Revelation about God from Nature – Natural Theology

Coming now to the knowledge that man in Paradise would have of God, we must notice first of all that there man would be able to reason correctly from nature to nature’s God.[1] But the meaning of this fact should be taken in connection with what we have said when discussing the true theistic conception of physics. We may perhaps best bring out what we mean by saying that man could originally reason from nature to nature’s God by contrasting it to what is usually been meant by that statement. In the first place, when men say that we can reason from nature to nature’s God they usually take it for granted that nature as it exists today is normal, and that the human mind which contemplates it is normal. This is not true. Nature has had a veil cast over it on account of the sin of man, and the mind of man itself has been corrupted by sin. Accordingly, we must not, now that sin has entered the world, separate natural theology from theological psychology.[2] After sin has entered the world, no one of himself knows nature aright, and no one knows the soul of man aright. How then could man reason from nature to nature’s God and get anything but a distorted notion of God? The sort of natural theology that the sinner, who does not recognize himself as a sinner, makes is portrayed to us in the first chapter of Romans.

In the second place, when men speak of reasoning from nature to nature’s God, they do not usually recognize the difference between thinking of nature and man as proximate and derivative starting point and thinking of man as an ultimate starting point. It was this point that we sought to bring out under the headings of a Christian conception of physics and a Christian conception of psychology. Then man reasoned from nature to nature’s God in Paradise, he did not begin from nature as from something that was known to him independently of God in order thus to reason to God of whom he did not know. The phrase that we must reason from the known to the unknown[3] is in itself formal and misleading. The question is as to what is known and what is unknown. As Christian theists, we could certainly never allow that the universe was originally known to man before God was known to him. The cosmos-consciousness, the self-consciousness, and the God-consciousness would naturally be simultaneous.[4] To use a phrase that Hocking uses with an idealist meaning instead of a Christian meaning, we may say that the God-consciousness would have to come in at the level of man’s sensation if it was ever to come in at all. Man would at once with the first beginning of his mental activity see the true state of affairs as to the relation of God to the universe as something that was known to him in order afterwards to ascertain whether or not God exists.[5] He would know that God is the Creator of the Universe as soon as he knew anything about the universe itself.[6][7] – CVT, Introduction to Systematic Theology 2nd ed., 133-134

  1. [1]45. To begin the final series, we have revelation about God from nature. (C.1 in the outline), which Van Til calls “natural theology.” For many Reformed people the latter expression is a problem because of its Thomistic implications. Van Til is quite aware of the dangers of “natural law” and the kind of theology that attempts to build an edifice of preliminary truths on nature alone as revealer by means of unaided human reason. But he is quite comfortable asserting that nature is a source of revelation. In the lines that follow, he shows two flaws in what is usually meant by “reasoning from nature’s God”: (1) Because we are fallen, there is a veil cast over nature so that it is not clearly understood. (2) Because we are finite, we are dependent on God as the source of revelation, not on nature as an independent source. – Ed.

    Post author’s note: I disagree with Edgar’s assertion above that natural, or general revelation, is “not clear”, at least in a limited way; Van Til again and again affirms that general revelation is perspicacious. On the other hand, in a limited way, I agree that nature is not as clear as it once was, in a creation unmarred by sin. The issue does not seem to be that nature is unclear, albeit fallen – it seems to be that man’s faculties are faulty, and marred by sin – and that nature, along with man’s intellect, has been made “cloudy”, like water containing particulates that remain insoluble. These noetic effects leave man unable to properly process that revelation, and they instead suppress that truth in unrighteousness. Further, while they know God exists in a general sense, and while natural revelation leaves them without excuse insofar as their actual nature, and responsibility to God for it, they cannot “get there from here” insofar as salvific knowledge and proper understanding of the transcendent God as He truly is, without the transformed mind of a believer regenerated by the power of the Spirit. See the author’s Exposition of Romans 1.16-2.16 within In Antithesis V.1 No. 1, or in the cited volume, pgs. 50ff. for more explanation.

  2. [2]Emphasis in original
  3. [3]Emphasis in original
  4. [4]Emphasis in original
  5. [5]William Ernest Hocking, The Meaning of God in Human Experience: A Philosophic Study of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1912), 154-55, 204, 269, 286, 301-302, passim. -Ed
  6. [6] Emphasis in original
  7. [7]Post author’s note: Notice here that Van Til’s emphasis on an inability to “reason from nature to nature’s God” is one drawn from the necessary consequence of the noetic effects of the fall. This inability is part and parcel with that same man’s inability to keep the law of God, or to worship Him rightly. That is the driving force behind his apologetic, and behind this particular emphasis on man’s inability. It is involved in man’s ethical and intellectual endeavors – in fact, those two are well-nigh inextricable.

Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Cor 1:18-21

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

In this first clause a concession is made. For as it might very readily be objected, that the gospel is commonly held in contempt, if it be presented in so bare and abject a form, Paul of his own accord concedes this, but when he adds, that it is so in the estimation of them that perish, he intimates that no regard must be paid to their judgment. For who would choose to despise the gospel at the expense of perishing? This statement, therefore, must be understood in this way: “However the preaching of the cross, as having nothing of human wisdom to recommend it to esteem, is reckoned foolishness by them that perish; in our view, notwithstanding, the wisdom of God clearly shines forth in it.” He indirectly reproves, however, the perverted judgment of the Corinthians, who, while they were, through seduction of words, too easily allured by ambitious teachers, regarded with disdain an Apostle who was endowed with the power of God for their salvation, and that simply because he devoted himself to the preaching of Christ. In what way the preaching of the cross is the power of God unto salvation, we have explained in commenting upon Romans 1:16

For it is written,

He shows still farther, from the testimony of Isaiah, how unreasonable a thing it is that the truth of the gospel should be regarded with prejudice on the ground that the wise of this world hold it in contempt, not to say derision. For it is evident from the words of the Prophet, that their opinion is regarded as nothing in the account of God. The passage is taken from Isaiah 29:14, where the Lord threatens that he will avenge himself upon the hypocrisy of the people by this kind of punishment, that wisdom will perish from the wise, etc. Now the application of this to the subject in hand is this: “It is nothing new or unusual for men to form utterly absurd judgments, who appear in other respects to be distinguished for wisdom. For in this manner the Lord has been wont to punish the arrogance of those who, depending on their own judgment, think to be leaders to themselves and others. In this manner did He, among the Israelitish people of old, destroy the wisdom of those who were the leaders of the people. If this happened among a people, whose wisdom the other nations had occasion to admire, what will become of others?”

It is proper, however, to compare the words of the Prophet with those of Paul, and to examine the whole matter still more closely. The Prophet, indeed, makes use of neuter verbs when he says, Wisdom will perish and prudence will vanish, while Paul turns them into the active form, by making them have a reference to God. They are, however, perfectly the same in meaning. For this is a great prodigy which God declares he will exhibit, so that all will be filled with astonishment. Wisdom, therefore, perishes, but it is by the Lord’s destroying it: wisdom vanishes, but it is by the Lord’s covering it over and effacing it. As to the second term αθετεῖν, (which Erasmus renders reject,) as it is ambiguous, and is sometimes taken to mean efface, or expunge, or obliterate, I prefer to understand it in this sense here, so as to correspond with the Prophet’s word vanish, or be hid. At the same time, there is another reason that has weighed more with me, [1] — that the word reject was not in accordance with the subject, as will appear ere long. Let us see, then, as to the meaning.

The Prophet’s meaning, without doubt, is precisely this, that they would no longer have governors that would rule well, because the Lord will deprive them of sound judgment and intelligence. For as he elsewhere threatens to send blindness upon the whole nation (Isaiah 6:10,) so here, upon the leaders; which is just as though he were plucking the eyes out of the body. However this may be, a great difficulty arises from the circumstance, that the term wisdom or prudence was taken by Isaiah in a good sense, while Paul quotes it for an opposite purpose, as though the wisdom of men were condemned by God, as being perverted, and their prudence set aside as being mere vanity. I confess that it is commonly expounded in this way; but as it is certain that the oracles of the Holy Spirit are not perverted by the Apostles to meanings foreign to their real design, I choose rather to depart from the common opinion of interpreters than to charge Paul with falsehood. In other respects, too, the natural meaning of the Prophet’s words accords not ill with Paul’s intention; for if even the wisest become fools, when the Lord takes away a right spirit, what confidence is to be placed in the wisdom of men? Farther, as it is God’s usual way of punishing, to strike blind those who, following implicitly their own judgment, are wise in their own esteem, it is not to be wondered if carnal men, when they rise up against God, with the view of subjecting His eternal truth to their rashness, are turned into fools, and become vain in their imaginations. We now see with what appropriateness Paul makes use of this testimony. Isaiah declares that the vengeance of God upon all those that served God with their own inventions would be, that wisdom would vanish from their wise men. Paul, with the view of proving that the wisdom of this world is vain and worthless, when it exalts itself against God, adduces this testimony from Isaiah.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? 

This expression of triumph is added for the purpose of illustrating the Prophet’s testimony. Paul has not taken this sentiment from Isaiah, as is commonly thought, but speaks in his own person. For the passage which they point to (Isaiah 33:18) has nothing corresponding to the subject in hand, or nearly approaching to it. For in that passage, while he promises to the Jews deliverance from the yoke of Sennacherib, that he may magnify the more this great blessing from God, he shows how miserable is the condition of those that are oppressed by the tyranny of foreigners. He says, that they are in a constant fever of anxiety, from thinking themselves beset with scribes or questors, treasurers, and counters of towers. Nay more, he says, that the Jews were involved in such difficulties, that they were stirred up to gratitude by the very remembrance of them. [2] It is a mistake, therefore, to suppose that this sentence is taken from the Prophet. [3] The term world, ought not to be taken in connection with the last term merely, but also with the other two. Now, by the wise of this world, he means those who do not derive their wisdom from illumination by the Spirit through means of the word of God, but, endowed with mere worldly sagacity, rest on the assurance which it affords.

