Feeds:
Posts
Comments

God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics – Part One

June 14, 2010 by Steve Matthews

This is the first in a series of posts commenting on the book God’s Hammer by Gordon Clark.                                            

Necessity, authority, sufficiency, clarity.  Historically Protestants have considered these to be hallmark characteristics of Scripture, summing them up under the Reformation slogan sola scriptura.  But beginning in the 19th century, the reformed trumpet began to make an uncertain sound.  In 1893, noted Presbyterian minister and scholar Charles Augustus Briggs was suspended by the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. for  teaching that the Bible contains error.  While this was a notable victory, the following decades were not so kind to the Fundamentalist cause, and by the end of the 1920s the PCUSA was firmly in the grip of Modernist ministers preaching a false gospel from a (supposedly) fallible Bible. 

Now the theological debates of a hundred years ago may seem far removed and unimportant to Christians today.  And while it’s tempting to dismiss the Fundamentalist-Modernist conflict over textual criticism, translations and Biblical infallibility as nothing more than a case of pointy headed professors wrangling over words, that would be a big mistake.  The transformation of the PCUSA from a Bible believing church to a tool of the modernists began with an attack on the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of God’s Word.  “Yea hath God said?,” was Satan’s first attack on verbal revelation, and his attacks continue in our day.  Writing in the introduction to God’s Hammer (GH), editor John Robbins comments,

The twentieth century may be a pivotal period in human history, for the doctrines of justification through faith alone and truth through the Bible alone came under such a severe and sustained attack.  That attack, which has been countered by only a few of the professed tens of millions of Christians in America, has come primarily from within the church itself.  It indicated that the wolves are within the sheepfold, and in many cases, are actually posing as shepherds. 

Gordon Clark was one of those few twentieth century theologians who undertook to counter the attacks on Scripture.  And in truth, he did more than simply counter the attacks, with devastating logic he demolished the critical arguments of both modernist and neo-orthodox scholars and demonstrated powerfully from the Scriptures the truth and authority of the Bible.

Over the next several weeks, I’ll be blogging through God’s Hammer chapter by chapter to discuss Clark’s arguments in defense of the Bible.  If you haven’t yet, I urge you to buy and read a copy.  If you’re a long time Clarkian, I urge you to reread it, for God’s Hammer is an apologetic gold mine.  

Comments are welcome.

Posted in Scripturalism, Theology | Tagged | Leave a Comment »

The Word of God and God the Word

June 8, 2010 by Steve Matthews

Christians often refer to the Bible as the Word of God.  And that’s certainly appropriate, for that’s what the Bible claims to be:  God’s inspired verbal revelation.  At the same time the Bible describes Jesus Christ as God the Word,  “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn.1:1).  Is it merely an accident that the term ‘word’ is used of both the Bible and Christ, or is there some connection?  

Writing in his book The Johnanine Logos, Gordon Clark examines the apostle John’s use of the Greek word logos, famously translated ‘Word’ in the first verse of John’s Gospel as a name for Jesus.  Clark then looks at how John uses logos in the rest of his Gospel account and finds after quoting several examples that it always means, “an intelligible proposition [sentence].” So what is the connection between the Logos who is God in verse 1 and the logoi  [plural of logos] that are propositions (sentences) in the remainder of the book?  Clark writes,

The connection is this:  The Logos of verse 1 is the Wisdom of God.  To him his worshippers erected the architectural triumph Hagia Sophia, the church in Constantinople dedicated to the Holy Wisdom of God…Some of this wisdom is expressed in the propositions of the previous list [various verses from John’s Gospel that are said to be logoi].  They are the mind of Christ:  They are the very mind of Christ.  In them we grasp the Holy Wisdom of God.  Accordingly there is no great gap between the propositions alluded to and Christ himself.

The Scriptures are not merely black ink marks on white pages; they are the eternal thoughts of God.  Paul stated, “we have the mind of Christ” (1Cor.2:16).  Christians  have the mind of Christ by understanding and believing the words of Christ recorded in the Scriptures.  And not the words of Christ only, but all the words in all the Scriptures, for, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2Tim.3:16).  To know God the Word, we must be good students of the Word of God.

