Warfield on the Westminster Doctrine of Scripture, contra liberalism and Barth

The [Westminster] Confession teaches that by their inspiration the Scripture are made not only to contain but to be the Word of God. In i.2 the alternate name of Holy Scripture is "the Word of God written." In i.4 it is declared that Holy Scripture "is the Word of God"; in i. 5 it is pointed out how it evidences itself "to be the Word of God." This phraseology pervades the whole document (cf. iii. 13; x. 1, 4; xiii. 1; xiv. 1, 2; xvi. 1; xx. 2; xxi. 5, 6, 7; xxii. 7, xxiv. 4; xxx. 2; Shorter Catechism, Q. 2, 99; Larger Catechism, Q. 3, 4, 67, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 etc.). The Holy Scripture which is thus declared to be the Word of God is defined to be itself "all the books of the Old and New Testament"; and cannot, therefore, be thought to be only selected passages in those books. It is called the "Word of God written" to distinguish it by its accidents from the spoken Word of God, as given to the prophets aforetime, in the sense of i. 1, and as explained in the citation from Calamy. Finally, when we read in the Shorter Catechism of "the Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments," we are not reading of a distinction within the limits of Scripture between a word of God and a word not of God, as if it were only asserted that the former is to be found indeed within the Scriptures; but we are reading an anti-Romish and anti-Mystic declaration that the only Word of God that is recognized is that contained in the Scriptures. This, everyone acquainted with the literature of the times will perceive at once; ... As simple historical students, we must admit that the Westminster Confession is committed to the position that the Bible not only contains but is the Word of God. [B.B. Warfield, "The Westminster Doctrine of Inspiration," in Selected Shorter Writings, 2:576-7]

Anyone who believes in any version of "limited inerrancy" or flat our deny inerrancy, and/ or who take the Barthian view of Scripture, cannot hold to the Westminster Confession concerning this issue and thus they cannot subscribe sincerely and truly to that Confession.

Was Luther a Barthian?

No.

To be brief, there are two kinds of clarity in Scripture ... : one external and pertaining to the ministry of the Word, the other located in the understanding of the heart. If you speak of the internal clarity, no man perceived one iota of what is in the Scriptures unless he has the Spirit of God ... If, on the other hand, you speak of the external clarity, nothing at all is left obscure or ambiguous, but everything there is in the Scripture has been brought out by the Word into the most definite light, and published to all the world.

— Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation (ed. by E. Gordon Rupp and Philips S. Watson; Philadelphia: Westminster Press: 1969)

Anabaptism, Scripture and the Word of God

But the Bible is to the natural man simply lifeless ink and paper until the Holy Spirit enters into his heart and quickens his understanding. Then and then only can he understand, according to Scharnschlager, the true meaning of the Scriptures.

— William R. Estep, The Anapbaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, 3rd Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975, 1996), p. 194-5

I have been reading this work on the Anabaptists. However sympathetic it was written, I could discern the many errors of the Anabaptists, even the so-called "biblical Anabaptists, " with all of them so far being biblicists — embracing Solo Scriptura or Scipture only. In this quote, it seems that some Anabaptists have embraced the spiritualist error of dichotomizing between the Scriptures as written and the Word of God, a move which pre-dates Barth by a few centuries, showing us that there is nothing really new under the sun.

The main error of those who concoct this false dichotomy is the failure to reckon with God as Creator. God as Creator is the creator of language, and therefore the usage of words is suitable to express God's truth which He intends to give to us. The denial of the written word as the Word of God is the implicit denial of the doctrine of Creation; a denial that nature can be adequate to express the things of God.

It is true of course that the Holy Spirit is necessary to understand God's truth. But the Holy Spirit does not take what is lifeless and alters it to what is living. Rather the Holy Spirit takes what is objectively alive and applies it to make it to us subjectively alive. The Anabaptist (and Neo-Orthodox) version of the work of the Holy Spirit with respects to Scripture follows the Roman Catholic view of grace overcoming nature, whereas the biblical Reformed view is that of grace transforming nature. In this Anabaptist view, the Scripture (nature) is lifeless ink and paper. Grace in the Holy Spirit is necessary to come along to overcome nature and make it living. In the biblical view, the Scripture (nature) is ink and paper which is however the objective expression of God's truth also. Grace in the Holy Spirit transforms nature by taking the objective Word of God and making it come alive subjectively in us.

In this, the Anabaptists can be shown to move against the Reformation current, and is rather a return to a form of Medieval spirituality found in the ideas of the Spiritual Franciscans. Whatever Anabaptism is, while it interacts with the Reformation for sure, it is as far away from the Reformation as the pre-Tridentine Roman Catholicism of that era was.

