Martyred for the Gospel

Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]

Collect of the Day

The Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany.
The Collect.

O LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy Church and household continually in thy true religion; that they who do lean only upon the hope of thy heavenly grace may evermore be defended by thy mighty power; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Daily Bible Verse

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Incarnation Part 10: The Necessity of the Deity of Christ

"The ecclesiastical situation is similar to the political, where many Americans have advocated this or that part of communistic propaganda without knowing its source and aims. 

But put the question thus:  If the Virgin Birth is not an historical event, and if the body of Christ did not come out of the tomb, and if the Scriptures are often in error, what hope is there of long maintaining the deity of Christ?  Indeed, can one be said truly to believe in Christ if he denies these things?"   --Dr. Gordon H. Clark

The following words of Dr. Gordon H. Clark are a telling indictment of the current state of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches even in so-called "orthodox" or "conservative" Presbyterian denominations.  In fact, his words are almost prophetic since Dr. Clark passed away in 1985.  The situation today is even worse that it was in the mid 1980s.

Although the present temper of the churches with their doctrinal laxity and ecumenical obsession does not issue in explicit attacks on the Trinity, it would be a mistake to conclude that this doctrine more than others enjoys uniform acceptance.  Whether the Virgin Birth is rejected as an impossible biological miracle, or whether the creeds are eviscerated by making them symbolic, pointers, or myths, the very nature of the Godhead is called into question.
An attack against the citadel is not always frontal.  Sometimes the outer defenses are first put out of commission, one by one;  sometimes the foundations are undermined; sometimes the supplies are cut off.  This is not to suggest that all those who attack some doctrine or other intend to weaken their testimony to the deity of Christ.  It does not even imply that all those who deny the Virgin Birth are conscious enemies of trinitarianism.  The ecclesiastical situation is similar to the political, where many Americans have advocated this or that part of communistic propaganda without knowing its source and aims.
But put the question thus:  If the Virgin Birth is not an historical event, and if the body of Christ did not come out of the tomb, and if the Scriptures are often in error, what hope is there of long maintaining the deity of Christ?  Indeed, can one be said truly to believe in Christ if he denies these things?  Suppose one should say, I believe Napoleon was a real historical character who actually lived; but I reject the legendary accretions which say he put an end to the French revolution, became Emperor, fought Spain, Italy, Australia, invaded Russia, lost the battle of Waterloo, and was exiled on St. Helena.  But of course I believe in Napoleon!
Is this any more silly than to say, I believe in Jesus Christ, but of course miracles are impossible and the story of the resurrection is a kerygmatic myth?
There is either one Christ or there is none.  If Jesus was not the eternal Son of God, equal in power and glory with the Father, then let's have done with all talk about Christianity.  Let us admit honestly that we are Unitarians, Jews, Buddhists, or humanists.  But not Christians.  For the historical Jesus said, Upon this rock, of the deity of Christ, I will build my Church.  Some other organization may call itself a church, but it is not his.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  (Unicoi:  Trinity Foundation:  2001).  Pp. 34-35.

The doctrine of the incarnation of the eternal Logos in the human person of Jesus Christ is under attack on many fronts today, not least of which is the oblique attack on the doctrine of the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture, the infallibility of Scripture, and the inerrancy of Scripture.  Some Evangelical theologians who still wish to be known as Evangelicals claim to believe in the same doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture as Warfield and Hodge but on further examination they have changed the meaning of the term to fit with their implicit acceptance of neo-orthodoxy.  Since everything we know about Jesus Christ and the trinity is logically deduced from the Scriptures, it is a serious departure to change the meaning of a theological term that has traditionally been understood as the fact that God literally inspired every jot and tittle of Scripture and every single word of Scripture such that even quotes from pagan poets and apocryphal books are a God breathed record and meant to convey a propositional truth.  In fact, Scripture is not analogical but propositional.  That is, God reveals His written word to us in logical, rational, and propositional form so that a system of dogmatic truths can be deduced from the Scriptures:

6.  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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. (2 Tim. 3:15–17, Gal. 1:8–9, 2 Thess. 2:2) . . . 
Westminster Confession of Faith.  Chapter 1:6

This is not to say that the Bible contains no analogies, no metaphors, no similes, no parables, no poetry, and no apocalyptic material.  Far from it.  But what it does mean is that behind every parable, every metaphor, every analogy there is a proposition that can be logically deduced from the text by a good exegesis of the text.  The Evangelical method of exegesis is the historical and grammatical method, not the neo-orthodox method where the Bible is simply a record or analogy of revelation and not revelation itself.  When the Westminster, California and Westminster, Philadelphia theologians say that only God knows the system of theology in His incomprehensible mind and we only have an analogical system of theology, they are in effect--whether they realize it or not--saying that the Bible is not really God's inspired Word in every single word at every single point but instead the Bible is merely a human record or a framework of God's unknowable revelation in God's mind.  Their position is that there is no single point at which God's written Word, the Holy Scriptures, and the system of theology in God's mind coincide.  Not one.  This is nothing more than neo-orthodoxy.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark came under attack when he was a professor at the fledgling Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania because he dared to stand for the classical view that the Bible is univocally the very inspired words of God in every single jot and tittle, every word.  It was Dr. Clark's position that if we know anything that is true, then God must know that same truth just as we know it and vice versa.  If we can know nothing God knows then obviously we can never know the truth whatsoever.  Does God know that David was the king of Israel, that Jesus Christ was literally and physically raised from the dead or that 2 + 2 = 4?  And it logically follows if we know those same truths, then we know what God knows on that single point of coinciding truth as a propositional statement.  This does not imply that we are omniscient nor that we are prying into the secret mind of God since revelation is not secret but revealed!  (Romans 16:25-27; Deuteronomy 29:29).  All truth originates in God's mind, not in empirical science, logical positivism, rationalism, or a blank tabula rasa or blank tablet.

