The Bible, Natural Theology, and

Natural Law: Conflict or

Compromise?

By Dr. Robert A. Morey

Copyright 2009 Robert A. Morey
Christian Scholars Press
P.O. Box 240,
Millerstown, PA 17062
www.faithdefenders.com
No part of this work is to be reproduced in any medium without written
permission from the author and the publisher.
All Scripture citations are either the translation from the original text by
Dr. Morey or from the New American Standard Version (© Lockman
Foundation, 1974).

Dedicated to Dr. Cornelius Van Til

 “We cannot properly set off the Reformed faith against the Roman
Catholic Faith unless natural theology be rejected as springing from the
autonomous man’s efforts to keep from facing the claims of his Creator
Redeemer God. We cannot even set off the Protestant view of faith unless
we distinguish God’s clear revelation speaking to us in man and in nature
and man’s false response to this clear revelation in his natural theology.”
—Cornelius Van Til
Special thanks to Thomas F. Smith II, Jessica and Omar Garcia, Jon
Powell, John Morey, and Stephen Macasil for their help in preparing the
manuscript.
 Table of Contents
Forward

Introduction

Author’s Introduction

PART ONE EXPOSITION

Chapter One The Foundation of the Christian Worldview
Chapter Two The Three Pillars
Chapter Three Creation Ex Nihilo
Chapter Four The Radical Fall of Man into Sin and Guilt
Chapter Five Redemption
Chapter Six The Book of Ecclesiastes

PART TWO EXPOSITION

Chapter Seven Biblical Theism
Chapter Eight Biblical Anthropology
Chapter Nine A Biblical Philosophy of Science

PART THREE REFUTATION

Chapter Ten The Failure of Definition
Chapter Eleven Natural Law
Chapter Twelve Natural Religion
Chapter Thirteen Natural Theology
Chapter Fourteen Natural Apologetics
Chapter Fifteen What the World Needs to Hear
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Forward
Dr. Vincent Cheung

Natural theology arises from man’s attempt to discover reality—God,

man, ethics, even salvation—with methods that exclude divine revelation.
Such a project requires ultimate confidence in man’s faculties and
procedures. It assumes an attitude that says, “If it is there, I will find it. If
it is true, I will prove it.” The natural theologian trusts in himself to
discover what he needs to know and what there is to know. Since the object
of his trust is himself, and since his conclusions are founded on his
reliance on his own abilities, his own methods, and his own premises, what
this man-oriented enterprise amounts to is self-worship.
When I was asked to write the foreword to Dr. Robert Morey’s new
book, I thought that to mention this implication of natural theology is one
way to direct the reader’s attention to the grave importance of the subject.
Although many of those who contend against natural theology fail to
characterize the matter in this manner, I was pleased that Morey indeed
stresses this point with remarkable clarity right at the beginning. He
writes, “If you begin only with yourself, you will end only with yourself.
The only ‘god’ you will find looking into the well of your own soul is a
reflection of your own image.” And later he adds, “When a Natural
Theologian looks into the well of his mind, he thinks he is seeing God in
the reflection at the bottom. But, in reality, he is only looking at his own
reflection!”
This is a simple but profound way to illustrate our contention that
natural theology and revealed theology are not just two ways of pursuing
the same purpose and of attaining the same knowledge. And human
speculation or natural theology is not to be seen as the prolegomena to
divine revelation or reveal theology. Rather, these represent two divergent
ways of discovery that carry their adherents in different directions. Morey
notes that natural theology is not “man’s search for God but man’s flight
from God.” It is not man’s earnest pursuit to know, to love, and to honor
God, but it is his attempt to replace God with his own human construction,
derived from his own speculation.
 Scripture is rich with teachings and illustrations on the opposition
between natural theology and revealed theology. Consider Paul’s speech to
the Areopagus in Acts 17:22–31. It is ironic that this passage is often used
by natural theologians to demonstrate the concord between natural
theology—even pagan theology—and the revealed theology of the
Christian faith.
For example, John Sanders, whom Morey also mentions, comments on
this passage as follows:
Interestingly, Paul does not refer to the Old Testament in his speech. He
quotes only from pagan poets and uses the ideas and vocabulary of Greek
philosophy in his attempt to reach these people. Yet all of Paul’s points can
be found in the Old Testament, because there are affinities between
general and special revelation.
Of course there are affinities between general and special revelation,
since both are from God, and God does not contradict himself. But Sanders
means something else. He is asserting that the Greek philosophers had
derived a natural theology from general revelation, and this natural
theology was in substantial agreement with special revelation, although it
had been constructed entirely without its benefit.4 However, this is the
very opposite of what the passage indicates.
Although it is true that Paul cites the Greek poets in his speech, this
does not automatically mean that he agrees with what they say. The fact
itself proves nothing. Right now I am quoting from Sanders, but I am
doing so to signal my disagreement with him. Likewise, Paul quotes the
poets not to express his agreement, but for another purpose, to expose their
inconsistencies. The same can be said of his using the “ideas … of Greek
philosophy.”
Sander writes, “Paul does not refer to the Old Testament in his speech.
… Yet all of Paul’s points can be found in the Old Testament.” That is, he
thinks that instead of quoting from the Old Testament, Paul quotes from
the Greek poets, but his points are found in the Old Testament; therefore,
Greek philosophy agrees with the Old Testament. But is this the best
explanation? All of Paul’s points are found in the Old Testament because
all of his points are taken from the Old Testament.
This is not the place to perform an exegesis of the passage, but we can
be certain that this interpretation is mistaken even without it. This is
because Sanders’ interpretation would make Paul’s intention contradict
what he writes in Romans 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 1:21, which state that
unbelievers suppress general revelation, and that they did not come to
know God by their own speculation. What does this mean for natural
theology? It is incompatible with biblical revelation, and so as Morey
points out, to maintain the viability of their premise and method, some
natural theologians eventually come to reject biblical inspiration and
inerrancy. Again, this illustrates the earlier statement that natural theology
and revealed theology carry their adherents in different directions.
Christians need not fear that to reject natural theology is to become
defenseless before the assaults of non-Christian challenges. We are not at a
disadvantage, since Paul writes, “For the foolishness of God is wiser than
man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength”
(1 Corinthians 1:25). Full reliance on divine revelation does not make us
vulnerable, but invincible. What Christians must do is to learn how to
think and communicate on the basis of God’s word, rather than to search
for security by learning how to function apart from it. As Morey writes,
“Without Special Revelation from God, man cannot even explain any
aspect of reality.” On the other hand, “If we begin with the biblical
doctrines of Creation, Fall, and Redemption, we can understand God, man,
the world and how they are relate to each other. We have final answers to
all the questions of life and death.”
 Introduction
Dr. John M. Frame

Around 600 BC, a number of Greek thinkers in Miletus, Asia Minor,

took up a new intellectual project: to describe the whole universe by
reason alone. They did not want to follow earlier writers like Homer and
Hesiod, who ascribed natural happenings to gods like Zeus, Hera, Apollo,
and Dionysius. Rather, they intended to cast aside all religious and literary
tradition and determine by reason alone what the world is really like.
Among these were Thales, who postulated that all is water; Anaximenes,
who thought rather that all reality was air; and Anaximander, who thought
that the basic element of the world was an indeterminate stuff that later
differentiated itself into water, air, earth, and fire. Other thinkers followed
these, like Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, who
were far more sophisticated than the Milesians, but who agreed entirely
with them that reason was our only means of understanding the world.
Some of these thinkers, especially Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, also
applied this principle to ethics, certain that human reason could discern in
nature a moral order that would tell us how to live. Thus began the
philosophical tradition of natural law.
Coincidentally, these same thinkers also used their reason to find
evidence of the divine. Plato found godlike reality in his world of Forms,
Aristotle in his Prime Mover, the Stoics in their pantheistic God, Plotinus
in his ineffable One. Thus began the philosophical tradition of natural
theology.
It is not surprising that pagan Greeks would try to find God and moral
goodness by reason alone, for they did not believe that there was any
reliable revelation from any supernatural being. Those who trusted the
God of the Bible, however, found such a revelation close at hand. For
them, the knowledge of God and the good was a gift, received from the
hand of God himself, the God and Father of Jesus Christ. For them, neither
God nor goodness were puzzlements to be resolved by sharper thinking.
Rather, God himself had made known his person and his standards. More
than that, God’s revelation indicated that human beings were not capable
of meeting God’s standards by their good works. If God were to forgive
their sins and save them from his own wrath, they would have to receive
another gift: the righteousness of God by the sacrifice of Jesus the Son of
God on the cross.
This difference between the Greeks and the Christians had
philosophical, epistemological ramifications. Scripture distinguishes
sharply between the wisdom of the Greeks and that of God’s revelation (1
Cor. 1:22–23). Those who are saved by the blood of Christ should never
presume that they can discover God or his moral standards by reason
alone. They should rather subordinate their reason to God’s revealed
words, “not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit” (1 Cor.
2:13).
This is not to deny that there is revelation of God in the created
universe. Indeed, there is clear revelation there, both of God’s nature
(Rom. 1:19–21) and of God’s moral standards (verse 32). But because
human beings are fallen (Gen. 3) they inevitably misuse the revelation of
God in nature: suppressing it (Rom. 1:18), exchanging it for pagan lies
(verses 23, 25), refusing to worship the God revealed in his creation
(verses 21, 28), refusing to obey his moral standards (24–31). The only
remedy for this terrible situation is divine grace, God’s salvation through
Christ, revealed not in nature, but in the Gospel (Rom. 10:14–17). The
implication is that we may gain no reliable knowledge of God from nature,
unless we view it in the light of the Gospel, the word of grace, the message
of Scripture.
So the Bible contradicts the project of the Greek philosophers. It tells
us that the way to know God, right, and wrong, is not through reason alone,
but through God’s written word. Natural theology and natural law are blind
alleys. Certainly reason is a good gift of God. We need it to understand the
Scriptures and to apply them to circumstances. In the light of Scripture,
indeed, we can see that the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 19:1).
But human reason loses its way unless it is subject to what God has said in
the Bible.
The Greeks did not acknowledge Scripture, and that is why they
attempted to know God and the Good by reason alone. As I said, their
rationalism is understandable, even though it led to confusion in their
thought. But what is very difficult to understand is that many Christian
theologians have sought to incorporate Greek natural theology and ethics
into their teaching. From the time of the early church fathers (as Justin
Martyr) to the great thinkers of the church (Augustine, Aquinas), Greek
philosophy has been a huge influence on the formulations of Christian
theologians. Reformers like Luther and Calvin resisted this influence. But
others, Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox alike, have
incorporated natural theology and natural law into their theological works,
often taking pride in their ability to use these pagan traditions. In modern
America, many evangelical and Reformed thinkers have sought to
vindicate Christianity by reason alone, and to determine right and wrong
by a rational examination of natural law.
This natural theology and natural law ethics represent compromise of
Scripture, and as such they represent a great danger to the church. If the
Christian worldview and morality are based in human reason, then they are
of no value. Nobody should trust his eternal destiny to human speculation.
Only if God has spoken can we know him with confidence as our Father,
Lord, and Savior. Only if God has spoken can we stand firmly for the
wisdom of God, over against the wisdom of the world.
The present volume presents a devastating critique of natural theology
and natural law. I have known Dr. Robert Morey for nearly forty years, and
I have long admired his gifts of scholarship and writing. He spends months
in research, getting to the bottom of issues. He has studied with the top
scholars in theology and apologetics, and he has been working in these
fields constantly through his long ministry. While carrying on the work of
the pastorate, he has written and published nearly fifty books. He has
engaged in many debates and given lectures on many philosophical,
historical, and theological subjects. More important, he stands boldly for
God’s word, against any denial or compromise of it. He puts his very life
on the line. Militant Muslims have threatened to kill him because of his
firm stance for biblical truth.
I’m delighted that he has stepped forward to deal with the issue of
natural theology. He understands well the philosophical and theological
traditions that have given rise to this compromise, and he has dug deeply
into Scripture to present God’s truth on this matter.
I will have to say that I have a few disagreements with Dr. Morey’s
statements in this book. No two theologians are likely to agree on
everything, and when I read a huge book like this I inevitably find a
number of assertions that I would put differently. He and I differ
somewhat on his evaluations of a number of writers; in my view he is
somewhat prone to overstatement. He understands my view of this; I
understand likewise if he finds me prone to understatement. But he has
taken up this huge and vitally important task, while I and others have held
our peace. We must allow Dr. Morey to put his critique in his own way.
My disagreements with Dr. Morey are minor, however, compared to my
great admiration for him and for the book as a whole. Its argument is
solidly biblical, and its accumulation of biblical data is overwhelming. I
hope that God prospers it so that many will read it and take heed. The
greatest need of Christianity today is a renewed commitment to sola
Scriptura, the Reformation principle that Scripture alone, not human
reason, imagination, or sensation, must be our final authority. God’s voice
is what needs to be heard, not our speculations or feelings. Only when
God’s Word is preached as the ultimate and sufficient authority will our
preaching bring reformation and revival.
 Author’s Introduction
Having worked in the retail business for many years, I learned that the
best way to train cashiers to recognize counterfeit money is for them to
become so familiar with real money (the feel of it, the look of it and even
the smell of it) so that when a counterfeit bill comes along, they will
recognize it instinctively.
Since there are so many different counterfeit bills, with new ones
coming out all the time, studying all past ones is a waste of time. If the
cashiers know the true currency, they will be able to detect the false. In the
same way, the best way to train Christians to detect false theology is for
them to have a good understanding of true biblical theology first. Once
they know the true, they can detect the false.
It is no surprise that Natural Law and Natural Theology rise and fall in
popularity in tandem with the level of sound biblical knowledge. In
Roman Catholic and Orthodox countries, where biblical illiteracy is the
norm, all you have is Natural Law and Theology. Wherever the Sola
Scriptura of the Protestant Reformation gained ground, biblical preaching
and Revealed Theology became dominant, and as a result Natural Law and
Theology died away.
Luther thundered that “Reason was a whore” who slept with anyone,
and stated that Thomas Aquinas was in hell. Calvin always spoke of
Aquinas’ “schoolmen” as enemies of the gospel. Sola Scriptura was the
basis of the Reformation and the Bible was the final authority on what to
believe (theology) and how to live (law). Biblical Law and Theology
replaced Natural Law and Theology.
The beginning of the new millennium has witnessed new aggressive
forms of Reasonalotry in evangelical circles. “Reasonalotry” is the
enthronement of human reason in the place of God as the Origin of truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. Man’s faculty of reasoning is
abstracted, absolutized, idealized, and romanticized into a false idol.
“Reason” is an idol because it supposedly infallibly knows all things.
Everything, including God, must bow before the “Bar of Reason” for
judgment. Human Reason is the “god of the gaps,” who can explain all
things rationally.
 Why has Reasonalotry been revived in our day? Biblical knowledge,
theology, law, and expository preaching are at an all time low. Most
“mega” churches, with thousands in attendance, do not focus on Biblical
Truth but on the “felt” needs of the community. “Deeds, not Creeds” and
“Works, not Words” seem to be the mantra of today. The darker the
religious situation, the more aggressive Reasonalotry becomes. The
following illustration will help us at this point.
Imagine you became lost in a jungle where fierce and dangerous
animals came out at night to hunt their prey. As the sun begins to set, you
desperately try to start a fire, but darkness falls before you can get the fire
going. All around you encircling eyes wink on as the predators begin to
creep closer. But, the fire finally catches on, and as the brightness of the
fire flares up, the encircling eyes begin to recede back into the darkness.
The encircling eyes finally wink out as the fire blazes to full strength.
In the middle of the night, as the fire begins to die down, the encircling
eyes reappear as the animals begin to creep near again. You awaken and
see that the fire has died down and the beasts are getting closer to you. You
quickly throw more fuel on the fire, and, as it blazes up, the encircling
eyes withdraw once again.
All the different forms of religious humanism such as the cults, the
occult, liberalism, paganism, Natural Theology, Natural Law, witchcraft,
socialism, rationalism, empiricism, mysticism, fideism, Roman
Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., are the encircling eyes that surround
us. When we preach and teach sound biblical theology, the encircling eyes
withdraw back into the darkness. When the fire of biblical theology and
expository preaching die down, the encircling eyes return.
It is time for a New Reformation that will once again define, document,
and defend the glorious Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith
alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, for the glory of God
alone. As we teach and preach the Gospel, Reasonalotry (Natural Religion,
Natural Theology, and Natural Law) will once again recede back into the
darkness from which it came.
In PART ONE, we will give an EXPOSITION of the Revealed
worldview given in the Bible. Once you understand Biblical theology, it
will be easier to detect false theologies such as Natural Theology.
In PART TWO, we will APPLY the biblical worldview to God, man, and
the world. We have chosen several issues that religious humanists assume
lie only within the domain of Natural Philosophy and Theology. In
opposition to humanistic thought, we will apply the Lordship of Christ to
all of life and claim every square inch of this world for Jesus. There is no
“secular” realm where man is lord. Messiah is either Lord of all or not
Lord at all.
In PART THREE, we will proceed from exposition and application to a
REFUTATION of Natural Theology based upon Scripture. Natural
theologians will not take kindly to the idea that we will open up the Bible
and judge their views by what is revealed by God in Scripture. But, God
alone is the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. God
alone is the Measure of all things, including philosophy and theology. We
will all stand before God alone for judgment. He alone is infinite in
wisdom and knowledge.
This book is dedicated to a revival of Reformation theology and
biblical preaching. As they increase, the encircling eyes of Reasonalotry
will decrease and fade way. This has happened during every great
evangelical revival in the past and will happen again as revival fires burn
bright once again by God’s sovereign grace.
To God alone be all the glory!
 Chapter One
The Foundation of the Christian Worldview
Introduction

Since the radical Fall of man into sin and guilt, the “natural man” (1 Cor.
2:14) has “leaned upon his own understanding” (Pro. 3:5) to comprehend
God, the world and himself on the basis of human reason, experience,
feelings or faith. His “natural” understanding ended in absolute failure
because he “cannot understand” these things apart from and independent
of God (1 Cor. 2:14). Because “all of us like sheep have gone astray, Each
of us has turned to his own way,” (Isa. 53:6) the natural man “did not know
God” (1 Cor. 1:21).
Both the Old and New Testaments clearly state “there is no one who
understands” (Psa. 14:1–3; Rom. 3:10). The “natural man” produced
Natural Laws, Natural Religions, and Natural Theologies on the basis of
rationalism, empiricism, mysticism and fideism. All of these ended in
apostasy and never did anyone any good. If you begin only with yourself,
you will end only with yourself. The only “god” you will find looking into
the well of your own soul is a reflection of your own image. The “gods”
created through rationalism, empiricism, mysticism, and fideism are false
gods; mere reflections of man’s hopes, dreams, fears, and psychological
problems.
The Importance of the Book of Job
In this light, the importance of the Book of Job cannot be overstated. As
the oldest book in the Bible and thus the first book revealed by God and
recorded in Scripture, it is the only firm foundation of the biblical
worldview. It begins with God’s view of the origin, nature, attributes,
meaning, and purpose of evil. Any attempt to develop a distinctive
“Christian” worldview without the Book of Job as its foundation will
utterly fail. As Dr. J. Vernon McGee pointed out,
 This is a great philosophic work and has been acclaimed so by
many. Tennyson called this book “the greatest poem, whether
of ancient or modern literature.” Speaking of the Book of Job,
Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher said, “I call that one
of the grandest ever written with pen.” Martin Luther said that
this book is “more magnificent and sublime than any other
book of Scripture.” And Dr. Moorehead said, “The Book of Job
is one the noblest poems in existence.”
The words of Tennyson, Carlyle, Luther, and Moorehead may seem
strange to many Christians today. Why did Luther esteem Job higher than
Romans? The answer is that Job is the foundation of the rest of Scripture,
including Romans.
Is it by mere chance or luck that the first biblical book ever written
established the principle of Sola Scriptura by refuting the vaunted claims
of Natural Theology, Philosophy, and Law? The friends of Job assumed the
pagan dogma of human autonomy:
• Man is the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
• Man is the measure of all things, including God and evil.
• Man does not need divine revelation to figure things out.
• Man’s reason, experience, feelings and faith are sufficient basis for
what to believe and how to live.
Job’s message concerns man’s absolute need for and dependence on
divine revelation to understand himself, God, and the world.
The biblical authors appealed to the Scriptures as the final authority for
what to believe and how to live. They taught that God, not man, is the
Source of truth and morals. As Tayler Lewis states in his classic
commentary on Job,
Job demands a Pure Theism first as the Ground of all other
Religious Ideas.
Among all writings, inspired or uninspired, the Book of Job
stands preeminent for its lofty representations of the pure
moral personality, the holiness, the unchallengeable justice,
the wisdom, the Omnipotence, the absolute Sovereignty of
God. Whatever may be said of its obscurities and difficulties
in other respects, in the splendor of its theism it is
 unsurpassed. Our best modern Theology, in its most approved
and philosophical symbols may be challenged to produce
anything surpassing the representations which this ancient
writing gives us of God as ‘a Spirit, infinite, eternal and
unchangeable in His being, power, holiness, justice, goodness
and truth.’ Nothing approaches its ideal of the ineffable purity
of the divine character, before which the heavens veil their
brightness, and the loftiest intelligences are represented as
comparatively unholy and impure. God the Absolute, the
Infinite, the Unconditioned, the Unknowable—these are the
terms by which our most pretentious philosophizing would
characterize Deity as something altogether beyond the
ordinary theological conception. But even here this old Book
of Job surpasses them in setting forth the transcending glory,
the ineffable height, the measureless profundity of the Eternal.
Special revelation is the “ground” or foundation for all religious ideas
that claim to be “Christian” in the biblical sense of the word. An idea is
not “Christian” just because the one asserting it claims to be a Christian.

The Word “Christian”

Those who have fallen into the quicksand of modern relativism apply
the word “Christian” to any idea as long as the author of that idea claims
to be a “Christian.” They view the word “Christian” as a “rubber band”
word that can be stretched and pulled out of shape to include any and all
contradictory philosophies and theologies. This has led to our
contemporary situation in which liberals, Roman Catholics, Eastern
Orthodox, New Agers, occultists, cultists, neo-orthodox, Open View, and
neo-evangelicals are all called “Christian” philosophers and theologians.
What people forget today is that in order for a philosophy or Theology
to be truly “Christian,” it must be “biblical.” Its ideas must be grounded in
Holy Scripture instead of “vain speculations” (Rom. 1:21). If the word
“Christian” is to mean anything, it cannot mean everything. It must have a
specific meaning. It cannot be a “rubber band” word.
The test of whether a philosophy or Theology is truly Christian is
whether it begins and ends with the Bible. If a Theology or philosophy is
not biblical, then it is not “Christian” in any real sense.
This Sounds Strange Today
I know this sounds strange in a politically-correct world of relativism,
compromise, and heresy. Some will claim that we are being mean and
unkind when we condemn heresy as heresy. But “let God be true even if
this means that all men are liars” (Rom. 3:4) and as Jesus cleansed the
temple in His day, so may His church be purified of serious heretical
doctrines today.

