A Vindication of Christian Dogmatism

2009-07-21T19:48:00.000-07:00

A Vindication of Christian Dogmatism
(Concerning its Application to the Christian’s Epistemology and Metaphysics)

If you want the text file I can email it to you. Email me your address and I can get it to you.

Wherein
many questions concerning the authority of scripture over all knowledge are discussed and resolved.

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Introduction
I. The Axiom
II. Natural Theology
A. Cosmological Argument
B. Teleological Argument
C. Ontological Argument
D. Moral Law Argument
III. Rationalism: (Reason that Scorns Faith)
IV. Empiricism
A. Reason Before Faith: (Ecclesiastical Empiricism)
B. Naturalistic Empiricism: (Science that Scorns Reason; Existentialism)
i. Thirty-Seven Theses Against Empiricism
ii. Eighteen Theses Against Behaviorism
V. Irrationalism (Faith that Scorns Reason)
A. Mysticism
i. Four Theses Against the Accusation of Christian Synchronization
ii. Six Theses Proving the Distinctions Between Christianity and Paganism
B. Refutation of Christian Irrationalism
i. Concerning the Role of the Conscience for the Christian
a. The Bible is the rule of the conscience therefore conscience is not a rule of faith.
b. The use of the conscience.
c. If the Synod’s decision is agreeable to the scripture, it is binding on the conscience of those under its authority.
d. The conscience is commanded to be mature, strong and complete
e. A tender conscience smacks of popery.
f. Summary statement
ii. The Church is to Have One Voice
a. The fundamentals
b. Against this one faith, there is to be severe rebuke to those who speak other doctrines.
iii. Concerning Fundamentals and How Many.
iv. Concerning Points Not Fundamental.
v. Concerning the Role of Human Logic in Hermeutics and the Obligations Proceeding from the Deduction on the Conscience.
a. God holds people accountable for heresy even if what they said directly is not heresy but the logical consequence is.
b. Good and necessary consequences are valid ground for establishing true doctrine, therefore, logical consequences are valid to establish the accusation of heresy.
c. Ignorance is a judgment of God on a people for sin and not an excuse for heresy.
d. Ignorance though a lesser degree of sin is still sin.
e. There is a difference between sinful and innocent ignorance.
vi. Concerning the Value of Knowing Theological Truths in Relation to Sanctification.
vii. Consequences of the Liberty of Conscience and Pluralism.
a. Hypocrisy is produced by both an established magistrate and the preaching of the gospel, therefore hypocrisy argues against both and therefore the argument is invalid.
b. Independency produces constant argument and division between professing Christians, and the unbelievers see it and mock as Dr. Shermer does.
c. Independency and pluralism does the exact opposite of what it promises. It says freedom of conscience will help prosper religion. After independency has poured all its dull flavors in the fountain, an unbeliever cannot taste much.
d. Conclusion
VI. Christian Dogmatism (Scripturalism; Spiritual Rationalism)
A. Epistemology
i. Axiom
a. In Defense of Critical Eclecticism
b. Logic
1. Scriptural uses of logic and necessary inference
2. Fundamental definitions in scripturalist reason:
ii. A Priori Structures
B. Metaphysics
C. Philosophy of Language
D. Philosophy of Science
i. Galileo’s Supposed Persecution
ii. Orientation
iii. A Mechanistic Model
iv. A Theistic Model
v. A Pragmatic Model (Operationalism)
vi. Space
vii. Motion
viii. Matter
ix. The Ideas
xi. Mathematics
xi. Induction
VII. Concluding Criticism and Exhortation
Bibliography

A Vindication of Christian Dogmatism
(Concerning its application to the Christian’s epistemology and metaphysics)

Heb 6:13 For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"--
1Ti 6:21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Grace be with you. 0

that is, Christ Himself,
Col 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2Pe 1:3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
2Pe 1:4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.
Pro 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.
Pro 3:7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and turn away from evil.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Pro 23:7 For as he thinks within himself, so he is.

(Quotations from the NASB unless otherwise indicated.)

Introduction
T
hroughout all the ages of the Christian Church, the question of how to defend the faith has spawned some of the most confusing, profound and irrelevant thoughts ever conceived by the minds of men. When the early Church began its missionary endeavors, the task of convincing the pagans to renounce their beliefs and turn to Christ introduced an unfounded burden on the Church that has been the cause of much confusion. It has also caused many unbelievers to blaspheme. If they had done what the apostle Paul did when he evangelized a people they may have seen even greater success. Though, these confusions may seem unfortunate to us these things are a part of God’s decree: 1Cor 11:19 “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.” It is a glory to God’s providence that he uses even false teachers and wicked men to perfect his Church. It is an authenticating article of human pride when men think they are more clever to convince men of God’s religion than God is. The Bible does not appeal to man by proving God’s existence. The Bible assumes God’s existence. Men are to believe the Bible on the grounds of the Bible (Heb 6:13). The Bible is to be preached not proven. The problem that men have is that the preaching of the cross is foolishness. When some self-proclaimed guru asks you to prove the Bible without using the Bible you have a choice to make: 1.) You can submit to God’s authority and be reproached as a fool for the sake of Christ…or 2.) You can assume that God needs human wisdom to vindicate his existence. The Bible is self authenticating (Heb 6:13); It does not need our support.

This discourse will begin with an exposition of the major axioms of historical western philosophy, provide criticisms and answer objections. It will be followed by an exposition of Christian Dogmatism also accompanied by objections and answers.

I. The Axiom
The axiom of Christian Scripturalism is the Protestant canon of the Bible and all logical inferences deduced from the Bible. When one asks how we know what books go in the Bible our answer is that this is our axiom. We assume it. William Cunningham says, “These doctrines of the inspiration and canonical authority of the books of Scripture do not come under the class of truths of which Protestants contend that the Bible is the exclusive standard and depository, but are from their very nature preliminary or antecedent.”[1] I would not mislead the reader into thinking that Cunningham was a Clarkian but in respect to the Protestant canon he holds an axiomatic position which is clear from the context. He repeats this assertion “preliminary or antecedent” numerous times. Therefore, the scripturalist axiom begins with the scripture and attempts to deduce a philosophy of knowledge, metaphysics, ethics, politics, religion and beauty etc. This technique is not confined only to dogmatists. The use of the axiom can be understood as it functions in the simple theorems of Geometry. In Geometry certain assumptions (Postulates) are requisite in order to build theorems. It is assumed that only one line passes through two distinct points and this principle makes up a fundamental assumption (i.e. axiom or postulate) that when joined with other compatible assumptions concerning the plane, points, lines and terms make up a theorum of Geometry. Dr. Clark says, “Not unlike the mathematician, the dogmatic theologian begins with certain givens: his system is self-contained and is offered, so to speak, as a package deal…”[2] Scripturalism is known by another name: Dogmatism. “As the word suggests, this view holds the divine revelation is contained in the language, statements, or propositions of a text, such as the Bible…”[3]

Empiricism is the axiom that asserts that all knowledge comes through the senses. This is easy to understand, but what about rationalism? Rationalism is the theory that all knowledge can be obtained through naked human logic and reason apart from divine revelation and the senses. Rene’ Descartes may be considered the most famous Western rationalist. Descartes suggested the model that Geometry proposes in assuming on fundamental axioms and then step by step developing a philosophy. The assumed principles of Descartes’ Rationalism are based on human innate knowledge structures. He believed these knowledge structures communicated to man universal and self-evident truths that make up the foundation of his philosophy. “Descartes’ first acknowledged premise, from which he thought he could deduce God and the world, was the proposition, “I think.’ But Descartes had a reason for accepting ‘I think’ as true. The reason was that its denial is self-contradictory.”[4]The problem is, this makes the laws of logic his axiom not cogito ergo sum. Descartes’ argument is that “no matter how false the proposition is that we think, it cannot be false that we think. If we did not think, we would not be deceived. Therefore ‘I think’ is a self-authenticating proposition. That is to say, its self denial is self-contradictory. If I deny that I think, I must be thinking. Therefore the assertion or proposition, I think, must be true.”[5] My opponents try to use Descartes to prove that one has to establish his axiom. As was stated before, Descartes’ axiom is the laws of logic, primarily contradiction, but certainly not cogito ergo sum. So I do not accept the premise that Descartes established his axiom, therefore I avoid the burden. Dogmatism and Rationalism do have some overlap in that they both use reason.
“There is a second similarity between rationalism and dogmatism…rationalism and dogmatism are forms of realism. Their epistemology is not representational…Every thinker must decide for himself whether the X that is immediately in the mind is the real object or a representation of it.”[6] Rationalism explains the parts by the whole. Empiricism explains what whole it can by the parts.

When we are discussing the issue of the first principle (Or axiom) we are discussing a basic premise which is assumed upon and not proved. The reason we spend time developing this premise is for consistency and application with all the subsequent premises in our philosophy, which if inconsistent with the first principle are meaningless.
If someone says “Prove this first principle to me”, no previous answer can be given or the new answer becomes the new first principle. If there are two concepts that are mutually exclusive, and one is used to prove the other, the proof has become the first principle. The main point is that people get so involved in arguing at step 30, 50 or 500 and never give any consideration of step 1 in the assembly of a structure of knowledge. This error we do not fall prey to. A consistent philosophy though in its first principle is circular is consistent and is a class A test of real knowledge. I do not want to try to escape any problems or be simplistic. When I say consistency is a test of real knowledge that does not mean that I know that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I can say that I know I am consistent and some others are not and they are wrong, but that does not mean that there is not some other hypothetical consistent philosophical system out there. This is a vindication of dogmatism not a vindication of air tight infallible knowledge. By the way, I am no skeptic. When it comes to the human perspective I am. However, I say that in reference to the human perspective (as it is after the fall) human beings can use no faculty inherent in themselves to come to real demonstrable knowledge. The fall has corrupted all creation including our minds which theologians would call the noetic effects of sin. When we speak of real knowledge we speak of knowledge that can be demonstrated. Knowledge is defined by the possession of a proposition containing a variable error of zero commonly known as truth or fact. Dr. Clark says: “If it be said that the latter have only faith and not ‘knowledge,’ because their beliefs are not thoroughly integrated, the reply is that all knowledge is faith.”[7]I am not saying that human beings can have no knowledge but I am saying they cannot demonstrate any knowledge from sensation or from reason. Dogmatism asserts that the only real knowledge that can be demonstrated is the propositions that make up a revealed book of “religious” dogma such as the Bible or the Koran.
“Still the choice of an ultimate principle or of a system of philosophy is not necessarily or ordinarily a personal whim or an arbitrary decision. Such a choice is the result of a long course of study to organize one’s universe. It is made with a fairly clear consciousness of the implications in many fields of inquiry. A whim, on the other hand, is the choice of some special factor without regard to the rest of life or to one’s other beliefs. Choice, however, is unavoidable because first principles cannot be demonstrated, and though some choices are arbitrary, the philosophical choice has regard to the widest possible consistency. Choice, therefore, is as legitimate as it is inevitable.”[8] (Underlining and italics are mine).

This choice, I would argue (As a dogmatist), is a dogmatic one. Sensation can give us knowledge to function. That is, it gives us the how, not the what or why. This is not to say we know sensation gives us function but that we function in certain cases as if it does. This distinction can be described as the difference between a knack and knowledge. The Bible gives us knowledge. Our eyes and ear etc. gives us a knack.

II. Natural Theology
Natural Theology is a method of obtaining knowledge about God from experience in creation using primarily reason. In Western thought, natural theology has concerned itself with arguments that attempt to prove the existence of God. “Existence” is never defined. There have been four main arguments for the existence of God: A. Cosmological; B. Teleological; C. Ontological; D. Moral Law. I will give an exposition of each argument and accompany each exposition with objections. The reader should assume that the author does not believe any of the arguments for Natural Theology, primarily because the word “existence” has no meaning. Presuppositional apologetics uses the transcendental argument that states God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary. God has to exist in order to base the laws of logic which are pertinent for any proof. I will not be addressing this argument here, save to say, the word “exists” or “existence” has no meaning.

A. Cosmological Argument

This is the first empirical proof of God’s “existence.” The argument can be found in Aristotle’s Physics Book VIII. This argument was used by Aquinas in his Cosmological argument:
“It is certain and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another…But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover…Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other, and this everyone understands to be God.”[9]

First, the reader will see clearly that he bases his argument on sensation and motion. I suggest the reader refer to my theses against empiricism. Certainly, when Aquinas says that “Now whatever is moved is moved by another” this cannot go on infinitely because then there would be no first mover”: he asserts that there must be a first mover. The problem is, this assertion functions as the reason to reject the infinite regress and the conclusion. This is a fallacy.

B. Teleological Argument
The teleological argument asserts that there must be a God because the universe seems to be very organized and systematic. A beautiful painting requires a painter. These assertions are given again on the basis of sensation. Secondly, this argument like the last one does not prove the Christian God. The Christian God includes the attribute of justice. Is it evident that there is organized and systematic justice in the world? I would argue, no, at least in my country. In my country, the evil people are rewarded and the good people are derided by law. Thirdly, what about other religions that view the world as a living organism? In this case the world, like a head of cabbage is organized, but this view gives no necessity for a god.

C. Ontological Argument
Anselm says,
“And so, Lord, do thou, who dost give understanding to faith, give me, so far as thou knowest it to be profitable, to understand that thou art as we believe, and that thou art that which we believe. And, indeed, we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived…even the fool admits that something exists in the understanding…If that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.”[10]

It is my opinion that this is the most brilliant attempt among the theistic proofs. My chief criticism is focused on the use of the word “exist.” It is a bit naïve to believe that the essence of a thought in someone’s mind is the same with the essence of God. It is meaningless to say that a car exists, or that a person exists. This tells us nothing of what or who they are. Dr. Clark often made the point that if a predicate can attach to every subject the predicate has no meaning. Even a unicorn exists; It simply exists mythologically. Therefore, the issue to solve is what the nature of something is, not whether it has a nature.

D. Moral Law Argument
The moral argument states: Without God, determining morality would be impossible. This in no way proves the Christian God. The question of God’s “existence” needs to be qualified. What kind of “existence?” The Christian God has qualities that other gods do not. The other problem is that this assertion is wishful thinking. It proves nothing. Was the Khmer Rouge convinced? They agreed whole heartedly. It is a weak argument.

III. Rationalism: (Reason that Scorns Faith)
We will now discuss the worldview of the Renaissance. Mathew Tindal’s philosophy is a good introduction to the type of thought associated with the Renaissance. Tindal taught that there is a religion natural to man that can be comprehended by reason. He taught that revelation and mysterious sacramental rituals were not needed but only raw and naked reason. He taught that this rational God governs the world rationally. Because of this he viewed miracles as unlawful to a rational God who has subjected the world to laws. The Renaissance was comprised primarily of the rationalists: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and the empiricists: Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. For the rationalist, he believes that there are self-evident, universal truths in the world and that from these universal truths all matters of science and philosophy could be derived by logical flow. Rationalists believe these universal truths, are found in geometry. This is why many of these men have been freemasons, who find much weight in a philosophical discipline known as “sacred geometry.” One problem with rationalism even from a humanistic point of view is that rationalism will never further our knowledge of astronomy or other fields which rely on empiricism and exploration. Clark says “And if astronomy and botany must progress apart from rationalism, it is inconsistent to demand that religion should be so confined.”[11] If the rationalist says that his presupposition is proven by logic or reason, this is circular and is begging the question. If he says that it is proven in another way, he has disproved the statement itself.

A Priori Structures
To be simplistic for the sake of the reader, a priorism refers to the innate, pre-programmed software structures that are included in minds as they enter our world. This idea is directly contrary to Locke’s “tabula rasa.” An example of one of these structures can be explained by the behavior of a Baltimore Oriole (This is a favorite example of Dr. Clark). After scoring a mate, the couple will build a very complex nest that hangs around a branch. It is a pendant-shaped nest that consists of grass, bark, various vegetables, and miscellaneous items like string etc. that vary in length and the placement of certain lengths of items is vital to the structure of the nest. This nest is systematically woven around the branch of a tree with one opening in the top much like a basket. The point is that if any of us tried to do this we would be at it for quite a long time because the knowledge of this form of architecture is innate in this species of bird but not innate in the minds of human beings. I ask (Parroting Dr. Clark), “From what sensation did this bird learn this knowledge?” This knowledge is not deduced from a sensation but is innate and a priori in this species of bird. Plato’s Ideas or Forms are the most complete aspect of a rationalist worldview. Plato rejected the empirical method and adopted the a priori view of the mind. Plato’s view of the world emphasized “seeing” through the a priori structures rather than the physical eyes. The Ideas or Forms in some degree are in man as he comes into the world and as he “experiences” things in this world he is merely re-learning what he already knows. Plato’s cave allegory was a construction of pure genius. The allegory set up a scenario where people were trapped in a cave facing the back of the cave. At the mouth of the cave the rays of light would cast shadows on the back of the cave as the true forms or ideas passed by the cave. Therefore, reality as the people saw it was only a mere shadow of the truth. Plato described this relationship similar to when a person hears a harp and is reminded of their favorite musician. An objection to the Ideas is answered, “A single body cannot be in several places at once, but any number of men throughout the world can have the same thought at the same time; and if, as is surely the case, the Ideas are more of the nature of thought than of body, the objection is convicted of a false analogy.”[12]
I will speak more on this issue under the section regarding individuation. I will refrain from more for now except to say that Christian Dogmatism has a great overlap with Plato’s philosophy and the relationship will be developed later.

IV. Empiricism
A. Reason Before Faith: (Ecclesiastical Empiricism)
Thomas Aquinas argued for God’s existence from nature as a foundation and then moved toward a revealed theology. In common terms Aquinas argued that men without any aid from the Holy Spirit have natural reason and have eyes to see the arguments for God’s existence in nature. Having accepted this demonstrable evidence man can now accept the indemonstrable word from faith. Therefore, on this model man knows that God exists in order to believe His Word, so in a sense there is some tension between knowledge (reason) and faith. Thomas knows God first, so he therefore in a sense cannot believe in God’s existence. Surely, there are aspects of God that cannot be totally exhibited to the human mind and so we exercise faith in subjects such as the Trinity and so would Aquinas. We know from scripture that God is one in three persons, but we do not understand this completely but believe it. In this we cannot criticize Aquinas too much. In Thomistic philosophy, knowledge of everything about the world comes first and then as a conclusion God is deduced. For this we do criticize Aquinas. I would like to hear Aquinas give me an argument from nature to prove God’s existence. When confronted with this challenge Aquinas utilizes his Aristotelian view of the first cause, also called the cosmological argument. This view holds the world and the universe as the effect and God as the necessary cause. I find this argument invalid due to the circularity of the definitions given. Clark says,” In the context motion is used in the explanation and then the concepts of potentiality and actuality are used to define motion.”[13] I have also been struck by Hume’s rejection of the cosmological argument. He saw that observations of the effect would be the only basis for understanding the cause. Hume gave an example, that if we heard the symphonies of Beethoven, we would understand his logical, structured and mathematical genius as well as his artistry and creativity, but this would tell us nothing of the fact that he loved sports and was the quarterback of Bonn University. Therefore, our knowledge of the symphony would leave us with spurious conclusions about Beethoven. The parallel is powerful in respect to the cosmological argument’s incomplete understanding of the Biblical God. The main problem with Aquinas is his belief that the natural man has eyes to see and is fundamentally autonomous. The Roman Catholic view of man is that Adam was first created soul and body and these two sides of his nature by creation were at odds against each other. On this view, God imparted original righteousness to man to subdue the flesh and give dominance to the Spirit. With the fall man lost this original righteousness and now lives in a state just like the one he was created in. Though he has lost original righteousness, he has not lost his natural state and therefore free, yet not perfect. This is a thousand times wrong. This view of reality does not take into account the noetic effects (Those chaotic and destructive consequences of the fall into sin on the conscience) of sin (Romans 8:6-8). With this view of reality there is no God who decreed everything that would come to pass, and therefore cannot understand the one purpose of all things. If man is free there cannot be a God who planned everything and has a purpose for everything, especially his own glory through the Church. Without one preplanned purpose for all things, individual facts have no homogenous relationship. On the Thomistic model, knowledge is therefore impossible and would be by nature self-contradicting.

B. Naturalistic Empiricism: (Science that Scorns Reason; Existentialism)
Naturalistic empiricism (Materialism) begins with the axiom of sensation. It is through the five senses that we sentient beings tap into the true reality of the material world. The logical empiricists insisted that scientific knowledge was the only kind of knowledge and must be verified through experience. In their view philosophy was neither true nor false but altogether meaningless. While the rationalist relies on logic alone for the pursuit of knowledge the empiricist relies on the five senses alone for the pursuit of all knowledge. A prominent adherent to this view was George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel was an idealist. Idealism teaches that the existence of all physical objects is dependent on a mind that is conscious of them. Hegel’s philosophy is a comprehensive system that sees reality as a whole. This whole he called the Absolute Spirit. He saw philosophy’s task to discover the development of this Absolute in its rational structure, its method of self revelation in history, and its ultimate purpose.
It is difficult to determine their position regarding a priori structures. They do not believe in the a priori of Rationalism but they reject the “tabula rasa” of John Locke. When I ask them to answer the problem created by the Baltimore Oriole they scoff at the idea that it is a problem for them. Why is this? The naturalistic empiricists admit that their axiom is sensation but deny their axiom is unproved. They want to use the genetic/neural inclinations of their behaviorism to explain away the burdens created by these philosophical issues. In the last century empiricism has attempted to avoid these problems by asserting a more “flexible” definition to its philosophy and is happy to call any theory empirical if it has sensation or experience as its basis. In general, this theory begins with an assumed understanding of space, matter and motion. Some empirical, mechanistic philosophers have admitted the difficulties and have taken space and motion as axioms. Matter is not much easier: “I define matter as that which is in itself neither a thing, nor a quantity, nor any other of the categories of being.” Aristotle (Metaphysics, VII, 3, 1029a 20-21) This potential matter can be known by neither sensation nor reason but only by analogy (Which, by the way, requires information; It does not furnish information).

Democritus (Greek philosopher, 4th-3rd century B.C.) espoused a world of atoms and space. Traditionally, in materialistic circles, “atom” referred to a particle of matter so small that it could not be split or divided. Atoms then made up the principle components of all bodies. Democritus said that though these atoms are infinite in number and different in size and shape they have no differing qualities. They have no qualities at all. Democritus denied that the atoms even had the quality of weight. What is weight then in respect to these impenetrable solid pellets? Some understand that weight is determined by the size of the object one is standing on. For an example one weighs less on the moon because the moon is smaller than the earth. Traditionally, weight is defined as the measure of gravity exerted on a given object. Since these Democritean atoms existed in infinite space, there is no gravitational attraction that can distinguish distance between two or more bodies. This difficulty gave reason for Democritus to explain motion as an undemonstrated axiom. Democritus would explain the differing characteristics of things to a differing arrangement of atoms. Corks (Corks found in a wine bottle for example) have a great deal of space between the atoms which are at rest, therefore solid, but are thought to be light. Iron has much less space between the atoms which are at rest and therefore heavy. Democritus’ view was traditionally held by mechanists until the discoveries of the 20th century. Enrico Fermi (1901-1954), was an Italian-born American physicist. Fermi demonstrated the first controlled atomic fission reaction. Atomic fission involves splitting an atom apart. The old dogma became old hat. After this discovery modern physicists said that these atoms were not atoms but compounds and that the true atoms are now called quarks

On this mechanistic worldview nature is not regulated by divine providence but can be explained by the laws of chemistry and physics. Sadly, this worldview cuts its own throat. Consistent materialists have said that sensory qualities are nothing. “Sight is a chemical reaction on the retina plus a few wiggles in the cortex. The chemical reaction is real or natural; the sight is phenomenal, illusory, or at least not so real as the chemistry. Color does not really exist, but ether vibrations do; sound does not exist, but there are waves in the air. All qualities must be reduced to quantities. Water is not wet or liquid; water is H20.”[14] This physico-chemical theory has been developed into a philosophy of behavior and language among other things. Science will be discussed later. Behaviorism’s first principle is explained by John B. Watson in his book, Behaviorism: “Behaviorism claims that ‘consciousness’ is neither a definable nor a useable concept; that it is merely another word for the ‘soul’ of more ancient times…(pg3) No one has ever touched a soul or has seen one in a test tube.” Here he admits that sensation is the axiom.

The naturalist also has a philosophy of language known as Logical Positivism. “The first principle of Logical Positivism is that a sentence has no meaning unless it can be verified (in principle at least) by sensory experience.”[15] A valiant effort to define the perception produced by sensation was actually attempted by Brand Blanshsard:

“Perception is that experience in which on the warrant of something given in sensation at the time, we unreflectingly take some object to be before us.’ This definition assumes the occurrence of sensation prior to the perception. Sensation gives something. It furnishes data. Perception, apparently, gives nothing.”[16]

Many naturalists, I think, avoid the ethical consequences of this philosophy; Other empiricists have not; To them we turn our attention. I will critique Behaviorism in the section below. I will wait to critique Logical Positivism under the exposition of Christian Dogmatism.

.

Karl Marx
(1818-1883)
Marx was a materialist and in specific, an adherent to the dialectical approach. Marx was German and a colleague of sorts with Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). Engels was a German revolutionary political economist and a fellow materialist with Marx. When Darwin introduced his theories to the world as his interpretation of the origin of species, these men supported him and found this theory quite convenient to the philosophical and political agenda of the time. Many scientists in Darwin’s day found fault with his theories but their criticisms fell on deaf ears. Darwin’s theories were the scientific basis for a philosophical system called dialectical materialism that many in Europe supported to promote Communism. Materialism teaches that thought is only a product of the brain and has no relation to immaterial universal laws. From this existentialist view, Marx held that class demands are the basis of human rights, not divine law. These demands are to be upheld irrationally if need be and enforced, not proved. From this view he penned the Communist Manifesto which outlines his theory of history and predicted an end to occupational and social exploitation. He also identifies struggle as the main dynamic in history (Flowing from his dialectics). He saw a conflict brewing between the capitalists and the working class that would end in conflict and therefore progression. Marx also promoted the abolishment of private property and concluded with a plea for action, and action he received. Much of this action was after his death through a Russian revolutionary named Vladimir Ilich Lenin, who was influenced by Marx’s book, Das Kapital. Operating on Marx’s ideas, Lenin and his successor, Joseph Stalin, created a massacre that made Adolf Hitler look like a boy scout. They took their existentialism seriously.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
(1844-1900)
Picking up on the materialistic evolutionary model, Nietzsche sees reason as only a convention. “The object of mental activity is not to know, in any scholastic sense, but to schematize and to impose as much regularity on chaos as practical needs require.”[17]
According to Nietzsche, human populations conform to tradition, whereas his ideal Superman is independent, and individualistic. The Superman feels deeply, but his passions are rationally regulated to meet practical needs and for the purpose of order. Nietzsche’s Superman is a creator of values and a creator of a “master morality” that reflects someone who is “liberated” from all values (Societal) except those that he deems practical. The concept of the Superman has often been viewed as one that promotes a master-slave society and has been identified with despotic and totalitarian regimes. When taken consistently, this is where existentialism leads. The question that Nietzsche asks is not whether something is true or not, but, does it sustain life? His ethical theory is also developed in The Will to Power (Der Wille zur Macht). He objects to his materialist colleagues when he asks them why evolution has not yet reached its goal. He uses this argument to prove there is no purpose to life or ethics but only a will to power.

This naturalistic and existential philosophy was the inspiration of other men such as Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. The death toll of these ideas preaches bad company.

i. Thirty-Seven Theses Against Empiricism
1.) What about phantom pain that results from an amputated limb? Is this pain not at least similar to solipsism? If not, from where is the sensation extracted from?

2.) Can perception be demonstrated with empirical means as a chemical reaction much like other cognitive phenomena are?

3.) Some refer to fire as hot and light. Yet the fire which at one distance produces the sensation warmth at another distance produces the sensation of pain. Is the quality pain in the fire then? It would appear not.

4.) Why does anything move? Not how but why and what makes it move?

5.) How do odors and sounds produce images?

6.) Do all people have images? It is an assumption not a fact. Is this assumption not a conviction of your solipsism?

7.) Is a magnetic field material or sensible? Does magnetism occupy space? Is magnetism a collection of atoms?

8.) When an empiricist sees rabbits jumping from a hat or a man climbing a rope that hangs from nothing he knows it is not so. When reason and sensation are at odds sensation must submit to its master.

9.) Parmenides mentions difficulties with predication: the act of affirming one thing of another. Ex: Thales is an Ionian. How can this logically be? Are they not said to be the same thing. The “is” affirms identify. An example would be: George is tired. Is George’s essence tiredness? I think most would say no, but then is it reason that leads us to this conclusion or is it sensation? I would think reason.

10.) Do you ever not have a sensation? How do you know that? Is a lack of sensation itself a sensation? Then, do you sense that you are not having a sensation? Remember your own scholars have denied the possibility of you having a memory. You cannot rely on memories or on their effects to answer this.

11.) Do you always sense everything around you? If not, how do you know that you are not sensing everything around you if you are not sensing what you are sensing? Remember your own scholars have denied the possibility of you having a memory. You cannot rely on memories or on their effects to answer this.

12.) “Since my sensation is never yours, how can you ever know what the sensation is to which I attach a sound or ink mark?” Language and Theology by Gordon Clark (The Trinity Foundation, 1980, pg 142)

13.) Things are not always what they seem. Colors look different depending on the environment in which they appear. Take for instance the studies in perception psychology. Factors such as proximity, grouping, depth perception, lighting, continuity and similarity, prejudice objects as perceived by our senses. If you take your left and right pointer-fingers and bring them but two or three inches from your eyes and look beyond them to something on the wall you will find that an optical illusion will appear between your two fingers. You will see a flesh orb hovering between your fingers.
Is that flesh orb in existence? I see it! It is an illusion of sorts and sense perception should not be the standard by which to confirm knowledge.

14.) Do you believe that mathematics is a discipline that relates abstract patterns and deduces theorems from the abstract axioms? If so how do you deduce this discipline from empiricism? Einstein said: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." If you believe Einstein why aren't you an operationalist like me (And John Dewey if I am not mistaken)?

15.) Ames Room: These people are the same
size. However, their environment
has altered our perception as it
always does. Sensation gives nothing.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® Encyclopedia,
2004, s.v. “Perception (psychology).”

16.) Do you believe that matter is eternal and there was no creation of matter (I think some atheists may say it was created by an alien life form)? I could be abusing their speech)? Do you believe that there s a goal to evolution?

17.) "Were we lobsters, or bees, it might be that our organization would have led to our using quite different modes from these of apprehending our experiences. It MIGHT be too (we cannot dogmatically deny this) that such categories, unimaginable by us to-day, would have proved on the whole as serviceable for handling our experiences mentally as those which we actually use." William James (Pragmatism in Focus, Page 88) Those who have such faith that they "see" the external material world, I ask: How do you know that your method of vision is right and other animals who have different vision than you, are wrong? Clark says, “Possibly the world has no color and the dogs see it correctly; we human beings have color hallucinations.”[18] What about bat vision? A bat "vocalizes and hears" to "see" with his Echolocation. Trichromatic insects in some respect have superior vision than we do. On an empirical model I am wondering why you don't believe these insects are the most enlightened beings on this planet. Trichromatic insects can see frequencies of light that are invisible to human beings. The empirical world leans so hard on lighting. How do you not know that these insects "see" a level of reality you are totally ignorant of and would send your precious science prophets back to the drawing board?

18.) How do human beings acquire a "linguistic capacity"? If you say empiricism, are the words, courage, uncle, for, as, cousin, cause, space, time, or should part of human linguistic capacity? The problem is, no one has ever seen or heard courage etc.

19.) The context of this next quote is an exposition of the Greek Skeptic Pyrrho. "Purple shows different tints in sunlight, moonlight, and lamplight. A rock that takes two men to lift in air is easily moved when submerged in water, 'either because, being in reality heavy, it is lifted by the water, or being light, it is made heavy by the air. Of its own inherent property we know nothing' (IX, 85)...everything is sensed in relation to other things." (Dr. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, 72)

20.) What about the animals that can perceive the magnetic field of the earth such as birds and use it to navigate around the world? Is this sense #6?

21.) Have you ever eaten in your dreams, or come across anything in the dream state that you come across in the “real world?” Define the difference in essence of sensation.

22.) Define sensation; Show how sensation produces perception; Then show how perception produces abstract ideas.

23.) Your problem is you cannot define sensation. How many senses are there again? So when people take mushrooms, LSD or enter into trances this is an "experience" on your model and therefore requires the label “sense.” How many is that now?

24.) Give me a definition of sensation that distinguishes between the dream sensations and "real" sensations. Then give me a definition of sensation that distinguishes between the previous two kinds of sensations and sensations in hallucinations. Then give me a definition that distinguishes between sensation caused by psychological hallucinations and hallucinations caused by drug use.

25.) Zeno’s Paradox
To be brief, Zeno’s major argument is that in order for Achilles to move from point A to point B he must come at least half the space. If so then he has to come at least a tenth; a hundredth etc. He must pass through an infinite number of points in a finite segment. Motion is impossible and space is indefinable.
A 1/10,000 1/5,000 1/100 1/10 ½ B

In answer to an objection to Zeno Dr. Clark says,

“One of the superficial replies simply calculates how far Achilles runs in ten minutes (easily a mile) and how far the tortoise crawls in the same time (hardly a hundred feet). This elementary arithmetic shows that, if the tortoise originally had a lead of two or three hundred feet, Achilles is far ahead of the tortoise. This is superficial, and Zeno does not admit it. Of course, if Achilles could run for ten minutes, he would undoubtedly out-distance our slow but patient friend; but the brilliance of the tortoise in setting the original conditions by which he won the race depends on the fact that Zeno is not prepared to admit that Achilles can run for ten minutes. He is not prepared to admit that Achilles can run at all…Consider a marble rolling across a desk, or, to be very scientific, consider an atom moving from one point to another in space. Before the moving body can reach the terminal point, it must obviously have traversed half of the distance. Surely, the body cannot reach the end before it passes the mid-point. But before it can reach the mid-point, it must have come to the quarter mark. And before this, it must have moved one-eighth of the distance. And one-sixteenth, and so on. The ‘so on, ‘ however, is an infinite series, with the result that the moving body must exhaust an infinite series before it begins to move at all…motion is impossible.”[19]

To another attempted objection Dr. Clark says,

“Another superficial attempt to solve the problem depends on balancing off the infinite divisibility of the space against the infinite divisibility of the time...The difficulty of infinite divisibility will prevent the time from starting as effectively as it prevented the motion from starting. To avoid both of these difficulties-they are, as you see, exactly the same difficulty applied twice-Aristotle(Physics, VIII, 8) argued that the moving body does not actually pass through an infinite series of points. Zeno, says Aristotle, treats one point, the mid-point, as two. He takes it as both the end and the beginning of a motion. But this can be so only if the moving body stops at this point and then begins again. If the body is in continuous motion, none of these mid-points is "actualized. The points and the divisions are only potential and do not actually exist. Therefore, although it is impossible to pass through or exhaust an infinite number of actual points, there is no difficulty in passing through an infinite number of potential points."[20]

A gentleman that I debated on this issue demanded that we prove the impossibility of exhausting an infinite series.
Ans.) Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam. "This fallacy consists in the argument that a proposition is true because it hasn't been proven false. To put it differently, it is the argument that a proposition is true because the opposing proposition hasn't been proven true." [21] "As a rule, it is the positive claim that puts the ball in play, and the positive claim that carries the initial burden of proof."[22] The gentleman actually made the argument that the statement, “It is impossible to exhaust an infinite series of points”, is a positive statement. Wow.