Was Barth Reformed?

The short answer is no — NEIN! For the longer answer, Dr. R. Scott Clark has recommended Ryan Glomsrud's essay "Karl Barth and Modern Protestantism: The Radical Impulse" in the recently released book Always Reformed: Essays in Commemoration of W. Robert Godfrey. I haven't have the time to read it though I bought my copy within the week after this festschrift was presented during chapel, so unfortunately I can't comment much more, but it should be good. Hope to have the time to read it after semester is over.

Barth denies the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone

... in 1935 Karl Barth published a little book entitled Gospel and Law. In reversing the usual Protestant order of law and gospel Barth was indicating by the title itself his dissent from ordinary Protestant ways of thinking and speaking. Hans Küng helps us to see Barth's conflict with the Reformation clearly in his book on Barth and justification. Küng wrote, "It is to be presupposed that the justified man is truly just — inwardly in his heart. At this point Barth does side with Trent against the Reformation... Justification is not merely an externally pasted-on 'as if'. Man is not only called just but is just."¹ In the preface to Küng's book Barth acknowledge that Küng has presented Barth's position accurately and states that if Küng accurately has presented the Roman Catholic view, then they are agreed.

— W. Robert Godfrey, Westminster, Justification, and the Reformed Confessions. In David VanDrunen (ed.), The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries. Essays in honor of Robert B. Strimple (Phillipsburg, NJ, USA: P&R publishing, 2004), 132

[1] Hans Küng, Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection (New York: Westminster, 1964), 236

If indeed the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae), then Barth's doctrine of justification puts himself outside the pale of orthodox Christianity, nevermind the Reformed tradition.

On Barth and his critique of the decretum absolutum

Barth deals with the Canons [of Dordt] in his doctrine of election [1]. During the discussion he refers several times to them. Right at the beginning he praises them for the fact that, in spite of the inclusion of reprobation in their doctrine of predestination, they formulated election itself in such a way that it really had "the character of evangelical proclamation." [2] This is particularly true of the formulation of Canons I,7.

Yet Barth has a very serious objection against their doctrine. He believes that in the Canons we find of a decretum absolutum, just as in the theology of all the reformers. Although they all maintained that our election is an "election in Christ" and spoke of Christ as the speculum electionis (Calvin) [3] or the liber vitae (Formula of Concord), [4] yet this "in Christ" was not the final word. Actually it referred only to the ordo salutis (Christ as the mediator and executor of our salvation). Behind this "in Christ" there was still deeper ground of election and reprobation: God's eternal decree, by which, in sovereign freedom, he decreed to save some in and through Christ and to leave others in their sin and perdition. The Arminians saw this serious defect, and over against the Calvinists they stated that "Christ, the mediator, is not only the executor of the election, but the foundation of the very decree of election." [5] Unfortunately their own understanding of the election was very faulty. ... Over against them the Calvinists of Dordt were altogether right, when they maintained that our salvation is wholly a matter of divine election. Unfortunately they maintained this by taking recourse to the decretum absolutum idea. In this same connection Barth criticizes Canons I, 7 , which before he had praised so highly. [6] Although Jesus Christ is mentioned, he is mentioned after the decision about election and reprobation has already been taken.

In all this we touch upon the very nerve of Barth's criticism. Again and again he returns to this point. ... Although at this point the Synod "almost exclusively" referred to "Jesus Christ, the Word of God and his promises," yet the doctrine could not work properly, as appeared rather soon after the Synod, because the decretum absolutum remained the last background. ...

Yet it cannot be denied that in the Canons this central aspect of the biblical doctrine of election [election is in Christ] does not receive the emphasis it deserves. Because [Canons of Dordt] I,7 is preceded by an article that speaks of a general double decree of election and reprobation, in which the "in Christ" aspect is altogether missing, the conclusion that there is a decretum absolutum behind the election-in-Christ could be drawn, ...

[Klaas Runia, Recent Reformed Criticisms of the Canons, in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dordt 1618-1619 (Grandville, MI, USA: Reformed Fellowship, 1968, 2008), pp. 196-197, 199]

[1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II, 2 p. 3-506

[2] Op. cit., 17/18.

[3] Calvin, Institutes, III, xxiv, 5

[4] Formula of Concord, Ep. XI, 7.

