In this last part of my series on how to love God and your neighbor, I will present a broad outline of why it is we are exempt from mandatory vaccinations as Christians. The basic argument is simple –

Given that mandatory vaccination overrides the magisterial authority of Scripture, as well as the ministerial authority of Logic and the academic and practical disciplines subservient to it, mandatory vaccination violates our religious liberty to worship God with all of our mind and body.

Mandated/forced vaccination hinders us from worshiping God as he has prescribed in his Word. Indeed, it forces us to sin against God. This not only violates our freedom of conscience, and our freedom to exercise religion, but attacks the very substance of Christian living and, therefore, Christianity itself.

This will be a little lengthy, but I feel the need to get into more details on this matter. I pray that you will find this profitable, and be able to utilize it in any way that will edify the body of Christ.

I. The Scope of Sola Scriptura

As the Westminster Confession correctly explains,

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…1

The scope of the Scriptures’ sufficiency, let us note, is broader than many would like to concede. This is evident from the authors’ use of the universal terms whole and all, as well as by their reference to (a)that which is expressly/explicitly set down in Scripture and (b)that which is necessarily implied by (a). Scripture covers all that is necessary as respects the glorification of God, man’s salvation, the doctrines man must believe, and the day to day actions that man must perform in order to glorify God.

There is nothing hidden from the Word of God, from his verbal/written judgment.2All actions are revealed to be either glorifying to God or not when they are examined in light of the Scriptures’ explicit and implicit teaching. Paul says the same in his second epistle to Timothy, writing –

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.3

All of Scripture is of divine origin and authority. All of Scripture is profitable for making one equipped every good work. No work of the regenerate man is, therefore, excluded from the explicit and implicit teaching of Scripture. All of our works are subordinate to the Word of God, receiving either approval or condemnation from God. Hence, the Westminster theologians go on to explain that –

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.4

Again, note the universals here – all controversies of religion, all decrees of councils, all opinions of ancient writers, all doctrines of men, and all private spirits – indicating that the Word of God is the supreme judge of all thinking and action.

II. The Definition of “Good Works”

Whatever has been deemed to be a good work, then, must be examined in light of not merely the explicit declarations of God’s Word, but also the implicit teaching necessarily inferred therefrom. When this is done, we see that good works are

…only such as God hath commanded in his holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention.5

That which God requires of men, as revealed in his Word, constitutes what we can legitimately call “good works.” If there are actions that are not commanded by God, or which contradict the explicit and implicit teaching of Scripture as to the nature of godly living, i.e. obedient living that brings glory to God, then those actions do not constitute what we can legitimately call good works.6

III. The Scope of “Good Works”

We have defined what constitutes a good work, and now we must turn to Scripture to understand the scope of that which is covered by the term “good works.” Is it a narrowly defined sphere of activity? Or is it the whole of a man’s life? Well, given that the Westminster Larger Catechism, following the Scriptures, states that “man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever,”7 it is the case that man’s very existence – the entirety of his life – ought to be lived in a manner that brings glory to God. This implies that every act of man is intended by God to be a good work.

Every action of man ought to be performed in good conscience before God, in faith that what is being performed is that which is in accordance with God’s Law, for “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”8 Every action, consequently, must be performed in order to bring God glory. As the apostle Paul tells the Corinthians –

…whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.9

Good works, then, are firstly those which are explicitly stated in the Law of God, the Ten Commandments. Good works, however, also include all the actions of men, covering every aspect of human existence, taken by faith in accordance with the Law of God explicitly stated in Scripture.

The apostle Paul also makes this clear when he tells the Romans the following –

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.10

We are called to firstly have our thinking conformed to God’s Word, and then our bodies (performing those actions which we have, by faith, determined to be in accordance with God’s Law). This conformation, via testing (i.e. reasoning about our thoughts and actions in the world), enables us to discern what thoughts and actions are good before God (i.e. what actions may be performed in accordance with God’s explicitly stated Law).

IV. Daily Individual Worship and Lord’s Day Corporate Worship

It is noteworthy that Paul defines the whole of our bodily existence as “spiritual worship.” While we are called to not forsake the assembling of the local body which meets together for corporate worship on the Lord’s Day,11 we are also called to individually worship God by having our minds and, therefore, thoughts and bodily actions conformed to the Word of God. Our daily activity is, in other words, worship to God, as is our weekly meeting on the Lord’s Day. These two forms of worship are distinct and complementary to one another, not contradictory. We worship God daily, and meet together as a body to worship him on the Lord’s Day.

V. The Individual Temple

The individual body, like the corporate body,12 is identified as the house of God, the physical place where God dwells and governs over man’s thoughts and actions by his Spirit and his Word. Writing to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul explains –

…we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.13

In this passage, Paul repeatedly identifies the believer’s body as the dwelling place of God’s Spirit. The Holy Spirit governs over the activities of this house, just as he governs over the activities of the corporate house of God.

The apostle Peter, likewise, identifies his body as a “tent,” or “tabernacle,” in his second epistle. He writes –

…I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.14

Peter H. Davids’ commentary here is very useful:

Rooted in their previous nomadic life (many of the peoples in the Mediterranean had once been nomadic) and the present use of tents as temporary shelters, the image of a tent for this mortal life is found in the OT (Isa 38:12…), but is more common in Hellenistic Judaism. For instance, in Wisd 9:15 we read, “For a perishable body weighs down the soul, and this earthly tent burdens the thoughtful mind,” a clear indication of both the tent = body imagery and body-soul dualism…15

The apostle Paul elsewhere identifies the believer’s body as “a temple of the Holy Spirit.”16 And these all, of course, are following the Lord Jesus Christ’s identification of his own body as The Temple of God.17 While Christ’s body as the Temple of God has a much greater and richer significance than our individual bodies being temples of God, the point of derivation and overlap cannot be ignored. The Son of God tabernacled among men,18 the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in him bodily,19 and was given the Spirit without measure.20 We are tent-dwelling sojourners in this world, redeemed sinners in whom the fullness of the God does not dwell bodily, and who do not possess the Holy Spirit without measure, whose flesh lusts against the Spirit as he works to conform us to Christ’s image.21

VII. What This Means for Us

The significance of our bodies being temples of the Holy Spirit lies in the fact that they are to be governed by the Holy Spirit as he teaches us from his Word, thereby making us wise and capable of discerning what is the good and perfect will of God. The good and perfect will of God is comprised of those good works which God has ordained for his people,22 and fall under two categories – 1. Good works explicitly commanded by God in his Law, and 2. Works that are judged to be in accordance with God’s Word after prayerful study and reflection on the explicit and implicit teaching of Scripture. And these two categories of good works constitute the whole of our Christian life, rendering all of our daily activities either fulfilled or failed attempts at worship.

Thinking for oneself in light of the Scriptures’ explicit and implicit teaching, in other words, is a daily act of worship in which all Christians must engage. Forcing Christians to act against our consciences, insofar as they are informed by the Word of God, not only violates our freedom of conscience and our God-given right to worship God freely, but also forces us to sin against God. This is an attack on our ability to live in accordance with Scripture and, therefore, an attack on the Christian faith (which addresses all areas of our life) in its entirety.

Consequently, forced vaccination – whether by physical coercion, intellectual and/or emotional manipulation, or government mandates – is something with which we cannot comply, lest we sin against our Lord and Savior by subordinating his Word and Spirit to the words, wishes, and powers of men and their institutions. The Christian system of doctrine teaches us that man’s body is his own possession, a creation meant to be ruled and governed by the Spirit and Word of God. Christians, in particular, are revealed to be temples, places of worship, which must be governed by the Spirit and the Word. The subordination of the Word of God and his Spirit to any authority constitutes a flagrant act of idolatry in which no Christian can, or would want to, participate.

Ultimately, the Christian is free, and must be free, to reflect on all of his actions in light of the revealed Word of God (explicit and implicit). He is free, and must be free, to judge whether or not taking an experimental medication is in accordance with the revealed Word of God (explicit and implicit).

1 Ch. 1, Art. 6.

2 cf. Heb 4:12-14.

3 2nd Tim 3:16-17.

4 WCF, Ch. 1, Art. 10.

5 ibid., Ch. 16, Art. 1.

6 See, Isa 5:20-21; Mark 7:9-13; 1st Tim 1:8-11.

7 WLC, A.1.

8 Rom 14:23b. (emphasis added)

9 1st Cor 10:31. (emphasis added)

10 Rom 12:1-2. (emphasis added)

11 cf. Heb 10:19-25.

12 See 1st Cor 11:17-22 (this is implicit to Paul’s rhetorical question in v.22a), Eph 2:18-20, 1st Tim 3:1-5 & 14-15, 2nd Tim 2:15-21, 1st Pet 2:4-6 & 4:17, Heb 3:1-6 & 10:19-25.

13 2nd Cor 5:1-10.

14 2nd Pet 1:13-14. (emphasis added) [N.B. I’ve used the NKJV rendering here because the ESV does not provide a translation of the original Greek here, but interprets the Greek word as an analogy/metaphor for the body. This interpretation is correct, but it subtly undermines the significance of the original wording. If the body is the Lord’s tabernacle, this ties directly into Peter’s identification of believers as “sojourners” in the present age (cf. 1st Pet 2:11).]