Another objection:

"One may protest that since an infinite series does not have a last term, Zeno cannot require the moving body to reach the last term before it starts to move. He cannot erect as a barrier to motion a factor that admittedly does not exist. And yet, did Zeno say that it was necessary to reach the last term? Will not his paradox remain if he simply asserts that motion cannot begin so long as there are more terms in the series? This is long enough."[23]

26.) The Heraclitean flux: It has been shown by modern science that atoms are, as it were, mini solar systems with the parts orbiting the nucleus, which, as it were, is a field of energy with a bit of ebb and flow. Heraclitus gives the example of a man stepping into a river and never stepping into the same river again (Due to the constant motion and change). Even the man has changed. Plato gives a similar example in the Timaeus concerning a gold statue of Zeus that was only the sculptor's Zeus but for a moment and then was never to appear again. Clark says, "if everything is changing, nothing exists. Universal change implies universal non-existence. And this implies that the changing is unreal and reality is unchanging."9 Clark also adds that for a word to have a meaning in empiricism, the object that the word tags must remain unchanged for some time for it to have meaning. Empiricism fails yet again.27.) Aristotle objects that "all motion, therefore requires a subject that remains unchanged during the motion."[24] We answer with the continuous creation theory. How do you know that reality is not like a cartoon film, where motion is an illusion of many still images being presented and taken away very quickly? "Motion no doubt, presupposes an unchanged substratum, but how do we know there is such a substratum and how do we know there is motion?”[25] No wonder Democritus said that motion was an indemonstrable axiom. He is from your tradition, is he not? (Democritus did teach that particular motion could be explained but not motion per se). 28.) Define motion.

29.) What about extrasensory perceptions? William James investigated the life of a woman who claimed such perception. Her name was Mrs. Piper. Under James, investigations concerning her abilities were conducted for about thirty years. No empirical materialistic explanations came from the investigations that could explain away her abilities.

30.) What about clairvoyance (Perceiving external things without sensing them)? As an empiricist, you have to take a person’s testimony of experience. I understand that in a strict sense empirical science requires a re-demonstration of a phenomenon for it to be considered scientifically proven. However, empiricism does in some sense have to take a person’s word for it in their claimed experience.

31.) “Do you hear words and music from the radio? If so, then are radio waves words and music? Ah, but you might say that these are the "effects" of the radio waves. But then, you are only sensing the effects and not the cause. If so, how do you know the cause? If you infer from the effects to the cause, then how do you know that the inference is valid; By sensation again? What do you sense that would confirm this?”[26]

32.) When you mean see, is this one sensation or thousands? Does each rod and cone in the retina have the sensation?

33.) Sensations can never be experienced again, yet propositions may be re-thought over and over again. Not only so, the proposition in my mind is the same in yours. Even on your own model of plausibility, isn’t our view simpler and clearer than yours?

Against Memory
34.) In the empirical world everything is in motion and is therefore changing. When a man “sees” a statue and then a few days later recalls the “memory image” (If he has images) to his mind, he is not the same man as when he “saw” the statue and neither is the statue. Therefore, the present experience is not the past experience. Therefore memory gives no knowledge.

35.) Basing knowledge on sensory memory depends on the assumption that the future will be like the past. Previous sensations of the smell of milk followed by nourishment do not prove that future sensations of the smell of milk will be followed by nourishment. The future milk could be out of date and be followed by vomiting.

36.) “All empirical philosophers, an exception would be hard to find , claim, like Aristotle, that abstract ideas are produced, somehow, by means of images. Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell assume that all men have memory images.”[27] British scientist Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), rejected the idea that all men have imagery.† Did we prove the solipsism conviction again?
37.) In empirical mathematics when one uses a numeral such as 1 or 2 do these units relate to reality? Can these be units of anything? “Two pints of water and three pints of sulfuric acid do not make five pints.”[28] Mathematics cannot be said to be a law of reality or nature.

ii. Eighteen Theses Against Behaviorism
1.) John B. Watson, Behaviorism
“Behaviorism claims that ‘consciousness’ is neither a definable nor a useable concept; that it is merely another word for the ‘soul’ of more ancient times…(pg3) No one has ever touched a soul or has seen one in a test tube.”

Here he admits that sensation is the axiom. In refutation a reader may refer to the section on empiricism. Initially, I would request the Behaviorist to define sensation; Show how sensation produces perception; Show how perception produces abstract ideas. This is enough to refute the whole theory from the start.

2.) When atheists are confronted with the obvious problems deducing a philosophy of language from empiricism, they will say that they simply use words as they are generally accepted and determined by the English Language. This supposed answer has one major flaw: It isn’t true. Behaviorists use words like mind, perception, observe, fear, rage, love and thought etc. They are not using these words like the average English speaker uses them. What he means by these words is chemistry. Therefore, his deceit is exposed.

3.) Saint Augustine
Mechanistic theories of morality fail. Augustine gives the example of his youth when he stole pears from a neighbor. The interesting point comes when we hear that the pears were of such poor quality that the boys threw them to the pigs. The original intent was never to eat the pears. The intent was the love of doing evil with the gang. The intent was the pure love of evil for its own sake. I could provide multiple examples from my childhood as the rest of us can as well to prove this point. What is the chemical formula for this motive? They can’t say.

4.) My opponents will assert that genetics and environmental history are the causes of unlearned behavior. Dr Clark says, “Hydrochloric acid also exhibits unlearned behavior, as do all chemicals.”[29] This assertion is ambiguous and is usually never defined in detail. My opponents use an appeal to emotion when I mention the difficulties.

5.) What exactly is the chemical reaction that occurs when a man finds out that his wife is cheating on him? What is the specific formula for jealousy anyway? Can this formula be consistently re-demonstrated in the lab?

6.) “The behaviorist never uses the term ‘memory.’ He believes that it has no place in an objective psychology” (Behaviorism by John B. Watson pg. 177) Yet my opponents use this term frequently when I ask them if they have ever not had a sensation. They will rely on memories of past experiences and their effects.

7.) “In the unlearned sounds made by the infant we have all the units of responses which when later brought together (By conditioning) are the words of our dictionaries” (Behaviorism, Watson, pg.185) “But if all this is merely ‘manual,’ why cannot animals enter this field? Many of them have bodily parts almost as complicated as ours, and their chemistry is equally good.”[30]

8.) Behaviorism’s idea of purpose:
Singer defines purpose as “a result that occurs twice, or more, with two or more bodies.”[31] and “The average common result of a number of processes”[32] Not to forget Voltaire’s objection that this logic leads us to the conclusion that a nose’s purpose is to hold spectacles, it also follows that two rocks falling into a lake proves that the purpose of a rock is to fall into a lake and create a splash. The consequence is absurd.

9.) Behaviorism and ethics:
Gilbert Ryle, while having difficulty defining ordinary language and its application to the words “voluntary” and “involuntary”, makes an unusual statement on page 69 of The Concept of Mind (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1949): “We discuss whether someone’s action was voluntary or not only when the action seems to have been his fault…In this ordinary use, then, it is absurd to discuss whether satisfactory, correct, or admirable performances are voluntary or involuntary.” This seems to undercut any possibility for behaviorism to create a coherent philosophy of ethics. Dr Clark gives the example of one of his students voluntarily scoring lower on a test so that the class curve would allow a friend who is not doing well in the class to pass.

10.) Behaviorism can claim to explain the creation of sounds through physiology but in no case can vindicate a sound’s meaning. Different sounds may have the same meaning i.e. general synonyms, and the same sound have different meanings, i.e. “plain.” One sense has a geographical use and the other has a general adjectival use relaying the idea of a lack of qualities or ornamental attributes. This is a great difficulty for Behaviorism and is admitted by Ryle. Later, Ryle (The Concept of Mind, New York: Barnes and Noble, 1949, pg. 172) admits even more problems with it in reference to the feigned behavior of hypocrites and charlatans. What is the chemical formula for hypocrisy again? If my opponents use an appeal to emotion here I will answer: On your worldview, a good electrician can identify a circuit that causes a certain light bulb to behave a certain way; Why can’t you do the same? If the electrician cannot do this we call him unqualified; So are you.

11.) Ryle, later (The Concept of Mind, New York: Barnes and Noble, 1949, pg. 220) espouses an objective standard to sensation by stating that a sensation when sensed in a proper condition will be the same to all. Even on an empirical worldview this is unfounded. This is why authentic ethnic restaurants are usually filled with the distinct people from the certain ethnic group. I am persuaded that some people receive a pleasant “sensation” when they eat monkey brains but the very thought of it gives me a “sensation” similar to the kind I get when I have the flu and a bucket to vomit in next to my bed. If my opponents say that one is proper and another improper, I ask: How do you determine that one chemical reaction is proper and another is improper? The same chemical laws produce both.

12.) Dr. Clark cites an example from an experiment cited in Scientific American, (The Split Brain in Man, Aug., 1967) by Dr. Gazzaniga. A review of this work (Springer-Verlag 1975, Editorial Review of the Split Brain, State University of New York, Department of Psychology, Stony Brook, New York 11794, Received January 14, 1975) is cited in the Journal of Neurology (Thursday, December 2, 2004) which implies the information is still valid.
The “discovery” was made by Ronald E. Meyers and R.W. Sperry. The left and right hemispheres of the brain are separated but communicate with each other through bundles of axons known as commissures. The Corpus Callosum is the largest of these commissures. The experiment involved cutting this Corpus Calosum. The fascinating discovery was that each hemisphere functioned independently as if each hemisphere was a complete brain. The experiment was to be a “cure” for epilepsy. In reference to the effects of this procedure Gazzaniga says, “What was happening was that the right hemisphere saw the red light and heard the left hemisphere say ‘green.’ Knowing that the answer was wrong, the right hemisphere precipitated a frown and a shake of the head, which in turn cued in the left hemisphere to the fact that the answer was wrong and that it had better correct itself!”
Strange consequences can be deduced from such “empirical data.” Dr. Clark says, “if thinking is just chemistry, how can the motions of one side of the brain be ‘true’ and the motions of the other side be ‘false’?”[33] The data produced by the same chemical laws here disagrees.

13.) If Behaviorism is correct then the assertions of behaviorist scientists themselves ipso facto are conditioned by his chemistry as well and cannot be true. The assertion, that their point of view is objectively true, convicts them all the more of their solipsism.

14.) My opponents repeatedly use the argument that human behavior is controlled by our genetics and the history of our environment. Why then do behaviorists like B.F. Skinner on the last page of his book assert than in light of Behaviorism man can now control his own destiny (About Behaviorism, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974)?

15.) Western Behaviorists will assert that we should not hurt others because we need to preserve our own species. However, if we kill the weak of our species we assure the survival of the advanced of our species which insures not only survival but advancement of our species. This consequence has been held by other atheist intellectuals. This is the consistent consequence of this philosophy and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche in his book Twilight of the Idols hammers the final nail in this inconsistent, Western and atheist coffin.
These men boast of their abilities to show how the human race survives and advances but they can never boast why it ought to survive. The history of the human race from a naturalistic point of view is an absolute disaster. Why shouldn’t we all commit suicide? They can’t say. To these people, crying is nothing more than functioning tear glands. My opponents will accuse Christianity of in-humane doctrines. They will also assert that the consequences of scripturalism lead us out to the desert prophets of the ancient world. I would rather hang out with the prophets in the desert than the Khmer Rouge in the killing fields.

16.) My opponents object to the use of an axiom by arguing: “In the real world, real people's empirical models "begin" as infants, long before they have any linguistic capacity, and therefore by definition cannot "begin" with axioms. And between gaining the ability to manipulate language and engaging in philosophical reflection -- the kind in which foundational doubts can even arise in the first place -- the human mammal displays a simply extraordinary capacity to tie its shoelaces and keep itself fed.”

Ans.) 1.) How do you know these empirical models begin with infants? Have you tested all infants in all times and places? 2.) “But if all this is merely ‘manual,’ why cannot animals enter this field? Many of them have bodily parts almost as complicated as ours, and their chemistry is equally good.”[34]
17.) With spiritual rationalism, things are their definition. I am my qualities not a physical substance. Though I have a body, it is in a sense, my mind’s tool. Moses held a conversation centuries after his brain decomposed in the soil (Mat 17:3) and so will I.

18.) "If thought is simply the product of the brain, no doubt it cannot contradict nature; but then on this basis no thought can contradict nature, and insanity is as natural as any other state of mind. If all thought is thus natural, there is no logical reason to believe that some thoughts, ideas of dialectical materialism rather than of absolute idealism, are more natural, more true, or more valuable, than others."[35]

V. Irrationalism (Faith that Scorns Reason)

A. Mysticism
In this section we will be discussing a subject that is difficult to properly define but colloquially termed “mysticism” and “existentialism.” To make a long matter short, these words represent a philosophical movement that stresses the value of independent, individual thought that is free from universal truth and morals. This movement has a very low view of standard linguistics and definitions of words. Some of these folks see themselves as the persecuted lovers of men and scorn formal education as cold Stoicism. The “warmness” of the mystics flows out of their ideas of human unity and (To those who wish to stay somewhat consistent) of the ultimate destiny of all men, to be united eternally in some non-cognitive original soul. The major criticism I have of the whole movement is Irationalists have to have understanding and accept the truth of the laws of logic in order to believe against them. They will consistently use the law of contradiction to catch us in an inconsistency.

When I began my research on these issues of philosophy, I was bewildered with the obvious objection: “How can these genius level men, think that only logic or only empiricism could be the source of knowledge? Is there no moderation or compromise between the two positions?” The answer concerns the axiom as was described above. However, Immanuel Kant attempted to satisfy this objection. Kant sought also to reconcile science and religion. In the world of philosophy, he attempted to reconcile rationalism and empiricism with his a priori distinction of universal and necessary knowledge. In science and religion, he attempted to reconcile things in a world of two levels: the noumena (objects conceived by reason only) and the phenomena (things perceived by the senses and subject to material study). It has been objected that this view is atomistic and would lead to philosophical fragmentation. I would also add that Kant admitted that sensation was the first principle. How he deduces the noumena from the phenomena remains a mystery, at least to the present writer.

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
Kierkegaard’s philosophy can be termed existential because he viewed philosophy as the individual examination of oneself, and not the construction of a comprehensively related system as Hegel thought. Kierkegaard viewed Hegel as arrogant because Hegel claimed to completely understand human life and history. Kierkegaard repudiated this claim and furnished his works unsystematically, deliberately, in rejection of Hegel’s view. Kierkegaard focused on the ambiguity and paradoxical nature of the human disposition. He contended that the core problems of human life defy rational, objective explanation. He taught that the highest truth is subjective. He believed in creating your own nature through individual choices made apart from “universal truths.” Kierkegaard focused more on the passion of faith rather than the object of faith. He found debates of theology and systematic philosophy a prejudice of the individual interpretation and perception. He also saw no relation in the events of history working together for an eternal destiny or truth. For all intents and purposes, if you take away his fluffy words, this man is a humanist and an atheist. He once wrote in his journal: “I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die.” Fortunately, this man’s view was not taken consistently in his life and he did abide by moral absolutes. However, many others holding this view did take it consistently and applied existentialist individual perception to morality to the doom of millions. These communists have already been proved bad company.

Though multiplied thousands of Christians have been duped into thinking we live in a Christian nation, our society is freethinker in its formal documents. However, another movement is growing in popularity, being ushered into our land by an eastern breeze. The idea is not new, but has been supplemented by the rise of the New Age movement. The idea is that Christianity is a re-interpretation or synchronization of ancient mystery religions and the protestant Christ is nothing more than an Anglo Saxon version of a fertility god. Ronald Nash wrote a book against this propaganda titled The Gospel and the Greeks, Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?‡

i. Four Theses Against the Accusation of Christian Synchronization
1.) “Many authors have written about the mystery religions in such a way as to suggest that there was one common, or general, mystery religion.”[36]…”Attempts to find analogies between the resurrection of Christ and the alleged ‘resurrections’ of the mystery deities involve massive amounts of oversimplification and inattention to detail. Furthermore, claims about the centrality of a notion of rebirth in certain mysteries are greatly overstated.”[37]

2.) Nash describes how Dionysus (In Rome, Bacchus, the god of wine) was born of Zeus and a human mother. The cult of Dionysus involved the eating the flesh of an animal and drinking its blood. In doing so the cultists believed they were partaking of Dionysus himself. Our opponents use this as a trend that Paul borrowed from to teach the sacrament of the Lord ’s Supper. The problem is, this practice had disappeared more than a century before Paul’s writings. In 186 B.C. the Roman Senate had outlawed this practice. The simple truth is the Lord’s Supper was taken from the O.T. Passover and the other sacramental feasts of the ceremonial law. They did partake of the sacrifices even then. This information is usually not mentioned as it is inconvenient for this propaganda.

3.) As their propaganda is exposed my opponents will grow angrier and desperate to grasp at and twist any obscure article of history that keeps their conscience at peace that their rejection of their creator is justified. The legend of Osiris is another article of history that my opponents argue from. I will leave it to the reader to study the whole narrative save to say that in the legend Osiris is killed by his brother and then resurrected with the aid of his wife Isis. Or did he? There are other versions of this legend that Osiris did not resurrect but became king of the underworld.[38] In passing, I will say that in college I was obsessed with this general topic and its applications in the esoteric tradition of freemasonry. I read anywhere between five to six thousand pages on this tradition and its manifestations in ancient Egypt and Babylon among other places. In hind site it was a huge waste of time and it seems even now to be nothing more than the night fancies of a pluralist who has really and truly fallen prey to the root problem: The history of the world is not controlled by the empirical bankers but the life and death of God’s only son whose government shall never cease to increase (Isaiah 9). It is only a gross ignorance of the history of the world that leads one to think things aren’t getting better. I digress. The resurrection of Osiris in whatever version you read cannot be the basis of the Christian record of Jesus. The second criticism I would have to the Osiris myth is the the Serapis character that, by the way, does not die and resurrect. The shades of supposed uniformity in the mystery religions are exposed. Making a parallel between Christ and these ancient characters is a messy business.

4.) Nash gives the major differences between the death of Christ and the savior gods of the ancient world on pages 160-161:

a.) These deaths are not a propitiation for the sin of someone else. In the case of Christ it is for his whole Church; The just for the unjust.
b.) Jesus dies once for all. The pagan deities die yearly, which leads me to another point:
c.) Jesus dies and resurrects to produce remission of sins for his people and be their eternal security. The savior gods of the ancient world die and resurrect depicting the cycles of nature. They give life to crops and wheat not sinful souls.
d.) Jesus’ death and resurrection have historical documents to support the claim.
e.) Jesus lays his life down voluntarily. The other gods are murdered or tricked.

ii. Six Theses Proving the Distinctions Between Christianity and Paganism
1.) In Plato’s world of Ideas the Good is the supreme Idea but not the maker of all the other Ideas. Neither Plato’s Demiurge nor the Idea of Good corresponds to the Christian God of the Old and the New Testament.

2.) The lack of transcendence in Aristotle’s first mover fails to meet the qualifications as well.

3.) “salvation in Neo Platonism become an escape from sensation into a mystic trance. With a different first principle, Christianity is not interested in salvation from sensation but from sin; and if the Apostle Paul had any visions, they were not the mystic trance of Plotinus.”[39]… “Plotinus’s trances neither contained nor produced knowledge. Paul’s visions were full of subjects and predicates.”[40]

4.) The doctrine of creation is a primary distinction between Greek pagan philosophies and the Hebrew- Christian tradition which holds to a distinct beginning. The Hebrew-Christian God creates the world out of nothing by divine fiat. The Greeks believed in the eternality of matter.

5.) Rom 8:13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
The idea of the flesh and the body of sin as it is termed in Paul’s scripture does not refer to the physical flesh of the body but of the body of sin. The Greek Gnostics believed the material world to be evil. John Owen comments on this in detail: in volume VI of his works:
“The body, then, here is taken for that corruption and depravity of our natures whereof the body, in a great part, is the seat and instrument, the very members of the body being made servants unto unrighteousness…It is indwelling sin, the corrupted flesh or lust, that is intended…The “body” here is the same with…the “old man”[41]

6.) The silly notion that the New Testament’s use of Logos is referring to the pagan Logos is due to a lack of knowledge in a philosophy of language. A word is arbitrary and tags thoughts. Just because the tag is the same does not mean the tag refers to the same idea. It is the idea that the tag designates that needs to be compared. Nash points out that when you are speaking to a distinct people, there is a sense in which you have to adopt their vocabulary to communicate your thoughts. Missionaries do this all the time.

Irrationalism has gained popularity in the last century, not only in non-Christian but also Christian circles. Liberty of conscience and pluralism have been the soil in which this philosophy has grown. The Christian form has manifested itself in a confused inconsistency that refuses to believe that the parts of the Bible can produce a logically connected whole. In this system, the idea that the Bible teaches one truth is anathema. To this philosophy I now turn the scowl of my minds eye.

B. Refutation of Christian Irrationalism

Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Isa 1:13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
Isa 1:14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
Isa 1:15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

In a debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza', Dr. Shermer (A well known atheist apologist), introduced his objections to Christianity by stating that, “According to the 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia there are no less than 33, 820 Christian denominations.” Certainly this argument is heard by believers on a regular basis and is the general platform on which many atheists mock and blaspheme the true and living God. What disposition should an honest, patient, thorough thinking, balanced and studied Christian adopt toward this tragedy? The tragedy under discussion is the confused and fragmented state of the contemporary Christian Church. While I do not purpose in this discourse to deal with the relationship of civil government to this issue, the freedom of religion concept has, even from the perspective of those that believe in it, been taken too far. In 1649 the great puritan Samuel Rutherford faced similar circumstances and wrote a lengthy treatise refuting the underlying theology of this pluralistic disposition in his book, A Free Disputation Against pretended Liberty of Conscience. This discourse will be based on Rutherford’s work and the quotations from his book will be taken from the edition created by Reformed Perspectives Magazine.[42] This book purposed to defend the establishment principle of the puritan wing of the Reformation manifested in the National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. The purpose of the covenant can be clearly seen in the opening words:

“THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT
FOR REFORMATION AND DEFENCE OF RELIGION, THE HONOUR AND HAPPINESS OF THE KING, AND THE PEACE AND SAFETY OF THE THREE KINGDOMS OF
SCOTLAND, ENGLAND, AND IRELAND.

Taken and Subscribed several times by King Charles II., and by all ranks in the said three kingdoms.
WITH

AN ACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1643 AND AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT 1644, RATIFYING AND APPROVING THE SAID LEAGUE AND COVENANT.

Jer. 50:5 Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant that shall not be forgotten.
Prov. 25:5 Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness.
2 Chron. 15:15 And all Judah rejoiced at the oath; for they had sworn with all their heart.
Gal. 3:15 Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed by an oath, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto.

I. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of
Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.”

As it can easily be seen, the obvious question that flows by necessity is: What is the true reformed religion and how do you know? This question in specific will not be answered in this discourse but will assume that the answer is the “Westminster Confession of Faith approved by the general assembly 1647, and ratified and established by the acts of parliament 1649 and 1690, as the public and avowed confession of the Church of Scotland, with proofs from the scripture.” What will be answered in this paper concerns who it is that can truly be called Christian (In a visible administrative sense) and what relationship they have to other professors who speak different doctrines. This paper also concerns what differences are fundamental, what not, what the consequences of each tenable position results in, what role the conscience plays and to what freedom the conscience is privileged to, and if there be any hope for America where does it begin and what means are to be primarily used. People are what they think. Whether we like it or not the things that we think are intimately related with the form and administration of our civil government and the religious movement behind the government’s form and administration. Since the word “religion” is impossible to define, I am using it here as the general worldview adopted by a people. I believe the fragmentation of our Christian community is due to the individualism programmed into the heads of American people from their youth (Formally, the cause is the 1st Amendment, forbidding the establishment of a specific religion. This assumes the understanding the amendment has today as I am aware that some assert the amendment had a different understanding before the civil war, but that’s another debate for another time). We need a biblical ecclesiastical tradition having its foundation in the Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching of the apostles and prophets, Chris Jesus being the chief corner stone (Eph 2:20), not some group of zealot novices who have pointed out or reacted against some abuse in society and now think they have right to the minds and souls of mankind with some 50 year old (Or younger) religion. The individualistic American way tends to leave the individual to his own mind to figure out the mysteries of the universe. The whole concept of a single visible institution ordained by God, viz. the Church, for the benefit, instruction and discipline of mankind tends to be strange and over-lording to the minds of many Americans. Rutherford says:

“For the assumption: That God hath appointed in his revealed will, that every man should serve God as best pleaseth him, and as it seems good in his own erroneous conscience, and that every man should pervert the soul of his brother, and the Magistrate should put no man to shame for is, is as good as if there were no Magistrate, and that it is against his calling as a Magistrate, is clear, for the Holy Ghost saith, that, Judges 16. 5. Micah had a house of Gods, and made an Ephod, and a Teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his Priest, was from this, v. 6. In those days there was no King in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes; ergo, the Magistrates by his office is to take care that Micah and others serve not God as it seems good to their own erroneous conscience, and so, that another follow not another Religion, and a third, another third Religion, as seems good in every man’s own eyes.”[43]

The reason why I have introduced the paper in this way concerns the reactionary disposition that may object to the things written in this paper, not from the clear statements of scripture but from the stealthily developed biases created in the mind by our culture.

i. Concerning the Role of the Conscience for the Christian (Quotes from the KJV)
Act 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

2Co 1:12 For our proud confidence is this: the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you.

1Ti 1:5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Tit 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. (If in his conscience he think it requisite for salvation)

Deu 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Deu 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Psa 119:9 BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.

2Ki 10:31 But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the LORD God of Israel with all his heart: for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which made Israel to sin.

Isa 66:5 Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.

a. The Bible is the rule of the conscience therefore conscience is not a rule of faith.

Assertion 1.)”Yet all our Divines say, not only the Manicheans, but also the Papists are these, who teach a doctrine of Devils, I Tim. 4.3 while they forbid Marriage, though not under the notion of a thing abominable; So the Popish Doctor acquitteth the Papists, and condemneth Protestants, who so far agree to have the adequate rule of Conscience to be God’s will revealed in his word, that to make a religious Law to forbid Marriage and Meats, and other things indifferent to them is a doctrine of Devils, to all our Divines, though they forbid them not as things unlawful, and under the not on things abominable.”[44]
Assertion 2.) “Because the Word of God must be the rule of Conscience, and Conscience is a servant, and a under-Judge only, not a Lord, nor an Absolute and independent Sovereign, whose voice is a Law, therefore an Idolatrous and exorbitant rule of Conscience is here also to be condemned. Conscience is ruled by Scripture, but it is not Scripture, nor a Canonic book and rule of faith and conversation, it often speaketh Apocrypha, and is neither God, nor Pope, but can reel, and totter, and dream, to ascribe more to conscience then is Just, and to make new and bold opinions of God, broad and venturous and daring affirmations, the very Oracles of heaven, because they are the brood (as is conceived) of an equal and unbiased Conscience, is presumption, near to Atheism; the grossest Idolatry is to make yourself the Idol: whereas tender consciences suffer most persecution, and are not active in daring, there is extreme pride in such as lead families and are Christians in new heresies. Some are extremely sworn and devoted to Conscience as Conscience: humility is not daringly peremptory. Many weak ones pine away in fevers of sinistrous thoughts of Christ, as if his love were cold to them, Esa. 49. 14,15. and fancy an imaginary and a made-plea with Christ; Oh he loveth any but me, and because they make an Idol of the weak oracle of Conscience, they make also an Idol of meek Jesus Christ, as if they would try, if Christ’s love can be cold, and his blood and bowels can act any more mercy to them.”[45]
Assertion 3.) “For though the erroneous conscience say, it is service to God to kill the innocent Apostles John 16.1. Yet the sixth commandement lies upon these murderers with equal strength, thou shalt not kill, otherwise they are not guilty of murder.”[46]

b. The use of the conscience.
Assertion.) “If the conscience have an indictment against you from heaven, and from the word of God, which is the Law-book of the Judge of all flesh; Ergo, We are to stand in awe of Conscience. And look how much goodness and true fear of God is in a Man, as much fear of himself and reverence to his own conscience is within him. For 1. to be holden even with the charges and writs of an erring conscience is obedience to the Law of nature, as we would not be willing that a scout, or a spy sent from a strange Land should see our nakedness, weakness, folly, security. When the Conscience returneth, to the Father of Spirits, it can tell tales of men, and can libel many pollutions of the flesh and spirit acted by the man, while the Conscience lodged with clay and a polluted Spirit. 2. Because Conscience is something of God, a domestic little God, a keeper sent from heaven, a divine piece which is all eye, all sense, and hath the word with it, in so far it is to be reverenced, and he that reverenceth the King, reverenceth the Ambassador, in so far as he carrieth along the King’s will, he that honoureth the Lord must honour the servant. 3. Solomon saith, Prov. 15.5 A fool despiseth his fathers reproof, but he that regardeth it is prudent. Vers. 10. He that hateth reproof shall die. To receive Instructions and rebukes from Conscience, in So far as they come from the Word of truth is spiritual prudence, and he that turneth away his ear from his conscience, shall die. 4. As to submit to the Word, is to submit to God, so to offer violence to a divine truth, is to wrestle with God, and by the like proportion to stoop before Conscience carrying a message from God, is to submit to God, and to do violence to the domestic light and truth of God, is all one as to wrestle with God. 5. We count a tender Conscience, such as was in Joshua, who did yield and cede to the Law of God, and its threatenings, a soft heart; then to stand out as a flint-stone or an Adamant, against the warnings of an inward Law must argue hardness of heart. 6. There is nothing so strong and divine as truth, a Conscience that will bargain to buy and sell truth, and will be the Lord and Conquerer, not the captive and taken prisoner of the Gospel, bearing itself on upon the soul in power and majesty, hath his one foot on the borders of the sin against the Holy Ghost. 7. It is like the man walketh not at random, but by rule, who is not made all of stoutness, and ventureth not inconsiderately on actions and ways which undoubtedly are the seeds of eternity, but feareth his Pedagogue and teacher in so far as the law and will of the Judge of the world goeth along with him.”[47]

c. If the Synod’s decision is agreeable to the scripture, it is binding on the conscience of those under its authority.
Assertion 1.) “But I answer this concludes not only against a Synodical determination, but against all scripture, and all prophetical and Apostolic determinations in the scripture, for that there is one God not three as the Treithits dream, is believed by some to be false, by others to be true. Yet undeniably it is in itself, true that there is but one God, nor is it therefore to be believed with a reserve, because the Synod hath so determined according to the word of God: and this were some answer if we should teach that men should believe, because so saith a Synod. But all the mystery is, though a Synod should determine a truth an hundred times according to the word, yet if the conscience say it is no truth, the determination of a Synod doth not oblige at all (say Libertines) because the conscience according to the mind of Libertines is the nearest obliging rule, but any thing obligeth not to obedience and faith as it appears either true or good to our conscience, for to kill the Apostles appears lawful, to commit adultery and murder appeareth good to many, yet are not men obliged to kill the Apostles, or to commit adultery.”[48]

Assertion 2.) “Armin. A confession is not a rule of faith it hath not the lowest place in the Church.
Answ. The covenant written and sealed in Nehemiah’s time was a secondary rule of faith, and a rule even so far as it agreed with the Law of Moses, for they enter in a curse and an oath to walk in God’s Law, not to give their sons and daughters in marriage to the heathen, not to buy victuals from the heathen on the Sabbath, to charge themselves to give money to maintain the service of God, Nehe.9.38. chap.10. 1, 2, 3, 29, 30, 31, 32. Which written Covenant was not Scripture; and Act. 15. the decrees of the Synod was not formally Scripture, yet to be observed as a secondary rule. For so far Arminians.”[49]

Assertion 3.) “Saul killed the Gibeonites out of zeal to the children of Israel: It is like the blind ignorant zeal he had, thinking the Covenant that Joshua made with them, did not oblige the posterity, was the cause of his murdering of them, yet he suffered not in his sons that were hanged for that blind zeal, as righteous, and following the rule of his conscience in that.”[50]

d. The conscience is commanded to be mature, strong and complete
Acts 24:16. And herein do I exercise myself to have always a Conscience void of offense toward God, and toward man.
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

Heb 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
Heb 6:19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Col 2:1 For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;
Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
Col 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; Eph 4:15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. [51]

Assertion 1.) “A good conscience is a complete entire thing, as our text saith, both toward God and man; its not to be a moral man in the duties of the second table, and a skeptic in the duties of the first table, not in some few fundamentals, as patrons for liberty of conscience do plead, but in the whole revealed will of God; and therefore the good conscience consisteth in an indivisible point, as they say, the number of four doth, if you add one, or take one from it, you vary the essence, and make it three or five, not four; so Paul taketh in completeness in it, I have all good conscience, either all or none; and a good conscience toward God and man; not a conscience for the streets and the Church, and not for the house, and not for the days Hosanna, and not for eternity; therefore they require an habit to a good conscience, I have exercised myself to have always a good conscience, there is a difference between one song, and the habit of music, and a step and a way, Psal. 119. 133. order, (not my one single step,) but my steps, ym;['P in the plural number; to fall on a good word by hazard, and to salute Christ in the by, doth not quit from having an evil conscience; as one wrong step, or extemporary slip, doth not render a believer a man of an ill conscience; the wicked world quarrel with the saints before men, because they cannot live as Angels, but the true and latent cause is because they will not live as Devils, and go with them to the same excess of riot.”[52]
Assertion 2.) “It argues the word of God, of obscurity and darkness, as not being able to instruct us in all truths, and renders it as a nose of wax in all non-fundamentals, histories, narrations, etc... in which notwithstanding the Scripture is as evident, plain, simple, obvious to the lowest capacities in most points, except some few Prophecies, as it is in fundamentals, and lays a blasphemies charge on the Holy Ghost, as if he had written the Scriptures, upon an intention that we should have no assured and fixed knowledge”[53]
Obj.) Fallible men cannot be the stewards of infallible knowledge[54]

Ans. 1) “But the wisdom of God (we believe) in the Scripture, is plain, to those that open their eyes, otherwise heresy should not only be no sin, contrary to the word of God, Tit. 3. 10. 1 Tim. 3. 1. 2. 1 Tim. 6. 4, 5. 2 Tim. 2. 16, 17, 18, 19. but an innocent apprehension of apparent truth, as there is no guiltiness in an eye vitiated with humors misapprehending colors that are white; and seeing them to be red when they are not so”[55]

Ans. 2) “Papists shall be in better case than we, for though they say that the Scriptures are dark and obscure, and admit of themselves divers and contrary senses, so that we cannot bottom our faith on them, yet the juridicial interpretation of the Church is to men a ground of faith, and that is the ground of faith which the Church giveth, as the only true sense of Scripture.”[56]