Posted in Scripturalism, Theology | Leave a Comment »

The Evolving Bruce Waltke Controversy

May 14, 2010 by Steve Matthews

 

 I think that if the data is overwhelming in favor, in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult, some odd group that’s not really interacting with the real world – Bruce Waltke

I admit to being asleep at the wheel as far as the Bruce Waltke/ evolution controversy goes.  In fact, it was just yesterday that I received an email from a friend about this issue.  After getting myself up to speed by reading a transcript of Waltke’s comments here and what others had written about his comments here and here, I was struck by how this purported conservative Evangelical scholar was tripped up by his low view of the Scriptures. 

Waltke’s association with the NIV and TNIV mis-translations indicate a low view of Scripture.  Commenting in his article on Waltke, Paul Eliott wrote,

Waltke’s attitude toward the Bible itself belies orthodoxy. Waltke served on the translation committee of the New International Version of the Bible, and later on the translation committee of the gender-inclusive Today’s New International Version. In 2007, Waltke delivered the W. H. Griffith Thomas Memorial Lectures at Dallas Theological Seminary. He said that all Bible translations (the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation excepted) “are faithful and adequate.” He clarified this by saying that “all translations lead their audience to faith in Jesus Christ, into sound doctrine, and never into heresy.” He then stated that he thinks the best available English translation is Today’s New International Version! A more sensible commentator once accurately described TNIV as a “bastard child of political correctness.”     

Had Waltke a proper Biblical understanding of the doctrine of Scripture, he would have had nothing to do with the NIV or TNIV.  Neither of these translations is based on a sound Greek New Testament text, and neither employs sound translation principles.

Apart from the issue of translations, there is another problem with Waltke’s understanding of the doctrine of Scripture: he fails to understand that the Bible alone is truth.  The opinions of scientists are not truth.  The opinions of historians are not truth.  The views of secular philosophers are not truth.  The Bible calls these things “foolishness” and “empty deceit.” But Waltke makes the mistake of thinking that these things are true, that the [scientific] data for evolution is such that it cannot be denied.  But Christ tells us where we may find truth.  He said, “Your word is truth” (Jn.17:17).  And God’s word tells us how he made the world: out of nothing, in the space of six literal days, and all very good.  

We do not judge the veracity of the Bible by what scientists say, we judge the veracity of what the scientists say by the Bible.  If scientists do not speak according to Scripture, we know their science is wrong.  Or as Isaiah would put it, “there is no light in them.” God’s truth is all truth.  There is no other.

Here’s the April 16, 2010 ABC News account of the Waltke controversy.

By the way, it’s true that in the wake of his leaving Reformed Seminary Orlando, Dr. Waltke has a new job:  giving prosepctive seminary students another good reason to avoid Knox Theological Seminary.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

Tool Time

May 12, 2010 by Steve Matthews

tool: one who is used or manipulated by another – Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary

Featured as the lastest Trinity Review, Richard Bennett’s article “The Roman Catholic Agenda Embedded in the Manhattan Delcaration” is a much-needed exposé of this dangerous, ecumenical document.  Bennett’s main point is that the Manhattan Declaration, while being promoted as a Christian defense of life, marriage and liberty of conscience, is in fact a hard-core Romanist document designed both to advance the socialist agenda of the Roman Catholic Church-State and to draw Evangelicals into the Roman Church itself.  That this is the case should surprise no one, for Rome has a long history of two-faced political maneuvering.  But what I find most distressing about this sordid affair is how leading figures in the Evangelical community are so easily duped into becoming tools of the Romanist agenda.  

Check out the following video to see Baptist tools Mike Huckabee and Chuck Colson promoting the Manhattan Declaration.  

I found a couple of remarks in this segment especially interesting.  At about the 3:15 mark, Colson describes the language of the Manhattan Declaration as “covenantal.”  So according to him, those Evangelicals who have signed the Manhattan Declaration have entered into a covenant with the Roman and Greek Orthodox churches, both of which deny the Gospel.  This is in direct contradiction to Scripture, which enjoins Christians to separate from those who teach false doctrine.  Then Huckabee toward the end – around seven minutes into the video – makes the comment that Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” was inspired, to which Colson adds that it was inspired by God.  Who knew?  I guess Colson agrees with his Romanist buddies on more that just social action.  By promoting the notion of continuing revelation, he’s joined with Rome as a co-belligerent in the attack on the doctrine of Scripture.