15 The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s, 2006), 194. (emphasis added)

16 1st Cor 6:19-20.

17 See John 2:13-21.

18 cf. John 1:14.

19 cf. Col 1:19-20 & 2:9.

20 cf. John 3:34-35.

21 cf. Gal 5:16-25.

22 cf. Eph 2:10.

[Continued from Pt. 3]

While it cannot be said that Paul the apostle was a non-expert in theology, it is plain to see that the church at Corinth was saturated with theological non-experts. Yet Paul does not shy away from teaching the Corinthians, and every subsequent Christian who would read his epistles, to logically scrutinize the heretical claim made by some professing Christians that “the dead are not raised.” He does this via demonstration by first reminding the Corinthians that anyone who professes faith in Christ necessarily believes that at least one dead man has been raised to life by God, viz. Jesus Christ. He writes –

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 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. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.1

The Corinthians professed faith in the Gospel Paul and the others preached. The content of that Gospel explicitly states that the Lord Jesus Christ died, was buried, rose from the dead on the third day, and appeared to over five hundred witnesses. To believe the Gospel is to believe that one has already been raised from the dead, namely Christ. Paul, therefore, asks the Corinthians –

…if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?2

The apostle places the proclamation of Christ as raised from the dead alongside the proclamation that “there is no resurrection of the dead,” drawing our attention to the fact that the resurrection of Christ disproves the universal negative proposition “There is no resurrection of the dead.” As he goes on to explain –

…if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.3

If there is an exception to the universal proposition, then the universal proposition is not true. Christ has been raised from the dead; therefore, the heretics’ proclamation is demonstrably false.

This would be enough for Paul to make his point, but he continues to draw out the logical consequences of the heretics’ belief that “there is no resurrection of the dead.” He writes –

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

We can translate Paul’s argument from its conversational form into the following –

If “there is no resurrection of the dead,”
then Christ was not raised from the dead.
If Christ was not raised from the dead,
then the Gospel is false.
If the Gospel is false,
then those who believe it are still in their sins.
If believers in the Gospel are still in their sins,
then their faith is in vain.
If faith in the Gospel is in vain,
then preaching the Gospel is in vain.

But Christ has been raised from the dead.
Therefore, none of the above consequences follow.

Note how significant a single proposition is in relation to the entirety of the Christian system. The heretics’ proclamation leads to the destruction of the Christian faith. Inversely, the Christian’s single instance of a resurrection in the Gospel proclamation decimates the heretics’ false proclamation.

Concluding Remarks

As we conclude this series, let us take note of some important truths. Firstly, individual propositions are not insignificant parts of the Christian faith which we can take or leave as we see fit. Every proposition has logical consequences for which we are held accountable. Secondly, therefore, we see from Scripture that if we assent to a proposition, we implicitly assent to what that proposition necessarily implies. Sadly, today there are many who identify this action as “uncharitable,” without realizing what that belief itself implies. In a word, the end result of such thinking is utter blasphemy, as is demonstrable from the following argument –

Anyone who attributes their opponent’s implied beliefs to them is acting uncharitably.
To act uncharitably is to act sinfully.
Therefore, anyone who attributes their opponent’s implied beliefs to them is acting sinfully.
Now, anyone who attributes their opponent’s implied beliefs to them is acting sinfully.
And God attributes his opponent’s implied beliefs to them.
Therefore, God is acting sinfully.

It is true that God alone is omniscient and, therefore, is infallible in any of his declarations that x implies y. However, it is equally true that the blind man of John 9 was not omniscient and yet followed the same pattern of logical scrutiny and subsequent moral criticism practiced by God the Son.

Our contemporary socio-political climate is one in which logic has fallen upon hard times, but that does not mean it is inefficient, or that it is inappropriate for every Christian’s use – whether in apologetic battle or personal meditation of the Word of God and its authoritative statements about the whole of life. We are not experts in every area of life, but we do not need to be in order to address the issues of our day. If we have a basic grasp of the elementary principles of logic, then we are capable of answering others when they ask us “What do you think?”

1 1st Cor 15:1-11.

2 1st Cor 15:12.

3 1st Cor 15:13.

[Continued from Pt. 1]

It was the experts during the Lord Jesus’ earthly ministry who were wrong about the most important subjects in Scripture. Jesus frequently demonstrated this by logically scrutinizing their claims. For instance, in Matthew 12 Jesus, addressing the Pharisees’ claim that he cast out demons by the power of the devil, made the following argument –

“Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”1

Firstly, note that Christ logically scrutinized the claim that “it is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that [he] casts out demons.”2 He drew out what is implicit to their assertion, namely that that there is a kingdom of demons of which the devil is the prince.

Secondly, note that Christ argued from the general to the particular as regards the nature of the kingdom of demons. Specifically, the Lord Jesus stated that every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste (i.e. is utterly defeated/reduced to ruins by its opponents 3). The word “every” is universal, which means that what Christ asserted applies to all kingdoms, including the kingdom of demons. Thus, if the kingdom of demons is divided against itself, it will be laid waste/utterly defeated/reduced to ruins by its opponents comprising the kingdom of heaven/the kingdom of God.

Thirdly, note what Jesus asked his opponents –

“...if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?”

The kingdom of demons does not want to be laid waste. Why then would it oppose itself and seal its own doom? If there is a war between the two kingdoms, and kingdoms that want to obtain victory over their opposition operate as a united front, then this applies to the kingdom of demons as well. Consequently, if the kingdom of demons desires to obtain victory over the kingdom of God it will not be divided against itself.

Fourthly, Christ emphasized his point by asking –

“…if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out?”

If the Pharisees believed that their sons cast out demons by the power of God, this implies that they agreed with Christ regarding whether or not a kingdom seeking to obtain victory over its opposition would be internally divided. Thus, Jesus went on to state –

“Therefore they will be your judges.”

Christ, essentially, argued that if the Pharisees believed their sons cast out demons by the power of God, then they agreed that the kingdom of demons is a unified front against the kingdom of God. But if the kingdom of demons is a unified front against the kingdom of God, then it cannot be the case that Jesus cast out demons by the power of the devil. If the Pharisees claimed their sons cast out demons by the power of God, then they tacitly admitted their blasphemous claim about Christ was ipso facto false. Jesus refuted their claim, reducing it to absurdity, but also demonstrated the utter hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

Lastly, Christ drew out the logical consequence of what the Pharisees tacitly admitted to when they claimed their sons cast out demons by the power of God. He stated –

“…if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

The assertion here follows the Lord Jesus’ emphasis on the implied unity of a kingdom as it attacks an opposing kingdom. If the nature of kingdoms in general is to seek victory over their opposition by presenting a unified front against them, then it follows that the kingdom of God does the same. Whoever opposes the kingdom of demons, therefore, is on the side of the kingdom of God. Moreover, note the significance of Christ’s assertion –

“…if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons…”

If it is not an evil spirit, namely the devil himself, who is empowering Christ to cast out demons, then it can only be the Holy Spirit who empowers him to do so.

The response given by Christ not only addresses the blasphemous foolishness of his enemies, it also implicitly teaches that the Holy Spirit is a divine person. Whereas the Pharisees said that Christ’s actions demonstrated he had an unclean spirit,4 he stated that his actions demonstrated that through him the kingdom of God had come upon his enemies. Christ is not possessed by an unclean/unholy, intelligent, volitional, and morally deviant agent who can indwell humans and cause them5 to sin – viz. an unclean spirit; rather, he is filled with, and guided by, the clean/holy, intelligent, volitional, and morally pure agent who can indwell humans and cause them to live righteously – viz. the Holy Spirit.

Christ could have given an elaborate Scriptural argument demonstrating why the claim of his opponents was false. Instead, he took their claim and drew out its logical consequences. And his disciples followed suit.

[Continued in Pt. 3]

1 Matt 12:25-28. (emphasis added)

2 Matt 12:24. (emphasis added)

3 This idiom is used repeatedly in Scripture this way. See Num 21:30, Jud 6:5, 2nd Kings 1:17, Ps 79:6-7, etc.

4 See Mark 3:30.

5 While we are all ultimately responsible for our sin, Christ teaches that men can be caused to sin, by which he means they can be urged and encouraged to sin by wicked men, in Matt 18:5-7.

“Just Trust the Experts!”

One of the more troubling observable trends in online discussions today is a growing dereliction of duty with respect to critical thinking. It usually takes the form of a fallacious appeal to authority. During the present “pandemic,”1 social media is rife with fallacious reasoning of this kind, where voices of dissent are ridiculed for being “Facebook Doctors,” “Facebook Lawyers,” or “Internet Experts.”2 Along with this derisive name calling, there are typically calls for the dissenter to “trust the experts” or “let the experts do their job.” Belittling any criticism of, for instance, the actions of authorities during a wave of riots, or the claims of medical experts during a “pandemic,” superficially removes the belittler’s responsibility to love God with all of one’s mind, and love his neighbor as himself.