[5] C.D., II, 2, 67

[6] Op. cit., 69

In this interesting analysis of some critiques of the Canons of Dordt from those professing themselves to be Reformed, the late Klaas Runia in one section of his chapter interacted with the criticism that the Neo-Orthodox Karl Barth aimed against the Canons of Dordt. Runia's response to the Neo-Orthodox is to say that Dordt itself taught that election was done in Christ; that "the "in Christ" qualifies the act of choosing" (p. 198). Runia similarly opposes the idea of a decretum absolutum "behind the election-in-Christ" as being part of "later deterministic misunderstandings" which "have plagued and still are plaguing large sections of the Reformed community" (p. 199).

What are we to make of Barth's criticism of the Reformed doctrine of election as being voluntaristic, being build upon the foundation of decretum absolutum instead of in Christ (εν χριστω)? Is Runia's response to Barth a good one? While certainly the fact that Dordt does understand Christ to be the foundation of election is correct, is Runia correct in attacking the idea of a decretum absolutum "behind the election in Christ" as being part of "deterministic misunderstandings" plaguing the Reformed community?

To answer this, we must come to understand what the decretum absolutum concept means. How does God relate to His decrees? The manner in which Barth attacks the notion of God's decree seems to make them ontologically independent of God. However, is that really correct?

The decretum absolutum (Absolute or eternal decree), is the eternal decree of God in which He determines all that will happen. If God is sovereign at all, then the decretum absolutum must exist. The objection raised by Runia however it seems is whether this decretum is the foundation of election, assuming that Runia has no problem with the decretum existing in some sense.

The objection to making the decretum absolutum the foundation of election is that by so doing, the foundation is said to be no more on Christ. However, is that the case? What exactly does it mean for our foundation to be "in Christ"?

The first error in such an objection is a divorce or separation of the person and his thoughts, or in this case God and His thoughts. The thoughts (and decrees) of God precede from God and are distinct from Him. Ontologically therefore, God precedes His thoughts. However, as our God is the reasoning God, the Logos (cf Jn. 1:1-14), God cannot exist without His thoughts; neither can God's thoughts exist without Him. God and His decrees therefore can be distinguished, but they should never be separated.

In this light, to say that the foundation of an action (election) is based upon God's decrees (the decretum absolutum) is merely to say that the reason why God did an action is because He chose to do so. God chooses, but it is also a fact that it IS GOD who chooses. To say that the foundation of election is God's decrees is merely to say that it is in God, from whence these decrees originate.

The second error of such an objection is a confusion regarding the Trinity. The Trinity is one God in three persons, and the Christian God is always triune. Christians do not believe in a generic 'God' but only the triune God. The three persons of the Trinity are different in their roles (economically) and their "being" (the Son eternally begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeding). Yet, they are one God, not three Gods. The idea of a decretum absolutum talks about God's decrees, and therefore this refers to the triune God as a whole, undifferentiated. Therefore, it is in a sense God the Father's decrees as well as God the Son's decrees as well as God the Spirit's decree, though since it is not said of any particular person of the Godhead we should just humbly accept that it is true of the Godhead and each person as part of the Godhead, and not try to peak further into things which God has not revealed to us.

What this means is that it is not wrong to say that the foundation of election is in Christ and the foundation of election is in God, and from there go on to the idea of the decretum absolutum. To say that the foundation of election is God's will is to say that it is because of God, and therefore such is inclusive of Christ.

There is of course a special sense in which Christ is said to be the foundation of election as stated in Eph. 1:4. This is a federal union with Christ founded upon the eternal Covenant of Redemption the God the Father made with God the Son in eternity. However, this aspect of Covenant Theology is distinct from the idea of the decretum absolutum previously discussed, and the two must not be confused. The decretum is the epistemic foundation, while the Covenant motif refers to the working out of God's will in eternity and then in time. The former answers the 'why', the latter 'how'.

There is thus no error in saying that the foundation of election is the decretum absolutum. It is perhaps the case that Runia did not distinguish between the 'why' (epistemic) and 'how' (ontological) that discussion on the issue has been muddied. Barthians and their allies on this topic often accuse the decretum as making God voluntaristic. However, why that is a problem has never been proven conclusively. Is it because we do not LIKE the idea that God is God and His decisions are not subject to our vetting and approbation? As Paul replied to his imaginery objector on the same topic of election:

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Rom. 9:20-21)

God is sovereign and free, and He is answerable to no one (In fact, all of us are answerable to Him!). The Barthians and their allies might not like and thus reject the answer given by Paul and Scripture, but they do not have the right to claim that Scriptures has not weighed in on this topic at all. Similarly, they can claim that they reject the non-separation of a person's thoughts and his person, but to continue on as if nobody has challenged their faulty ontology is a serious error on their part. In point of fact, it would be interesting to see anyone attempt to prove either Hegelian Idealism or Kantian Transcendental Idealism (the radical separation of the noumenal — das Ding an Sich — and the phenomenal), essentially any form of Idealism, from Scripture.