The doctrine of the incarnation is intimately tied to the doctrine of the Trinity.  In fact, the early church had not fully developed their understanding of the biblical propositions and through a series of church synods and councils further deductions from Scripture were made so that it became apparent that in order to sustain the doctrine of Christ as both God and man there must in fact be three Persons within the one divine being, divine nature, or Godhead.  Three personal distinctions within one divine being or nature does not imply three separate gods, however, because this would violate the monotheism of the Hebrew shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and other proof texts.  (Mark 12:29; Deuteronomy 4:35; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

As Dr. Clark said many times, the Westminster Confession of Faith orders the doctrines of the propositional system in a descending order of importance.  The first three doctrines are:  1. Holy Scripture.  2.  The Holy Trinity.  3. Predestination.  Yet all three of these primary Presbyterian doctrines today are under attack in Evangelical denominations and Evangelical seminaries.  Creation is chapter 4 and Providence is in chapter 5.  Some churches just completely ignore these foundational doctrines and refuse to preach them.  Others outright attack them.  These preliminary doctrines lead up to the doctrine of the incarnation in chapter 8, Of Christ the Mediator.

So how can God be one God in essence and nature and yet three distinct persons within the one Godhead?  There is so much material on the doctrine of the Trinity that it would take several lifetimes to read and study it all in detail.  Here I will try to summarize the key points of the doctrine from a Clarkian and Scripturalist perspective and utilizing the classical Calvinist and Reformed theologians.

Since it is Scripture that defines God and His attributes as given in propositional form in the inspired texts, no doctrine of the Trinity can afford to dismiss Scripture as merely a record of God's revelation rather than revelation itself.  Although it is true that justification by faith alone or Sola Fide is the doctrine that Martin Luther said determines whether a church stands or falls, all the other doctrines in the Bible are equally important.  Without the doctrine of Scripture as fully inspired of God one cannot deduce the doctrine of justification in the first place.  The same can be said for the doctrine of the trinity and the doctrine of the incarnation.  Both of these doctrines are deduced from Scripture.  This is why Scripture or Sola Scriptura is primary in the Calvinist or Presbyterian system of dogma.  Every other doctrine flows out of Sola Scriptura.  Once the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy are undermined or rejected, everything else collapses.  There is no Christianity left--none at all.

To introduce the subject this treatise will begin with a chronological or historical approach, though eventually it will perforce become more logical than historical. At any rate we start with the Old Testament. This historical approach is not only convenient; it is pedagogically necessary also. Seminary students today, unless they came from Christian grade schools and high schools, have had little Scriptural or catechetical instruction. Accordingly, since the material out of which the doctrine of the Trinity is constructed is the Scriptural data, such passages must of necessity be kept in mind or else the discussion loses significance. Like any other treatise on the Trinity this one does not profess to give all the relevant material; it does profess to give more than some other volumes on Systematic Theology give. But the student must do some spade work of his own and is urged to search the Scriptures, for in them ye think (and think correctly) ye have eternal life.  [John 5:39].

Gordon H. Clark. The Trinity (Kindle Locations 77-83). The Trinity Foundation.

The biblical evidence for the doctrine of the trinity is extensive but the doctrine is only explicitly taught in the New Testament.  In Genesis 1:26 God says, Let us make man in our image.  Some have advocated the view that this verse teaches the trinity because the Hebrew word for God in that verse is Elohim, which is a plural word according to the Hebrew grammar.  But most scholars have interpreted this use of the word Elohim as a majestic plurality and not as a reference to the trinity:

אֱלֹהִים2570 noun masculine plural (feminine 1 Kings 11:33; on number of occurrences of אֵל, אֱלוֺהַּ, אֱלֹהִים compare also Nesl. c,) 1 plural in number.
a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power....
From Biblehub.com's Strong's numbering link.

I could go through all of the biblical data but I think any systematic theology from a Reformed perspective can do that adequately.  Also, you can read Dr. Clark's book, The Trinity, which is available in ebook and paperback at the Trinity Foundation site.