The problem with the appeal to authority being made is that in many cases, though admittedly not all, the criticism of the authorities in question have to do with the rational coherence of a particular idea, set of ideas, report, or series of reports. Such criticisms do not require one to be an expert on the subject being covered, seeing as in these instances the critics are deriving their data from the experts themselves. Instead, they require one to have an elementary grasp of the laws of logic, a love for the truth, and a detestation of what is false.

Logical lethargy is not a neutral practice, but is sin. As Psalm 1:1-2 declares –

Blessed is the man

who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,

nor stands in the way of sinners,

nor sits in the seat of scoffers;

but his delight is in the law of the Lord,

and on his law he meditates day and night.

The Holy Spirit tells us that the righteous man’s meditation is on God’s Word day and night, thereby implying that there is no time of the day, and no activity during that time, that is to be devoid of thinking, consideration, meditation, rumination, and examination rooted in the Word of God. Consequently, the increasingly popular retort to critics of the experts is not only immoral, but irrational. In this article, we will look at some reasons as to why this is so.

Self-Referential Absurdity

To begin with, if one can only speak about x if he is an expert on it, then this applies to his expertise rule (ER, hereafter) as well. In order for one to speak about the ER, he must be an expert on who qualifies to speak about the ER. If he is not an expert on the ER, then he cannot speak about the ER. If he is not an expert on the ER are we to simply take his word for it that the ER is a legitimate rule we must follow when discussing any subject? By declaring the legitimacy of the ER, and not being an expert himself, he would be violating the ER.

However, if one can only speak about x if he is an expert on x, this is an implicit knowledge claim about the nature of x (viz. x is of such a nature that speaking about it requires expertise). This, in turn, implies that one has to be an expert on x before he can tell others that only experts can speak on that matter. If he is not an expert on x, then he cannot speak about x.

Moreover, if one has to be an expert before he can speak about x, but the process of learning necessarily involves one speaking about x before one is an expert (e.g. forming hypotheses about x, debating former and present hypotheses about x, etc), then he could not ever become an expert on x. In fact, no one could.

If we assume the ER to be true, therefore, we have to draw the conclusion that we cannot ever convey that knowledge to others without being experts ourselves, which is, however, an impossibility. The absurdity of the ER should be plain to see here.

Category Confusion & A Fallacious Appeal to Authority

Assuming that the ER is not fraught with logical difficulties, however, there is yet another problem the belittler faces. If the critic’s argument takes for granted the expertise of the proponents of x, but finds that conclusions about x are not logically justifiable, or that statements about x are self-contradictory, then what is at issue is not the data itself but the logical coherence of the claims being made about x or x’s data. To belittle the critic for not being familiar with all the available data, when he is not making an argument against the reliability of the data presented as, and confirmed by the experts to be, “fact,” is to commit a category error by treating the critic’s argument as one being made against the factuality of the experts’ data. If the critic assumes that what is asserted about x in terms of relevant data is true, but criticizes the experts for their logical incoherence, then what must be challenged is not the critic’s knowledge regarding x but his claim that the experts’ claims are not logically coherent (i.e. they are self-contradictory) or logically justified (i.e. they have been argued for invalidly).

As mentioned at the onset of this article, moreover, the appeal to an expert in this particular case is a fallacious appeal to an expert. The reason for this is that the argument made by the critic does not depend upon his familiarity with the relevant data as a whole, but instead depends upon his familiarity with the elementary principles of sound reasoning. If the critic is wrong, in other words, he must be shown to be wrong with respect to his logical analysis. The question of his expertise in the field of x is completely irrelevant to his argument.

Theological Problems

As we bring this article to a close, we need to draw the reader’s attention to the biggest problem with the ER, namely that it results in a denial of God’s sovereignty and omniscience. That this is the case is clear when we consider that logic is, as Gordon H. Clark puts it, the way that God thinks. The laws of logic are not human constructs; they are eternal truths that stand in judgment over all of our reasoning. Thus, if an expert’s reasoning is exempt from logical scrutiny, then that expert’s reasoning is literally not subject to the rule of God, for the laws of logic are divinely revealed truths that authoritatively judge the thoughts of men as either true or false.3 This necessarily implies the blasphemous idea that there exists a class of persons over whom God cannot exercise epistemic, sovereign rulership – namely, the experts whose findings are, apparently, not subject to logical scrutiny. Put concisely –

If experts are not subject to logical scrutiny, then they are not subject to the Sovereign rule of God. But if the Sovereign rule of God does not extend to a person or group of persons, then it is not Sovereign. Thus, if the experts are not subject to logical scrutiny, this implies that God is not Sovereign.

What is more, the idea that the experts are not subject to logical scrutiny further implies that there is a class of propositions which is excluded from the judgment of the laws of logic. This is a problem because the laws of logic are formally universal in scope; they are universal knowledge claims. But if the laws of logic are formally universal in scope, but are not so materially, then they are false. And if they are false, then God, who has revealed them, is not omniscient. More concisely –

The laws of logic are divinely revealed formally universal knowledge claims. But if there is a class of propositions which cannot be judged by the laws of logic, then that class of propositions is not covered by the laws of logic. This implies that while the laws of logic are formally universal in scope, they are not materially universal in scope; and this renders them false. And if they are divinely revealed universal knowledge claims that are not truly universal, and this renders them false, then God, who revealed them to men, is not omniscient.

The problems here should be evident to the regenerate man or woman. God is Sovereign. He is Omniscient. Thus, any belief that implies he is not is false, and a demonic assault on his character. Now the belief that experts are exempt from logical analysis is one that implies that God is neither Sovereign nor Omniscient; therefore, it must be rejected as false by all Christians.

Concluding Remarks

It is neither prudent, nor loving toward one’s neighbor, nor reverent toward God to abandon logical analysis because one is not an expert on x, whatever x may be. If the experts who are speaking on x are contradicting themselves, or using fallacious arguments to draw conclusions about x, then it is your responsibility, Christian, to acknowledge they are uttering falsehoods. You don’t need to be a scholar to point out that a person is contradicting himself or arguing fallaciously. You are made in the image of God, and you have the mind of Christ. Hear what the experts have to say, grant them the benefit of a doubt when they talk about the data they’ve collected. However, if they contradict themselves, if they use fallacious argumentation to prove a point, or if they claim to be beyond the jurisdiction of logical scrutiny (which is impossible), you have a responsibility to reject their claims on that basis.

Soli Deo Gloria.

1 See Berrien, Hank. “Following Death Percentage Decline, CDC Says We’re On ‘Epidemic Threshold’,” The Daily Wire, July 7, 2020, https://www.dailywire.com/news/amid-percentage-of-deaths-having-declined-cdc-admits-coronavirus-on-verge-of-non-epidemic-status?.

2 For example, see Moe, Kristen. “COVID-19 Conspiracy Theorists Are Victims Of The Dunning-Kruger Effect,” Scary Mommy, April 24, 2020, https://www.scarymommy.com/dunning-kruger-effect/.

3 This is true respecting not merely the content of one’s thoughts (i.e. whether or not a particular proposition is true or false), but the structure of one’s reasoning as well, given that the presentation of an argument in favor of x could be reduced to the proposition – “It is the case that my argument leads to conclusion y about x.” For more on this see, Diaz, Hiram R. “The Truth Value of Valid and Invalid Inferences?,” Involuted Speculations, May 5, 2014, https://involutedgenealogies.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/the-truth-value-of-valid-and-invalid-inferences/.

View fullsize

“Therewith [Errour] spewd out of her filthy maw / A floud of poyson horrible and blacke, / Full of great lumpes of flesh and gobbets raw, / Which stunck so vildly, that it forst him slacke / His grasping hold, and from her turne him backe: / Her vomit full of bookes° and papers was, / With loathly frogs and toades, which eyes did lacke, / And creeping sought way in the weedy gras: / Her filthy parbreake all the place defiled has.” (Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene)

Count the costs. It takes sweat. And blood. And tears. And a cramped hand. If you want readers to enjoy your work, you must suffer. The term "writer" is misleading, however. Rewriter is more adequate, for good writing requires rewriting. Great writers are not born great; they are forged by study and practice. Consider the words of ancient Greek rhetorician Isocrates:

In the art of rhetoric, credit is won not by gifts of fortune, but by efforts of study. For those who have been gifted with eloquence by nature and by fortune, are governed in what they say by chance, and not by any standard of what is best, whereas those who have gained this power by study and by the exercise of language never speak without weighting their words, and so are less often in error as to a course of action. (Antidosis, 15.292. See Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students)

So weigh every word, every sentence, every paragraph. Eradicate awkwardness, ambiguity, and bad grammar--unless it's warranted--at all costs. The more rhetorically effective and clearer you are, the more your readers will benefit. Heed therefore to reformer Martin Luther, who penned 60,000 pages, "enough to fill 102 huge volumes of the famous Weimar edition, making him the most prolific religious figure in history, as well as the most written about since Christ" (Merle Severy, "The World of Luther," National Geographic 164.4, Oct. 1983, pp. 429, 445):

So great a rhetorician and theologian ought not only to know, but to act according to, that which Fabius says, "An ambiguous word should be avoided as a rock." Where it happens now and then inadvertently, it may be pardoned: but where it is sought for designedly and purposely, it deserves no pardon whatever, but justly merits the abhorrence of every one. For to what does this hateful double-tongued way of speaking tend? . . . Let him rather be reduced to order . . . by abstaining from that profane and double-tongued vertibility of speech and vain-talking, and by avoiding, as Paul [the apostle] saith, "profane and vain babblings."