On Modern "Biblical" Scholarship

While thus in the orthodox camp the literal sense of Scripture was duly recognized as being the only true sense of Scripture, orthodoxy was not willing to divorce the Old Testament from the New was done within the circles of the Arminians. A renowned example of the Arminian approach to Scripture is Hugo Grotius. In the year 1644 Grotius published an exegetical work entitled: Annotata ad Vetus Testamentum (Annotations on the Old Testament). Grotius seeks to "protect" the Old Testament against any intrusion on the part of either the New Testament or dogmatic theology. ...

There was, of course, a formal similarity between what Grotius was trying to do and that which the reformers had done in their handling of Scripture. Calvin and also Luther in most of his commentaries, has broken with the idea of a multiple sense in Scripture, as this had been held during the Middle Ages. The reformers insisted that the literal sense was the only sense. ... Yet the difference between Grotius on the one hand and the translators of the Staten-Bijbel [Dutch Bible translation] on the other was a fundamental one, as fundamental as is the modern difference between those who still adhere to the Reformed principles of interpretation and those, who, while claiming to do justice to the Reformation principle of the literal sense, are nevertheless separated by a deep abyss from the real Reformation understanding of Scripture.

Kraus points out that the approach followed by Grotius is informed by the principles of humanism. His hermeneutics is historico-anthropocentric. The authority of the speaking God has been eliminated from Grotius's "exegesis." Grotius not only opposed the orthodox concept of Scripture-inspiration. He not only sought to guard against undue encroachments from the realm of dogmatic theology. He also effectively withstood the possibility that in these texts God himself would be speaking. Kraus correctly indicates that this is the great division of spirit that humanism has brought about.

Today we see the full fruition of the position that Grotius so ably developed. The authority of the speaking God who speaks in and through Scripture does not enter meaningfully into the study of the Bible as presently conducted. Atheists, agnostics, Christians, Roman Catholics, Jews, Protestants, all are said to have equal access to the primary sense of Scripture. While the need for a faith commitment is recognized by some, and while others speak of the inevitability of some ideology influencing the biblical scholar, all these admissions are carefully prevented from affecting the actual work of "biblical" scholarship.

[Marten H. Woudstra, The Synod and Bible Translation, in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dordt, 1618-1619 (Wyoming, MI, USA: Reformed Fellowship, 1968, 2008), pp. 132-134. Bold added]

The task of interpreting the Scriptures is a sacred task, since the Scriptures are the very word of God, being breathed-out by the Holy Spirit of God (2 Tim. 3:16). In his chapter in this monumental scholarly masterpiece on the great Synod of Dordt, the late Rev. Woudstra spoke of this humanistic fruit of Arminianism in the area of biblical scholarship. Instead of recognizing the truth of 1 Cor. 1:18- 2:16, the trajectory of the humanistic slant on biblical scholarship started by Hugo Grotius resulted in the modern idea of "biblical" scholarship whereby unbelievers are thought to know and understand the Scriptures as well as believers. While certainly the Scriptures are perspicuous, yet because the truths of Scripture are foolishness to those who perishing (1 Cor. 2:14), the unbelieving "biblical scholar" constantly rejects the true meaning of the text of Scripture as being foolish even though such is the plain meaning of Scripture, their rejection being a moral and spiritual one instead of a cognitive one.

The main line of division between Christianity and "Christian" humanism as propounded by Grotius, as Woudstra has pointed out, is that Christianity begins with the presupposition of faith even on the topic of hermeneutics, while Grotius and the humanists after him starts with the presupposition that the [naturalistic, humanistic] idea of a speaking God must be withhheld from the text even if such was truly the case. Therefore, the text of Scripture is approached by these humanists as purely a human text, with the divine element regarded at best as inconsequential. It must be noted that Grotius and the Remonstrants were professing Christians (and orthodox with regards to their view of God - Chalcedon trinitarianism). Therefore, it is not necessary that a person formally rejects the Christian faith, or even rejects the idea that God is speaking in Scripture, to be a humanist. Rather, it is the trajectory whether theo-centric or anthropocentric that determines the case.

"Modern biblical scholarship" utilizes the "historico-anthropocentric" hermeneutics, better known as the historical-critical hermeneutic methodology. In opposition to the historical-grammatical method, historical-critical hermeneutics follows Grotius in treating the Bible as a human work and relegate the divine element as inconsequential even if correct.

There are therefore two forms of theology in this world, and two types of biblical scholarships. The orthodox, evangelical and Reformed position is that of faith seeking understanding (credo ut intelligam), while the modern form in unregenerate academia is that of humanism whereby understanding is sought apart from the necessity of true faith. Faith may be extolled in the system, but it is not necessary at all in the unregenerate theological enterprise.

Whether they be liberal, neo-liberal, post-liberal, post-conservative, neo-orthodox etc, the issue of hermeneutics will expose the foundational orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of many Christian and/or biblical scholars. The question for us is always the same: Will we believe that God has revealed Himself in His Word? Note that we are not asking whether God is revealing Himself using the medium of the Word (the Neo-Orthodox position), but whether God has revealed Himself IN His Word.

Faith or Unbelief; Truth and Error; Christ and the World. These choices must be made even within so-called Christian academia. May we choose to build our theology upon faith, rather than upon the autonomous reason of men.

Robert Reymond on Christian ministry and the Inspiration of the Bible

Here is a very interesting quote by Dr. Robert Reymond on the topic of the Inspiration of Scripture as it relates to Christian ministers:

The candidate for Christian ministry who does not believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word should not enter the ministry. He does not belong there. If he is already in the ministry he should either quit because he should never have entered it or at the very least he should tell his congregation that he does not believe the Bible is God's inspired Word so that those who have the sense not to submit to his authority, stripped bare as it is of the authority of God's Word, can leave and listen to a pastor who does believe it, because all the other doctrines of the true Faith are derived from the divinely inspired Bible and rest upon it for their authority. The doctrine of inspiration is the bedrock — the mother and guardian — of all the other doctrines of Scripture! It is that important!

— Robert Reymond, Faith's Reasons for Believing (Ross-shire, Scotland, UK: Mentor, 2008), p. 111

Do keep in mind Dr. Reymond's view of the Inspiration of Scripture is the biblical idea of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture, not the subjective inspiration of Neo-Orthodoxy or the mythological kerygma of the Neo-liberals.

Paul Helm, logic, and the necessity of making good distinctions

Here is an interesting article by Paul Helm on the importance of making good distinctions, which is something especially needed when studying, reading and thinking theology.

Helm first shows that there is a difference between consistency, inconsistency and entailment, such that each of these propositions are different.

1. Propositions p and q are consistent.
2. Propositions p and q (~p) are inconsistent because they are self-contradictory.
3. Proposition p entails proposition q, such that if p is true, q must necessary be true

You can read more about it and other distinctions here.

[HT: Justin Taylor's Between Two Worlds]

The self-defeating position of those who deny the ability of language to convey truths perfectly

Over in the comments section at my post linking to my friend Mike Ratliff's post on there being only two religions in the World, a guy who calls himself Antithesis has attempted to promote the view of the imperfection of language to convey truth perfectly, in service to his neo-orthodox anthopo-theo-logy. Of course, the fact that he uses language to convey his point of view, and assume that his propositions are able to convey his thoughts perfectly, makes his position utterly self-defeating.

For if language is not perfectly able to convey the truth, then how much imperfection may there be in propositions made by anyone? Who or what determines how much imperfection can exist before there is a breakdown in communication between two people such that communication is impossible? And if communication may not be possible, then why bother trying at all, since you would have no certainty that the person you are talking to would be able to understand you at all? Of course, it may be objected that in general, communication is possible and in fact happens often between people, but such is an empirical observation which is of no comfort at all to the "language is unable to communicate truth perfectly" crowd. If p refers to the ability of language to communicate perfectly, and q refers to the actual empirical fact of language being largely able to communicate truth perfectly, then the propositions "If p, then q" is most definitely true. Therefore, the empirical fact of everyday language usage is congruent with the theory of the perfect communicative property of language, while the converse is not, as we shall see in the next paragraph.

It may be very tempting to state "If ~p, therefore ~q" but that is a logical fallacy. Rather, what can be seen is that the denial of p makes one skeptical about the possibility of q. Since language is not deemed to be able to communicate truths perfectly, therefore there can be no certainty whatsoever that people are able to communicate truths perfectly. For Antithesis and the neo-orthodox who think like him, the fact of q should disturb them, for either their theory is wrong, or that most people are deluded and wrong when they exude so much confidence that the many sentences they make in their entire lives could be understood at least most of the time.

An objection may be made that we must take into account the noetic effects of sin, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability of language to communicate truths perfectly or not. This is unless one thinks that language is a thoroughly human invention instead of being first and foremost a gift of God at Creation and one which is not super-intended by God (ie to have a anthropocentric view of language instead of a theocentric view). Language however is first and foremost from God who is the foremost communicator to Man His creation. That God super-intends the development of language such that sin does not touch language (a non-moral instrument) but rather the moral ability of the moral creature to discover truth from language can be seen in the narrative of Scripture in which the ability of words to communicate truths perfectly was assumed throughout by God and all the people in both testaments, including the pagans. In fact, in a classic passage on the judgment of God upon His people for their sin, God said:

Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed (Is. 6:9-10)

In verse 10, God states that His judgment removes the people's ability to discern the Truth, but if that ability is present, they would thus be able to know the Truth and repent of their error. Furthermore, in Rom. 1:18-32, the whole idea present is that Man are darkened in their understanding (Rom. 1:21) and that caused them to sin even more. Therefore, the noetic effects of sin affects the sinner's ability to discern the truth, NOT upon the ability of the instrument, language, to convey truth perfectly.

This neo-orthodox position suffers also from a blatant contradiction of the doctrine of Scripture, more specifically the doctrine of the Verbal Plenary Inspiration of Scripture which I have proven to be biblical in a previous article . For if VPI is true, which it is, then the very words of Scripture must be inspired (Verbal Inspiration). However, if language cannot convey truth perfectly, then that would mean that the very words of Scripture is irrelevant; only the sense of them is important. It is inconceivable to think of each word of Scripture being at the same time inspired and yet at the same time not relevant to knowing the Truth. The two properties necessarily conflict and contradict each other because inspired words MUST be individually relevant and not irrelevant, and irrelevant words cannot be individually important, much less inspired. And so therefore, the attack on the ability of language to convey truth perfectly actually results in an attack on the Inspiration of Scripture.

It may be seen that Antithesis does not truly know or understand logic at all. There is a marked difference between sentences and propositions which he does not even seem to be aware of, which I have learned early on in my logic module class. Using the same words or phases does not necessarily mean that the same thing is being talked about and therefore would lead to different propositions. A cursory look at the known logical fallacies would show that the logical fallacy of equivocation (using one word to express two different things in different instances) and amphiboly (using one phrase or sentence to mean two different propositions) is built upon the fact that using the same word or sentence even does not mean that they are the same proposition. For otherwise how can they be called logical fallacies at all? Antithesis has here tripped himself up and shown himself to be totally ignorant of logic as seen in the following exchange:

Daniel: 3)You should go and be a lawyer; words seem to be mere putty to you. Question: In your opinion, is there ONE meaning for any particular sentence made by anyone?

Antithesis: Let’s consider the sentence, “Great!” in different contexts.

A boy got his exam results, and it is an A. He said, “Great!”

A boy got his trousers torn by his school bullies. He said, “Great!”

Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing? But according to you, they both mean the same thing. One meaning, right?

First of all, Antithesis totally misunderstand the question that I was asking, which was about a particular statement; a single statement, NOT two similar statements used in two different contexts. His example however is flawed, for the two exclamations of "Great!" are not the same proposition. In language, it is typical to let the context feel in the meaning for you instead of stating a proper statement containing all the necessary information that is implicit within the context. For these two examples, the propositions made by these two boys are actually, after filling in information from the contexts:

1st boy: Great = I am happy to have accomplish this feat (of scoring an A)

2nd boy: Great = A terrible thing has happened to me (trousers torn by school bullies) (and I am being sarcastic about it)

This failure to distinguish between sentences/phrases and propositions is a very fundamental error in logical argumentation — one which is covered in basic logic class within the first few weeks, and therefore it should not be made by those who have studied logic in any degree whatsoever.

Last but not least, Antithesis shows us in the end that he does not understand basic logical argumentation at all; thus being the 'perfect' illustration for our case that God has indeed in punishment blinded the eyes of those who do not believe (Is. 6:9-10). Over at Joel's blog on a totally unrelated subject, Antithesis has commented, and I have posted one of my replies over here

Antithesis seems to have so much time in his hands to attempt to communicate his "truths". Of course, since language cannot perfectly convey truth, who exactly knows what he is actually saying? Maybe when he says "it does speak a lot concerning your reasoning ability", we should interpret it 'literally' as a compliment instead, as in "your reasoning ability" = subject, "it does speak" = verb, "a lot" = quantity, therefore we should interpret this phrase as Antithesis is praising Joel's great intellectual ability! Of course, since this whole thing is a silly discussion anyway, perhaps the adjective "silly" is meant to describe his tirades on my blog in wasting my time responding to his silly questions?

Applying the great Antithesis' neo-orthodox philosophy of language to his own writings truly has been so much fun. [Michel] Foucault would be proud...

To which Antithesis replied with this post which completely misses the point that the comment is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.

In conclusion, it can be seen that the inability of language to convey truths is impractical and inconsistent with the praxis of those promoting it and it also undermines and contradicts the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Inspiration. Those who try to defend this self-defeating position are affirming the position in practice while denying it in theory — a sure recipe for disaster for them. Also, it would be a good idea for us to brush up on our logic so that we can spot all the many logical fallacies the Neo-Orthodox (and their cousins the Liberals and Emergents of which this is relevant too) commit over and over again especially in the field of epistemology.

P.S.: This would be my first and only serious post against the person who calls himself Antithesis. If not for the fact that this issue is an important issue, I would not have bothered to refute someone who is so full of himself and who refuses to submit himself to the authority of Scripture, but instead places himself and his reason (and probably "scholarship" too) in judgment over the Word of God.

Sola Scriptura and Epistemology

After praying over this, I have decided that I needed to start tackling this issue, though I will officially start only after I finish the ongoing series on the Charismata. The subject? Epistemology? The object? Neo-Orthodoxy. It grives me even to write this because I know doing so would mean pitting myself against someone whom I counted as a friend for some time, even though he has hurt me more times than I can count, and I was naive enugh to believe that someone from a conservative Calvinistic church (Metropolitan Tabernacle) was orthodox.

I was directed towards this blog post by my friend and brother in Christ Vincent Chia. Normally, it is much easier for me to ignore heretics, but my former friend was on this blog doing as much damage as he can and hurting me in the process. [Update: He has since apologized, so I have decided to let bygones be bygones]

In this post, this particular Emergent from Malaysia (who utilizes the F-bomb —a typical Emergent trait) gets all riled up in denouncing those who believe in the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. More specifically, the video he linked to is done by one of those people who denounce the doctrine of the Inerrancy and the Verbal Plenary Inspiration of the Scripture; cardinal doctrines of which the denial is most definitely heresy and brings the salvtion of that particular person into question. The tired old carnad of "biblio-idolatry" is thrown out again, as if the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ has not dealt with this misnomer at all. I do not wish to reinvent the wheel, so here is my article proving the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in all its fullness. To summarize, to be a Christian is to believe in the doctrines of total inerrancy of Scripture and the Verbal Plenary Inspiration of Scripture, otherwise one is believing and living something contrary to their professed religion. If you don't want to believe in the full-orbed view of Sola Scriptura as outlined here, please do us a favor and go find for yourself another religion to believe in.

With this, let us look more into the charge of "bibliolatry". As expected, the liberal that produced this video posits a false dichotomy between the Spirit and the Word, as if the Spirit will contradict the Word. Of course, since the written Word (Logos) is the Word made flesh (Jn. 1:14), and the Spirit is the one who inspired the Word in the first place, this objection is plain ridiculous. The Spirit speaks through the Word and therefore to disregard the Word is to disregard the Spirit.

And we now turn to the issue of Epistemology. Up till now, we have been talking about the inerrancy of Scripture; that Scripture is inspired and without error in all its parts. However, the main issues that are actually being attacked by this Emergent is the Authority of Scripture, and the Perspicuity of Scripture. The part on inerrancy was just the tip of the iceberg.

The doctrine of the Authority of Scripture is one that is fundamental to Christianity, without which there is no Christianity at all. Jesus Himself refered back to Scripture as authority, often using the phase "It is written". Joshua was told to meditate on the Scripture at that time (the Torah or Law) as his rule for life (Josh. 1:8). Obviously, since the Word was made flesh in the person of Jesus (Jn. 1:14), to obey the Word of God is to obey Jesus, and most definitely Jesus is the centre of Christianity. In the book of Revelation, Jesus is directly called the Word of God (Rev. 19:13) again, showing complete identification of the Logos with our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, Scripture does not mention much to prove its own authority; it is simply assumed. Epistemologically however, the issue is forced to its logical conclusion. For if Scripture is not the ultimate authority, then something else is. It can be yourself (Self-worship), human reason (Humanism), Community (Cosmic humanism) or other teachers (Idolatry of those teachers). Of course, some people will throw out the inane carnard of being lead by the Spirit. However, as stated, the Spirit DOES NOT lead without the Word, since the Spirit inspired the Word in the first place. After all, in Greek, the word used is theopneustos (θεοπνευστος), which is literally translated God-breathed. The spoken Word of God (Rhema) is the written Word of God (Logos). And who determines what the Spirit teaches anyway, if it is stated that He speaks apart from the Word? What if someone states that the Spirit states that Jesus is not God? Obviously, those who detest Sola Scriptura; the ultimate authority of Scripture, have created their own idols to bow down to, which is probably their own reasoning.