The needed emphasis on the unity of God precluded any understanding of the Godhead as a Trinity. There were hints, however. The plural Elohim might have suggested some sort of plurality in the divine being; but with the idea of three absent, and no explanation given, it was natural to understand the word as a plural of majesty. But may we not suppose that the use of the name Jehovah three times and three times only in Numbers 6:24-26 and Daniel 9:19 is something more than a rhetorical or liturgical flourish? The same phenomenon occurs also in Isaiah 33:22.
Some theologians see more Old Testament anticipations of the Trinity than others do. I. A. Dorner (System of Christian Doctrine, Volume I) surely overdoes it. He not only takes the frequent use of Davar as indicative of the Logos, he even sees this Word in Genesis 1:3, 6, 9 (God said). He also mentions Psalm 33:6, “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made;” Psalm 107:20, “He sent his word.” Rather obviously the ancient Hebrews could not see the Trinity in Genesis one; but Psalm 107 indeed suggests some sort of plurality.

Gordon H. Clark. The Trinity (Kindle Locations 90-104). The Trinity Foundation.

As this discussion will be lengthy, I hope the reader will pardon me for postponing the discussion of the Athanasian Creed until later.  Also, in a future post, since I came from a Pentecostal background, I want to spend a little time discussing the oneness Pentecostal view of the trinity and the incarnation and show why their view is not only heretical but self contradictory.  The oneness Pentecostal will say that Jesus is God.  But does their view lend itself to the full and complete deity of Jesus Christ?

Index to posts on Clark's view of the Incarnation.

Saturday, July 01, 2017

Incarnation Part 9

“Ectypal knowledge is true, but analogical. An analogy is parallel to, but does not intersect the original.”  R. Scott Clark.  Posted in the Puritan Board, “Analogically, Univocally, and Equivocally.”

“That there is a most important qualitative difference between the knowledge situation in the case of God and the knowledge situation for man cannot possibly be denied without repudiating all Christian theism. God is omniscient; his knowledge is not acquired, and his knowledge, according to common terminology, is intuitive while man’s is discursive.”  Gordon H. Clark

A Theological and Scripturalist Defense of Gordon H. Clark’s Two Person View of the Incarnation
Part  9
By Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.

I promised in my last post to delve into the doctrine of the Trinity.  Unfortunately the information in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity and how that relates to the Incarnation is a huge quantity of material the quality of which may or may not always be good.  That’s intended to be a pun, by the way.  While the following excursion may not seem at first glance to be related to the doctrine of the incarnation, I will follow the Clarkian Scripturalist view that all the propositions in a system of propositional truth are interrelated and all the parts fit together in harmony and consistency.  That’s why the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Incarnation are good and necessary deductions that are not divorced from the rest of the system of theology deduced from the Bible.  (See: Westminster Confession of Faith 1:6).

This week I was listening to the first of four Heidelcast posts by Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary, California.  During that lecture Scott Clark correctly distinguished between the sui generis of God and man as two different classes of beings.  Man is not God and God is not man.  However, during the lecture Scott Clark went off in what can only be called a neo-orthodox direction.  (See:  I Am That I Am, Part 1).  Scott Clark contends that we can know absolutely nothing that God knows just as God knows it.  Additionally, R. Scott Clark advocates that God’s theology and what is revealed in the Bible never intersect at any single point.  In short, the implication plainly stated is that the Bible is not God’s inspired Word nor is it the theology God knows.  Two parallel lines never intersect here or in eternity and thus the creature can know nothing God knows except by analogy.  R. S. Clark contends further that there is not a quantitative difference between God’s knowledge and our knowledge but rather there is a qualitative difference between man’s knowledge and God’s knowledge.  But I would like to know what this qualitative difference is?  Words need to be carefully defined.  

According to R. Scott Clark the qualitative difference is that we are creatures and God is the Creator.  We are also affected by the sinful nature and the noetic effects of that sinful nature.  R. S. Clark then contends that there is no quantitative difference between man and God because it is impossible for man to know anything that God knows.

But Gordon H. Clark contended that the difference between God and the creature is not only qualitative but quantitative.  However, even that is a bit of an oversimplification because Gordon Clark also said that man thinks discursively and is subject to the linear progression of time.  One thought passes to the next.  But in God’s eternal mind there is no passing of time and therefore God does not think in linear progression of time or one thought after another.  God knows all the propositions that can be known and all the relations between the propositions in that system of propositional truth in His mind and He knows them all at the same time.  So Gordon Clark did not confuse the creature with the Creator as his opponents continually assert.  It is fairly easy to demonstrate this from Clark’s own writings.  The fact of the matter is that Gordon Clark did not reject the qualitative difference between God and the creature because he distinguished between man’s knowledge as discursive and God’s knowledge as intuitive:

The professors above referred to assert, “there is a qualitative difference between the contents of the knowledge of God and the contents of the knowledge possible to man” (The Text, 5:1). That there is a most important qualitative difference between the knowledge situation in the case of God and the knowledge situation for man cannot possibly be denied without repudiating all Christian theism. God is omniscient; his knowledge is not acquired, and his knowledge, according to common terminology, is intuitive while man’s is discursive. These are some of the differences and doubtless the list could be extended. But if both God and man know, there must with the differences be at least one point of similarity; for if there were no point of similarity, it would be inappropriate to use the one term knowledge in both cases. Whether this point of similarity is to be found in the contents of knowledge, or whether the contents differ, depends on what is meant by the term contents. Therefore, more specifically worded statements are needed.