For this it was, that even the public laws of the Roman empire condemned this manner of speaking, and punished it thus.—They commanded, "that the words of him who should speak obscurely, when he could speak more plainly, should be interpreted against himself." And Christ also, condemned that wicked servant who excused himself by an evasion; and interpreting his own words against himself, said, "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant." For if in religion, in laws, and in all weighty matters, we should be allowed to express ourselves ambiguously and insidiously, what could follow but that utter confusion of Babel, where no one could understand another! This would be, to learn the language of eloquence, and in so doing, to lose the language of nature!

Moreover, if this license should prevail . . . what would become of logic, the instructor of teaching rightly? What would become of rhetoric, the faculty of persuading? Nothing would be taught, nothing would be learned, no persuasion could be carried home, no consolation would be given, no fear would be wrought: because, nothing would be spoken or heard that was certain. ("Letter to Nicolas Armsdoff Concerning Erasmus of Rotterdam")

Strive for clarity and conciseness. The Elizabethan era of wordy embellishments is long gone; practice the Paramedic Method instead. Don't refer to yourself in the third person, as the present writer is currently doing to prove his point, as if depersonalizing oneself from one’s writing with the third person actually made one more objective. Nonsense! It's not a sin to be personal with your audience; it’s rather more personable. And let's be done with pretentious academic doublespeak, which mainly serves to bolster scholars' egos because no one else understands them, often not even they do. At the very least define the Latinate jargon and avoid it if possible.

Keep in mind that writers are accountable for what they write. They have a moral responsibility to be clear, understandable, unambiguous, honest. Especially leaders and teachers. But don't take my word for it; take it from one of the best teachers of all time, the apostle Paul:

If I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. (1 Corinthians 14:6-11)

This includes citing sources properly. "Give credit where credit is due" (Romans 13:7). Christian apologist James White often says that you disrespect not only the authors but your audience as well when you misrepresent sources or don't cite them at all. The straw man and abusive ad hominem fallacies are, after all, still fallacies.

Good writers are careful, voracious readers too. In other words, read! Especially works by good authors. Close, meditative reading helps you become a stylish, idiomatic writer. Examine the author's style and learn from it. Scrutinize your own writing by looking at your work through the eyes of your readers. And read books about writing, such as Strunk and White's Elements of Style, Brians' Common Errors in English, and Trimble's Writing with Style.

And don't forget to write! Every day! Even if it's a paragraph. Even if it's a sentence. It will pay off. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" (Isaiah 28:10).

May the pen be with you.

—Published June 1, 2012

On 12/8/2019, the sermon preached by Pastor Joe Rosales was based on Romans 10:11-21.

The pastor explained that is easy to confuse the two natures of Christ, as many ancient heresies attest. It is still a major issue today, because Christology is one of the most difficult doctrines of the Bible. The Creed of Chalcedon provides theological boundaries to keep us from straying, though it doesn’t provide a thorough systematic treatment or crucial definitions, by affirming

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Gordon Clark has brilliant contributions to the unresolved Christological problems that the Church still faces in his work on The Incarnation. It’s also important to consider the Reformed Confessions, because “Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.” (John 3:13; Acts 20:28, https://www.arbca.com/1689-chapter8)

Many churches today preach the love of God but completely leave out or deny the wrath of God. There’s no sense of God’s holiness, as there was with the prophet Isaiah, who cursed himself, saying, “Woe is me! For I am pulverized!” (Isa 6:5) when he saw the Lord sitting on His throne (v. 1). The Reformed tradition, however, has always stressed the importance of this doctrine, even to little children:

Q. What does every sin deserve?
A. The anger and judgment of God (Deut. 27:26; Rm. 1:18; 2:2; Gal. 3:10; Eph. 5:6).

The pastor admonished us to not lose sight of what Christmas is truly about—a Savior being born to redeem fallen mankind from the just wrath of God. This is the gospel, the good news, for all who believe. Christians should not replace Christ with Santa Clause or materialism. It is about being justified—declared righteous by faith alone in Christ alone—and about deliverance from sin and judgment. We’re saved from the condemnation and the power of sin.

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (‭‭Romans‬ ‭10:8-10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

The pastor encouraged us to meditate on two things: That there is nothing good in us, our flesh, and on the greatness of God’s mercy in Christ Jesus: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (I Peter‬ ‭1:3-5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

“I will never forget Your precepts, For by them You have given me life. I am Yours, save me; For I have sought Your precepts” (Psalms‬ ‭119:93-94‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

He closed by highlighting the importance of the doctrine of glorification. What will children who die in the Lord look like in the Resurrection? Using the Reformed principle of deducing doctrine by good and necessary consequence from Scripture, we can see that, in the Resurrection, we will have adult glorified bodies. Adam and Eve were created as adults. Childhood is a transition into adulthood: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things” (I Corinthians‬ ‭13:11‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). The same is true for those who die in old age. Surely Moses and Elijah did not look like crippled old men when they appeared during Christ’s Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). Christ will bless us with perfect, mature, glorified bodies when He returns. “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself” (Philippians‬ ‭3:20-21‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

On 11/3/2019, the sermon preached by Pastor Joe Rosales was based on Romans 9:14-29.

The pastor commented on the use of creeds and confessions, which reflect order and consistency. Some don’t like order or being tied down by a coherent system of doctrine, but when you ask them what they believe about the Bible or the doctrines it teaches, they will inevitably recite to you a statement of faith, likely an incomplete and inconsistent one.

The doctrine of predestination, of sovereign election, is offensive to many today, including church folk. And there are many perverted notions of fairness, ranging from socialism, communism, and Marxism, to Arminianism or synergism and the doctrine of free will, that are completely at odds with Scripture.

Many have trouble with the doctrine of hell too. How can a good God predestine people to hell? That’s like asking, How can a good judge send criminals to prison? The amazing thing about God is not that he sends people to hell, for we’re all natural-born sinners in rebellion against a thrice holy and just God who deserve nothing but hell; it is that He, out of his sheer grace and mercy, decided to save any of us!

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when 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. (‭‭Romans‬ ‭5:6-10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

The pastor also clarified the meaning of an often misinterpreted passage: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (II Peter‬ ‭3:9‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). This does not mean that God desires all men to come to repentance, but that He “is longsuffering toward us”—toward believers, and desires believers to come to repentance. Even so, “these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead”” (‭‭Acts‬ ‭17:30-31‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

But just because God commands all men to repent doesn’t necessarily mean He desires all men to repent. God ultimately neither loves nor desires all men to repent because He hates and hardens the reprobate:

For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 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?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? ‭‭(Romans‬ ‭9:17-24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

The pastor warned against people who attempt to reconcile difficult doctrines prematurely, like the Trinity or Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, since these doctrines are often considered “mysteries.” He admonished us to stick to the Scriptures, and if the person you’re discussing this with continues to object, then use Paul’s retort: “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?” (Romans 9:20). A biblical mystery, however, is something that God obscured in the Old Testament but reveals or explains in the New:

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. (George Knight, qtd. in https://thorncrownministries.com/blog/2017/08/08/review-of-when-sinners-say-i-do)

And while Paul does rebuke his opponents, he continues to demolish their objections in verses 21 and following. He answers them squarely with some of the strongest statements in the Bible. I appreciate the wisdom of men like Gordon Clark, who unabashedly deals with the problem of evil, and A.W. Pink when it comes to harmonizing difficult doctrines, which is why their writings are classic contributions that build up the church:

This is, admittedly, the most difficult branch of our subject. Those who have ever devoted much study to this theme have uniformly recognized that the harmonizing of God's Sovereignty with Man's Responsibility is the gordian knot of theology.

The main difficulty encountered is to define the relationship between God's Sovereignty and man's responsibility. Many have summarily disposed of the difficulty by denying its existence. A certain class of theologians, in their anxiety to maintain man's responsibility, have magnified it beyond all due proportions until God's Sovereignty has been lost sight of, and in not a few instances flatly denied. Others have acknowledged that the Scriptures present both the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man but affirm that in our present finite condition and with our limited knowledge it is impossible to reconcile the two truths, though it is the bounden duty of the believer to receive both. The present writer believes that it has been too readily assumed that the Scriptures themselves do not reveal the several points which show the conciliation of God's Sovereignty and man's responsibility. While perhaps the Word of God does not clear up all the mystery (and this is said with reserve), it does throw much light upon the problem, and it seems to us more honoring to God and His Word to prayerfully search the Scriptures for the completer solution of the difficulty, and even though others have thus far searched in vain that ought only to drive us more and more to our knees. God has been pleased to reveal many things out of His Word during the last century which were hidden from earlier students. Who then dare affirm that there is not much to be learned yet respecting our inquiry! (The Sovereignty of God, https://reformed.org/books/pink/index.html?mainframe=/books/pink/pink_sov_08.html)

On 10/20/2019, the sermon, “A Heart for the Lost,” preached by Pastor Joe Rosales, was based on Romans 9:1-5.