It is generally agreed, that by the term scribes is meant teachers. For as ספר, saphar among the Hebrews, means to relate or recount, and the noun derived from it, ספרsepher, is used by them to signify a book or volume, they employ the term סופרימsopherim, to denote learned men, and those that are conversant with books; and, for the same reason, too, sopher regis is often used to denote a chancellor or secretary. The Greeks, following the etymology of the Hebrew term, have translated it γραμματεις, scribes [4] He appropriately gives the name of investigators [5] to those that show off their acuteness by starting difficult points and involved questions. Thus in a general way he brings to nothing man’s entire intellect, so as to give it no standing in the kingdom of God. Nor is it without good reason that he inveighs so vehemently against the wisdom of men, for it is impossible to express how difficult a thing it is to eradicate from men’s minds a misdirected confidence in the flesh, that they may not claim for themselves more than is reasonable. Now there is more than ought to be, if, depending even in the slightest degree upon their own wisdom, they venture of themselves to form a judgment.

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

By wisdom here he means everything that man can comprehend either by the natural powers of his understanding, or as deriving aid from practice, from learning, or from a knowledge of the arts. For he contrasts the wisdom of the world with the wisdom of the Spirit. Hence, whatever knowledge a man may come to have without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, is included in the expression, the wisdom of this world This he says God has utterly made foolish, that is, He has convicted it of folly. This you may understand to be effected in two ways; for whatever a man knows and understands, is mere vanity, if it is not grounded in true wisdom; and it is in no degree better fitted for the apprehension of spiritual doctrine than the eye of a blind man is for discriminating colors. We must carefully notice these two things — that a knowledge of all the sciences is mere smoke, where the heavenly science of Christ is wanting; and man, with all his acuteness, is as stupid for obtaining of himself a knowledge of the mysteries of God, as an ass is unqualified for understanding musical harmonies. For in this way he reproves the destructive pride of those who glory in the wisdom of the world so as to despise Christ, and the entire doctrine of salvation, thinking themselves happy when they are taken up with creatures; and he beats down the arrogance of those who, trusting to their own understanding, attempt to scale heaven itself.

There is also a solution furnished at the same time to the question, how it happens that Paul in this way throws down upon the ground every kind of knowledge that is apart from Christ, and tramples, as it were, under foot what is manifestly one of the chief gifts of God in this world. For what is more noble than man’s reason, in which man excels the other animals? How richly deserving of honor are the liberal sciences, which polish man, so as to give him the dignity of true humanity! Besides this, what distinguished and choice fruits they produce! Who would not extol with the highest commendations civil prudence [6] (not to speak of other things,) by which governments, principalities, and kingdoms are maintained? A solution of this question, I say, is opened up to view from the circumstance, that Paul does not expressly condemn either man’s natural perspicacity, or wisdom acquired from practice and experience, or cultivation of mind attained by learning; but declares that all this is of no avail for acquiring spiritual wisdom. And, certainly, it is madness for any one, confiding either in his own acuteness, or the assistance of learning, to attempt to fly up to heaven, or, in other words, to judge of the secret mysteries of the kingdom of God, [7] or to break through (Exodus 19:21) to a discovery of them, for they are hid from human view. Let us, then, take notice, that we must restrict to the specialities of the case in hand what Paul here teaches respecting the vanity of the wisdom of this world — that it rests in the mere elements of the world, and does not reach to heaven. In other respects, too, it holds true, that without Christ sciences in every department are vain, and that the man who knows not God is vain, though he should be conversant with every branch of learning. Nay more, we may affirm this, too, with truth, that these choice gifts of God — expertness of mind, acuteness of judgment, liberal sciences, and acquaintance with languages, are in a manner profaned in every instance in which they fall to the lot of wicked men.


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.

The right order of things was assuredly this, that man, contemplating the wisdom of God in his works, by the light of the understanding furnished him by nature, might arrive at an acquaintance with him. As, however, this order of things has been reversed through man’s depravity, God designs in the first place to make us see ourselves to be fools, before he makes us wise unto salvation, (2 Timothy 3:15;) and secondly, as a token of his wisdom, he presents to us what has some appearance of folly. This inversion of the order of things the ingratitude of mankind deserved. By the wisdom of God he means the workmanship of the whole world, which is an illustrious token and clear manifestation of his wisdom: God therefore presents before us in his creatures a bright mirror of his admirable wisdom, so that every one that looks upon the world, and the other works of God, must of necessity break forth in admiration of him, if he has a single spark of sound judgment. If men were guided to a right knowledge of God by the contemplation of his works, they would know God in the exercise of wisdom, or by a natural and proper method of acquiring wisdom; but as the whole world gained nothing in point of instruction from the circumstance, that God had exhibited his wisdom in his creatures, he then resorted to another method for instructing men. [8] Thus it must be reckoned as our own fault, that we do not attain a saving acquaintance with God, before we have been emptied of our own understanding.