A Firm Foundation
Again, as the first revelation of Scripture, the Book of Job is the firm
foundation of the Biblical worldview and, therefore, the foundation of the
Christian worldview. Any so-called “Christian” philosopher or theologian
who either ignores or denies the Bible, particularly the Book of Job, is
engaging in another sad attempt to masquerade humanism itself as
“Christian” in order to deceive the naïve.
Building a Christian Worldview is a good example of the wrong way to
construct a “Christian” worldview. While it has some good material and
we do not doubt the good intentions of all the authors, instead of a careful
exegesis of Scripture as the Origin of truth, the editor of the book adopts
the “historical approach” which focuses on an analysis of what man has
historically said about God, not what God has said about man. The
historical approach replaces the Bible with man’s speculations. The history
of man’s vain ideas becomes the only proper subject of Theology. In this
way it reduces theology to a history of human psychology and sociology.
The editor of the book specifically rejected the idea that we should
begin solely with the Bible for our theoretical materials to construct our
worldview. He wrote,
That approach, however, would not enable us to compare and
contrast biblical ideas with others that confronted Christians in
earlier times and that directly affected the development of
contemporary viewpoints. Limiting our analysis to biblical
materials would also prohibit us from seeing how Christians
have both defended their ideas and criticized alternate views.
Since Christianity has never existed in a vacuum, its followers
 have always had to express and implement their faith in
particular cultural environments.
The “historical approach” assumes that relative and subjective “cultural
environments” factors ultimately control what people believe and how
they live. Christians are no different. When culture changes, they say that
Christians should change their beliefs. The church must conform to the
world or die.
To be sure, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and modern
Protestant apostate theologies such as liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, neo-
evangelicalism, Open View of God, etc. do indeed derive their beliefs and
practices from the apostate “cultural environment” around them. In
contrast, those who base their worldview on God’s Revelation found in
Scripture have escaped this problem.
First, the historical approach is a total surrender to relativism. Each
individual “cultural environment” is different and changes from nation to
nation and age to age. This is the fatal error of Natural Theology. Like a
chameleon on a wall, it changes its beliefs to match the colors of its
cultural background. This is why Natural theologians change their
arguments from generation to generation.
Second, if it is true that what we believe is due to such irrational causes
as one’s “cultural environment,” then that statement has just refuted itself!
It is likewise based on irrational forces and therefore meaningless. If it is
right, then it is wrong. If it is wrong, then it is wrong. Either way, it is
wrong! Any view that defeats itself is doomed for the ash heap of history.
Paul warns us not to allow the cultural environment to mold our
thinking.
And do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by
the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will
of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
(Rom. 12:2)
και ̀ μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε
τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοὸς εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα
τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν και ̀ εὐάρεστον και ̀ τέλειον.
First, Paul commands us not to allow “the present cultural
environment” (τῷ αἰῶνι τούτω) to mold and shape our ideas, priorities,
values or standards. D. A. Carson points out,
V 2, while grammatically parallel to v 1, really explains in
more detail how this giving of ourselves as sacrifices is to be
carried out. What is required is nothing less than a total
transformation in world-view. No longer are we to look at life
in terms of this world, the realm of sin and death from which
we have been transferred by God’s power (see 5:12–21), but in
terms of the new realm to which we belong, the realm ruled by
righteousness, life and the Spirit. Living in the world, we are
nevertheless no longer ‘of the world’ (Jn. 17:15–16). The
essence of successful Christian living is the renewing of our
minds so that we might be able to approve what God’s will is
—that is, to recognize and put into practice God’s will for
every situation we face. God has not given to Christians a set
of detailed commandments to guide us. He has given us his
Spirit, who is working to change our hearts and minds from
within, so that our obedience to God might be natural and
spontaneous (see 7:6; 8:5–9; Je. 31:31–34; 2 Cor. 3:6–7; Eph.
4:22–24).
What our “cultural environment” has to say about truth, justice, morals,
meaning, and beauty is not as important as what GOD says about truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty in Scripture. To the degree our
“cultural environment” agrees with the Word of God is the degree it is true
and good. When it disagrees with Scripture, we, like Paul, toss it aside as
foolishness. And, continuing with this scripture, full surrender to the
Lordship of Christ is required.
I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to
present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to
God, which is your spiritual service of worship. (Rom. 12:1)
Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ
παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον
τῷ θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν·
This is where the rubber meets the road. Either submit to the absolute
authority of Scripture, or bow before the dung hill idols of human reason,
experience, feelings, and faith.
Third, do you want to “prove” that the revealed will of God is good,
acceptable, and perfect? Let God’s Word “transform” your mind as you
“renew” your commitment to the Lordship of Christ over all of life.
It is thus no surprise that the Book of Job is not mentioned in Building
a Christian Worldview. No exegesis of it is even attempted. It does not do
us any good to say that our ideas are “biblical” if we never bother to
exegetically demonstrate that they are biblical. Author’s Note
Now, do not be distracted when we refer to people by name. The authors
of Scripture such as Paul did this. Let us make this point absolutely clear:
We have no interest in judging the hearts of people. Most Neo-
evangelicals claim to be “saved” in some sense of the word. Maybe they
are and maybe not. We don’t know. God will on the Day of Judgment judge
the hearts of all people (Mat. 7:21–22).

We Must Judge Doctrine

But, while we cannot judge their hearts, we can judge their theology
and philosophy by Scripture to see if it is “Christian.” This point must be
absolutely clear. We have the biblical responsibility to critically judge
whether the teachings of someone are in line with Scripture. In 1 Cor.
14:29, after Paul permitted several people to speak, he adds,
Let the others pass judgment.
και ̀ οἱ ἄλλοι διακρινέτωσαν·
The word διακρίνω means to evaluate what is taught under the
categories of biblical “truth” and “morals.” Hendriksen comments,
What is the standard by which the listeners judge the words of
the speaker? They must evaluate the speaker’s message with
God’s Word. As the Bereans examined the Scriptures every day
to see whether Paul’s teaching was in harmony with God’s
revelation (Acts 17:11; see also I Thess. 5:21, Didache 11:7
for similar instances), so they are to weigh the words of the
prophet. Elsewhere Paul exhorts the believers to let the word
of Christ dwell in them richly (Col. 3:16); in teaching and
 admonishing one another, let the Scriptures serve as the
standard.
In the politically correct world of liberalism, doctrine is not placed
under these two categories. Doctrine is under the category of “personal
preference.” But Scripture does not exempt anyone from being judged on
their beliefs. Even the Apostle Paul was not exempt. Furthermore, the
Bereans were praised for using Scripture to judge Paul’s teachings. They
were called “noble-minded.”
Now these were more noble-minded than those in
Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness,
examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things
were so. (Acts 17:11)
οὗτοι δὲ ἦσαν εὐγενέστεροι τῶν ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ, οἵτινες
ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας καθʼ ἡμέραν
ἀνακρίνοντες τὰς γραφὰς εἰ ἔχοι ταῦτα οὕτως.
They were described as εὐγενής. The meaning of this word is not
difficult to discover. It is found in the Septuagint and in Josephus, and was
also used by Greek writers such as Aristophanes. It means to act like a
high-class, educated person with discernment. It is the opposite of being a
gullible, low-class dunce.
Open—minded translates a word which originally referred to
persons of noble birth (see RSV “noble”), but which later came
to be used of those qualities which were expected in a person
of such birth.
Whenever we judge the worldview of Neo-evangelical Natural
theologians, they are insulted and often angry. They whine that we are
attacking them personally. They shout and carry on that we are judging
their hearts. But we are not interested in judging whether or not they are
“saved.” That issue is between them and God. But this does not mean that
we cannot judge what they teach.
In the context of 1 Cor. 14:29, the word διακρίνω means to judge what is
said in order to discern if it is in line with Scripture. If they judged what
prophets said, how much more what Natural theologians and philosophers
teach! Jesus commanded us,
 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with
righteous judgment. (John 7:24)
μὴ κρίνετε κατʼ ὄψιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε.
While Jesus clearly condemned hypocritical judgment (Mat. 7:1 cf.
7:5), He also said that we are to judge whether someone is a “wild dog” or
a “savage pig” (Mat. 7:6, 15). He even commanded us to judge some
people as “false prophets.” The teachings of Jesus lead us to judge the
teachings of all men.

The Example of Jesus

If we look at the example of Jesus to see if He practiced what He
preached, we find that He condemned the teachings of the Pharisees,
Sadducees, and others. He did not tolerate false doctrine. Thus we will not
apologize for judging the worldview of anyone—including professing
Christian theologians and philosophers.
Rationalists (like Moreland and Craig) promote a “philosophical
foundation” of what they call “a Christian worldview.” But they base it
upon an idealized and romantic view of man’s Natural Reason. They
assume their “reason” is self-sufficient and infallible. Thus they are the
ultimate origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
In Moreland’s and Craig book, Philosophical Foundations, if you look
under the name index, you will find many references to Aristotle, Plato,
etc. But, if you look under the Js for “Jesus,” you will not find a single
reference! How can you have a “Christian” worldview if the teachings of
Jesus are ignored?
It is not surprising that rationalists do not see any need to seek a
supernatural or divine Origin of truth. While having absolute confidence
in the infallibility of human reason, they have serious doubts about the
infallibility of divine revelation!
Most rationalists, (like Stephen Davis, Clark Pinnock, etc.), deny the
inerrancy of Scripture. A few like J. P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, etc.
still hold to it. For this we are thankful. They are to be commended for
going against their fundamental principles and retaining their faith in the
inerrancy of Scripture.
 The worldview of rationalists is god-less, Christ-less, and Bible-less
because they view their own depraved Reason as a sufficient basis for final
answers. In reality, they are religious humanists who believe that man is
the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty; that man is the
measure of all things including God; that man must begin only with
himself, by himself, in and of himself, rejecting any outside information
from Special Revelation. They believe that man, not God, is,
philosophically speaking, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and
Omega, the First and the Last.

James Taylor
James Taylor, following the religious existentialism of Kierkegaard,
correctly saw through the sham arguments set forth by rationalists like
Geisler, Moreland, and Craig. He realized that human Reason cannot
justify belief in God. Instead of turning away from fallen man to God as
the Origin of truth, Taylor, like all humanists, looked within himself and
chose something else to idealize and romanticize as the Origin of all
things.
Taylor chose his own personal experiences as the basis of his
worldview. He defines his experience as the basis of the Christian
worldview.
My Christian faith is grounded primarily in my experience of
God in Christ through the ministry in my life of the Holy
Spirit.
Belief in God … is grounded in the right kinds of experiences.
Since he chooses his own personal and subjective experience as the
basis of his worldview, what does Taylor think of the Bible? Like most
humanists, he assumes his own infallibility, while rejecting the
infallibility of Scripture.
Of course, if you accept the pagan dogma of libertarian “free will,” you
cannot “rationally” have an infallible Bible. This is why Natural
theologians like Clark Pinnock reject the inerrancy of the Bible.
The libertarian dogma of “free will” means that man must be free at all
times from God’s control—even when writing the Bible. This means that
the authors of the Bible were free to make all kinds of stupid and
erroneous statements that reflected the culture and superstitions of their
day. Taylor explains,
If God allowed the authors a certain amount of freedom and
creativity (and it seems reasonable to think that he did), then
they were not merely God’s mouthpieces. In that case, even if
God does not ever say anything false, it seems possible that
those he inspired to write the Scriptures did, at least about
relatively unimportant matters.
Because the dogma of libertarian “free will” led Taylor and Pinnock to
reject the inerrancy of Scripture, they cannot “rationally” view the Bible
as reliable as their own personal reason, experience, feelings, and faith.
Humanists always exalt man at the expense of God.

The Inerrancy of Scripture

This is why we, without shame or embarrassment, begin with the
inerrant and infallible Bible as the Origin of our worldview. Because the
first biblical book written is Job, it is the biblical foundation of the
Christian worldview.

An Introduction to Job
Given these facts, we will begin with a brief introduction to the Book of
Job. Since we are not writing a commentary on Job per se, we will avoid
obscure literary jargon and will be content with giving the fruit of our
literary analysis of the story of Job and his friends.
First, Job and his friends were real historical characters. They were not
poetic fiction drawn from ancient mythology and legend. As The Pulpit
Commentary points out,
The early Christian Fathers and the earlier Jewish rabbis treat
it as absolutely historical, and no whisper arises to the contrary
till several centuries after the Christian era.
Liberals usually dismiss the historicity of Job as an “entirely
antiquated” idea that no modern scholar accepts. When forced to admit
that there are modern scholars who argue for the historicity of Job, they
reply that the issue is of no significance.14
 The historicity of Job and his friends is assured because of later echoes
in both the Old and New Testament.
Even though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in its
midst, by their own righteousness they could only deliver
themselves,” declares the Lord God. (Ezekiel 14:14)
Behold, we count those blessed who endured. You have heard
of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the
Lord’s dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is
merciful. (James 5:11)
The context of both passages clearly demonstrates the historicity of
Job, his friends, their discussions, and the book that bears his name. They
are sufficient to demonstrate that Job was a real flesh and blood man who
experienced the pain and suffering described in the book that bears his
name. Tayler Lewis again comments,
It shows that Job lives—and the first reporter, too, we think
not only before the giving of the Mosaic Law, but at that still
earlier time when there was, indeed, a most sublime theism.
Liberal theologians have speculated that Job was a fictional construct
that idealized pre-Mosaic religious life and thought. They dismissed the
historical prologue and epilogue as “window dressing.” They argued that
the poetic structure of the debates between Job and his friends
automatically precludes any idea of the historicity of the characters or the
discussions.
The liberal hermeneutic is erroneous at this point. Just because the
author of Job stylized the discussions in poetic measure does not
automatically negate the fact that those debates actually took place. Just
because we do not have a literal transcript of exactly who said what, when,
where, and how should not disturb us. The story is substantially true and
the main points of each speaker are faithfully rendered in poetic language.
After all, the author is recasting “something”—not nothing—in a poetic
style.
The literary genre of poetry does not preclude the historicity of what
the poem describes. There are Psalms that celebrate Creation, the Exodus,
and other events in redemptive history (Psa. 89; 104; 105, etc.). Are we to
assume that those events did not take place because they are celebrated in
poetry?
In preparation for this book, when I asked a Natural theologian why he
did not at any point deal with the Book of Job, he replied, “It is poetry and
therefore irrelevant.” Joseph Parker comments on this dodge,
Why do we edge the Almighty out of life by describing his
supposed intervention as the suggestion of poetry? Why is this
poetry supposed to be so mischievous? Is it any more
mischievous than a sky? What crimes has it committed? What
is the indictment against poetry … Men suppose that when
they designated a saying or a suggestion as poetical, they have
put it out of court. It is not so … Does he ask little questions?
Are they frivolous interrogations that he propounds? Is the
inquiry worthy of his name, even though that name be
poetical? Is every question here on the level of the highest
thinking? Judge the Theophany as a whole, and then say how
far we are at liberty to excuse ourselves from the application
of its argument on the trivial ground that it is but poetry.
Even in the secular world, one can think of many epic poems written
throughout history that celebrated real historic events. “The Charge of the
Light Brigade” and the “Midnight Ride of Paul Revere” come to mind. As
Rawlinson comments in The Pulpit Commentary,
Nothing was more common in antiquity than to take a set of
historical facts, and expand them into a poem …
The author of Job structured the story of Job and his friends and
stylized their discussions in poetry to highlight the focus of his message:
Man is not the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning or beauty. God
through His special revelation is the origin. Without Divine Revelation,
man knows nothing.
Second, we must make the distinction between dating the events and
when the Book of Job was written. In terms of dating the events and
debates described in Job, they are clearly pre-Mosaic and thus predate the
rest of the Bible. This explains the absence in Job of any specific
references to Old Covenant rites, ceremonies, temples, and priests. Job
probably lived during the time of the Patriarchs, and may have been a
contemporary of Abraham.
The discovery of ancient clay tablets from the Patriarchal Period has
settled the issue for those who lust after empirical proof. As Gibson
pointed out, there are clear parallels to the words found in Job (Ayab) to
those found on the clay tablets.
It is interesting to find that the very similar form Ayab is
found on one of the Tel el-Amarna tablets (Winckler, no. 237).
Most scholars guess the ancient clay tablets of Job were collected and
translated in the days of Solomon, during which the genre of Jewish
Wisdom literature was developed. Since Ezekiel specially refers to Job
without explaining who he was to his readers, the book was already well-
known before the time of the prophets. Thus there was no need to
introduce the book for the first time.
Any standard introduction to Job will also provide a list of many
additional passages in the Bible where the Book of Job is either quoted or
alluded to. For example, Romans 11:35 is an echo of Job 41:11.
Third, the author is not known. Since God did not tell us, evidently it is
not essential to understand the message of Job.
The rationalists of the eighteenth century assumed that Job could not
have written it because there was no writing in his day. This is the same
reason they gave for denying the Mosaic authorship of the Torah.
Archeology exploded that liberal myth a long time ago, and we have many
examples of writing before the time of Abraham.
Fourth, the text of Job remains a challenge. When you compare the
Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin texts of Job, you will find a great deal
of contradiction. The Greek version is shorter than the Hebrew text!
The Targums of Job do not even help us at this point because of
deliberate insertions and even suppression. Céline Mangan, the translator
of The Targum of Job comments,
The targum of Job is one of the most enigmatic of targums:
while a targum of the Book of Job was discovered among the
Dead Sea Scrolls (11 Qtg Job), this bears little resemblance to
the later Rabbinic targum (henceforth tg. Job) known to us
from the printed editions of the Bible and which is the subject
of this study. Said R. Jose: It once happened that my father,
 Halafta, visited R. Gamaliel Berabbi at Tiberias and found him
sitting at the table of Johanan b. Nizuf with the Targum of the
Book of Job in his hand which he was reading. Said he to him,
‘I remember that R. Gamaliel, your grandfather, was standing
on a high eminence on the Temple Mount, when the Book of
Job in a targumaic version was brought before him, whereupon
he said to the builder, ‘Bury it under the bricks.’ He (R.
Gamaliel II) too gave orders and they hid it.’ ” Shabb. 115a.
In this light we have given the priority to the Hebrew text and use the
other translations as mere commentary.
Fifth, the place of Job in the canon of Scripture is significant. Since it is
the first biblical book ever written, why is it not placed first in the Bible,
i.e. before Genesis? Or, since it deals with a historic situation, why is it
not in the historical narrative section of the Old Testament?
The order of the books found in the English Bible is not a product of
chronology, authorship, chance, or size. We refer the reader to our course
material on the Text and Canon of Scripture for the details. But, to
summarize that material, it is clear that the scrolls of sacred Scripture
were arranged thematically or topically.
Job is in the section of the Old Testament called “Wisdom Literature.”
This section includes Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of
Solomon. Gibson comments,
The place which the book of Job occupies in our English
Bibles after the historical books and before the Psalms is that
which it has always occupied in the Western Church, at least
since the days of S. Jerome, in whose translation (The Vulgate)
it is found in this position, in accordance with the arrangement
of the books commonly (though not invariably) adopted in the
Greek Bibles.
The King James Version followed the order of Wisdom books found in
the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament used by the early church. Job was
placed first in the Wisdom Literature because it was foundational to the
rest of the books in that section.
When compared to the other wisdom books, the following order of
themes can be seen.
 Job: How to cope with evil.
Psalms: How to walk with God.
Proverbs: How to walk with your neighbor.
Ecclesiastes: How to live with meaning.
Song of Solomon: How to walk with your wife.
It is significant that the first biblical book ever written deals with the
issue of why evil happens to good people! The subject of evil is thus the
first issue discussed through divine revelation.
It is important that the existence of God is not the first issue addressed
by divine revelation, because God’s existence is never treated in the Bible
as a problem that needs solving. It is always assumed to be the solution to
man’s problems, and not as a problem itself. This is why Genesis 1:1
begins with God and then explains the origin and structure of the universe
and the uniqueness of man on that basis. Any apologetic system that views
the existence of God as the problem instead of the solution is not biblical
in its foundation.
As a matter of fact, the subject of evil requires the existence of the God
of the Bible. There is no “evil” to have a problem with once you take the
biblical God out of the equation. Theodicy is thus both an application and
implication of the existence of the biblical Creator and Ruler of the
universe. Since the God of the Bible is good, all powerful, and sovereign
over all things, why does evil exist? Why do evil things happen to
supposedly good people—even upon those who believe in Him?
If the biblical God does not exist, then there is no problem with evil
because the word “evil” no longer has any meaning. Any “God” not
absolutely good or absolutely sovereign is a bridge broken at either end,
and thus is not the God of the Bible.
This is why neo-evangelicals, Open View Deists, Processians, New Age
pantheists, and other heretical theologies reject the sovereign God of the
Bible and substitute in His place an idiotic androgynous god or goddess
created by their depraved mind.

The Cults and the Sovereignty of God

Let the reader take note of the fact that man-made gods are never
viewed as sovereign over all things. Stop and think about that for a
moment. Whenever and wherever man creates his own gods, he makes
them in his own image. Thus these gods are never the Sovereign Creator of
the universe who predetermines and controls all things. They are always
limited in the same ways as man.
The cults and the occult, heresies new and old, and all pagan religions
are based upon limited deities. Only the Scripture tells us that the “God
who is there” ordains and controls all that comes to pass for His glory.
But when we turn to Natural theologies past and modern that are made
by man and for man, they always create weak pathetic deities who float
around helplessly in a sea of chance and chaos, crying out for man to save
them. They are powerless to save and powerless to keep. They are
worthless, as far as gods are concerned.
Once they have thrown out the sovereignty of God, modern “thinkers”
then strip God of His immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. In the
end, they whittle God down like a bar of soap until they are left with a
deity unknown to the biblical authors and to church history. This god is not
worthy of being worshipped as GOD.
One of the keys to determining if a view of God is biblical is to see if it
generates the kinds of objections noted in Rom. 9. If your “god” escapes
the objections noted by Paul, then your “god” is not the GOD of the Bible.
The false god of Open Theism, Process Theology, liberalism, and Eastern
thought does not generate the objections found in Rom. 9:14–23.
And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had
conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the
twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or
bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His election
might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who
calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.”
Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Rom.
9:10–13)
Humanists have always disagreed with this passage because their
depraved “reason” tells them that God is neither fair nor just. God is
unjust if He does not love both Jacob and Esau equally. He does not have
the right to choose Jacob and reject Esau. He cannot love one and hate the
other.
What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is
there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have
 mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on
whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the
man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has
mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very
purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and
that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole
earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He
hardens whom He desires. (Rom. 9:14–18)
The only theology that generates the same exact objections listed by
Paul above is biblical Calvinism. All other forms of Christian theism are
inconsistent in their concept of God; they have exalted man and reduced
God in order that these objections are never raised against them. Just as
Calvinism is the final destination of biblical theism, Arminianism is only
a bus stop on the way to atheism.
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For
who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man,
who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to
the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does
not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the
same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for
common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate
His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much
patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did
so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory
upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for
glory. (Rom. 9:9–23)
Defective views of God do not teach that God’s will is irresistible.
Hence they cannot generate the objections listed by Paul above. Neither
would they give Paul’s biblical answer that God is the sovereign Potter
who has the right to make some men vessels of wrath and others vessels of
mercy for His glory. This is Christianity for the tough-minded!
Humanistic theologies always view evil as the product of chance, luck,
bad potty-training, ignorance, low blood sugar, defective vitamins or a bad
“cultural environment.” The “problem” of evil is a “problem” only if we
begin by assuming that the good and omnipotent Sovereign Creator and
Ruler of the universe revealed in Scripture actually exists. The moment
the biblical God is pushed aside, the problem of evil evaporates.
Whatever “god” the rationalists permit to exist has been reduced to
manageable size and power. This limited deity is helpless and hopeless
because evil is in control of the universe, not God. The rationalists live in
their own fantasy make-believe world where man is autonomous.
The German word Vergeltungslehre is an accurate description of the
imaginary world in which rationalists “live and move and have their
being.” As Gibson put it,
They cannot conceive that there are more things in heaven and
earth than are dreamt of in their philosophy. They have their
theory, and if facts do not square with it, then—so much the
worse for facts.
Two examples of the rationalist’s Vergeltungslehre come to mind.
First, why bad things happen to bad people is never viewed by
rationalists as a problem that requires solving. They do not agonize over
the issue. They do not give up their belief in God because bad things
happen to bad people. They do not even use it as a club to beat theists over
the head. Why is this so?
The psychological phenomenon called “wish fulfillment” explains why
rationalists do not get upset when bad things happen to bad people. They
actually want (i.e. wish) bad things to happen to bad people. Why?
Humanists always assume a works-based theology in which if we do
good things, good things will happen to us because we merited or earned
it. They say,
What goes around, comes around.
You get what you deserve.
It’s their just deserts.
It’s their karma.
It’s poetic justice.
This explains why Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic philosophers
and theologians are extremely vexed over the problem of evil. They
assume that God will reward their good works and punish their evil works.
When bad things happen to good people, this upsets their works-based
system of salvation.
 This also explains why the Reformers were not bothered by the issue.
They held to a grace-based system in which salvation is the free gift of
God through the merits of Jesus Christ alone. Upon comparison, the
Protestant Reformers did not spend a great deal of time on the problem of
evil when compared to the amount of time spent on the issue by humanists
such as Thomas Aquinas.