The pastor gave a good comment on labels: Some Christians are too fundamentalistic, insisting, like some of the immature and divisive Corinthians, that they have no labels, no creed, because they are “of Christ”:

For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:11-13‬ ‭NASB‬‬)

The point is that these men are all part of the body of Christ, so these factions are divisive fabrications. None of the men listed are at odds with each other. We are all one in Christ. Those who deny any subscription to a creed or confession only need to be asked, “Which Jesus do you believe in?” “Who do you say that Christ is?” (‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16:15‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

In keeping with the sermon’s title, the pastor stressed that Hyper Calvinism is not Calvinism. Paul clearly expresses his longing to see his native people, the Jews, saved, wishing even “that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans‬ ‭9:3‬ ‭NASB‬‬). But Paul also recognizes that it’s ultimately up to God, who “has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Romans‬ ‭9:18‬ ‭NASB‬‬).

The pastor also emphasized that Jesus taught a Limited Atonement, for “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep” (John‬ ‭10:14-15‬ ‭NASB‬‬). Christ died only for His sheep, not for the goats. The term “Limited” Atonement is misleading, however, because, while monergists or Calvinists limit the scope of the atonement, in that it was only for the elect, synergists or Arminians also limit the atonement of Christ, namely its power to save, because it doesn’t become effectual unless the sinner ultimately chooses Christ out of his own free will. So Jesus died even for Judas, but because Judas didn’t believe, his redemption was in vain. So Christ died in vain for all those who end up in hell, because their redemption ticket was never “redeemed” by their free will choice.

On 10/6/2019, the sermon, “God’s Everlasting Love, Part 2,” preached by Pastor Joe Rosales, was based on Romans 8:31-39, and continued from Part 1.

The pastor said that if we truly love God, then we would also love His bride, the church. Some claim they don’t need the church to love God. But that’s a lie; we need God’s people, in part so we can fulfill the numerous “one another” commands in Scripture:

“Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;” Romans‬ ‭12:10‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Be hospitable to one another without complaint.” 1 Peter‬ ‭4:9‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing.” ‭‭1 Thessalonians‬ ‭5:11‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“This I command you, that you love one another.” John‬ ‭15:17‬ ‭NASB‬‬

The Christian life, I’ve often said, is not a solo enterprise.

Another excellent point the pastor made is that the gospel is not an invitation, but an effectual call. God’s love and purpose precede the call to repent and believe, just as regeneration precedes faith. Coming to Christ does not ultimately depend on us,

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls…. So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans‬ ‭9:11, 16‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Contrary to advocates of the “well-meant offer,” which leads to contradictory Calvinism, the gospel is issued by God and the apostles first and foremost as a command, not an invitation, for

those who defend the “well-meant offer” are two-faced in that they seek to maintain conflicting aspects of two contradictory and mutually exclusive systems of salvation. While at times “well-meant offer” defenders appear to be Calvinistic in their belief in God’s sovereign election and particular atonement, they also maintain a belief in the universal desire of God for the salvation of those God predestined to perdition; the reprobate. It is this combination of particularism and pluralism, or simply Calvinism and Arminianism that make up the two faces of Janus. (Sean Gerety, “Janus Alive and Well: Dr. R. Scott Clark and the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel”)

God also “commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts‬ ‭17:30-31‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). Arminians are similarly inconsistent, though neither are necessarily heretical. “An Arminian may be a truly regenerate Christian,” writes Gordon Clark, “in fact, if he is truly an Arminian and not a Pelagian who happens to belong to an Arminian church, he must be a saved man. But he is not usually, and cannot consistently be assured of his salvation. The places in which his creed differs from our Confession confuse the mind, dilute the Gospel, and impair its proclamation” (quoted in https://www.douglasdouma.com/2016/10/03/gordon-clark-and-the-salvation-of-arminians/).

This also relates to the use of theological labels derived from men in church history, i.e., Calvinism (John Calvin) and Arminianism (Jacobus Arminius). Labels can be used responsibly if they refer primarily to the doctrines they represent, rather than to the men who formulated or taught them, although it is still important to study church history and know who these men are and what they taught. Some prefer to use different labels, such as the Doctrines of Grace, or monergism (salvation is solely God’s work) and synergism (man cooperates with God to be saved). Either way, labels are necessary to make important theological distinctions, because everyone calls themselves Christians nowadays, even Mormons. When used responsibly, labels help to specify more precisely what you mean.

The pastor also touched on the means of sanctification. One of the means God uses is the church—people—to edify and build us up, as ‭‭1 Thessalonians‬ ‭5:11 and numerous other verses attest. In a similar vein Martin Luther said that marriage and family are a school of character. God used my own marriage early on to show me how selfish I was, like a well that draws out and brings to the surface deep-rooted sins that need to be mortified.

The pastor also explained that God uses different personalities to build up His church. Luther was a hammer, bold and aggressive enough to defy the emperor and to write the first principles and manifesto of the Reformation. And Melanchthon was the gentle scholar who smoothed out Luther’s rougher spots. But both men were deeply flawed. Luther never fully bridled his temper, which was so vicious that he condemned fellow Protestants like Zwingli as heretics because they didn’t agree with him on the Lord’s Supper, consequently fracturing the Reformation; and “in Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, Luther condemned the violence [of the peasant’s revolt] as the devil's work and called for the nobles to put down the rebels like mad dogs.” Towards the end of his life, Luther also became embittered towards the Jews after repeated failed attempts to evangelize them, and reserved some of his most ungodly expressions for them. As for Melanchthon, he

fell out of favor because of his compromises with the Papists and Reformed on matters of ceremonies, Christ’s presence in the Supper, and the role of human will in conversion. With regard to the compromises with the Papists specifically, Bente writes, “The plan of Melanchthon therefore was to yield in things which he regarded as unnecessary in order to maintain the truth and avoid persecution.”[5] Sadly, his sincere efforts at peace and compromise on matters that he considered insignificant ended up compromising the central truth for which he and Luther had fought. The price of peace with the world by waffling on the central article of faith, justification by grace through faith, also meant uncertainty regarding peace with God the Father in heaven. (https://lutheranreformation.org/history/philip-melanchthon/)

The pastor then defined sanctification as progressive conformity to Christ. There is a growing awareness of our sin as we grow in sanctification. But we also grow in holiness and sin less, “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Philippians‬ ‭2:13‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). When you are truly saved, God regenerates you and “will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them” (Ezekiel‬ ‭36:26-27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). Even so, believers still sin, and should be corrected lovingly unless they stubbornly refuse to repent.

The pastor concluded with Assurance:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Romans‬ ‭8:31-34‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Christians have the supreme privilege of knowing God as Father and Christ as Advocate, rather than as Judge. There’s nothing left to prove! Christ has done it all and paid it all on our behalf.

This is the start of my thoughts and reflections on the Lord’s Day. The sermon, “God’s Everlasting Love,” preached by pastor Joe Rosales, was based on Romans 8:28-39.

One of the foci was sanctification. It’s important for believers to understand that what we go through in this life, including suffering, is necessary, not for our justification, but for our sanctification, and ultimately consummates in our glorification. “The reason believers inevitably suffer in this life is so they can be sanctified because they must wait in a fallen world for Christ to return before they are glorified, not because it’s a condition they need to fulfill for their glorification [or justification]” (“When Protestants Err on the Side of Rome, Part II”):

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him….

And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body….

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Romans‬ ‭8:16-17, 23, 28-30‬ ‭NASB‬‬)

Unbelievers, however, have no such consolation, because it can only be found in Christ. “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke‬ ‭13:3‬ ‭NASB‬‬).

A related theme in the passage is election. My pastor gave the best explanation of foreknowledge I’ve heard so far. Divine foreknowledge does not mean, as Arminians claim, that God foresaw those who would believe in the future based on their free will, as if God had no determinative influence on them. Gordon Clark thoroughly refutes this view in God and Evil: The Problem Solved. Rather than mere detached knowledge, foreknowledge signifies an intimate relation, such as when “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain” (‭‭Genesis‬ ‭4:1‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). It really means that God foreloved us—He intimately knew and loved us in His mind, even before he created us. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you” (Jeremiah‬ ‭1:5‬ ‭NASB‬‬). “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him” (‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1:3-4‬ ‭NASB‬‬). Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism also discusses this in depth.

Another good point the pastor made is that God is not on our side. If He were, He would be sinful and wicked. We therefore need to be on God’s side and get on His terms. Prosperity preaching promotes man-centered self-worship. Our focus must be on glorifying God, not ourselves. Soli Deo Gloria.