He makes a concession when he calls the gospel the foolishness of preaching, having that appearance in the view of those foolish sages (μωροσόφοις) who, intoxicated with false confidence, [9]  fear not to subject God’s sacred truth to their senseless criticism. And indeed in another point of view nothing is more absurd in the view, of human reason than to hear that God has become mortal — that life has been subjected to death — that righteousness has been veiled under the appearance of sin — and that the source of blessing has been made subject to the curse, that by this means men might be redeemed from death, and become partakers of a blessed immortality — that they might obtain life — that, sin being destroyed, righteousness might reign — and that death and the curse might be swallowed up. We know, nevertheless, in the meantime, that the gospel is the hidden wisdom, (1 Corinthians 2:7,) which in its height surmounts the heavens, and at which angels themselves stand amazed. Here we have a most beautiful passage, from which we may see how great is the blindness of the human mind, which in the midst of light discerns nothing. For it is true, that this world is like a theater, in which the Lord presents to us a clear manifestation of his glory, and yet, notwithstanding that we have such a spectacle placed before our eyes, we are stone-blind, not because the manifestation is furnished obscurely, but because we are alienated in mind, (Colossians 1:21,)and for this matter we lack not merely inclination but ability. For notwithstanding that God shows himself openly, it is only with the eye of faith that we can behold him, save only that we receive a slight perception of his divinity, sufficient to render us inexcusable.

Accordingly, when Paul here declares that God is not known through means of his creatures, you must understand him to mean that a pure knowledge of him is not attained. For that none may have any pretext for ignorance, mankind make proficiency in the universal school of nature; so far as to be affected with some perception of deity, but what God is, they know not, nay more, they straightway become vain in their imaginations, (Romans 1:21.) Thus the light shineth in darkness, (John 1:5.) It follows, then, that mankind do not err thus far through mere ignorance, so as not to be chargeable with contempt, negligence, and ingratitude. Thus it holds good, that all

have known God, and yet have not glorified him, (Romans 1:21,)

and that, on the other hand, no one under the guidance of mere nature ever made such proficiency as to know God. Should any one bring forward the philosophers as exceptions, I answer, that in them more especially there is presented a signal token of this our weakness. For there will not be found one of them, that has not from that first principle of knowledge, which I have mentioned, straightway turned aside into wandering [10] and erroneous speculations, and for the most part they betray a silliness worse than that of old wives. When he says, that those are saved that believe, this corresponds with the foregoing statement — that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Farther, by contrasting believers, whose number is small, with a blind and senseless world, he teaches us that we err if we stumble at the smallness of their number, inasmuch as they have been divinely set apart to salvation.

  1. [1]“Combien que j’aye vne raison encore plus valable, qui m’a induit a changer ceste translation;” — “At the same time, I have a still more forcible reason, which has induced me to alter this translation.”
  2. [2]The passage referred to in Isaiah is happily rendered by Lowth:-Thine heart shall reflect on the past terror: Where is now the accomptant? where the weigher of tribute? where is he that numbered the towers? The last of these expressions Lowth explains to mean, “the commander of the enemy’s forces, who surveyed the fortifications of the city, and took an account of the height, strength, and situation of the walls and towers, that he might know where to make the assault with the greatest advantage.” — Ed.
  3. [3]“The words of Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:20, ποῦ σοφός; ποῦ γραμματεύς; ποῦ συζητητὴς κ.τ.λ., are not, as some have imagined, a quotation of the words of this verse,” (Isaiah 33:18;) “the only points of agreement between them being merely the occurrence of γραμματεὺς, and the repetition of the interrogative τοῦ. It is not impossible, however, that the structure of the one passage may have suggested the other.” — Henderson on Isaiah. — Ed
  4. [4]The Hebrew phrase referred to occurs in 2 Kings 12:10 ספר המלך (the king’s scribe.) It is rendered by the Septuagint, ὁ γραμματεύς τοῦ βασιλέως.  The corresponding Greek term, γραμματεις, is employed by the classical writers to denote a clerk or secretary, (Demosth. 269.19.) The γραμματεις (notaries) “had the custody of the laws and the public records, which it was their business to write, and to repeat to the people and senate when so required.” — Potter’s Grecian Antiquities, volume 1.— Ed
  5. [5]Calvin, here has manifestly in his eye the original meaning of συζητητης, which is derived from συνand ζητεω (to inquire together,) and comes very naturally to mean one that indulges in arguments or disputes. The term was applied to the subtle Sophists, or disputants in the Greek academies. — Ed
  6. [6]La prudence civile, c’est a dire la science des lois;” — “Civil prudence, that is to say, the science of laws.”
  7. [7]See Institutes, volume 1. — Ed.
  8. [8]The reader will find the same train of thought as above in the Institutes, volume 1. — Ed.
  9. [9]Et outrecuidance;” — “And presumption.
  10. [10]Extrauagantes;” — “Extravagant.”

Are You Tired of the Word?: Sermon Introduction from “The Little Scroll” (Revelation 10:1-11)

Are you tired of the Word?

Perhaps the greatest trouble facing the Church today is our tendency to grow tired of the Word, and lose interest in the gospel, so that we seek out theologies and programs and excitement that, while not necessarily bad in and of themselves, are often based more on the world than they are on the Word. And so I ask you this morning, are you tired of the Word? Have you lost interest in the gospel?

Toward the end of the last century, American evangelicals became fascinated by end times particulars, hosting prophecy conferences and often undermining their pulpits through politics associated with holding various views. Toward the beginning of this century, a phenomenon now known as ‘New Calvinism’ swept across the younger generation in our country, focusing on the doctrine of election to the exclusion of robust ecclesiological considerations. And now, since roughly the beginning of this decade, otherwise theologically conservative evangelicals have tipped their hats to the teachings of so-called ‘social justice,’ which is a term historically associated with a Marxist worldview and the Critical Race Theory which currently dominates most higher academic institutions. Now, the Bible never uses the term ‘social justice,’ although it has much to say about doing justice, and loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God. In our church, we practice what some Christians call ‘social justice’ through our caring for the widows, and the orphans, and providing and praying for the hungry, and other activities so many of us are involved in throughout the week. But we do these good works as an implication of the gospel, and to ‘adorn’ the gospel, not as a definitive component of the gospel. So I was troubled this past week to see a prominent, theologically conservative, Southern Baptist pastor in Nashville seemingly approve of a Washington Post article which claims that ‘social justice’ is a definitive component of the gospel. Folks, if we’re deriving our definition of the gospel from the Washington Post, then we’re in serious trouble. I am amazed that people from our camp, who are our friends, are so quickly turning away from him who called us by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is no gospel. I would remind you brothers and sisters, of the gospel you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, and that he was raised again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. This unchanging, propositional truth of the authoritative, inerrant Word of God is not a ‘reductionistic gospel,’ it is the gospel, and it is sufficient to save and to spark the process of progressive sanctification and transformation that necessarily follows from true conversion.

And so I ask you this morning, are you tired of the Word? Have you lost interest in the gospel?

Adventures in Misgendering

The rapidly changing landscape of supposed non-binary genders is dizzying to most of us – myself included. This isn’t an attempt to help you navigate that mindfield of pronouns – because in all likelihood, by the time you read this, it would have all changed anyway. Which pronouns they want us to use, or not use, is irrelevant in most ways. We’re being told that “misgendering” is now rude – more than rude, really – a cardinal sin of oppression. One of my sons, a high-school senior, was recently the subject of an “intervention” by his classmates for his refusal to “use the correct pronouns.” Well, more accurately, for the implication, that should such an instance arise, that he wouldn’t use the correct pronouns – because he hadn’t actually had the opportunity to even meet the person in question yet.  So goes our Brave New World.

In our continuing Sexual Revolution, the gender identity debate has eclipsed, in some ways, the debates over feminism, homosexuality, and abortion – but it will be helpful to note that that this new focus has actually taken much of the “cultural” force away from those other debates. For instance, if becoming a “woman” now only takes a solemn pronouncement, then anyone’s all in the feminist camp, aren’t they?  While I was (understandably) annoyed at the treatment my son received, I was also intrigued by the assertion made by his classmates. My son already has the habit of using the singular “they/them/their” to avoid the discussion when inopportune (or when he has no earthly clue what they are when they‘re t’home). That, you see, wasn’t good enough.

It’s good enough for the Boston Globe, whose protagonist (you know that pieces about conformist ideas in the “new normal” of this Revolution  have protagonists now, right?) argues strenuously for the use of they:

Corey Prachniak-Rincón self-identifies as genderqueer because “male” just doesn’t seem sufficient. Born male and married to a man, Prachniak-Rincón has had various styles over the years — sometimes wearing longer hair and a more feminine look — and a few years ago dropped the masculine pronouns for the more ambiguous, if plural, “they/them/theirs.”

Still, they aren’t attached to “they.” They would adopt another pronoun if one came along. They understand that “they” is difficult.

And if you’re having trouble reading this story right now, they sympathize.

“It can be grammatically awkward for people who aren’t used to practicing this,” Prachniak-Rincón acknowledged. “It’s a change in grammatical structure as well as a change in norms, how they’re conceptualizing gender.”

Rapidly changing gender norms, resisted by many traditionalists, are prompting changes to the language that can be jarring to almost everybody at first. Words like “them” used to be scolded out of speech when used to refer to a singular, identifiable person or object. Now, they’re being put to work as benign stand-ins for individuals whose gender identities are not that easily described.

Some gender-nonconforming individuals fully embrace the pronoun “they.” Others who reject the strict confines of traditional gender roles use it by default.

“If there were some new, popular nonbinary form to emerge, I would probably jump on the bandwagon for the sake of simplicity and camaraderie,” said Prachniak-Rincón.[1]

I do appreciate the admission that it is a bandwagon – but it’s illustrative of the issue at hand, is it not? As he points out, it’s a change in grammatical structure and a change in norms. This “new normal” is just that – a novelty.  It’s a revolutionary novelty – and if there’s anything certain, it’s the fate of reactionaries after a Revolution. What wasn’t good enough for my son, I suspect, was that he had “improper motives” for his usage of they.  It isn’t good enough to merely use the word – you have to celebrate the lifestyle, and acquiesce to the new normal as reigning over you, and your grammar. He was engaging in wrongthink, whatever the wording. That’s what gets their goat.

That’s also what got the goat of the Romans, when they insisted on the pluralism that (they felt) kept their Pax Romana. Back then, we were the revolutionaries – so keep that in mind – it’s not just a staid conservatism at work here. What’s actually at issue is not the overthrowing of a mere cultural norm – but the deconstruction of an objective truth. See, the Romans were just fine with Christianity – if it would just assimilate. They didn’t care about yet another religion. What they cared about was that this religion claimed to take supremacy above the demands of the Empire. Especially an Empire with a divinized Emperor. When Domitian took the throne after the death of Titus, he decided that some changes were in order. These were conservative changes, of course. Going back to the good old days – when due honor was given to the gods who brought them to their present status, and worship was properly done. Just some down home, good old fashioned polytheism! Not nearly enough rallying around the… standard, the home gods, and the Empire was going on – and Domitian had just the plan to fix that. The Romans were quite enlightened, when all is said and done. Anyone was free to worship the gods of their people. Some allowances had to be made (although let’s not take it too far, the just-cooled ashes of Jerusalem cautioned!), but all in all, they were quite the pluralists. You were free to worship whatever you wished – as long as you also, under Domitian’s scheme, would drop a pinch of incense at the altar to Caesar’s genius (divine spirit, divinization – you take your pick. They weren’t picky.) and declaimed “Caesar est Kurios!” Christians… not so much. Like those pesky Jews, they weren’t interested in pluralism, accommodationism, or getting along. They only had one Kurios – and that was Christ.

All they had to do was add a little pinch of incense, say the words – and poof, no more problems. They couldn’t. Not knowing what it meant, what it was intended to convey – and not knowing the Triune God. But, many will object at this point – isn’t your son already doing that now? Well, if he was, they certainly wouldn’t have gone after him, would they? It wasn’t enough to simply avoid the image of Caesar; to avoid pinching the incense, or the declaration. My son uses “they” substitutionally, because it is acceptable (if unpopular) grammar which avoids the issue. However, they want my son to use “he” for a female who “identifies as” male. You can’t just leave well enough alone. You must, at all costs, pinch the incense and make the declaration. Just to be clear – these are his high school peers, not administrators. This is a case of “peer pressure”, nothing more.  It illustrates the direction of the culture, though. These two (putatively) Christian teens are going out of their way to have an “intervention” with another teen to get him to renounce an article of faith – or, at least, to go along with societal mores.

So, let’s look at what Scripture says, since our assertion is that this is something we cannot render under Caesar – or to our fellow citizens. Not even for the Pax Romana.

When Christ speaks of creation, he is twice recorded quoting Genesis 1:27, and emphasizing that man was created male and female.  Not only does God incarnate say it, but he’s quoting the words of our foundational creation story; the same passage that says we were created in God’s image,the imago Dei.  What this means is that sex is assigned – but it is assigned by God, not just an arbitrary “assignment” by the doctor who delivered the baby. It also means that we believe that gender is equivalent to sex. Necessarily. We aren’t exaggerating here when we say this is all foundational stuff. When the choice we are given is whether to deny the foundational truths of Scripture or to accede to the demands of societal mores, we are being given the choice of whether to burn incense to Caesar – or to affirm, as our forebears did, that Jesus is Lord, instead. It’s no choice at all.  κύριος Ἰησοῦς

As many love to point out, “In approximately 1 in 2,000 infants, there is enough variation in the appearance of the external genitalia to merit hesitation about appropriate assignment by the physician involved[2]” – which sounds serious, until you look into the rest of the numbers. Also according to the same wikipedia article (but lacking a citation this time) “[a]pproximately 1 in 20,000 infants is born with enough ambiguity that assignment becomes a more drawn-out process of multiple tests and intensive education of the parents about sexual differentiation.” This seems to be akin to the claim on[3] that “1 in 20,000 men has no Y chromosome, instead having 2 Xs.” This would mean, the article goes on to say, that assuming that women have the corresponding problem equally often, that there are approximately 15,000 Americans who don’t show the chromosomes they are “supposed” to have. Given that we also teach that we live in a fallen world – with a concomitantly disordered functionality – this is not an argument against Christian teaching, It is an argument for it.  If creation is fallen in Adam, and we are part of creation, it follows that we would also be affected. In fact, the Scriptures say that we are fallen, and that we do have disordered bodies, minds, and affections.

What we typically encounter, however, is not an individual with a chromosomal disorder. It is someone experiencing some sort of gender dysphoria[4]. Note that “[c]hildren who meet the criteria for gender dysphoria may or may not continue to experience it into adolescence and adulthood.” While this is all well and good – what about those for whom it does persist? Well, my question is, what about those for whom kleptomania[5] persists? To be brutally honest here, there are a plethora of disorders – both physical and moral – for which our current society has a far better response.  This one, however, is considered acceptable – so it is tolerated – and we are now being told to celebrate it, at the risk of being castigated for “bigotry.” It is now something for which we must now have have “interventions”, if others engage in wrongthink concerning it.

Lest we be accused of hanging it all on one verse (not that there’s anything particularly wrong with doing so – and not that this was a single verse – but the ways of objectors are always mysterious), let’s examine some more.  We believe, as Jesus said, that the Scripture cannot be broken. If woman is bone of bone and flesh of flesh of man[6] – and if, when a man and a woman join together, they become one flesh[7], then there is something particular about the sexes in view here.  Not just any sex can do – that gender binary is correlative. They complement each other, and together, when joined, they are one.  Not just anyone can be one flesh – the man and his wife are one flesh. This isn’t a plug and play situation here.  We can talk about Leviticus 18:22, and Deuteronomy 22:5 too – but please understand me here. When we tell you that we cannot accede to these demands, we aren’t just being “conservative.” We believe the same thing about our identity that we believe about your identity. Who and what we are is what God created us to be. We will not and we cannot submit on this point.

For if we have become united with [Him] in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be [in the likeness] of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with [Him], in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.  Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.  Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.  Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,  and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin [as] instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God.  For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:5-14, NASB)

If I, as Scripture says, am united to Christ in His death – I am also united to Him in His resurrection life. My old self – my old identity – was crucified with Christ. I am not a slave to my disordered identity. I am free, in Christ. Death and sin no longer control me – no longer shackle me. Life is mine – for I am alive in Christ Jesus. Sin does not, cannot reign over me. That is the demand of the world on this point. I cannot obey. I cannot “present the members of my body to sin.” Note the interesting parallel here to “present yourselves” in the transgender lexicon. The language of identity used here.  We cannot offer that pinch of incense. We cannot say that this sexual revolution’s novel ethics are Lord over our life. We already have a Lord. This is, and will remain, an antithesis with no synthesis.

Repent of your allegiance to sinful desires that contravert God’s created order[8]. Ask for deliverance from these disordered affections, plea for God’s salvation from the ravages of sin that result from the Fall.  In Adam, all died – but in Christ, one can live, and live to God. Only he can save you from this body of death[9]. Only if Christ is Lord, not Caesar, can you be truly free. Just don’t be surprised if the world hates you[10]. After all, that’s a promise from Christ[11], too.

If you’re aghast that we can’t submit over a small thing like a preferred pronoun – incense and a few words wasn’t any bigger a deal, was it? That also involved itself in the foundational beliefs of Christianity. See how that turned out.

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]Gen 2:23
  7. [7]Gen 2:24
  8. [8]Rom 7:5
  9. [9]Rom 7:24
  10. [10]1 John 3:13
  11. [11]John 15:18-19

John Frame on Natural Law and Abortion

On page 243 of John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Christian Life, Frame writes, “Roman Catholics have argued that the case against abortion is not religious at all, but based only on scientific judgments about the nature of the unborn. So they oppose abortion by appealing to natural law.”

Read more

1 Peter 1:14 and the Continuing Sexual Revolution

While listening to my pastor’s continuing exposition of 1 Peter 1 this morning, I was struck by the timeliness of the passage he used for a subject he didn’t directly address. His sermon was about personal holiness (which is, of course, the main thrust of the passage) – but I have been unable to leave verse 14 alone all afternoon. In the wake of the recent Revoice conference, it struck me that this passage wasn’t highlighted very often in responses. I believe it should, going forward. Here’s why.

1 Peter 1:13 has a “therefore”, so it behooves us to go back to the previous context to find what it’s there for. We’ll start in verse 10.

As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that [would come] to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven– things into which angels long to look. – 1 Peter 1:10-12

So, we’re speaking of the Gospel and salvation – as well as the earnest searching of our spiritual forebears into the details of its accomplishment in future.  Those details are what we possess – details which even angels long for a clear glimpse of.  Now, verse 13;

Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober [in spirit], fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts [which were yours] in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all [your] behavior; because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.” – 1 Peter 1:13-16

Therefore, (as a result of the previous things) there follows a number of things we are to do, as a consequence. First, prepare your minds. Literally, “gird the loins of our minds”. Get ready – there’s work to do! Mental work – heavy thinking – don’t be dull, or apathetic! Second, be/keep sober – be watchful – collectedly, calmly – without impairment due to excess. Often paired with “be alert”, and martial imagery elsewhere.[1] Thirdly, “fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you“. Literally, “perfectly hope” (τελείως ἐλπίσατε). The “fixed” stems from the implication of “to the end”, or “to completion” in τελείως – perhaps in the sense of “fixed determination”, this is a “fixed hope” on the grace to be brought.

Like I said, however, the next verse won’t let me alone. As obedient children (ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς) –  as a contrast to “disobedient” children, yes – but the picture is that of a child obeying his parent.  ὑπακοὴν is used earlier in vs. 2 – it is Jesus Christ we are obeying.  Notice the various parallels in usage and context. We’re speaking of much the same thing as vs. 14 is.  In vs. 22, we are told that since we have purified our souls in ὑπακοῇ – obedience – for a sincere love of the brethren, we are to love one another from the heart.  Note 1 John 3:3 here – “And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.” The parallels are unmistakable. Hope, purification, obedience, holiness. This is an act of obedience. An active, fixed hope. An act of purification – striving toward holiness. What does that look like? Well, the verse continues, with an obvious parallel to Romans 12:2.  Do not be conformed to the former lusts in your ignorance. Or, possibly, do not be conformed in your ignorance to your former lusts. The word for “conformed” is interesting. It’s a compound of “sys” (with, beside, accompanying) and “schema,” from where we derive “schematic.” In this context, it refers to the “manner of life” – our discourse, actions, etc. In short, our identity – with an implication of fashioning/constructing as well.

To rephrase it, it’s saying “do not fashion your identity around your former lusts, in your ignorance.”  The application should be immediate – and helpful in the context of our current discussion about “identity” in Christ, no?

From comparison with our parallel passage, we can also glean a few applications. Our minds should be transformed – as should our hopes, our attention – and last but not least – our identities. We are united with Christ – and that union brings forth an identity which replaces the identity of the old man. Our minds are transformed, (gird those mental loins!) that we might (also) approve the will of God – that which is good, acceptable, and perfect. Not those former lusts. Those are not us any longer. Those no longer enslave us – and we can no longer identify with those worldly chains, can we?

  1. [1]1 Th 5:6&8, 2Ti 4:5, 1 Pe 4:7, 5:8

The Urgency of Apologetics

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 3-4, ESV)

Jude addresses his audience as the “beloved,” both of God through Jesus Christ in the Spirit, and of Jude. Jude expresses his eagerness to write to the beloved regarding a “common salvation.” Jude’s letter is to the saved. And yet, Jude cannot bring himself to celebrate the benefits and glories of the common salvation of the beloved. Instead, the beloved are urged to “contend for the faith.” Contend! A letter initially intended to encourage believers regarding their common salvation with the author becomes an urgent plea to fight for the faith.

Read more

Al Mohler’s Definitive Response to Nate Collins and Revoice

After listening to an interview of Nate Collins at Sheologians, and reading another at Christianity Today, I intended to write a response to the overall program set forth by Collins. However, R. Albert Mohler, Jr. responded to the CT  interview with Collins and the Revoice Conference in a rather decisive fashion today with his article, “Torn Between Two Cultures? Revoice, LGBT Identity, and Biblical Christianity.”

Read more

Responding to the Argument for the Possibility of Foreknowledge from Transcendence (By Brian Knapp, Founder/Contributor Emeritus)

If God foreknows person P will make choice C at time T, then it is not possible for this choice to not be made. After all, if P does not choose C at T, then God’s foreknowledge was incorrect, in which case God actually did not foreknow this choice would occur at all as truth is a necessary component of foreknowledge. Stated differently, if it is not true that P chooses C at T, then God could not have foreknown that they would. So, when we say that God foreknows that P will choose C at T, there is no doubt in our mind that they will do so. In other words, we can be certain that they will make this choice.

Given the fact that God knows that P will choose C at T, it seems difficult to see how one might believe that P is “free” in the Libertarian sense of the word. How can one believe that P could have chosen otherwise, given that God foreknew, with certainty, that they would choose C at T. There seems to be a real problem of God’s foreknowledge being compatible with the (Libertarian) free will of man.

In posing this question to one who believes in such a view of the will, a number of responses may be forthcoming, but typically with a common theme. Generally, an appeal to God’s transcendence is made. That is, the claim is made that God is “outside of time”. The response may be that God “sees down the corridors of time”, or that He sees all of time simultaneously, including our choices. The specific wording of this kind of response isn’t germane to this argument. What matters is the appeal to God’s transcendence as a solution to the problem outlined above.

Read more