No “Good” People
There is a second issue that reveals the Vergeltungslehre of the
rationalists. Why do the Orthodoxs, Catholics, pagans, neo-evangelicals,
etc. assume that there are any “good” people around? The key to their
angst is that bad things happen to good people. But, what if there are no
good people? Their Vergeltungslehre disappears with a bang! What
humanists fail to realize is that there are no “good” people in the sight of
God according to the Bible. David declared in Psalm 14:2–3,
YHWH looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see
if there are any who understand, Who seek after God. They
have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one.
The Apostle Paul expands upon this passage by saying,
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already
charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good, There is not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they keep
deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
“Their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in
their paths, and the path of peace have they not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:9–18)
 The fact that bad things happen to bad people should not shock anyone.
Since we are all “bad” according to Scripture, then we should expect bad
things to happen to us. Eternal torment in hell is the final bad thing that
may happen to us unless God intervenes on our behalf!
We cannot do enough good works to balance our evil works. Salvation
is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to
Scripture alone.
The Vergeltungslehre of humanism is a world populated by “good” (sic)
people who merit blessings through their good works. They cannot deal
with such passages as Psalm 14. As Taylor Lewis stated,
This fantastic Vergeltungslehre, as thus held by the
Rationalists, is inconsistent moreover with the tone of the
most important and most serious of the Psalms.
… the Vergeltungslehre … Delitzsch justly estimates as “a
phantom of the Rationalists …”
Rationalists are modern examples of the “friends” of Job who believed
that retribution and blessing are based solely upon one’s performance and
person. They have no concept of grace because they do not know the
biblical God of grace. This is why they cannot handle biblical
anthropology or soteriology.
Fifth, the author of the book of Job structured the story as a series of
debates on the origin, nature, meaning, and purpose of evil. The debates
are arranged in three cycles.
Naturalist Job’s Answer

Eliphaz 4–5 6–7

Bildad 8 9–10

Zophar 11 12–14

Eliphaz 15 16–17

Bildad 18 19
Zophar 20 21

Eliphaz 22 23–24

Bildad 25 26

Zophar’s silence 27–31

Elihu 32–33

Elihu 34

Elihu 35

Elihu 36

Elihu 37

The politically-correct world of the liberal Vergeltungslehre condemns

debates. We are all supposed to get along and go along with each other in
the name of tolerance and ecumenical unity. Of course, they are never
tolerant of those who disagree with their humanism and always end up in
self-contradiction!
It is important that the very first divine revelation was in the context of
a series of debates. Those who condemn the art of debate and its
usefulness in education reveal that they do not know the Word or power of
God.
Sixth, the revealed solution to the problem of evil is the grand doctrine
of the absolute sovereignty of God over all things, including the evil
committed by devils and men. Lewis comments,
The Great Lesson of the Book—The Absolute Sovereignty
of God
… the great lesson … to teach the absolute moral sovereignty
of God, and the unqualified duty of human submission, as to
demand carrying in itself its own inherent righteousness. The
theism, the theodicé of the Book is its great feature. Never
were the divine personality, the divine holiness, the divine
government unchallengeable, in a word, the absolute divine
sovereignty, more sublimely set forth. Here there is no reserve:
God most wise and good, most just and holy, to be
acknowledged as such whether we can see it or not; God who
‘maketh one vessel to honor and another to dishonor,’ who
‘setteth on high or casteth down.’ Who ‘bindeth up and
breaketh in pieces,’ who is to be regarded as having their
holiest reasons for all this, yes ‘giveth no account of His
ways,’ allowing ‘no one to touch His hand, and say unto Him
what does Thou?’
The Absolute Divine Sovereignty before any Doctrine of
Human Destiny
Thus regarded, the value of a pure theism, in which the
absolute divine sovereignty holds its sovereign place, is
beyond that of every other dogma. Without it, all other
religious teaching may become not only vain but mischievous.
It is not too much to say that even now, in this advanced age of
Theology, there is arising a new need of this idea. There is
something in the Naturalistic tendencies of our science, and
our literature, which more and more demands a revival of the
thought of a personal, holy, omnipotent, unchallengeable God,
who “doeth all things according to His good pleasure,”
whether through nature, or against nature, or above nature. The
sharpening of this would give a new edge to every other
religious dogma. The ideas of sin, holiness, accountability,
would receive a new impress of clearness and power. The
doctrine of a future life would get a moral significance,
throwing in the back-ground those Naturalistic and merely
imaginative features which are now making it a matter of
curious speculation, or of physical, rather than of ethical
interest. Such a sudden sharpening of the divine idea would
 have a startling effect, like the actual witnessing of a miracle,
in bringing so near the thought of God as to set it in a new and
surprising light, resembling vision rather than theory, and
calling forth something like the exclamation of Job, when ‘the
hearing of the ear” had become an actual beholding.
Its One Idea: The Divine Omnipotence. God ‘can do All
Things.
If the solution of the problem, as some call it, is to be found
anywhere, it is in the address of the Almighty. That is what
every reader naturally expects, and is disappointed to some
extent, in not finding. No explanation, however, is given of the
cause of Job’s mysterious sufferings, nor any decision made in
regard to the matters in debate between him and his
antagonists. Instead of that, one idea, predominant and
exclusive, pervades every part of that most sublime exhibition.
It is that of power, omnipotent power, first as exhibited in the
great works of creation, and afterwards in those greater
productions of nature that seem next in rank to the creative
power itself. Nothing is said of any purpose in the great trial,
or of anything which should be made known to Job as
preparatory to his submission. There is no hint in respect to
ultimate compensation as a motive for endurance, such as is
held out in the Gospel to the Christian: ‘They that endure unto
the end, shall be saved.’ There is no allusion to any scheme of
discipline, no suggestion of afflictions which are only evils
apparently, since they are designed for purification, or as a
preparative for a higher blessedness. The curtain is not
withdrawn to disclose to us any vision of optimism as a motive
for the creature’s submission. Nothing of this kind appears, but
only that idea of power, omnipotent power, thundered forth in
tones that seem intended to silence rather than to convince.
Zockler agrees in his classic German commentary on Job. He then
quotes several great commentators who clearly saw the sovereignty of God
as the divine answer to the problem of evil.
The Idea and Aim of the Book
 In so far as the Book of Job seeks to harmonize the fact that
men endure unmerited suffering, or at least suffering which is
not directly merited, with the divine justice, it labors at the
solution of a problem which falls in the category of the
theodices, i.e. the attempt to justify the presence of sin in a
world created by God.”
Chap. 38:4 seq. Brentius: The aim of this discourse is to show
that no one has the right to accuse the Lord of injustice. The
proof of this point is that the Lord alone is the Creator of all
things, which with a certain amplification is illustrated from
various classes of creatures … From the history of these
creatures God proves that it is permitted to no one to accuse
Divine sovereignty of injustice, or to resist it; for of all
creatures not one was the Lord’s counselor, or rendered Him
any aid in the creation of the world. He can without any
injustice therefore dispose of all creatures according to His
own will, and create one vessel to honor, another to dishonor,
as it may please Him. Oecolampadius: No other reason can be
given than His own good pleasure why God did not make the
earth ten times larger. He had the power to enlarge it no less
than to confine it within such narrow limits; He would have
been able to make valleys, where there are mountains, and
conversely, etc. But He is Lord, and it pleased Him to assign to
things the length and depth and breadth which they now have.
Von Gerlach: The fundamental thought of these
representations which God here puts forth is that only He who
can create and govern all things in their relation to each other,
can also comprehend the connection of human destinies.
Inasmuch however as feeble short-sighted man cannot
understand and fathom the created things which are daily
surrounding him, how can he assume to himself any part of
God’s agency in administering the universe?
Albert Barnes in The Biblical Illustrator argues that,
The highest importance is to inculcate the duty of submitting
to the will and sovereignty of God. This is a lesson which we
often have to learn in life, and which almost all the trying
 dispensations of providence are fitted to teach us. It is not
because God has no reason for what He does; it is not because
He intends we shall never know the reason: but it is because it
is our duty to bow with submission to His will, and to
acquiesce in His right to reign even when we cannot see the
reason for His doings. Could we reason it out, then submit
because we saw the reason, our submission would not be to our
Maker’s pleasure, but to the deductions of our own minds.
Hence, all along, He so deals with man, by concealing the
reasons of His doings, as to bring him to submission to His
authority and to humble all human pride. To this termination
all the reasonings of the Almighty in this Book are conducted;
and after the exhibition of His power in the tempest, after His
sublime description of His own works, after His appeals to the
numerous things where are, in fact, incomprehensible to man,
we feel that God is great—that is presumptuous in man to sit
in judgment on His world, and that the mind, no matter what it
does, should bow before Him with profound veneration and
silence.
Modern commentaries also view the sovereignty of God as the theme of
Job. Robert Alden in The New American Commentary (1993) states,
What the believer does know, as the Book of Job teaches, is
that we serve a personal God who is intimately aware of each
person and his or her needs and concerns. Furthermore, the
Lord has not only a cosmic plan but an individual purpose he
is wisely, justly, and lovingly pursuing in each believer’s life.
Finally, our God is powerful enough to accomplish his will on
earth as well as in heaven. Thus, the other purpose of Job is
give comfort to believers of all ages who find themselves in
Job’s situation of suffering … the message of Job is that
nothing happens to us that is not ultimately controlled by the
knowledge, love, wisdom and power of our God of all comfort
(2 Cor. 1:3).
Max Anders, in the Holman Old Testament Commentary series, has
written what is probably the best modern commentary on Job. Under the
section entitled, “What is Job About?” he states,
 The most prominent theme of this book is the message of the
sovereignty of God. More than being a book about Job, it is,
actually, a book about God. In the opening chapters, the reader
is allowed to see into heaven’s throne room where divine
decisions affecting both heaven and earth are made. God
controls Satan’s power and man’s circumstances. The book
ends with God querying Job about the nature of his own right
to rule his creation. This is the primary lesson learned by Job
as taught in this book. God is God. He will do as he pleases,
when he pleases, with whom he pleases, without consulting his
creatures, and he will do so for his own glory and the ultimate
good of his people. Job serves as a good example to all
believers as he humbly submits to the sovereign rule of God
over his life. Job’s reaction to the rapid-fire tragedies is one of
reverent submission as he acknowledges God’s divine
discretion over all the possessions and persons in his life. This
submission is understood by Job in the context of his own life
when he says, “Though he slay me, yet I will hope in him”
(Job 13:15)
How different are the convoluted theories of Natural theologians.
Whereas chance, luck, the “sovereignty of man,” and his supposed “free
will” are put forth by Natural theologians and philosophers as the only
“rational” solution to the problem of evil, in His answer, God nowhere
even mentions such pagan idols! The silence is thunderous, to say the
least.
Consider this, if man’s supposed free will and human autonomy were
true in any sense, the Book of Job would have been the perfect place to
find it in Scripture. But these humanistic solutions to evil are not
mentioned. Even the so-called “argument from design” is nowhere to be
found. Lewis points this out clearly.
One might be led to think, at first view, that the great matter
worthy of such a sublime book as this, would be the solution of
the problem of evil—how sin came into the world, and man is
held accountable. It is the question of the ages, to the settling
of which not even the Critical Philosophy makes an approach.
There is, however, no allusion to it in the divine allocution,
 except as comprehended in that awful declaration of power and
sovereignty, seeming to say, as the voice said to Moses: ‘I will
be gracious to whom I will be gracious, forgiving iniquity,
transgression, and sin—visiting iniquities onto the third and
fourth generation, and showing mercy unto thousands of them
that love me and keep my commandments.’ Beyond this, no
solution is offered …
No argument from Design. The Divine Ways Transcending and
Ineffable. Eph. 3:10; John 9:3.
What right have we to apply the measure of our Ethics, or our
Psychology, or our Ontology, to Him ‘whose ways are above
our ways, and whose thinking is above our thinking, even as
the heavens are high above the earth,’ that is, immeasurably
and inconceivably beyond us?… Here is no throwing it upon
nature, as the Rationalist would have done, but a positive
assertion of a Divine purpose, and yet that purpose had being
of the individual sufferer. “Who art thou that repliest against
God? Shall the thing formed say unto him who formed it, Why
has thou made me thus?” Such is the idea that is brought to us
by this voice from the thunder-cloud.… especially needed in
this age of Naturalism, of scientific boasting, of godless
spiritualism.”
The Rationalist is repelled by the supernatural everywhere. He
has a most irrational, and yet an easily-explained, dislike to
the very idea, in whatever part of the Scriptures he may meet
with it.”
The Pulpit Commentary points out,
That man can fully comprehend God is denied, and disproved
by very cogent and valid reasonings (ch. 28:12–28; 36:26–33;
37:1–23; 38:4–41; 39; 40; 41). Man, therefore, must not
presume to sit in judgment upon God, who “doeth great things,
which man cannot comprehend” (ch. 37:5), and “whose ways
are past finding out.” His attitude must be one of submission,
reserve, and reverence. He must continually bear in mind that
 he has no faculties to grasp the whole range of actual facts and
consider their relations one to another, no power to
comprehend the scheme of the universe, much less to sound
the depths of the being of him who made it.
This is one way to ferret out the humanists in evangelical circles. Does
the self-proclaimed “evangelical” theologian or philosopher clearly put
forth the sovereignty of God or the sovereignty of man as the solution to
the problem of evil? This is why the Book of Job is so important.
Seven, the heresy of human autonomy is the assumption that man is
sufficient in and of himself to be the origin of truth, justice, morals,
meaning, and beauty. But it fails in light of the Book of Job because
humanism cannot explain Job’s sufferings on natural or rational grounds.
Furthermore, without Special Revelation from God, man cannot even
explain any aspect of reality.
Eight, while there are many different aspects of Job that could interest
us, an epistemological analysis of the “Dialogues of Natural Theology” as
recorded in the Book of Job reveal the total bankruptcy of Natural
Theology.
We spent several years at the Library of Congress researching every
single book it had on Natural Theology and Natural Law, but we did not
find a single writer who examined the dialogues found in Job.
Natural theologians always assume that their chief nemesis is David
Hume’s Dialogues and Natural History of Religion. Indeed, he shot and
buried the horse of Natural Theology as far as secular philosophy is
concerned. This is why Natural theologians spend so much time and effort
desperately trying to resurrect a dead horse. But Hume’s attack is mere
child’s play compared to the dialogues on Natural Theology found in the
Book of Job.
Nine, the outline of God’s speech in chapters 38–41 is instructive. The
sovereignty of God is applied to all of life as God slowly paints Job and
his friends into a corner. The point is that no aspect of creation is free from
the Creator’s sovereign control. Pagan concepts of chance, luck, chaos, and
free will are not part of the biblical worldview. God is in absolute control
over:
• The creation of the earth: 38:4–7
• The boundaries of the oceans: 38:8–11
 • The cycle of morning and evening: 38:12–15
• The hidden depths of the oceans: 38:16
• The depths of the after life: 38:17
• The circumference of the earth: 38:18
• The light and darkness: 38:19–21
• The snow, hail, and wind: 38:22–24
• The lightning and the rain: 38:25–28
• The ice and frost: 38:29–30
• The constellations: 38:31–33
• The clouds and thunderstorms: 38:34–35
• The mind and understanding of man: 38:36
• The droughts: 38:37–38
• The lions: 38:39–40
• The ravens: 38:41
• The goats: 39:1a
• The deer: 39:1b–4
• The donkeys: 39:5–8
• The oxen: 39:9–12
• The ostriches: 39:13–18
• The horses: 39:19–25
• The hawks: 39:26
• The eagles: 39:27–30
• The behemoth: 40:15–24
• The leviathan: 41:1–34
Once Job realized that God controls everything, he fell to his knees in
wonder, awe, and praise and exclaimed,
I know that you can do all things and that no purpose of yours
can be thwarted. (Job 42:1)
We will now proceed to examine the epistemological worldviews
represented by each friend of Job and how they failed to explain evil.
Job’s friends represent every school of Natural Theology that has been
spawned by the devil throughout human history. Their failure to explain
the origin, nature, and meaning of the evil suffered by Job and his family
is forever their Waterloo—and they didn’t even know it!
Eliphaz, the Empiricist
Eliphaz represents the worldview called empiricism. This form of
humanism believes that the five senses of man are the Origin of truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. It thus abstracts, absolutizes,
idealizes, and romanticizes human sensory experience, which reduces all
knowledge to those experiences. McGee correctly states,
Eliphaz is the first to speak. His is the voice of experience. The
key to what he has to say is found in verse 8, “Even as I have
seen.” Everything he has to say rests on that.
Eliphaz states his worldview in Job 4:8,
According to what I have seen …
‫ֲשׁר ָראִיתִי‬
ֶ ‫כַּא‬
This is later repeated in 5:3,
I have seen.…
‫ֲאנִי־ ָראִיתִי‬
He also states in 5:27,
Behold this, we have investigated it, thus it is [true]; Hear it,
and know for yourself.
‫ִהנֵּה־זֹאת ֲח ַקרְנוּ ָה ֶֽכּן־ ִהיא ְש ָמ ֶענָּה וְאַ ָתּה ַֽדע־ָֽל ְך׃ פ‬
In his second dialogue he argues,
I will tell you, listen to me; and what I have seen I will also
declare. (15:17)
‫ַא ַסֵֽפּרָה׃‬
ֲ ‫ה־חזִיתִי ו‬
ָ ֶ‫ֲא ַחוְָך ְֽשׁ ַֽמע־ ִלי וְֽז‬
First, both the Hebrew and Greek texts are clear: Eliphaz believed that
man is the origin and measure of all things. This is why, in Job 4:8, he
said,
According to what I have seen; I will tell you; We have
investigated it; what I have seen I will also declare.”
(Emphasis added.)
 Rawlinson observes,
The “I” is emphatic. “I myself have seen,” etc.
Second, the word “seen” refers to physical sight. As Eliphaz looked at
the world, he assumed, like all humanists, that if he started with himself,
by himself, and in himself, he could understand the meaning of life, death,
and all things because man, not God, is the Beginning and the End, the
Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Eliphaz assumed that he
could deduce from “Nature” rational truth about God.
Third, based on his observations of “Nature,” Eliphaz deduced certain
rational conclusions of why evil happens to people and how evil relates to
God.
Whoever perished being innocent? Or where were the upright
destroyed? (4:7)
‫ְחדוּ׃‬
ָֽ ‫ְשׁ ִרים נִכ‬
ָ ‫זְכָר־נָא ִמי הוּא נִָקי אָ ָבד וְֵאפֹה י‬
The humanistic doctrine of retribution means that we are rewarded
according to our deeds. If good things happen to us, we merited them. If
bad things happen to us, we brought them upon ourselves. Thus when
someone “perishes” or is “destroyed,” he is not “upright” or “innocent,”
but wicked. Gibson comments,
“[The] theory of a strict system of retribution as carried out in
the visible government of this world, underlies all their
arguments. Briefly the theory amounts to this: suffering is the
punishment of sin. Holding this, they are confronted with the
case of Job. Here is manifestly a great sufferer: therefore, so
runs the argument, he is a great sinner.… They assume rather
than state that Job must be guilty, and that his troubles are the
consequences of his sin.
Rawlinson agrees,
Eliphaz, then, probably the oldest of the three “comforters,”
took the word, rebuking Job for his want of fortitude, and at
suggesting (ch. 4:7–11)—what becomes one of the main points
of the controversy—that Job’s calamities have come upon him
 from God’s hand as a punishment for sins which he has
committed, and of which he has not repented.
A half-truth presented as the whole truth becomes a non-truth. Eliphaz
said that all suffering is a punishment for sin. He assumed that man merits
or demerits all things.
Although almost everything that Eliphaz says is true, it is not
the whole truth. Underlying his whole argument is the
assumption that all suffering is the punishment of sin, even if
designed to be corrective, and not simply vindictive.
Eliphaz even drags God into the web of retribution.
Those who plow iniquity and those who sow trouble harvest it.
‫ְשׁי אָוֶן וזְֹר ֵעי ָע ָמל יְִק ְצֻֽרהוּ׃‬
ֵ ‫ֲשׁר ָראִיתִי חֹר‬
ֶ ‫ַכּא‬
By the breath of God they perish, and by the blast of His anger
they come to an end. (4:8–9)
‫וּח אַפּוֹ יְִכֽלוּ‬
ַ ‫ִשׁ ַמת ֱאלוֹ ַה יֹא ְבדוּ וּמְר‬
ְ ‫ִמנּ‬
On the basis of a humanistic epistemology of empiricism, Eliphaz
denies the free grace and forgiveness of God, basing his hope for divine
acceptance upon his own works and character. Eliphaz thus reveals the
basis of all false religion: The idea that we can gain acceptance before God
based on our own person and performance.
This error is nothing more or less than works-based salvation. It is
rightly condemned by Paul with a divine anathema in Gal. 1:8–9. This is
why Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are false religions. They
deny the sovereign, free grace of God and exalt the works of man.
Fourth, how did Eliphaz prove that sinners are punished for their evil?
He points to the fate of animals in Nature. He deduced from their fate that
God punishes evil with evil.
The roaring of the lion and the voice of the fierce lion, and the
teeth of the young lions are broken. The lion perishes for lack
of prey, and the whelps of the lioness are scattered. (Job 4:10–
11)
 This is Natural Theology in all its vaunted glory. Job must be evil
because evil beasts such as lions perish for the evil they do.
Fifth, not only does Eliphaz argue from what he saw with his own eyes,
but also from occult experience. Spirits had communicated with him
through dreams and visitations.
Now a word was brought to me stealthily, and my ear received
a whisper of it. Amid disquieting thoughts from the visions of
the night, when deep sleep falls on men, then a spirit passed by
my face; The hair of my flesh bristled up. It stood still, but I
could not discern its appearance; A form was before my eyes;
There was silence, then I heard a voice. (4:12–16)
One of the problems that confronts those who base their worldview on
their own personal experience is that experiences do not carry within
themselves their own explanation. The interpretation comes from outside
of the experience. It is transcendent, i.e. they come from somewhere else.
Eliphaz interpreted his experience with a spirit guide as a good thing
that gave him information, but the Bible condemns it as an occult
experience with lying spirits or demons (1 Tim. 4:1).