Logic also came up. God is logical—God is logic—and thinks according to the laws of logic. A sorites, explains Elihu Carranza, is “a series of propositions in which the predicate of each is the subject of the next.  The conclusion consists of the first subject and the last predicate.  The chain of propositions is arranged in pairs of premises to make explicit the suppressed conclusion, thereby revealing the syllogism.  The validity of the entire chain will depend on the validity of each syllogism in the chain.” The Bible contains many sorites, perhaps most notably:

Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. (‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:15-18‬ ‭NASB‬‬)

One final thought is the importance of order in exegetical preaching. It’s good to start the sermon with the Biblical text, and continuously build and preach from the text, and apply the text throughout. There’s so much to unpack from Scripture that it’s important to stay grounded in the passage. When that happens, the entire sermon becomes a cogent sorites, in which concluding exhortations are more relevant and authoritative because they’re closely and intentionally based on the text.

The sermon ended with Philippians 1:6: “For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”

There was a time when people understood that knowingly holding to contradictory beliefs was immoral. Philosophers and theologians alike strove to present logically consistent systems of thought devoid of any contradictions between their constitutive propositions. With postmodernism’s essentialist declarations concerning anthropology, language, morality, and epistemology, however, contradiction has come to be viewed, ironically enough, as an essential part of human intellection. Systems of thought that purport to be contradiction-free, consequently, are judged to be either hopelessly philosophically naive or arrogant and dishonest. And this, of course, includes religious systems of thought.

Accordingly, the contemporary non-religious world views Christianity as naive and/or dishonest because it asserts that it and it alone is true. Within many professedly Christian churches, the same sentiment is directed against those who assert that certain doctrines are foundationally true, such that a denial of these doctrines indicates that one is lost. Whereas the world demands that Christians abandon our uniqueness and let religious bygones be bygones, many in professedly Christian churches demand that we abandon orthodoxy and let doctrinal bygones be bygones.

In both instances, what is being embraced is the postmodern idea that contradiction is inevitable, even in the pages of God’s Word. Additionally, what is implicitly embraced is the conviction that contradictions, in fact, are good, seeing as they push forward a progressively unfolding and expanding theological dialectic which will never resolve in this life. This open-ended dialectic is seen as the means whereby Christians may be epistemically humbled and led to soften their tone regarding the core doctrines of Christianity.

But Scripture doesn’t support this view of contradictions. In fact, Scriprture consistently teaches that contradictions are evil, wicked. For instance, consider what Paul says in 2nd Cor 1:17 –

Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say “Yes, yes” and “No, no” at the same time?

In this passage, Paul explains that saying yes and no at the same time, and in the same sense, is not morally neutral, it is according to the flesh, or carnal. It is to be, in essence, what James calls “double-minded” in James 1:5-8. He writes –

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Such self-contradictory thinking renders us unstable, unable to think and act in accordance with the truth. Self-contradiction is part and parcel of what is not knowledge at all. In 1st Tim 6:20 Paul writes –

O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge…”

Contradictions, then, are neither profound, enlightening, good, spiritual, or godly. Rather, contradictions are carnal.

WHO CARES?

Some may ask why it is important to point out that contradictions are carnal. There are many reasons we can give, but the following three are among the greatest.

1. False teachers are bitterly opposed to clear thinking. If a teacher trades in contradictory statements regarding his doctrine or his personal life (e.g. whether he is or is not involved in a given sinful relationship or behavior), then we may properly identify him as, at the very least, a threat to the stability of the church. At worst, he is an enemy of God and his church who must be publicly rebuked, renounced, and removed from the pulpit. In either case, he is unfit for the ministry of the Word and should be avoided.

2. Understanding that contradictions are to be eliminated from our thinking will cause us to be more cautious in our doctrine and in our life. The goal of being without any contradictions in our thinking should lead us to strive toward that end, knowing that being consistent in our thinking is not an empty academic exercise but an exercise in godliness.

3. Contradictions are false, and we are to be people of the Truth, who believe the truth, and who are led by the Spirit of Truth to walk in the way of truth.

In regeneration, we are given the mind of Christ. Let us be conformed by his Word to think as he does – without contradictions.

§ III. Valid Genetic Reasoning According to Scripture

Having elaborated on why the genetic fallacy, why it is a fallacy, and why CRT is entirely dependent on it, we now turn to answer the implied claim of CRT proponents that our genetic reasoning is fallacious. Given that Scripture contains no errors, logical or otherwise, we will be appealing to the it to defend genetic reasoning in general, and our own genetic reasoning in particular. For if our method of reasoning is not condoned explicitly or implicitly Scripture, then we must abandon it. It will be demonstrated that our reasoning is not only neither explicitly nor implicitly condemned by Scripture but required by Christians in our analysis of ideas that are purportedly derived from, supportive of, or in harmony with the teaching of Scripture.

Prior to Foucault, Freud, and Nietzsche, the enemies of Christ utilized the genetic fallacy in order to steer people away from the Lord Jesus. For example, in John 7:45-52 we see the fallacy employed by the Jewish leaders. There we read the following –

The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring him?” The officers answered, “No one ever spoke like this man!” The Pharisees answered them, “Have you also been deceived? Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.” Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.”

Whereas the Law of God does not judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning about what he does, the Jewish leaders rejected the claims of and about Christ for two reasons. Firstly, they asserted that the laity did not “know the law” (i.e. they were not rabinically trained) and, therefore, were not competent to assess whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. Ironically, through their fallacious argumentation the Jewish leaders also imply that their criticisms of Christ are correct because they originated with the so-called “learned” men of Israel. As a further point of dramatic irony, the reader by this point in John’s Gospel knows that Nicodemus, one of the elite teachers of Israel trained to “know the law” was woefully ignorant about Christ’s person and work, the doctrine of regeneration in the Old Testament, and the typology of the Old Testament.1 Secondly, the Jewish leaders asserted that Jesus could not be the Christ because “no prophet arises from Galilee.” What is being communicated is not merley that no prophet arises from Galilee geographically, another point which is demonstrably false,2 but what is also implied is that the Lord’s teaching about himself is not to be trusted because it originated with a man whose place of origin, i.e. Galilee, was low on the social totem pole.3

The Jewish leaders of Christ’s day did not differ much in this regard to Nietzsche, for whom the truth of Christianity was refuted by a genealogical analysis – or so he believed – of the origin of its central moral and metaphysical doctrines. What they fail to demonstrate is that the social standing of the people, and of the Lord Jesus as well, provides an unreliable foundation for the claims made about and by him. Simply being a layperson without formal rabbinical training does not render the theological claims one makes false. Likewise, simply being a person who was born into a family of a lower social stature does not render the theological claims one makes false. However, like their modern successors – Nietzsche, Freud, Foucault, and the gamut of CRT theorists, scholars, apologists, and activists – the Jewish leaders irrationally argued that the truth claims they were being presented with were false due to their origin among certain classes of people in society.

Genetic reasoning of the kind engaged in by the Jewish leaders is fallacious, but there is a kind of genetic reasoning exemplified in the thinking of Christ that is not. John 8:39-47 demonstrates how Christ utilized genetic reasoning in his refutation of the false sons of Abraham. There we read –

They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father — even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

The Lord’s argumentation can be expressed as follows –

1. All offspring bear their father’s image. 

2. You are offspring.

3. Therefore, you bear your father’s image.

4. All of Abraham’s offspring do the works of Abraham. 

5. You do not do the works of Abraham. 

6. Therefore, you are not Abraham’s offspring. 

7. All of God’s spiritual offspring, love Me [i.e. Christ]. 

8. You do not love me. 

9. Therefore, you are not God’s spiritual offspring. 

10. All of God’s spiritual offspring hear God’s Word. 

11. You do not hear God’s Word. 

12. Therefore, you are not God’s spiritual offspring. 

13. All who are not the spiritual offspring of God are the spiritual offspring of the devil. 

14. You are not the spiritual offspring of God. 

15. Therefore, you are the spiritual offspring of the devil.

The Jewish leaders’ origin, theologically and morally speaking, was important because it undermined all of their claims. Given that their father was the “father of lies” in whom there is no truth, it follows that they, being his image bearers, were also liars in whom there is no truth. Their origin was important, moreover, because it demonstrated a clear link between the devil and the Jewish leaders. They were doing exactly what their father was doing – lying, opposing the truth, opposing God, and seeking to kill the Holy One of Israel.

Thus, our Lord shows us that appealing to one’s origin in the arena of truth is only proper when the origin and one’s ideas share an essential element. The Jews sought to identify their words about Jesus as true, and his words as false, on the basis of their biological connection to Abraham. However, it is one’s spiritual connection to Abraham – as a person of faith in the Gospel, and as one who works righteousness in accordance with one’s faith in the Gospel – that serves as the basis for claiming Abraham as one’s father. More importantly, God’s universal paternity as Creator, as well as his national paternity as the covenant God of the Jews does not entail his spiritual paternity of those who claim he is their father. Rather, it is only those who are like God morally (i.e. righteous after the image of the Son of God) who can claim that he is their father.

Jesus demonstrates that what is actually the case is that the unbelief and anti-Christ thinking and behavior of these Jews is traceable to the devil. Christ’s reasoning is not fallacious, although it is genetic. Jesus argues that sons bear the image of their father, but the Jews bear neither Abraham nor God’s moral/spiritual image.4 Consequently, they are not of God (i.e. not God’s children). Now those who are not of God do not hear/understand/comprehend/believe the words of God, so the claims made against Christ are by rendered false by this direct connection between the essence of the devil as a murderous liar and the spiritual/moral nature his descendants inherited from him.