Gordon Clark. God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics (Gordon Clark) (Kindle Locations 651-659). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

G. H. Clark contended that Van Til’s views amount to an equivocation or waffling back and forth between Reformed orthodoxy and Barthian neo-orthodoxy:

To avoid doing an injustice to Van Til and his associates, it must be stated that sometimes they seem to make contradictory assertions. In the course of their papers, one can find a paragraph in which they seem to accept the position they are attacking, and then they proceed with the attack. What can the explanation be except that they are confused and are attempting to combine two incompatible positions? The objectionable one is in substantial harmony with Existentialism or Neo-orthodoxy. But the discussion of the noetic effects of sin in the unregenerate mind need not further be continued because a more serious matter usurps attention. The Neo-orthodox influence seems to produce the result that even the regenerate man cannot know the truth.

Gordon Clark. God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics. (Gordon Clark) (Kindle Locations 623-628). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

Moreover, R. Scott Clark and the Van Tilian theologians claim to derive their theology of analogy from Francis Turretin and begrudgingly acknowledge their debt to the theology of Thomas Aquinas’s view that theology is an analogical system rather than a system of propositional truth.  But it turns out that much of their theory is derived from Karl Barth and Soren Kierkegaard.  Kierkegaard was a huge influence on Barth and is usually identified as the father of modern existentialism and neo-orthodoxy.  It could be inferred that this theology came to certain of the Van Tilians through Martin Heinecken, a liberal Lutheran scholar from the mainline liberal Lutheran denomination called the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  In my re-reading of one of my Arminian systematic theology books from college this morning I came across this account from Millard Erickson of Barth’s theology of total transcendence and the relationship between Kierkegaard and Barth:

Karl Barth’s Model

In the twentieth century, a new major emphasis on God’s transcendence appeared in the thought and writing of Karl Barth, particularly in his early work, and most notably in his Romerbrief.  In that work he emphasized the Unknown God.  God is altogether other; immensely above the rest of the deities of the world of Paul’s day and all the deities which modern thought creates.

God is not an aspect of man or the best of human nature.  He is separated from man by an infinite qualitative distinction.  There is within man no spark of affinity with the divine, no ability to produce divine revelation, no remainder in him of a likeness to God.  Moreover, God is not involved in nature or conditioned by it.  He is free from all such limitations.  Nor is he really known by us.  He is the hidden one; he cannot be discovered by man’s effort, verified by man’s intellectual proofs, or understood in terms of man’s concepts.  Barth’s vigorous attack upon all forms of natural theology was an expression of his belief in divine transcendence.  Revelation comes only on God’s own initiative; and when it does come, it is not mediated through general culture.  It comes, in Barth’s language, vertically from above.  Man is never able in any way to make God his possession.

In the judgment of many theologians, including even the later Barth himself, Barth’s early view of transcendence was extreme.  Taken in its most literal form, it seemed to virtually cut off any real possibility of communication between God and man.  There was too severe a distinction between God and man . . .

Soren Kierkegaard’s Nonspatial Model

Soren Kierkegaard’s conception of divine transcendence was in many ways influential on Karl Barth.  While there are a few extreme elements in Kierkegaard’s thought, he offers some genuinely creative ways of expressing the idea of transcendence.  Two of them are what Martin Heinecken has expounded under the labels of qualitative distinction and dimensional beyondness.

By qualitative distinction is meant that the difference between God and man is not merely one of degree.  God is not merely like man but more so.  They are of fundamentally different kinds. Thus God cannot be known by taking the highest and best elements within man and amplifying them.  Being qualitatively distinct, God cannot be extrapolated from the ideas that man has nor from the qualities of man’s personality or character.  

Millard Erickson.  Systematic Theology.  (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985).  Pp. 314-315.

From the above it can be legitimately inferred that if the Bible is not a logical and propositional revelation and communication between God and man is virtually and actually impossible, then the Bible is not really God’s inspired Word.  Van Tilians contradict themselves when they say that revelation is possible but only analogically so.  In fact, even though they acknowledge that the Bible is a rational revelation, they contend that logic is not essential to revelation.  Gordon H. Clark, on the other hand, said that the Bible teaches that God is Logic (John 1:1) and that because man is made in God’s image and likeness, man is an intellectual and logical and rational being.  (Genesis 1:27).  G. H. Clark rejected the view that the Bible is analogical revelation because the Bible only uses analogies and metaphors in certain passages of Scripture.  Not everything in the Bible is an analogy and even where there are analogies and metaphors utilized behind those analogies and metaphors there is a univocal and propositional truth.  What is analogical about the statement that David was the king of Israel?  Is that a straightforward proposition of historical fact or is it a mythological and analogical truth that only man knows?  After all, man and God cannot know the same thing.  Does God know that 2 + 2 = 4?  Or does man alone know 2 + 2 = 4?