Shirley MacLaine
When a neo-evangelical bases his Natural Theology on his own
personal experience, on what grounds can he deny Shirley MacLaine the
right to base her New Age religion on her personal experience? Last time I
checked, experience qua experience has no religion.
In her experience, Shirley felt that she was GOD. Without the
information from special revelation (via the Bible) that man is not God
and that people like MacLaine are deceived by demons, how can you deny
her experience? You cannot.
Sixth, Eliphaz assumed that the God who is there is silent and has not
spoken in special revelation to man. Thus Job did not have any “secret”
information. All men are equal in that no one has information from God.
Do you hear the secret counsel of God, and limit wisdom to
yourself?
‫ְמה׃‬
ָֽ ‫ְתגְרַע ֵא ֶלי ָך ָחכ‬
ִ ‫ִשׁ ָמע ו‬
ְ ‫ַהבְסוֹד ֱאלוֹ ַה תּ‬
 What do you know that we do not know? What do you
understand that we do not? (15:8–9)
ָ ‫ְתּ וְלֹא נֵָדע ָתּ ִבין ֽוְלֹא־ע‬
‫ִמּנוּ ֽהוּא׃‬ ָ ‫מַה־יַָּדע‬
Humanists have always been irritated by Christians who quote the Bible
as if it contains revealed truth that man cannot discover on his own. The
idea that God reveals things in the Bible that can only be known by divine
revelation strikes at the conceit and pride of man. It destroys the heresy of
human autonomy and makes man dependent upon God and His revelation
in Scripture.
The point of the Book of Job is that it is only by special revelation from
God that we could ever understand why Job suffered so many evil things.
With all his empirical knowledge from his five senses, all his occult
experiences, all his observations of nature, and all his rational deductions,
Eliphaz could never discover anything about heaven or what took place
there. Gibson comments,
It must be remembered that the parties to the debate knew
nothing whatever of the scene in heaven as described in the
prologue.
But of [the wager in heaven] neither the friends nor Job
himself were aware. They only knew what they could see with
the eye of sense.
Perhaps the whole mystery of suffering is insoluble by us in
our present condition; and whatever advances we make in
knowledge, there will still be much which, as the speeches of
the Almighty out of the whirlwind tell us, we cannot hope to
understand unless we can comprehend the whole mind of God.
Experience-based religions always collapse into the quicksand of
relativism. Why should your personal subjective experience be of any
greater value or authority than mine? One experience cancels out the other.

Bildad, The Rationalist

Bildad the Shuhite, represents those who believe that human reason
through philosophy can discover the answers to life’s great questions. He
was impressed by antiquity and looked back to a philosophic golden age in
which the human mind, unaided by divine revelation, was able to discern
truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. He urges Job to look to the
great thinkers of the past (Job 8:8).
Please inquire of past generations, and consider the things
searched out by their fathers,
‫ְח ֶקר אֲבוֹ ָֽתם׃‬
ֵ ‫י־שׁאַל־נָא ְלדֹר רִישׁוֹן וְכוֹנֵן ל‬
ְ ‫ִֽכּ‬
He asserts that the reason why we should study the history of
philosophy is that we are intellectually immature today and do not
understand the issues of life and death.
For we are only of yesterday and know nothing; because our
days on earth are as a shadow. (8:9)

ֽ ‫י־תמוֹל ֲאנַחְנוּ וְלֹא נֵָדע ִכּי ֵצל יֵָמינוּ ֲעל‬

‫ֵי־אָרֶץ׃‬ ְ ‫ִֽכּ‬
The empiricist Eliphaz looked to the five physical senses of man as the
origin of truth. In contrast, the rationalist Bildad looked to the mind, i.e.
human reason, as the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
He believed that the great philosophers of the past will teach us and tell us
the truth about evil through their minds.
Will they not teach you and tell you, And being words from
their minds? (8:10)
‫ֲהלֹא־ ֵהם יוֹרוּ ָך יֹא ְמרֵוּ ָל ְך וּ ִמ ִלּ ָבּם יוֹ ִצאוּ ִמִֽלּים׃‬
Bildad refers to past philosophers as his “fathers” because they
discovered the truth through their “minds,” i.e. their superior intellects.
The Hebrew word ‫ לֵב‬translated as “mind” in Job 8:10 is elsewhere
translated in Job as “intelligence” (12:24), “understanding” (36:5), and
“heart” (33:3).
[Bildad] had appealed to the wisdom of the ancients, and had
quoted various proverbial maxims and pithy sayings.
Books of advice and instruction embodied in proverbs, or
moral precepts, were among the earliest, in Egypt certainly.
 Bildad appeals to the wisdom of the ancients, from whom He
quotes maxims.
In Deut. 29:4 ‫ לֵב‬is the faculty by which we know or understand things.
In 1 Kings 3:9 the mind or intellect is the means by which we discern good
from evil. Pro. 28:26 gives us this solemn warning,
He who trusts in his own intellect is stupid, But he who walks
wisely will be delivered.
‫ִמֵּֽלט׃‬
ָ ‫ְמה הוּא י‬
ָ ‫ְסיל וְהוֹ ֵל ְך ְבּ ָחכ‬
ִ ‫בּוֹט ַח ְבּלִבּוֹ הוּא כ‬
ֵ
The word ‫ כ ִסיל‬refers to someone who is stupid, and thus a fool. The
irony could not be greater. Bildad wants Job to trust in something that
divine revelation tells us not to trust.
Trust in Yahweh with all your heart,
And do not lean on your own understanding.
‫בּ ַטח ֶאל־יְהוָה ְבּכָל־ ִל ֶבּ ָך‬
‫ִשֵּֽׁען׃‬ ָ ‫ְאל־ִֽבּינְָת ָך אַל־תּ‬
ֱ‫ו‬
In terms of the syntax of the text, the Hebrew parallelism is clear. The
word ‫ לֵב‬and the word ‫ בִּינָה‬are equivalents. We are commanded not to lean
on our own reason or intellect, but instead to rest upon divine revelation.
The Prophet Jeremiah warned us that the mind, intellect, and reason of
man are depraved and cannot be trusted.
The mind [‫ ]לֵב‬is more deceitful than all else and is desperately
sick; Who can understand it? (Jer. 17:9)
‫עָקֹב ַהלֵּב ִמכֹּל וְאָנֻשׁ הוּא ִמי יֵָדֶֽענּוּ׃‬
Because our reason is deceitful, it may tell us that good is evil and evil
is good. We may rationalize sin and turn it into a virtue. Thus the only one
who understands the depravity of our minds is YHWH.
I, Yahweh, search the mind [‫] ֵלב‬, I test the feelings [‫] ִכּ ְליָה‬, Even
to give to each man according to his ways, According to the
results of his deeds.
‫ָתת‬
ֵ ‫ֹחן ְכּלָיוֹת וְל‬ ֵ ‫ֲאנִי יְהוָה חֵֹקר ֵלב בּ‬
‫לְאִישׁ ) ְכַּדרְכּוֹ( ] ִכְּד ָר ָכיו[ ִכּ ְפ ִרי ַמ ֲע ָלָֽליו׃ ס‬
 Jeremiah uses the word ‫( ִכּ ְליָה‬lit. kidneys) to refer to feelings or
emotions. In contrast, he uses ‫ ֵלב‬to refer to that part of man that thinks,
reasons, and comes to conclusions (Pro. 16:9).
The mind [‫ ] ֵלב‬of man plans [‫ַשּׁב‬
ֵ ‫ ]יְח‬his way, But Yahweh directs
his steps.
‫ַשּׁב ַדּרְכּוֹ ֽוַיהוָה יִָכין ַצ ֲעדֽוֹ׃‬
ֵ ‫ֵלב אָדָם יְח‬
Bildad does not trust in YHWH with his entire mind. Instead, he “leans
upon the understanding” of the philosophers. This is why he quotes the
pagan philosophers of Egypt in verses 11–22. Gibson comments,
These proverbial sayings are evidently Egyptian in their
origin. The rush (a rare word, possible Coptic in origin) is
really the papyrus of the Nile.
What did he learn from pagan philosophers? They believed in the
principle of retribution in which good people are rewarded with good
things and evil people with evil things. Thus, Bildad believed that Job’s
sons died because of their sins.
If your sons sinned against Him, then He delivered them into
the power of their transgression. (8:4)
‫ִשָֽׁעם׃‬
ְ ‫ְחם ְבּיַד־פּ‬
ֵ ‫ְשׁלּ‬
ַ ‫אִם־ ָבּנֶי ָך ָֽח ְטאוּ־לוֹ ֽוַי‬
Bildad represents those who with hushed tones and reverent sighs
invoke the names of Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas. But, without special
revelation, these sinners knew nothing. They used their minds to invent
false religions and false gods according to Rom. 1. The judgment of God is
thus manifest:
For it is written,
“I will destroy the philosophy of the philosopher,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”
Where is the philosopher?
Where is the scribe?
Where is the debater of this age?
Has not God made foolish the philosophy of the world?
For since in the philosophy of God the world through
 its philosophy did not know God,
God was well-pleased through the foolishness
of the message preached to save those who believe.
(1 Cor. 1:19–21, emphasis added.)
In his second attack on Job (chapters 18–19), Bildad appeals to Natural
Law as found in Nature.
Bildad had declared that a moral principle might be discerned
in the government of this world, that the good were rewarded
and the wicked punished.
Bildad assumed that the great pagan philosophers of the past were able
to understand everything. Thus we should study philosophy in order to
find the answers to the riddles of life. This is the motto of neo-
evangelicals like Geisler, Moreland, Craig, etc. They stress that knowledge
of pagan philosophy is the most important preparation for the ministry, and
that it is even more important than knowledge of the Bible.

A Modern Protestant-Basher
The starting point of Moreland and Craig in Philosophical Foundations
is human reason, not Scripture (p. 1). In particular, they begin with a quote
from a Lebanese Roman Catholic scholar named Charles Malik. He was a
politician, theologian, philosopher, and international diplomat. Dr. Malik
“was Honorary Rector of the University of Dubuque, Fellow of the
Institute for Advanced Religious Studies at University of Notre Dame, and
Jacques Maritain Distinguished Professor of Moral and Political
Philosophy at the Catholic University of America.”
As a Catholic theologian, Malik was a strong believer in “Natural Law,”
the pagan Greek philosophic idea that human reason is the Origin of truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty apart from and independent of the
Bible. Man is the measure of all things, not God.
It is clear from his writings that Malik was ignorant of the Bible and of
the Gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ
alone, according to Scripture alone. He died trusting in Mary, the saints,
and his works for his salvation. He was not a “Christian” in the biblical
sense of the word. He was well-known for being a Protestant-basher.
 Moreland and Craig quote Malik on page two of Philosophical
Foundations that those who are going into the ministry should spend their
time studying Greek philosophy instead of the Bible! Malik viewed the
Reformation as guilty of “anti-intellectualism” because of its doctrine of
Sola Scriptura. Instead of going to the Bible for truth and morals, we
should trust in our own reason, experience, feelings, and faith. Humanism
has always been hostile to the study of Scripture.
From the outset of their book, it is clear that Moreland and Craig have
rejected the Reformation and fallen into the quagmire of Roman Catholic
Natural Theology and Natural Law. If you were to ask them if Malik was a
“Christian,” they would be shocked with such a question. They have a
higher regard for him than for the Reformers!

Has Natural Theology Ever Done Any Good?

What good has Natural Theology done for the Catholic Church?
Nothing! It has led the Church of Rome to deny the Gospel, kill millions
of Protestants, and burn tons of Bibles. It led them to such heresies as
papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Marian worship, saint worship,
the sacrifice of the Mass, and its spiritual cannibalism. Thomas Aquinas
did not Christianize Aristotle, he paganized Christianity!
Eastern Orthodoxy followed the same road of apostasy as Rome, but
they did it through Plato instead of Aristotle. The mysticism of Plato
infected Eastern Orthodoxy just as the rationalism of Aristotle infected the
Western Church.
What good has Platonic Natural Theology ever done for Eastern
Orthodoxy? It seduced Orthodoxy to also deny the gospel, kill Protestants,
ban the Bible, and replace it with the original lie of the Devil in the
Garden: the pernicious doctrine of human deification. Instead of seeking
to be justified before God, they think they can become God!
Natural Theology is the mother of heresy and the fountain of error.
When the Jesuits introduced it into Protestant circles, it became a cancer
that ate away at the gospel of free grace. It produced such heresies as
Arminianism, Socinianism, Unitarianism, liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, and
neo-evangelicalism.

Protestant Coverts to Popery

 Natural Theology has always led some Protestants to convert to Roman
Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. A perfect example is Joshua
Hochschild. After being educated by the Jesuits in Natural Theology at
Notre Dame, he was hired by the well-known evangelical school Wheaton
College to teach students a course on Aquinas’ theology.
According to the article on the front page of the “Wall Street Journal”
(Jan. 7/8, 2006), when Hochschild announced his conversion to
Catholicism, this put Wheaton into a bind. Its official statement of faith
was written back in the days when Bible-believing Christians built the
school. Even though it is now liberal and allows professors to attack the
Bible and teach heresy, Wheaton was forced to fire Hochschild.
Wheaton is to be commended for firing him, and Hochschild is to be
commended for being honest about his conversion. Most so-called
“evangelical” schools who hire Jesuit-trained Natural theologians and
philosophers see students betraying Christ, renouncing the gospel, and
converting to popery or Orthodoxy all the time but do nothing to stop it.
Other Jesuit-trained Natural theologians and philosophers have taken a
different path and denied the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the
deity of Christ, His bodily resurrection, the virgin birth, the miracles of
the Bible, the Trinity, the immortality of the soul, a conscious afterlife,
eternal conscious punishment, the lost condition of the heathen, etc. They
became liberal instead of converting to Roman Catholicism.

The Arminian Wesley

Moreland and Craig not only quote the Catholic Malik, they go on to
quote the Arminian hymn writer Wesley who voiced the same sentiment as
Malik. Wesley’s dependence on pagan philosophy, combined with his
profound ignorance of the Bible, led him to preach heretical doctrines such
as sinless perfectionism!
Wesley’s Arminianism was due to his dependence on Greek philosophy
instead of Scripture. The Methodist Church he founded was the first major
denomination to fall into apostasy and today accepts homosexuality,
goddess worship, witchcraft, and other abominations. The seeds of this
apostasy were sown by Wesley’s attachment to humanism via Natural
Theology.
Bildad represents theological rationalists who pretend that man starting
from himself, by himself, within himself, rejecting all divine revelation,
can understand God, man, the world, and all things. God’s rebuke of
Bildad is their rebuke.

Zophar, The Mystic

Mysticism, like empiricism or rationalism, is a form of humanism that
looks within man and then absolutizes and idealizes some aspect of man
into the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. Zophar
represents those who choose human feelings or emotions as the Origin
instead of man’s reason or experience. Their heart actually tells them right
from wrong. They trust their feelings to lead them through life.
Most mystics love mysterious sayings that stir the emotions even if
they do not inform the intellect. Today, many mystics love Zen Haikus and
Eastern proverbs. In Job 11:12, Zophar quotes a mystical Egyptian
proverb.
An idiot will become intelligent when the foal of a wild
donkey is born a man.
‫ְאישׁ נָבוּב יִָלּ ֵבב וְַעיִר ֶפּרֶא אָָדם יִוֵָּֽלד‬
ִ‫ו‬
Fortune cookie philosophy sounds “deep” but is quite meaningless. The
purpose of such proverbs is to stir the emotion, not to inform the mind.
When Zophar looked at the world around him, he did not see what
empiricists like Eliphaz claimed to see. He did not see Natural Law
operating in the world. What he saw was not always what he got. He
heeded the proverb, “All that glitters is not gold.” Life is far more
complicated, mysterious, wonderful, and full of bright colors than the grey
world of empiricism.
When Zophar looked within himself, he did not see that human reason
is able to understand everything. It is not as omniscient, omnipotent, and
omnipresent as Bildad claimed. One man’s “reason” is another man’s
idiocy.
Zophar did not see the possibility of divine revelation. Like most
humanists, he assumed that God has not spoken and thus we do not know
the “secrets” of life. According to mysticism, the answers to life, love, and
death are “secrets” that cannot be rationally or empirically discovered.
 But would that God might speak, And open his lips against
you, And show you the secrets [‫]תּ ֲעלֻמוֹת‬
ַ of wisdom. (Job 11:5–
6a)
Since he believes that there is no special revelation from God that gives
us secret answers [‫]תּ ֲעלֻמוֹת‬
ַ to solve the ultimate questions, Job cannot have
a rational knowledge of God. Zophar, like all mystics, actually believed
that God is ultimately unknowable. He is an agnostic at this point, and
stresses that we can’t really know anything objective about God.
Can you discover the depths of God?
Can you discover the limits of the Almighty? (v. 7)
‫ַה ֵח ֶקר ֱאלוֹ ַה ִתּ ְמ ָצא ִאם‬
‫עַד־ ַתּ ְכ ִלית ַשַׁדּי ִתּ ְמָֽצא׃‬
They are high as the heavens, what can you do?
Deeper than Sheol, what can you know? (v. 8)
‫ַה־תּ ְפ ָעל‬
ִ ‫גָּ ְב ֵהי ָשׁ ַמיִם מ‬
‫ַה־תָּֽדע׃‬
ֵ ‫ִשּׁאוֹל מ‬ ְ ‫ֲע ֻמ ָקּה מ‬
He abandoned the way of reason and challenged the rationalists,
What can you really discover?
What can you really know?
Nothing!
Finite reason cannot comprehend the Infinite!
Zophar turned inward to his feelings. He was motivated by “disquieting
thoughts” and “inward agitations” (Job 20:2). He begins to answer Job by
saying, “the spirit of my understanding makes me answer” (Job 20:3).
His approach to Job is summed up in an “If … then” equation in Job
11:13, 15.
If you would direct your heart right …
‫וֹת ִל ֶבּ ָך‬
ָ ‫אִם־אַ ָתּה ֲהכִינ‬
Then you could lift up your face
 ‫ִשּׂא ָפנֶי ָך ִממּוּם‬
ָ ‫כִּי־אָז תּ‬
In Job 11:15–20 Zophar challenged Job to get his “heart in the right
place.” If he did, there would be touchy-feely psychological benefits.
Reading Zophar is like reading a Yoga advertisement.
You will be emotionally stable.
You will no longer be afraid.
You will forget your troubles.
Your life will be brighter than noonday.
Your darkness will be like the morning.
You be able to trust others because you have hope.
You will look around and rest securely.
You will lie down and no one will disturb you.
Many will ask you for favors.
Zophar is an ancient parallel to modern New Age gurus who promise
“inner peace.” His path was that of a mystic whose heart could tell right
from wrong, good from evil.
Why did Zophar quit after his second speech while Eliphaz and Bildad
spoke three times? This question has puzzled both Jewish and Christian
commentators for centuries. Since the Bible does not tell us the answer in
Job or elsewhere, all we can do is guess.
Most commentators say that Zophar stopped talking when he saw that
he was getting nowhere. His feelings were hurt and he withdrew from the
conversation.
Although there is no clear answer to this question, if Job were a
fictional account (as liberals claim), Zophar would have been given a third
speech to balance out the three debates. The fact that he does not speak
again is clear evidence that the Book of Job is a real historical record, not
a literary construct.

The Heart of Man: The Heart of the Issue

Mystics assume that we can trust our heart to tell us truth and morals.
But the Bible has a lot to say about the “heart” of man. The heart is so
corrupt that it has always led to divine judgment.
 Genesis 6:5 Then YHWH saw that the wickedness of man
was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts
of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 8:21 And YHWH smelled the soothing aroma; and
YHWH said to Himself, “I will never again curse the
ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is
evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every
living thing, as I have done.
The heart of man is more deceitful than we can imagine.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is more deceitful than all else And
is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
Do truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty come out of the heart of
man? In order for Natural Theology and Natural Law to work, man’s heart
must be the Origin of truth and morals. But what did Jesus say comes out
of the heart of man?
Matthew 15:18–19 “But the things that proceed out of the
mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For
out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.”
Is man’s heart foolish and darkened by sin?
Romans 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not
honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in
their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Since your heart is evil, foolish, darkened, deceitful, and desperately
sick, should you trust your heart to tell you right from wrong, truth from
error?
Proverbs 28:26 He who trusts in his own heart is a fool.
But what if what your “heart” tells you is in direct conflict with what
the Bible tells you? Who has greater authority? God or your heart?
1 John 3:20 God is greater than our heart, and He knows all
things.
 But what if your own understanding of something contradicts God’s
Revelation? Which one should you choose?
Proverbs 3:5–6 Trust in YHWH with all your heart, And do
not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways
acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.
And do not rely on your own insight: Rely renders a word
meaning to lean or support oneself. It is used in 2 Sam 1:6 of
Saul leaning on his spear and in 2 Kgs 5:18 of the king of Syria
leaning on Naaman’s arm. It takes on the extended sense of
trusting (the Lord) in Isa 10:20. Insight translates the same
word as used in 1:2 and 2:3, and refers to comprehension,
understanding, or intelligence. In some languages the contrast
between the two commands in this verse is more naturally
stated by placing the negative command (line 2) before the
positive command (line 1). For example, FRCL says:
• Do not trust in your own intelligence, but rather put your
entire confidence in the Lord.
Some languages express this as
• Don’t think that your own understanding is enough to help
you. You must trust God with all your thinking.
Mystical movements have always ended in heresy. Pietism always
starts out by claiming it opposes liberalism but, in the end, it only prepares
the way for it. The “Jesus Movement” of the 1960s produced many cults.
Once you look to your feelings to tell you truth, justice, morals, meaning,
and beauty, your depravity will become your god.