If origins are appealed to properly, the one making the appeal must show the direct and unbroken transmission of what makes his opponent’s truth claims false. This is precisely what the Jewish leaders could not, and therefore did not, do, but what Christ could, and therefore did, do. And it is what Christians are called to do when considering the claim that Christianity, or one of its essential doctrines, is false. For as Paul the apostle explains in 1st Corinthians 2:14 –

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

The “natural person,” as Calvin correctly notes, is “any man that is endowed with nothing more than the faculties of nature,” who are “left in a purely natural condition.”5 Fallen man’s problem with understanding and believing the claims of the Christian faith is his unregenerate condition. Apart from possessing a new nature that desires, seeks after, and submits to the truth, the judgment of fallen men leveled against Christianity – namely that it is false – is inevitable. As John Gill explains in his Exposition of the Old and New Testament –

There must be a natural visive discerning faculty, suited to the object; as there must be a natural visive faculty to see and discern natural things, so there must be a spiritual one, to see, discern, judge, and approve of spiritual things; and which only a spiritual, and not a natural man has.6

Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, in their commentary on this passage, further explain that the unregenerate person is “volitionally prejudiced against [the Christian faith], and rejects it in unbelief.”7Consequently, the unregenerate man’s statements made against the faith, in whole or in part, must be judged to be the fruit of an unregenerate and prejudiced mind. Additionally, the denunciation of essential doctrines (e.g. the deity of Christ, the Trinity, penal substitutionary atonement, etc) and the doctrines necessarily implied by the essentials made by self-identified Christians must be judged in the same manner.

For instance, consider the following fictional scenario –

Person A: You know, it’s scary to think about how young your denomination is, being only about 500 years old. The Roman Catholic Church has been around since the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry. 

Person B: So you’re a Roman Catholic? 

Person A: Whether I am or am not a Roman Catholic is irrelevant. Facts are facts. 

Person B: It is not irrelevant. Roman Catholics believe that the teaching of the church is infallible, right? 

Person A: Yes.

Person B: Okay. And they teach that the church was founded upon Peter in Matthew 16, right?

Person A: Yes. But wh –

Person B: And they further teach that Christ promised that the church built upon Peter would not be prevailed against by the powers of hell, correct?

Person A: Yes. But why is any of that relevant?

Person B: It’s relevant because if the Roman church identifies its own teaching as infallible, and that teaching includes the ideas that (a.)the church as it is now is the same church founded by Jesus in Matt 16, and (b.)the gates of hell would not, in any way, prevail against that same church, then it follows that you could not be a Catholic and one who accepts evidence to the contrary. Your essential Roman Catholic beliefs determine what you can or cannot say about the church throughout history. You literally cannot say that the post-New Testament early church was vastly different from the contemporary Roman Catholic church.

A’s belief in the Roman Catholic church’s historical primacy and consistency is not derived from his use of evidence, but is determined by his adherence to Roman Catholic doctrine. If A is a Roman Catholic, he necessarily must assert that the early church’s doctrines are identical to his own. The identity of A, therefore, is not completely irrelevant in our assessment of his truth claims (in the above case, ecclesiastical truth claims).

Seeing as the Roman Catholic believes in a false gospel, he is an unregenerate man. As an unregenerate man, his judgments regarding peripheral doctrines are informed by his his desire to uphold, at all costs, his false gospel as true. Thus, while it may be the case that his judgments regarding peripheral doctrines are supported by arguments utilizing various forms of evidence, such argumentation is not what led him to his conclusions.

§ IV. Conclusion

While genetic reasoning may be utilized fallaciously, it is not the case that all genetic reasoning is fallacious. As we have noted above, genetic reasoning is fallacious when it used to poison the well and, thereby, write off a particular belief with which one does not agree. This is how genetic reasoning was employed by the Jewish leaders during the earthly ministry of Christ, and it is still being used by his enemies today. CRT is built on the genetic fallacy, as it judges ideas and truth claims as true or untrue, good or bad, right or wrong in light of their promulgators’ ethnic, gender, and socio-economic identity.

Non-fallacious genetic reasoning does not only discover and lay bare the origins of a particular truth claim, it demonstrates that there is unbroken link between the truth claim and its origin. When Christ identifies the Jewish leaders as children of the devil he demonstrates that they share essential properties with the devil (e.g. being liars and murderers). What the devil was from the beginning – namely, a liar and a murderer in whom there is no truth – is what his image bearing children are as well. Why did they object to Jesus’ truth claims? Because they were the works that come naturally to children of wrath.

The same holds true in our time. The underlying reason why men reject the faith is because of their identity in Adam. As postlapsarian Adam hid from God,8 so too do his descendants hide from God when he confronts them in their sin.9 As Cain pretended to be ignorant about the righteousness required of him by God, and of his failure to uphold God’s righteousness,10 so too do Cain’s descendants pretend to be ignorant about the truth, and their failure to believe in and uphold God’s truth.11 Simply put: Bad trees bear bad fruit. And it is because bad trees bear bad fruit that we must examine not merely an idea, but also demonstrate the unbroken link between that idea and its source of origin. This is precisely what we have sought to do when warning others about the anti-Christian philosophical foundations of Critical Race Theory.

1 cf. John 3:1-21.

2 The five Galilean prophets in question are Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah, and Elisha.

3 Some scholars argue that the overall perceptions of Galileans by the Jewish leaders was negative, as they were perceived to be unlearned and illiterate simpletons from the country.

4 Regarding the imago dei broadly considered, it is the case that all men bear the image of God as regards the communicable attributes of personality, intellect, and volition, but because of our death in Adam only believers share in the restored image of God/the image of the Son of God (cf. Col 3:1-10 & Eph 4:17-24).

5 “Calvin’s Commentaries,” Bible Hub, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_corinthians/2.htm, Accessed July 13, 2019.

6 http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/gill/co1002.htm, Accessed July 13, 2019.

7 The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010), 135.

8 cf. Gen 3:8-10.

9 cf. Jer 49:7-10; Isa 2:10-11; Matt 25:25; Rev 6:15-17.

10 cf. Gen 4:9.

11 cf. Prov 24:11-12; Mal 1:2, 1:6-7, 2:13-14, 2:17, 3:13-14; Matt 21:23-27.

Many times, when we think of apologetics we think of defending the faith against unbelieving atheists. The reality is however, there are many religious unbelievers who are just as relentless in their attacks against biblical Christianity. We must remember that the disciples had to defend the faith against the religious unbelieving Jews. Therefore, it is important to understand that though our opponents might change, our method of defense stays the same. In a previous article we offered an explanation of the Scripturalist Ad Hominem reply as our presuppositional method and we gave some examples that pertained to atheism. Here we want to explore another example and deal with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Just as atheists attack the Christian worldview by claiming there is no God so too Jehovah’s Witnesses attack the Christian worldview by claiming that Jesus is not God, the second person of the Trinity. Their attacks on the deity of Christ are unrelenting and so we shall provide an internal critique of their theological position by using an ad hominem reply.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was created by Jehovah and then Jehovah used him to create everything else. For the sake of argument, let’s accept their theological position that Jesus is a created being and compare it to their own Bible translation so that we may reduce it to absurdity by deducing from it contradictory propositions. In order to do this let’s review their primary source material and from that we shall construct a categorical syllogism.

According to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract society Jesus is not eternal but had a beginning.  According to them, “The Bible says that Jesus was created, which means that Jesus had a beginning.”[i] In other words, Jesus is not eternal and did not always exist. Although the Jehovah’s Witnesses will attempt to cite passages of scripture in support of this claim, it stands merely as an unsupported assertion which leads directly to a self-contradiction. From this theological position however, we shall construct our minor premise “Jesus is a being that came into existence.”

This should be easy to establish because the Jehovah’s Witnesses readily admit that they believe Jesus came into existence.  However, according to the New World Translation, the official Bible translation of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, speaking of Jesus it reads, “All things came into existence through him and apart from him not even one thing came into existence” (John 1:3). Notice that the first proposition in the verse “all things came into existence through him” is converted to its logical equivalent “apart from him not even one thing came into existence” by changing the quality from “all things” to “one thing” and negating the predicate. In formal logic this is referred to as an obversion and it not only affirms Jesus as Creator in the strongest way possible but it also demonstrates once again that the scriptures exhibit logical form. The translators of the NWT Bible did not fundamentally alter this verse and so we can agree with its plain teaching. We should also notice that the passage says, “all things” and not “all other things.” This will become important later when we look at Colossians 1:15-17 for comparison. For now, though, we can simply infer that if Jesus was a created being who came into existence then he must have come into existence through himself since all things came into existence through him. This verse will serve to construct our major premise “all things that came into existence are created through Jesus.” Now let’s construct our categorical syllogism.

Major Premise: All things that came into existence are created through Jesus

Minor Premise: Jesus is a being that came into existence  

Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is created through Jesus.