R. Scott Clark continually uses the mantra of ectypal and archetypal knowledge as it was expressed by Francis Turretin.  He accuses Gordon H. Clark of ignoring this qualitative distinction between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge.  But as I have shown above, Dr. Gordon H. Clark did acknowledge a qualitative and quantitative difference between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge.  I would contend, however, that R. Scott Clark and other Van Tilians are reading their existentialist views into Francis Turretin and their dialectical and Barthian views cannot be proved from Turretin.  That’s because Turretin did not reject propositional revelation.  I also discovered that Turretin only mentions the ectypal and archetypal distinction in the Institutes of Elenctic Theology in regards to his rejection of rationalism, not as an acceptance of a Hegelian dialectic philosophy or a Kantian noumenalism where God is so completely transcendent as to be unknowable:

VI. True theology is divided into: (1) infinite and uncreated, which is God’s essential knowledge of himself (Mt. 11:27) in which he alone is at the same time the object known (epistēton), the knowledge (epistēmōn), and the knower (epistēmē), and that which he decreed to reveal to us concerning himself which is commonly called archetypal; and (2) finite and created, which is the image and ectype (ektypon) of the infinite and archetypal (prōtotypou) (viz., the ideas which creatures possess concerning God and divine things, taking form from that supreme knowledge and communicated to intelligent creatures, either by hypostatical union with the soul of Christ [whence arises “the theology of union”]; or by beatific vision to the angels and saints who walk by sight, not by faith, which is called “the theology of vision”; or by revelation, which is made to travellers [viz., to those who have not yet reached the goal and is called “the theology of revelation”] or the stadium).

Francis Turretin.  Institutes of Elenctic Theology.  Vol. 1.  Ebook.  “First Topic:  Theology”.  Translated by George Musgrave Giger.  James Dennison, editor.  (Phillipsburg:  Presbyterian and Reformed, 1997).  P. 49 in the ebook edition.

Reason is not the principle of faith. 

V. The reasons are: (1) The reason of an unregenerate man is blinded with respect to the law (Eph. 4:17, 18; Rom. 1:27, 28; 8:7). With respect to the gospel, it is evidently blind and mere darkness (Eph. 5:8; 1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, it must be taken captive that it may be subjected to faith, not exalted that it may rule it (2 Cor. 10:3–5*). (2) The mysteries of faith are beyond the sphere of reason to which the unregenerate man cannot rise; and, as the senses do not attempt to judge of those things which are out of their sphere, so neither does reason in those things which are above it and supernatural. (3) Faith is not referred ultimately to reason, so that I ought to believe because I so understand and comprehend; but to the word because God so speaks in the Scriptures. (4) The Holy Spirit directs us to the word alone (Dt. 4:1; Is. 8:20; Jn. 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15, 16; 2 Pet. 1:19). (5) If reason is the principle of faith, then first it would follow that all religion is natural and demonstrable by natural reason and natural light. Thus nature and grace, natural and supernatural revelation would be confounded.

Turretin, p. 64.  Ebook edition.

It should first be pointed out that Turretin predates both Kierkegaard and Barth.  Secondly, rejecting rationalism as the basis for faith is not the same thing as rejecting the Bible as an axiom which asserts a logical and propositional revelation.  Every theology has a starting point.  To start with God and not the Bible is to start with an unknown and undefined God.  The Bible, even according to Turretin, is not an irrational book.  Instead reason is necessary to understand the propositional revelation:

III. Having established this point, I say that to reason belongs the judgment of discretion in matters of faith, both subjectively (because it belongs to the intellect alone to know and distinguish these matters of faith) and normally; and indeed with respect to the truth of conclusions in all propositions (whether known by nature or by revelation), but with respect to the truth of propositions only in those known by nature and even then with this threefold caution. (1) That the judgment of reason not be considered as necessary, as if theology could not do without it. (2) That the word of God (where also these truths are revealed) be considered always as the primary rule and reason as the secondary. (3) That when the word adds something unknown to nature to a thing known by nature, then we should not judge of it by nature or reason, but by the word (not that the word and reason are at variance, but because reason is perfected by the word). But in things known only by revelation (as the mystery of the Trinity, of the incarnation, etc.), the only rule is the word of God, beyond or above which we must not be wise. 

IV. The question is not whether the mysteries of faith are above reason or whether reason can reach them. For we readily grant that there are things which far surpass the comprehension not only of men, but even of angels the disclosure of which was a work of supernatural revelation. We also grant that reason is not only incapable of discovering them without a revelation; not only weak in comprehending them after being revealed; but also slippery and fallible (readily pursuing falsehood for truth and truth for falsehood), and never believing the word of God and its mysteries unless enlightened by the grace of the Spirit. Rather the question is—Is there no use at all for it, and should we entirely reject the testimony of reason, as often as the truth or falsity of any doctrine is to be judged? This our opponents hold and we deny.

Turretin, p. 69.  Ebook edition.