Ans. 3) “If any man say to you, lo here is Christ or lo there, believe it not: why if he teach me where Christ is, if I hear not him, I refuse to hear Christ, Matth. 10. 40, 41. Ergo the false Christ is knowable, Tit. 2. 10. An heretic avoid, & c. when Solomon saith, Make not friendship with an angry man, is not the formality of anger in the heart? if any should reply to Solomon, God only knows who is the angry man, who is the patient and meek man, therefore we will make friendship with all men, or with no man. Should any say, there is no such man knowable, should he not contradict the Holy Ghost? So must we say, there is not such a man knowable to a mortal man as a false Prophet, or an heretic; and therefore Paul doth but mock the Philippians, who were not infallible, when he writes to them thus, Beware of dogs; and John when he saith, If any man bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house. Might not Libertines say, God commands us to run the hazard of encroaching upon God’s chair, for who but he who knows the heart can tell who is the heretic, who not: when the Lord rebukes association with Thieves, Robbers, Slanderers, Prov. 1. 11, 12. Ps. 15. 18. holdeth he not forth that the Thief, the Robber, and the Slanderer are knowable?”[57]

Ans 4.) “and because there is no man infallible in taking up the right sense of the Scripture, if ye control the Jew, or put him off his sense of the Old Testament, which yields him this faith, Mary’s son is a false lying Prophet, the Apostles and all the martyrs are but cousening Impostors, yea domineer over the Conscience and force his faith, because ye are not infallible, ye may not condemn the way of any, for ye know not but they be the wheat, and you the tares, for ought that Scripture saith on either side: Never man in this life is sure of his faith and salvation from Scripture, and since the Jew may be wheat, if ye would go to”[58]

Obj.) “But now since the Prophets and Apostles fell asleep, no Magistrate, no Synod is infallible, all men are apt to deceive, and be deceived, for whether in fundamentals or non-fundamentals: none now can challenge Prophetical or Apostolic infallibility”[59]

Ans.) “yea but it holdeth in believing fundamentals, as well as non-fundamentals, for in neither have we Prophetical infallibility and immediate Oracles, and Scripture shows we have as great darkness, blindness of mind, natural fluctuation to believe nothing in supernatural fundamentals in the Gospel, as in non-fundamentals, but with trepidation and doubting of mind, we no more having monopolized the Spirit to us than Sectaries”[60]

e. A tender conscience smacks of popery.
“The causes of a scrupulous conscience are 1. God’s wise and just permission. 2. Satan’s working and acting on a cold, distracted, sad bodily complexion. 3. Ignorance. Weakness of judgment. 4. Immoderate fear troubling reason. 5. Inconstancy of the mind. 6. And withal some tenderness. Gregorius said, bonarum conscientiarum est ibi culpam agnoscere, ubi culpa non est. It is one of the most godly errors, and a sin that smelleth of grace. Papists, miserable comforters, say, a special way to be delivered, is to submit yourself to a superior’s blind command. They say, a Priest was freed of his scruple, when he obeyed Bernard’s bare word, and trusted in it; hearing that, Vade et meâ fide confisus sacrifica, go and upon my faith sacrifice confidently.”[61]

f. Summary statement
The conscience is to be a complete moral man in both the first and second tables of the law, finding its good intentions from the word of God alone. From this word we know the sins to be repented of and confessed, never to dwell on them again in guilt having been cleansed by Christ’s blood (Heb 10:22). To those pure in heart having their hearts cleansed by the washing of the Spirit in the new covenant all things are pure, that is, all things are clean regarding abrogated ceremonial dietary laws etc. (Tit 1:15, Rom 14:20). To these laws our conscience is to be strong in its understanding of what God’s moral law requires of us and what it has made free. To the meat sacrificed to idols the moral law remains the same (Ex 34:15). That is eating meat sacrificed to an idol is a sin if it is done with the knowledge that it was sacrificed to an idol (1 Cor 10: 19-21, 25-28, Rev 2:14, 20). Therefore, the conscience is vital in respect of moral law regarding what it knows and what it does not. If the conscience does not know the reason for its liberty concerning meats once forbidden in the ceremonial law, the ignorant conscience causes the man to sin if he partakes. This principle is binding in all areas of life that we are ignorant of. This however, does not mean that the conscience determines what is right and wrong. In respect to the ignorant conscience, there are differing degrees of sin on both sides: A grievous sin for partaking of the meat with ignorance and a lesser sin for being ignorant. The foundation of a good conscience is the Bible alone. A good conscience offers to God only that which he has commanded and never thinks good works can be established by the religious zeal and pretended piety of men. However, when the conscience acts upon the word of God we should, as it were, reverence the Ambassador as the King.
Decisions of Synods, though they should be examined thoroughly as the noble Bereans examined Paul’s teaching, should be received as binding on the conscience if they be found to be agreeable to scripture. The conscience is to be fully studied and persuaded of all things taught in the scripture, whether directly or by good and necessary consequence, to be equipped for every good work, not just fundamentals. No matter what experience a tender conscience may have, these experiences have no right to bind the conscience to any man made rule as if the violating of it be sin. A drunken relative gives no reason to profess alcohol a sin. A gluttonous friend makes not meat a thing carnal. A cruel cattle farmer does not make cheeseburgers iniquitous. Pornography and adultery do not make sex shameful. Lung cancer does not make moderate tobacco smoking unclean. Such a conscience reeks of false piety and man made religion.

ii. The Church is to Have One Voice
Jud 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

Act 15:25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen

Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace

Rom 15:5 Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Act 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

2Co 13:11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Phi 4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

a. The fundamentals

Assertion 1.) “Such opinions and practices as make an evident schism in a Church, and set up two distinct Churches, of different forms of government, and pretending to different instituitions of Christ, of which the one must by the nature of their principles labor the destruction of the other, cannot be tolerated”[62]

“there is but one old way, Jer. 6. 16. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph. 4. 4. One faith once delivered to the Saints, Jude 3. one truth to be bought, Prov. 23. 23. one Christ, which the Apostles, heard, saw, and handled with their hands, from the beginning, 1 John 1, 1. One name of Jesus, not any other under heaven by which we may be saved, Act. 4. 12. not Jehovah and Malcom, Zeph. 1. 5. not Jehovah and Baal, 1 King. 18. 21. not the true God, and the Gods of the heathen, the Samaritan mixture, 2 King. 17. 33. (2) And this one way we are to keep with one heart, Ezek. 11. 19. with one judgment, one mind, one tongue, one shoulder, Act. 4. 32, 2 Cor. 13. 11, Phil. 4. 2, 1 Cor. 1. 10, Zeph. 3. 9. Zach. 4. 9. Being rooted and established in the faith, Col. 2. 7. Not tossed to and fro, nor carried about with every wind of doctrine, Eph. 4. 14. Without wavering, Heb. 13. 9.”[63]

b. Against this one faith, there is to be severe rebuke to those who speak other doctrines.

Tit 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine
1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
1Ti 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

Tit 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Tit 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Tit 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

“from the truth in giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, to fables and needless Genealogies, and vain janglings, and strivings about the Law that were unprofitable and vain: now these questions about Genealogies and the law, opinions on either sides being vain and unprofitable, and not edifying in the faith could not be fundamental errors of themselves, and inconsistent with saving grace and salvation, but hay and stubble builded upon the foundation: yet consider what the Holy Ghost saith of them, Tit. 1.10. For those are many unruly and vain talkers, and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision, 11. whose mouth must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things they ought not, 13. Rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith, and to soundness in the faith he opposeth, v.14. giving heed unto Jewish fables and commandments of men that turn from the truth, 1 Tim. 6.3. If any man teach otherwise (then I have taught; now Paul’s doctrine of widows, of elders, and not sudden accusing them, his charge to Timothy no to drink water, but a little wine, were not fundamentals, the ignorance whereof excludeth men from salvation,) If any man consent no to the wholesome words, even the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, 4. He is proud knowing nothing as he ought, doting about questions and strife of words, whereof commeth envy, strife, railing, evil surmisings, 5. Perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness, from such turn away; then doting about questions, strife of words, besides, not consenting to the words of Christ and doctrine of godliness, is disputing of men of corrupt minds, from which we are to turn away. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine. 4. Neither give heed to fables and endless Genealogies, which minister questions, rather then edifying, which is in faith, then to preach fables and endless Genealogies which are not fundamental errors, are yet another doctrine than the Apostles taught, and those that so teach are to be charged to teach no such thing, and so under two or three witnesses, if they willfully continue therein, to be accused and censured, yea and we are to avoid them, and not to receive them in our houses, nor bid them God speed, and so non-fundamentals as questions of Genealogies come in under the name of e`terodidaskalei/n of teaching uncouth doctrine.”[64]

Obj.) Doesn’t 1 John make things very simple, he that hath the Son hath life he that hath not the Son hath not life?

Ans.) By the Son, do you mean the Muslim Jesus, the Arian Jesus, the Mormon Jesus, the Roman Jesus, the Socinian Jesus, the Familist Jesus, the Georgian Jesus, or what?

Obj.) If what you are saying is true all the Church fathers (Along with the rest of the history of Christianity) are going to hell for they held different doctrines!

Ans. 1) I am not arguing for a method of determining who is going to hell and who is going to heaven. What good doctrines a man must understand and believe to go to heaven and what bad doctrines one must hold to, to be thought hell bound are mysterious. I do not claim to have the answer for this and I do not seek to argue in favor of a view concerning this. I am arguing for a method of determining how the true religion is to be recognized and visibly administrated (By the Church and Magistrate) not a method of determining if the true religion has been applied to an individual (Which is the prerogative of God alone).

Ans.2) “As touching opinions more manifestly erroneous as Justine Martyr his saving of men metalogou, if they used the light of nature well, though they were ignorant of Christ, the Montanism of Turtullian, and his way of damning second marriage (which the very Jesuit Toletus comment. in Joan: said he wrote contra fidem Catholicam, against the Catholic faith.) and Augustine his condemning of all infants dying without Baptism, and Origen his hintings at a sort of purgatory after death, the Greek fathers their prescience of good works, and faith as the causes of predestination, their Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism touching men’s free will beginning and meeting God’s grace, especially, hard sayings of Chrysostom, Grego Nyssynus, and others, and the incongruous words of Hieronymus, nostrum est incipere and deiisequi. Their immediate extolling of the bishop of Rome, for personal gifts, their orations of and apostrophes to the martyrs dead, with an oi tis aisqhsis with that doubtsome condition, if there be any feeling of our affairs in the dead, which was the ground work of invocation of Saints, it is a question and to be proved, whether the Church and Christian Magistrate (when there were any) should tolerate these, for some opinions or truths are as brass, so as we cannot put a stamp of necessity of edification on them, and some are pieces of gold and foundation stones, so other truths are near of blood to fundamentals, and pinnings in the wall, though not foundations, and because the want of them may hurt the wall, they must go as pieces of current silver.”[65]

Obj.) Phi 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
Gal 5:10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

Ans.) “This is the only Magna Charta abused for liberty of conscience, which yet crosseth it, but favors it now. Paul giveth two rules, neither of them are for toleration, but against it; the one is for the mind within, the other for the practice without: for the former, he willeth all the perfect to mind this, that is, to endeavor Paul’s one thing, and to be followers of him, v. 17. forgetting that which is behind, and pressing toward the mark, and if any be otherwise minded in the matter of circumcision, if he mind the journey toward the garland, God shall clear his doubts to him there is nothing here for Libertines, except we say, let all the godly mind to walk toward the garland, by practicing circumcision, (as if that were the way) and by tolerating of others to practice Jewish Ceremonies, and if they be otherwise minded, God shall reveal their error, but in the mean time we are to suffer them to mind that, for the which Paul saith, their end is destruction, their belly their God, and they are dogs and evil doers, v. 19.2.3. as for the other rule of practice, v. 16. If it plead for Libertines, the sense must be, as far as we have obtained the mind of Christ let us practice, that is, let us be circumcised, and teach and profess and publish to others, all the heresies and blasphemies that seem to us to be true doctrine according to this rule, and let us mind the same thing, let us contend for the garland, and walking according to our conscience our only rule, and practicing unlawful ceremonies, and publishing and professing all the heresies we can, we mind the same crown and garland. Now except walking according to the rule be restricted to careful and diligent practicing of these things in which we all agree, which must exclude a practicing or publishing of doctrines controverted, and that we should abstain from practicing and publishing of opinions in which we agree not, nothing can be extorted hence in favor of toleration. Our brethren say, Let us gather Churches out of true Churches, and separate ourselves from true Churches, and preach Familism, Antinomianism, Arianism, and what not? and then we walk according to the same rule, which must be most contradictory to the mind of the Holy Ghost, and therefore Libertines durst never draw a formal argument for toleration out of these or any other places, but bring us such reasons as by the nineteenth consequence comes not up to the purpose; for by the gloss of Libertines, Let us walk according to the same rule, must be, Let us practice and walk (for it cannot be meant of heart-opinions) according to the known rule conceived by our conscience to be right (though it may be wrong and sinful) and so let us be circumcised, and make a fair show in the flesh at the false Apostles did, for if some believed circumcision, and the law to be necessary for justification, then Paul must bid them walk contrary to their light, and then the perfect had attained light to practice unlawful Jewish ceremonies.”[66]
Certainly, even the Independents do not want the full import of the way they use this verse. Does this mean that those who reject the deity of Christ are to be treated as brothers as they wait for new revelation (And ad absurdum)?
“But I hope Jeremiah had not the people of God in Judea, under the Babylonish captivity, follow an Heathenish peace, with toleration of divers Religions, or yet a Religious peace, or a Church peace, that standeth well with many Religions, yea they are to denounce wrath against the Chaldean Religion, Jer. 10. 11. and would he have Christians all keeping such an Heathenish unity and peace, as Babylonians and Americans have, and in the mean time tolerate all Religions, Christians who have one God, and one faith, and one hope are to follow more than a Civil and Heathenish peace”[67]
iii. Concerning Fundamentals and How Many
The pertinent issue is the definition of the word fundamental. Some believe the fundamentals regard what doctrines have to be believed in order to go to heaven (That is membership in the invisible Church). What about infants (Luke 1:15, 2 Tim 3:15, Mark 10:14)? What about the thief on the cross? “The repenting thief knew Christ to be the savior of men, and a King, who could dispose of heaven, but what deductions the Spirit made within, who knows?”[68]

“To determine what is fundamental, what not, and the number of fundamental points, and the least measure of knowledge of fundamentals, in which the essence of saving faith may consist, or the simple want of the knowledge of which fundamentals, is inconsistent with saving faith in minimo quod non, is more than Magistrate or Church can well know. Sure it borders with one of God’s secrets, touching the final state of salvation, or damnation of particular men.”[69]

Therefore, the number of fundamentals requisite to enter heaven is a mystery. However, there are key examples of what false doctrinal professions give the Church and Magistrate reason to label a man outside the faith. We will call these negative fundamentals:

1. Professing that the resurrection has past 2 Tim1:17-18, 1 Tim 1:19-20;
2. Professing that circumcision is required for salvation Gal 5:3-4 Compare with Acts 15:5, 24;
3. Professing that eating meat offered to idols is nothing even if you know it was offered to an idol, even though it is a grievous sin to eat meat offered to idols with knowledge of such Rev 2:14-16, 1Cor 8:1-13; 1Cor 10:25-33;
4. Professing that Christians should still keep the dietary laws Titus 1:11-16, Col 2:20-23, 1 Tim 4:1-3;
5. Forbidding marriage 1 Tim4:1-3;
6. Teaching that Christ did not come in the flesh 2 Tim1:7;
7. Professing that the day of the Lord has already come before the apostasy 2 Th 2:1-3; 8. 8. Professing another gospel Gal 1:8-9 (Implied mixing faith and works from the context); 9. Teaching synchristic fables and geologies Tit 1:14, 1 Tim 1:4, Tit 3:9-10, 1Ti 1:3, 2Jo 1:9, 2Jo 1:10.[70] In addition to the support of this claim Rutherford says:

“Neither give heed to fables and endless Genealogies, which minister questions, rather then edifying, which is in faith, then to preach fables and endless Genealogies which are not fundamental errors, are yet another doctrine than the Apostles taught, and those that so teach are to be charged to teach no such thing, and so under two or three witnesses, if they willfully continue therein, to be accused and censured, yea and we are to avoid them, and not to receive them in our houses, nor bid them God speed, and so non-fundamentals as questions of Genealogies come in under the name of e`terodidaskalein of teaching uncouth doctrine.”[71]

To this list I would also add by necessity all other teaching which by logical consequence acknowledged or not, that denies the deity of Jesus (Acts 20:28), or anything else which by logical consequence creates a division in the true Church of Jesus Christ in its preaching, sacraments or discipline. Lest we faint under the fear of falling prey to error Rutherford says:

“All which prove that to be finally seduced, is a certain mark of reprobation, as Matth. 24. 23, 24. 2. Tim. 2. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. and the Spirit that teacheth us that we are not to be afraid of falling from the state of grace and salvation, though we fall in such sins as the spirit of Antichrist, wantonness, who abuse the doctrine of election of grace…[72] The way to be delivered from error is to be humble and fear God and he shall teach us his ways, Psal. 25. 9. 14. John 7. 17. 2. Thess. 2. 11, 12.”[73]

Here Rutherford gives a quote by Augustine explaining why people remain in heresy:
“There be five pull-backs that keep men even in heresy and in a false way, as may be collected out of Augustine's writings from which by the terror of just laws, they may be affrighted from seducing of others as 1. fear of offending men especially those of their own way; 2. an hardening custom in a false way. 3. a wicked sluggishness in not searching the truth of God. 4. the wicked tongues of enemies that shall traduce them, if they leave heresies. 5. a vain persuasion that men may be saved in any religion. See Augustine epist. 114.”[74]

Obj.) This teaching ignores the fact that many people speak error out of ignorance of the consequences of their opinions and therefore they are not accountable for them.

Ans. 1) “yet they but perverted souls, by consequences. The like may be said of such, as Paul said fell from Christ, and lost all benefit in Christ, if they were circumcised, Gal. 5. 2. It may be they would retract the heresy, if they saw the blasphemies to follow by strong consequence, and it may be not, since they are self-condemned. But, sure, the Lord chargeth the persons of men as making God A liar, who believe not his truth, and he chargeth Epicureanism, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die, 1 Cor. 15. on the persons that deny the resurrection: and if the doctrine be a lie, I wonder, how these that lie of God (since God commandeth to know, and believe whatever he saith in his word) can be innocent.”[75]

Ans. 2) “If this Argument be good, sins of infirmities, and of weakness, must be no sin. Idle words cannot come in reckoning in the last day, contrary to Matth. 12. 36. for God forgives crimes; Ergo, he will not call us to an account for our venials. If this conclude any thing, the strongest understanding cannot pretend immunity from being deceived; Ergo, simple ignorance of the things of God is no sin. I may argue no man can pretend to be free of sin in the inclination of the heart and original guiltiness, Job 4.4. Ps. 51. 5. Gen. 8.21. Prov. 20. 9. 1 John 1. 8. 10. Eccles. 7. 20. Ergo, sin is no sin, original sin, sins of infirmities are no sins.”[76]

Ans. 3) “if ye worship a bit of an ash-tree, or a bit of bread, ergo, the half of your God, or the quarter thereof, is baked in an oven, ergo, there is a lie, and an abomination in your right hand; then the denial of logical consequences in Religion, and the teaching thereof to others, may be, and is an heresy, and punishable by the Magistrate, as Deut. 13. and Exod. 32. so Christ rebukes Matth. 22. Sadducees as ignorant of the Scripture, when they denied but the consequence or a logical connexion, as God is not the God of the dead but of the living, ergo, the dead must rise again, and Abraham must live, and his body be raised from the dead. And 2. the idolaters who were to die by the Law of God, Exod. 32. Deut. 13, denied not the true God more than our false teachers do now. We see no reason why none should be false teachers, but such only as deny fundamentals, and that pertinaciously, though these by Divines be called Heretics.”[77]

Ans. 4) “I see nothing said against bodily punishing of such as teach transubstantiation to others: for the idolaters and seducers in the Old Testament believed the same way, there is one true God Jehovah that brought them out of Egypt, Exod. 32.4, 5. Jeroboam who made two Gods, and Jehu who was zealous for Jehovah, 1 King. 13. 6. c. 13. 1, 2, 3. 2 King. 9. 25, 36, 37.c. 10. 16. 20, 21. and Joram, 2 King 5.7. acknowledged God could kill and make alive, and was just in his promises and threatenings, yet worshipped the golden calves, those who cried the Temple of the Lord, must acknowledge there was but one true God, yet they burnt incense to Baal, and killed their children to Molech, Jer. 7.4, 5 9. 30, 31. They that asked of Jehovah the ordinances of their God, and fasted to Jehovah, Isaiah 58. 1, 2, 3, 4. yet inflamed themselves under every green tree, Isaiah 57.5. and stew their children under the cliffs of the rocks the heathen knew God, and one God, who made the heaven and the earth, and worshipped him, though ignorantly, answers Rom. 1.20, 21. Act. 17.23. yet denied and hated this logical consequence that they had forsaken the Lord, Jer.9. 13, 14 or Deut. 32.18. forgotten the rock that begat them, Ps. 78. 11, 41. Ps. 107. 12, 13.”[78]

To some, fundamentals refer to those doctrines which professing Christian people should unite under. Rutherford objects:

Obj. 1) “A good conscience is a complete entire thing, as our text saith, both toward God and man; its not to be a moral man in the duties of the second table, and a skeptic in the duties of the first table, not in some few fundamentals, as patrons for liberty of conscience do plead, but in the whole revealed will of God”[79]

Obj. 2) “The Apostles never bid us know any truth of God with a reserve. Libertines bid us, the Apostles, and the Holy Ghost in them, bids us know assuredly that Jesus is Christ the Lord, they exhort us to be rooted and established in the faith, Col. 2. to be fully persuaded of all, both fundamentals, and the historicals, of the birth, life, miracles, words, facts, death, sufferings, and burial, resurrection, ascension, etc... of Christ, as Luke exhorteth Theophilus, Luke 1. 1, 2, 3. yea the Apostle clearly Heb. 5. exhorteth to the faith of many points concerning Christ”[80]

Obj. 3) “Yea, 5. We believe with certainty of faith, many things which are not fundamentals, as 2. Pet. 3.8. But (beloved) be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousa00nd years as one day. How many (suppose we) are in glory that died ignorant of this, and had not faith, or any certainty of faith of this point, that time hath with God no coexistence of a duration long and short? Yet Peter proposeth it to be believed with certainty of faith, and how many points of sacred history doth the Holy Ghost tell us Heb. 11. of Cain and Abel’s sacrificing, of Abraham sojourning in a strange Country, of Sarah’s bearing a child in her old age, of Isaac’s blessing of Jacob, and Joseph’s worshipping leaning on the end of a staff, Moses being hid three months, the falling of the Walls of Jericho, the witnessing of the sacrifices, types, and particular ceremonies that shadowed out Christ, of his being born in Bethlehem, Mic. 2. of his being crucified between two transgressors, Isaiah 53. of his riding to Jerusalem on an ass colt, Zach. 9. Of his casting out buyers and sellers out of the Temple, through his zeal to the house of God, Psalm 69. of the betraying of him by Judas, and many historical things that are not fundamentals, yet all these were a part of the Apostles’ and the Holy Ghost’s testimony, Act. 5. 32. And to be believed with divine certitude of saving faith, no less then the Articles of fundamentals”[81]

To some, fundamentals are the foundation of 1 Corinthians 3:11-12 on which some build wood hay and stubble, but are still saved. Rutherford objects:
Obj. 1) “The foundation is Christ and none but he 2. the gold builded on the foundation is the doctrine of Christ, and a created thing, yet simply necessary to be believed. 3. the hay and stubble that is built on it must be vanities and fooleries believed, yet of themselves such as extinguish not saving faith and love, no more then sins of infirmity are inconsistent with saving faith, then both the man’s hay and stubble and his sins of infirmity against the second table may be burnt and the man saved: but it follows not the Church and Magistrate should therefore not punish or censure the builders of hay and stubble upon the foundation, but should tolerate them, for a Godly man, as David and Peter may fall in adultery, in treacherous murder and denial of Christ, yet it follows not that the Magistrate should tolerate and not punish murder and adultery in a Christian society, and that Paul should not sharply rebuke, and if need be, farther proceed to the censure of the Church: if Peter either deny his Lord, though out of infirmity and fear, or if he Judaize and look awry to the Gospel.”[82]
Obj. 2) “2. Peter’s error, since he believed Christ was come, Matth 16.17. was not fundamental, but consistent with faith, yet Paul withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed, and if he had pertinaciously gone on to walk not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, since Paul would not have given place by subjection to such, no not for an hour, Gal. 2.11-15. he should have been worthy of more than rebuke, yea of higher censure, the like we must say of Barnabas and other Jews, who all sinned though in a far inferior degree with these, who came in privily to spy out the Christian liberty of the Gentiles to bring them into bondage, under the Ceremonial law.”[83]
Therefore, as we are by process of elimination and by small steps furthering our understanding that fundamentals have more to do with the administration of the visible Church (What teachings and practices merit censure or excommunication etc.) and Magistrate than things we think are in the heads and hearts of people which are a mystery.

However, if some think Rutherford too strict and narrow headed on this point, let us hear him in his articles Against Separation(Before we do we must review Cunningham’s distinction as to not confuse the reader from the way fundamentals have been described previous to how they will be used in the subsequent section: William Cunningham says: “Fundamental points, it has been said, are those which have been revealed to us because it was necessary that they should be known and believed. Non-fundamentals are those which it is necessary to believe just because they have been revealed to us.”[84] Therefore, in these distinctions from Rutherford we should understand fundamentals to refer to those doctrines necessary to be known and believed.

“DISTINCTION ONE. One may believe that Christ is the Son of God by a Divine faith, as Peter does (Matt. 16:17), and yet doubt of the necessary fundamental consequences. Ergo, Christ must be delivered into the hands of sinners, and be crucified, as the same Peter doubted of this. For as one may fall in a grievous sin, though regenerated, and fail in act[ion], and yet remain in grace, in habitu [in condition], the seed of God remaining in him, so may Peter and the apostles doubt of a fundamental point of Christ’s rising from the dead (John 20:8, 9), in an act of weakness, and yet have saving faith in Christ, as it is like[ly] many of the saints at Corinth denied an article of their faith, the rising again of the dead. One act of unbelief makes not an infidel.”[85]

Though it may not make an infidel it does make one worthy of Church censure.

“DISTINCTION THREE. There is a certitude of adherence formal, and a certitude of adherence virtual. A certitude of adherence formal is, when one does adhere firmly to the faith of fundamentals. A certitude of adherence virtual is, when with the formal adherence to some fundamental points, there is an ignorance of other fundamental points, and yet withal a gracious disposition and habit to believe other fundamentals, when they shall be clearly revealed out of the Word. So [in] Luke 24, Christ exponed the resurrection, and the articles of Christ’s sufferings and glorification (vs. 25-27), to the disciples who doubted of these before, and yet had saving faith of other fundamental points (Matt. 16-18).”[86]

“DISTINCTION SIX. They are not alike, (1.) who believe fundamental heresies; (2.) and who defend them; (3.) and who teach them, and obtrude them upon the consciences of others. For the first, many believe fundamental errors who are ignorant of them, and do think that they firmly adhere to Christian Religion. 26Occam terms such, hereticos nescientes, ignorant heretics, as the Marcionites, and the Manicheans, and these the Church should tolerate while they are instructed. It is true the Jesuit 27Meratius says, When many things are proposed to the understanding for one and the same formal wit, for divine authority, the understanding cannot embrace one but it must embrace all, nor reject one, but it must reject all, which is true of a formal malicious rejection. The Manichean believes nothing because God says it, and has faith sound and saving, in nothing, but it is not true of and actual or virtual contempt, in one or two fundamentals, because believers out of weakness, ignorance, and through strength of temptation may doubt of one fundamental, as the disciples doubted of the resurrection (John 20:9), and yet in habit believe all other fundamentals. But the Church is to correct such as profess fundamental heresies, and to cast out of the Church seducers and deceivers.”[87]

It would appear that the third group who teach and impress these heresies on the conscience of others be the group censured and threatened with discipline.
“DISTINCTION SEVEN. It is one thing to hate fundamental points, as that Christ is consubstantial with the Father as the Arians do, and another thing, by consequence to subvert a fundamental point, as Papists by consequence deny Christ to be true man, while they hold to the wonder of Transubstantiation, yet they do not hate this conclusion formally, that Christ is true man.”[88]
Here I think Rutherford gives us the definition of the heretic as one who teaches and proselytizes a doctrine that not only errs but by consequence gives the Church and Magistrate reason to believe he is outside the faith.
“DISTINCTION NINE. Though the knowledge of fundamentals is necessary to salvation, yet it cannot easily be defined, what measure of knowledge of fundamentals, and what determinate number of fundamentals does constitute a true visible church, and a sound believer, as the learned 29Voetius says. Hence (1.), they are saved, who soundly believe all fundamentals materially, though they cannot distinctly know them, under the reduplication of fundamentals, nor define what are fundamentals, what not.”[89]
“Fundamentals are safe in Rome materially in themselves, so as some may be saved who believe these fundamentals; but fundamentals are not safe in Rome, Ecclesiastice, Ministeraliter, Pastoraliter, in a church way, so as by believing these from their chairs so exponed, they can be saved who do believe them; out of which we may have the doctrine of faith and salvation as from a visible mother, whose daughters we are.”[90]

It seems he is saying that there are no determined positive fundamentals to establish a true visible Church, but negative fundamentals that reveal a false visible Church. “By their fruits you shall know them.” So by way of review:

William Cunningham says: “Fundamental points, it has been said, are those which have been revealed to us because it was necessary that they should be known and believed. Non-fundamentals are those which it is necessary to believe just because they have been revealed to us.”[91]

I think this is the best summary statement of this discourse so far. I would point out that he is not giving liberty of conscience to the non-fundamental points. He is merely making the point that the weightiest matters of the law are necessary to authenticate in a visible administrative manner a true believer, while the non-fundamentals are necessary to authenticate in a visible administrative manner the true religion and the administration of it by the Church and Magistrate.

Example:

“as the doctrine of the Counsel of Trent, which is in a ministerial way, with professed obstinacy, against the fundamental truths rightly exponed, and such an aversion of the foundation makes the Popish Church no Church truly visible, whose breasts we can suck. But for Lutherans, their subversion of the foundation by philosophic consequences without professed hatred to the fundamentals, and that not in an Ecclesiastic and Ministerial way, does not so avert the fundamentals, as that they are no visible Church” [92]

Our common critics say that we in the Church of Scotland tradition desire to put everyone to death who does not believe every jot and tittle of our confession and wants nothing to do with them. This is false. Not only do we want Christians of a different doctrinal conviction dwelling in relative peace amongst our assembly, we want and believe God commands even the wicked to attend in relative harmony. Rutherford says:

“This objection is no less against Paul and the Word of God, than against us; for many enemies to God, whose hearts are rocky, thorny and stony ground, do hear the Word of God, and that by God’s commandment (Matt. 13:2-5, etc.). The deaf and the blind are commanded to hear (Isa. 42:18; 28:9, 10), and these whom God has covered with a spirit of slumber, are to hear the words of the sealed book (Isa. 29:9-11), even those who stumble at the Word, and fall, and are broken (Isa. 8:14-16; 1 Pet. 2:8). What godly man can say Amen, to such a holy action, as is performed by God’s enemies?[93]… The godly say Amen to actions of God’s worship two ways. (1.) As it is the ordinance of God enjoined and commanded, to the wicked and hypocrites, no less than to the godly. And we are to countenance their communicating, as we do their hearing of the Word, and to join with them both, in our real and personal presence, and say Amen with them, as the disciples gave their personal Amen, and their countenance and presence to a holy action at the last Supper, with one of their number, whom they knew to have a devil, and to be a traitor, and dipped their hand in the dish with this man, after Christ had warned them that there was such an one. But this is but to say Amen to the external worship, which is lawful, according to the substance of the act.”[94]

Obj.) You think we are all heretics! I guess you are not even going to eat with me because I believe in believer’s baptism!

Ans.1) As a Reformed Baptist I believe you to be a brother for you hold necessary doctrines to be believed and the logical consequences of your believer’s baptism do not compromise them. The other Baptists of the Arminian stripe are outside the faith, and should be, if they publicly proselytize these doctrines, be under the discipline of the Church and the Magistrate. However, I do not believe your public assemblies should be nurtured by the Magistrate in a beneficial sense but should be recognized as a mere tolerated sect.

Ans.) “But some ignorant ones say the place (1 Cor. 5:11), is to be expounded of eating at the communion table, or if it be of familiar eating and drinking, of civil conversing, then much more are we not to communicate with them at the Lord’s Table. But not to eat with such a one, is not to keep entire fellowship with him, as the phrase notes (Ps. 41:9), He that eat of my bread has lift up his heel against me. (John 13:18; Ps. 55:13) So does Chrysostome, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, expound this place. Bullinger, contubernium & interiorem convictum prohibet [He forbids their dwelling together and deeper intimacy.]. So Calvin, Peter Martyr, Beza, Piscator, Pareus; so Erasmus and Aquinas, Hayme, Gagneius. Nor is all eating whatsoever with heathen persons forbidden. Paul practiced the contrary (Act. 13; 14:5-9; 17:16, 17; 27:34-36; 28:11, 12; 1 Cor. 10:27).”[95]

Obj.) You think man made hymns and musical instruments in public worship is idolatry. You will attend a Presbyterian Church that uses both but you will not attend a Roman Mass, this is hypocrisy!

Ans.) “CONSIDERATION TWO. If the whole and most part of the church turns idolatrous, and worships idols (which is essential idolatry), we are to separate from that church. The Levites and the two Tribes did well, as 69Mr. Ball says, to make a separation from Jeroboam’s calves, and the godly laudably (2 Kings 16:11), did not separate from the Israel, and church of God, because the Altar of Damascus was set up, and because of the high places. Things dedicated unto idols, as Lutheran Images, may be called, and are called (1 Cor. 10:34) idolatry; yet are they idolatry by participation, and so the Cup of Devils (1 Cor. 10). Paul does not command separation from the Church of Corinth, and the Table of the Lord there.”[96]

Obj.) So how then do you know when a Church has violated fundamentals and to what degree do you think the violation has to be to separate?

“If the wickedness of a Church has such a influence as to pollute the public worship, and to defile these that communicate in the worship, so as they must separate therefrom, and if the unconverted preacher is not to be heard, as a lawful pastor, then also we can communicate in no Church, where there are lurking hypocrites. But both these are against the Word of God, Ergo, separation from the Church in that kind must be against the Word of God also. The proposition is clear: if the sins of these that hear, and communicate with me, defile the worship to me, they defile it whether I know their sins or not. If a pest[ilence infected] man eating with me, defiles my meat, the meat is infected to me, whether I know it or not. And if I be obliged to know it, and know it not, my ignorance is sinful, and does not excuse me. Now certainly no believer is obliged to know the latent hypocrite. It was no sin in the eleven apostles that they knew not Judas to be the traitor [until] God discovered him. The assumption I prove, an unconverted man may be a called pastor, whom we may lawfully hear, as Judas was a chosen apostle (Matt. 7:22, 23; Phil. 1:16-18). Also it were lawful to be a member of no visible Church, if the sins of unknown hypocrites should defile the worship; because in the net and barn floor there are always bad fish and chaff.”[97]

Therefore, the worship has to be so defiled as it forces me to participate, like in the Mass where another object besides The True God is receiving worship, though the other examples such as man made hymns and musical instruments are idolatry, they are a non- participatory idolatry, and of a less degree as to not defile those not actively participating.