Elihu, The Fideist

Humanists agree that man is the origin and measure of all things, not
the God of the Bible. Where they disagree is on what part of man should
be deified and exalted as the origin and measure. Fideists view their faith
as the Archimedean point. Therefore, something is true because they
believe it. They do not believe something because it is true.
Elihu represents fideism. He believed something purely because he
believed it. This is why he was angry and impatient with Job and his
friends.
 the anger of Elihu burned (32:2a)
his anger burned (32:2b)
his anger burned against his three friends (32:3)
his anger burned (32:5)
What was he so angry about? Job and his three friends wasted his time.
All their “arguments” [‫]א ְמרָה‬
ִ (32:14) and “reasonings” [‫( ]תְּבוּנָה‬32:11)
were worthless because they never answered Job.
They had found no answer and yet they condemned Job (32:3)
There was no answer in the mouth of the three friends (32:5)
There was no one who refuted Job, not one of you who
answered his words (32:12)
they are dismayed, they no longer answer; words have failed
them. (32:15)
Elihu dismissed Bildad’s rational appeal to philosophy because
antiquity does not guarantee truth.
The abundance in years may not be wise, Nor may elders
understand justice. (32:9)
Eliphaz’s attempt to empirically derive answers from the world of
animals and nature is a failure. You cannot find God through “Nature.”
Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him. The number
of his years is unsearchable. (34:26)
Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds, the
thundering of His pavilion? (34:29)
God thunders with His voice wondrously, doing great things
which we cannot comprehend. (37:5)
The Almighty—we cannot find Him. (37:23)
Elihu does not even accept the mysticism of Zophar. He can match his
own mystical experiences to Zophar’s, making all experience relative.
Indeed, God speaks … in a dream, a vision of the night; When
sound sleep falls on men, While they slumber in their beds.
(33:14–15)
 The arguments and reasoning of Job and his friends did not establish
why evil came upon Job. Thus it was time for them to hear the voice of
faith. Elihu was a “positive thinker” before Norman Vincent Peale and a
“possibility thinker” before Robert Schuller.
Listen to me, I too will tell what I think. (32:10)
I also will tell my opinion. (32:17)
Pay attention, O Job, listen to me; And let me speak. (33:31)
Listen to me; keep silent, and I will teach you wisdom. (33:33)
As a humanist, Elihu is committed to the dogma of human autonomy.
Let us choose for ourselves what is right; Let us know among
ourselves what is good. (34:4)
‫ַה־טּוֹב׃‬
ֽ ‫ִשׁ ָפּט נְִב ֲחרָה־ ָלּנוּ נְֵד ָעה בֵינֶינוּ מ‬
ְ‫מ‬
According to Elihu, man—not God—is the origin of right and wrong,
good and evil. This was the lie that the Devil used to deceive Eve in the
Garden, and he has used it since then. Man chooses for himself what is
right and wrong, good and evil. God is not part of the equation.
What guarantee do we have that Elihu is going to tell us the truth when
all others failed?
My words are from the uprightness of my heart;
And my lips speak knowledge sincerely. (Job 33:3)
In other words, “You must believe in me because I would not lie to you.
Have faith in me and my sincerity. Take a leap of faith and trust me and all
will be well.” This is why Rowley describes Elihu as “verbose and self-
opinionated,” whose “self-importance and pomposity” made him so
obnoxious that even God ignored him.57
Elihu assumed the same approach as the three friends. They all
assumed the doctrine of retribution, i.e. “we get what we deserve.” Since
great evil had come upon Job, he must have been a great sinner.
Elihu promises against this charge that he will justify, i.e. declare
righteous, both Job and God.
I desire to justify you. (33:32)
‫י־ח ַפ ְצתִּי ַצְדֶּֽק ָךּ׃‬
ָ ‫ִֽכּ‬
 Far be it from God to do wickedness, And from the Almighty
to do wrong. (34:10)
‫ְשַׁדּי ֵמָֽעוֶל׃‬
ַ ‫ִשׁמְעוּ ִלי ָח ִללָה ָל ֵאל ֵמ ֶר ַשׁע ו‬
Like Elihu, Natural theologians claim that they can solve the problem
of evil. It comes upon man not as punitive, but as corrective. Job’s pain
and suffering are remedial in that they are a form of chastisement that will
bring him back to the right path (33:17–30). Elihu’s contribution to the
debate is that evil is not necessarily evil. It can actually be a “good.”
Gibson comments,
Elihu does add what is practically a new thought, viz. that
suffering is designed for moral discipline and improvement.
Some [trials], as the prologue to Job reminds us, are permitted
by God to test us.
Zockler agrees.
Two things are implied in what is here said to Job: that his
suffering is founded on a plan of God’s, and that he by his
perverse speeches is guilty of distorting and mistaking this
plan (in representing it as caprice, without a plan).
The four humanists who debated why evil things happened to Job only
had two answers. First, the three friends argued that Job was not really
good, but evil. Thus, he got what he deserved. In contrast, Elihu argued
that the evil Job suffered was not really “evil,” but actually a disguised
good that would ultimately benefit him. God uses evil to test our character
and chastise us.
One trick used by humanists is to pretend that the issue before us is the
relationship between “faith” and “reason.” They argue:
• Faith versus reason,
• Faith and reason
• Faith or reason
• Faith beyond reason
• Etc.
When someone frames the issue in terms of “faith or reason,” that
person is a humanist. Why? Whose “faith” are they talking about? Man’s
faith. Whose “reason” are they talking about? Man’s reason. God is
nowhere to be seen.
Imagine a restaurant with only one item on the menu. In this case, all
the items are different cuts of beef. You can choose steaks or roasts or
hamburgers, but, in the end, beef is your only choice.
In the same way, humanists have only one item on their menu: man.
The only choice they give to you is different cuts of man. You can choose
between man’s reason, man’s experience, man’s feelings or man’s faith as
the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty, but in the end, the
only choice they give you is an aspect of man as the origin.
I called a radio program, which describes itself as “Faith or Reason,”
and asked the host, “To whose faith and reason are you referring?” He
admitted that he was talking about man’s faith and man’s reason. Man was
the Alpha and Omega of his faith! I pointed out that the real issue is:
• God versus man
• Divine revelation versus human reason
• Divine revelation versus human experience
• Divine revelation versus human feelings
• Divine revelation versus human faith
I was rushed off the program as if I had committed the unpardonable
sin because I had exposed that the host was humanistic in the way he
approached truth. The same problem is found in most apologetic
ministries that appeal to fallible human reason instead of Scripture alone.

The God Who Interrupts and Disrupts

Finally, God rebuked Job and his three friends. Note the following
points.
First, God’s appearance was a surprise because no one asked Him for
answers. Job’s friends never prayed to God at any time during the debates.
As humanists, they assumed that they did not need God as much as He
needed them.
For over forty years I have attended hundreds of conferences, seminars,
and classes on apologetics held by Natural theologians, and it has always
bothered me that they usually begin and end without any prayer. I
mentioned this to Francis Schaeffer one day and he had seen the same
problem. He stated that the lack of true spirituality at these meetings was
indicative of humanism. Since humanists do not need God to find truth,
justice, morals, meaning or beauty, why pray? Schaeffer was right.
Second, God’s appearance was unmerited. Job and his friends did not
merit, deserve or earn the favor of God’s presence.
Third, God’s appearance was due 100% to His unmerited grace and
mercy. Despite their lies and wickedness, God mercifully paid them a
visit.
Fourth, God’s appearance was startling. He did not come as a dove, but
as a lion. He did not speak in a still quiet voice, but with thunder. There
was a sudden windstorm that broke upon them.
The KJV incorrectly translated the word ‫ַסּ ָערָה‬
ְ ‫ ה‬as “whirlwind” in Job
38:1. This translation gives people the mental image of the kind of tornado
seen in the movie The Wizard of Oz, but this is not the meaning of the
word.
The word ‫ ַה ְסּ ָערָה‬is from the Akkadian root of sarum. It refers to a
violent wind storm that suddenly breaks without warning, and is so strong
that it blows away whatever is in its path. The tents fly away and the
animals run away. It usually referred to the sudden wind storms that came
rushing out of the Arabian Desert.
When ‫ַסּ ָערָה‬
ְ ‫ ה‬is used for the activity of God, it refers to His burning
anger and wrath (Psa. 83:16; Isa. 66:15; Jer. 23:19: 25:32; 30:23; Amos
1:14). This explains why God chose to appear as a violent ‫ ַה ְסּ ָערָה‬that shook
the tent where Job and his friends were seated. To put it bluntly, Job and
his friends made God angry.
Fifth, God’s speech began with a rebuke. He immediately dismissed
everything they had said (38:2).
Who is this that darkens counsel
‫ְשׁי ְך ֵע ָצה‬
ִ ‫זֶה ַמח‬
by words without knowledge?
‫ִמי ְב ִמ ִלּין ְֽבּלִי־ָֽדעַת׃‬
Joseph Parker observes that God began by condemning all the speeches
as “absolute ignorance.” Job’s friends represented all four schools of
Natural Theology: rationalism, empiricism, mysticism, and fideism.
Despite their discussion, their words were absolutely worthless. The Lord
of the Universe declared Natural Theology, Natural Law, and Natural
philosophy to be failures. Delitzsch comments,
[God] surprises him with questions which are intended to bring
him indirectly to the consciousness of the wrong and absurdity
of his challenge—questions among which “there are many
which the Natural philosophy of the present day can frame
more scientifically, but cannot satisfactorily solve.”
First, instead of giving counsel to Job that enlightened the issue of why
evil came upon him, all they did was darken the issue.
The word ‫ָשׁ ְך‬
ַ ‫ ח‬originally referred to total darkness found in deep mines.
It means total absence of light, i.e. pitch black. This is why “darkness” is
used throughout Scripture as the description of the intellectual state of the
Gentiles, i.e. those without the light of Scripture. Gentiles “sit in
darkness” and “have no light” (Isa. 8:20; 42:6–7; Lk. 1:79).
Note that God Almighty passed judgment on the intellectual worth of
Natural Theology, Natural Law, and Natural Philosophy, declaring them
“pitch black darkness.” This means that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant,
Hegel, and all other non-Christian thinkers were “in the dark” and cannot
give us any light on ultimate questions. In stark contrast to God’s opinion,
unfortunately, Natural theologians, and philosophers speak of pagan
philosophy in such glowing terms as “enlightening.” As Delitzsch pointed
out, Job and his friends were guilty “of self-delusion, as though they were
in possession of the key to the mystery of the divine government of the
world.”

The Mind of Man

The darkness of the mind of man is not just intellectual. The word
“darkness” also refers to man’s moral problem, namely, his hatred of and
aversion to God and the light revealed in Christ and in Scripture. Because
man is totally depraved in his fallen state, his thoughts, words, and deeds
are morally averse to and antagonistic toward the God of the Bible.
Scripture declares that we are by nature “God-haters”, θεοστυγεῖς. (Rom.
1:30). Thus we naturally “hate the light” and will not seek it.
And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world,
but men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their
 deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light,
and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be
exposed. (John 3:19–21)
Natural Theology assumes that people are seeking the light because
they really want the truth. But Jesus said the exact opposite. People are
running from God as fast as they can. Why? The Natural mind of man,
Is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law
of God, for it is not even able to do so. (Rom. 8:7).
The Natural hostility of man’s mind toward God dooms Natural Law to
failure. People would not accept God’s Law if they could somehow find it
in “Nature” by human reason alone.
Not only is the mind naturally hostile and hateful toward God, it is
filled with darkness (Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:18). The Bible denies the silly
idea that the “light of reason shines forth in all mankind.” Man’s mind is
naturally filled with darkness, not light. Even worse is the fact that man’s
mind has been blinded by Satan.
the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving,
that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of
Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:4)
ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶνʼ πίστων
εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ
Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ.
People do not “see” the truthfulness of the Gospel because of some
defect in it. No, the defect is in man’s mind and not in the Revelation of
God.
Since the mind of man is naturally evil, wicked, hostile, blind, and full
of hate against God, it is described in Scripture as “depraved.”
2 Tim. 3:8: men of depraved mind:

ἄνθρωποι κατεφθαρμένοι τὸν νοῦν,

1 Tim. 6:5: men of depraved mind:

 διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν;

The words κατεφθαρμένοι and διεφθαρμένων are emphatic. The mind of

man has been utterly ruined and morally corrupted by sin and Satan.
Natural theologians and philosophers do not believe that man’s mind is
totally depraved, blinded by Satan or filled with darkness. They have a
romantic notion that the mind is perfect, infallible, and untainted by sin.
Thus it can be the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
This is why humanists “dream the impossible dream” that man, apart
from and independent of God’s revelation in Scripture, can understand and
explain God, man, and the world around him. But, just as “you can lead a
horse to water but cannot make him drink,” you may give the gospel to
rebel sinners, but they will not accept it because they love darkness and
hate the light. They would rather believe the stupidest lies than submit to
the Lordship of Christ. It takes the regenerating work of the Spirit of God
to enable rebel sinners to repent and believe.
No one has the ability (lit. Gk. “power” (δύναται) to say, “Jesus
is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:3)
οὐδεις̀ δύναται εἰπεῖν· Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.
While the unbelieving world “sits in total darkness,” the Bible is “the
light” that enables us to discover truth, justice, morals, meaning, and
beauty (Psa. 36:9; 118:27; 119:105). Those studying for the ministry
should spend most of their time studying the Light of Scripture instead of
the darkness of Natural Theology and Philosophy. If you do not know the
Bible, the theologians and philosophers will deceive you with “smooth and
flattering speech” that seems reasonable (Rom. 16:18).
Job and his friends had confused and complicated the issue of evil to
such an extent that truth became impossible. All the philosophers in the
world with all their learning and education have only darkened the issues,
and have not given us any light at all. The judgment of God stands firm
that, “they never knew God” (1 Cor. 1:21).
Second, instead of speaking words of knowledge, Job and his friends
spoke words that were “without knowledge” [‫]ְֽבּלִי־ָֽדעַת‬. All the eloquent
speeches given by Job and his friends were devoid of knowledge, i.e. sheer
ignorance. What a rebuke to the pride of these humanists.
 In Job 35:16, Elihu had condemned Job’s words as “without
knowledge.” Now God condemns all his words as “without knowledge.”
This will shock Natural theologians who assume that philosophers are the
only ones with any knowledge to give on these issues.
Third, we must appreciate the divine sarcasm and ridicule that now
commences. In Psa. 2:1–5, God uses sarcasm and ridicule when dealing
with rebel sinners.
Why are the Gentiles in an uproar, And the peoples devising a
vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand, And the
rulers take counsel together Against Yahweh and against His
Messiah. “Let us tear their fetters apart, And cast away their
cords from us!” He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord
scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger And
terrify them in His fury:
God laughs at and ridicules man’s puny attempt to throw off His
sovereign control. Their rebellion will not succeed, and is worthy only of
scoffing.
If you do not understand God’s sarcasm to Job and his friends or that
He mocked their pride and self-sufficiency, you misunderstand His speech.
God humbles and humiliates their pride and conceit. He showed them that
they were pompous orators who distressed Job instead of comforting him.
With “friends” like these, Job did not need any enemies! They added to the
problem of evil with their own words and deeds.
With dripping sarcasm and irony, God challenges Job. It was time to
see if they really knew everything.
Now gird up your loins like a man,
‫אזָר־נָא ְכגֶבֶר ֲח ָל ֶצי ָך‬
He did not use the normal Hebrew words for “man,” but a special word
that refers to virile, masculine manhood. In effect, God said,
It is time for you to assert your manhood. Don’t be a girly man
but a manly man [‫]גֶּבֶר‬. Don’t wimp out on me now. Lift up
robes and get ready to run.
Habel points out that the Targums and Syriac have gibbor instead of
geber. Gibbor means “warrior, hero,” which means that God challenged
Job’s manhood.
God now challenged them with an amazing command.
And I will ask you,
‫ֶשׁאָ ְל ָך‬
ְ ‫וְא‬
And you will instruct Me.
‫והוֹדִיֵֽענִי׃‬
God said, “I am really excited at the prospect of you teaching me right
from wrong and good from evil. You are so smart and intelligent that I am
in awe of you and your high IQ. This is the moment you have been waiting
for. You can instruct Me and teach Me where I went wrong running the
universe. I need your help.”
Humanists assume that they know how to run the universe better than
God. Their conceit manifests itself when they say,
“Let me tell you what I think …”
“Listen to my opinion …”
“My reason tells me …”
“My heart tells me …”
“My experience tells me …”
“I believe that …”
They ignore the Bible as a relic of ancient prejudices and superstitions,
and do not know that He is there and has not been silent. They have yet to
learn what Scripture says,
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge
of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and
unfathomable His ways! (Rom. 11:33)
Ὦ βάθος πλούτου και ̀ σοφίας και ̀ γνώσεως θεοῦ· ὡς
ἀνεξεραύνητα τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ και ̀ ἀνεξιχνίαστοι αἱ ὁδοι ̀
αὐτοῦ.
Paul emphatically states that when man tries to rationally “search out”
[ἀνεξεραύνητα] and “fathom” [ἀνεξιχνίαστοι] the judgments and ways of
God, he meets with total defeat. Why are Natural Theology, Natural Law,
and Natural philosophy doomed to fail?
 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His
counselor? (Rom. 11:34)
τίς γὰρ ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου; ἢ τίς σύμβουλος αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο;
Humanists claim that they can know the mind of the Lord through
human reason, experience, feelings, or faith. They can “figure out” His
judgments and “get to the bottom” of His ways. Delitzsch comments,
God is able to put everything into operation, and that the plans
according to which He acts are beyond the reach of human
comprehension.
Because humanists think they can rationally figure out why God does
what He does, they try to “counsel” Him on what He should and should not
do.
Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him
again? (Rom. 11:35)
ἢ τίς προέδωκεν αὐτῷ, και ̀ ἀνταποδοθήσεται αὐτῷ;
Humanists honestly believe that God “owes” man. As an example, they
believe that the heathen who never hear the Gospel will not go to hell
because God “owes” them a chance. God “owes” all people salvation,
happiness, health, and wealth. Some humanists even claim that man must
have a free will because God owes it to man.
Those who think that God owes them are ignorant of Job 4:11 and Rom.
11:35. Both passages state that God does not owe man anything.
Who has given to Me that I should repay him? (Job 41:11)
‫ֲשׁ ֵלּם‬
ַ ‫ִימנִי וַא‬
ַ ‫ִמי ִה ְקדּ‬
The only thing that God owes people is eternal damnation. Hell is the
only thing we have all merited (Rom. 6:23)! Salvation is not something
God owes us because of our good deeds. It is a free gift merited through
the atoning work of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. He is YHWH (Phil.
2:11).
In chapters 38–42 of Job, God now proceeds with marvelous sarcasm to
ask Job and his friends a series of questions. His interrogations reveal that
when man attempts to figure out the meaning of life beginning only with
himself, in himself, and by himself, rejecting or ignoring divine
revelation, he is doomed to become a babbling idiot. This is what Paul
calls the futile exercise of philosophy in Col. 2:8.
God used a simple interrogation method, asking probing questions that
revealed the finite limitations of man. Since man is not eternal,
omniscient, omnipotent, immutable or omnipresent, he cannot be the
absolute, infinite, or universal origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning and
beauty. He is only a finite particular in search of an infinite universal to
explain him. Parker observes that,
Not only is man ignorant, he is powerless … man’s power is
mocked.
In order to destroy the pride and conceit of Natural theologians and
philosophers, God sarcastically taunts them with their own claims.
Because they claim to know and understand everything apart from and
independent of Scripture, they should be able to answer simple questions
about the origin, existence, form, and meaning of the universe. Joseph
Exell in the Biblical Illustrator reminds us that,
There is mystery regarding the why of God’s working, and
there is mystery regarding the how. We cannot explain the one
or the other. The path is invisible to us; but the path is there.
There is mystery everywhere. There are three things which it is
well always to bear in mind when thinking of the ways of God.
First, God may interfere in the affairs of the world without
men knowing it; second, God may influence motives without
men knowing it; third, God may touch the secret and subtle
spring of nature without men knowing it.
According to Habel, the “ironic nuances” of the questions reveal the
“cosmic irony” of the total ignorance and inability of man to come up with
final answers on his own. Frank Gaebelein in The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary correctly sees Job’s need to “get rid of his ignorant
fantasies.”
The irony in the Lord’s words “Surely you know” (v. 5; cf. v.
21) is sharp and purposeful. Job had dared criticize God’s
management of the universe. Had he been present at the
 Creation (an obvious absurdity), he might have known
something about God’s management of its vast expanses (vv.
4–6).
God confronts the pride of man with questions that reveal how little
man knows.
Tell me, since you understand [everything] (Job 38:4) and
since you know [everything] (Job 38:5):
• Is it by your understanding that the hawk soars? (Job 39:26)
• Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if
you know all this. (Job 38:18)
• You know, for you were born then, and the number of your
days is great! (Job 38:12)
• Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule
over the earth? (Job 38:33)
• Do you know the time the mountain goats give birth? (Job
39:1)
In order to fully appreciate the sarcastic humor of God displayed in His
interrogation of autonomous man, we will cast it into a comical dialogue.
God: Since you are so smart that you can figure everything out
all by yourself, I have a few questions to ask you. I am ready
to be instructed.
Man: Yes, we can figure everything out on the sole basis of our
own reason, experience, feelings, and faith. You don’t have to
say a word. We can discover truth by ourselves.
God: Let us begin with the origin and existence of the
universe. According to your reason, experience, feelings, and
faith, is the universe eternal or did it have a beginning?
Man: For most of history, mankind believed the world was
eternal. Western philosophers such as Aristotle believed that
the world was eternal. Eastern Philosophers agreed as well.
Hindus and Buddhists don’t even believe that the universe
exists, and may be an illusion. But Western Europeans are the
smartest people in the world, and through reason alone they
discovered that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning.
This is a self-evident, intuitive, and universal truth.
God: I thought you said that it has not been self-evident nor
intuitive to the vast majority of mankind. How is it universal?
Man: As long as it is self-evident and intuitive to us, then it is
universal to us. Stop being so picky. Just accept what we say as
a philosophical absolute. The rest of the world is culturally
inferior to the West and not philosophically advanced.
God: Since you speak with such confidence about the creation
of the universe, were you there when it came into being? You
must be really old!
Man: No, man was not in existence when the universe came
into being.
God: Are you saying that no human being experienced it? No
one saw it happen? No one has any firsthand knowledge about
it? Are you merely guessing, speculating, extrapolating or
shooting the breeze? If you weren’t there, how do you know so
much about it?
Man: Our reason, experience, feelings and faith tell us that the
universe has to have a beginning. It cannot be eternal.
God: But didn’t you admit that almost all of mankind through
reason, experience, feelings and faith believed that the world
was eternal?
Man: Yes, their reason, experience, feelings, and faith led
them in the opposite conclusion of our reason, experience,
feelings, and faith. As we said, we are racially and culturally
superior. What they believe doesn’t matter.
God: If according to your reason, experience, feelings and
faith, you know that the world was not eternal and that it had a
beginning, can you tell me how long it took for the universe to
come into existence?
Man: According to our best western philosophers and
scientists, it took 15 to 25 billion years. This is a self-evident,
intuitive, and universal truth.
God: What if I told you that it only took six days to create the
universe and everything in it?
Man: Nonsense! That cannot be true, rationally speaking. It
would contradict modern western science and philosophy. The
idea of a literal six day creation is simply impossible. If this
were true, it would mean that we would have to revise our
theories once again. It would reduce most of our science and
philosophy to idiocy. We cannot accept the idea of a literal six
day creation.
God: What if I revealed in the Bible that I only took six days
to create the universe?
Man: Then we would have to reinterpret the Bible until it
conformed to what we say. For example, each “day” represents
two billion years. Man is the measure of all things, including
the Bible. Thus we are free to interpret the Bible any way we
want.
God: Let us go on. Since you are so smart, you can surely tell
me how the universe works. I will now ask you how nature
works and why animals do what they do.
Man: I am capable of explaining all things.
God: Tell me about the foundations of the world, the limits of
the ocean, the ways of animals like the eagle, the hippo, the
crocodile, etc. Why do bees buzz and birds sing?
(God at this point asked Job and his friends many probing
questions that revealed their ignorance. When the “rubber met
the road,” they did not know as much as they claimed.)
God: You haven’t answered any of my questions. Maybe you
are sovereign over what you cannot understand. Can you
control the weather? Surely you control lightning?
 Man: No, we cannot control the weather or lightning.
God: Surely you can control animals such as the crocodile or
the hippo?
Man: No.
God: Do you mean you are not eternal, omniscient,
omnipotent, and sovereign? Then how can you be the Origin,
source, infinite, and absolute measure of truth, justice, morals,
meaning, and beauty?
Job’s friends could not answer any of God’s questions. Their pretentious
human autonomy and self-sufficient reason, experience, feelings, and faith
did not enable them to come up with any answers. They could not
understand themselves, the world around them or God.
This is why the Bible emphasizes over and over again that if God does
not reveal to us the truth about the existence, origin, form, and meaning of
the universe, we will remain in bondage to the darkness of our depraved
reason. In Rom. 1:21, Paul comments,
They became futile in their speculations, and their foolish
mind was darkened.
ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν και ̀ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ
ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία.
All philosophic and theological speculations of Natural philosophy and
Natural Theology are described by Scripture as “futile” (ἐματαιώθησαν).
The word is derived from ματαιότης, which means their ideas are not only
devoid of truth, but are pure nonsense and sheer foolishness. They are
worthless because they come not from enlightened minds, but from
darkened hearts.
Note that while humanists refer to the Renaissance as the “Age of
Enlightenment,” God calls it the “Age of Darkness.” The Renaissance was
not the dawning of the light of Reason, but the darkening of the mind and
heart of Western man.