In this categorical syllogism we have a valid deduction, but the conclusion is necessarily false because it is self-contradictory. In order for Jesus to be created through himself he would have to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect. This however, is a clear violation of the law of contradiction because “the same attribute [in this case existence] cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject [Jesus] and in the same respect.”[ii] This is a prime example of making a valid deduction from a false premise. We know that one of the premises is false because the conclusion is self-contradictory, and contradictions are false. It is very important to point out that in spite of the conclusion being false it is the inevitable consequence of their theological position.  

Despite this being a valid deduction that Jesus was created through himself the Jehovah's Witnesses flatly denied this conclusion, as they should. Unfortunately, they don’t deny the conclusion for the right reason; that is Jesus was not created because his is the Creator of all things.  Instead, they propose that Jesus was created by Jehovah as the first of his works and then Jehovah created every else through him. They write,

“Jesus is Jehovah’s most precious Son—and for good reason. He is called “the firstborn of all creation,” for he was God’s first creation. (Colossians 1:15) ... This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. Jesus is also the only one whom God used when He created all other things. (Colossians 1:16).”[iii]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses often cite Colossians 1:15-17 in support of this view so let’s consider what their Bible says. The New World Translation reads,

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things, and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,

First, let’s address Colossians 1:15 and the notion that Jesus was God’s first creation because he is called “the firstborn of all creation.” This is one of the most egregious instances of twisting scripture since the Devil quoted Psalms 91:11,12 to Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:6). In that narrative we notice that Jesus’ response was to quote scripture in order to correct his opponent the Devil and so we are apt to do the same. We ought to ask the Jehovah’s Witnesses, “have you not read that it is said of David, the youngest or last born of Jesse, ‘Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn.’ (Psalm 89:27 NWT)? Or have you not read that the Lord God said, ‘as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn,’(Jeremiah 31:9 NWT), although he was the younger brother to Manasseh (Genesis 41:50,51)?” Clearly then, this is a title that does not literally mean first to be born.

When the term firstborn is used in Colossians it does not mean first to be born and it certainly does not mean first created. This is a title given to signify a position of prominence or preeminence. The passage is saying he is the “firstborn” of all creation in the sense that he is preeminent over all of creation because all things were created for him and through him and all things are held together by him. He is before all thing because he existed before all created things. To cite this passage in order to support the Watchtowers teaching that Jesus was created directly by Jehovah and then used to create all other things is nothing short of eisegesis.

However, the Jehovah’s Witness might object and appeal to the fact that the New World Translation actually says, “all other things.” Therefore, we need to point out that the translators of the New World Translation have added the word “other” four times to verses 16 and 17 in order to support the teaching that Jesus was created. The readers need to be informed that the word “other” does not appear in the John 1:3 passage nor should it appear in this passage. That is because the word does not appear in the original Greek text and its addition to the New World Translation Bible changes the original meaning of the passage.

Ron Rhodes, former Jehovah’s Witnesses and author of the book Reasoning from The Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses points out that, “when speaking with a Jehovah’s Witness about Colossians 1:16-17, you might want to point out that the Watchtower’s own Greek interlinear version of the Bible shows that the Greek word panta means ‘all’ things and not ‘all other’ things.”[iv]

Readers should also be informed about the Watchtower’s efforts to further mislead its members by taking the word “other” out of brackets in their latest editions of the New World Translation. In the original copies of the 1984 edition of the New World Translation the word “other” is in brackets, indicating to its readers that it has been added by the translators.

View fullsize

Since its original publication however they have taken the word “other” out of brackets in the latest copies thereby giving the impression that the word is part of the original Greek text of scripture.

Rhodes writes,

It is highly revealing of the Watchtower Society’s dishonesty that the 1950 version of the New World Translation did not put brackets around the four insertions of “other” in the text of Colossians 1:16-17. This made it appear that the word was actually translated from the original Greek text. The Watchtower Society was pressured into putting the brackets around these words in all editions of the New World Translation since 1961 as a result of evangelical scholars openly exposing this perversion of the text of scripture.[v]

It would appear then that the Watchtower Society is using the same old tricks in order to deceive its members. This is certainly not the first and only time that the translators of the New World Translation have altered the Bible in order to support their heretical teachings. Changes within the New World Translation could be listed at great length and the reader should familiarize themselves with as many of the changes as possible. What Christians need to understand is that the NWT is not to be trusted.

The benefit with this particular case of scripture twisting is that by putting the word “other” in brackets in some of the 1984 and earlier editions of the New World Translation, they essentially acknowledged to their members and the rest of the world that it was not part of the original Greek text. This needs to be pointed out to the individual members of the Watchtower Society.

The motive for adding the word “other” should be obvious. It is to support the doctrine that Jesus was created directly by Jehovah and then used to create all other things, which is why this particular passage is cited in their literature. This is why the Jehovah’s Witness will claim that Jesus did not come into existence through himself but was instead created directly by Jehovah.

However, their Bible clearly states in John 1:3, that all things came into existence through Jesus and the passage in Colossians would concur if the word “other” was not added by their translators. We should therefore insist that they read the passage in Colossians without inserting the word “other.” We can ask, “what does the passage actually say, not what do you want it to say?” The passage would read, “16 by means of him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all things, and by means of him all things were made to exist.”

Now that we have harmonized these two passages we can make the categorical proposition “all created things are created through Jesus” (All S are P). This is based off the plain teaching of the New World Translation Bible. The problem however is that the Watchtower teaches that it is all “other” things that came into existence through Jesus and that he was created directly by Jehovah. In other words, Jesus is something that came into existence but not through himself. Therefore, we can make the categorical proposition that “some created thing is not created through Jesus” (Some S are not P).

To say that “all created things are created through Jesus” and “some created thing is not created through Jesus” is to say that (All S are P) and (Some S are not P). These are contradictory propositions. This should be obvious but for the sake of clarity we shall explain why.

In formal or traditional logic there are 4 basic types of categorical propositions.

A: All S are P

I: Some S are P

E: No S are P

O: Some S are not P[vi]

In each of these categorical propositions we must identify both the quality and quantity in order to determine their relationships to one another. The quality of the proposition has to do with whether it is affirmative or negative and the quantity of a proposition has to do with whether it is universal or particular. We notice that the quality of the A and I propositions are affirmative while the quality of the E and O propositions are negative. Likewise, we notice that the quantity of the A and E propositions are universal while the quantity of the I and O propositions are particular. Now the rule of contradiction holds that “contradictory statements are statements that differ in both quality and quantity.”[vii] Here we can illustrate this with the square of opposition.

It is clear then, that A: All S are P or “all created things are created through Jesus” is a universal, and affirmative proposition and O: Some S are not P or “some created thing is not created through Jesus” is a particular, and negative proposition. Therefore, A and O are contradictory propositions because they differ in both quality and quantity.

The first law of Opposition holds that “Contradictories cannot at the same time be true nor at the same time be false.”[viii] This means that one of these propositions must be true and the other must be false. If “All S are P” is true, then “Some S are not P” is necessarily false. In other words, if John 1:3 in the New World Translation is true then the Watchtower’s teaching that Jesus was created by Jehovah is wrong. We should ask the Jehovah’s Witness “Is it true that all things came into existence through him and that apart from him not even one thing came into existence?” If they profess to believe this is true, then they have no rational justification for believing what the Watchtower teaches.

To drive the point home, if Jesus was created then either he was created through himself or he was not created through himself. These are only the only two options. If they say that Jesus was created through himself then they violate the law of contradiction because he would have to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect. However, if they say he was not created through himself then they still violate the law of contradiction because their Bible states that “all created things are created through Jesus” (A: All S are P) and the Watchtower organization claims “some created thing is not created through Jesus” (O: Some S are not P).

The only remedy for this charley horse between the ears is to acknowledge that Jesus was not created at all. If the Jehovah’s Witness wish to disregard the law of contradiction in order to maintain their heretical view of Christ, then they are most likely ignorant of the fact that they must first assume the law of contradiction in order to make a counter argument intelligible. We would remind our reader that “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.”[ix]

[i] "Who Is Jesus Christ? Is Jesus God or God's Son?" JW.ORG. Accessed April 11, 2018. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-study/who-is-jesus-christ/.

[ii] John W. Robbins, “Why Study Logic?”, The Trinity Review (July/August, 1985)

[iii] "Who Is Jesus Christ? Is Jesus God or God's Son? | Bible Teach." JW.ORG. Accessed April 11, 2018. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-jesus-christ/.

[iv] Rhodes, R. (2009). Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House Publishers, p.74 (Kindle version).

[v] Rhodes, R. (2009). Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House Publishers, p.72 (Kindle version).

[vi] “Chapter 5 The Four Statements of Logic.” Traditional Logic, by Martin Cothran, 2nd ed., Memoria Press, 2017, p. 31.

[vii] “Chapter 6 Contradictory and Contrary Statements.” Traditional Logic, by Martin Cothran, 2nd ed., Memoria Press, 2017, p. 40.

[viii] “Chapter 6 Contradictory and Contrary Statements.” Traditional Logic, by Martin Cothran, 2nd ed., Memoria Press, 2017, p. 42.

[ix] John W. Robbins, “Why Study Logic?”, The Trinity Review (July/August, 1985)

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).