Posted in Theology | Tagged | 4 Comments »

Machen on the Inspiration of Scripture

May 10, 2010 by Steve Matthews

The Bible alone is the Word of God.  This is the axiom, the starting point, for the whole system of Christian doctrine.  Since all saving knowledge of God is given in Scripture (man has an innate knowledge of God that does not lead to salvation, see Rom.1:18-23 and WCF I.1) it is critical that the church clearly understand and articulate what the Bible has to say about its own origin and authority.  In the early years of the twentieth century the Bible was under attack by liberals, who, by advancing an erroneous doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible, managed to undermine the authority of the Scriptures in the eyes of many.    J. Gresham Machen would have none of this.  Writing in his book Christianity and Liberalism, Machen commented,

The contents of the Bible, then, are unique.  But another fact about the Bible is also important.  The Bible might contain an account of a true revelation from God, and yet the account be full of error.  Before the full authority of the Bible can be established, therefore, it is necessary to add to the Christian doctrine of revelation the Christian doctrine of inspiration.  The latter doctrine means that the Bible not only is an account of important things, but that the account itself is true, the writer having  been so preserved from error, despite a full maintenance of their habits of thought and expression, that the resulting Book is the “infallible rule of faith and practice.”

The Bible alone is the Word of God, and that Word is truth, infallibly communicated by the human authors of Scripture writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Posted in Scripturalism, Theology | 2 Comments »

God’s Truth is All Truth

April 25, 2010 by Steve Matthews

“All truth is God’s truth,” or so we often hear.  I myself have said this and felt righteous, wise and holy in doing so.  But closer examination reveals a serious problem with this popular maxim: no definition of the word truth.  What does truth mean in this context? Highlighting this problem in a lecture available on The Trinity Foundation website titled “The Ministry of the Trinity Foundation,” Jack Lannom said,

My mistaken belief that all truth is God’s truth was really no different from the idea that all worship is God’s worship.  John Moffat (sic) addressed this idea in an article in The Christian Conscience. ‘ I can imagine Nadab and Abihu talking about the early worship service in the wilderness.  One says to the other, ‘all fire is God’s fire.  God made all fire, therefore it’s all of him.” Or while Moses was up on the mountain, Mount Sinai, the children of Israel could have said to Aaron, “Aaron, all worship is God’s worship.’ ‘ I love this last phrase that John Moffat (sic) says, ‘these analogies have the same deceptive sound of being logical at first, but they are full of the same ambiguity and deceit as the expression all truth is God’s truth.’

These saying – all fire is God’s fire and all truth is God’s truth – are ambiguous and deceitful because the same word is being used to mean different things.  There are many types of fire.  There are campfires, there are brush fires, there’s even a burning lake of fire, but these fires are different things than what God deemed acceptable to himself under the law.  There are many activities that people call worship, but only that worship defined by God is worship proper.  All other so-called worship is really idolatry. 

And so it is with truth.  There are many things people call truth:  scientific truth, historical truth, truth gleaned from personal experience, truth learned from Oprah.  But none of these things are truth as the Bible defines truth.  Christ prayed, “Sanctify them by your truth.  Your word is truth.” 

The Bible alone is the Word of God, therefore the Bible alone is truth.  Those who say “all truth is God’s truth,” are proclaiming that there is truth outside of the Scriptures that man discovers on his own.  But this is false, for we are just as dependent on God for the knowledge of the truth as we are for salvation.  What we should say is, “God’s truth is all truth.” That is the Christian position.

Posted in Scripturalism, Theology | 6 Comments »

Seeing Red

April 2, 2010 by Steve Matthews

There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people. – Adam Smith

One of the great privileges afforded to Christians is that we can, without fear of contradicting ourselves, advocate a free society.  Jesus said, “if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”  Of course, the immediate context of his comment was freedom from sin, not political freedom.  But as surely as Christianity releases men from the wages of sin in the next life, so to it has the effect of releasing them from tyranny in this life.  It was the Protestant Reformation that gave birth to what we now call Western Civilization and, in particular, the United States. 

Since the preaching of the Gospel has largely disappeared in the churches of Europe and America, it should come as no surprise that the political freedom which resulted from that preaching is also disappearing.  We can see this everyday in countless ways, some large and obvious such as the recently passed fascist health care bill, while others, although more subtle, are nevertheless reminders that we are a people losing our freedom. 

A particular pet peeve of mine is the recent trend that has many cities installing red light and speed cameras in their jurisdictions.  This noxious idea, imported from Europe, is spreading like kudzu across our formerly free land.  When I first read about these awful things several years ago, they were thankfully confined to the benighted regions of Western Europe.  But now they’re here on our shores, guarding our safety 24/7.   