Job’s Response
 After God exposes him as an ignorant fool, Job responds to this
revelation. He acknowledges that only God is sovereign over all things and
that whatever He decrees shall infallibly happen. Thus the future is certain
and fixed in concrete. Job expresses the omnipotence of God in its positive
and negative forms.
First, he states in the positive that the omnipotence of God guarantees
that He has infinite power to do whatever He decides to do:
I know that You can do all things. (Job 42:2)
‫יַָד ְע ָתּ כִּי־כֹל תּוּ ָכל‬
‫ִאסאנֱד אתנ ֶאפ תִע אִֹד‬
‫ס ֵתפֹ אנִמ אֹֻק צִס‬
Once God decides that something shall be done, it shall be done.
Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose
from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to
pass. I have planned it, Surely I will do it. (Isaiah 46:11)
Second, he states in the negative that the omnipotence of God
guarantees that no one can hinder or frustrate God’s will.
And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. (Job 42:1–2).
ָֽ ‫וְלֹא־יִָבּ ֵצר ִמ ְמּ ָך ְמז‬
‫ִמּה׃‬
‫)יַָד ְע ָתּ( ]יַָדעְתִּי[ כִּי־כֹל תּוּ ָכל‬
‫ִמּה׃‬ָֽ ‫וְלֹא־יִָבּ ֵצר ִמ ְמּ ָך ְמז‬
The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts could not be clearer. On the basis of
the revelation of God in the wind storm, Job now “knew” (‫ )יַָד ְע ָתּ‬that only
God is omnipotent (omnia potes) because only He has the power (‫ )תּוּ ָכל‬to
do whatever He wants. Since God is sovereign over all things, no purpose
or plan of His can be blocked or rendered powerless by man or devil.
The Septuagint has a beautiful play upon the word for power (δύναμις).
It reads δύνασαι ἀδυνατεῖ, i.e. “No one has the power to render God
powerless.” The Pulpit Commentary rightly observes,
The fact of God’s supremacy: This is what Job now comes to
see. God is supreme both in power and in wisdom … There is
no resisting his might. He does as he wills with the children of
 men … All rebellion against God’s will must be futile. It can
be no better than dashing one’s self against a granite cliff.
Any so-called “Christian” worldview claiming that God is powerless in
a chance-based universe does not have the God of the Bible in view.
Anders comments,
Job confessed, “I know that you can do all things.” He saw, at
last, that God’s purposes are supreme. God will do as he
pleases, when he pleases, how he pleases, with whom he
pleases. Furthermore, no plan of his can be thwarted. Job
realized that all his sovereign purposes will be fully carried.
He came back to the single, most fundamental truth of
Theology that God rules over all. Implied in this strong
declaration by Job was a new submission to the God whose
eternal purposes cannot be resisted or altered. Thus, it was
insane for Job to question the Lord’s verdicts or oppose his
decrees. God is supreme, not Job.
Having acknowledged the absolute sovereignty of God, Job repents.
Therefore I retract [all my bitter accusations], And I repent in
dust and ashes. (Job 42:6)
Job acknowledges that he and his friends did not give sound counsel
and did not convey any knowledge.
Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I
have declared that which I did not understand (Job 42:3).
Job now states that the reason why evil fell upon him was an issue,
too wonderful for me
‫וְלֹא אָ ִבין נְִפלָאוֹת ִמ ֶמּנִּי‬
The word ‫ָפּלָא‬ translated “wonderful” literally means
“incomprehensible.” The issue of evil goes beyond man’s finite capacity to
understand it. The German commentator Delitzsch notes that,
the plans according to which he acts are beyond the reach of
human comprehension.
 Because the ultimate questions of the universe are ultimately
“incomprehensible, “Natural Theology, Philosophy, and Law cannot and
will not work. Thus Job concludes in Job 42:3,
I did not understand (42:3)
‫וְלֹא אָ ִבין‬
I did not know. (42:3)
‫וְלֹא ֵאָֽדע‬
Instead of man being the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and
beauty, Job now looks to God as the origin. Instead of instructing God, he
now asks God to instruct him.
I will ask You, and You will instruct me (Job 42:4)
‫וְאָנִֹכי ֲאַד ֵבּר ֶא ְשׁאָ ְל ָך והוֹדִיֵֽענִי׃‬
Humanists assume that their knowledge is greater and better than
God’s. Clark Pinnock is a perfect example of this. He denies that eternal
conscious punishment awaits sinners in the future. He is absolutely certain
that there is no eternal hell waiting for him or others like him. However,
he also claims that God cannot know the future because the future is not
fixed, i.e. it is open to an infinite number of chance-based possibilities.
Evidently Pinnock knows more than his pathetic god, because while his
god does not know the future, he does! He knows that there is no eternal
hell!

God’s Condemnation
Job’s friends had pooled their ignorance, and represented all schools of
Natural Theology. They spoke with absolute confidence and certainty that
they knew the truth. Now God gives His opinion of their “rational”
theories.
YHWH said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is kindled
against you and against Your two friends, because you have not
spoken of Me what is true.” (Job 42:7)
Humanists cannot stand the idea that God is angry with them. They
declare that “God hates the sin but loves the sinner,” and quote other
meaningless cliches. The text plainly states that God was angry with
Eliphaz and his two friends. The Bible teaches that God hates unrepentant
sinners and will cast them into hell forever (Psa. 11:5).
God told Eliphaz that he and his friends did not speak the truth
(‫)טהֶקהלשׁא כֶּוּן‬. Rationalism, empiricism, mysticism, and fideism are all
lies. They failed to discover the true explanation of evil.
The main point of the Book of Job is that there was absolutely no way
for man to discover the true purpose behind Job’s pain and suffering. Their
reason, experience, feelings, and faith utterly failed them. Natural
Theology, Law, and Philosophy are failures, incapable of discovering real
truth.
The futility of Natural Theology and philosophy reminds me of a scene
in Shakespeare’s Macbeth:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, Creeps in this
petty pace from day to day to the last syllable of recorded
time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to
dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking
shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the
stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. (Macbeth, Act V,
scene 5)

The Way of Sacrifice

God now offers a way of forgiveness for Job’s friends. It is the ancient
way of sacrifice established in the Garden of Eden, practiced by man from
the beginning of human history (Gen. 4:3–4).
Now therefore, take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams,
and go to My servant Job, and offer up a burnt offering for
yourselves, and My servant Job will pray for you. For I will
accept him so that I may not do with you according to your
senseless foolishness, because you have not spoken of Me
what is right, as My servant Job has. (Job 42:8)
‫ִיתם‬
ֶ ‫ְשׁ ְב ָעה אֵי ִלים וּלְכוּ ׀ ֶאל־ ַע ְבִדּי אִיּוֹב וְַה ֲעל‬ ִ ‫ַתּה ְק ֽחוּ־ ָל ֶכם ִשׁ ְבָֽעה־ ָפרִים ו‬ ָ ‫וְע‬
‫ְתּי עֲשׂוֹת ִע ָמּכֶם‬ ִ ‫ֶשּׂא ְל ִבל‬
ָ ‫עוֹלָה ַֽבּ ַעְד ֶכם וְאִיּוֹב ַע ְבִדּי יְִת ַפּ ֵלּל ֲעלֵי ֶכם ִכּי אִם־ ָפּנָיו א‬
‫נְָב ָלה ִכּי לֹא ִד ַבּ ְר ֶתּם ֵאלַי נְכוֹנָה ְכּ ַע ְבִדּי ִאיּֽוֹב׃‬
 Imagine the shock of Job’s friends when God demanded that they
provide a very expensive sacrifice to cover their sins. These pompous self-
righteous Natural theologians assumed that they were not the problem, Job
was. They thought they had figured everything out. They were smarter
than Job. However, God rebuked them for “folly!”
Can you imagine their chagrin when God dismissed all their
philosophical reasoning as “senseless foolishness” (‫ ?)נְָבלָה‬They did not get
anything right!
The Hebrew word is elsewhere translated as “folly,” “foolishness,” and
“senselessness.” In its noun form, it is the regular word for “fool.” In Psa.
14:1–3 we read,
The fool (‫ )נָָבל‬has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They
are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is
no one who does good. YHWH looked down from heaven upon
the sons of men, To see if there are any who understand, who
seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have
become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.
The word ‫ נָבָל‬is quite strong. It was a sharp rebuke to their intellectual
pride. The word did not just indicate an error of judgment, it indicated that
an evil heart lay behind their errors.
It is combined twice in Isaiah 32:6 in the phrase “a senseless fool
speaks nonsense” (‫)נְָב ָלה נבָל‬.
For a senseless fool speaks nonsense, And his heart inclines
toward wickedness, To practice ungodliness And to speak error
against YHWH, To keep the hungry person unsatisfied And to
withhold drink from the thirsty. (Isaiah 32:6)
‫ֲשׂה־אָוֶן ַלעֲשׂוֹת‬ ֶ ‫ִכּי נָבָל נְָב ָלה יְַד ֵבּר וְלִבּוֹ יַע‬
‫הֹנֶף וּ ְלַד ֵבּר ֶאל־יְהוָה תּוֹ ָעה ְל ָהרִיק נֶפֶשׁ‬
‫ָמא יְַח ִֽסיר׃‬
ֵ ‫ַשׁ ֶקה צ‬
ְ ‫ָר ֵעב וּמ‬
Natural Theology, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Law are utter
nonsense, and are the products of rebellion against God. Those who are,
according to Scripture, deceived by them are fools. God crushed their
smug attitudes by demanding that they beg Job to intercede on their
behalf. Imagine the irony. They tried to make Job humble himself before
them. Now they had to humble themselves before Job! Divine sarcasm is
brilliant.
Note that Natural theologians are not just intellectually wrong because
they do not speak the truth. Their erroneous truth claims have a moral
dimension. They sin when they speak lies!
Notice also that the way to God and truth was not through more
education. Humanists assume that if we know better, we will live better,
but this is not true. Nazi Germany was the most educated country of its
day, and it used its knowledge to start World War II and murder millions of
people.
Would Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu humble themselves before
Job, admit they were wrong, ask his forgiveness, and beg him to intercede
on their behalf before God?
So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar
the Naamathite went and did as YHWH told them; and YHWH
accepted Job. (Job 42:9)
‫ֲשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר ֲאלֵי ֶהם יְהוַָה‬
ֶ ‫וַיֵּלְכוּ ֱאלִיפז ַה ֵֽתּי ָמנִי וּ ִב ְלַדּד הַשּׁוּ ִהי צֹפַר ַהנֲַּע ָמ ִתי ֽוַיַּעֲשׂוּ ַכּא‬
‫ִשּׂא יְהוָה ֶאת־ ְפּנֵי ִאיּֽוֹב׃‬
ָ ‫ויּ‬
The first three friends did as God demanded and God forgave them on
the basis of Job’s intercessory sacrifice. However, they never learned why
Job suffered so terribly. They died without ever knowing that what
happened on earth was the result of what happened in heaven.
What about Elihu? He had monopolized the conversation with his
pompous and inflated speeches. Why was he now ignored? Rabbinic
tradition says that, unlike Job’s other three friends, Elihu did not repent.
He was not willing to humble himself before Job and admit his sin. He did
not offer a sacrifice, and as a result died in his sins.

All’s Well That Ends Well

Now that God had vindicated Job, it would only be natural for him to be
angry and bitter at his so-called friends. They had said harsh, unkind, and
terrible things against him and his family. He could now “stick it to them”
and refuse to forgive them or intercede for them before God. He could not
bring flowers to their funerals or dance on their graves.
 However, since God was merciful to Job, Job had to be merciful to his
friends. Once he “prayed for his friends,” God restored his wealth and
health. God then gave him more children, and he was better off in the end
than at the beginning.
And YHWH restored the fortunes of Job when he prayed for
his friends, and YHWH increased all that Job had twofold.
(Job 42:10)
‫]שׁבוּת[ אִיּוֹב‬ ְ (‫ת־)שׁבִית‬ ְ ‫ֽוַיהוָה ָשׁב ֶא‬
‫בִּֽה ְתַֽפּלְלוֹ ְבּ ַעד ֵר ֵעהוּ וַיֹּסֶף יְהוָה‬
‫ִשֽׁנֶה׃‬
ְ ‫ֲשׁר ְלאִיּוֹב לְמ‬ ֶ ‫את־כָּל־א‬
And YHWH blessed the latter days of Job more than his
beginning, and he had 14,000 sheep, and 6,000 camels, and
1,000 yoke of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. (Job 42:12)
‫ֵאשׁתוֹ ֽוַיְהִי־לוֹ‬
ִ ‫ֽוַיהוָה ֵבּ ַר ְך אֶת־אַ ֲה ִרית אִיּוֹב ֵמר‬
‫ְשׁ ֶשׁת ֲא ָלפִי ְם‬
ֵ ‫ָשׂר ֶאלֶף צֹאן ו‬
ָ ‫אַ ְר ָבּעָה ע‬
‫גּמ ִלּים וְֶֽאלֶף־ ֶצמֶד ָבּ ָקר וְֶאלֶף אֲתוֹנֽוֹת׃‬
ַ
Those who find fault with God for taking away Job’s creature comforts
never have any problems with God giving them back. Why is this? They
assume that God owed Job and all men long life free from pain and
suffering. There is no moral outrage concerning the blessings conferred
upon Job.
God does not owe us anything but His just wrath and indignation. It was
God’s grace and mercy that restored Job. Job’s use of sacrifice to absolve
the sins of his friends and their need for a mediator to intercede on their
behalf prefigures the person and work of King Messiah.
This is remarkable. Even though it was the first biblical book ever
written (long before Moses), it takes us to the foot of the Cross and shows
us that salvation is by blood atonement.
Delitzsch’s conclusion is worth repeating.
The comfort which this theologically and artistically
incomparable book presents to us is substantially none other
than that of the New Testament. For the final consolation of
every sufferer is not dependent upon the working of good genii
 in the heavens, but has its seat in God’s love, without which
even heaven would become a very hell. Therefore the book of
Job is also a book of consolation for the New Testament
Church. From it we learn that we have not only to fight with
flesh and blood, but with the prince of this world, and to
accomplish our part in the conquest of evil, to which, from
Gen. 3:15 onwards, the history of the world tends; that faith
and avenging justice are absolutely distinct opposites; that the
right kind of faith clings to divine love in the midst of the
feeling of wrath; that the incomprehensible ways of God
always lead to a glorious issue; and that the suffering of the
present time is far outweighed by the future glory—a glory not
always revealed in this life and visibly future but the final
glory above. The nature of faith, the mystery of the cross, the
right practice of the care of souls,—this and much besides, the
church learns from this book, the whole teaching of which can
never be thoroughly learned and completely exhausted.

Conclusion
The Book of Job infallibly demonstrates that unless God reveals the
final answers to the riddles of life and death, we will wander forever in the
mists of darkness. Man cannot find truth or morals within himself. He was
created to be a truth-receiver, not a truth-maker.
 Chapter Two
The Three Pillars
Creation, Fall, Redemption

The Book of Job reveals the absolute sovereignty of God over all
things—including evil. This Divine Special Revelation is the foundation of
the biblical worldview and the granite bedrock on which the rest of
Scripture rests.
The sovereignty of God is thus the biblical context or framework within
which all the other ideas in the Bible are understandable. For example, the
doctrine of the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is
possible only within the context of God’s absolute sovereignty over the
mind and will of man.
What if you reject the doctrine of the sovereignty of God and instead
believe in the heathen idea that the universe is based upon chaos,
contingency, chance, luck, and free will?
Once you deny the sovereignty of God, a domino effect begins in
which, one by one, all the doctrines of the Bible are rejected as irrational
and even repugnant. One way to find out if you are dealing with liberals is
to test them with the biblical doctrine that the heathen must hear of and
believe in Christ and His gospel in order to make it to heaven. They will
go ballistic if you dare speak of the eternal conscious punishment of those
who never heard the gospel.

The Link between Scripture and Divine Sovereignty

Why have so many “evangelical” Natural theologians ultimately
rejected the inerrancy of the Bible? It became unintelligible to them. Their
fanatical commitment to the old Greek idol of “free will” led them to deny
the inerrancy of the Bible.
In forty years of theological research I have never met anyone who
believed in the absolute sovereignty of God over all things, including the
mind and will of man, and who rejected the inerrancy of Scripture at the
same time. Those who reject the inerrancy of Scripture begin by rejecting
the sovereignty of God.
Back in the 1960’s, Clark Pinnock had no problem with the inerrancy of
Scripture. He even wrote a book defending it. Why? He was under the
influence of the Reformed apologist Francis Schaeffer, who believed in
the sovereignty of God. But, while he was a professor at Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School, Pinnock fell under the influence of those who
rejected the sovereignty of God.
I was speaking at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School at the time and
was amazed to hear Clark openly attack the sovereignty of God. I warned
people that he would ultimately reject all evangelical doctrines because
they all depend upon the sovereignty of God for their rationale. Sadly, he
no longer believes in the inerrancy of the Bible.

The Root Causes of Liberalism

The root causes of such liberalism have always been rebellion against
the sovereignty of God and the vain attempt to establish the sovereignty of
man in its place. Psalm 2:1–5 points this out in bold poetic imagery.
Why are the heathen nations in an uproar, And why are the
masses imagining an empty delusion? The kings of the earth
set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against
YHWH, and against his Messiah, saying, “Let us break their
leg shackles asunder, and cast away their handcuffs from us.”
But He who sits enthroned in the heavens laughs, The Lord
scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger, And
terrify them in His fury.
The futility of attempting to cast off the leg shackles and handcuffs of
the sovereignty of God over all things leads to divine ridicule as well as
judgment. The revolt against the sovereignty of God is an empty delusion
that leads only to eternal perdition.
The Book of Genesis
We now proceed to the next written record of Special Revelation, the
Book of Genesis. And we are delighted to find that God continued to give
us the theological keys to unlock the mysteries of life.
A Perfect Man in a Perfect World
The pre-fall condition of man is the key to a biblical view of
epistemology. Adam and Eve were perfect in every respect. They lived in a
perfect world. Their five senses were perfect. Their brains and minds were
perfect. Their feelings were prefect. Everything about man and around
man was perfect.
If there was ever a perfect time for Natural Law and Natural Theology,
i.e. rationalism, empiricism, mysticism, and fideism, to shine, it is with a
perfect humanity in a perfect world. But what do we find?
Man’s own reason, experience, feelings or faith could not tell him who
he was, why he existed, what was his purpose in life, what is right and
wrong, etc. The pre-fall perfection of the Garden of Eden proves that man
is not the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.

How Did Adam Know Right from Wrong?

How did Adam know which trees to eat from and which tree not to eat
from? This is an important question. If Natural theology is valid, then we
would expect to find that Adam was able to discover which tree to avoid
by his reason, experience, feelings, and faith, apart from and independent
of special revelation.
Did Adam’s perfect “reason” tell him not to eat from a particular tree?
No. Did he know not to eat from that tree through his perfect intuition?
No. Was it self-evident and universal not to eat from that tree? No. Did his
five perfect empirical senses of sight, smell, taste, touch, or hearing tell
him not to eat from it? No. Did his perfect feelings warn him not to eat
from it? No. Did a perfect “Nature” reveal to him not to eat from that tree?
No.
There was simply no humanistic way for man to know not to eat of that
tree any more than he could know that he was obligated to name the
animals or rake the leaves. His perfect reason, experience, feelings, and
faith were not the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
How then did Adam know which trees he could eat of and which tree was
forbidden?
 And YHWH Elohim commanded the man, saying, “From any
tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
that you eat from it you shall surely die.” (Gen. 2:16–17)
It was by Special Revelation alone (Sola Scriptura) that man
understood right from wrong. In fact, Sola Scriptura was the basis of
everything man knew in the Garden. God walked with man in the Garden
and revealed truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty to him.

No Other Source
Let the Catholics and the Orthodox also take note of the fact that Adam
had none of the things that they depend upon for truth. Were there any:
Traditions? No. Councils? No. Creeds? No. Fathers? No. Popes? No. The
only Source of information by which Adam could understand God, the
world, man, sin, and salvation was through Divine Propositional
Revelation. Sola Scriptura was the rule in the Garden of Eden. Why should
we abandon perfect and infallible Revelation for imperfect and fallible
human traditions, councils, creeds, fathers, and clergymen?

The Creator Talked with Man

The Lord came down to man in human form and walked and talked with
them in the cool of the day.
And they heard the sound of YHWH Elohim walking in the
garden in the cool of the day. (Genesis 3:8)
ְ ‫ֱאלִֹהים ִמ ְת ַה ֵלּ ְך ַבּגָּן לְרוּ ַח הַיּוֹם ֽוַיּ‬
‫ִשׁמְעוּ ֶאת־קוֹל יְהוָה‬
God told Adam what he was and was not to do. He told man how to
worship and how not to worship. God explained to man the purpose of life
and right from wrong. Left only to himself, man could not get anything
right. In Gen. 3, Eve tried to understand the tree by her reason
(rationalism), experience (empiricism), and feelings (mysticism), and
faith (fideism).
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that
it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to
 make her wise, she took from its fruit and ate. (Genesis 3:6)
Eve’s physical senses told her that the fruit looked good for food. Her
feelings felt that the fruit was beautiful to eat. And her reason concluded
that eating it would make her wise. Then by faith she reached out, took the
fruit, bit a chunk out of it, and swallowed. When she did not die, she
handed it to Adam and told him to eat it. Adam ate the fruit on the basis of
faith in his wife.
Eve beginning only with herself, by herself, rejecting any revelation
from God, chose to believe the lie of Satan that she was the Origin of
truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty; that she could judge God; that
she could determine good and evil. Thus Eve ate the forbidden fruit and
fell into sin and guilt.

Stop and Let These Facts Sink In

If, when man was a perfect being in a perfect world, God’s Word was
the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning and beauty (Sola Scriptura),
why would anyone in their mind think that fallen man in a fallen world no
longer needs God’s Revelation? Have things become worse or better since
Eden? Is sinful man less capable or more capable of finding truth? How
can fallen man in a fallen world, apart from and independent of Special
Revelation, be self-sufficient and autonomous to be the Origin of truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty, when he was not sufficient for these
things when he was a perfect being living in a perfect world? This is why
Natural Theology is delusional. If it did not work in the Garden of Eden,
why would any sane man or woman think that it can work now?

The Three Pillars of Biblical Revelation

Genesis reveals three concepts that form the pillars upon which the
biblical worldview rest. They are so essential to each other that they stand
or fall together. To deny one is to deny the others.
(1.) Creation ex nihilo. (God made all things out of nothing.)
(2.) The Radical Fall of man into sin and guilt. (Man blew it.)
(3.) Redemption by grace alone through faith alone. (God alone
can provide salvation by grace.)
 Genesis is essential to establish the Christian worldview on anything
and everything. Without its special revelation, it is impossible to be
“Christian” in your thinking. The famous English expositor Dr. G.
Campbell Morgan comments:
To deny the accuracy of these fundamental statements is to
lose the meaning of all subsequent teaching. If God is not
Creator, King, and Redeemer, there is no resting place for man
other than the restlessness of agnosticism. On the way to
agnosticism, human speculations may retain the name of
religion; but the logical outcome of the denial of these
fundamental assertions concerning God is denial of the
existence of God. To deny what this book teaches concerning
the origin of the universe is to be compelled to attempt to
account for the teachings seen by some undefined action and
interaction within the universe, which has behind it no
personality … To deny that man is a mysterious mingling of
dust and Deity by the will and act of God is necessarily to be
compelled to think of him as the last product of animal
evolution; and therefore as himself an animal, and nothing
more.
The Sovereignty of God as revealed in Job is the only theoretical
context or framework within which these three concepts can and must be
understood. God is completely sovereign over Creation, Fall, and
Redemption.
Keeping in mind that the absolute sovereignty of God is the biblical
context or theoretical framework for Creation, Fall, and Redemption, we
find that these three key concepts are used by the authors of Scripture to
understand God, man, and the world and their relationships to each other.
From Genesis to Revelation, Creation, Fall, and Redemption are the
interpretive principles by means of which the biblical worldview is
applied to all of life. They are like trifocal glasses that enable the wearer
to see with crystal clear vision what is really there. Let me illustrate what I
mean.

The Trees Have Leaves!

 I was born with defective vision and did not clearly see the world
around me. But since my defective vision was all I knew, I did not know
that I had defective vision. But a kind teacher noticed my difficulty seeing
the blackboard and sent me to an eye doctor.
I will never forget the day I put on glasses for the first time and looked
out the window of the doctor’s office. I exclaimed, “Leaves! I see
individual leaves on the tree.” Up to that point trees looked like green
cotton candy because my eyes were nearsighted. But when I put on the
glasses that corrected my poor vision, I could see that trees had individual
leaves.
In the same way, we are all born with defective intellectual eyesight.
We can’t see reality as it really is. But when we put on the biblical glasses
of Creation, Fall, and Redemption, we can clearly see God, man, and the
world as they really are and how they relate to each other.

The Biblical Authors

This point is important. Creation, Fall, and Redemption are utilized as
interpretive principles by the prophets, apostles, and the Lord Jesus
Himself. They looked at life and all it entails and interpreted everything
through the lens of Creation, Fall, and Redemption. Sometimes they
invoked all three principles, other times just two, or even one.
Under both the Old and New Covenants, two or three witnesses were
sufficient to establish the truthfulness of a claim (Deut. 19:15; 1 Tim.
5:19). Thus I will now give three exegetical witnesses that the authors of
Scripture used Creation, Fall, Redemption as interpretive principles by
which they understood the world.
Witness #1
In Matthew 19:3 the Pharisees challenged Jesus to answer a question.
Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?
Εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνθρώπῳ ἀπολῦσαι τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ κατὰ πᾶσαν
αἰτίαν;
The question was a contemporary controversy between two dominant
schools of Judaism at that time. They disagreed as to the meaning of Deut.
24:1. The Shammai believed that the Torah allowed divorce only upon
immorality. The Hillel believed that a man could divorce his wife for any
reason. How did Jesus answer the question? By framing it in terms of the
Creation account in Genesis.
And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who
created them from the Beginning made them male and female,
and said, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become
one flesh?” Consequently, they are no longer two, but one
flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man
separate. (Matt. 19:4–6)
Instead of beginning with Deut. 24:1, Jesus begins with the Genesis
account of Creation as the interpretive principle or Archimedean point by
which we understand the origin, nature, structure, dignity, and purpose of
marriage.
Let all Natural Theologians take note of the fact that Jesus did not
appeal to common sense, human reason, experience, feelings, faith, Plato,
Aristotle, etc. as the Origin of the truth about marriage. As a matter of
fact, Jesus never argued from a humanistic base as if man were the
measure of all things. He always appealed to the authority of Scripture
(“as it is written”). As we shall demonstrate later, Sola Scriptura was His
clear modus operandi.
The institution of marriage is not a meaningless fluke of an equally
meaningless evolutionary process spawn out of pure chance. It cannot be
twisted into same sex marriages or a marriage between animals and human
beings. According to Genesis 1–2, it is a Creation Ordinance between a
man and a woman and was created and instituted by God at the dawn of
human history.

Where Did Divorce Originate?

What about divorce? Where did it come from? Creation does not
explain divorce as it was not part of the original divine design for man.
Divorce came into existence as a result of man’s radical Fall into sin and
guilt. Jesus said to them,
Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to
divorce your wives; but from the Beginning it has not been this
 way. (Matthew 19:8)
ὅτι Μωϋσῆς πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν ὑμῖν
ἀπολῦσαι τὰς γυναῖκας ὑμῶν, ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς δὲ οὐ γέγονεν οὕτως.
The Fall of man into sin resulted in the total depravity of the heart.
Jesus describes this depravity as “hardness of heart.” The Greek word
sklhrokardi, an is a combination of two words: sklhro, j (extreme
hardness) and kardi, a (heart.)
The combination of the two words means that Jesus is describing not
what man does but what man is in terms of his fallen condition. Because
his mind or heart is hardened by sin, divorce was invented by man.
The “heart” in Scripture is the seat of the intellect and not just a sloppy
metaphor for feelings or emotion. Humanistic Christian apologists usually
assume the Western philosophic dichotomy between “mind” and “heart.”
They assume that “heart” is a metaphor for the emotions of man.
Natural theologians, true to form, never bother to pick up a Bible to see
how the word “heart” was understood and used by the biblical authors.
They just assume that Plato or Kant or some other pagan philosopher was
correct in the “heart versus mind” motif.
One way to ferret out humanists is to ask, “Is it possible to read the
Bible in a devotional way with your heart as opposed to reading it in an
intellectual way with your mind?” Humanists love to talk about reading
the Bible in a “devotional” way, which means that they read the Bible with
their mind in neutral gear. They can feel all warm and fuzzy about the
Bible as long as they don’t have to exegete it. Since this issue touches on
the subject of Biblical Anthropology, we will wait until we reach that
section of the book to offer an exegetical answer to that issue.
God said, “I hate divorce” (Mal. 2:16). God is nowhere in Scripture said
to create divorce. Fallen man created it. This is why Jesus is careful to say
that Moses only allowed it because of the fallen nature of man. Jesus
clearly uses Creation and Fall as the interpretive principles for marriage
and divorce.
Witness #2
We now turn to the Book of Acts for our second witness. In Acts 17
Paul confronted the Greek philosophers with three shocking ideas that had
never crossed their minds:
 a. Creation ex nihilo (v. 24–28),
b. The Fall of man into sin and guilt (v. 30),
c. Redemption through a resurrected Savior called Jesus (v. 18 cf.
v. 31).
Paul pointed out that the “unknown God”—whom they admit they knew
absolutely nothing about—happened to be the Creator of the universe, the
only God that actually existed!
I know this is going to be quite a shock to Natural theologians and
philosophers. Plato, Aristotle and all other philosophers never found the
true God through their reason (rationalism), experience (empiricism),
feelings (mysticism), faith (fideism) or common sense, or intuition. Paul
confronted the philosophers on Mars Hill with this truth and then
explained it in detail to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:21).
the world through its philosophy did not know God!
οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμος διὰ τῆς σοφίας τὸν θεόν
The Greek syntax of the verse is emphatic for two reasons. First, the
word οὐκ (“not”) is taken out of its normal word order and placed first for
emphasis sake. This means when you read the verse out loud, you
emphasize the word “not.”
the world through its philosophy did NOT know God!
Second, the verb ἔγνω is emphatic. The world utterly failed to know
God. All the greatest philosophers and theologians never found the true
God. All their philosophic wisdom ended with idolatry in which they
“worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25).
A. T. Robertson comments,
Failed to know, second aorist (effective) active indicative of
γινωσκω [ginäskä], solemn dirge of doom on both Greek
philosophy and Jewish theology that failed to know God. Has
modern philosophy done better? There is today even a godless
theology (Humanism). “Now that God’s wisdom has reduced
the self-wise world to ignorance” (Findlay).
The Natural theologians and philosophers of Greece had erected great
temples to the gods and goddesses created by human reason, experience,
feelings, and faith. Yet, Paul dismisses these natural gods created by
Natural theology and philosophy as depraved figments of vain
speculations. The Greeks wasted their time and money erecting the
temples on the Parthenon to worship the false gods and goddesses housed
inside!
Some of the Natural philosophers understood that they were being
insulted by Paul’s revealed religion and “sneered” at Paul (v. 18). They
attacked him with such ad hominem slurs as “babbling idiot” (v. 18 cf. 32)
and dismissed his message as irrational. Notice that Paul ignored the
personal slander just as Jesus ignored it. My recent book, A Bible
Handbook on Slander and Gossip, documents this point.
When Paul preached the biblical concept of God to these Natural
philosophers, he did so in two moves. First, he established the absolute
sovereignty of God.
Seeing He is Lord of heaven and earth
οὗτος οὐρανοῦ και ̀ γῆς ὑπάρχων κύριος
Paul first stressed the dynamic sovereignty of God over all things by
the using the present active participle ὑπάρχων (from ὑπάρχω). God is
pictured as being in active control of the universe NOW and even
determining when and where we are born (v. 26). This is why God is
described as the sovereign “Maker” of heaven and earth throughout the
Book of Job (Job 4:17; 10:8, 9; 31:15; 32:22; 33:4; 35:10; 36:3; 40:15, 19).
His Creatorship is an application and extension of His divine sovereignty.

Divine Predestination
Paul goes on to alarm the heathen philosophers by stating that God has
predetermined the future by fixing a Day of Judgment on which He will
judge all men through Jesus the Messiah (v. 31).
He had already shocked them by saying that GOD determined where
and when they would be born. They always assumed that chance
determined such things. Now he tells them that the future is “fixed” i.e.
predetermined by the Creator God. This was shocking news to the pagans.
They always thought that free will, chance and luck guaranteed that the
future was open to an infinite number of possible outcomes.
 The future according to Paul is “fixed,” (ἔστησεν) in concrete and is
not open to change through chance and luck. Man with his vaunted “free
will” cannot alter or escape the future that is already “fixed” by the
Sovereign Lord of the Universe.
because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in
righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having
furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
(Acts 17:31)
καθότι ἔστησεν ἡμέραν ἐν ᾗ μέλλει κρίνειν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν
δικαιοσύνῃ, ἐν ἀνδρι ̀ ᾧ ὥρισεν, πίστιν παρασχὼν πᾶσιν
ἀναστήσας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν.
Since the God of the Bible is sovereign over all things, including
space/time history, any view of God that limits His knowledge of or
control over the future is anti-biblical, anti-Christian, and heretical. This is
why Process theologians and the so-called “Open View” theologians are
not Christians, but heretics.
Paul then proceeded to state that the Sovereign Lord of heaven and
earth is,
the God who made the world and all things in it. (Acts 17:24)
ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσμον και ̀ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ,
It is important to see that Paul places Creation in the framework or
context of the absolute sovereignty of God. That is why ou-toj is translated
as “since” or “seeing” or “because.”
Paul goes on to state other revealed truths from the doctrine of
Creation, which we will exegete later in this book. What is germane at this
moment is to see that Paul used the sovereignty of God as the interpretive
principle and theoretical framework for the doctrine of Creation.
This point is so important because the sovereignty of God answers all
the questions that are provoked by the biblical concept of Creation. The
whys, whats, wheres, whens, hows, and whos of Creation are answered by
the sovereignty of God. This is exactly how Paul dealt with the question,
“Why did you make me this way?” (τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως).
 Doesn’t the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the
same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for
common use? (Rom. 9:21)
ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ὁ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ
φυράματος ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν;
A human potter is sovereign over what he makes, when he makes it,
where he makes it, how he makes it, and why he makes it. He has the
sovereign right to do whatever he wants with what he makes. A pot has no
right to challenge the decisions of the potter.
Paul is clearly paraphrasing Jer. 18:1–6.
The word which came to Jeremiah from Yahweh saying, “Arise
and go down to the potter’s house, and there I shall announce
My words to you.” Then I went down to the potter’s house, and
there he was, making something on the wheel. But the vessel
that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the
potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the
potter to make. Then the word of Yahweh came to me saying,
“Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter
does?” declares Yahweh. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s
hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.”
If we admit that a human potter has the right to do whatever he wants
with what he makes, how can we think less of the Sovereign Lord of the
universe? When He makes some people “vessels of wrath” and others
“vessels of mercy,” He has the sovereign right to do so! Christians will
read what both Jeremiah and Paul said and then say to themselves,
God said it,
That settles it,
I believe it!
Let God be true and
Every man a liar!
This biblical truth is found in both the OT (Jeremiah) and in the NT
(Romans). Natural theologians have given up trying to escape these clear
passages. So, they simply ignore them and hope you do not bring them up.
 The biblical truth that the God who made you can do with you whatever
He wants, is the line drawn in the sand between true and false Christianity.
If you rebel against the biblical idea that God has the right to do with you
whatever pleases Him, then you are a heathen and no Christian at all.
Witness #3
In the Book of Romans, the Apostle first interpreted the world through
the glasses of Creation. In Rom. 1:20, the universe is described as the
“Creation” of God.
For since the Creation of the world His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being
understood through what has been made, so that they are
without excuse.
τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν
νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις και ̀ θειότης, εἰς
τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους

The Word “Nature”

The word “Creation” is not a term that is near or dear to Natural
Theologians. They prefer the word “Nature,” which is the secular vacuum
left once you remove God from the world. This is why the Bible never
describes the world as “Nature.” The word is never found in Scripture as a
description of the universe. Instead of the heathen word “Nature,” the
biblical authors used the word “Creation.”
This is why I personally avoid using the word “Nature” in the place of
“Creation.” While I can speak of the “nature” of God or the world in the
sense of giving a Western philosophic definition of what God and man are
in term of “being,” I do not reduce the entire universe to “Nature.” The
moment you capitalize “nature” to “Nature” you have moved from
definition to idolatry.

A Good Test
This is why these three foundational biblical truths are a good litmus
test of salvation and fellowship. If someone in your church denies
Creation ex nihilo, the radical Fall of man into sin and guilt, and
Redemption by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, he or she
should be excommunicated and be “delivered unto Satan” in a public
service.
If a professor at a so-called “Christian” college, university, or seminary,
denies Creation, the Fall or Redemption, he or she should be fired. This
action is necessitated by the liberal takeover of Evangelical churches and
schools. Liberal pastors and professors are malignant cancerous tumors on
the visible Body of Christ, and should be surgically removed by church
discipline.
As we warned you, this book is for the tough-minded, who honestly
believe in and obey the Bible, who do not want to play at religion, who
want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and who want the
real thing and not a fraud or a sham. Liberals are exposed whenever church
discipline is applied to heretics.
In Romans, after speaking of Creation in chapter one, Paul moves on to
contrast the Fall of Adam to the Atonement of Christ in chapter five. Then
in chapter eight he applies both the Fall and Redemption to the Creation
itself.
While Creation was subjected to ruination by the Fall of Adam, it will
be set free from ruination by Second Coming of Christ.
For the Creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will,
but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the Creation
itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into
the freedom of the glory of the children of God. (Romans
8:20–21)
τῇ γὰρ ματαιότητι ἡ κτίσις ὑπετάγη, οὐχ ἑκοῦσα ἀλλὰ ιὰ τὸν
ὑποτάξαντα, ἐφʼ ἑλπίδι ὅτι και ̀ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσιςʼ λευθερωθήσεται
ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν
τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ.
Did Paul in Romans use Creation, Fall, and Redemption to explain the
world around him? Yes. Did he appeal to these three concepts as the basis
by which we can understand how evil came into the world and why it
became part of man’s very constitution? Yes. Then our position is
established by this third witness and anyone who dares to deny it will
receive the just condemnation of Almighty God.
 Having established the biblical validity of using Creation, Fall,
Redemption as the biblical worldview through which we understand all
things, we now conclude our discussion of the three-fold basis of the
biblical worldview by asking a question. Why should you adopt the
biblical worldview? Why not just “go along” and “get along” with the
liberals and humanists?

Why Should We Care?

When I asked myself these questions, I concluded the following reasons
why I had to adopt the biblical worldview.
First, my Master and my God has commanded us in Scripture to apply
the Lordship of Christ to all of life.
sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to
make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account
for the hope that is in you … (1 Peter 3:15)
κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι
ἀει ̀ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντι ̀ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περι ̀ τῆς ἐν
ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος
The word “Lord” (κύριον) is taken out of its normal word order in the
sentence and is placed first to emphasize it. The Messiah is to be set aside
(ἁγιάσατε) on the throne of your life as your LORD!
The Lordship of the Messiah over all things means that He must have
the preeminence in theology, philosophy, science, psychology, biology,
mathematics, politics, etc.
in order that He Himself might come to have first place in
everything.
ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων, (Col. 1:18)
Those who give the preeminence to man, to human reason, experience,
feelings or faith, to Barth, Brunner, Darwin, Marx, Freud, Whitehead,
Pinnock, Boyd, Shepherd, Wilson, etc, have betrayed Christ as Lord.
I was invited to give a chapel talk at Messiah College in PA. In my
sermon I emphasized the Christ alone should be given the preeminence in
all academic departments. Christ over Freud, Darwin, Marx, etc. While the
students were excited to hear this biblical truth, the faculty had an
emergency meeting and declared that I would never be invited to speak
there again for daring to say Christ alone had preeminence!
Second, the biblical worldview is actually true and all the other views
are false. It is not just my personal subjective preference. It is for real.
There really is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun. It is not a myth, a
legend, a fairy tale or a rip off. If you reject it, you are rejecting your only
hope of salvation.
Third, the biblical worldview is the only way of salvation. There is only
one God, only one way to gain acceptance before that God, and only one
name under heaven whereby we must be saved. You must hear of and
believe in Jesus Christ and His gospel in order to be saved from eternal
perdition.
I gave a chapel talk at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in
Philadelphia and when I declared that Christ was the only way of
salvation, several faculty members got up in protest and marched out! I
was surrounded by an angry mob of students and teachers who could not
believe that I actually said in their presence that there was hell to shun and
a heaven to gain. I was later told that I would never be invited to speak
there again.
Fourth, you should adopt the biblical worldview because it is good. All
the other worldviews are evil. Man’s problem is moral and not
metaphysical. His depravity is the real issue, not his finiteness. It is sin to
believe and teach a lie.
Fifth, you should accept the biblical worldview because it is superior to
all other views. It is better than the other views because they utterly fail to
provide a sufficient basis for truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
They cannot provide any valid answers to the final questions of life. Only
the biblical worldview can give us dignity and freedom; significance and
meaning; light and immortality; hope and truth. The other views are
hopelessly mired in relativism and are self-refuting.
Sixth, the biblical worldview is superior because it is unique. No one in
the history of the world through human reason, experience, feelings or
faith even discovered Creation ex nihilo, the Radical Fall of man into sin
and guilt, and Redemption by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ
alone. No natural religion ever developed the three pillars of the biblical
worldview. No natural philosopher or theologian ever discovered these
beliefs by human reason, experience, feelings or faith.
While all the other worldviews share the same basic humanistic ideals,
concepts, dogmas, and fictions such as free will, human autonomy, the
sufficiency of human reason, etc., the biblical worldview stands totally
unique in the history of ideas. This is why humanists have spent centuries
desperately trying to find an ancient pre-biblical natural religion or
philosophy that contained the core beliefs of the biblical worldview. But,
in the end, they have utterly failed.

Failed Pagan Origins For Biblical Religion

Each time they announced the discovery of some ancient pagan religion
that predates the Bible, which they claim is the true origin of the biblical
ideas of Creation, Fall, and Redemption, upon closer examination, the
claim falls to pieces.
First, some liberals knowingly perpetrated deliberate fraud. They used
trickery and deception as a ruse to attack the uniqueness and superiority of
the Bible. But this should not surprise us as those who believe that
everything is relative—including truth, will have no problem lying to
achieve what they feel is a worthy goal.
The term “Scripture” is a good example of how liberals play word
games. The Biblical idea of an “inspired, infallible, inerrant Scripture”
involves several key concepts:
• The God of the Bible is the personal and infinite Creator of the
universe. He is there and is not silent.
• He made man in His own image and can speak to him in human
language. This is a totally unique view of God that was unknown
in pagan religions and cultures.
• The God of the Bible is sovereign over all things and all things
happen in accordance with his eternal decrees. Any god that is not
quite sovereign, thus limited in His omni-attributes, cannot give
us an inspired, infallible, inerrant Scripture.
• God so completely controlled the authors of Scripture that they
wrote only what He wanted them to write. They had absolutely no
freedom to write the opposite of what they wrote.
 • The God of the Bible is the only theoretical context that makes
an “inspired infallible Scripture” possible. A different god cannot
generate the biblical concept of scripture.
The concept of a libertarian “free will” is incompatible with the biblical
worldview of an inerrant and infallible inspired Scripture. They are
mutually exclusive. Those who claim that the Bible is the product of
chance are heretics.

