John Murray Answers The New "Grace" Movements

I know the title is somewhat anachronistic but you get the the point (I hope):

 The relation of the fear of God to the keeping the commandments of God is indicated by the 'Preacher' when he says, 'Let us hear the the conclusion of the whole matter: fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.' (Ecclesiastes 12:13). The most practical mundane duties derive their inspiration and impetus from the fear of God (cf. II Samuel 23:3; Colossians 3:22). The highest reaches of sanctification are realized in the fear of God (cf. II Corinthians 7:1).

This emphasis which Scripture places upon the fear of God evinces the bond that exists between religion and ethics. The fear of God is essentially a religious concept; it refers to the conception we entertain of God and the attitude of the heart and mind that is ours by reason of that conception. Since biblical ethic is grounded  in and is the fruit of the fear of the Lord, we are apprised again that ethics has its source in religion and as our religion is so will be our ethic. This is to say also that what our whom we worship determines behaviour. What then is the fear of God?

...We have therefore the awe and adoration which the majesty of God must elicit from all rational creatures and we also have the complexion which the fact of our sinfulness must impart to that reverence and adoration.

It is this fear of God that Scripture has in view when it reiterates throughout, 'Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God.' The controlling sense of the majesty and holiness of God and the profound reverence which this apprehension elicits constitute the essence of the fear of God.*

*John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), pp. 231,237   

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

Let me attempt to expound these words with fear and trembling. Who am I to speak on such words? As we approach them it is good for us to remember the words spoken to Moses at the burning bush: ‘Take off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground’ (Exodus 3:5). ‘The Father of glory!’ There can be no doubt but that this means, partly, that God is the source and embodiment in and of Himself of all glory. There are many such phrases in Scripture. We read of God in the twelfth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews as ‘the Father of spirits’ (v. 9). We read of Him in the Epistle of James as ‘the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning (1:17). In the Book of the prophet Isaiah God is described as ‘The eternal Father’ or ‘Father of eternity’ (9:6). So ‘the Father of glory’ means the source, the fount of all glory. As to ‘glory’ what can we say? Words fail us utterly. Glory is God. Glory is the summation of all the excellences and perfections and attributes of the Lord God Almighty Himself. That is why He is referred to at times in the Scriptures as ‘the glory’. The ultimate characteristic of God is glory. He is that in and of Himself. His essence is glorious. It is unutterable, absolute perfection. So we can but stand in amazement before this expression, ‘the Father of glory’.

When Stephen was on trial and addressing the Sanhedrin, we are told in the report of his speech, in the seventh chapter of Acts, that he reminded them of the history of the children of Israel, and said, ‘The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham’ (v. 2). ‘The God of glory! The glorious God! He was reminding them that God’s glory is ineffable and indescribable. He ‘dwelleth in the light which is unapproachable’, ‘Whom no man hath seen, nor can see’. And this is the One whom you and I approach in prayer.

Moreover, everything God does is a manifestation of His glory. We recall how Paul ended his description of the plan of salvation in the words ‘unto the praise of his glory’, in verse 14. Everything God does is a manifestation of His glory. Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans that Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father’ (6:4). His every act is a manifestation of His glory. ‘The heavens declare the glory of God’ (Psalm 19:1). Do you see the glory of God in the sun and moon and the stars, in the firmament, in flowers, in the whole of creation? They all declare the glory of God. Everything He does is glorious, perfect in its beauty and in every other respect. I speak with reverence when I say that the greatest thing the Lord Jesus Christ did was to manifest the glory of God. In His high priestly prayer as recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel. He says so Himself in various ways. And when He describes His second coming the words He uses are, ‘For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels’ (Matthew 16:27). Everything He did was designed to glorify His Father. God, and the glory of God, are the end, the terminus of salvation.

But Paul’s expression can also be read legitimately as ‘the glorious Father’. It is a Hebraism, a form of expression frequently found in the Hebrew language. Take as an example of this Paul’s statement that he has been given the privilege of preaching the ‘glorious gospel of the blessed God’ (1 Timothy 1:11). I am quoting the phrase as it appears in the Authorized Version. But a better translation would be, ‘The gospel of the glory of the blessed God’—not ‘the glorious gospel’, but ‘the gospel of the glory’. So in the case of ‘the Father of glory’ we can read, ‘the glorious Father’. In that case it means that God the Father is not only glorious, and the source of all glory, and the summation of all glory in Himself, He is also prepared to manifest and to impart that glory. He is a Father, and as a Father He gives, He generates, He passes on glory. God does not keep His glory to Himself if I may so express it; He manifests it, He imparts it. He did so with the Son, and so we find our Lord saying in the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel: Father, I pray that thou wouldest give me the glory I had with thee before the foundation of the world (17:5). He had laid aside that glory for the purpose of the Incarnation, and now He asks that He may have it again. And the Father gave it to Him. There is also His prayer recorded in the twelfth chapter of John’s Gospel, ‘Father, glorify thy Name’ (John 12:28).

The Apostle Peter writes, ‘Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God’ (1 Peter 1:21). The Father glorified the Son while He was here on earth. He gave Him power to perform miracles, He gave Him words to speak, He enabled Him to raise the dead; He glorified Him in His death, He glorified Him in the resurrection. He is the glorious Father, the Father who gives His glory to the Son. This is a thought which staggers us because of its immensity, but it is true to say that, because He gives His glory to the Son, He is ready to give it also to us. We are in the Son because He is our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the Head, as Paul says at the end of our chapter, and we are members of His body, So the glory that is in Him becomes ours; and we go to the Father who is giving us this glory. We wait upon Him, we desire to know more of His glory. Paul is about to pray that these Ephesians may have ‘the spirit of wisdom and of revelation’ in the knowledge of this glory, So that, the eyes of their understanding being opened, they may see this glory and receive it fully. God is our Father, and He will manifest His glory to us.

I end by quoting again from what our Lord is reported as saying in the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel: ‘Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory’ (v. 24). When we go in prayer into the presence of God we should do so expecting some revelation of this glory. ‘We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord are changed into the same image, from glory to glory’ (2 Corinthians 3:18). The process of our glorification has already started; it will eventually be perfected, and we shall be glorified even in our bodies as well as in our spirits. We shall stand in the presence of the Father of glory and see Him.

Let us never again attempt prayer without reminding ourselves that we are going to speak to ‘the Father of glory’. We need not be terrified; we must go with reverence and godly fear because of His glorious character; but at the same time we can go with confidence and assurance, because He is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in Him and through Him our Father. So we pray, ‘Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name’. And if we start in the way we cannot go wrong.*

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1978). God's Ultimate Purpose : An Exposition of Ephesians 1, 1 to 23 (334–337). Edinburgh; Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust.

Will The Defenders Of Michael Servetus Please Stand Up

Some words of Michael Servetus provoking John Calvin:

"The title makes me marvel at the impudence of the man who boasts of being a Catholic, although he is a disciple of Simon the magician, as I have evidently shown in my Apology. Who will say that a prosecutor* and a homicide is a true minister of the Church?" 

“You do not know what you say—you are a wretch, if you persist in condemning what you do not understand. Did you think to stun the ears of the judges by your barking? You have a confused intellect, so that you cannot understand the truth. Wretch! perverted by Simon Magus, you are ignorant of the first principles of things—you make men only blocks of wood and stone by establishing the slavery of the will.”

“If I have said that—not merely said it, but publicly written it—to infect the world, I would condemn myself to death. Wherefore, my Lords, I demand that my false accuser be punished, pœnâ talionis, and that he be detained a prisoner like me, till the cause be decided for his death or mine, or other punishment. And to accomplish that, I now lodge an accusation against him for the said pœnâ talionis. And I am content to die if he be not convicted of these things, as well as of others which I shall bring forward” (emphasis mine).

“Wherefore, like a magician, as he is, he ought not merely to be condemned, but to be exterminated and hunted from your city; and his goods ought to be confiscated to me in return for mine, which he has caused me to lose; which things, my Lords, I request from you” (emphasis mine).

William Tweedie writes:

As to the right to inflict punishment for the excess of religious opinion, and to chastise impiety, that was never a question in the mind of the magistrate. In condemning Servetus and his doctrines, the Council of Geneva did not think that it was doing aught more strange than in declaring Berthelier capable of receiving the communion.* In principle, if not in fact, both decisions ought to be distinctly placed in the same rank; and they are both sufficiently explained by the confusion which existed in the constitution of the Republic, between the temporal and ecclesiastical domains. Besides, the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian, appealed to by the Attorney-General, the Imperial Constitutions which had helped to form the usages in criminal jurisprudence,† and the claims to all power on the part of the body-politic, would have helped to remove scruples regarding the competency of the civil magistrate, had any existed. These scruples did not arise in any country, except in some rare exceptions, till long after this epoch; and Montesquieu, in some degree justifies the Council of Geneva, when he writes, two ages thereafter: “I have not said that it is not necessary to punish heresy; I have only said that it is necessary to be very circumspect in punishing it.” We have seen Servetus himself acknowledging that principles subversive of religion should necessitate the death of their author. In the eyes of Genevese justice, his own opinions were of that nature. Hence he had in some degree, by anticipation subscribed his own condemnation.

...Scarcely had the sentence been passed when Calvin was informed of it, and in his turn he announced it to Farel, to whom he had written some days before, beseeching him to come to Geneva, when the sentence of Servetus was pronounced. As Farel had not arrived, Calvin wrote to him again, and the pastor of Neufchatel crossed the letter of Calvin by the way. In it the Genevese Reformer told his brother, that his colleagues and himself had put forth all their efforts to change the nature of the punishment of Servetus, and substitute the sword for the fire. The motive of this attempt was, no doubt, to avoid the use of these means which the Roman Inquisition employed against heretics and Protestants, and not to recur to instruments of punishment already become odious. Calvin wished to leave to Romanists the monopoly of the auto-da-fe, but the magistrates did not enter into his views. The canon law condemned to the flames persons convicted of heresy; without disturbing themselves as to the origin of the punishment, the Little Council conformed to the practice; and the judicial usage, already followed by the judges of Vienne, triumphed over the request of Calvin. It is to him, notwithstanding, that men have always imputed the guilt of that funeral pile, which he wished had never been reared!

Farel having arrived at Geneva on the previous evening, he was with Servetus when he learned the fatal sentence.* After the first explosion, the criminal, addressing himself to the venerable old man, who tried to convince him of his guilty error, asked him to quote a single place of Scripture where Christ was called Son of God before he was clothed with humanity. Farel pointed out the passages suited to satisfy him, but in vain. Servetus did not abandon his system; and even when imploring pardon, and praying to God and Jesus Christ, whom he called his Saviour, he would not consent that Christ was the Son of God, otherwise than by his humanity. In the eyes of Farel, of Bullinger, of Haller, of Melancthon, of Calvin, of almost all the Reformers, the dissemination of such an idea was a crime. The Council of Geneva appeared to have judged like them.

...In the meantime, before the sentence recorded by it had been solemnly pronounced, Farel was anxious that an interview should take place between Calvin and Servetus. The latter showed himself quite disposed to it; and Calvin requested, through one of his colleagues, the Council’s warrant to that effect. It was granted without delay, and the Councillors Corna and Bonna were appointed to accompany him to the condemned. Being asked by one of them what he had to say to Calvin, Servetus answered, that he wished to ask his pardon. To this the Reformer replied: “I protest that I have never pursued against you any private quarrel. You must remember that it is now more than sixteen years since, at Paris, I spared no pains to gain you to our Lord, and if you had yielded to reason, I would have endeavoured to reconcile to you all the good servants of God. You then shunned the light, and I did not cease, notwithstanding, to exhort you by letters; but all has been in vain—you have cast against me I know not how much fury rather than anger. But as to the rest, I pass by what concerns myself. Think rather of crying for mercy to God whom you have blasphemed, in wishing to efface the three persons who are in his essence; ask pardon of the Son of God, whom you have degraded, and, as it were, denied for your Saviour.” This address of Calvin had no greater success than the exhortations of Farel, and the Reformer withdrew, as St Paul (said he) orders us to withdraw from a heretic.* Taught by adversity, Servetus now appeared as mild and humble towards his adversary as he had hitherto been arrogant and bold; but though he controlled his feelings, he did not sacrifice his convictions (emphasis mine)*

 The reader should note how Servetus' hatred and vitriol towards Calvin was returned with kindness. To be sure Calvin did use harsh words towards Servetus but in line with biblical principles. Furthermore, Calvin met with Servetus after the latter was told of his death sentence and urged the man to repent of his heresy and place his faith in Christ, the Son of God, the second Person in the Godhead. He also reminds Servetus that it was not a matter of personal quarrel, as Servetus made it, but of truth concerning the Triune God but more specifically the divinity of Christ.


* Sevetus quotes quoted from, Tweedie, W. (2009). Calvin and Servetus : The reformer's share in the trial of Michael Servetus (190). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

*Tweedie, W. (2009). Calvin and Servetus : The reformer's share in the trial of Michael Servetus (205–212). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Public Worship Before Private Worship?

It seems a strange thing, these days, to propose that corporate, public worship is to be preferred before private worship. With the rise of individual rights and relativism that has long infected the Church of Christ it seems a very strange and silly thing for John Owen's co-pastor and successor- David Clarkson- to assert such a notion.

He does make such a bold claim (for this day and age) and he does a very fine job of substantiating it biblically.  Here is a portion of his sermon Public Worship To Be Before Private (Ps. 87:2):

But before I proceed to confirm the observation, let me briefly explain what worship is public. Three things are requisite that worship may be public, ordinances, an assembly, and an officer.

1. There must be such ordinances as do require or will admit of public use; such are prayer, praises, the word read, expounded, or preached, and the administration of the sacraments. The word must be read, and prayer is necessary both in secret and private, but they both admit of public use, and the use of them in public is required and enjoined. These must be used both publicly and privately; the other cannot be used duly but in public.

2. There must be an assembly, a congregation joined in the use of these ordinances. The worship of one or two cannot be public worship. Of what numbers it must consist we need not determine; but since what is done in a family is but private, there should be a concurrence of more than constitute an ordinary family.

3. There must be an officer. The administrator of the ordinances must be one of public quality, one in office, one set apart by the Lord, and called to the employment by the church. If a private person in ordinary cases undertake to preach the word or administer the sacraments, if it be allowed as worship, which is not according to ordinary rule, yet there is no reason to expect the blessing, the advantage, the privilege of public worship.

This for explication; now for confirmation. Observe these arguments.

1. The Lord is more glorified by public worship than private. God is then glorified by us when we acknowledge that he is glorious. And he is most glorified when this acknowledgment is most public. This is obvious. A public acknowledgment of the worth and excellency of any one tends more to his honour than that which is private or secret. It was more for David’s honour that the multitude did celebrate his victory, 1 Sam. 18:7, than if a particular person had acknowledged it only in private. Hence the psalmist, when he would have the glory of God most amply declared, contents not himself with a private acknowledgment, but summons all the earth to praise him, Ps. 96:1–3. Then is the Lord most glorified, when his glory is most declared, and then it is most declared when it is declared by most, by a multitude. David shews the way whereby God may be most glorified, Ps. 22:22, 23, 25. Then he appears all glorious when publicly magnified, when he is praised in the great congregation. Then he is most glorified when a multitude speaks of and to his glory: Ps. 29:9, ‘In his temple does every one speak of his glory.’ The Lord complains as if he had no honour from his people, when his public worship is despised, neglected: Mal. 1:6, ‘If I be a father, where is mine honour? If I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord God of hosts unto you, O priests that despise my name.’ By name of God here is meant his worship and ordinances, as plainly appears by what follows, ver. 7, 8, 11. And he here expostulates with them as tendering him no honour, because they despised his worship and ordinances. Then shall Christ be most glorified, when he shall be admired in all them that believe, in that great assembly at the last day, 2 Thess. 1:10. And it holds in proportion now; the more there are who join together in praising, admiring, and worshipping him, the more he is glorified: and therefore more in public than in private.

2. There is more of the Lord’s presence in public worship than in private. He is present with his people in the use of public ordinances in a more especial manner, more effectually, constantly, intimately.

For the first, see Exod. 20:24. After he had given instructions for his public worship, he adds, ‘In all places where I record my name, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.’ Where I am publicly worshipped, for the name of God is frequently put for the worship of God, I will come; and not empty-handed, I will bless thee: a comprehensive word, including all that is desirable, all that tends to the happiness of those that worship him. Here is the efficacy.

For the constancy of his presence, see Mat. 28: ‘I am with you always to the end of the world.’ Where, after he had given order for the administration of public ordinances, he concludes with that sweet encouragement to the use of them, πὰσας τὰς ἡμέρας, I am with you always, every day, and that to the end of the world. Here is the constancy.

See the intimacy of his presence: Mat. 18:20, ‘Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.’ He says not, I am near them, or with them, or about them, but in the midst of them; as much intimacy as can be expressed. And so he is described, Rev. 1:13, to be in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, in the midst of the church; there he walks and there he dwells; not only with them, but in them. For so the apostle, 2 Cor. 6:16, renders that of Lev. 26:12, which promise he made, upon presupposal of his tabernacle, his public worship amongst them, ver. 11. Hence it is, that when the public worship of God is taken from a people, then God is departed, his presence is gone; as she, when the ark was taken from the Israelites, cried out, ‘The glory is departed.’ And why, but because the Lord, who is the glory of his people, is then departed? Public ordinances are the sign, the pledge of God’s presence; and in the use of them, he does in a special manner manifest himself present.

But you will say, Is not the Lord present with his servants when they worship him in private? It is true; but so much of his presence is not vouchsafed, nor ordinarily enjoyed, in private as in public. If the experience of any find it otherwise, they have cause to fear the Lord is angry, they have given him some distaste, some offence; if they find him not most, where ordinarily he is most to be found, and this is in public ordinances, for the Lord is most there where he is most engaged to be, but he has engaged himself to be most there where most of his people are. The Lord has engaged to be with every particular saint, but when the particulars are joined in public worship, there are all the engagements united together. The Lord engages himself to let forth as it were, a stream of his comfortable, quickening presence to every particular person that fears him, but when many of these particulars join together to worship God, then these several streams are united and meet in one. So that the presence of God, which, enjoyed in private, is but a stream, in public becomes a river, a river that makes glad the city of God. The Lord has a dish for every particular soul that truly serves him; but when many particulars meet together, there is a variety, a confluence, a multitude of dishes. The presence of the Lord in public worship makes it a spiritual feast, and so it is expressed, Isa. 25:6. There is, you see, more of God’s presence in public worship, ergo public worship is to be preferred before private.*

I wish to draw your attention to the last paragraph. His point is simple- if people have found that private worship has been better from an experiential standpoint than in public then perhaps God has been offended and withheld His blessing. My take is this- perhaps the modern church needs to re-evaluate what is calls "worship" in local church gatherings. Could it be that we are approaching the Most High in an improper and offensive manner thereby offending Him? Could it be that that instead of worshiping the thrice holy God the way He has prescribed and commanded in His Word, the contemporary church has done what it so often does when it becomes uncomfortable with certain issues- ignore or re-define them (usually based on what suits our fancy)?

Maybe there are people objecting that they have been to liturgical Reformed church services and still think they're "boring" or "dull"? I do admit there is a great danger in getting caught up in form so as to attempt worship in truth to the neglect of spirit (Jn. 4:24). There is also the possibility that people making such claims that biblical worship is "boring" are really un-regenerates who think they are regenerate (non- Christians thinking they are Christians). It would be sheer madness to allow un-regenerates to drive the direction of the church! It is a very strange thing to have people say that they love Christ but find they way to worship the triune God, in the manner He commanded, as "boring." It is similar to saying I love America but hate the constitution and freedom and its terrain.

When God promises to do something He does it. If He has promised to bless His covenant people, gathered in the name of Christ, with His presence during corporate worship and His presence seems lacking, it is from no fault of God's but instead is the fault of people that have taken it upon themselves to approach Him in a way He has not commanded.


*Clarkson, D. (1864). The Works of David Clarkson, Volume III (189–191). Edinburgh: James Nichol.

Epistemology is Everything

Please do not let this title fool you. I am not literally asserting that the discipline of epistemology is literally everything. Relax, my friends, it’s just a title. Or is it? (Pun intended). I was engaging in a miniature exchange with a bare theist (God exists but we don’t know who He is) and when I asked the question “How is knowledge possible?” He (as they usually do) asked me if the question was a trick question or a joke. As a philosopher in training, I do not ask those kinds of questions in that particular light. I do not make a small issue of epistemology nor should anyone. The absurd notion that we are living in a post-epistemological age - that we can simply shove that subset of human inquiry under the rug and take the nature of knowledge for granted is an implicit yet forcefully guarded epistemological statement in and of itself. The person I was speaking to remarked, “Philosophy cannot be applied to science.” My mental jaw dropped. To assert that a well-respected discipline such as the philosophy of science has no place in “exact-science” is in itself a statement pertaining to the philosophy of science which is a type of discipline of philosophy! How could a person be so metaphysically stunted?! That is the straw-man that many students of “exact-science” (exact according to whom?) make of my discipline, whether or not they are Christians.


Even more spellbinding is the notion that philosophy is not compatible with the Bible. That would also be a philosophical statement. Amateur thinkers and modern sophists will often think that the whole arch-discipline of Philosophy is to be equated with Greek speculation alone and nothing else. They will try to (rightfully) guard the Bible from that lofty ghost of Aristotle who obscured the reality of sola scriptura for centuries under the guise of Roman Catholic Scholasticism. To affirm sola scriptura / tota scriptura is itself a Philosophy, and my epistemological axiom “The Bible is the word of God written” employed by Gordon Clark and a host of others since then is part of the fruit of the great Reformation. I will admit, however, that the hot issues of the early 20^th century differed from those of the Reformation, but nobody can state with any intellectual integrity that “justification by faith alone” is only an issue of the past – an epoch that is no longer relevant today. The infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures along with justification will always be real and present issues because they lie at the heart of Christianity. But we have deviated from my original topic. Or have we? For those who are not quite clear what epistemology is, it is a discipline within philosophy that asks: “Is knowledge possible? If so (or since so) what makes it possible and for whom? What are the limitations of knowing anything at all (any fact) and what is the warrant or justification for a particular belief? The gentleman with whom I spoke stated that epistemology has been widely regarded to be an “unsolved issue.” How does he know? Why is it an unsolved issue? What does the word “unsolved” mean? (The philosophy of language also has to answer to epistemology. Everything answers to it). He would not discuss this. Instead, he randomly began to spout some facts about this and that without a system of thought to account for those same facts. He was not aware that for every scientific “fact” that he typed, there had to be a cogent and comprehensive network of presuppositions to make sense of them. But why the double standard? Why do his “facts” have to be true and my epistemological inquiries “unsolved?” What kind of comprehensive worldview is this person embracing that would support the statement that what science “says” (whatever that means) is a fact (what is a fact?) but what the epistemologist says is “unsolved?” On what basis can one make such a claim?

One cannot. The Bible would never support such a statement. Unsolved? It’s a mystery, isn’t. We “know” that some object falls (due to the “laws” of acceleration) at a rate of 32 feet per second per second, but by golly if I simply ask “how does one account for this,” they say “that’s unsolved! It’s a mystery! We don’t know! Stop the philosophy because we are dealing with the “real” facts!” Their intellectual condemnation is just. What needs to be asserted here is that the scientific method operates under an epistemology called rational empiricism. It is a mix of some type of rationalism (that reason alone can account for a belief) and empiricism (that sense experience can account for knowledge). It includes a great deal of induction (reasoning from the particular to the general) and deduction (reasoning from the general to the particular). It can employ syllogisms (premises with a conclusion) and abductive reasoning, which attempts to arrive at a conclusion from a hypothesis that one has constructed. That is a great deal of the epistemology of the scientific method. It is simply taken for granted that this is possible and thought systems are rarely examined because one figures “if I can see the object falling, then it must be falling because I am watching it fall.” (And people accuse Scripturalists of reasoning in a circle)! I will not attempt to refute either rationalism or empiricism in this blog post, but I will ask for a favor. When you think of a fact, do not think of it simply floating around in a vacuum. Think of how you are arriving at the fact and what tools or machinery or system or foundation you are using to be able to construe that fact. Then we can talk about how “unscientific” the Bible is (whatever that means). It is also important to note that I am not pitting the false dilemma of Science vs. the Bible. There is no such thing as that dilemma - that false dichotomy that has seemed to dominate western thought for centuries. The exact sciences have absolutely no bearing in and of themselves to stand alone and are in need of a worldview to support them.

Felipe Diez III
Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com

 

The Law Of Love?

There is a very large part of Christendom which teaches that the moral Law of God, as given in the Decalogue, has been replaced by the "Law of Christ" and is not to be found in any "codified" (arrange according to a plan or system) sense but rather comes from the believer's new desire, by the leading of the Spirit, to love our neighbor.

To this Dr. Robert Reymond explains their view a bit more and demonstrates why it should be rejected:

Bruce’s proposal and proposals resembling it—heard so often today that the position has acquired among Christian ethicists its own special designation, namely, ‘Christian Intuitionism’—is that the renewed consciousness of the Christian has an intuitive sense of what is right and wrong. A popular version of this ethical theory is expressed by the words, ‘As a Christian I don’t need a written code of regulations. The law of love, infused within me by the Holy Spirit, will lead me to do the right thing.’ This proposal urges that since the heart of the believer is renewed after the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, holiness, and love, the renewed person will spontaneously respond in the only way that bespeaks the divine exemplar after which the heart has been renewed. Of course, since the same renewal occurs over time in the hearts of a great number of individuals, which renewal dictates similar responses to similar situations, these ‘common responses’ produce a ‘moral convention’ which can become codified and systematized. If there are any objective norms of acceptable behavior, this is the explanation for their appearance. That is to say, any objective norms are human conventions which flow out of the renewed spirit, not objective norms revealed by God that exist objectively prior to the palingenesis to which the renewed spirit must give heed. In sum, the renewed heart does not require objective laws in order to know what to do or not to do.

...Against the second condition—the Christian intuitionist’s insistence that the outflow of love toward God and one’s neighbor which springs naturally from every renewed heart does away with the Christian’s need for objective norms for approved behavior and his insistence that the intuited ‘readings’ of love’s dictates are the only ‘norms’ that one needs to develop a biblical ethic—I would advance the following four arguments:

First, with John Murray I would urge that ‘the thought of the passages [where the law is said to be written on the heart of the renewed person, Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; 10:16] is not that we come to know what the law is by reading the inscription upon the heart. The thought is rather that there is generated in the sinful heart a new affinity with and a love to the law, to the end that there may be cheerful, spontaneous, loving fulfilment of it.’ Surely Adam in the state of original integrity had the law of God inscribed upon his heart, but ‘this inscription did not obviate the necessity of giving to Adam positive directions respecting the activity which was to engage interest, occupation, and life in this world’. Murray explains:

  The procreative mandate, for example, had respect to the exercise of one of his fundamental instincts. Adam as created must have been endowed with the sex impulse which would have sought satisfaction and outlet in the sex act. But he was not left to the dictates of the sex impulse and of the procreative instinct; these were not a sufficient index to God’s will for him. The exercise of this instinct was expressly commanded and its exercise directed to the achievement of a well-defined purpose. Furthermore, there was the marital ordinance within which alone the sex act was legitimate.

  These original mandates … show unmistakably that native endowment or instinct is not sufficient for man’s direction even in the state of original integrity. The exercise of native instincts, the institutions within which they are to be exercised, and the ends to be promoted by their exercise are prescribed by specially revealed commandments. If all this is true in a state of sinless integrity, when where was no sin to blind vision or depravity to pervert desire, how much more must expressly prescribed directions be necessary in a state of sin in which intelligence is blinded, feeling depraved, conscience defiled, and will perverted!

Second, I would say that while it is true that love is the fulfillment of the law (Matt 22:37–40; Rom 13:10), it must never be forgotten that love to God with all our heart and soul and strength and mind and love to our neighbor as ourselves are themselves commandments. We are commanded to love God and our neighbor. The antithesis which is oftentimes set up between love [as the only proper norm for action] and commandments [depicted as a sub-Christian norm for biblical ethics] overlooks this elementary fact. Love itself is exercised in obedience to a commandment: ‘Thou shalt love.’

Love then is not ultimate but is dictated by a divine command that is its logical prius. Love then is itself obedience to a commandment which comes from a source (namely, God) other than itself, and not to love is sin because it is the transgression of this commandment of God. We do not, by taking refuge in love as the only proper ‘norm’ of biblical ethics, totally escape thereby the norm of law.

Third, while again it is true that Jesus declares that on the two commandments of love hang all the law and the prophets (Matt 22:37–40) and Paul affirms that love is the fulfillment of the law (Gal 5:14), these very statements draw an obvious distinction between love and the law that hangs on it, and between love and the law that it fulfils.… In neither case do love and law have the same denotation. Hence there must be content to the law that is not defined by love itself. We may speak, if we will, of the law of love. But, if so, what we must have in view is the commandment to love or the law which love fulfils. We may not speak of the law of love if we mean that love is itself the law. Love cannot be equated with the law nor can law be defined in terms of love.

Fourth, the consistent witness of Scripture is to the effect that love is never allowed to discover or dictate its own standards of conduct. The renewed heart is simply never allowed spontaneously to define the ethic of the saints of God. To the contrary, the Bible confronts us with objectively revealed precepts—all either explicit commandments or implicates of the Ten Commandments—to be regarded as the norms for human behavior. Neither Adam in Paradise was permitted nor even the most committed saint since the Fall has been permitted to chart for himself the path he would take. Nor has the love which is the fulfillment of the law ever existed in a situation that is absent from the revelation of God respecting his will for mankind. To think so amounts to an abstraction that has never been true of the human experience. Rather, from the beginning—even from the state of innocence—into the New Testament era itself which extends to the present, the norms of human behavior have come in the form of divinely revealed objective commandments and precepts. After setting forth the doctrinal bases for the Christian life, the writers of the New Testament letters follow them with ethical imperatives addressed to the Christian mind and heart. They clearly understand that it is not enough to explicate the glories of our ‘so great salvation’ and to conclude their letters with such explication. They do not assume that the Holy Spirit will simply lead believers to see what they must do in light of their ‘so great salvation’—the error of the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century who separated the Spirit of God from the written Word of God. To the contrary, they provide their readers detailed, at times highly detailed, moral instructions—this moral instruction, as we have seen, being nothing more than the Decalogue and/or its implicates (see the extended treatments of ethical behavior in Romans 12–16 and Ephesians 4–6).

To conclude, according to Murray, ‘the notion … that love is its own law and the renewed consciousness its own monitor is a fantasy which has no warrant from Scripture and runs counter to the entire witness of biblical teaching.’ In sum, I would urge that the uniform biblical witness in this regard is that the Decalogue is the covenant norm and way of life for all human behavior, Christian no less than non-Christian.*

*Reymond, R. L. (2000). Paul, Missionary Theologian (482,489-491). Scotland: Christian Focus Publications.

Dr. Reymond On Justification

Over against Rome’s polemic that the righteousness of justification is to be construed in terms of “sanctification and renewal of the inward man,” that is, in terms of the Christian’s “being inwardly made increasingly righteous” through the impartation or infusion of sanctifying grace stands the consentient biblical (and Protestant) insistence that the righteousness of justification is neither a righteousness which comes through any efforts on our part nor a righteousness infused or generated in us by the Holy Spirit. Rather, the righteousness of justification, as we have already said, is the objective God-righteousness of Jesus Christ, which God the Father, in the very act of justifying the ungodly, imputes to him, thereby constituting him legally righteous in his sight (which “constituting” act, of course, no human judge can do when a guilty party stands before him).

That the righteousness of justification is the God-righteousness of the divine Christ himself, which is imputed or reckoned to us the moment we place our confidence in him (see justification as a finished act in Rom. 5:1—“having been justified”), is amply testified to when the Scriptures teach that we are justified (1) in Christ (Isa. 45:24–25; Acts 13:39; Rom. 8:1; 1 Cor. 6:11; Gal. 2:17; Phil. 3:9), (2) by Christ’s death work (Rom. 3:24–25; 5:9; 8:33–34), (3) not by our own but by the righteousness of God (Isa. 61:10; Rom. 1:17; 3:21–22; 10:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9) and (4) by the righteousness and obedience of Christ (Rom. 5:17–19). In short, the only ground of justification is the perfect God-righteousness of Christ that God the Father imputes to every sinner who places his confidence in the obedience and satisfaction of his Son. Said another way, the moment the sinner, through faith in Jesus Christ, turns away from every human resource and rests in Christ alone, the Father imputes his well-beloved Son’s preceptive (active) obedience to him and accepts him as righteous in his sight. And the sinner, now a Christian, may (and as far as his righteousness before God is concerned he must) sing thereafter, in the words of Horatius Bonar:

 

      Not what my hands have done

         can save my guilty soul;

      Not what my toiling flesh

         has borne can make my spirit whole.

      Not what I feel or do

         can give me peace with God;

      Not all my prayers and sighs and tears

         can bear my awful load.

      Thy work alone, O Christ,

         can ease this weight of sin;

      Thy blood alone, O Lamb of God,

         can give me peace within.

      No other work, save thine,

         no other blood will do;

      No strength, save that which is divine,

         can bear me safely through.

*Reymond, R. L. (1998). A new systematic theology of the Christian faith (746–747). Nashville: T. Nelson.