Here in Cincinnati, we get a lot of things wrong, but when it comes to red light cameras, I have to give the city props.  Back in 2008 a measure was put on the ballot that would permanently ban the use of red light cameras in Cincinnati…and it passed.  Even the mayor supported the measure.  Of course the ham handed local politicos that supported the cameras didn’t help their cause.  When trying to sell the idea,  they actually tried to convince people that the red light cameras would be a great way to reduce Cincinnati’s budget shortfall.  Good grief! Do these people know nothing about electoral politics?  Red light cameras are all about safety, not hosing people down to cover budget shortfalls most likely caused by reckless spending.  Well, if nothing else, I suppose they deserve credit for being honest.  When the next budget crisis hits, I’m sure they won’t make that mistake again.

As a bumper sticker of recent origin states, we’re now one nation under surveillance.  Red light cameras are a sure sign of the trend that governments no longer see themselves as servants of the people, but rather as their masters.    Next time you get in your car, remember that Big Brother may be watching, and he’s sending you a ticket for the privilege.

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

Is the Bible a Reliable Book?

March 31, 2010 by Steve Matthews

While rereading Gordon Clark’s God’s Hammer, I was impressed with the forward written by one of the Bible’s great recent champions, Harold Lindsell.  Lindsell writes,

At the heart of the Christological discussion lies the question:  From whence do we get our knowledge about the person and work of Jesus Christ?  The answer is simple enough.  The only Jesus the Church has known or can know is the Jesus of Scripture.  Thus if Scripture tells us what we need to know about the second person of the Trinity, we are still left with another question:  Is the source (i.e. the Bible and its sixty-six books) from which we get out knowledge about Jesus a reliable book?  This opens the door to three possibilities:

1. The Bible is free from all error in the whole and in the part.

2. The Bible is free from error in some of its parts, but it is false in other parts.

3. The Bible is totally unreliable and cannot be depended on for any truth.

Whoever chooses any one of these propositions depends on some basic presupposition from which the inquirer starts.  In our modern world there are basically two ways men write theology, and each involves a presupposition which ends up in quite different ways. 

In all probability a majority of the scholars in the West today would choose option 2. Marxists and many people who adhere to the Unitarian Universalist denomination would more likely choose  option 3.

But whoever writes theology properly starts with the presupposition that the Bible is a divine book.  They do not deny that there were human authors who were involved in the inscripturation of the Word of God.  The writers of Holy Writ were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit so that they were kept from writing anything that was false.  The divine authorship by the Holy Spirit guaranteed that the final product would be the errorless Word of God even as the historical Jesus was the sinless Son of God who was conceived by the same Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary.  Since God cannot lie, no part of Scripture is false.  The omnipotent God of Scripture has not stuttered in his speech.

There is no more important doctrine that the doctrine of Scripture.  Get it right, your understanding of other doctrines will tend to be sound.  Get it wrong, and you’re hopelessly lost in a sea of subjectivity.  Those who claim Christ while attacking his Word are like the double minded men of James.  Unstable in all their ways, they will receive nothing from the Lord.

Posted in Scripturalism, Theology | 2 Comments »

Big Surprise, the Health Care Bill Passes

March 24, 2010 by Steve Matthews

This past weekend Congress used the Lord’s day, not to worship God, but to further the cause of its true god, the state.  The monstrous health care bill was passed by Congress Sunday and signed into law by President Obama on Tuesday.  None of this should be surprising.  The Democrats who sponsored the legislation are consistent, overt, big-government-loving socialists, while their Republican opponents are somewhat inconsistent, covert, big-government-loving socialists.  As John Robbins once commented to me, in controversies the more consistent party tends to win and the less consistent party tends to lose.  As much as I hate to admit it, Democrats are the more logically consistent party.  They love socialism and aren’t afraid to let that be known.  The Republicans, they honor limited government with their lips, but their hearts are far from it.

Posted in Politics | Tagged | 3 Comments »

Road to Recovery – CNBC.com

December 16, 2009 by Steve Matthews

Here’s Ron Paul’s Tuesday Dec. 15 appearance on CNBC. He discusses the current financial crisis and the role the Federal Reserve has played in bringing it about. One of the key problems with the Fed is that it, rather than the market, is entrusted with setting interest rates. Paul comments at about the 3:30 mark that in a sound economy, capital for economic growth should come through savings, but the Fed’s artificially low interest rates, which are meant as a stimulus to the economy, actually hinder it because low interest rates discourage savings and healthy capital formation.
 

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Road to Recovery – CNBC.com“, posted with vodpod

 

Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »