begins at the 34:04 mark.

John Robbins on Romans 1:19-20

Please turn to the first chapter of Romans.  Romans 1, and I will begin reading, I believe it's verse 16, I don't have the citation down here.  Paul writes, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.  For in it t he righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness; because what may be know of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.   For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, 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...who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen "

It is common to be told that this passage endorses the proofs for the existence of God, but if one reads it closely, one will see that that is not the case at all.  First, Paul wrote of the special revelation of the Gospel in verses 16-18.  Then in verse 19, he wrote that what may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them.  Again he wrote of revelation, no longer special, but a general revelation to all men.  Furthermore, this revelation is manifest in us, that is, it is innate knowledge.  It is not something we learn.  It is not something we discover by observation or reading Aristotle's philosophy.   

Paul agreed with John, who wrote in the first chapter of his Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...In Him was life, and that life was the light of men..That was the true Light, which gives light to every man who comes into the world."

Paul continued in verse 20, "For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen."  Now think about that for a moment.  Was Paul talking about sense experience?  Can invisible attributes be seen with the eyes, let alone clearly seen?  Of course not.  Paul immediately explained what he meant in the next phrase, "and are clearly seen being understood."  Seeing here, as it frequently does in Scripture, means intellectual understanding, not sense experience.  God's invisible attributes are understood, they are not red or green or blue.  Moreover, they are understood by the things that are made. 

And here we come to a word, a phrase in English, of things that are made, that the standard understanding of these verses requires us to interpret as the physical things around us, what Thomas called the sensibles, the sensibles.  But this is the same word in Greek, translated here as the things that are made, that Paul used in Romans 9:20, "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?  Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' " And in Ephesians 2:10, "For we are his workmanship." The Greek word is of general extension and can refer to anything made.  It need not refer only to sensible objects.  And Paul actually uses it to refer specifically to human beings in this case.  We are the things that are made.  We understand for God has shown it to us, it is manifest in us, we are without excuse because we know the eternal power and Godhead, not by observing, inferring, arguing, and inducing, but simply because we're made in the image of God.

If the standard interpretation of this passage were true, it would overturn Paul's argument in Romans 1-3, that all men are without excuse.  If our knowledge of God and moral responsibility for sin depends and sense experience, then blind and deaf people would have neither knowledge of God nor actual guilt. If we gain our knowledge of God by looking at the heavens, then those who cannot see the heavens have no knowledge of God.  But Paul wrote that all men know God, and all men are sinners, because they deny and suppress that inescapable, innate knowledge.

Furthermore, if our knowledge of God, and hence our responsibility, depended on our ability to follow Thomas's and Aristotle's arguments for the existence of God, then few there be who know God, and few there be who are sinners.  Notice that in this passage Paul does not say anything about an argument for the existence of God.  He declares that all men know God innately and immediately.  It is knowledge that they are born with.  No, even before that.  If David was conceived in sin, and if sin presupposes knowledge of right and wrong, then David had knowledge in his mother's womb, even before he had eyes and ears.  Contrary to the standard Thomistic understanding of these verses, it does not matter that some people cannot see or hear.  It does not matter than they cannot follow an intricate metaphysical argument.  They all know God.  Therefore, that knowledge of God does not come as a result of sense experience or as the conclusion of an argument.

Closing Thoughts

This is a brilliant argument by Robbins, one that convincingly shows the term "things that are made" refers to men, not inanimate objects of creation.  Men have innate knowledge of God, not as a result of looking at the physical universe, but because Christ has enlightened the minds of all men with this knowledge. 

Some may think this is a small point.  But if Robbins is right, then the empirical apologetics of Thomas Aquinas, which is also the apologetics method of many folks in the Reformed camp, is without foundation in Scripture.

And at the same time the door is closed on empirical apologetics, Robbins' argument provides strong support for Scripturalist apologetics, namely the idea that we defend Christianity, not by proving the existence of God from an appeal to the physical creation, but with the Scriptures themselves. 

The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the starting point for the Christian system of thought.  As Robbins taught elsewhere, the 66 books of the Bible are the starting point of all knowledge and the axiom of Christianity. 

The Bible alone in the Word of God. 

To start, I didn’t sympathize with Piper's irrational emotive appeal for writing this book:

[T]here is another way to commend the vision. A person also wants to know, Is the vision beautiful and satisfying and fulfilling?... Commending Biblical truth involves more than saying, "Do it because the Bible says so." That sort of commendation may result in a kind of obedience that is so begrudging and so empty of delight and hearty affirmation that the Lord is not pleased with it at all.... Not only must there be thorough exegesis, there must also be a portrayal of the vision that satisfies the heart as well as the head.... This little book is meant to fit mainly into the second category. (15-16, emphasis his)

Believers keep God's laws precisely because “the Bible says so.” Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:21). Period. Not because we find them "satisfying": "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law" (Romans 3:31). "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3). A true believer desires to obey, and grows in obedience to, his heavenly Father out of gratitude, because he's been forgiven by Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit. The Law of God is only burdensome and "empty of delight and hearty affirmation" to unregenerate sinners because it condemns them and because they hate God. We don't need to somehow be emotionally convinced in addition to "thorough exegesis." The Bible simply says, "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord" (Isaiah 1:18).