Modernists and Socinians use reason to deconstruct Christianity because they also reject supernatural revelation.  So that was Turretin’s concern.  The problem with the Van Tilians is that they falsely accuse Gordon H. Clark of rationalism, which could not be further from the truth.  In fact, Clark begins with the axiom of Scripture.  Since it is Scripture that affirms that man is a rational creature unlike any of the other creatures and that God is Logic, it follows that reason is not to be rejected in deducing a propositional system of theology from the Scriptures.  If, as the Van Tilians contend, there can be no communication between God and man, then it would follow that Jesus in His incarnation as a real human person could not know anything God knows either.  Man is the image of God and God’s image is logic.

As these are complicated matters I will comment more on the doctrine of God and the Trinity in the next post and develop Dr. Clark’s view of propositional thinking from the Athanasian Creed and from the Scriptures as that relates to both the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Book Review: Calvin and the Whigs: A Study in Historical Political Philosophy

Book Review:  Calvin and the Whigs:  A Study in Historical Political Philosophy

“Like all other knowledge, our knowledge of God consists of certain propositions or truths. No doubt it is true that “that which God reveals of himself...is so rich and deep [presumably Bavinck means extensive and complicated] that it can never be fully known by any human individual.” But this is not because the knowledge of God is a peculiar and different type of knowledge: It is because life is too short to gain an understanding of the Bible. The defect lies in the shortness of human life, and often in the mediocrity of the man, not in the understandability of the revelation, for all Scripture is profitable for doctrine.”

Gordon H. Clark. The Trinity (Kindle Locations 1529-1533). The Trinity Foundation.

Ruben Alvarado.  Calvinism and the Whigs:  A Study in Historical Political Philosophy.  (Aalten:  Pantocrator Press, 2017).

The author of this work of historiography kindly sent me a review copy of the book.  But in keeping with my commitment to offer solid critical reviews as I have done before, I will simply say what I truly think.  His book purports to explicate the Huguenot point of view of political philosophy and to survey the evolution of political constitutionalism from the divine right of kings to a constitutionalism based on the Presbyterian or Calvinist view of political philosophy as advocated by the French Huguenots and their influence on the Dutch Reformed form of government as it existed under the Calvinist view of constitutionalism.  It is the thesis of the book that modern concepts of natural law are a departure from a more Christian worldview and political constitutionalism which, under the social contract theory of Hugo Grotius and John Locke, deteriorated into the secularist and anti-Christian civil religion of modernity.

As I am no expert in historiography I will only speak to what I can legitimately discern and deduce from the book based on the Calvinism of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark as I can best understand his views.  At the outset I should acknowledge that I think Dr. Clark would have agreed that John Locke’s political philosophy and social contract theory ultimately leads to totalitarianism.  On that I can wholeheartedly agree with the author.

However, I should also point out that in my short life and due to the work load I have, I cannot claim to have time or resources to give a more detailed critique and review of Mr. Alvarado’s book.  While the quote from Dr. Clark above pertains to Bavinck’s doctrine of the unknowability of God, I think it also applies to how much learning is possible in this life.  It is not that I cannot learn more political philosophy and historiography but that in my short life of 57 years that has not been the primary focus of my personal studies after college and seminary.

I was troubled a bit by his giving credit in the foreward to the book to both Peter Leithart and Gary North for reviewing the manuscript.  I was troubled because Leithart is a promoter of the heresy of the Federal Vision and Gary North is an advocate of the theonomy movement.  From a Clarkian Scripturalist persepective this could indicate some presupposed biases on the part of the author.   However, in a Facebook message to me, Mr. Alvarado assured me that the reviews by Leithart and North were done several years ago prior to Leithart’s departure into the Federal Vision realm.  Also troubling was the use of the term “theocracy” to refer to the Calvinist form of government in Geneva and Holland.  I am not sure how Alvarado is defining theocracy.  Perhaps he means theonomic?  Technically speaking there are no prophets or apostles today nor were there any prophets in Geneva or Holland.  In order for there to be a true theocracy it would be required for there to be ongoing revelation from God as the case was with Moses, Joshua, and to a lesser extent, with the nation of Israel under the rule of David and Solomon, etc.  Since the Bible is the only special revelation from God today, political philosophy must be logically deduced from the Scriptures by good and necessary consequence.  (Westminster Confession of Faith 1:6).

The book is very detailed.  The problem with this is that I got bogged down in the inductive aspects of the book and the analysis.  But careful reading does yield several good points made by the author.  However, I was somewhat troubled by the fact that though the book is supposed to compare and contrast the Calvinist view of political constitutionalism and Whig political philosophy and constitutionalism, the author never fully defines either term.  On the one hand, he seems to say that the Calvinism of Geneva, Holland, and England under the Glorious Revolution are all Calvinist, he then proceeds to say that some Calvinists and Puritans under the Glorious Revolution were latitudinarians.  And on the other hand, even in the beginning of the book, Alvarado never defines exactly what a Whig is.  He simply presupposes that we all already know what a Whig is, although we are told that John Locke is a representative of the Whig political constitutionalism in England.  Also, to avoid any confusion, it should be pointed out that the Glorious Revolution is not the same event as the English Civil War or the Cromwellian Revolution.  (See also:  English Whig Party).