In my latest weekly meditation, I exposited on the second part of Is. 5. I have stated there that Is. 5:21 is an attack on the entire principle of Humanism, which is the belief in human reason (whether individually or collectively) as the ultimate authority. The Christian life is based on faith; faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and taking what He says as our supreme authority. I also state that:

The attitude of true believers is one of submission to the Word of God, not sitting in judgment of it, as if God is our slave who must obey us, and not the other way around.

And Is. 5:21 pronounces woe to those who attempt to live the Christian life with themselves as lord:

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! (Is. 5:21)

Those who disdain and will not submit to the ultimat authority of Scripture are actually in fact making themselves or the human community 'god', and this is the rankest idolatry ever! Christians submit themselves to the authority of God who spoke through the Scriptures, whereas false believers place theselves in judgment over Scripture and refuse to submit to it.

The Emergent Apostate in his comments on his own blog revealed himself to be in the Neo-Orthodox camp, following the teachings of the heretic Karl Barth in his view of Scripture. Neo-Orthodoxy is heresy, period. That this need to be prove just show the depths to which he has fallen. For Neo-Orthodoxy separates the Word of God (Christ) from the Word of God (the Bible), a distinction which is utterly alien from the Scriptures. As Dr. C. Matthew McMahon states:

Neo-orthodox theology teaches that the Bible is not the Word of God in that it is a series of true verbal propositions to be believed. Rather, it is an existential encounter with Jesus. There is no standard of truth and no absolutes. Jesus is God and Jesus is not God are equally true. God is represented as wholly other. He is completely transcendent and unknowable. Neo-orthodoxy teaches universalism, and sees Jesus as God’s divine messenger of love to the masses. Neo-orthodoxy also rejects the Fall (following Pelagius) demonstrating that people are not sinners when they are born. Rather, they become sinful when they sin. (An overview of Contemporary Theology: Neo-Orthodoxy)

One does not need to be a theologian to see that Neo-Orthodoxy is total nonsense and utterly heretical. Epistemologically, it shifts the burden of ultimate authority onto "subjective" truths from the letters of Scripture, and who is to say what is true and what is false? Therefore, in the end, what we have is full-blown humanism where the human reasoning reigns supreme in being the "authoritative" receptacle upon which the revelation of God descends. Is. 5:21 thus pronounces woe upon such heretics, who have the apalling impunity to sit in judgment over the Word of God.

The next topic is the perspicuity of Scripture. The typical postmodern objection given by the Emergent church, which is just the stepson of Neo-Orthodoxy really, is that since Scripture requires interpretation, therefore whose interpretation is correct? Of course, they would need to gloss over the facts of history, for church history has shown us that there is great agreement on many major and even some minor doctrines within those who profess to believe in Sola Scriptura, and those who are heretics base their arguments more on philosophy than on Scripture, like Arius, Pelagius and Socinus for example. Nevertheless, then how can we interpret the Scriptures correctly, since we are but human? (Curiously, the Emergents are very sure that the correct interpretation is not your interpretation. How they know that is anyone's guess.)

The key to that is the person and work of the Holy Spirit. For it is written:

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

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 spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor. 2:6-16)

As it can be seen, because believers have the mind of Christ, we can through careful study and prayer come to have the correct interpretation of Scripture. Those who say otherwise blaspheme the Holy Spirit who lives in all true believers. More likely of course is the fact that these people are in fact false believers who therefore cannot understand the things of God, since the truths of God are spiritually discerned. Yes, they can intelectually grasp the truth, but to them it is folly, utter foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18; 2:14). Just like the unbelieving seminary professor, they intellectually grasped the Truth (the Truth is always intellectually graspable cf perspicuity of Scripture), but to them it is foolishness and they cannot accept it.

And we can see that even in the person and the very question they ask. For they ask us how can we know what is the correct intepretation of Scripture, yet I have yet to see those same people questioning the correct interpretation of a comprehensive roadmap, and most definitely their bank statements. Fact is, how do they even know what is the correct interpretation of the material they are criticizing? Yet, why the double-standard in interpretation? What we have here is rebellion, plain and simple. They rebel against God's authority because they would not submit themselves to it, and therefore they will try by all means and methods to discredit the message and (the easiest) the messenger. After all, character assassinations are the easiest to do, and no one will continue a conversation with someone who perpetually insults them and perhaps even use vulgarities on them, so they will win by default.

In conclusion, we have seen the devious anti-Christian tactics of one Emergent who detests God and His Word. The Word of God stand supreme as the final authority of Christians, and the objections against it fall as they would. With this, I call on the Emergent Edmund to repent of his continued rebellion against God. For while there is still time, God will receive you if you will but repent of your heresies. However, if you continue to spurn the mercy of God and blaspeme Him who is upon the throne, then be fearful, very fearful.

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Amen.