The Bible also contrasts the mouth (what one professes) and the heart (the true, inner self—not mere emotions) rather than the “head” and the “heart.” That’s why Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me'" (Mark 7:6). The psychological distinction between head ("intellect") and heart ("emotions") is unbiblical, which leads Piper to overemphasize emotions and create a false dichotomy between obedience and desire. Unfortunately, this is one of Piper’s most fundamental convictions that drives his entire ministry, from his preaching, to his teaching, to his writing. Much of what John Robbins said in his review of Colson's Loving God applies to Piper's book as well:

...In your [Colson's] book and tapes you attack creeds and philosophies and emphasize the Person and cross of Christ. You contrast a “magnificent philosophy” with a “living truth,” and “academic theory" with a “living Person.” But the Bible makes no such contrast. Indeed, it teaches the opposite: As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. Christ said, “My words are spirit and they are life.” The words are the Spirit. The Gospel, the truth, the words are powerful. There is no contrast in the Bible between words or teaching or doctrine or philosophy and Christ. There is a contrast between profession of belief and actual belief, but not between Christ and his words. The contrast is a figment of modern psychology. We know Christ only insofar as we know about him. One cannot know Christ, or any other person, except by knowing propositions about him. Knowledge is always knowledge of a proposition. Saving faith is always assent to one or more Biblical propositions. Therefore, please do not disparage knowledge or teaching or doctrine, for by doing so, you are disparaging Christ. As Calvin put it, we owe to Scripture the same reverence that we owe to God. (See http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=187)

Piper also confused me when he, apparently referring to liberal theologians Emil Brunner and Paul Jewett, states that "our best Christian thinkers claim not to know what masculinity and femininity are" (20). Those men are a far cry from being “our best Christian thinkers,” especially if they can’t define something as basic and fundamental as manhood and womanhood. Anyone who studies the Bible can know exactly what true masculinity and femininity are.

The book's subtitle, "Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible," is misleading as well. Piper defines manhood and womanhood as the following:

At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man's differing relationships.

At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman's differing relationships. (22)

These definitions are “an attempt to get at the heart, or at least an indispensable aspect, of manhood and womanhood” (21). But a more appropriate subtitle would be, "Manhood and Womanhood defined in relation to each other." Although Piper is a complementarian (20-21), his definitions of manhood and womanhood tend to overlook the fundamentals: God's order and creation roles. And why does a woman, according to Piper's definition, seem to have more than one head? 1 Corinthians 11:3-13 reads:

I [Paul] want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.... For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Piper doesn't mention that man was made for God and woman for man. And although spiritually "there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), Christ explains why there is a prescribed natural order:

The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36)

So in this life, God institutes an order for us to follow until the resurrection because we are still in the flesh and marry and have kids...and die. Women should "have a symbol of authority on their heads because of the angels," that is, a woman's "hair is given to her for a covering" (Ephesians 5:16), and the man also covers her because even though women are spiritually equal to men and to the angels in heaven, they are still in the flesh, so they must "submit to [their] own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands" (Ephesians 5:22ff.). This order won't be necessary for believers after the resurrection because they will no longer marry and die, and because there will only be one marriage in heaven: Christ, the Husband, and the church, the bride (Revelation 19:7-9). This also shows why God has historically destroyed societies that embrace homosexuality: it violates God's natural order and unravels the moral fabric of society. The most fundamental institution of society is the one that God Himself established first and foremost—marriage.

Piper also argues that "It is not primarily the responsibility of women to build procedural and relational guidelines to protect themselves from the advances of ill-behaved men. Primarily it is the responsibility of mature manhood to establish a pattern of behaviors and attitudes" (45, emphasis his). Nonsense. It is primarily the responsibility of both! Not just the man's. A woman's head is her husband or her father, or God if neither are available; she does not need to rely or depend on any other man to "establish" boundaries. Women must protect themselves and establish biblical boundaries with other men, especially if she’s alone. Piper later claims that "the natural expression of...womanhood will be hindered by the immaturity of the man in her presence" (55). This is also absurd, for true womanhood is affirmed by God and her husband or father, and is only hindered by other immature men if the woman is insecure. But even a mature married woman, according to Piper, "will affirm and receive and nurture the strength and leadership of men in some form in all her relationships with men" (59). This too is false and even dangerous, for the only men a woman needs to "affirm and receive and nurture" is her father and husband! Not every "worthy" man she comes across!

The book had some helpful points, but overall it confuses rather than clarifies biblical manhood and womanhood. For better material see Gary Smalley's If Only He Knew, Pastor Tom Nelson's teachings on marriage and the Song of Solomon (http://dbcmedia.org/), and Pastor G. Craige Lewis' teachings on creation roles (http://www.exministries.com/sermons/atcp-archive/) instead.