As best I can understand, however, it seems that the Whigs were a British political party who opposed the Tories.  The Whigs advocated for a constitutional government that compromised between the authority of a monarch and a more representative government of elected officials in the Parliament as opposed to the Tory advocacy for the divine right of absolute authority for the monarchy:  

This historiographical predilection presents Whigs as those who stood for progress, liberty, and parliamentary government; Tories, as those who stood for reaction, repression, and absolutist monarchy.  . . . The Whigs gained the predominance in England in 1688, in the wake of the so-called Glorious Revolution, in which William III of Orange assumed the throne, upon abdication of James II.  They proceeded to transform English society.  Their innovations proved so popular that England became the model of enlightened progress in Europe.  By the early nineteenth century everyone within the orbit of English politics and society had become permeated with their particular orientation, so much so that all the new political movements operated on terms the Whigs had established, thus in terms of post-Whig agendas, with this fundamental set of beliefs as common ground.  (Alvarado, pp. 1-2).

The basic thesis of the book is not about Calvin himself but about the theological and philosophical legacy of Calvin as it became known later as Calvinism.  In that view I would say that the book would have been better titled as Calvinism and the Whigs since Calvin himself predates the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, and Hugo Grotius and John Locke.  The author goes through a somewhat lengthy argument tracing the roots of constitutionalism and social contract theory all the way back to Augustine’s two kingdoms or two cities view of political and ecclesiastical authority or the two swords view of society.  According to the author, both Calvinism and Roman Catholicism have in common the two swords view and he then links together the Augustinians in both the papist camp and the Calvinist camp and says that both the papists and the Calvinists were favorable to a theocratic or theonomic view of the political constitutional system of government.

While I find his discussion of the development of Hugo Grotius’s natural law theory and the connection to John Locke’s social contract theory interesting and a fairly good analysis, it is troubling that the author thinks the problem originated with Grotius’s Arminianism and Locke’s latitudinarianism.  He overlooks the fact that Calvinism is deduced from the Bible.  The author in fact hardly ever mentions the Bible in his historiographical analysis or his analysis of political philosophy.  The main difference between Roman Catholicism and Calvinism is not latitudinarianism but the source of authority.  Calvinism derives its philosophy of political contract from the Bible, not from the church.  Roman Catholicism places the authority of the church above the authority of Scripture and emphasizes natural law every bit as much as Hugo Grotius and John Locke did.  This seems to be a typical error of theonomists in general where they think Roman Catholicism is a good thing and not part of the very latitudinarianism they complain about.  Furthermore, the author fails to see that placing the sacraments into the political realm and requiring political office holders to partake of the sacraments as keys to the kingdom opens the door for the very abuses that led to the halfway covenant in the Puritan colonies during the time of Jonathan Edwards and his grandfather:

This points, finally, to a subject which is universally neglected by modern historians because its importance is simply not recognized.  Perhaps the key issue of concrete debate during and after the Reformation concerned the nature of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.  . . . But the judicial element involved is neglected:  that the administration of the sacraments served to apply judicial decrees concerning inclusion in or exclusion from the Kingdom of Christ.  The ministers in applying these keys were acting in the place of Christ passing judgments in terms of His decrees.  Thus, the administration of the sacraments was considered “binding and loosing:” the application of the very judicial decree of Christ in a particular situation.  Precisely this power, the ramifications of which extend throughout a social order based in Christian faith, was what the secular and lay powers were concerned to remove.  And that explains the fierceness with which this debate was conducted.
Alvarado, pp. 172-173.

Worse, Alvarado has what can only be called a papist view of the sacraments here because the sacraments from a Calvinist perspective are held to be keys to the kingdom only in regards to church membership.  There is no necessary connection between election, regeneration, and church membership.  In fact, the invisible church is composed only of the elect while the visible church is fallible and has members who are both elect and reprobate.  The ministers of the Gospel and the Gospel sacraments are not vicars of Christ acting in the place of Christ.  The fact is the Westminster Confession of Faith outright denies that ministers are vicars of Christ.  Christ alone is the head of the church:

To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require. (WCF 30:2 WCS)

The Calvinist and Protestant view is that the Gospel and right belief in doctrinal matters is just as important as sanctification issues and the ministers are not the emphasis.  Rather, the Bible is the final authority, which is why Scripture is given the highest priority in the doctrinal and propositional system of theology deduced from the Bible by good and necessary consequence:

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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. (WCF 1:6 WCS)

That being said, I found many of the points made during the discussion convincing.  I am not a theonomist or a supporter of theocracy.  However, it is worthwhile to consider that political philosophy should be deduced from the Bible since all knowledge begins with Scripture.  The author argues that when the role of the family in society is changed to individualism the result is a latitudinarianism whereby individual rights trump what is best for society as a whole.  On that point I can wholeheartedly agree but it should not be forgotten that God ordained the family in creation.  Natural law is nothing more than a form of utilitarian ethics whereby a plurality of individuals who emphasize individual freedom gain control and overpower the biblical values and principles upon which the society was originally founded.  It is literally true that whatever each person thinks is right becomes right.  But this overlooks the total depravity of the fallen human race and the noetic effects of sin  (Psalm 14:1-3; Romans 3:10-23; Romans 8:7).  This is another reason I object to the author’s downplaying of Roman Catholic complicity in latitudinarianism in the political realm, especially since Vatican II.  Basically the Roman Catholic Church is advocating full blown Pelagianism and not even semi-Pelagian anymore.