Rutherford adds:

“It is not lawful to communicate with the holiest Church on earth in an act of false worship, we grant. But every false worship does neither make a true Church, a false Church, or no Church; neither gives it a ground and warrant of separation. For there was much false worship in Corinth, where many were partakers of the idol’s table (1 Cor. 8:10), and many denied the resurrection, and so Thyatira, Pergamos (Rev. 2), where were Balaam’s doctrine and Jezebel the false prophetess, and yet none of these are to be separated from, as false Churches. And the Separatists would observe this, that when Churches in the New Testament are most sharply rebuked, if communion with these Churches going on in their sins is idolatry and false worship, and offering devils’ images to God, how is it, that the Lord and his apostles rebuke the faults, but never warn the true and sound believers to separate and make a new Church, seeing this is the only remedy to them, and there is not another way to escape the judgment of the whole Church. 2. David would not take the names of idols in his lips, nor would touch the garments spotted of the flesh, nor consent unto, or countenance idols, but to communicate with a Church where there is a profane people and a false worship in some points, is not to touch unclean garments, for the clean and the sound worship of God is clean, and as for the example of Achan, it is most impertinent. Israel knew not Achan’s sacrilege till the Lord found out the man, and if this stands good, a lurking hypocrite, and an unseen Achan in a visible congregation brings a curse on the congregation, and from such a congregation we are to separate. What madness is this. We are to separate from a society, before we know any Achan to be amongst them.”[98]

Obj.) “The Holy Ghost not only foresaw there would, but determines there must be heresies, and its expedient for the exercise of love, and the discovery of truth, and the Professors thereof; are not Errors as well as afflictions a part of Christ’s discipline? then let it have its perfect work till it be cured by its proper remedy the sword of the Spirit; Its not said there must be murderers, as it is said there must be Heresies.”[99]
226

Ans.) “God determines Heresies must be, so he determines that murders, adulteries, oppressions must be: it then shall follow the Christian Magistrate by this Argument does tolerate murders, oppressions, as he tolerates heresies, but the conclusion is gross, because Heresies are the Church’s affliction (and so are bloods and oppressions of the Saints) shall then Christian Magistrates tolerate all the bloods and oppressions that the Saints suffer?”[100]

Obj.) So you say that fundamentals are those doctrines which if corrupted create a visible separation in the preaching, sacraments and discipline of a Church. Therefore, if any preacher teach some doctrine that you find false, is there a visible split and where do you draw the line between error and heresy?

Ans.)”But our presence at every lawful worship that is acknowledged lawful, does not give so much as interpretatively signification of our consent to every particular in the worship, because hearing, discerning, choosing or refusing, believing or not believing, according as you find the points agreeable to God’s Word, or dissonant therefrom, intervenes between your presence at the worship, and your consent to the worship. Now the act of consenting, approving and receiving the point of worship is formally to partake of the worship, else we could not obey the precept (1 Thess. 5:21) Try all things. Some things in the preacher are to be borne with; the preachers of the Separation have not an apostolic and infallible spirit, if any of them preach unsound doctrine, the presence of the hearers does not involve them in the guilt of the preacher’s erroneous worship. The Pharisees corrupting of the Law was known and rebuked by Christ, but yet Christ forbad Separation. Hear them (Matt. 23) they sit in Moses’ chair.”[101]

Therefore, if the preaching either directly or by logical consequence contradicts any doctrine in the 1647 Westminster Confession, this preaching is erroneous and the preacher is to be threatened with censure, though he may be a Christian and bound for heaven.

Related to this, some will say the only fundamental (Similar to the example of the Apostle’s Creed) is that Jesus died to save sinners.[102] Rutherford objects:

“then let Arians and Socinnians believe him to be God man and to die for sinners in their sense, the Familists in a contrary sense, the Georgians in another contrary sense, the Papists in a third, the Protestants a fourth, and so as many heads, as many faiths, every sect, and man must have some sense, else his faith is non-sense, and if he err from the sense of the Holy Ghost, the scripture is no scripture, if it be believed in a sense contrary to the scripture to him who so believes; and so his faith is no faith, but a vain night-fancy, and seeing the word of God gives us but one faith, and one truth, and one Gospel; if interpretations be left free to every man, these Libertines gives us millions of faiths with millions of senses, and so no faith at all.”[103]

To some, the fundamentals are summed up in this saying:

“There was never an Heretic who called in question whether thieves, drunkards, robbers, railers, Idolaters, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, or whether God be to be loved above all things, he is not a Christian, he is not an heretic, but worse than a heretic who denies those things that are plain and obvious in scripture”[104]

Rutherford objects:

Obj.1) “All things that may be controverted, is wide. Nothing but it is converted, except whether there be a God or not, and many doubt of that: There be even now, who deny Jesus Christ God-man, the necessity of his death, his offices, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection, last judgment, a heaven, a hell, but all to Libertines are uncertain, and the denial of any point, not by the light of reason, but by supernatural revelation, such as these articles, that God is one in three distinct persons, that Christ is God and Man in one person, that he died to satisfy divine justice, that we are saved by his righteousness other Libertines say, they are only Heretics or at least punishable by men, who deny fundamentals of Christian Religion, but are sparing to tell us what fundamentals, whether of law and known by the light of nature, or of Gospel known only by supernatural revelation, so that ere they find the heretic, they must show you the point they deny is fundamental, and its possible that is a difficile business, whether it be fundamental or not”[105]

Obj. 2) “such as the doctrine of one God in three persons of the incarnation of two natures in Christ, of the imputed righteousness of Christ, of salvation by believing in a crucified Savior, the resurrection of the dead; and those that are not knowable but by supernatural revelation, though they be the fundamentals of the Christian faith, yet are they more controversial of themselves than the most part of non-fundamentals, as John Goodwin does rightly observe… and so upon the grounds of Libertines, one Catholic toleration is due to all;”[106]

Obj. 3) “This opinion of forbearing all, save such as err in fundamentals, though they err in non fundamentals is grounded upon this, that the Scripture is evidently plain and clear in fundamentals, but in other points of non-fundamentals, the Scripture is dark, and in regard of the darkness and natural ignorance of our mind which is invincible almost, we must forbear one another and give and take elbow room and latitude of indulgence, because the Magistrate and Church are not infallible, but both Godly and learned may be on each side, so that there should be no peace nor union of hearts in Christian societies, but all Churches on earth must disband and be dissolved, if each should punish and censure one another for holding contrary tenets.”[107]

To some, the fundamentals are “that there is one God, that the Messiah is, he that dies for the sins of his people, that the Decalogue it a perfect rule.”[108] Rutherford objects:

“now this way the Jews and Samaritans both agreed, there was one God, and that the Messiah should come, and that he should tell them all things, yet one confession common to both, that each might believe and be saved was not possible, for Christ saith, John 4. The Samaritans worshipped they knew not what, but salvation is of the Jews. And should Christians and Jews agree in one general confession drawn out of the Old Testament, that there is one God, that the Messiah is, he that dies for the sins of his people, that the Decalogue it a perfect rule, etc... we could not swear and subscribe that confession, for as expounded by the Jews, it could not be the doctrine of the Old Testament, nor any part of the word of God, but flat contradictory thereunto as any point of heathen Divinity; for fundamentals to some may be, and are untruths to others, even this, that the Messiah Christ is the Saviour of the world, both Jews, and we say, but they mean one thing by Messiah, we another; so we cannot have one faith, nor one confession.”[109]

To Richard Baxter:

“When we once return to the ancient simplicity of faith, then, and not till then, shall we return to the ancient love and peace. I would therefore recommend to all my brethren, as the most necessary thing to the Church’s peace, that they unite in necessary truths, and bear with one another in things that may be borne with; and do not make a larger creed, and more necessaries, than God hath done. To this end, let me entreat you to attend to the following things:
(1) Lay not too great stress upon controverted opinions, which have godly men, and especially, whole Churches, on both sides.
(2)Lay not too great a stress on those controversies that are ultimately resolvable in philosophical uncertainties, as are some unprofitable controversies about freewill, the manner of the Spirits operations and the Divine decrees.
(3)Lay not too great a stress on those controversies that are merely verbal, and which if they were anatomized, would appear to be no more. Of this sort are far more (I speak it confidently upon certain knowledge) that make a great noise in the world, and tear the Church, than almost any of the eager contenders that ever I spoke with do seem to discern, or are like to believe.
(4)Lay not too much stress on any point of faith which was disowned by or unknown to the whole Church of Christ, in any age, since the Scriptures were delivered to us.
(5)Much less should you lay great stress on those of which any of the more pure of the judicious ages were wholly ignorant.
(6)And least of all should you lay much stress on any point which no one age since the apostles did ever receive, but all commonly held the contrary.”[110]

In, “too great a stress”, there may be some good substance, but the way he words it is ambiguous and the context is so specific in nature he leaves the garden to describe the flowers. Moreover, how “necessary truths”, “making a larger creed” and “lay not too great stress” are compatible, I see not. Do we have to believe these things or not? Now, to points 4, 5 and 6 Rutherford objects (Not to Baxter’s specific book, but to the arguments which were similar to the Independents Rutherford argues against in Free Disputation):

Obj. 1) “There is nothing that the scripture hath left simple, and in itself controversial. Actu primo the scripture hath determined of all things contained in it, whether fundamentals or not fundamentals; only in regard of our dullness and sinful blindness some things are controverted, and therefore the Church may determine from light of the word some thing that was a controversy to the Fathers ignorant of the original tongues, which is now no controversy. Yea the fallible Church may determine infallible points. This is a principle that Libertines proceed upon, that men who are not infallible may err, and therefore can hold forth to others no infallible truth. Which is most false, for prophets and apostles, Nathan, Samuel, David, Peter being deserted of the immediately inspiring Spirit did err as well as the Church and Pastors now deserted of the ordinary Spirit can and do err. For all men, Prophets and Apostles are liars, Rom. 3. yet they may and do carry infallible truth to others; a blind man may hold a candle to others. 3. By this reason Pastors can preach nothing certain in fundamentals, though faith come by hearing, and faith is of a certain and determinate fixed truth of God, more permanent than heaven or earth; why, because by this reason pastors in preaching fundamentals are not infallible . 4. Nor is this a good reason, it is believed the Church may err in Synods, ergo, it doth err and determines nothing that is infallible and certain in Synods; no more than this is a good consequence”[111]
Obj. 2) “That then must be the foundation of faith and salvation which is precisely necessary to be believed by all that are saved. Alardas Valek gives us four fundamentals facienda and vitanda things to be done and eschewed in the Decalogue 2. credenda, to be believed in the Creed. 3. roganda, to be sought from God in prayer 4. usurpanda things to be practiced, as the sacraments. How the repenting thief knew all these, I see not, yet a taste of some of them ye may see and with the infused life of God he was ready to believe and do the rest. For the first he knew robbery and violence to be damned in the Decalogue, we are justly here, and repented. 2. for the second, he believed in Christ as king, the Son of God and a Savior. Christ was accused that he called himself the Son of God and a king, when the man saith of Christ this man hath done nothing amiss: he believes him to be the Son of God, and the Savior who had the keys of paradise at his girdle, 3. he prays to him. Lord remember me when thou comes to thy kingdom. 4. for external worship or Sacraments, it is like he knew little: yet he confessed Christ a king when his disciples denied him and fled, and the world persecuted him. Cycillus Hyerosolymitian reduceth them to two; the knowledge of points of faith. 2. the doing of good works. Had he added according to the new covenant it were good. Calvin saith epist. 182. I refuse not the Augustine confession. Cui pridem volens and libens subscripsi, sicut eam Author interpretatus est. Yet in the 10th article thereof the substantial body and blood of Christ is said to be really present under the spece of bread and wine. Ambrose in cap 9. Lu. negat Christum, qui non omnia que sunt Christi consitetur. It is only thus far true: he that hath sufficient means of believing what the word saith may confess all truths of Christ and doth not deny Christ, but as some do not all the good they may, yet have a saving disposition to it, though either they through infirmities leave it undone, or through want of opportunity, yet believing are saved: So these that want means of knowing and confessing all truths yet have the habit of faith to believe them, though they never actually confess them, do not deny Christ. Though Ireneus l.1.c.3. Tertullain de Virginibus velandis Augusti. to. 10. de Tempore sar. 2. and Ruffinus in the exposition of the Creed say that which is called the Apostles Creed, came from the Apostles: yet there is no sufficient ground for us to believe the authentic Authority of it. Conrad, worships while he was yet sound. de causis justis and necessariis deserendi paptus. par. 1. dis. 1. the 29th saith of these points that are contained in the Apostles Creed: some things are simply necessary for salvation, without which faith and repentance cannot be 2. some not so necessary, yet profitable and of themselves saving. 3. other things by consequence and by accident are necessary, not of themselves and separate from the fundamentals, the Church of Rome errs in the fundamentals, in the doctrine of our Savior and his offices, in the doctrine of merit, human satisfactions, indulgences, the Scriptures, the Church. In the 2nd they err about baptism, the Lord’s supper, confirmation, unction, penance, though of themselves they happily deprive not of life eternal, yet because the subject about which the matter is versed is most necessary, they are pernicious errors. These of the third sort touching creation, providence, mortification, though of themselves they might be called errors, simple ignorance, yet for the dangerous consequences, they are pernicious heresies.”[112]
Obj. 3) “As touching opinions more manifestly erroneous as Justine Martyr his saving of men metalogou, if they used the light of nature well, though they were ignorant of Christ, the Montanism of Turtullian, and his way of damning second marriage (which the very Jesuit Toletus comment. in Joan: said he wrote contra fidem Catholicam, against the Catholic faith.) and Augustine his condemning of all infants dying without Baptism, and Origen his hintings at a sort of purgatory after death, the Greek fathers their prescience of good works, and faith as the causes of predestination, their Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism touching men’s free will beginning and meeting God’s grace, especially, hard sayings of Chrysostom, Grego Nyssynus, and others, and the incongruous words of Hieronymus, nostrum est incipere and deiisequi. Their immediate extolling of the bishop of Rome, for personal gifts, their orations of and apostrophes to the martyrs dead, with an oi tis aisqhsis with that doubtsome condition, if there be any feeling of our affairs in the dead, which was the ground work of invocation of Saints, it is a question and to be proved, whether the Church and Christian Magistrate (when there were any) should tolerate these, for some opinions or truths are as brass, so as we cannot put a stamp of necessity of edification on them, and some are pieces of gold and foundation stones, so other truths are near of blood to fundamentals, and pinnings in the wall, though not foundations, and because the want of them may hurt the wall, they must go as pieces of current silver.”[113]

iv. Concerning Points Not Fundamental.
“Some errors are about things that God hath left indifferent, for the time, as opinion and practices, about meats and days, Rom. 14.1 Cor. 8. c. 10. in these, God gives an indulgence, and bids us so long as the date of indifference endureth, bear with the weaker, but Rom. 14. 1 Cor.8. you shall not find that Paul beareth with the unlimited practice of days and meats absolutely, and in all cases, as for the case of scandal, Paul sharply rebuketh the practice, to the scandalizing of the weak, and calleth it soul murder, and here it is like the Church may suffer sinful ignorances, for as the Magistrate is not to punish all externals”[114]

“without the compass of the ordinary discerning of man; and lie at a distance from the foundation (as fundamentals, and gospel-promise lie near the heart of Christ) may be dispensed with as a conjecture, what became of the meat that Christ ate after his resurrection, when he was now in the state of immorality, and some probable opinions that neither better the holder, nor much promote or hinder the edification of others, are not much to be heeded, save that curiosity in them is sinful, and happily may be tolerated: or whether the heavens And earth after the day of judgment, shall be annihilated and turned to nothing, and be no more; or if they shall be renewed, and delivered from vanity, and endued with new qualities to stand still as lasting and eternal monuments and witnesses of the glory of God Creator, as the Man-Christ, and the redeemed in heaven in soul and body, live in glory to be eternal lectures and testimonies of the glory of the Lord, Redeemer and Sanctifier of his people, which latter seemeth most probable, and the Scripture may seem to say much for either side.”[115]
“Things about the foundation, circa-fundamentalia, are all things revealed in the Word of God, as all Histories, Miracles, Chronologies, things about Orion, the Pleiades, the North Stars (Job 38:31, 32), that Paul left his cloak at Troas. The knowledge of these is considered three ways. 1. As necessary, by necessity of a mean, necessitate medii, and the knowledge; so is not necessary to salvation. Many are in glory (I doubt not) who lived in the visible Church, and yet knew never that Sampson killed a lion. But the knowledge of all these is necessary, necessitate præcepti, because all in the visible Church are obliged to know these things; therefore the ignorance of these only, does not actually condemn, but virtually and by demerit leads to condemnation.”[116]
Concluding assertion

“Such opinions and practices as make an evident schism in a Church, and set up two distinct Churches, of different forms of government, and pretending to different institutions of Christ, of which the one must by the nature of their principles labor the destruction of the other, cannot be tolerated”[117]

To qualify this with other statements, this quote refers not to those who simply believe or defend, but that teach and proselytize these heresies. To defend the broad scope of this statement it is logically impossible to establish fundamental principles whose scope does not reach to Church polity. Rutherford says:

“Independency is not fundamental, ergo, our Brethren should tolerate it, but we deny this consequence; yea Erastianism in its highest sphere is not fundamental, and yet high Erastianism is persecution both of Independency and Presbytery, doth it follow then, it must be tolerated?”[118]

The beliefs of the independents are very popular today. For some strange reason people actually think it is good for the Church to have such mass confusion and ignorance of what the Bible teaches. To have a totally consistent understanding of these things is difficult. However, in our mortal ignorance will we find it more reasonable to err on the side of skepticism which robs and makes a mock of religion in the entire country, or will we err on the side of faith that robs men of their dreams and night fancies? Certainly, when a land has an established religion there will be some hypocrites who abuse their authority, and a few people will die unjustly. However, when independency reigns, the people suffer “cruel meekness, and bloody gentleness in a pretended bearing with tender consciences under a color of paying the debt of bastard love, while as we suffer millions to perish, through silence and merciless condolency with them in their sinful depraving of the truth.”[119] Not only so, but the common Christian man suffers at the workplace being persecuted and threatened. Those of us who have worked in harsh situations can testify to the so called “liberty” that pluralism produces. Americans for the most part are godless. I have worked in a restaurant environment for the better part of fifteen years. My experience has led me to the conclusion that this is not a Christian nation. Many American educators and Christian leaders would do well to work in an auto shop, construction site, restaurant or some similar environment where they are face to face with some of the most horrible people on the planet. It is quite an educational experience. Pluralism will never liberate people from persecution.

v. Concerning the Role of Human Logic in Hermeutics and the Obligations Proceeding from the Deduction on the Conscience.

a. God holds people accountable for heresy even if what they said directly is not heresy but the logical consequence is.
Obj. 1) “No man’s person is to be charged with the odious consequences of his opinion, though the doctrine may be therefore charged, because if he did see the consequences, and then avow them, his person is chargeable with them.”[120]

Obj. 2) “ye hang him for the mere ignorance of a poor logical consequence, and for no blasphemy: and the like may be said of Familists, Antinomians, and others, who (as they say) are godly men, and cannot see the logical consequences, and absurd blasphemies that you with your wit, deduce from their doctrine, for their soul hates these blasphemies as much as you.”[121]

Ans. 1) “yet they but perverted souls, by consequences. The like may be said of such, as Paul said fell from Christ, and lost all benefit in Christ, if they were circumcised, Gal. 5. 2. It may be they would retract the heresy, if they saw the blasphemies to follow by strong consequence, and it may be not, since they are self-condemned. But, sure, the Lord chargeth the persons of men as making God A liar, who believe not his truth, and he chargeth Epicureanism, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die, 1 Cor. 15. on the persons that deny the resurrection: and if the doctrine be a lie, I wonder, how these that lie of God (since God commandeth to know, and believe whatever he saith in his word) can be innocent.”[122]

Ans. 2) “If this Argument be good, sins of infirmities, and of weakness, must be no sin. Idle words cannot come in reckoning in the last day, contrary to Matth. 12. 36. for God forgives crimes; Ergo, he will not call us to an account for our venials. If this conclude any thing, the strongest understanding cannot pretend immunity from being deceived; Ergo, simple ignorance of the things of God is no sin. I may argue no man can pretend to be free of sin in the inclination of the heart and original guiltiness, Job 4.4. Ps. 51. 5. Gen. 8.21. Prov. 20. 9. 1 John 1. 8. 10. Eccles. 7. 20. Ergo, sin is no sin, original sin, sins of infirmities are no sins.”[123]

Ans. 3) “if ye worship a bit of an ash-tree, or a bit of bread, ergo, the half of your God, or the quarter thereof, is baked in an oven, ergo, there is a lie, and an abomination in your right hand; then the denial of logical consequences in Religion, and the teaching thereof to others, may be, and is an heresy, and punishable by the Magistrate, as Deut. 13. and Exod. 32. so Christ rebukes Matth. 22. Sadducees as ignorant of the Scripture, when they denied but the consequence or a logical connexion, as God is not the God of the dead but of the living, ergo, the dead must rise again, and Abraham must live, and his body be raised from the dead. And 2. the idolaters who were to die by the Law of God, Exod. 32. Deut. 13, denied not the true God more than our false teachers do now. We see no reason why none should be false teachers, but such only as deny fundamentals, and that pertinaciously, though these by Divines be called Heretics.”[124]

Ans. 4) “I see nothing said against bodily punishing of such as teach transubstantiation to others: for the idolaters and seducers in the Old Testament believed the same way, there is one true God Jehovah that brought them out of Egypt, Exod. 32.4, 5. Jeroboam who made two Gods, and Jehu who was zealous for Jehovah, 1 King. 13. 6. c. 13. 1, 2, 3. 2 King. 9. 25, 36, 37.c. 10. 16. 20, 21. and Joram, 2 King 5.7. acknowledged God could kill and make alive, and was just in his promises and threatenings, yet worshipped the golden calves, those who cried the Temple of the Lord, must acknowledge there was but one true God, yet they burnt incense to Baal, and killed their children to Molech, Jer. 7.4, 5 9. 30, 31. They that asked of Jehovah the ordinances of their God, and fasted to Jehovah, Isaiah 58. 1, 2, 3, 4. yet inflamed themselves under every green tree, Isaiah 57.5. and stew their children under the cliffs of the rocks the heathen knew God, and one God, who made the heaven and the earth, and worshipped him, though ignorantly, agnwsws Rom. 1.20, 21. Act. 17.23. yet denied and hated this logical consequence that they had forsaken the Lord, Jer.9. 13, 14 or Deut. 32.18. forgotten the rock that begat them, Ps. 78. 11, 41. Ps. 107. 12, 13. that they forsook him days without number; yea they did more than God required, to keep God in their mind, and not forget him as they said, they changed him into the form of corruptible things to be memorials of God to them; and the Lord said, For all this, they refuse to know me; they have said, It is not the Lord, yea they would have died for it, rather than have said, there is no God that made heaven and earth. And they did err indeed, in a consequence, against the light of nature, yet the ireligious and wicked stopping of eyes and ears at natural consequences in matters of Religion is no innocent error, as is clear, Isaiah 44.18. They have not known, nor understood for he hath shut their eyes that they cannot see and their hearts, that they cannot understand, 19. And none considers in his heart, neither is there knowledge, nor understanding to say, I have burnt part of it in the fire, yea also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof, I have roasted flesh and eaten it, and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination, shall I fall down to the stock of a tree, 20. He feedeth on ashes, etc.”[125]

b. Good and necessary consequences are valid ground for establishing true doctrine, therefore, logical consequences are valid to establish the accusation of heresy.

Assertion 1.) “When Stephen Acts 7. and Paul Acts 26. were accused of heresy and speaking against Moses and the temple, they made a confession of their faith not in words of Scripture, but in deductions and necessary consequences drawn from Scripture and applied to themselves, and those in Nehemiah’s time who wrote and sealed or subscribed a Covenant, did not write and seal the express, Decalogue and ten Commandments, nor the words of the Covenant of Grace”[126]

Assertion 2.) “Augusti. de Trinit. l. 14. c. 1. It is one thing to know what we are to believe, another thing how, or with what certainty we are to believe, Nazianz Orat. 5. de Theol. perinde ea que. ex Scriptures colliguntar, atqui ea que scribuntur. What is in Scripture by consequence is scripture: the ignorance of the Resurrection, which was in Scripture to the Sadducees by consequence only was an ignorance of the Scripture Math. 22. 29, 30, 31. and a soul condemning error. It is a question, yea no question, to die denying the resurrection is to die without faith, happily to die ignorant of it, having never heard the Gospel is not so high a sin, but who can say such can be saved? August. serm. 30. de verbis Apost. si negent equalem, negant silium, sinegant filium, negant Christum, si negant Christum, negant in carne venisse.”[127]

Obj. )1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 1Ti 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Ans.) “Ignorance does not in itself deserve pardon; but it is a less culpable cause of unbelief than pride and wilful hardening of one's self against the truth (Joh_9:41; Act_26:9). Hence it is Christ's plea of intercession for His murderers (Luk_23:34); and it is made by the apostles a mitigating circumstance in the Jews' sin, and one giving a hope of a door of repentance (Act_3:17; Rom_10:2). The "because," &c., does not imply that ignorance was a sufficient reason for mercy being bestowed; but shows how it was possible that such a sinner could obtain mercy. The positive ground of mercy being shown to him, lies solely in the compassion of God (Tit_3:5). The ground of the ignorance lies in the unbelief, which implies that this ignorance is not unaccompanied with guilt. But there is a great difference between his honest zeal for the law, and a wilful striving against the Spirit of God (Mat_12:24-32; Luk_11:52)” (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1 Tim 1:13)

c. Ignorance is a judgment of God on a people for sin and not an excuse for heresy.

Isa 29:9 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.
Isa 29:10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
Isa 29:11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
Isa 29:12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
Isa 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Obj. 1) “But (saith Celsus) Heretics that die for their heresy are stupid and drunken. But how can stupidity and malice be in one, (saith he) malice is not without certain knowledge, stupidity deprives men of knowledge, and render them blocks, can ye find a man who willingly and wittingly makes defection from God and resists the truth against his own conscience, and yet is so stupid that he knows not what he doth, and can endure foolishly to die for maintaining a lie?”[128]

Ans.) Mat 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
Mat 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
Mat 2:6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
Mat 2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

Joh 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.

Joh 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Obj.) Knowledge of the Apostle’s Creed is enough

Ans.1) “No error, except of the Articles of the Creed is arraigned as Heresy by the Doctor, but he meaneth by error ignorance and mis-belief both; for I hope the Doctor’s charity will not send all to hell, many godly there may be who have much ignorance of God, who know not, or are simply ignorant of some of the twelve Articles of the Creed, and of some of the ten Commandments, if therefore error here doth include not believing, as heresy must necessarily do, the pertinacious mis-believing and denying of many Stories in the Bible, as of the deluge, dividing of the red Sea, preserving of Jonah alive in the whale’s belly, raising of Lazarus, (if obstinacy be added) must be no less Heresy and an open belying of the God of truth, than the denying of an Article of the Creed, for the authority of God who commands us to know the one as well as the other, is in both despised, when we are ignorant of either.”[129]

Ans. 2) “Now under doing, I comprehend the faith of the Trinity, and the most of articles, touching Christ, which do practically concern me, because I sin, if I do not both know and believe them, else they are written as Aristotle’s Acroamaiic the ignorance of which in an unlettered man (I suppose) is no breach of a divine command, and I conceive the ignorance of the Stories in the old and new Testament, of Paul’s leaving his cloak at Troas is a sin, in all within the visible Church, for that the Holy Ghost hath written these not for the instruction of one; but of all who hear or may hear of them, within the visible Church.”[130]

Obj.) “All these places do well prove that to be unwilling to know God is a sin, but not that the simply mind-ignorance of God is sin.

Ans. ) And why is it sin to be unwilling to know God, which the word commandeth, if not to know God be not sinful as to be willing not to fear, not to love, not to hope in God, not to obey God, not to love our neighbour is sin, as well as not to fear, not to love God, are sins?”[131]

d. Ignorance though a lesser degree of sin is still sin.

1Co 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Joh 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Num 15:27 And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering.
Num 15:28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
heresy is not passive but active even in the ignorant for they are willingly not accidentally ignorant

e. There is a difference between sinful and innocent ignorance.

Assertion.) “and Jacob was invincibly ignorant, in lying with Leah, instead of Rachel. There can be no such vincibleness, or invincibleness, in an Heretic that hears the Gospel, for whoever hear the Gospel, and yet remain ignorant, their ignorance is not invincible, Nulla est invincibilis ignorantia juris.”[132]

vi. Concerning the Value of Knowing Theological Truths in Relation to Sanctification.
Assertion 4. “Yet so, as there can be no conflict of grace against grace; nor can the taking off the Foxes which destroy the Vines, be contrary to the gentleness and meekness of the Saints in fulfilling the law of love, and bearing one another’s burdens, nor can love seated essentially in a new born child of the second birth be contrary to the zeal of God in withstanding to the face a Saint looking awry, and walking not with a straight foot according to the truth of the gospel; which way if heeded in sincerity, should breed more union of hearts, and be a greater testimony of faithfulness to a straying sheep, than our cruel meekness, and bloody gentleness in a pretended bearing with tender consciences under a color of paying the debt of bastard love, while as we suffer millions to perish, through silence and merciless condolency with them in their sinful depraving of the truth.”[133]
Obj. )“Nor is this a good argument of Bellius, where Christ is, what he doth, how he sits at the right hand of God, how he is one with the Father, many tings of the Trinity, of God, Predestination, Angels, the state of men after this life, are points not so necessary to be known, for publicans and harlots who enter into heaven, may be ignorant of them, and though they were known, they make not a man better, according to that, if I had all knowledge, if I have not love, it is nothing.”[134]

Ans.1) “It leans upon another false ground, that to believe (I speak of an intellectual assenting to divine truths) it being an act of the understanding, and a necessary result of knowledge doth not make a man better, which yet is most false, for beside that it is commanded, not to believe a revealed truth, is a sin, and renders men morally ill, and worse; now that text that saith, 1 Cor. 13. Though I had all knowledge, saith also, though I had all faith, yea though I gave my goods to the poor, and my body to be burnt, I am nothing; that is, I cannot be saved, or any other than a damned hypocrite that tinkles like gold, and is but brass; now by this reason, to give to the poor, to believe omnipotence in miracles, should not be commanded of God.”[135]

Ans. 2) “it is a spotted and broken glass; and he might say variety of sins are the expressions of God’s infinite wisdom, for the scripture calls Heresies works of the flesh, doctrines of devils, gangrenes, lies, delusions, corruptions of the mind, perverse disputing, deceits, perverse things, dreams of their own heads, false dreams, vain and foolish things, false burdens which cannot be spoken of opinions in Philosophy, and so these windmills and midnight fancies being the brats and the dunghill conceptions of men’s corrupt head and heart, must be contrary to that wisdom expressed in the word, 1 Cor. 2. 6. Deut. 4. 6. Psal. 37. 30. and they may be for the declaration of the wisdom of God as for the final cause, but nothing from the wisdom of God formally, being themselves mere fools.”[136]

Ans. 3) “Saints, as well as some sin no less, yea more dangerous, than these that are not to be tolerated, for to infect the flock with lying doctrine is more hurtful to the Church, than the example of adultery or murder in a Saint”[137]

I believe the following passages prove convincingly that theological knowledge is the primary means of salvation and furthering in sanctification.

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psa 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Psa 51:13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Jer 31:19 Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.
Rom 6 This entire chapter begins each moral exhortation with the phrase, “do you not know.”
John 12:40, Acts 28:27

The relationship between theological accuracy and Christian love is a balance that we as mortals find all too difficult. Usually there are abuses on both sides in varying degrees in certain denominations but we should strive to have both. Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to love God and the second is to love our neighbor as ourselves. When he said this we understand that he was summing up both the first and second tables of the moral law (The Ten Commandments). Most Christians I have ever known do not understand or seem to care so much about what the first table means and then all focus is put on the second. The reasons for this are many but primarily it is a mis-understanding of the nature of the New Testament (In my opinion, which could be prejudiced in some way). The New Testament does not teach a different moral than the old. It may be said in a very qualified sense that the N.T. emphasizes the inward spiritual life more than the O.T. which emphasized more law, but it is not mutually exclusive by any means. The O.T. with all its laborious attention to detail concerning the public worship of God and the utility of the Law has deeply woven through its pages, the N.T. concern for mercy, longsuffering, and forgiveness (Lev 19:17-19, Prov 25:21, Exod 23:4, Hos 6:6). The confusion comes when we read in the N.T. that without love, our general religious acts are nothing (1 Cor 13:1). The first table of the law (And its subsequent explanations and expositions in the Torah) is very theological in that it concerns the logistics of a human relationship with God. However, we are to understand the inward spiritual application of these things as well. When God says to worship him alone, our heart is commanded to be taken with him all the day as a newly wed wife muses all day at work over her groom. The wife seeks more and more to know about her groom and to know him on the deepest levels, and in this she finds much joy. Through a mature knowledge of him, we come to see how our understanding of God effects the way we treat others. We are told that the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. When we are bombarded with malicious men who despise God and his truth we reveal where our love is. In our pride God exposes that our love for His knowledge is not for God’s glory but for our own. In these situations we tend to use carnal means to abase our opponents and exalt ourselves. In this we show that we find carnal means more worthy of imitation than God’s means. In this we show that we do not love God first. Therefore, there is almost an overlapping relationship between the first and second tables of the law. Our obedience to the second shows our love for the first. Some use this to excuse their ignorance, carnality, laziness and self crafted piety to justify worshipping God according to the wisdom of their own eyes, and avoiding the financial hardships that come along with Sabbath keeping. However, the caveat is piercing that without love, the fierce contender for the faith contends in vain.

Obj. ) 1Co 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

Ans. ) John Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. xx “If riches naturally tend to make men proud, then a rich man, if proud, is free from blame, for the evil arises from riches.’…We must, therefore, lay it down as a settled principle, that knowledge is good in itself;…At the same time, knowledge is not by any means to be blamed for this, any more than a sword, if it falls into the hands of a madman…’Nothing is so arrogant as ignorance.”( John Calvin’s Commentaries Vol. xx, 1 Cor 8:1)

This should not be used as a scapegoat quotation to justify self made oracles who study for years, as John Owen once confessed, for the purpose of elevation in the Church for his own self worship (Which he later repented of to the great edification of the Church). The scriptures warn us not to be wise in our own estimation (Romans 12:16). Jesus said blessed are the poor in Spirit. Concerning this verse Matthew Henry says:

“It is to be humble and lowly in our own eyes. To be poor in spirit, is to think meanly of ourselves, of what we are, and have, and do; the poor are often taken in the Old Testament for the humble and self-denying, as opposed to those that are at ease, and the proud; it is to be as little children in our opinion of ourselves, weak, foolish, and insignificant”(Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714)

It is a liberating experience to think of yourself as foolish and weak and insignificant. Remember, the blessing attributed to these refers to happiness. Literally, what Jesus is saying here is that people who consider their own opinions to be foolish and their strength small and their role in the world to be insignificant, are the happy people. This is very different teaching than what we hear from the world. Richard Baxter says:

“Men would sooner believe that the gospel is from heaven, if they saw more such effects of it upon the hearts and lives of those who profess it. The world is better able to read the nature of religion in a man’s life than in the Bible.”[138]

In the context of this passage Baxter quotes 1Peter 3:1: “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives.” Most of the time, lost people learn more about Christ from our lives than with our mouths. It takes a knowledgeable person to know how to be silent. The problem is, much of the time we seek knowledge for the wrong reasons.

“Some desire to know for the sake of knowing, and that is shameful curiosity. Some desire to know that they may sell their knowledge and that too is shameful. Some desire to know for reputation’s sake, and that is shameful vanity. But there are some who desire to know that they may edify others, and that is praiseworthy; and there are some who desire to know that they themselves may be edified, and that is wise.”[139]

vii. Consequences of the Liberty of Conscience and Pluralism.

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

a. Hypocrisy is produced by both an established magistrate and the preaching of the gospel, therefore hypocrisy argues against both and therefore the argument is invalid.

“If therefore this argument be good, neither can the external preaching of the word be a lawful Ordinance, for God only gives repentance; the preaching of the Word without the Spirit, can but produce a carnal repentance, and the Bounder may cry down all preaching of the word, if he but change the word Magistrate, into the word Preacher, or Ambassador, for this course of Preaching by men, may lay a stumbling (I speak in his words) in every man’s way, to profane the things of God, by doing them out of obedience to men, (that are but earthen vessels) not to God”[140]

b. Independency produces constant argument and division between professing Christians, and the unbelievers see it and mock as Dr. Shermer does.

“Divers Religions being contrary to Christ, and the one truth of the Gospel, of their own nature raise fire and sword between, brethren, and the mother against the daughter in law, and must be a seminary of factions, and divisions, which is destructive to the unity in our Covenant Micah 7. 5, 6. Matth. 10. 34, 35. Luke 5. Verse 51, 52. Gen. 3. 16.”[141]

c. Independency and pluralism does the exact opposite of what it promises. It says freedom of conscience will help prosper religion. After independency has poured all its dull flavors in the fountain, an unbeliever cannot taste much.

Assertion 1.) “upon this principle of Reciprocal Toleration, both we and Sectaries are to believe with a special reserve to change that faith with the next new Moon, when contrary new light shall appear, so are we taught to have faith of nothing, but to be tossed to and fro, and to be carried about with every wind of doctrine, with wavering, not rooted, nor established, nor fully persuaded of any thing, contrary to Ephes. 4. 14. Hebrews 3. 19. Coloss. 2. 2. 7. Roman. 14. 23. II Timothy 1. 12. And this destroys faith, and makes it a mere conjecture, and an unsettled opinion, with a fluctuation of mind, to wait the tide of a new contrary light, and send this old faith away, and admit of another, yet so as to lodge that new one with a moveable reserve, and so must we live and die doubting, and mere Nullifidians.”[142]

Assertion2 .) “The Apostles never bid us know any truth of God with a reserve. Libertines bid us, the Apostles, and the Holy Ghost in them, bids us know assuredly that Jesus is Christ the Lord, they exhort us to be rooted and established in the faith, Col. 2. to be fully persuaded of all, both fundamentals, and the historicals, of the birth, life, miracles, words, facts, death, sufferings, and burial, resurrection, ascension, etc... of Christ, as Luke exhorteth Theophilus, Luke 1. 1, 2, 3. yea the Apostle clearly Heb. 5. exhorteth to the faith of many points concerning Christ, beside the first principles of the Oracles of God; that of Catechetic points fit for babes who have not stomachs to bear stronger food, v. 12, 13. 1. Because he rebuketh them for being dull of hearing, which is opposite to being teachers of the word of truth to others; which must insinuate they were to have faith; and not conjectural and fluctuating opinions of the things they were to teach. 2. He reproves them for that they had not their senses exercised to discern good and ill, and that they were unskillful in the words of righteousness. 3. He exhorteth them, chap.6. 1. to be carried on to perfection, beyond the principles of the doctrine of Christ. Now to be carried to know all, except some fundamentals and principles with a reserve and a doubting of the truth, is not to have the senses exercised to discern good and ill, nor to be skillful in the word of truth, nor to go on to perfection, but to stand still, as in a horse-mill, and be at the same perfection of knowledge in knowing and believing all, even fundamentals, say some, or all non-fundamentals, say other Libertines, with a reserve, and a resolution to judge them all falsehood and lies.”[143]
Assertion 3.) “in which Luther said, brethren, If ye teach and believe that the true body and true blood of the Lord is exhibited in the supper, & quad hee perceptio vere fiat, and that truly or really there is a receiving thereof, we agree as brethren; but the truth is, there were contrary faiths touching the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament; and therefore I humbly conceive all such General confessions as must be a coat to cover two contrary faiths, is but a daubing of the matter with untempered mortar; much dealing like this was in the council of Trent, in which neither Papist nor Protestant was condemned; and yet the truth suffered”[144]

d. Conclusion
The Biblical truths that the visible Church should unite under are the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). That is to say:

“Such opinions and practices as make an evident schism in a Church, and set up two distinct Churches, of different forms of government, and pretending to different instituitions of Christ, of which the one must by the nature of their principles labor the destruction of the other, cannot be tolerated”[145]

This is the standard of Christian fundamentals and nothing less. Our country is apostate and watered down religion is not the answer. I think we would be surprised to see how God would bless our efforts if we obeyed his commands when he says “be of one mind.” Whether that means a public all out debate lasting three years, similar to the Westminster Assembly, I do not know. However, when the apostle says “their mouths must be stopped”, sitting by and doing nothing seems unbelieving and sinful to me. In case others are curious as to what Calvin said concerning these matters, I have added some quotations from his Institutes that I hope you will find edifying.[146]
VI. Christian Dogmatism (Scripturalism; Spiritual Rationalism)

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura was the battle cry of the Protestant Reformers. It may be a forgotten piece of history but this principle was not only spoken of as the basis of Christianity’s faith and practice, but also of its knowledge in general. John Calvin says,“I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but that which is delivered to us by the Law and the Prophets.”† Though, this statement gives some evidence of the scripturalist view in the history of Protestantism, Scripturalism as I will defend it was not as comprehensively understood and to imply so would be unfair. However, Dr. Clark often used Augustine’s, credo ut intelligam ( I believe in order to understand) as evidence of historical Christian axiomatic philosophy. These words may silence my critics for a moment, but the real question is: What does the Bible say?

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"--
1Ti 6:21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Grace be with you. 0

Commenting on this passage John Calvin says, “for according to Paul, no science is truly and justly so called but that which instructs us in the confidence and fear of God”. My opponents will object that empirical science can instruct us in godliness as we gaze upon awe inspiring pictures of asteroid formations taken by satellites in outer-space. My answer is included in the next passage of scripture.

2Pe 1:3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
2Pe 1:4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

Here God says that godliness is learned by, “His precious and magnificent promises.” I would also point out to the reader that these precious and magnificent promises are said to be sufficient for “everything pertaining to life”. Some commentators do not focus so much on what is meant by life here but I am aided by Paul when he says, “1Tim 4:8 for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.”

that is, Christ Himself,
Col 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

John Calvin commenting on this passage says, “by which he mean, that we are perfect in wisdom if we truly know Christ, so that it is madness to wish to know anything besides Him…He says, however, that the treasures are hidden, because they are not seen glittering with great splendour, but do rather, as it were, lie his under the contemptible abasement and simplicity of the cross…for the employment of two different terms serves only to give additional strength, as though he had said, that no knowledge, erudition, learning, wisdom, can be found elsewhere.”

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Calvin says, “Let us, however, bear in mind, that under the term philosophy Paul has merely condemned all spurious doctrines which come forth from man’s head, whatever appearance of reason they may have…he intimates, that whatever is hatched in man’s brain is not in accordance with Christ, who has been appointed us by the Father as our sole Teacher, that he might retain us in the simplicity of the gospel.” How then do we learn from Christ? Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. The point is simple: Christ is our sole teacher and we learn of him from the scriptures.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

In scripturalism, we believe that the Bible is a set of divine propositions. These propositions are made known to us, as the passage teaches: “By His Spirit”. When we read the Bible, our “seeing” the Bible is the secondary cause of God revealing them to us by His Spirit. Therefore, our reading the Bible is the occasion on which God reveals this to us by His Spirit. Though Van Tilians object to this assertion, I find an atheist objection more thoughtful:

“Have you ever changed your mind about what you thought the Bible said? That is, did you ever believe that it meant one thing, but then after careful study or instruction conclude that it meant something else?” If this has ever happened then that would imply one of two possibilities: Either you do not treat "the Bible" (meaning your interpretation of the Bible) as truly axiomatic, and you used information from an "external world" to correct what you thought the Bible said, or (as I understand Clark argues) your new information about the Bible was imparted directly to your mind by God. If this is the case, however, it means that there was a period of time when God was content to allow you to have a wrong axiom that you thought was directly from God, which means that you cannot have certainty that any of the "Truth" propositions you have now are, in fact true.”

Ans.) I would lean toward the view that at times God decrees that we have false views of him and wrong interpretations of the Bible. I think it can be said that Clark's epistemology is de jure (what it should be) not quod eventum (What it will be). This principle is fundamental in Reformed Theology as a whole. Clark's epistemology is a de jure epistemology. What actually will happen (quod eventum) is another thing altogether. So our epistemology does meet the defintion de jure, but does not meet it quod eventum. This is a consequence of sin. The problem is in the sinner not the WORD. Examples: God commands us not to commit murder, but decrees that men commit murder as they do. The command is God's will de jure (What it should be). What actually happens is God's will quod eventum (What it will be). I am not saying that God is divided or has two wills. God’s one will is made up of these primary aspects. The scripture does give man the information he needs to distinguish a false view from a true, but God does not always in all times and places decree for him to know it. When God commands certain things he does not necessarily mean that we can do them. Martin Luther commented on this point in his book, The Bondage of the Will. In chapter IV section (v) Luther’s main premise is: “That a command does not always imply ability to fulfil it”. So when God commands us to love him with all our mind (Mat 22:37) it does not imply that we are perfectly able to do so. The imperative mood does not give information. The declarative mood gives information. Before our Reformed opponents even begin to criticize us on this point they need to understand that this is a tension on Calvinism as a whole with our beliefs in predestination and reprobation. As a critic says, “how does he know that the beliefs that he holds now aren't just wrong beliefs that God wants him to have? (This question is a recurring problem for Calvinists, now that I think about it.)”

Many errors in theology and philosophy could be avoided if we were all well acquainted with philosophy, logic and causality. When we say that God is sovereign we must understand that he causes all things to come into being and has foreordained everything that comes to pass. Thorough thinkers, of course, would quickly be led to the conclusion that evil must have been caused by God as well. The way that we correctly understand how God as sinless and holy could create evil is with an understanding of secondary causes. The Bible has a few interesting verses as well that shed some light on this difficulty. 2 Samuel 24:1 says “And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.” The interesting thing is pointed out in the cross reference in 1 Chronicles 21:1 that says “And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.” This is no contradiction but the way in which God rewards his diligent and careful students to understand him and hides himself from those who don’t care to take the time. Here God is giving commentary concerning his relationship to evil. God does not directly create evil in the world but indirectly through secondary causes. In this passage the secondary cause is Satan while yet another cause is David but the ultimate cause is God and his eternal decree. In the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter III, Of God's Eternal Decree, Section I says “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” Therefore my “seeing” (Which no one can define) and my “hearing” (Much the same) the Word of God are functional secondary causes wherein the divine propositions are communicated to me.

A. Epistemology

i. Axiom
The axiom of the Christian Dogmatist is the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon of the Bible and all logical inferences deduced from the propositions of the Bible. Years of studying Textual Criticism and Higher Criticism have introduced many difficult problems in defining what I mean by the Protestant Bible. After years of study I am comfortable defining this as the Critical Eclectic text position. This view emphasizes the doctrinal teaching of the Bible rather than the specific wording which we as Clarkians hold as arbitrary. Propositions are the meaning of a declarative sentence and to this sense I give emphasis. Critical Eclecticism is not Clark’s position but as his article on textual criticism states, Clark did not claim that this issue was his specialty. I also have much to learn concerning Textual Criticism but I will present my view for what it is. The reason I am addressing the Majority Text position, is to emphasize the distinction that a CT advocate emphasizes the preservation of the doctrinal meaning of text rather than the specific wording, though both are important.

a. In Defense of Critical Eclecticism
The following outline will give in short points the substance of the following discourse. There are five main reasons why I take the Critical Eclectic position: 1. The Critical text position is the most consistent with the Bible verses mentioning preservation. 2. The Critical Text Position is the most consistent with the textual position of Jesus and the apostles; 3. The Critical text position is the most consistent with Reformed and Exegetical. Hermeneutics; 4. The Critical text position is more consistent with the philosophy of translation given in Scripture (Nehemiah 8:8, Mark 7:9-13,); 5. The Majority Text position is self defeating on many accounts;

I. The Critical text position is the most consistent with the Bible verses mentioning preservation.

A.) The Bible teaches the preservation of a message not the preservation of the specific form of the message, though the message is made up of specific words.

The Critical Text position is more consistent with the teaching of
1.) Psalm 12:6-7.
2.) Psalm 119:89
3.) 1 Peter 1:23-25
4.) Matthew 5:17-19

B.) The Critical text position is the most consistent with incidents of lost or destroyed manuscripts recorded in scripture.

1.) 2 Chronicles 34 refutes the very skeletal structure of the Majority Text
argument.
2.) Exodus 32:19 compared with Exodus 34:1, 28 clearly records a forty day and forty night time period where a previous manuscript written with God’s hand is lost to the Church.
3.) Jeremiah 36:1-23 also clearly records an incident where a manuscript recording a fresh prophecy from the Lord is destroyed and for a time lost to the Church.

II. The Critical Text position is the most consistent with the textual position of Jesus and the apostles.

A.) Christ and the apostles quote the Septuagint over the Hebrew in the majority of Old Testament quotations.

B.) The Septuagint differs from the Hebrew wording. The Septuagint argument is used by the King James translators and is recorded in their preface on page xvii as the argument of “most learned men” and is not a liberal argument:

“The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet, which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, …which they would not have done, nor by their example of using of it so grace and commend it to the Church if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.”[147]

III. The Critical text position is the most consistent with Reformed and exegetical hermeneutics in regard to the specific use of the Old Testament by the apostles.

A.) The usage of the Old Testament by the Apostles in regard to the rebuilt temple (Acts 15:14-19) is a perfect example of the specific use the Old Testament in Reformed Theology and is binding on the believer as is the specific translation philosophies used by the Apostles.

B.) The usage of the Old Testament in regard to the New Covenant in Hebrews 8 is a perfect example of the specific use the Old Testament in Reformed Theology and is binding on the believer as is the specific translation philosophies used by the apostles.

IV. The Critical text position is more consistent with the philosophy of translation given in Scripture (Nehemiah 8:8, Mark 7:9-13,)

A.) Nehemiah 8:8 records the philosophy of Nehemiah the prophet as giving the “sense” for the purpose of understanding and the sense is regarded in verse 9 as “the words of the law.”

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. KJV)

B.) This passage equates the word of God with the correct sense and interpretation of what the Bible teaches on the fifth commandment not to the exact wording of the passage. Our opponents like to make the point that if we take this view we have to take a dynamic equivalence view to translation. They simply confuse our view of preservation with our view of translation.

V. The Majority Text position is self-defeating.

A.) The belief that God has preserved every detail of His Word in every age is refuted by the fact that a critical apparatus of the MT did not come about until 1982.

B.) The belief that counting manuscripts is less scientific than dating manuscripts is irrational.

C.) The MT advocate heralds the KJV as the true representation of the MT failing to recognize that the translators of the KJV made a specific point to refute MT arguments in their own preface. Points mentioned by the translators that contradict MT:

1.) “That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.”[148]

2.) “They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”[149]

3.) “We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth that any variety of readings of their Vulgar edition should be put in the margin”[150] The papacy had claimed authority to interpret the Bible and the notion of a variety of readings is a direct attack to their authority. A variety of reading speaks well of a translation that believes in the Protestant priesthood of the believer. This priesthood can be overemphasized as it has been in America, but abuse does not overrule this doctrine.
In recent years the preservation of the text of the New Testament has been hotly debated, renounced, dogmatically misrepresented and in a number of ways made very confusing. In simple form there are about four main views that people have about preservation:
Ø God has not verbally preserved His Word (If there is a God at all)
Ø God’s words have been preserved in a particular English translation and only that translation
Ø God has preserved the words of the autographa in one particular Hebrew and one particular Greek text.
Ø God has preserved his Word in the multiplicity of manuscripts which must be compared to determine the specific wording of the originals.
I hold to the fourth position and in a small discourse I am arguing against the MT position that excludes the Alexandrian families as untrustworhty. Now I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not arguing against the MT, but the position that some hold to the MT at the expense of the older manuscripts.
First, scriptural philosophy must be obeyed in this discussion and I would like to clear up some misinterpretations that some use in defense of their position claiming that it is the Bible’s position.
“Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Before I begin I would like to quote Matthew Henry, one of the fathers of Puritan Reformed theology and see the way he takes this verse:

“Psalm 12: 7 Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High, Dan_7:25. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. He will keep them from this generation, (1.) From being debauched by them and drawn away from God, from mingling with them and learning their works. In times of general apostasy the Lord knows those that are his, and they shall be enabled to keep their integrity. (2.) From being destroyed and rooted out by them. The Church is built upon a rock, and so well fortified that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. In the worst of times God has his remnant, and in every age will reserve to himself a holy seed and preserve that to his heavenly kingdom.”

Notice the lack of insight into scriptural preservation in this passage. Many people use this passage to defend their position but I fear they are doing violence to the text. I think the correct reading of this passage is exactly what we have in the NASB.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
Psa 12:7 You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever. “

Psalm 119:89 Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.

Psalm 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

These verses are used to prove that God has preserved without error, every detail of His word in every age in a specific text family. This is again gross violence to this passage. The context is clear that David is under great trial and suffering and he is wrestling with the concept of God subjecting him to such pain and persecution. Suppose ye a case. Imagine you had just finished doing you morning devotions and you read these two passages and were meditating upon them:

“Psalm 121:7 The LORD will protect you from all evil; He will keep your soul.

Proverbs 1:33 "But he who listens to me shall live securely And will be at ease from the dread of evil.”

Immediately following this, a government agent bursts in your house, tears your Bible from you, arrests you and burns down your house because you are a Christian living in a communist country. Has God’s Word changed? No, His word is forever settled in heaven. This is the sense of David’s statement. Some try to use this verse to prove that an uninspired sinful, mortal man is protected by heaven to make no mistakes while copying a Greek manuscript and that family of manuscripts and scribes past and future. I just don’t see that in those verses. In addition both “founded” and “settled” have a fixed and stable sense to them. To prove the MT position these verses would need words that have a linear or continuing activity of sustenance through the “generations” that the MT position is supposedly defending.

“Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

This verse is the heralding used by most KJV only advocates and I think their reasoning is incorrect, but what really concerns me is that Reformed people use this passage to defend their MT position. John Owen discusses this passage:

“From these particular instances we may return to the consideration of the law of the decalogue in general, and the perpetual power of exacting obedience wherewith it is accompanied. That in the Old Testament it is frequently declared to be universally obligatory, and has the same efficacy ascribed unto it, without putting in any exceptions to any of its commands or limitations of its number, I suppose will be granted. The authority of it is no less fully asserted in the New Testament, and that also absolutely without distinction, or the least intimation of excepting the fourth command from what is affirmed concerning the whole. It is of the law of the decalogue that our Savior treats, Matt. v. 17-19. This he affirms that he came not to dissolve, as he did the ceremonial law, but to fulfill it; and then affirms that not one jot or tittle of it shall pass away. And making thereon a distribution of the whole into its several commands, he declares his disapprobation of them who shall break, or teach men to break, any one of them. And men make bold with him, when they so confidently assert that they may break one of them, and teach others so to do, without offense. That this reaches not to the confirmation of the seventh day precisely, we shall after-wards abundantly demonstrate.” (Owen, Works, 23:372).

The jot and tittle is not in reference to the abiding form of the words, else we need to read only the Greek and Hebrew, but to the abiding obligation to obey its doctrinal truth. John Calvin says in reference to this passage:

“But what does it mean, that every part of the law shall be fulfilled down to the smallest point? for we see, that even those, who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, are very far from keeping the law of God in a perfect manner. I answer, the expression, shall not pass away, must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. “There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish.”(Commentaries Vol I, Matthew)

Notice the total lack of specific preservation of manuscript families. As much as some want this to teach the abiding supernatural preservation of every Greek distinction in its vocabulary through a chosen manuscript family this passage clearly and simply teaches the abiding truth and obligation to obey the true moral doctrine of the law of God. Else, that would imply that the objection Jesus is addressing is that He was tampering with the contemporary translation. Is that what the Pharisees were so upset about? Did they accuse Jesus of mistranslating a Hebrew manuscript? Was it the Septuagint that Jesus was accused of revising? If it was, I never read that passage in my New Testament.

“1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

This verse is used to prove that God has preserved without error, every detail of the wording of His word in every age in a specific text family. I am personally amazed at how MT people have such disdain for KJV only people, while at the same time using the exact same arguments from the exact same verses. Maybe I am making too much of that but, that’s in passing. Imagine that you are that same Christian living in a Communist country and instead of robbing you of your entire Bible, that government agent only ripped out Psalm 121:7. Let’s say you never saw that verse again. Are you now bereft of the Word of God? Can you really say with confidence that the book you still hold in your hand is Word of God? Of course it is the Word of God, because the Word of God endures forever unlike the fading and corrupting nature of the creation (i.e. manuscripts made of papyrus and animal skins). The beautiful thing about God’s book is that he teaches the same thing over and over.

“Proverbs 1:33 "But he who listens to me shall live securely And will be at ease from the dread of evil."

Genesis 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Psa 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.”

Even if someone were to take that verse from you would still know God’s divinely inspired teaching on the subject of His providence in evil and the protection of His children. This verse says nothing in support of the MT only position. I will suggest that this verse refutes the position of MT only and all other positions that claim preservation through perfect copying of every detail in one manuscript family. Taking a position that finds fault with every new version (and excluding the KJV which has many errors) and claiming that preservation is the perfect copying and transfer of every detail is self defeating. If that’s the Biblical definition of preservation then we are all men most miserable, because there are differences in every manuscript and there are errors in every manuscript. On the MT basis God’s Word has failed and he has not preserved His Word in all these English translations that we have because they all contain mistakes. Now some may immediately say, “Oh but that’s not my position. My position is that I think they are preserved in the MT not these new versions.” Ans. That’s exactly my point. Then America and most other countries in all these passing generations have been without the pure Word which your position defends and falls on itself. The first critical printings of the MT were 1982 and 1985 (The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 1985, by Zane C. Hodges , Arthur L. Farstad ). Was the world without the Word of God until 1982? If you stay consistent, you will have to say yes, which totally defeats your own position and the world was without the pure Word until 1982, or 1985. The N.T. apostles and Christ Himself quote the Septuagint in the vast majority of the N.T. To the demise of the MT that scorns Alexandria, the Septuagint was done in Alexandria. The Septuagint has numerous differences with the Hebrew. The apostles and Christ quoted numerous times as the Word of God a translation that was overseen and initiated by a pagan general (Ptolemy). The MT advocate will ask, “Why listen to Egypt?” Ans. Because the apostles and Christ did.

“Luke 16:17 "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.

Mark 13:31"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Duet 29: 29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

Psalm 102:18This will be written for the generation to come,That a people yet to be created may praise the LORD.
Psalm 111:7The works of His hands are truth and justice;All His precepts are sure. 8They are upheld forever and ever;They are performed in truth and uprightness.

Isaiah 59:20"A Redeemer will come to Zion,And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," declares the LORD.
21"As for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring," says the LORD, "from now and forever."

These are verses that promise God's preservation of His Word. Now to say that these verses teach a perfect inerrant translation of every specific of the originals by an uninspired copyist is stretching these verses. You may ask why and I will give a reason.

Francis Turretin (Reformed theologian of the 17th century) points out:

"Yet, all copies are just that: copies. And they are to be corrected, where necessary, by the originals. In 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34 we read of the finding of the "original" book of the law of Moses by the priest Hilkiah (the literal reading of 2 Chronicles 34:14 is "by the hand of Moses"). Albeit the men of that day had copies of the law (which is obvious from their carrying out the work required by the law in 2 Chronicles 34:1-13), there were apparently certain teachings which were not found in the copies which were in the originals. Israel had been guilty of not doing all that God had required (verses 19-21). Thus, obedience of the people had to be governed by the Word as it was originally given "by the hand of Moses" (verses 29ff.)."(Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I:72-73)

The clear point that Turretin excludes is that every specific of the Law had not been preserved in every generation and time period. He even admits there were parts of the Word of God that were lost and that is the very reason the king Josiah tore his clothing (vs 19). It is clear that not every specific of the Bible is preserved without error to every generation and time period. Now they had the Word of God, and the fact that they found it proves that the Word of the Lord endures forever and will not pass away, but not the way the MT explains it.

Also, it can be safely said that the translators of the LXX were not exactly reformed brethren. Yet Christ and the apostles quote it constantly as the Word of God. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus originally all contained the Septuagint. I would really like to see the facial expression on an Alexandrian scholar in the 5th century if some Christian condemned Him for reading or teaching from Codex Alexandrinus with the argument, “Why listen to Egypt.”

As I begin the next discourse I would like to digress and mention that the men I am in controversy with are godly Bible defending and believing men, who love the Lord. I am rebuked at times by the study habits of some men I know who hold this position and know they are good brothers. In our apostate country it is a refreshing and blessed experience to hear men defending the preservation of the divinely inspired Word of God. Though I believe the MT position is an incorrect interpretation of the Bible, is divisive and is the source of unnecessary name calling, the men who hold to this position are godly Reformed men and I find this necessary discourse unfortunate.
In dealing with objections from the MT position I will attempt to comprehensively display in general form the view of preservation that God has preserved His Word in the multiplicity of manuscripts which must be compared to determine the specific wording of the originals.
Obj 1.) “Recognizing which text fits the Biblical presuppositions is a legitamate role of textual criticism. This prevents us from blindly following either Erasmus (like Textus Receptus fans do) or blindly following five liberal experts (like most modern evangelical translation teams do).” Phillip G. Kayser, PhD,“Has God Indeed Said?”, pg 11-12
Ans. First, I have proven already that the presuppositions used in this book are foreign to the text of the Bible. In addition, the use of numerous texts in paragraph form are used to seemingly overwhelm the reader with verse references to prove without a shadow of a doubt that these verses teach what the author proposes. I find this practice very “concerning”, to avoid use of a more piercing term.
Secondly, this presupposition is the exact reason why the MT position finds itself in the bind it does. As mentioned earlier, if the presuppositions mentioned here in this book are true we are all men most miserable. The reason being, the apostles and Christ qoute numerous times from a translation (the Septuagint) not holding to the presuppositions mentioned by Dr. Kayser, as the Word of God, which finds fault with the majority of the O.T. qoutations in the N.T as well as the apostles and Christ Himself.
Thirdly, one of the reasons I am doing this study is the false notion that those who use a newer version as the Word of God, which has Alexandrian manuscripts underlining it are somehow liberals, under the influence of liberal theology or just plain apostates. Dr. Custer, in his book The Truth About The King James Version Controversy, says on page 6:
“In the Alexandrian text Jesus Christ is called “Lord” some 749 times. The deity of Christ is taught as well in 161 verses in the Gospels and Acts; in the Thessalonian and Corinthian epistles it is taught in 57 more verses; in Romans and Galatians it is taught in 40 more verses. The deity of Christ is not found in just a few proof texts; it is woven into the very structure of the New Testament…….Most of the modern translations are poor, not because they use a different text, but because they are doctrinally prejudiced and will not allow the text to say what is says.”
Some people will bring up the argument that the NASB attacks the virgin birth of Christ by siting Luke 2:33,43.
“Luke 2:33 And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.”
“Luke 2:43 and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it,”

Their argument is that Joseph is implied as Christ’s father. They will proudly turn in their KJV to these verses and read:

“Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”
“Luke 2:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.”

If this is the argument: That the NASB calls Joseph, Christ’s father, then this argument proves too much. The KJV does the same thing in the same chapter:

“Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.”

This kind of example could go on for pages against the claims of some, that people reading newer versions are followers of liberal theology.

Fourthly, it is often said that the newer versions “blindly” follow the NA 27 (eclectic, or Alexandrian text), and thereby are “blindly following five liberal experts.” I would like to quote passages that the NASB includes in the text that are not included in the NA27, but is included in the MT.

“Mat 17:21 ["But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."] Mat 18:11 ["For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.] Mat 23:14 ["Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.] Mar 7:16 ["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."]Mar 9:44 [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.] Mar 9:46 [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.] Mar 11:26 ["But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."] Mar 15:28 [And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with transgressors."] Luk 17:36 ["Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."] Luk 23:17 [Now he was obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner.] Joh 5:3 In these lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered, [waiting for the moving of the waters; Joh 5:4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.] Act 8:37 [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] Act 15:34 [But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.] Act 28:29 [When he had spoken these words, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves.] Rom 16:24 [The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.]”
(I would like to add that the reason I quote all these passages in full is so the reader can see for themselves the bracketing of these verse in the NASB, so as to not obligate the reader to take my word and interpretation on these passages as some do to seemingly overwhelm the reader with a false sense of support.)
Therefore, it is clear that the NASB does not blindly follow one text family but does take into account the MT giving it much play and spotlight in the NASB. Therefore, this accusation is with all do respect… wrong.
Obj 2.) “The preservation of every word of the Bible is of critical importance to God…… “If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19).” Phillip G. Kayser, PhD,“Has God Indeed Said?”, pg 13
First, I would like to point out a rather embarrassing portion of information from this quote. Dr. Kayser is here quoting from the NKJ version. Based on Dr. Kayser’s statements on page 28 he argues against himself. In discussing the variant in 1 Tim 3:16 Kayser writes:
“So we have to judge between 97% and 2%, “God” versus “who”. It is really hard to imagine any possible set of circumstances in the transcriptional history sufficient to produce the cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability that is required by the claim that “who” is the original reading.”
This argument is used many times in his book and comes back to haunt him in numerous passages. In the MT a number of passages are omitted that the NKJV includes; For instance in 1 John 5:7-8 the Majority text reads like this:
“1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear witness: 1Jo 5:8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” (EMTV version by Paul Esposito of Stauros Ministries . Drew upon the work of Dr. Wilbur Pickering's work of collating manuscripts, holds the same position as Dr. Kayser)

However the NKJV reads like this:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth:[b] the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

There is some serious adding going on there in the NKJV according to the position of Dr. Kayser. This kind of thing happens in numerous places in the NKJV and the KJV. These are the verses that are added in the NKJV that are omitted in the EMTV which is the MT translation: Act 24:7, Act 15:34, Act 8:37, Luke 17:36. Again, the mountain that the MT only position has to overcome is the fact that their view on preservation defeats itself by their very arguments. If we just received the EMTV (copyright 2002-2003) in the past few years then we were not given the pure Word until now and so it has not been preserved in specific to every generation and time period.
Secondly, this reading in 1 John 5:7 occurs only 2 times (61 and 629) out of the 5000 plus manuscripts we have. Kayser makes an argument that 1 Tim 3:16 is 97% to 2% in favor of the KJV and the NKJV but happens to leave out that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is about 99.96% to .04% in favor of the NASB over the KJV and the NKJV. The truth is all of these versions and manuscripts have problems and variants, not just the newer versions. According to Dr. Kayser’s own presupposition on page 27 of his booklet, “The true text will far outnumber corrupt texts.” Therefore, according to Dr. Kayser’s own statements the KJV and the NKJ are corrupt for they use manuscripts of extreme minority. The frustrating thing for me, is that even after pointing this out to a MT advocate, he says that they do have problems with all these versions and another version needs to be done based on the MT. Maybe so, but my friend don’t miss what point you are making. By saying that all these versions are corrupt and we need a new version, you are saying that the English speaking people have not had a specific pure translation for all these years. Therefore the MT only position falls on itself again when it states, “therefore God has promised to preserve every detail of His Word in every age” Phillip G. Kayser, PhD,“Has God Indeed Said?”, pg 13.

Obj 3.) Most MT only supporters make the argument that we should not necessarily expect to find an early “Byzantine” MSS (the earliest Byzantine manuscript we have is the middle of the 4th century, Matthew and Luke). They argue that these texts would have been used and worn out because of their popularity. They argue that the reason we find Alexandrian manuscripts earlier is because no one used them.

Ans. In Dr. Custer’s book, The Truth About The King James Version Controversy, he says in response to KJV only arguments (which sadly are the same arguments used by MT guys) on page 9-10:

“Some will say, “But could not these Byzantine manuscripts be copied from earlier sources?” Yes, of course. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander as well. The Alexandrian manuscripts were also copied from earlier sources, which would put the evidence for them back in the first century! The plain truth of the matter is that the Alexandrian text has a two century advantage over the Byzantine text in age. It is also clear that the Byzantine text is a derived text. It obviously incorporates into itself the earlier readings found in both the Alexandrian and Western texts…..A clear example of the derived nature of the Byzantine text is found in Luke 24:53 in which the disciples are described as being in the temple “praising and blessing God” (E VIII century, etc.). The Alexandrian text has the reading “blessing God” (P75 II-III century, etc.). The Western text has the reading “praising God” (D V-VI century, etc). The Byzantine text simply put both readings together rather than omit one reading.”

I would like to add the fact that there are people today who use and teach out of copies of scripture. The texts wear out and I have numerous worn out copies of the Bible on my shelf in front of me right now. Here’s my point: notice how I said the worn out texts are in front of me right now. I did not throw them away. Why, because people don’t do that. People do not throw away Bibles. I have never known of anyone throwing away even the most worn and torn copy of the scripture. So are we supposed to believe that every Christian with a Byzantine text from the first century to the middle of the 4th century just lost, or threw away their copy of scripture? Even in a time of war (which would be very rare during Pax Romana from 27 A.D. to around 180 A.D) after around 180 A.D. there was pleanty of time after 70 AD to disperse these texts. There was obvious persecution of believers, and this would be the strongest argument to make from the MT position, though still weak. Early texts p66 and p75 of the Alexandrian family date in the second century and were found just a few miles south of Cairo, Egypt. Other manuscripts were found in Oxyrhynchus. Are we to believe this area was left alone by the Roman persecution? The opposite is true. Northern Africa came under great persecution under the reign of Roman emporer Decius (249-251 A.D.). Decius demanded that bishops and officers of Christian Churches sacrifice to the gods of Rome in obedience to the emporer. Certificates were given to those who complied while those without the certificates were persecuted. Fourty six of these certificates have ample documentation and four of them come from Oxyrhynchus! You can see a copy of one of these certificates at this link: (http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/VExhibition/d6.htm). Just a few years later Valerian came to power and started killing more Christians in North Africa including Cyprian of Carthage in 258 A.D.
Kayser objects to the argument that the Byzantine text was a derived text, and has additions to it to smooth out the Greek.
“Thus Aland explains away the smoothness of the Greek in the Byzantine text by saying that scribes were offended by the course and faltering Greek of the original and sought to change the word usage to make the poor Greek sound better….On the other hand, Church history substantiates the Biblical presupposition. The Church fathers were very zealous to guard against even the slightest deviation from Scriptural usage.” Phillip G. Kayser, PhD,“Has God Indeed Said?”, pg 18-19
Kayser goes on to qoute Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Gaius, Dionysius and Irenaeus among others to support his interpretation of Biblical preservation. In these qoutes the Church fathers objected to those who, “perverts the sayings”, “changed the text”, “altered the text”, “tampered with his writings”, and Irenaeus’ claim is that the scriptures were handed down, “without falsification.” The problem with these qoutes is that they could all be used to defend the eclectic position because of the general language they all use. I suggest these phrases do not prove Kayser’s presupposition. The issue is not whether we believe the Bible has been perverted, tampered with, changed or falsified. The issue of preservation focuses our attention on the question, “Can a manuscript with mistakes in it (though the message not changed) ipso facto truly be called the preserved Word of God?” The problem Dr. Kayser has is all the manuscripts have variants, and not one of them is the same. However, this does not mean the divine doctrine has been perverted, changed or tampered with but has been preserved for us in the totality of the manuscripts we have. Therefore, these qoutations are another example of filling page space with ink to give the illiusion that more support is underlining the authors position than is truly the case, therefore defrauding the reader. In addition, to say “Even the slightest changes simply were not tolerated” (pg 22) is either guising the author’s definition of “change” , or is simply blind denial of the reality that all our 5000 plus manuscripts disagree in some area or another.
Obj 4.) “P66 is claimed as an old witness to the “Alexandrian text,” yet is has “roughly two mistakes per verse.” Phillip G. Kayser, PhD,“Has God Indeed Said?”, pg 31
By way of introduction I would like to admit that the ecelctic position is not to predjudice a certain family of manuscripts and is critical with all of them, admiting that there are mistakes and problems with many manuscripts from the Alexandrian family. However, this does not negate the value of the testimony.
Ans. Daniel K. Davey writing in God’s Word In Our Hands pg 203 says:
“Though the MT advocates may find fault with P66 (and other papyri as well) not all papyri can be looked upon with the same suspicion. In fact, the beauty of the 2nd and 3rd century papyri fragments is they are clear testimonials to the reality of the New testament without unfolding the whole of the New testament text. Many are credible witnesses to the historicity of the Greek autographa and must not be overloooked because of some textual agenda. If absolute commitment to a textual family is an “agenda”, then does not this become the MT’s own version of the W-H a priori argument ?”
Finnaly, I would like to list some names of men who use(d) versions with the eclectic text as the Word of God:
Charles Spurgeon, A.T. Robertson, Benjamin Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, Ken Gentry, John Piper, Dr. R. C. Sproul, Pastor Robert C. Lane (First Presbyterian Church, Madison, MS.), Rev. Anthony Felich (Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Overland Park, KS), Dr. Robert M. Norris (Senior Pastor, Fourth Presbyterian Church, Bethesda, Maryland), Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Dr. Mark Minnick (Professor at Bob Jones Seminary and Pastor of Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, Sc), Dr. Morton Smith and Dr. Pipa (President of Greenville Presbyterian Seminary in Taylors, SC). I could name many more. These men are not liberals.
Objection 5.) Critical Eclectic says that the variants do not leave us bereft of any doctrinal truth. However, John 3:13 says “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven”; The segment regarding the Son of man in heaven is left out of the NASB. This doctrinal truth of Christ’s omnipresence is missing on the eclectic view.

Ans.) “Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven,” Every Reformed commentator I have read sees this as the pre-incarnate Christ, from the context of Abraham’s three visitors, being distinguished from his Father. They are both titled LORD (Which refers to the Holy Name of God in the original) proving their unity. One is on earth and the other is in heaven yet they are one. This is exactly what Jesus is referring to in John 3:13. Theologians have often used this verse to prove the Trinity from the Old Testament. There is no problem here.

Objections
Obj.) The Bible is simply your bias, not your axiom.

Ans.) A bias carries the idea of a prejudice. This involves a decision of mind, formed without thorough examination of the facts or arguments which are requisite for a just and impartial determination. This accusation is a straw man. The point I am making here is not that people are equally biased to assume a certain principle or belief. We are asserting that in an academic and demonstrable context a choice of a first principle is valid as it is inevitable

If an unbeliever were to ask why many Christians have so many different interpretations of the bible if they have this axiom, the answer is the vast majority do not have this axiom. Now that I have given ample commentary on my definition of the Protestant canon, I will now move to prove our use of necessary inference.

b. Logic
Dr. Clark says that Logic is the science of necessary inference. There are fundamental laws of logic that were, in a formal way, first introduced by Aristotle. The fundamental laws of logic are: 1.) Law of Contradiction: A is never non-A; 2.) Law of Identity: A is A; 3.) Law of Excluded Middle: A is something or it is not. A cannot be true and false at the same time. A is itself or nothing else. Dr. Clark said that the law of contradiction was the most fundamental and that the law of excluded middle and the law of identity could be deduced from it. Therefore, the major burden of proof is only on the first law, though I seek to prove all three from the scripture. The nature of these laws overlaps onto each other and so the reader may sense some overlap between the verses used and their application. These are the best verses I am aware of and I am deliberately leaving out some other attempts that I am not satisfied with.

1.) Law of Contradiction
1Co 14:6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?
1Co 14:7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?
Speaking of logic and the law of contradiction in an exposition of Aristotle, Clark says, “This principle, be it noted again, is stated not merely as a law of thought, but primarily as a law of being. The ontological form is basic; the purely logical is derivative: It becomes a law of thought because it is first a law of being.”[151]

2.) Law of Excluded Middle
1Jo 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

3.) Law of Identity
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.(kjv)
The point is: Grace is grace; A is A; A is not B

1. Scriptural uses of logic and necessary inference

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word(Logos, Logic), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Rom 2:15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

The major point that I am asserting with these passages is that logic is a fundamental quality of who God is and who we are. I will be quoting numerous passages that show examples of necessary inference. Our opponents complain that in doing so we are using induction; A principle that we deny. Our answer comes from these passages which prove our assertion is universal and flows from God’s nature and our nature in which he has made us. We are created in God’s image (1 Cor 11:7). This is not to say that his image is in us, but that we are the image. These examples show that the whole Bible operates on these principles because they reflect the nature of God. Some will object that many men deduce things from the statements of other men that logically follow but were never intended and were never believed by the one who originally spoke. The problem is, God knows everything that can ever de deduced from His Word and in foolishness do men assume that these problems among men are problems with God. For further study on the use of necessary inference I suggest George Gellespie, A Treatise of Miscellany Questions[152], page 239-246, Logic by Dr. Gordon Clark, God and Logic by Dr. Gordon Clark[153] and the lectures by Dr. John Robbins on logic at: www.trinityfoundation.org.

1.) A Pari: (Arguing From Similar Propositions)
Lev 18:10 'The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours.
Gellespie here makes the point that all forbidden marriages are not expressly mentioned but are to be deduced by necessary inference. Gellespie describes the consequence “for their nakedness is yours” as being “in linea recta” (The phrase refers to a straight line. Therefore if you follow the line of argument the consequences appear by logical necessity).[154] A consequence a fortiori is that a man may not uncover the nakedness of his own daughter, though this is not expressly mentioned.
Lev 18:14 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.
Gellespie points out numerous inferences from this text concerning the relationships between uncles, aunt’s, nieces and nephews. Again, these inferences follow in linea recta.

2.) A Fortiori:
A Minore Ad Maius (Lesser to Greater)
Mat 7:11 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
Mat 6:26 "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?
Mat 6:30 "But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!

A Maiore Ad Minus (Greater to Lesser)
Mat 10:25 "It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!

3.) In Linea Recta/Necessary Inference (The phrase refers to a straight line. Therefore, if you follow the line of argument the consequences appear by logical necessity)
Luk 20:37 "But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB.
Luk 20:38 "Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him."
“To God, no human being is dead, or ever will be; but all sustain an abiding conscious relation to Him. But the "all" here meant "those who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world." These sustain a gracious covenant relation to God, which cannot be dissolved. In this sense our Lord affirms that for Moses to call the Lord the "God" of His patriarchal servants if at that moment they had no existence, would be unworthy of Him. He "would be ashamed to be called their God, if He had not prepared for them a city" (Heb_11:16). How precious are these glimpses of the resurrection state!”[155]

Joh 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

Rom 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

4.) Quaere: (Rhetorical Question: Question that Implies and are Equivalent to Propositions)
Mat 6:25 "For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

5.) Tu Quoque: (Ad Hominem, Apagoge: To the Man for the Purpose of Proving His Inconsistency with Himself)
Mat 16:1 The Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Jesus, they asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. Mat 16:2 But He replied to them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' Mat 16:3 "And in the morning, 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? Mat 16:4 "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah." And He left them and went away.

Joh 9:40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?"
Joh 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.
Mat 23:29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
Mat 23:31 "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

6.) Modus Tollens (If p, then q; not q, therefore not p)
Joh 8:47 "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."
Our opponents make the assertion that we cannot deduce a modus ponens from the scripture. “Indeed, by using contraposition, we can transform any modus tollens argument into modus ponens.”[156]

7.) Enthymematic Hypothetical Destructive Syllogism
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

8.) Hypothetical Constructive Syllogism
Rom 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

9.) Sorites: (Extended Argument Which Has the Conclusion of the First Argument as the First Premise of the Next Argument etc.)
1Co 15:15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 1Co 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
1Co 15:17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 1Co 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Rom 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

10.) Invalid Inference
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
Rom 6:2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."

2. Fundamental definitions in scripturalist reason:

Argument: A connected series of statements intended to establish a conclusion or consequence.
Proposition: Is the meaning of a declarative sentence. Only propositions can be true or (Real knowledge) false.
Term: ex: Subject and Predicate
Axiom: The unproven starting point of a philosophy. It is the basis of all subsequent deductions.
Premise: A reason given to support a conclusion
Fact: A propositional value containing a variable error of zero.
Probability: Probability is the number of affirmative cases/the total number of possible cases. If the total number is infinite the probability is zero.Data: There is no such thing. John Dewey calls this the taken instead of the givenInduction: A useful fallacy that gives generality to particulars. It is a process that attempts to draw a universal conclusion from particular evidence. All induction is a fallacy.Plausibility: A process of elimination made to determine the number of cases worthy of test and experimentation. David Kelley gives the example of a usually tight fisted business-man taking a cruise. In determining what has caused this man to take a cruise we should rule out “absurd” possible causes such as cosmic rays altering his consciousness etc. Kelley states that the only way to “derive a consequence from a hypothesis” is only “in conjunction with some additional auxiliary assumptions.”[157] An example of an auxiliary assumption would be something like assuming no other force is acting on an object when it is released and made subject to gravity. The hypothesis that it will fall to the ground assumes this. In determining the standards that make a hypothesis worthy of testing two fundamental standards are stated: “Other things being equal, one hypothesis is more plausible than another if it is more consistent with the rest of our knowledge and if it is simpler.”[158]“A hypothesis that conflicts with established principles and theories must meet a higher standard of evidence than a hypothesis that does not conflict.”[159]
Copula: A copula is a word or phrase that links a subject and a predicate. The copula is usually is or are. My opponents may object that we cannot use the copula because we believe that words that can attach to every subject have no meaning. Our opponents fail to remember that we believe that words are arbitrary and it is the thought behind the word and the context of use that determines the meaning. The word in common use simply refers to predication. It can also mean identity. If I say: George is the author of Unveiled Face what I am saying is that George identifies as the author of Unveiled Face. If I say: George is human, this is predication. I am describing what I am. In substitution I could say: George predicates human. So the word is arbitrary.
Parsimony: In parsimony “one hypothesis is more plausible than another if it involves fewer new assumptions.”[160]…“The fewer the claims, the less evidence will be required. Conversely, the farther out on a limb we go, the stronger the limb must be…It can happen that theory A is simpler in on respect, theory B in another. But if one hypothesis is obviously simpler, it is more plausible.”[161]

I would say that these are excellent pragmatic methods. I would argue that the fundamental definitions of Clarkianism are much clearer and simpler than the empirical. I will argue that Clarkianism is the most consistent with this principle in that we offer a restricted axiom which provides an actual end to these debates. Human methods offer an infinite number of proposed solutions and redundant opinions that fuel the never ending debates between men of depraved minds “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”(2Ti 3:7). I find it interesting that God here distinguished between “learning” and truth. I find this yet another proof for the distinction between pragmatic use and absolute truth. In proof of a restricted axiom (Scripturalist Parsimony):
Deu 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deu 12:31 "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.
Deu 12:32 "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

Pro 30:5 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Pro 30:6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Rev 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Faith: Faith relays the idea of cognitive deficiency. That is to say that faith is missing something, and that is why faith is not knowledge. Hebrews 11:1 says: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” The Bible teaches that the deficiency of faith is things not seen. In describing religious faith Paul Helm says:

“In the case of religious faith, the desire has another source…It is trust based either upon belief in or knowledge of certain religious or theological truths. But faith is more than that, for at least in Christianity faith is a fundamental component part of a person’s relationship to God, including his love for God. As we have already stressed, the faith consists of propositions about God, information about him, and about what he has done. And in relying upon that information the person relies upon God himself who is the source of this information.”[162]

ii. A Priori Structures
The Westminster Larger Catechism teaches in question 2: “How doth it appear that there is a God?” with the answer: “The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God”. The Catechism is here teaching the doctrine of the a priori structures in Romans 1:19-20 “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” Generally speaking I understand the a priori structures to include the knowledge that there is a God, the moral law of God (Romans 2:14-15), the laws of logic, ordinary language structures (An understanding of subject, predicate, and copula) and in some sense the class distinctions of Plato’s Ideas. This is not to say that we are borrowing pagan thought. The necessary consequences of the Bible’s teaching, forces us (In the context of a theory of individuation) to reject an empirical (Aristotelian) theory of individuation and adopt a rationalist theory of individuation. We do this from verses like Proverbs 23:7 “For as he thinks within himself, so he is”. A man is to be defined and individuated by the propositions he believes in his mind, not by naturalistic physical substance. Therefore, we individuate by qualities and not by substance. This, in essence, is Plato’s theory pf Ideas. The idea is the same. The word tag is arbitrary. Speaking of the a priori structures Samuel Rutherford (Chapter 1 of Free Disputaion) says,
“Of this intellectual Treasure-house, we are to know these. 1. That in the inner Cabinet, the natural habit of Moral principles lodgeth, the Register of the common notions left in us by nature, the Ancient Records and Chronicles which were in Adam’s time, the Law of Nature of two volumes, one of the first Table, that there is a God, that he createth and governeth all things, that there is but one God, infinitely good, more just rewarding the Evil and the good; and of the second Table, as to love our Parents, obey Superiors, to hurt no man, the acts of humanity; All these are written in the soul, in deep letters, yet the Ink is dim and old, and therefore this light is like the Moon swimming through watery clouds, often under a shadow, and yet still in the firmament. Caligula, and others, under a cloud, denied there was any God, yet when the cloud was over, the light broke out of prison, and granted, a God there must be; strong winds do blow out a Torch in the night, and will blow in the same light again; and that there be other seeds, though come from a far land, and not growing out of the ground, as the former, is clear, for Christ scattereth some Gospel-truths in this Chalmer; as John 7.28. Then cried Jesus in the Temple; as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and whence I am. John 15.24. But now they have both seen, and hated both me and my Father.”[163]
Here, Rutherford gives scriptural proof that men know that God “exists.” Ordinary language will be commented on later. The a priori structures in all men are evident by the scripture “John 1:9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.” That is to say, that every man is born with this. Every man does not keep this good law because of the effects of sin. Some people have sunk so deep into sin that there is hardly any light remaining in them: Rom 1:28 “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper”. Therefore, a godly man “observes” the world around him with his a priori structures and “sees” a spiritual life not a physical one. This is similar to Plato. He described how seeing a harp reminds a man of a musician. This is how things in this life teach us of these divine truths.

2Ki 6:17 Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see." And the LORD opened the servant's eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

In reference to intuition: I believe the noetic effects of sin eradicated any possibility that intuition gives knowledge. However, if one uses this term synonymously with apriorism I don’t have a problem with it. The term refers to axiomatic, innate knowledge. I believe this.

Obj.) The a priori structures are then another source of knowledge.

Ans.) We know about the a priori structures from the scripture and they teach nothing different than the scriptures. In an exposition of Owen’s view of the multi-utility of the law, Barcellos says, “For instance, commenting on Hebrews 9:5 ...he says, ‘The law…as unto the substance of it was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works.’ Later he claims that ‘what was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally; and which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant.”[164] Calvin says much the same:

“Moreover, the very things contained in the two tables are, in a manner, dictated to us by that internal law, which, as has been already said, is in a manner written and stamped on every heart. For conscience, instead of allowing us to stifle our perceptions, and sleep on without interruption, acts as an inward witness and monitor, reminds us of what we owe to God, points out the distinction between good and evil, and thereby convicts us of departure from duty.”[165]

Obj.) Clark believes preformation theory! Clark defines preformation as, “the categories are neither innate and a priori nor derived from experience, but are merely subjective aptitudes for thought implanted in us contemporaneously with our existence, which were so ordered by our Creator that their exercise perfectly harmonizes with the laws of nature which regulate experience.”[166]

Ans.) “Clark did not accept the preformation theory, Reymond simply misread page 410 in Thales to Dewey, for that is about the only place Clark ever mentioned the preformation theory…The argument is that Kant’s position is vulnerable to the very
objections that Kant had raised against preformation. The whole is an ad hominem argument against Kant.”[167]

B. Metaphysics

Eph 4:23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind

Pro 23:7 For as he thinks within himself, so he is.

Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus (kjv)

1Co 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

Act 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist

Though we will discuss this issue in more detail in the Individuation section of this discourse these are the primary premises. In the discussion of Metaphysics we are discussing the issue of ultimate reality. When we discuss ultimate reality we are discussing what ultimately reality is made up of. The dialectical materialism of historical Atheism says that ultimate reality is a material reality. They would say that concepts like souls, spirits and gods are nothings. They believe that only material things exist and this material world is progressed through conflict. The more conflict the more progression and finally when enough conflict has been had by all, this material world will enter into a Utopia. Their metaphysic is dialectical materialism, and the way their minds connect to this reality is their first principle (Or axiom) empiricism.

“The Christian view emphasizes a world of spirits or persons or minds. The Apostle Paul said that in God we all live and move and have our being...it must be insisted on that God is the ‘place’ of spirits. Minds are not impenetrable pellets. Even human minds in some degree overlap or penetrate each other, and the Divine Mind that encloses or surrounds all others penetrates them completely… ‘for it is God that works in you, both to will and to do, of his good pleasure.’ This statement asserts an interpenetration, at least of Christian minds, by the Divine Spirit, such that not only the actions but even the will of the man is controlled by the good pleasure of God.”[168]

Here Clark gives commentary on true Christian monism and then gives more commentary on how God controls the minds of the wicked as well from Exodus 34:24 proving that he also penetrates their minds.

“The Christian view differs from the various forms of Personalism in refusing to equate the physical world with the eternal consciousness of God, but more especially it differs in its concept of the Person who “includes” all others and of his relationship to them…The other persons are brought into being by fiat (This word refers to a decree or command); they are completely and in every respect dependent on God, but God is completely and in every respect independent of them. For Christianity God is not an ideal toward which the universe is approaching; he is not the axiogenetic or axiosoteric aspect of the universal process; he does not come to completion, to consciousness or to perfection in history; he faces no conditions that his will does not control, God is above all the Omnipotent Creator and Absolute Sovereign.”[169]

Here Clark gives the Christian metaphysic, propositional revelation. True reality is the Mind of God in whom we move and have our being. Though independent of us, he penetrates us completely. These “material” things around us (To be careful) are less emphasized as things we know about. True reality is a reality of minds and spirits brought into being by divine fiat and have their ‘place’ in the mind of God. The way in which our minds connect to this reality is through the revelation of God that has from the beginning been in some degree written on the soul of man, (And still is from his birth, though now very dim) oral through prophets, and in these last days completed with the canon of the Holy Scripture. In short, we believe that reality is propositional and when God penetrates my mind with his mind it is the same in quality. We do not believe that we receive the analogical knowledge of God. “An analogical truth, except it contain a univocal point of coincident meaning, simply is not the truth at all. In particular (and the most crushing reply of all) if the human mind were limited to analogical truths, it could never know the univocal truth that it was limited to analogies.”(The Bible as Truth by Dr. Gordon Clark)

Theistic Objections
Obj.) A common objection to this view of philosophy is that it is fideism. What is fideism? “One dictionary describes it as ‘a pejorative term for subjectivist theories which are based upon religious experience and which undervalue reason in theology.’ Others are just as clear: fideism holds that ‘religious truths are inaccessible to human reason,’ thus amounting to a ‘reduction of religion to an irrational faith.”[170]

Ans.) Unbelievable! On page 7 and 8 of Three Types Clark uses the term Fideism as a not so well known synonym with dogmatism. He then gives us a specific definition: “The term dogmatism therefore designates that method of procedure which tries to systematize beliefs concerning God, science, immortality, etc. on the basis of information divinely revealed in the sacred writings.”[171] In reference to the objections concerning reason I have answered these already: Dogmatism and Rationalism do have some overlap in that they both use reason. “There is a second similarity between rationalism and dogmatism…rationalism and dogmatism are forms of realism. Their epistemology is not representational…Every thinker must decide for himself whether the X that is immediately in the mind is the real object or a representation of it.”[172] Bahnsen does not understand our use of the axiom.

Obj.) “Clark eventually held that when a secularist challenges the believer’s view that God has revealed Himself in the Bible, ‘a dogmatist does not try to prove it’! One simply chooses one’s first principle, which is ‘indemonstrable’ (which, again, Van Til’s transcendental presuppositionalism denies). Clark realized that the question would thus become, How does one decide between incompatible first principles? What possibly is left for convincing an opponent of Christianity? Clark’s answer must be disheartening to even the most ardent Calvinist, and a terrible faux pas in the eyes of those trained in philosophy: ‘The answer is that faith is the gift of God…The initiation of spiritual life, called regeneration, is the immediate work of the Holy Spirit.’ Here Clark simply confused the difference between reasons (evidence for believing, which is intellectually assessed) and causes (psychological and external factors producing some personal change in attitude or action). He was certainly correct that God sovereignly causes men to be born again and have faith, but the apologetical question put to Clark was what reason men may have (to which the Spirit surely must testify) to believe that biblical revelation is the truth(rather than, say, the Koran).”[173]

Ans.) The first problem with this objection is that Bahnsen’s faux paus is the exact thing Paul warned us would happen for dogmatic declaring the Bible as truth:
1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 1Co 1:22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 1Co 1:24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
I equate Bahnsen’s objection to our fideism with the “foolishness of the message preached” and Bahnsen’s “faux paus in the eyes of those trained in philosophy” to “to Gentiles foolishness.”

The second problem with this objection is that in the context, the question Clark is directing these comments toward was, “The question therefore, urged by atheist, evangelical Christian, and evangelistic Moslem, is, Why does anyone choose the Bible rather than the Koran?”[174] The question implies cause not reason. If the question was, “How does anyone show why we choose the Bible rather than the Koran etc. then Bahnsen would have a point.

Obj.) The Bible says in 1 John 5:13 “These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God.” There is no passage in the Bible that mentions your name that you may know according to your system.

Ans.) The Bible also says in Mat 5:23 “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” This use of the word “know” is not implying that God did not know these people existed. This usage of the word in context refers to familial relationship as intimate knowing as a father does his son In this case these people were not in Christ, and that is what “know” means in this context. In 1 John 5:13 the context is showing people how they can prove through a changed life and heart that God has regenerated them. This knowledge cannot be demonstrated and does not fall in the category specified in the earlier definition. We believe that people can be confirmed of their assurance by the Holy Spirit that they are true believers. This in 1 John 5:13 is pneumatic knowledge not demonstrable knowledge. Moreover, it is not queer to think people do not know themselves for Jeremiah 17:9 says “The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?” This implies no one knows it.

Obj.) But the Bible says that people can know by your expressions of love and this can be demonstrated. John 13:35 “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

Ans.) The sinner knows these things by his a priori structures through which he interprets these actions of Christians not through his senses. Long-suffering, is that blue or green, A-minor or B-flat? Covering over sin is something that happens in the inward man and cannot be observed by the “senses” and demonstrated. Moreover, giving to the poor and other charitable acts are done by more than Christians. Many people do these things that they may be seen doing them.

Obj.) I hate the idea that there is an infallibilist restraint upon knowledge and that knowledge is unattainable unless the method we use to arrive at our beliefs is also infallible. The burden of proof is on you to prove this infalliblism. That is, the idea that if anyone know x he must know how he knows x.

Ans.) This objection has some overlap with a similar objection that points out we as Clarkians cannot know when we have been imparted the right interpretation of a passage and could be wrong and need to change. Therefore our method (How we know x) is not infallible. Clark's epistemology is a de jure epistemology. What actually will happen (quod eventum) is another thing altogether. So our epistemology does meet the definition of fact (Is infallible) de jure, but does not meet it (Is not infallible) quod eventum. This is a consequence of sin. The problem is in the sinner not the WORD. Examples: God commands us not to commit murder, but decrees that men commit murder as they do. The command is God's will de jure (What it should be). What actually happens is God's will quod eventum (What it will be). The scripture does give man the information he needs to distinguish a false view from a true, but God does not always in all times and places decree for him to "see" it. I realize this is a difficult issue and one that I do not fully understand in my mortal state. However, all Calvinists have to make this distinction. Calvinists believe in irresistible grace. Arminians hate this infalliblist restraint that Calvinists put on God’s sovereignty. Rom 2:4 “Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?” When God leads one to repentance he is infallibly irresistible. However, read the next verse: Rom 2:5 “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God”. We do not say God’s goodness tries but that it should or ought. God’s goodness ought, de jure, bring you to repentance. Though, quid eventum does not always bring you to repentance because God does not provide the condition of faith, though he still holds you responsible to believe. Therefore, in the same way, God’s WORD should or ought to (de jure) impart the right interpretation of itself into our minds. However, it does not quid eventum always cause us to believe the right interpretation though he still holds us responsible to know the right view. This objection argues against Calvinism in general. It attempts to prove too much.

Obj.) Clark believes it is possible that other religions are true!
"But the fact that naturalism has proved intolerable does not of itself imply that the particular Christian presuppositions underlying the whole of the present volume are the only principles capable of supporting a satisfactory worldview. If theism is indeed necessary to the intelligibility of history, possibly Mohammedan theism or some other form would function as well as or even better than Christian theism. There has not been much argument so far to rule out such a possibility.” [175]

Ans.) Keep reading.
“Apparently the best general procedure for one who wishes to recommend Christian theism is to show that other forms of theism are inconsistent mixtures. If some of their propositions should be carried to their logical conclusions, naturalism and eventually skepticism would result; whereas if justice is to be done to possible interpretations of other of their assertions, Christianity would have to be assumed.”[176]

As a Clarkian I am not aware that Christianity is the only theistic worldview capable of defending the laws of logic. I can say this (As did Clark) about any empirical philosophy though. Some say that Clark taught that because past theories have never reached knowledge that no one ever will and therefore uses induction. If he refuted the axiom, any other philosophy using the axiom is refuted as well. The conclusion is deduced by logic not by induction. “If the Biblical doctrines are self-consistent, they have met the only legitimate test of reason. This test of logic is precisely the requirement that a set of propositions be meaningful, whether spoken by God or man. And if propositions have no meaning, obviously they reveal nothing. (Dr. Clark, Special Divine Revelation as Rational.). I have read people that claim Clark believed Christianity to be the only view that could sustain a logical philosophy. I have yet to see a quote proving this assertion.

Obj.) How are you going to convince an unbeliever of the Christian religion?

Ans.) Faith is a gift of God Eph 2:8-9, and God chooses Psalm 65:4 and causes the person to accept Christian dogmatism. This is repeated by Christ who says, “you do not believe because you are not my sheep.” “Even the preaching of the gospel does not produce faith.”[177] We pray that God would give faith.

Obj.) When God told Adam not to eat of the tree, he had to know what the tree was to obey God didn’t he?
Ans.) When God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge between good and evil Adam had not yet fallen and so the noetic effects of sin were not operating the way they do with us. Therefore, this objection is a bit of equivocation (Equating our ability to know as sinners with Adam’s ability to know in sinless perfection), but there may be some application to us. In general, there are moral obligations that God puts on me as a sinner that require the use of my “senses.” For instance, God commands me in a general sense to till the ground (Gen 3:23) but the Bible does not tell me what the ground is. The way the Bible uses this word does refer to the substance where grass grows from but someone could present some counter examples to this non-definition. My “senses” whatever they are give me function they do not give me knowledge. An example: The Bible commands us to “Keep thy heart with all diligence; For out of it are the issues of life (Prov 4:23).” The problem is, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it (Jer 17:9)?” This implies no one can know it. Did Peter know himself when he said, himself when he said, "Though all men deny you yet will not I"? Yet God still holds us responsible.
Obj.) But that is what we empiricists say when you ask us what it means to see. Though we do not know what it means to see we can still functionally see.
Ans.) This is a bit of equivocation. You are using this function to prove knowledge. I am using function to function not to prove knowledge. In other words, I am saying my deficiency still allows me to function, not to know. You are saying your deficiency allows you to know and to function. You are making equal what is not. By the way I am not saying that I know I can function. I assume I can in certain situations.
Obj.) Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.

Ans.) Pay attention to the “attested to you by God” part .Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Mat 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Obj.) What about all the verses in the bible that mention seeing and hearing etc.?

Ans.) For as many verses that you can claim teach empirical sensation, I can produce verses that teach sensation is spiritual, metaphorical, and rhetorical.

Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Exo 15:14 "The peoples have heard, they tremble; Anguish has gripped the inhabitants of Philistia.

Deu 1:43 So I spake unto you; and ye would not hear, but rebelled against the commandment of the LORD, and went presumptuously up into the hill. (KJV)

2Ki 14:11 But Amaziah would not hear. Therefore Jehoash king of Israel went up; and he and Amaziah king of Judah looked one another in the face at Bethshemesh, which belongeth to Judah.(KJV)

Job 27:9 "Will God hear his cry When distress comes upon him?

Psa 3:4 I cried unto the LORD with my voice, and he heard me out of his holy hill. Selah.

Psa 4:1 For the choir director; on stringed instruments. A Psalm of David. Answer me when I call, O God of my righteousness! You have relieved me in my distress; Be gracious to me and hear my prayer.

1Jo 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--
compared with

Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
Calvin says,
“Paul declares, that by the true preaching of the gospel Christ is portrayed and in a manner crucified before our eyes (Gal_3:1). Of what use, then, were the erection in Churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver and gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached, viz., Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that he might expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in his blood, and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father?”[178]

Deu 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Gen 16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

Psa 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.(KJV) The NASB translates the word “see” as “undergo”. The reason they do this is, that words are arbitrary. It is the thought and meaning that are the significant points. My opponents need to consider this more.

Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.(KJV)

Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (KJV)

1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Jer 1:11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree.(KJV)

Jer 1:13 And the word of the LORD came unto me the second time, saying, What seest thou? And I said, I see a seething pot; and the face thereof is toward the north. (KJV)

Gen 31:50 If thou shalt afflict my daughters, or if thou shalt take other wives beside my daughters, no man is with us; see, God is witness betwixt me and thee.

Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Calvin says,
“And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun.”[179]

Obj.) Some will say that our senses have to be properly functioning in order to have proper warrant of knowledge. Suspicious enough, they quote Alvin Plantiga in support of this view.
Ans.) Apparently, they ignore that this was the view espoused by Thomas Aquinas.‡ One has to take sensation as the axiom in this case.

Obj.) What about the validity of a person’s senses to bear witness in a testimony?

1Co 15:5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
1Co 15:6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
1Co 15:7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
1Co 15:8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

Ans.) I would say right now that they witnessed the resurrection the same way that the Galatians witnessed the crucifixion in Gal 3:1. I know that the examples are not completely parallel. The Galatians did not witness the crucifixion but the five hundred brethren did witness the resurrected Christ. I wonder if my opponents would admit that his body was physical in the naturalist sense after the resurrection, but I need to think this through a bit more. However, I am comfortable saying that this is a functional knowledge not a demonstrable. As a postscript, I would point out that the passage does not say this gave them knowledge. It is functional evidence that is acknowledged in an administrative sense in human societies and courts of law.

Naturalistic Objections
Obj.) You believe in revelation, I believe in common sense

Ans.) The following example is given in Dr. John Robbins’ lectures on Logic. Let’s say you were offered two jobs: A and B. Both jobs offer a yearly salary of $20, 000. Job A offers a$500 raise every six months while job B offers a $2, 000 raise every year. Which job pays you more? The “common sense” thing to say would be job B. Let’s do the math:

First Six Months
Second Six Months
First Year
Leader
Job A
10, 000
10, 500
20,500
Job A
Job B
10, 000
10,000
20, 000

Third Six Months
Fourth Six Months
Second Year
Leader
Job A

11,000

11,500

22,500

Job A
Job B
11, 000
11, 000
22,000

Fourth Six Months
Fifth Six Months
Third Year
Leader
Job A
12, 000
12, 500
24,500
Job A
Job B
12, 000
12, 000
24,000

This pattern continues. Job A pays you $500 more every year. There is no such thing as common sense.
Obj.) Don’t you have to see the Bible in order to know what it says?

Ans.) Define sensation and relate it to perception

Obj.) “Perception is that experience in which, on the warrant of something given in sensation at the time, we unreflectingly take some object to be before us.”[180]

Ans.1) “Show which inferences are valid and which are invalid.”[181]
Ans. 2) “He is assuming that a Bible is certain sensations of black and white without combination, arrangement, or intellectual interpretation. (pg. 131) ..."The perception of a Bible is somehow ordered and interpreted. The apologist must explain how…An empirical appeal, like the sight of a Bible, cannot be the beginning of an epistemological theory...If the apologist cannot show how perception of a Bible develops from sensation, he has no basis for his empiricism…(pg. 131)...if there were, and if perception were an inference from sensation, it would be necessary to show which inferences are valid and which are invalid. Blanshard very carefully gives many examples of possible inferences; but he nowhere shows how to distinguish a true perception from a fallacious inference (pg. 132)...The theory is that perceptions produce images which remain after the perception ceases. By a process of abstraction, concepts are formed or extracted out of these images (pg. 134)...Did not Russell say that only a madman could deny it? (That is that all have images)...Brand Blanshard not only shows the futility of images for people who have them, but also brings before us a group of scientists and literary men, all well educated, who have no images whatever(pg. 135)...the process by which concepts are allegedly abstracted from images is unintelligible. Aristotle simply gives an analogy. It is like an army in rout: one soldier makes a stand, than a second, and so on, until the army is in order again. This analogy is worse than most. It is unintelligibility raised to an unimaginable power (pg. 135)...Empiricism with its nominalism cannot produce concepts, such as...general conic, of vertebrate animals(Or of Liliaceae)...Propositions, not concepts, are the objects of knowledge because only propositions can be true. (pg. 135)...Urban distinguishes between signs and symbols. If this distinction be accepted, words are signs. Even if his onomatopoeic words are symbols, it does him little good, for there is no inherent quality in the sound of dog, chien, or Hund to make them mean a certain type of animal (pg. 139)...Nor could any such sheet of white paper extract any universal law of logic from finite experience. No universal and necessary proposition can be deduced from sensory observation. Universality and necessity can only be a priori. (pg. 139)...How can sensationism produce a sound that conveys a meaning from one mind to another? Since my sensation is never yours, how can you ever know what the sensation is to which I attach a sound or ink mark? The empirical apologists usually evade this problem (pg. 142)...Animals have more acute sensations than human beings; but they know no mathematics, construct no syllogisms, nor do they write narratives. Sensation does not help them in these matters. (pg. 143)”[182]

Obj.) What were people doing before the Christian Bible was written down? Were they all stumbling in the dark?
Ans.) There are many things that have been said that are the Word of God but not canonized. The prophets in the time of the Old Covenant were the primary source of knowledge. They of course also had the writings of Moses, the prophets and the historical books. It is also of note that Jesus called Abel (That is the brother of Cain) a prophet: Luke 11:50 “Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.” There are many examples like this to show that at times God gave his Word to people through a prophet without having it officially canonized and preserved for the Christian Bible.

Obj.) If Christians have the same axiom, why do they all believe different things?

Ans.) Most Christian theists do not believe in Scripturalism. Their philosophies are mixed with induction, empiricism, maxi environments, and other forms of "science falsely so-called (KJV). 1 Timothy 6:20 “Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge” (At the time the KJV was written the word "science" referred to simply a method of obtaining knowledge. It did not have the papal aroma as it does now which is why the modern version here changes the reading (NASB). This practice of synchronization of Christian epistemology and non-Christian philosophy was preached against over and over by the apostles.

Obj.) Why then does one choose the Bible over another religious book?

Ans.) The way one is to believe the Bible over another book goes like this: Psalm 65:4 “Blessed is the man You choose, And cause to approach You, That he may dwell in Your courts.” God chooses the person whom he wants to believe his Word, and causes that person, though not all at first but progressively to understand and believe Christian Dogmatism.
Obj.) "Would a Clarkian use the term "irrational" to characterize someone who, for example, ignored medical findings about the carcinogenicity of benzene and used it as a condiment?"
Ans.) Define carcinogenicity. Define benzene. After this individuate between the two. I will then answer your question.

Obj.) "But if all empirical assertions and theories are equally unjustifiable, what basis do we have for concluding that crazy people have "lost their minds" or are not "thinking properly?” “If induction and the normal process of apportioning belief according to visible evidence is simply "unfounded," full-stop, how can the Clarkian justify holding his own thoughts about empirical experience above those of the guy in the local mental hospital who howls at the moon, cuts himself, and smears his blood all over the walls? Aren't the thoughts of the two people equally unjustified, on the Clarkian view?"Ans.) Define crazy. You can’t justify your use of the word “mind.” No one has ever sensed mind. By thinking you have to be referring to chemistry. "If thought is simply the product of the brain, no doubt it cannot contradict nature; but then on this basis no thought can contradict nature, and insanity is as natural as any other state of mind. If all thought is thus natural, there is no logical reason to believe that some thoughts, ideas of dialectical materialism rather than of absolute idealism, are more natural, more true, or more valuable, than others."[183] I would say if their speech contradicts the laws of logic, they have improper thinking. First, I would consult a Reformed Christian more qualified than myself regarding these psychological issues and medical treatments associated. In general, the way to treat such a “condition” would be attendance and fellowship at a local Reformed Church, prayer, fasting, nutrition, exercise and general Christian indoctrination. I would also suggest moderate tobacco and alcohol use to the glory of God. If this solution sounds ridiculous, I think the same about the naturalist alternative. It is strange to me that drugging these people numb sounds more reasonable. The scriptures describe people who are “out of their minds” as being under demonic influences. The means of grace are the answer.

Obj.) If you reject empiricism how do you know anything about historical events?

Ans.) “History is an empirical study and empiricism makes knowledge impossible. Did Christ die and rise? Was there ever a preacher in Palestine named Jesus? Can we discover anything he ever said or did? Historical investigation to determine these facts requires a study of the document.”[184]
Historical documents can be forged and falsified. Though we need to verify the authenticity the best we can, we must still rely on approximations when we lean on History.
“Suppose historical research proved the Bible true. Would this help anyone who did not have faith? No, for faith is not the result of scholarly inquiry. It does not bring a person one step closer to faith. Would such proof of the Biblical events help the person who already has faith? No, for several reasons. First, since he has faith, nothing further is needs. Second, research may actually harm him because objectivity tends to dissipate infinite passion. Then third, according to this supposition the person would know that the Bible is true; he would have knowledge, and therefore he would have lost his faith.”[185]

History cannot prove Christianity. Empirical History and Archeology can claim to prove that there was a man Jesus in the region of Jerusalem in a given time and context and that he was crucified. This can never prove that he was crucified as a propitiation for the sins of his people.

“Observation, that is, sensory experience, at best, might possibly result in concluding that such and such an event happened. That is to say, the most empiricism could possibly claim is that Brutus killed Caesar. But to judge whether this was right or wrong, good or bad, inevitable or not , important or trivial, requires a criterion that can never be discovered in sensation.”[186]

Sensation can only claim to know what is. It can never claim what it ought to be.

C. Philosophy of Language
The philosophy of language or linguistic is divided into two primary groups in which it is summed up: descriptive linguistics which is an analysis of spoken language and comparative linguistics, which is an analysis of the relationship and origin of languages. We will be primarily dealing with descriptive linguistics.

The context of this exposition concerns a linguist studying a people’s language that has no written form or record. Descriptive linguistics begins with a sensation. Linguists usually give no definition of what a sensation is. The linguist “hears” the native speaker. After much listening, the linguist will compile his large amount of records and analyze them to identify distinctions that he calls, “phonemes.” An example of a phoneme would simply be the sound for “r” in the word “run.” The linguist then attempts to determine how these phonemes combine to create units of sound called, “morphemes” that actually carry the meaning. An example of a morpheme would be the word “run.” The next task for the linguist is to determine the function of these morphemes and identify the grammar of the people. This determines the syntax.

The following section on the philosophy of language will be structured around Urbans four questions:
“Urban asks the question he intends to answer: (1) How is language a bearer of meaning? (2) How is communication possible? (3) What is the relation of logic to language? (4) How can language refer to things?”[187]

i.) How is language a bearer of meaning?
Christian Dogmatist Ans.) “Words are arbitrary signs the mind uses to tag thoughts.”[188]

Earlier we read how a sensation can produce a morpheme which can bear meaning. So which is first, the word or the meaning? Does the word create the meaning or does one first have a thought to which he tags a word? “One example of this is the fact that a wolf will refuse to eat a piece of meat in which poison has been hidden. In some sense the wolf senses a meaning. The bate means death. For the animal, however, the meaning is not detachable from the sensory thing; for man, on the other hand, it is.”[189]

Meaning comes before the word. Words are arbitrary symbols for thoughts. Some are sourced in the a priori structures and others in people’s theories, or ideas. An example:

“As electricity was being studied in early modern times, the experimenters noticed certain relationships. To that date, no names had been given them. They had not been known before, so that there was nothing to name. But when the ‘intuitions’ occurred, the scientists took the names of three of their own number, Volta, Ampere, and Ohm, and assigned these names to the level of energy, the quantity of current, and the resistance. Only after a person has a thought can he give it a name.” [190]

Obj.) So do individual words have a distinct meaning?
Christian Dogmatist Ans.) No, “the meaning of verbal signs depends on their usage.”[191]

Naturalist Assertion.) “The first principle of Logical Positivism is that a sentence has no meaning unless it can be verified (in principle at least) by sensory experience.”[192]

Christian Dogmatist Ans.1) “Yet no sensory experience can ever verify this principle.”[193]

Christian Dogmatist Re-direct.) Define sensation, show how sensation produces perception, and how memory images produce universal concepts by abstraction (Abstract concepts: vertebrae animals, crustaceans, time, mathematics; Empiricists understand images to refer to the picture memories in the mind after one has perceived something.).

One may object that we smell of Socrates when we ask for our opponents to define what they are talking about. Euthyphro could no define piety. Protagoras could not define virtue. Laches could not define courage. I was first exposed to these difficulties in my first year in seminary during the dreaded Rhetoric class. Dr Pipa our professor asked our class of graduate students (Who mostly had undergraduate degrees of some kind and thought ourselves educated) what a cat was. We stood stunned for quite a while and spent the next twenty minutes or so having our definitions shot through with holes. The first reply of many is “An animal that meows, an animal that meows, is the definition!” If I can remember our professor shot that definition down by giving examples of the larger members of the cat family that do not meow. Our opponents get frustrated by this difficulty and after many exchanges I have had people become belligerent on me and start asking for a definition of every word I use. When I fail to define the word “funny” or some other irrelevant word they feel they have vindicated themselves. Here is the problem: We are not asking for a definition of every word someone uses. However, we are asking for a definition of the fundamental terms of the theory and of logic. I listed my definitions above in the Logic section to demonstrate what I am talking about. I have spoken to others who have tried to meet this challenge and I commend them for their integrity. Many do not understand this burden because they have never thought through a complete theory of knowledge and how every major term used is vital to the life a complete structure.

Bran Blanshard made a valiant effort to define perception in empiricism: “Perception is that experience in which on the warrant of something given in sensation at the time, we unreflectingly take some object to be before us.”[194]

Christian Dogmatist Objection 1.) “This definition assumes the occurrence of sensation prior to the perception. Sensation gives something. It furnishes data. Perception, apparently, gives nothing…Is there a describable method by which we pass from sensation to perception? (2) Is the inference valid? And, underlying these, (3) What is sensation, if indeed there is such a thing?... Blanchard defines sensation as “the nether limit of perception.”[195] Nether refers to something out of comprehension, underground or the regions below. He admits his skepticism.

Christian Dogmatist Objection 2.)

“if there were, and if perception were an inference from sensation, it would be necessary to show which inferences are valid and which are invalid. Blanshard very carefully gives many examples of possible inferences; but he nowhere shows how to distinguish a true perception from a fallacious inference (pg. 132)...The theory is that perceptions produce images which remain after the perception ceases. By a process of abstraction, concepts are formed or extracted out of these images (pg. 134)...Did not Russell say that only a madman could deny it? (That is that all have images)...Brand Blanshard not only shows the futility of images for people who have them, but also brings before us a group of scientists and literary men, all well educated, who have no images whatever(pg. 135)...the process by which concepts are allegedly abstracted from images is unintelligible. Aristotle simply gives an analogy. It is like an army in rout: one soldier makes a stand, than a second, and so on, until the army is in order again. This analogy is worse than most. It is unintelligibility raised to an unimaginable power (pg. 135)...Empiricism with its nominalism cannot produce concepts, such as...general conic, of vertebrate animals(Or of Liliaceae)...Propositions, not concepts, are the objects of knowledge because only propositions can be true. (pg. 135)...Urban distinguishes between signs and symbols. If this distinction be accepted, words are signs. Even if his onomatopoeic words are symbols, it does him little good, for there is no inherent quality in the sound of dog, chien, or Hund to make them mean a certain type of animal (pg. 139)...Nor could any such sheet of white paper extract any universal law of logic from finite experience. No universal and necessary proposition can be deduced from sensory observation. Universality and necessity can only be a priori. (pg. 139)...How can sensationism produce a sound that conveys a meaning from one mind to another? Since my sensation is never yours, how can you ever know what the sensation is to which I attach a sound or ink mark? The empirical apologists usually evade this problem (pg. 142)...Animals have more acute sensations than human beings; but they know no mathematics, construct no syllogisms, nor do they write narratives. Sensation does not help them in these matters.(pg. 143)”[196]

Perception involves a comprehensive understanding of something. To perceive an object is not only a sensation of white or black. Perception requires understanding. Let’s say you were sitting on your front porch, drinking a beer after a hard day’s work. In the background you hear your neighbor playing Mozart’s violin concertos in A major through her open window which happens to be harboring a freshly cooked apple pie. Across the street you see a man walking his Doberman Pinscher while smoking his favorite cigar (CAO, MX2). I have a question for you. Have you perceived the Doberman pinscher? A dog in empirical terms is not only black and tan. The Doberman pinscher is also soft, smooth and odorous, and loud, etc. The point is perception requires more than an alleged sensation, but a comprehensive analysis to produce understanding. The so-called understanding you have is an assumed arrangement of chosen sensations, out of numerous “possibilities.” Why do you think you perceive the dog by merely seeing black and tan? Why not select A- major, the smell of hops, yeast, apples, caramel, or maybe that sweet rich aged tobacco smoke coming from across the street (Or was it)? Do you even understand the concept of space that you think divides you and the man across the street?

Even on the naturalists’ own model, the world makes no sense. “Animals have more acute sensations than human beings; but they know no mathematics, construct no syllogisms, nor do they write narratives. Sensation does not help them in these matters.”[197] When naturalists are faced with these difficulties they will say meaning can be created by a social construct by saying things like: “my social construct has provided the necessary observable effects.”[198] The problem is English culture has not given him the meaning that naturalism gives to fundamental terms. Behaviorists use words like mind, perception, observe, fear, rage, love and thought etc. They are not using these words like the average English speaker uses them. What he means by these words is chemistry. Friedrich Engels says, “The person who can only think by means of language has never yet learned what is meant by abstract and pure thought…On this basis animals are the most abstract and pure thinkers because their thought is never obscured by the officious intrusions of language.” (The German Ideology (pg.22), Edited by Paschal)

Who needs meaning and coherency anyway, its just chemistry?

Objection.) Your Bible’s language has no meaning. Its just anthropomorphisms and metaphors!
Ans.) “God is by definition an infinite and suprasensible being, while all the language that we have which to talk about him has been devised in order to describe and discuss the finite objects of our sense-experience’ (p.101). But if one rejects this view of the origin and purpose of language, if one maintains that language is a divine gift for the purpose of conversing literally with God- as well as for counting sheep- then he does not entangle himself in ineffective illustrations in order to talk about God or even number two.”[199]

Objection) Its language is horribly difficult to understand!
Ans.1) “Must one take a textbook on calculus as mythological, poetic, or parabolic and not literally true, because some high school students cannot understand it?”[200]

Ans. 2) The use of the metaphor in 2 Chron 16:9 “the eyes of the Lord run to and from” etc. is justified as meaningful as compared to other passages that teach God’s omniscience. The verse literally means: God is omniscient and omnipresent.

Obj.) Aren’t there moments in your life when something so awesome or terrible happens in your life that words fail to describe it?
Ans.) When a man says that such and such a thing happened and words could not express what he feels, what is really the case is he is ignorant of the words to express it.

ii.) How is communication possible?
Christian Dogmatist Ans.) “Second communication is possible because all minds have at least some thoughts in common. This is so because God created man a rational spirit, a mind capable of thinking, worshipping, and talking to God. God operates through his Logos, the wisdom that enlightens every man in the world.”[201]

Christian Dogmatist Objection to Naturalism.) “Since my sensation is never yours, how can you ever know what the sensation is to which I attach a sound or ink mark?”[202]
Naturalist Ans.) I can’t know because my theory is a night fancy, but I like it because it let’s me live the way I want to. Now stop asking me devastating questions like these!

iii.) What is the relation of logic to language?
Christian Dogmatist Ans.) “Third, language is logical because it expresses logical thoughts…Language therefore is built upon the laws of logic.”[203]

Algebra use a form of symbolic logic yet these formulas can be translated into ordinary language. The symbolic use here is helpful to prevent overly extended paragraphs to explain an equation that can be demonstrated in a few characters.

Naturalist Ans.) We are still trying to figure out what logic is. It is a useful function like digestion. Logic is how a brain functions but we have much to learn here.

Christian Dogmatist Obj.) What’s the chemical formula for logic again? (Refer to my theses against behaviorism.)

iv.) How can language refer to things? (This question overlaps with question 1 so the reader may refer there for more information)

Christian Dogmatist Ans.1.) “Words are arbitrary signs the mind uses to tag thoughts.”[204] We do not say that words represent things because then the word could not be arbitrary. We say they tag things. Meanings represent reality, not words.

Christian Dogmatist Obj.) Here are some words that have no empirical source:
Uncle, For, In, As, Cousin, Cause, Odd, Even, Virtue, Time, and Space.

D. Philosophy of Science
Science has had a change of meaning in the last hundred to a hundred and fifty years. Traditionally, the word simply referred to a method of obtaining knowledge. Today, the word has a more specific, dogmatic sense. Today the word refers to a systematic, empirical investigation of anything that can be tested and verified. If the reader has come this far in the discourse he will immediately recognize that science assumes upon sensation as its axiom. Again, the reader will be disappointed when he wants to know the definition of sensation.
I am not saying that this method was invented only a hundred and fifty years ago. Dr. Clark records the beginning of this method at 6:13pm, on the May 28th, 585 B.C. This was the day of Thales predicted eclipse. Though many inventions and academic disciplines were devised before this time, the capture of Constantinople (1453 A.D.) and the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press (1450A.D.) are the major events that triggered the scientific revolution of Europe. A major contributor of the time was Nicolaus Copernicus. He was a Christian theologian, receiving a doctorate in canon law in 1503. In 1543 Copernicus published De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres). In this work, Copernicus rejected the idea that Earth was the center of the universe (A theory earlier taught by Ptolemy). De Revolutionibus presents a model where the Earth and the other planets revolved around the sun. My opponents like to argue that Christians have historically taught falsities about astronomy. They usually forget that we were also the ones to change these things and introduce more accurate assessments (Copernicus’ theory, though more correct, still had some flaws). Copernicus was a Christian and the motive for his scientific inquiries is found in this quote by Copernicus: “So vast, without any question, is the divine handiwork of the Almighty Creator.”‡ My opponents will accuse Christianity of persecuting scientists and men of discovery to protect their priest craft. This whole line of argument has been proved to be nineteenth century propaganda. John Draper wrote a book designed to promote a “warfare” model respecting the relationship between religion and science. David Lindberg has proven the disingenuous character of this propaganda but the secular establishment doesn’t seem to care.

i. Galileo’s Supposed Persecution
Galileo had consulted with Cardinal Bellarmine at the time of his study of the heliocentric theory. Bellarmine was willing to hear him out but was cautious to break this on the Church right away. The change would contradict hundreds of years of teaching and it was not to be taken lightly.

“Bellarmine proposed a solution. Given the inconclusive evidence for the theory and the sensitivity of the religious issues involved, Galileo should not teach or promote heliocentrism. Galileo, a practicing Catholic who wanted to maintain his good standing with the Church, agreed.”[205]

With the reception of Pope Urban VIII, Galileo had hopes that he could now speak at liberty. Urban supported Galileo and had supported Copernicus’ works. Dr. D’Souza records an interesting piece of information about Pope Urban VIII:

“Urban VIII held that while science can make useful measurements and predictions about the universe, it cannot claim to have actual knowledge of reality known only to God.”[206]

Urban was a prototypical Clarkian and demonstrates yet more evidence that our position of epistemology is not as novel as some might want it to appear. I digress.
Galileo got into trouble, not for simply believing the heliocentrism of Copernicus, but for teaching it after specifically agreeing not to at the time. When he published his Dialogue the issue became forefront. He had not told anyone he had agreed not to teach this and when the file that Bellarmine stored in the Church records was found, his case grew more severe. “Contrary to what some atheist propagandists have said, Galileo was never charged with heresy, and he was never placed in a dungeon or tortured in any way.”[207]

ii. Orientation
The scientific revolution of Europe can be summed up by the assertion made by Francis Bacon: “Bacon argued that through the God-given power of discovery man could fulfill the divine mandate to establish dominion over creation and even restore a new kind of Eden.”[208] With the spreading influence of Christianity over the known world and primarily in the West, the idea of man taking dominion over the earth spawned this scientific movement. It is laughable to hear the complaints of atheists who believe scientific invention and religion are at odds with one another. Christianity can boast of the patriarchs of science (Some were even clergy):

“Here is a partial list of leading scientists who were Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestly, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.”[209]

In Lynn White’s article, The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis, the author attempts to prove the harmful effects of the Christian notion of dominion and complains of the impact this idea has had on civilization:

“Ever since man became a numerous species he has
affected his environment notably. The hypothesis that his fire-drive method of hunting created the world's great grasslands and helped to exterminate the monster mammals of the Pleistocene from much of the globe is plausible, if not proved. For 6 millennia at least, the banks of the lower Nile have been a human artifact rather than the swampy African jungle which nature, apart from man, would have made it. The Aswan Dam, flooding 5000 square miles, is only the latest stage in a long process. In many regions terracing or irrigation, overgrazing, the cutting of forests by But it was not until about four generations ago that
Western Europe and North America arranged a marriage between science and technology, a union of the theoretical and the empirical approaches to our natural environment. The emergence in widespread practice of the Baconian creed that scientific knowledge means technological power over nature can scarcely be dated before about 1850, save in the chemical industries, where it is anticipated in the 18th century. Its acceptance as a normal pattern of action may mark the greatest event in human history since the invention of agriculture, and perhaps in nonhuman terrestrial history as well.”

Science is based on the empirical observations in space of primarily matter and motion. Space is rarely defined and is assumed by many to be an axiom or a priori. These observations are used to base universal laws that explain the true nature of reality by the use of induction. To analyze what they believe to be “data”, scientists use mathematics to interpret the observations. Statistics and probability are the primary types of mathematics that are used.

iii. A Mechanistic Model
This model describes the universe and the phenomena of nature according to the laws of physics and chemistry. This view has developed into a primarily atheist philosophy though it was not always the case. Galileo and Bacon believed a mechanistic view of nature. Galileo was especially important as he introduced the element of mathematics in forming these mechanistic laws. Contemporary mechanism emphasizes a world that is completely controlled by the laws of chemistry and physics and denies the concepts of free will and chance. These “absolute laws” have been often exposed as the night fancies of godless men. Dr. Clark says, “Water hardly ever boils at the same temperature. A cubic centimeter of gold hardly ever weighs the same twice.”[210]

iv. A Theistic Model
My theistic opponents think themselves victors after they have pointed out a handful of verses in the Bible that mention the word “see.” They will insist that sensation is requisite for a Biblical worldview, philosophy of science and knowledge. There objections are entirely simplistic. The question is not whether the Bible uses the word “see.” The question is: What does the Bible mean when it uses the word “see?” My opponents consistently beg the question when they object in such a fashion. They must first prove that the Bible is referring to a wave or particle of light (Which most do not understand to begin with) bouncing off a solid object (Which doesn’t exist. Even empirical science shows that the particles that make up matter aren’t even touching.) and entering into another object (The human eye) which interprets it with millions of signals through the millions of cones in the retina (Which would argue for millions of sensations rather than one) and these sensations are sensing objects which are physical (Another assumption in which the theists show their western naturalist conditioning). I believe people see things. The question is: What does it mean to see? The Bible does not say what it means to see and to assume that it means empiricism is beyond naïve. In reference to the laws of science my opponents will quote:

“Gen 8:22 While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease."

I will simply answer that this is a divine decree, not a mechanistic law of science. This says nothing of the physical nature of the earth. This teaches nothing of empirical induction or chemistry or mathematics. This simply gives us a functional model.

However, my theistic opponents want to create a model that gives justified knowledge. In his essay The Role of the Holy Spirit in Alvin Plantiga’s Reformed Epistemology, Dillon Bailey describes Plantiga:

“The next notion to understand is that of an appropriate environment.[211] A warranted belief must be one that is formed and maintained in an epistemically appropriate environment.[212] This appropriate environment referred to in which our cognitive faculties were designed for is called the ‘appropriate maxi-environment.’[213] This environment is made up of things such as light, air, visible objects, regularities in nature, the existence of other people, and other things. This can be thought of as the global environment for which the belief was formed but there is also the exact state of affairs in that global environment in which that belief was formed called the ‘cognitive mini-environment.’[214] This distinction is important because if the maxi-environment is appropriate but the mini-environment might have misleading irregularities that would prevent the believer from having a warranted belief.[215] Warrant requires both an appropriate maxi-environment and a favorable mini-environment.”

As I have stated earlier, Aquinas held to this view.[216] The reason I make this point is to argue that empiricism is the requisite axiom for this type of philosophy. How it could be Reformed is beyond me. Therefore, I refer the reader to my theses against empiricism.
In conclusion, Aristotle believed that all science was teleological, viz., if one does not know the purpose of a thing he does not know that thing. Voltaire criticizes him by suggesting that it is foolish to think a nose was created for the purpose of holding spectacles. How one could believe in the enternity of matter and believe that nature has a purpose is contradictory. Nietzsche pointed this out in his book The Will to Power. If matter is eternal and it had a purpose, it should have reached that purpose by now.

v. A Pragmatic Model (Operationalism)
Operationalism, in brief, refers to a philosophy of science that defines the concepts used in the laboratory as they function in the experiments used in the laboratory and not as they are asserted to reflect the true nature of reality. John Dewey in The Quest for Certainty describes knowledge as a way of operating with the objects of ordinary experience or a “mode of practical action (Pg.407).”

More commentary is given on the definition of Operationalism by Percy Bridgman in The Logic of Modern Physics (1927) “The concept of length is therefore fixed when the operations by which length is measured are fixed: that is, the concept of length involves as much as nothing more than the set of operations by which length is determined. In general, we mean by any concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations (Pg. 5).”

Dr Clark says, “The significance of this theory of the operational definition of concepts should not be missed. Length, mass, electric charge and all the concepts of physics are descriptions of operations performed in laboratories. They are not descriptions of natural objects or physical realities. The laws of physics, the equations embodying the concepts, do not describe how nature goes on. They describe how the physics goes on.”[217] Again, Clark says, “Pragmatism, like every other theory, is not an answer to an enigma; it is an instrument for guiding action. The theory is true if the action is successful.”[218]
It would be good for our critics to realize this distinction. Clarkians use this as well. When we stand as witnesses in a court of law our “seeing” a certain event happen is not infallible, it is pragmatic, it is functional.

vi. Space
The concept of space is one that is notoriously difficult to define. Kant held that space is a priori.‡ Those who hold to empiricism have to do this. Space can never be “sensed” by the empirical means, verified or tested. Our opponents usually change the subject when we bring this up. Geometry, or the science of space has been, traditionally the most useful method to utilize this a priori assumption. Yet, another assumption must be made to use Geometry. The postulate of Geometry is that only one line passes through two distinct points. Yet, an infinite number of lines can pass between these points. The assumption is admitted and the postulate assumed and undemonstrated. How these men think they know the true nature of reality using methods like these is preposterous. Geometry is a branch of mathematics, which has still not been justified by empiricism. The problems seem to never end for empirical science.

Zeno’s Paradox
To be brief, Zeno’s major argument is that in order for Achilles to move from point A to point B he must come at least half the space. If so then he has to come at least a tenth; a hundredth etc. He must pass through an infinite number of points in a finite segment. Motion is impossible and space is indefinable.
A 1/10,000 1/5,000 1/100 1/10 ½ B

Obj.) After ten minutes Zeno will catch the tortoise.
Ans.) “One of the superficial replies simply calculates how far Achilles runs in ten minutes (easily a mile) and how far the tortoise crawls in the same time (hardly a hundred feet). This elementary arithmetic shows that, if the tortoise originally had a lead of two or three hundred feet, Achilles is far ahead of the tortoise. This is superficial, and Zeno does not admit it. Of course, if Achilles could run for ten minutes, he would undoubtedly out-distance our slow but patient friend; but the brilliance of the tortoise in setting the original conditions by which he won the race depends on the fact that Zeno is not prepared to admit that Achilles can run for ten minutes. He is not prepared to admit that Achilles can run at all…Consider a marble rolling across a desk, or, to be very scientific, consider an atom moving from one point to another in space. Before the moving body can reach the terminal point, it must obviously have traversed half of the distance. Surely, the body cannot reach the end before it passes the mid-point. But before it can reach the mid-point, it must have come to the quarter mark. And before this, it must have moved one-eighth of the distance. And one-sixteenth, and so on. The ‘so on, ‘ however, is an infinite series, with the result that the moving body must exhaust an infinite series before it begins to move at all…motion is impossible.”[219]

Obj.) You are wrong because you cannot prove that it is impossible to exhaust an infinite number of points.

Ans.1) Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

"This fallacy consists in the argument that a proposition is true because it hasn't been proven false. To put it differently, it is the argument that a proposition is true because the opposing proposition hasn't been proven true…As a rule, it is the positive claim that puts the ball in play, and the positive claim that carries the initial burden of proof…Nor should you accept the burden of disproving the person's statement; if you do, you are cooperating in an implicit appeal to ignorance. (This is a trap that paranoid people often spring on their listeners: they make an arbitrary claim about a conspiracy against them and then take their claim to be vindicated unless others can disprove it.)"[220]

Ans. 2) "Another superficial attempt to solve the problem depends on balancing off the infinite divisibility of the space against the infinite divisibility of the time...The difficulty of infinite divisibility will prevent the time from starting as effectively as it prevented the motion from starting. To avoid both of these difficulties-they are, as you see, exactly the same difficulty applied twice-Aristotle (Physics, VIII, 8) argued that the moving body does not actually pass through an infinite series of points. Zeno, says Aristotle, treats one point, the mid-point, as two. He takes it as both the end and the beginning of a motion. But this can be so only if the moving body stops at this point and then begins again. If the body is in continuous motion, none of these mid-points is "actualized." The points and the divisions are only potential and do not actually exist. Therefore, although it is impossible to pass through or exhaust an infinite number of actual points, there is no difficulty in passing through an infinite number of potential points.”[221]
Ans.3) “Since Aristotle has said that motion never began and will never end, there seems no good reason to object to an infinite series or to insist on a first mover.”[222]
Obj.) Another objection: "One may protest that since an infinite series does not have a last term, Zeno cannot require the moving body to reach the last term before it starts to move. He cannot erect as a barrier to motion a factor that admittedly does not exist.”[223]

Ans.) “And yet, did Zeno say that it was necessary to reach the last term? Will not his paradox remain if he simply asserts that motion cannot begin so long as there are more terms in the series? This is long enough."[224] vii. Motion
How empiricists who believe in infinite space, define motion is yet another mystery. Of course, the older empiricists (Democritus for example) who were a bit more transparent admitted the problems and took motion as an axiom. Aquinas used motion as the axiom of the Cosmological argument when he stated: “It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.”

“Thomas says, ‘If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must be moved by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity because then there would be no fist mover, and consequently no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover’ But this that is given as a reason against infinite regress (and a refutation of infinite regress essential to the completion of the argument) is itself the conclusion, viz., there must be a first mover. This makes the argument invalid by reason of circularity.”[225]

Newton’s Law
Sir Isaac Newton’s first law of motion is called the law of inertia. The law of inertia defined :“Newton’s law of inertia: ‘Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.”[226]

Arg 1.) Define motion. Clark taught that for a word to have a meaning in empiricism, the object that the word tags must remain unchanged for some time for it to have meaning. Empirical motion requires constant change. Empiricism fails yet again.Arg.2) If sensation is the axiom how is motion deduced form sensation?
The Heraclitean Flux: It has been shown by modern science that atoms are, as it were, mini solar systems with the parts orbiting the nucleus, which, as it were, is a field of energy with a bit of ebb and flow. Heraclitus gives the example of a man stepping into a river and never stepping into the same river again (Due to the constant motion and change). Even the man has changed. Plato gives a similar example in the Timaeus concerning a gold statue of Zeus that was only the sculptor's Zeus but for a moment and then was never to appear again. Clark says, “if everything is changing, nothing exists. Universal change implies universal non-existence. And this implies that the changing is unreal and reality is unchanging."[227] Aristotle objects that "all motion, therefore requires a subject that remains unchanged during the motion."[228] We answer with the Continuous Creation Theory. How do you know that reality is not like a cartoon film, where motion is an illusion of many still images being presented and taken away very quickly. "Motion no doubt, presupposes an unchanged substratum, but how do we know there is such a substratum and how do we know there is motion?”[229] No wonder Democritus said that motion was an indemonstrable axiom. (Democritus did teach that particular motion could be explained but not motion per se). Arg. 3) What is a straight line? A straight line is usually determined by two distinct points, “one of which is the present position of the body in motion. But what about the other point, the so-called fixed point?...Now, if a goal is constantly changing its position in space, a body that is always moving toward it cannot move in a straight line.”[230] There is no such thing as a fixed point in an empirical mechanistic world.

The Law of the Pendulum
The pendulum is a device that suspends an object (Traditionally a bob) from a fixed point. The object is said to move back and forth under the influence of the law of gravity. The principle behind the pendulum is “the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the length.”[231]

Arg. 1) We have already refuted the idea that there is any such thing as a fixed point.

Arg. 2) “If, however, the weight of the bob is unevenly displaced around its center, the law will not hold. The law assumes that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point. No such bob exists, and hence the law is not an accurate description of any tangible pendulum. Second, the law assumes that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string. There is no such string, so that the scientific law does not describe any real pendulum. And third, the law could be true only if the pendulum swung on an axis without friction. There is no such axis. It follows, therefore, that no visible pendulum accords with the mathematical formula and that the formula is not a description of any existing pendulum.”[232]

Arg. 3) Define gravity. “The general law of gravitation is that any two particles attract each other in proportion to the product of their masses and inversely the square of the distance.”[233] What exactly does attraction mean in the definition of gravity? Does attraction really mean causality? Causality works from the future to the present or past not from the past to the future. The goal or effect is determined then the causes are planned. But what makes the object fall? Gravity is not an answer for this explains only how it falls not why and what.

viii. Matter
What is the substance that makes up our reality? Is reality physical? What is a solid? How does one individuate one material thing from another? I will, in summary form, present two views that flesh out possibly the most profound aspects of philosophy and in the author’s opinion, the most devastating argument to empirical atomism. The idea that the word is made up of solids is a strange idea after the empiricists even admit that the particles that make up atoms aren’t even touching. One scientist was baffled by the action of picking up one end of a pencil and the other end coming with it. It is inexplicable. This will not be a new debate. If anyone has taken it upon themselves to understand the difference between Plato and Aristotle, they will rewarded; Not simply as a philosopher who is invited to the king’s palace, but one who is secretly invited into his parlor and house of wine.

Clark’s ontology (Some prefer the term metaphysics, I do) is propositional. On this view, a tree is a set of propositions. We may not know exhaustively the set of propositions, but we have a metaphysic. Clark's opponents are quick to complain that we Clarkians are unfair when we demand a definition of the objects under discussion (Notice I did not say all terminology, but alleged individual "sense" objects). They quickly leave the conversation thinking we are saying one has to exhaustively know an object to speak about it; Not at all. What we are simply asking for is the opponent’s metaphysic; That's all. Clark uses the "infima species" technique to individuate.

What are visible objects? Are they the qualities, the substance or what? When I “see” a tree in my neighbor’s yard and in mine, how do I individuate between them? Is this two trees or one? If we remove the qualities and individuate between the two specimen of matter, then I cannot tell the difference between a tree and a light post, which is also matter. The definition is the same for supposedly two different things.(If the reader would like references where he can find our uses of Aristotle on this issue, you can refer to Clark Speaks From the Grave (1986 The Trinity Foundation) by Dr. Clark with some help by Dr. Robbins. You can read pages 64-66 to get all of the exact page references: Metaphysics 999 b 1ff., 1017 b 10ff., 1038 b 9,10., 1042 a 21., 1053 b 17., 1058 a 38b-9., Categoriae, 2 a 11.)

Clark speaks of Aristotle’s matter and form as being potentiality, actuality, agent and patient. The patient is the “unqualified matter”[234] The agent is the form or the “informing reason inherent in the matter…“the divine being or God”[235]. In materialism only bodies are real; That is things that occupy space. Even fire and air have been regarded as such things and have been regarded as atomic. Magnetic fields are a bit more difficult to class. “Water in a certain sense is ice and is steam: It is not actually ice and actually steam, but it is potentially the one and the other.”[236] Matter in itself is only potential. Aristotle would say that the form of something is what it is: “the form would be whatever the statue was. Zeus for example, or a satyr. The other examples, however, show that form is not so much the physical shape of an object, as it is the essence or definition of the object. It is what the object really is…The form of the tree is the kind of tree it is- a form imposed on its matter.”[237] To give an example: “From Locke we gain the impression that the same set of qualities may possibly exist in two numerically distinct substances. Two books or two stones could have precisely the same color, shape, odor, and so on; they would be two things because there were two substances…Locke goes so far as to say, ‘By the complex idea of extended, figured, colored, and all other sensible qualities, which is all that we know of it, we are as far from the idea of the substance of body, as if we knew nothing at all.”[238] “It is even a matter of dispute whether the real world, the atoms, can be hard, for hard seems to be a quality too, rather than a geometrical dimension.”[239] Can empiricism give us a straight answer on what reality is and how sensation relates? I think not. Earlier we saw how Chemistry has taught empiricism that things are not sensations, they are chemical formulas. “Water is not wet or liquid; water is H20.”[240] Galileo has similar problems:

“Galileo considered the phenomenon of heat. The ordinary opinion, in his day and today, was that heat is a real quality actually residing in the thing that we say is hot. But, as Galileo thought over the constitution of body or matter, he came to the conclusion that matter in its own nature is possessed of size and shape; in relation to other bodies a piece of matter may be large or small; it may mover or remain at rest; it touches or it does not touch another body. These characteristics are absolutely inseparable from body. ; we cannot detach them physically, nor can we even think them detached. The status of the secondary qualities, however, is quite otherwise. If we were beings of pure reason and did not possess senses, we probably would have never had any idea of such qualities. Instead of being actually in the bodies, red and sweet and hot are merely reactions that occur in the mind of a sensitive organism. Were sensation abolished, red and hot would no longer appear anywhere. A striking illustration of this viewpoint is Galileo’s experiment with a feather. Suppose a feather moves, it has a size and a shape, and we touch it. But if it is brushed on the upper lip just under the nostrils, it tickles. Brush it on the back of the fingers, it does not tickle. Now, says Galileo, this tickling is all in us, and not in the feather; and if the animate and sensitive body be removed (and the feather be brushed over a marble statue) the tickling no longer exists. The same is true for tastes, colors, odors, and sounds.”[241]

ix. The Ideas
The ideas are heavenly forms of categorical realities: Man-ness, Beauty, Good etc. The main issue here deals with individuation. Is something its substance or its qualities? A group has common qualities: Men (Americans, Germans, and Africans etc.), Horses (Clydesdale, thoroughbred, etc.). These classes of things such as vertebrate, invertebrate, or crustaceans are unreal to the empiricist because he rejects the Platonic Ideas which affirm classes of things. To the empiricist there can be no human vertebrate. There can only be George and Henry and Sherman etc. Individual realities are all that an empiricist can claim to know about because that is all he can claim to see. He has never seen the object wherein the word “vertebrate” tags. So what is the advantage with the Ideas?

“A single body cannot be in several places at once, but any number of men throughout the world can have the same thought at the same time; and if, as is surely the case, the Ideas are more of the nature of thought than of body, the objection is convicted of a false analogy.”[242]

The advantage of an Idea is that it can provide common ground for human thought. My sensation is never yours, but when can both think the same thought i.e. an isosceles triangle has three sides of equal length.
Criminology operates on the doctrine of infima species. When a detective discovers a fingerprint, the print is analyzed and is individuated to identify the criminal. The process is a process of elimination wherein the qualities of the fingerprint eliminate the possibility of the criminal being someone else. The Ideas operate on similar principles. An object is an individual because it has or is a complex of qualities which no other individual has. On a rationalistic worldview (Borrowing from Plato’s Ideas) things are their definition. On a materialistic worldview things are their substance. George, the author, is a set of propositions. Predicating “infinite” of God is a way to individuate him from other things by infima species.

“Parmenides, ‘a very brilliant man will be able to understand that there is a genus for each thing and an absolute reality per se…But if anyone denies the existence of Ideas of things, because of the objections above and similar ones, and refuses to posit a Form for each individual thing, he will not know how to conduct his thought, for he has denied that an Idea of each reality is always the same, and thus he completely destroys the possibility of argumentation.”[243]

The Ideas can be understood as the first world or the original and this realm that we live in, is the second.

Obj.) Why then do your confessions speak of God’s substance if you believe in no such thing?
Ans.) When Christians speak of God’s substance we are referring to His essence. God is his attributes.

Obj.) How do we explain what a body is as distinguished from a spirit if we do not believe in a corporeal reality?
Ans.) A person with a body predicates the qualities of human, mortal, and finite. A spirit cannot have these predicated of him.

x. Mathematics
In empirical mathematics when one uses a numeral such as 1 or 2 do these units reflect nature and reality? Can these be units of anything? Are the units distinguished from each other as water is distinguished from acid? It appears not. “Two pints of water and three pints of sulfuric acid do not make five pints.”[244]

“Teachers of small children may think that ‘two and two are four’ is taught by playing with marbles. Does not the teacher show the pupil how two marbles and two marbles make four marbles? Roll them together into a corner and see that there are four marbles. Then, after this is done with different colored marbles, and different sized marbles, and with pencils and erasers, the child generalizes or abstracts from his experience that truth that two and two are four. However, this explanation of the learning process seems to be unsatisfactory. In the first place, the child would have to recognize one marble before he could count two of them. Where did the concept of a unit come from? From the marble also? But would not the pupil have to have the concept of a unit before he recognized a marble as one? If he did not know one he could not count one. He has to know the numbers in order to count. And in the second place, this consideration holds for four as well as for one. He must know four before he can count four marbles. Perhaps this can more clearly be seen if large numbers are used. Let the teacher try to teach the young child that 356 marbles and 791 marbles are 1147 marbles. Everyone has heard children say their numbers: one, two, three. four, seven, sixteen, five, twenty-one, sintillion. The young child who so counts cannot learn the example by counting marbles because he cannot count numbers. He can count marbles only after he can count numbers. And since numbers are not marbles or anything else sensory, it follows that arithmetic is not abstracted from experience. So much for mathematics.”[245]

Einstein said: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Why then do scientists think they can develop laws of nature with mathematics?

xi. Induction
Induction, as it functions in logic and helps develop scientific laws, refers to a process of observing an object or event and drawing a universal conclusion that has yet to be observed. We believe that all induction is a formal fallacy. However, we function as if it is useful in certain situations. This is not a novel position. Others have espoused this operational model: John Dewey (The Quest for Certainty, and Knowing and the Known), William James (Pragmatism in Focus), and Bertrand Russell, though not technically a pragmatist (Limitations of Scientific Method). Clark also suggests Reliable Knowledge by Harold A. Larrabee.

Louis Pasteur, a chemist and microbiologist in the 1800s espoused a germ theory of disease that in turn cured many cases of anthrax and rabies. The same could be said of milk fever. This problem was at first cured in cows by an injection of antiseptic into the cow’s udder. Later an injection of distilled water and compressed air alone (which was included in the prior injection) cured the milk fever. These theories later proved false. BUT THEY WORKED. Today, milk fever is treated by a calcium injection. What's the point? Medical theories based on empirical methods thankfully work many times. Unfortunately, they are never true. The probability of these theories being true is answered by Karl Popper: “It can even be shown that all theories, including the best have the same probability, namely zero” (Conjectures and Refutations, p 192). There are infinite possible reasons why these theories work from time to time. Your probability therefore is represented by the fraction one/infinity; That equals zero.

“All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: 'If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.' If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” The Scientific Outlook By Bertrand Russell (Publisher: Routledge; New edition (July 18, 2001)

The logical fallacy of induction again in formal form:

“The given hypothesis implies certain definite results; the experiment actually gives these results; therefore, the hypothesis is verified and can be called a law. Obviously, this argument is the fallacy of asserting the consequent; and since all verification must commit this fallacy, it follows that no law or hypothesis can ever be logically demonstrated.”[246]

In common speech the problem goes something like this: When it is raining outside the streets will be wet; The streets are wet, therefore it is raining outside. This is a fallacy.

Knack and knowledge
In a technical sense I do not even know that the milk fever experiment worked out or even happened. The example of the milk fever I gave earlier is a bit of an ad hominem. How do I know induction is useful? Ans. I don't. This is a colloquial functional definition. I reject the term as being true. I am simply giving the traditional definition used by empirical circles and showing I think it is a fallacy. I have no burden of proof to show how I know something I don't believe in.
My opponents will object that probability is not the question (Which is technically- false. This is the exact branch of mathematics employed in the scientific method but we’ll play) by plausibility.

Plausibility
A process of elimination made to determine the number of cases worthy of test and experimentation. David Kelley gives the example of a usually tight fisted business-man taking a cruise. In determining what has caused this man to take a cruise we should rule out “absurd” possible causes such as cosmic rays altering his consciousness etc. Kelley states that the only way to “derive a consequence from a hypothesis” is only “in conjunction with some additional auxiliary assumptions.”[247] An example of an auxiliary assumption would be something like assuming no other force is acting on an object when it is released and made subject to gravity. The hypothesis that it will fall to the ground assumes this. In determining the standards that make a hypothesis worthy of testing two fundamental standards are stated: “Other things being equal, one hypothesis is more plausible than another if it is more consistent with the rest of our knowledge and if it is simpler.”[248]“A hypothesis that conflicts with established principles and theories must meet a higher standard of evidence than a hypothesis that does not conflict.”[249]

Obj.) “It’s logically possible that aliens will swoop down and take me away should I leave though my front door tomorrow. But offering a mere logical possibility in no way suggests I must re-consider my plans and leave through the back door tomorrow. Unless, of course, someone can make a PLAUSIBLE case that the aliens will show up tomorrow, it remains the rational decision to carry on leaving to work through my front door.”

“Epistemologically, following logical possibilities down rabbit holes gets us nowhere. We could speculate endless logical possibilities. The question needs to be "What makes the most sense of our experience?"
Ans.) My opponents base their plausibility on experience. They will not answer me when I ask them if they have ever not had an experience. Without distinctions there is no meaning to the word. I gave my definition of probability that proves following logical possibilities gets us to the place where we realize our assumption is zero percent probable. Plausibility argues for mere pragmatism, not mechanism.

Refuting Scriptural Arguments For Induction
Mat 16:2 But He replied to them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.'
Mat 16:3 "And in the morning, 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times?
Ans.) Some would bring attention to verse 2 where Jesus apparently says people can know something by a finite experience. The problem comes from verse 1 where Christ identifies the argument as Ad Hominem. The context of these exchanges are primarily Jesus taking what these men say and turning it on them, twisting them in it and sometimes saying something so subtle that he actually says nothing so cleverly that it baffles them.Mat 24:32"Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; Ans.) Jesus is using the word "know" in the sense of "expectation." Jesus uses the word in numerous senses and numerous different words in the Greek. Words are defined by their use in context. Words are arbitrary symbols that tag thoughts defined in their context. The proverbs speak about not knowing what a day may bring forth. This assumption may come from revelation:
“Gen 8:22 While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease."

In addition I would like to speak to the context. He is relating the "seeing" of the fig tree and its leaves to the Apocalyptic imagery in the previous verses. These verses for the most part are coming from Isaiah and are not literal physical objects for the physical "sight." These phrases are used in Isaiah 11,13,34,19 to refer to God's displeasure and judgment falling on a people by the means of armies and political powers. Again, just because someone reads Jesus using the word "know" it does mean that he is supporting induction. Jesus says : Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' What he is referring to here is that the sinner never came into an intimate relationship with them through faith in his shed blood. Jesus knows everything about this person in the academic demonstration sense.Examples of Christ in Conversation with the Pharisees using the Ad Hominem:Joh 8:17 "Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true.
Joh 8:18 "I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me."

Mat 23:16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.' Mat 23:17 "You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? Mat 23:18 "And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.' Mat 23:19 "You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering?
Mat 23:30 And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! Mark 7:11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." Mar 2:16 When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, "Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?"
Mar 2:17 And hearing this, Jesus *said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
John 9:40Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" 41Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
To take the context of these discourses as declarative and not ad hominem proves too much. Jesus' point here is that these Pharisees say they are spiritually healthy but he comes to save those who will admit their sinfulness. My opponents if I take them to be consistent have to say they believe the Pharisees to be spiritually healthy.

VII. Concluding Criticism and Exhortation

“At best scientific law is a construction rather than a discovery, and the construction depends on factors never seen under a microscope, never weighed in a balance, never handled or manipulated.”[250] It is evident from the history of this movement that one scientist’s sensation is never the next scientist’s sensation and has been the cause for numerous experiences in the past. “But it is startling only to those who know little about the history of science. The theory of heat, the existence of the ether, the propagation of light, and especially atomism, are all examples of the rejection of one set of scientific laws and their replacement by a different set.”[251]

The reader should adopt operationalism for the purpose of dominion. I will leave my opponents with this quote by Einstein:

"The conversation drifted back and forth from profundities about the nature of God, the universe, and man to questions of a lighter and more vivacious nature...Suddenly [Einstein] lifted his head, looked upward at the clear skies, and said: 'We know nothing about it all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren'....'Do you think,' I asked, 'that we shall ever probe the secret?'...'Possibly,' he said with a movement of his shoulders, 'we shall know a little more than we do now. But the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never" (Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon Books, 1971, pg 504, by Ronald W. Clark) The context is a conversation between Einstein and Dr. Chaim Tschernowitz.

As the smoke clears and the dust settles, what is left of the human methods of knowledge? The Greeks were vindicated amongst the non-Christian groups and the saints relieved of burden. When will men turn from the vanity of their imaginations? When will they stop suppressing the truth in unrighteousness? We wait for that day when even Egypt will swear allegiance to Yahweh (Isaiah 19:18). We have a reason to hope. The naturalists keep grasping for a reason not to kill themselves today. Fair reader, seek good company.

Finis
Postscript
I have not dealt with all the issues I wanted to in this book. I will finish this book in about ten years or so. I will be commenting on the issues of assurance, time, natural theology, the transcendental argument, the relationship between general and special revelation, the scientific method, quantum physics, mathematics and its relationship to Christianity, history, light, historicism and how Clarkianism relates to eschatology in general.

Bibliography

Reference Works:

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Home Library: E-Sword
John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries. Edited by The Rev. John Owen. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999
Home Library
John Calvin, Calvin’s Institutes
Home Library: E-Sword
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2004. “esp, linguistics, language, science, heat, Copernicus, Galileo, ether, mechanics, induction, Newton, inertia, natural theology, atomism, matter, space, motion, fission, atom, Geometry, Western philosophy”
Home Library
Noah Webster. “nether”, “perceive” Dictionary of American English, 1828
Home Library

Monographs:
William Cunningham, D.D., Theological Lectures. New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1878
Home Library
Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy. Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989
Home Library
Gordon H. Clark, Religion, A Christian View of Men And Things. Unicoi, Tennesse. The Trinity Foundation, 1952, 1980, Fourth edition 2005
Home Library
Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy. Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989
Home Library
Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey. Unicoi, Tennessee: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000
Home Library
Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing CO, 1961
Home Library
Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God. Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987
Home Library
David Kelley, The Art of Reasoning. New York, N.Y: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1998
Home Library
Gordon H. Clark, Clark Speaks From The Grave. Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1986
Home Library
Gordon H. Clark. Behaviorism and Christianity. Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1982
Home Library
Ronald H. Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks, Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1992, Second Edition 2003
Home Library
Gunter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967
Home Library
John Owen, The Works of John Owen. Murrayfield Rd, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974, 1977, 1987, Fifth Printing 1991
Home Library
Samuel Rutherford, Rutherford Against Separatism Part One. Naphtali Press, I:\Against Separatism Part 1, by Samuel Rutherfurd.mht (accessed February 23, 2009)
Home Library
Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor. Edinburgh EH12 6EL, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974
Home Library
Gordon H. Clark, Language and Theology. Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity Foundation, 1993
Home Library
Gordon H. Clark, Festchrift, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968
Home Library
George Gellespie, A Treatise of Miscellany Questions. Edinburgh, Scotland: Gedeon Lithgov, Printer to the University of Edinburgh, 1649
Home Library
Paul Helm, Faith and Understanding. George Square, Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press, 1997
Home Library
Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1998
Home Library
Owen Ginger, God’s Universe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006
Home Library
Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, INC., 2007
Home Library
Dillon Bailey, The Role of the Holy Spirit in Alvin Plantiga’s Reformed Epistemology
Home Library
Phillip G. Kayser, PhD,“Has God Indeed Said?”
Home Library
Stewart Custer, The Truth About The King James Version Controversy,Greenville, Sc:Bob Jones University Presss, 1981
Home Library
Edited by James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, God’s Word In Our Hands, Greenville, Sc: Ambassador Emerlad Inernational, 2003
Home Library
Bertrand Russell The Scientific Outlook. Routledge; New edition, July 18, 2001
Google Books
Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times. Avon Books, 1971
Google Books

Articles:
Richard Barcellos. “John Owen and New Covenant Theology.” Reformed Baptist Theological Review Volume I No. 2 2004, p 33.
Home Library
Gordon Clark. “God and Logic” The Trinity Review, November, December, 1980
Home Library
Lynn White, The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis
Home Library

Online References:
I. A Free Disputation, Reformed Perspectives Magazine, March 4 to March 10, 2007, Volume 9, Number 10.
By Reformed Perspectives Magazine
G:\sam_rutherford_FreeDisputation.htm
November 25, 2008
Home Library

II. BIBLICAL RATIONALISM vs. PSYCHO ASSERTIONISM
by Vincent Cheung and Derek
vincentcheung.com/files/html/sansone-cheung.htm
06/01/2009
Home Library

III. The 4 Primary Arguments for God's Existence
By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
I:\Natural theology.mht
7/15/2009
Home Library

Chapter in Multi-Author Volume:
F.H. Scrivener, “The Translators to the Reader” in The Holy Bible, King James Version . Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, Originally published in 1611, The text is taken from Scrivener’s 1873 edition in his Cambridge Paragraph Bible
Home Library

[1] William Cunningham, D.D., Theological Lectures (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1878), 475
[2] Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989), 6
[3] Ibid., 7
[4] Ibid., 16
[5] Ibid., 16
[6] Ibid., 121
[7] Gordon H. Clark, Religion, A Christian View of Men And Things (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1952, 1980, Fourth edition 2005), 226
[8] Ibid., 29
[9] Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989), 60
[10] Ibid., 33, 34
[11]Ibid., 53
[12] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 78
[13] Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing CO, 1961) 36
[14] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 43
[15] Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989),51
[16] Ibid., 78-79
[17] Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing CO, 1961) 79
[18] Gordon H. Clark, Religion, A Christian View of Men And Things (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1952, 1980, Fourth edition 2005), 202
[19] Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987), 3-4
[20] Ibid., 4-5
[21] David Kelley, The Art of Reasoning (New York, N.Y: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1998), 151
[22] Ibid., 152
[23] Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987), 5
[24] Ibid., 10
[25] Ibid., 10
[26] BIBLICAL RATIONALISM vs. PSYCHO ASSERTIONISM, by Vincent Cheung and Derek Sansone (www.vincentcheung.com/files/html/sansone-cheung.htm)
[27]Gordon H. Clark, Clark Speaks From The Grave (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1986), 23

† Gordon H. Clark, Clark Speaks From The Grave (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1986), 23

[28] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 299
[29] Gordon H. Clark, Behaviorism and Christianity (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1982), 10
[30] Ibid., 15
[31] Ibid., 23
[32] Ibid., 24
[33] Ibid., 49
[34] Ibid., 15
[35] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 376
‡ Ronald H. Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks, Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1992, Second Edition 2003)
[36] Ibid., 112
[37] Ibid., 117
[38] Ibid., 128; Gunter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967), 261
[39] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 153
[40] Ibid., 159
[41] John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Murrayfield Rd, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974, 1977, 1987, Fifth Printing 1991), 7
[42] Samuel Rutherford, “A Free Disputation” Reformed Perspectives Magazine, March 4 to March 10, 2007, Volume 9, Number 10. G:\sam_rutherford_FreeDisputation.htm (accessed November 25, 2008).
[43] Ibid., 95
[44] Ibid., 20
[45] Ibid., 21
[46] Ibid., 34
[47] Ibid., 20, 21
[48] Ibid., 37
[49] Ibid., 30
[50] Ibid., 88
[51] Calvin’s Inst. 4.8.12 “I am aware it is usual here to object, that Christ has cleansed the Church “with the washing of water by the word: that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle” (Eph_5:26, Eph_5:27), and that it is therefore called the “pillar and ground of the truth” ( 1Ti_3:15). But the former passage rather shows what Christ daily performs in it, than what he has already perfected. For if he daily sanctifies all his people, purifies, refines them, and wipes away their stains, it is certain that they have still some spots and wrinkles, and that their sanctification is in some measure defective. How vain and fabulous is it to suppose that the Church, all whose members are somewhat spotted and impure, is completely holy and spotless in every part? It is true, therefore, that the Church is sanctified by Christ, but here the commencement of her sanctification only is seen; the end and entire completion will be effected when Christ, the Holy of holies, shall truly and completely fill her with his holiness. It is true also, that her stains and wrinkles have been effaced, but so that the process is continued every day, until Christ at his advent will entirely remove every remaining defect. For unless we admit this we shall be constrained to hold with the Pelagians, that the righteousness of believers is perfected in this life: like the Cathari and Donatists we shall tolerate no infirmity in the Church.”

[52] Free Disputation, 25
[53] Ibid., 64
[54] Ibid., 202 “The Assumption is clear, because Libertines suppose that the sense of Scripture can be undeniably known to none”
[55] Ibid., 209
[56] Ibid., 202
[57] Ibid., 198
[58] Ibid., 202
[59] Ibid., 96
[60] Ibid., 96
[61] Ibid., 28
[62] Ibid., 68
[63] Free Disputation., 95
[64] Ibid., 60
[65] Ibid., 68
[66] Ibid., 69
[67] Ibid., 186
[68] Free Disputation, 56.
[69]Ibid., 55
[70] “The Judaizers here alluded to, while maintaining the perpetual obligation of the Mosaic law, joined with it a theosophic ascetic tendency, pretending to see in it mysteries deeper than others could see. The seeds, not the full-grown Gnosticism of the post-apostolic age, then existed. This formed the transition stage between Judaism and Gnosticism.” Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (1 Tim 1:4)
“We must now see what he means by the word heretic. There is a common and well-known distinction between a heretic and a schismatic. But here in my opinion, Paul disregards that distinction: for, by the term “heretic” he describes not only those who cherish and defend an erroneous or perverse doctrine, but in general all who do not yield assent to the sound doctrine which he laid down a little before. Thus under this name he includes all ambitious, unruly, contentious persons, who, led away by sinful passions, disturb the peace of the Church, and raise disputings. In short, every person who, by his overweening pride, breaks up the unity of the Church, is pronounced by Paul to be a “heretic.” Calvin’s Commentary on Titus 3:10

[71] Ibid., 60
[72] Ibid., 224
[73] Ibid., 225
[74] Ibid., 48
[75] Ibid., 212
[76] Ibid., 212
[77] Ibid., 59
[78] Ibid., 58
[79] Ibid., 25
[80] Ibid., 64
[81] Ibid., 60, 61
[82] Ibid., 51
[83] Ibid., 59
[84] William Cunningham, D.D., Theological Lectures (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1878), 501

[85] Samuel Rutherford, “Rutherford Against Separatism Part One” Naphtali Press, I:\Against Separatism Part 1, by Samuel Rutherfurd.mht (accessed February 23, 2009), 3
[86] Ibid., 3
[87] Ibid., 4
[88] Ibid., 4
[89] Ibid., 5
[90] Ibid., 5
[91] William Cunningham, D.D., Theological Lectures (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1878), 501

[92] Samuel Rutherford, “Rutherford Against Separatism Part One” Naphtali Press, I:\Against Separatism Part 1, by Samuel Rutherfurd.mht (accessed February 23, 2009), 5
[93] Ibid., 8
[94] Ibid., 8,9
[95] Ibid., 12
[96] Ibid., 16
[97] Samuel Rutherford, “Rutherford Against Separatism Part Three” Naphtali Press, I:\Against Separatism Part 1, by Samuel Rutherfurd.mht (accessed February 23, 2009), 11
[98] Samuel Rutherford, “Rutherford Against Separatism Part Four” Naphtali Press, I:\Against Separatism Part 1, by Samuel Rutherfurd.mht (accessed February 23, 2009), 7
[99] Ibid., 226
[100] Ibid., 226
[101] Ibid., 8
[102] Free Disputation., 32
[103] Ibid., 32
[104] Ibid., 81
[105] Ibid., 82
[106] Ibid., 66
[107] Ibid., 52, 53
[108] Ibid., 56
[109] Ibid., 56
[110] Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor, (Edinburgh EH12 6EL, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 162, 163
[111] Free Disputation, 29, 30
[112] Ibid., 49, 50
[113] Ibid., 68
[114] Ibid., 67
[115] Ibid., 67
[116] Samuel Rutherford, “Rutherford Against Separatism Part One” Naphtali Press, I:\Against Separatism Part 1, by Samuel Rutherfurd.mht (accessed February 23, 2009).

[117] Free Disputation, 68
[118] Ibid., 84
[119] Ibid., 3
[120] Ibid., 211
[121] Ibid., 57, 58
[122] Ibid., 212
[123] Ibid., 212
[124] Ibid., 59
[125] Ibid., 58
[126] Ibid., 32
[127] Ibid., 51
[128] Ibid., 76
[129] Ibid., 209
[130] Ibid., 209
[131] Ibid., 208
[132] Ibid., 211
[133] Ibid., 3
[134] Ibid., 55
[135] Ibid., 56
[136] Ibid., 227
[137] Ibid., 225
[138] Reformed Pastor, 98
[139] Ibid., 112
[140] Ibid., 201
[141] Ibid., 152
[142] Ibid., 97
[143] Ibid., 64
[144] Ibid., 57
[145] Free Disputation, 68
[146] Calvin Inst. 4.1.9. Hence the form of the Church appears and stands forth conspicuous to our view. Wherever we see the word of God sincerely (purely) preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mat_18:20).

Calvin Inst 4.1.12 Nay, even in the administration of word and Sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from its communion. For all the heads of true doctrine are not in the same position. Some are so necessary to be known, that all must hold them to be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends on the mercy of God, and the like. Others, again, which are the subject of controversy among the Churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith ; for why should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between Churches, if one, without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatising, hold that the soul on quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to speak positively as to the abode, holds it for certain that it lives with the Lord? The words of the apostle are, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you” (Phi_3:15). Does he not sufficiently intimate that a difference of opinion as to these matters which are not absolutely necessary, ought not to be a ground of dissension among Christians? The best thing, indeed, is to be perfectly agreed, but seeing there is no man who is not involved in some mist of ignorance, we must either have no Church at all or pardon delusion in those things of which one may be ignorant, without violating the substance of religion and forfeiting salvation. Here, however, I have no wish to patronise even the minutest errors, as if I thought it right to foster them by flattery or connivance; what I say is, that we are not on account of every minute difference to abandon a Church, provided it retain sound and unimpaired that doctrine in which the safety of piety consists, and keep the use of the sacraments instituted by the Lord. Meanwhile, if we strive to reform what is offensive, we act in the discharge of duty. To this effect are the words of Paul, “If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace” (1Co_14:30). From this it is evident that to each member of the Church, according to his measure of grace, the study of public edification has been assigned, provided it be done decently and in order. In other words, we must neither renounce the communion of the Church, nor, continuing in it, disturb peace and discipline when duly arranged.
Calvin Inst 4.2.1 Again, if the true Church is the pillar and ground of the truth” (1Ti_3:15),it is certain that there is no Church where lying and falsehood have usurped the ascendancy.

Calv Inst. 4.2.9 Under the ordinance of Jeroboam, circumcision remained, sacrifices were offered, the law was deemed holy, and the God whom they had received from their fathers was worshipped; but in consequence of invented and forbidden modes of worship, everything which was done there God disapproved and condemned. Show me one prophet or pious man who once worshipped or offered sacrifice in Bethel. They knew that they could not do it without defiling themselves with some kind of sacrilege. We hold, therefore, that the communion of the Church ought not to be carried so far by the godly as to lay them under a necessity of following it when it has degenerated to profane and polluted rites.

† Gordon H. Clark, Language and Theology (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity Foundation, 1993), 149 ;Festchrift, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 92, 410, 486
[147] F.H. Scrivener, The Translators to the Reader in the The Holy Bible, King James Version (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, Originally published in 1611, The text is taken from Scrivener’s 1873 edition in his Cambridge Paragraph Bible) ,xvii
[148] F.H. Scrivener, The Translators to the Reader in the The Holy Bible, King James Version (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, Originally published in 1611, The text is taken from Scrivener’s 1873 edition in his Cambridge Paragraph Bible) ,xvi

[149] Ibid., xxi
[150] Ibid., xxi
[151] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 88

[152] George Gellespie, A Treatise of Miscellany Questions (Edinnurgh, Scotland: Gedeon Lithgov, Printer to the University of Edinburgh, 1649)
[153] Clark, Gordon. “God and Logic.” The Trinity Review, November, December, 1980.

[154] George Gellespie, A Treatise of Miscellany Questions (Edinnurgh, Scotland: Gedeon Lithgov, Printer to the University of Edinburgh, 1649), 242
[155] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

[156] David Kelley, The Art of Reasoning Third Edition (New York.: W.W. Norton and Company, 1998), 292
[157] David Kelley, The Art of Reasoning Third Edition (New York.: W.W. Norton and Company, 1998), 567
[158] Ibid., 568
[159] Ibid., 586
[160] Ibid., 570
[161] Ibid., 571
[162] Paul Helm, Faith and Understanding (George Square, Edinburgh.: Edinburgh University Press, This onbjections is simply not true. An internal critique is the best way to criticize our views.1997) 18
[163] Samuel Rutherford, “A Free Disputation” Reformed Perspectives Magazine, March 4 to March 10, 2007, Volume 9, Number 10. G:\sam_rutherford_FreeDisputation.htm (accessed November 25, 2008)
[164] Barcellos, Richard. “John Owen and New Covenant Theology.” Reformed Baptist Theological Review Volume I No. 2 2004, p 33.

[165] Institutes 2.8.1
[166] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 320

[167] Gordon H. Clark, Clark Speaks From The Grave (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1986), 20

[168] Ibid., 225
[169] Ibid., 225
[170] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1998), 73
[171] Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989),8
[172] Ibid., 121
[173] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1998), 671, 672
[174] Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989), 138
[175] Gordon H. Clark, Religion, A Christian View of Men And Things (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1952, 1980, Fourth edition 2005), 165
[176] Ibid., 165
[177] Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989), 139
[178] Institutes, 1.11.7
[179] Institutes, 1.1.2
‡ Gordon H. Clark, Language and Theology (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity Foundation, 1993), 132
[180] Gordon H. Clark, Language and Theology (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity Foundation, 1993), 132
[181] Ibid., 132
[182] Ibid., 131-143
[183] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 376
[184] Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989), 97
[185] Ibid., 97-98
[186] Gordon H. Clark, Clark Speaks From The Grave (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1986), 57

[187] Gordon H. Clark, Language and Theology (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity Foundation, 1993), 86

[188] Ibid., 152
[189] Ibid., 86
[190] Ibid., 89
[191] Ibid., 65
[192] Ibid., 51
[193] Ibid., 51
[194] Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989), 78-79
[195] Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989),79
[196] Gordon H. Clark, Language and Theology (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity Foundation, 1993), 131-143
[197] Ibid., 143
[198] BIBLICAL RATIONALISM vs. PSYCHO ASSERTIONISM, by Vincent Cheung and Derek Sansone (www.vincentcheung.com/files/html/sansone-cheung.htm)
[199] Gordon H. Clark, Language and Theology (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity Foundation, 1993), 100-101
[200] Ibid., 126
[201] Ibid., 152
[202] Ibid., 142
[203] Ibid., 152
[204] Ibid., 152
‡ Owen Ginger, God’s Universe(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), 9
[205] Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, INC., 2007), 107
[206] Ibid., 108
[207] Ibid., 110
[208] Ibid., 95
[209] Ibid., 97
[210] Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987), 58

[211] Beilby, James. Epistemology as Theology, p. 83.

[212] Plantinga, Alvin. Warrant and Proper Function, p. 7.

[213] Beilby, James. Epistemology as Theology, p. 84.

[214] Ibid.

[215] Beilby worked closely with Plantinga to ensure his characterization of a properly functioning belief was correct and produced an example. He says, “says the inhabitants of southern Wisconsin, in an effort to make themselves look more prosperous, have erected a considerable number of fake barns or barn facades that from a distance are indistinguishable from real barns. While driving along you form the belief: that’s a fine barn! As it turns out, despite the fact that there are three fake barns for every real barn, the barn you see is real. Nevertheless, your belief is not warranted.” p. 84.
[216]Gordon H. Clark, Language and Theology (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity Foundation, 1993), 132

[217] Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987), 78-79
[218] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 390
‡ Ibid., 311

[219] Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987), 3-4
[220] David Kelley, The Art of Reasoning (New York, N.Y: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1998), 151-152
[221] Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987), 5
[222] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 110

[223] Ibid., 5
[224] Ibid., 5
[225] Gordon H. Clark, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989), 62
[226] Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987), 64
[227] Ibid., 9
[228] Ibid., 10
[229] Ibid.
[230] Ibid., 64, 65
[231] Ibid., 57
[232] Ibid., 57
[233] Ibid., 35
[234] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 132
[235] Ibid., 132
[236] Ibid., 93
[237] Ibid., 116
[238] Ibid., 287, 288
[239] Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987), 52
[240] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 43
[241] Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987), 49
[242] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 78
[243] Ibid., 81
[244] Ibid., 299
[245] Gordon H. Clark, Religion, A Christian View of Men And Things (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1952, 1980, Fourth edition 2005), 214-215
[246] Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987), 71
[247] David Kelley, The Art of Reasoning Third Edition (New York.: W.W. Norton and Company, 1998), 567
[248] Ibid., 568
[249] Ibid., 586
[250] Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1964, Second edition 1987), 57
[251] Gordon H. Clark, Clark Speaks From The Grave (Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1986), 33

Vindiciae Pro Praeceptum Divinus

A Vindication of Christian Dogmatism