I object to the neo-orthodox views of the Van Tilian political philosophy whereby the church is to withdraw from the civic realm and allow the ungodly to rule the civic realm and the church should rule the ecclesiastical realm.  Ironically, theonomy originated with Cornelius Van Til’s theology and was promoted by Greg Bahnsen and others.  The author of this book is part of that theonomic philosophy and theology as far as I can tell.  Yet Van Til’s views also led to the very latitudinarianism to which theonomists object!  This is why you have the Westminster Seminary, California theology that emphasizes a total disconnect between the church and the political realm and another stream that originates from the Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia theology.  It is my opinion that both the disjunction between church and state that leads to the anti-Christian values of secular humanism and latitudinarianism and the theonomic view that emphasizes ecclesiastical militancy above biblical authority both lead to the same place.  That is unless our political philosophy is deduced from the Bible the end result will always be skepticism and totalitarianism.

Furthermore, I find it ironic that certain advocates of Clarkian Scripturalism have basically endorsed a form of secular humanism in reaction to their objections to Van Til’s theology and the theonomic views deduced from Van Til.  John Robbins, for example, worked for Ron Paul and supported Ron Paul’s political philosophy of libertarianism.  Every man literally does what is right in his own eyes.  Let it be said that Gordon H. Clark never agreed with libertarianism because it can never be deduced from the Bible.  On the other hand, theonomy is problematic because it leads to theological errors like the Federal Vision, semi-pelagianism, Arminianism and neo-orthodoxy.  The Westminster Seminary, California theology is equally problematic because it leads to antinomianism and latitudinarianism even more quickly.  Lee Irons and hiswife, Misty, for example, are spearheading LGBTQ rights in the civic realm due to the view that the two kingdoms are totally disjunctive and the one has nothing to do with the other.  Basically neo-orthodoxy leads to two extremes of what can only be called civil religion.  The theonomic civil religion endorses the latitudinarianism of theological pluralism and has no problem with the idolatries of Rome so long as biblical morality is loosely adhered to.  The antinomianism of the neo-orthodox views of Westminster California leads to endorsing perversion as a “natural” right in the civic realm and is therefore a form of atheism and secular humanism.  While the author does oppose the Westminster California endorsement of natural law, he seems to think that Roman Catholicism and Calvinism have something in common, which they do not.

I do recommend this book because the author does a good job of tracing the history of natural law and his explanation of what is wrong with natural law is worthy of consideration.  His view of the Dutch Calvinist government is also interesting.  However, he never mentions the fact that the cause of the fall of the Dutch Calvinist government can also be tied directly to the three points of common grace espoused by Abraham Kuyper, who also advocated for a peace treaty and co-belligerency between Calvinism and Rome.  The author seems to think that certain Calvinists rejected Calvin’s two sword view of the church and state and advocated latitudinarianism after the Glorious Revolution.  But the real problem is that the doctrine of common grace is semi-Arminian and raises natural revelation and natural law to the same level as biblical or special revelation and in fact undermines the Bible as the axiom for a solid epistemology for a Christian worldview and for a political theology and philosophy.  When common grace is emphasized above and beyond the special revelation of Scripture the result is skepticism because science and the arts gain equal authority to Scripture and it is not long before the very latitudinarianism that the author opposes results.  The Westminster divines were careful to exclude the traditions of men as a source of authority and it is troubling that Alvarado sees the Roman Catholic Church in such a positive light.  It in fact raises the question of whether or not Alvarado is in fact pushing a version of the Federal Vision heresy where culture and sacraments trump biblical Christianity?  Does he also disagree with the biblical definition of justification as do the Federal Visionists?

As I said before, the analysis of the historical development of secular humanism and social contract theory in the book is helpful.  But I cannot agree with the author that his brand of theocracy or theonomy is a solution to the problem.  As Dr. Gordon H. Clark so aptly pointed out:

By what right does a government exist?  Those who reject divine revelation base the state either on naked power and brutality, or on some sort of social contract, or on a natural development from the family.  Elsewhere I have argued in detail that the latter two reduce to the first;  with the result that secularism eventuates in dictatorship and totalitarian rule.  It is only in the Hebrew-Christian revelation, e.g. in the account of King Ahab and Naboth’s vineyard, that the rightful power of government is limited.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  “The Civil Magistrate,” in Essays on Ethics and Politics.  John Robbins, ed.  (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1992).   Pp. 22-23.

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.