The “Open View” Heresy

Why do the “Open View of God” heretics deny the full inspiration of
the Bible? They have a false god that is incapable of producing an
inspired, inerrant, infallible Bible. Their pathetic limited finite deity is
helpless and hopeless in the face of a chance-based universe that is out of
control.

Not Dictation—But Inspiration

The biblical concept of inspiration should be confused with some kind
of crude “dictation” theory in which the authors merely recorded what God
spoke. Each author of Scripture wrote using his own unique personality,
vocabulary, cultural background, etc. Yet, through God’s mysterious
sovereignty over their hearts, minds, and wills, what they wrote was only
what He wanted them to write. What they wrote down was the very words,
thoughts, and commands of God. Hence these sacred writings are called
the “Word of God.”
Since it is the infallible “Word” of God, Jesus proclaimed that the
“Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). As a product of the absolute
sovereignty of God, the Bible is free from any errors on anything. The
concept of chance or luck is incompatible with the infallibility and
inerrancy of Scripture.
Since the Bible is both infallible and inerrant, it is the Origin of truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. Thus it is the final authority (sola
scriptura) on what to believe and how to live.

No Pagan “Scripture”
 Ancient Pagan religions such as Animism, Hinduism, Buddhism,
Taoism, etc. do not have any concept of God that allows for the kind of
“inspiration” that approaches the biblical idea, and neither do they have
any “Scripture” in the biblical sense of the word.
Since Buddhism is atheistic in its foundation, it denies the existence of
the kind of God who could inspire an infallible Scripture. Yet, this fact did
not stop the liberals from referring to the “Buddhist Scriptures” or the
“Hindu Scriptures,” to give the erroneous impression that there is nothing
unique about the “Hebrew Scriptures.” They do their best to deceive
people into thinking that all religions have their own “Scriptures.” This
reduces the Bible to just one more sacred book among many. But this is a
bold face lie from beginning to end.
Liberals use the same ruse when describing the Muslim Qur’an. Islam
claims that the archangel Gabriel brought down the Qur’an on a huge stone
tablet. As Muhammad recited it, those around him wrote down what was
recited by Muhammad on whatever writing material was available: palm
leaves, clothing, tree bark, bones, and tree bark. The Qur’an is supposedly
100% the words of Allah and does not contain anything from Muhammad.
Liberals pretend that this Muslim concept of inspiration is the same as the
biblical view. Thus the Qur’an is the Muslim “Scripture.” Is this true? No.
Islam has no concept of inspiration that approaches the biblical
concept. Muhammad would fall on the ground, and during an epileptic
seizure would dictate a Surah. The Qur’an does not have any human
authors. It only took 23 years to produce. In contrast, no biblical authors
fell on the ground with brain seizures. The Bible was not produced during
a trance. The Bible was written by over forty different human authors
during a period of almost two thousand years. At no point does its
inspiration have anything in common with the supposed inspiration of the
Qur’an, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon or a thousand other false books.
The moon-god Allah is incapable of producing an inspired Scripture like
the Bible because he is a false god, a figment of a diseased mind. See my
books, Islamic Invasion and Winning the War Against Radical Islam.

No Pagan Atonement Theories

Second, the biblical concept of a vicarious and substitutionary blood
atonement by the incarnate Son of God on the cross for the sins of His
people and His bodily resurrection from the dead is another unique
concept.
Natural theologians have tried for over two centuries to refute it by
tracing it back to a pagan myth of a “dying and rising savior.” This myth
was supposed to be part of ancient Persian and Egyptian religions and the
biblical authors “borrowed” (i.e. stole) the idea of the atonement of Christ
from those sources.
Of course, the pagan source theory of the biblical doctrine of the
atonement fell apart when it was tested by scholars such as Machen,
Yamuchi, and Kim. They pointed out that, in order to be a source of the
biblical doctrine, two things had to be true. (See my book, The Trinity, for
the documentation).
First, the liberals had to demonstrate that the biblical doctrine of a
vicarious, substitutionary blood atonement by the incarnate Son of God on
the cross for the sins of His people and His bodily resurrection from the
dead is found in an ancient pagan Middle Eastern religion. If they cannot
find a pagan religion in the Middle East that had this concept as part of
their doctrine in pre-biblical times, then the issue is dead on arrival. This
is where deception is quite common.
Liberal: “The authors of the Bible stole the idea of a dying and rising
savior from pagan religions that pre-date the Bible. The Persians, the
Egyptians, and many other religions all taught that concept, so the Bible is
false.” Christian: “I have several problems with your argument. First, that
a biblical author used previously existing ideas does not mean imply that
such ideas are wrong. They quoted those who went before them. Second,
factually speaking, no one has ever found any ancient religion in the
Middle East who taught Creation ex nihilo, the radical Fall of man into sin
and guilt, and salvation by a vicarious, substitutionary, blood atonement by
incarnate deity.”
Liberal: “But didn’t the Adonis myth picture him as a dying and rising
Savior? Didn’t the Persian speak of a dying and rising Savior?” Christian:
“No. You are confusing the natural cycle of vegetation dying in the winter
and returning in the Spring. The supposed “dying and rising savior” only
referred to the weather cycle of vegetation in which trees lose their leaves
in the Fall and then grow them back in the Spring. What possible
connection is there between the death of God the Son for the sins of His
people and a tree that sprouts leaves in the Spring? There is no connection.
What does that have to do with Jesus dying on the cross for my sins?
Nothing. You are also confusing reincarnation with incarnation and you
are mixing up the pagan idea of a man becoming a god with the biblical
doctrine of God becoming a man. Jesus did not become a demigod like
pharaoh or Caesar. He was God incarnate. The Persian argument was
exposed fifty years as a deliberate fraud. It is no more valid than the
Piltdown man. Did any of these religions teach monotheism? No. Did any
of them teach the biblical concept of sin? No. Day of Judgment? No. Did
any of them teach that the Creator so loved us that He sent His only Son to
die in our place? No. The biblical doctrines of Creation ex nihilo, the Fall,
and Redemption are unique to the Bible. Second, the pagan myth had to
predate the Bible. But none of the written records of a dying-rising savior
are pre-biblical or even pre-Christian for that matter! They were written
long after Christian missionaries had arrived and challenged pagans with
the gospel. Thus there is no hard evidence that the Persians, the Gnostics
or the Hindus or any other pagans had any concept of the biblical idea of
the atonement of Christ before Christianity arrived. Gresham Machen and
many other NT scholars have so demolished the pagan source theory that
only among the uneducated does this argument against the Bible still
arise.”

Supposed Greek Origins

The same holds true for claims that the Bible obtained many concepts
such as “Creation” from Greek philosophy. While this claim is still
asserted in junior colleges around the country, the truth is that pagan
philosophers such as Aristotle believed that the world was eternal and had
no beginning! The unavoidable fact is that no one has ever found one
Greek philosopher who taught the biblical idea of creation ex nihilo.
Ronald Nash has done an excellent job of refuting the old liberal idea of
supposed Greek philosophic origins of biblical concepts.
This is the shame that Natural theologians and philosophers must bear.
They tried to defend the Bible by denying its uniqueness! They sought to
find historical pagan sources for biblical ideas such as the atonement. In
trying to save Christianity, they destroyed it!
They also removed any reason to claim that the biblical world was
superior to the pagan worldviews. By pretending that the Bible only
repeats what pagans discovered through their own reason, experience,
feelings, and faith, they destroyed any reason to accept the gospel. The
uniqueness of the biblical worldview is the basis of its superiority. You
can’t have one without the other!

The Golden Bough

This was the goal of the The Golden Bough. James Frazer thought he
was defending Christianity by proving that it did not have any unique
ideas. Thus the Bible was in line with pagan religions that predated it. He
tried to trace biblical concepts back to pagan sources, but his work was
based on hearsay evidence found in newspaper clippings. Frazer never
actually did any firsthand research. It thus became a laughingstock in its
own day.
Sad to say, the Golden Bough is still being printed today for no other
reason than it gives liberals an easy way to dismiss the Bible. It does not
matter to them that it was exposed a hundred years ago as a fraud. There is
no hard historical evidence for the supposed pagan sources of biblical
ideas. The whole enterprise is a vast “shell and pea game,” and not worth
the paper it is printed on.

Dr. Robert Candlish

There is a big difference between believing something on the basis of
the authority of someone you trust and guessing that something is true on
the basis of what you can figure out on your own.
Dr. Robert Candlish was one of the great lights in the heyday of 19th
Century Scottish Theology. His commentary on Genesis is still considered
a classic today. His comments are instructive and should be remembered
by all thoughtful Christians.
There is the widest possible difference between our believing
certain truths as the result of reasoning or discovery, and our
believing them on the direct assertion of a credible witness
whom we see and hear,—especially if the witness be the very
individual to whom the truths relate, and indeed himself their
author. The truths themselves may be identically the same; but
how essentially different is the state of the mind in accepting
 them; and how different the impression made by them on the
mind when accepted.
Candlish viewed the popularity of Roman Catholic Natural Theology in
Protestant circles with alarm. In the previous century, William Paley had
argued that he was so smart that he could start with “intelligent design” in
Nature to the Intelligent Designer of Nature; from a watch to the Watch
Maker.
In the deeply interesting and beautiful work of Paley on
natural Theology … the author, in stating the argument for the
being of a God, derived from the proofs of intelligence and
design in nature, makes admirable use of an imaginary case
respecting a watch.
You gather much of his character from the obvious character
of his handiwork; you search in that handiwork for traces of
his mind and his heart; you speculate concerning his plans and
purposes; your fancy represents him to your eye; you think you
understand all about him; you find the exercise of reasoning
and discovery delightful, and you rejoice in the new views
which it unfolds.
Like John the Baptist, Candlish was a “voice crying in the wilderness”
that Natural Theology was not in line with Scripture, Reformation
Theology, or even science.
When a Natural Theologian looks into the well of his mind, he thinks
he is seeing God in the reflection at the bottom. But, in reality, he is only
looking at his own reflection! He has actually created a “god” in his own
image. Thus a rationalist creates a “rational” god, a mystic a “mystical”
god, an existentialist an “existential” god, and so on. Candlish comments,
When I draw inferences for myself concerning the Author of
creation,—when I reason out from his works the fact of his
existence, and the chief attributes of his character,—I am
conscious of a certain feeling of superiority. The Deity
becomes almost, in a certain sense, my creature,—the product
of my own elaborated process of thought. I am occupied more
with my own reasonings that with the transcendent excellences
of him of whom I reason. The whole is very much an exercise
 of intellect, attended, certainly, with those emotions of beauty
and sublimity which the exercise of the intellect on matters of
taste calls forth,—but with scarcely anything more of the real
apprehension of an unseen Being, in my conclusions
respecting the author of
nature, than in my premises respecting nature itself. The God
whom I discover is like the dead abstract truth to which a train
of demonstration leads. I myself alone have a distinct
personality,—all else is little more than the working of my
brain on its own imaginations.
The Natural theologians of his day sought to justify them enterprise by
claiming that the Bible in many passages started with Nature and from
there ascended to Nature’s God, but Candlish did not accept such claims.
We are all of us familiar with this idea, that in contemplating
the works of creation, we should ascend from nature to
nature’s God. It is apparent, however, even in these and similar
passages, that related things are mentioned, not as arguments,
but rather as illustrations; not as suggesting the idea of God,
the Creator, but as unfolding and expanding that idea,
otherwise obtained.
Of course, the Natural theologians pointed to Rom. 1 as the place where
the Bible justifies their existence, but Candlish pointed out,
Here it is expressly said, that from the things that are made
might be understood the invisible things of God, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that atheists, idolaters, and
worshippers of the creature, are without excuse. But why are
they without excuse? Not because they failed to discover God,
in this way, from his works, but because, when they knew God
otherwise, they did not glorify him, as these very works might
have continually taught them to do;—not because they did not
in this way acquire, but because they did not like in this way to
retain, the knowledge of God. For the fact of the creation is
regarded in the Bible as a fact revealed; and, as such, it is
commended to our faith. Thus the scriptural method on this
subject is exactly the reverse of what is called the natural. It is
 not to ascend from nature up to nature’s God, but to descend, if
we may so speak, from God to God’s nature, or his works of
nature; not to hear the creation speaking of the Creator, but to
hear the Creator speaking of the creation. We have not in the
bible an examination and enumeration of the wonders to be
observed among the works of nature, and an argument founded
upon these that there must be a God, and that he must be of a
certain character, and must have had certain views in making
what he has made. God himself appears, and tells us
authoritatively who he is, and what he has done, and why he
did it. Thus, “through faith we understand that the worlds were
made by the word of God; so that things which are seen were
not made of things which do appear.” We understand and
believe this, not as a deduction of reasoning, but as a matter of
fact, declared and revealed to us.
As a matter of fact, the Natural theologians have everything backward.
The existence of God explains the existence of the world and man. But the
Bible reverses the order. Candlish explains.
But, in our habit of mind, let this order be just reversed. Let us
conceive of God as telling us concerning them as his works.
While they reveal and interpret him, let him reveal and
interpret them. And whenever we meet with anything that
pleases our eye, and affects our heart, let us consider God
himself, our God and our Father, as informing us respecting
that very thing; I made it,—I made it what it is,—I made it
what it is for you.
Your position, in fact, is now precisely reversed. Instead of
questioning the watch concerning its maker, you now question
the maker concerning his watch. You hear, not what the
mechanism has to say of the mechanic, but what the mechanic
has to say of the mechanism.
Candlish stated that to find the truth we must begin with God and then
proceed to the world.
 The truth is, when we got to the works and creatures of God,
we go, not to discover him, but as having already discovered
and known him.
Dr. Candlish concludes,
Thus, then, in a spiritual view, and for spiritual purposes, the
truth concerning God as the Creator must be received, not as a
discovery of our own reason, following a train of thought, but
as a direct communication from a real person, even from the
living and present God.
We conclude by adopting Prof. Candlish’s conclusion as our own.
Creation, Fall, and Redemption are revealed truths that never crossed the
mind of the natural man. You cannot put your ear to a rock or cast your
eyes on a star and derive by some kind of circuitous reasoning the grand
truths of Creation ex nihilo, the radical Fall of man into sin and guilt, and
divine Redemption by grace alone through faith alone.
 Chapter Three
Creation Ex Nihilo

The Apostle’s Creed begins with the first foundational concept of the
biblical worldview when it identifies God as “Maker of heaven and earth.”
The Creed is not only right, but brilliant. It begins with the doctrine of
Creation ex nihilo because Creation not only defines the nature of God, the
world, and man but it also explains God’s relationship to the world and to
man. Indeed, everything that exists must be understood through the
biblical idea of Creation ex nihilo. Trees are a good example.

How Humanists View Trees

When a humanist looks at a tree, he sees a chance-produced
evolutionary tree to which man gives relative meaning because he thinks
he is the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
Humanists assume that meaning, like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder, i.e. man, because they believe that man is the measure of all
things. Thus trees, like everything else, have no intrinsic meaning, worth
or significance.
Because human autonomy always collapses into relativism, each man is
free to define things according to his own subjective and personal
prejudices, formed and influenced by his environment and upbringing.
Thus a tree in and of itself is actually quite meaningless.
You can worship the tree or chop it into firewood. It doesn’t really
matter. The tree is a fluke, i.e. an accident, spawned out of a chance-driven
meaningless evolutionary process with no rhyme or reason.
We must remember that evolution is not progressing or regressing; it is
not going up or down; it is not moving toward anything, but it lurches
through time according to chaotic luck and chance. This is why species
become extinct.
This means that Humanism can never provide a sufficient basis for
environmentalism. Nothing has absolute value or meaning. Everything is
relative. In the end, man can either destroy the world or save it—either
way it does not mean anything.

How a Christian Views Trees

When a Christian looks at a tree, he sees a Creator-produced tree that
God has given absolute meaning because He is the Origin of truth, justice,
morals, meaning, and beauty. Meaning, like beauty, is in the eye of the
Beholder, God. He is the measure of all things, including trees. Thus trees
have intrinsic meaning and worth.
The difference between the theist and the humanist could not be greater.
For example, a typical humanist professor might ask his students, “If a
tree falls to the ground in a forest, when there is no one around to hear it
fall, does it make a sound? If a flower blooms in a desert, where no man
will see it, is it beautiful?” The humanist’s answer is obvious. Since man is
the Measure of all things, then the tree makes no sound and the flower is
not beautiful. If man is absent, meaning is absent as well.
The theist has an entirely different view. Since God is Omnipresent, He
hears the tree fall to the ground and He sees the desert flower bloom. This
is why David could play his harp and sing when he was alone. He knew
that YHWH was listening (Psa. 55:17).

The Owner
Who owns the trees? Humanists believe that no one really owns the
trees per se. Those inclined toward socialism would assert that trees
belong to the state. But the state “owns” trees only by the power of the
gun. Since man is the measure of all things, trees can be used by man as he
sees fit.
Theists point out that since God created the trees, He is the Owner. This
is why the Bible refers to them as “the trees of YHWH” (Psa. 104:16).
Trees exist to glorify the God who created them (Psa. 96:12; 148:9–13).
The earth is Yahweh’s, and everything it contains, the world,
and those who dwell in it. (Psalm 24:1)
‫וּמלוֹאָהּ ֵתּ ֵבל וְיְֹשׁבֵי ָֽבהּ׃‬
ְ ‫ְלָדוִד ִמזְמוֹר ַֽליהוָה הָאָרֶץ‬
 God, not man, is the Creator and Owner of all things—including trees.
Thus He is the only one who has the right to determine their meaning and
how they are to be treated.
In the early chapters of Genesis, God tells man how to treat trees.
Then Yahweh Elohim took the man And put him into the
Garden of Eden to cultivate it and protect it. (Gen. 2:15)
‫וַיִַּקּח יְהוָה ֱאלִֹהים ֶאת־ָֽהאָָדם‬
‫ְשׁ ְמָֽרהּ׃‬
ָ ‫ִחהוּ ְבגַן־ ֵעדֶן ְל ָע ְבָדהּ וּל‬
ֵ ‫ויַּנּ‬
The two words ‫( ְל ָע ְבָדהּ‬cultivate) and ‫ְשׁ ְמָֽרהּ‬
ָ ‫( וּל‬protect) summarize the
original Creation Mandate that God gave to man in the Garden of Eden.
Since the first word is used in Scripture to refer to herding domesticating
animals as well as cultivating vegetation (ex. Deut. 15:19), the word
“cultivate” is not a good translation. It should be translated “manage.”
Adam’s naming the animals was part of this original Creation Mandate
(Gen. 2:19). In Hebrew thought, the act of naming the animals meant that
he took dominion over them.
The second word usually meant “to protect” or “to guard.” It is used for
tending sheep in Gen. 30:31. These two Hebrew words must be taken
together as a literary unit. Together they indicate that God gave man the
stewardship to protect, guard, cultivate, shepherd, and manage the Garden
of Eden. This involved physical labor as well as intellectual activity.
We have to remember that the word “Garden” means that Adam and
Eve were placed in a protected animal and plant preserve surrounded by
high walls. Fausset defines “garden” as,
an enclosure in the suburbs, fenced with a hedge or wall (Isa.
5:5; Prov. 24:31), planted with flowers, shrubs, and trees,
guarded (from whence comes “garden”).
God planted the Garden with an orchard of nut trees and fruit trees for
man’s food and then placed harmless domesticated animals in it for man’s
companionship. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
comments:
The Arabic jannah (diminutive, jannainah), Like the Hebrew
Heb: gannah, literally, “a covered or hidden place,” denotes in
the mind of the dweller in the East something more than the
 ordinary garden. Gardens in Biblical times, such as are
frequently referred to in Semitic literature, were usually
walled enclosures, as the name indicates (Lam 2:6 the
American Revised Version, margin), in which there were paths
winding in and out among shade and fruit trees, canals of
running water, fountains, sweet-smelling herbs, aromatic
blossoms and convenient arbors in which to sit and enjoy the
effect. These gardens are mentioned in Gen 2 and 3; 13:10;
Song 4:12–16; Eccl 2:5, 6; Ezek 28:13; 31:8, 9; 36:35; Joel
2:3. Ancient Babylonian, Assyrian and Egyptian records show
the fondness of the rulers of these countries for gardens laid
out on a grand scale and planted with the rarest trees and
plants. The drawings made by the ancients of their gardens
leave no doubt about their general features and their
correspondence with Biblical gardens.
Too often Christians assume that the Garden of Eden encompassed the
entire planet and that man had to deal with dangerous animals and
dinosaurs. The reason why Moses used the word “Garden” was to point out
that man was placed in a protected zoological park surrounded by walls on
all sides.
This explains how man was able to name the animals in a few hours. If
Adam had to name all the animals, fish, and insects on the planet,
including all the ones in the oceans, it would have taken many, many years!
Since Eve was not created until after he finished naming the animals, he
would have been so old that he could not have procreated the human race!
Once Adam finished naming all the animals in the Garden, it became
apparent to him that he, unlike the animals, was alone, i.e. without a mate.
Once he realized this, Eve was created to be his mate.
All of this happened in the course of a single Creation day because
Adam named the animals only in the Garden, not all the animals outside of
it. The animals in the Garden were domesticated barnyard animals such as
chickens, cows and dogs. T Rex, the tigers, lions, bears, etc. were outside
the walls of the Garden.

The Basis of True Environmentalism

 God commands man to take dominion over the planet by exercising
stewardship over the Garden, including the trees. On the Day of Judgment,
man will be judged by God concerning his stewardship of the planet and
its natural resources. The mismanagement of the planet and the abuse of
its resources is a violation of the divine Creation Mandate and will result
in divine judgment.
As Francis Schaeffer pointed out in his insightful book, Pollution and
the Death of Man, the only sufficient basis for environmentalism is the
biblical doctrine of Creation ex nihilo. The humanist, regardless of
whether he is Eastern or Western in worldview, has no mandate to protect,
take care or rule over nature. There is no basis for human accountability
except within the biblical worldview.

Who Says What?

God tells man which trees he may eat from and which trees he is
forbidden to eat from. Since God owned all the trees, He had the right to
dictate to man what to do and not to do with His trees. But, under the
influence of the first Natural theologian, Satan, man chose to give his own
meaning to the trees and to decide which trees he can eat from. He rejected
the Divine Revelation of the meaning of the tree of knowledge and
substituted Satan’s meaning in its place.
God warned man that if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, he would die. But Satan convinced man that the tree was not a threat
of death but a promise of life; it was not the end but the beginning; it
meant his deification, not his destruction.
The Fall of man revolved around the issue of who is the Origin of truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty:
God or Man?
Revelation or reason?
Revelation or experience?
Revelation or feelings?
Revelation or faith?
This is why the first sin was broken down into different components.
When the woman saw,
 (She had adopted Satan’s worldview)
the tree was good for food,
(lust of the flesh)
and that it was a delight to the eyes,
(lust of the eye)
and that the tree was desirable to
make one wise,
(pride of life)
she took from its fruit and ate;
(open rebellion)
and she gave also to her husband with her,
(tempting others to sin)
and he ate.
(Adam joined her in rebellion)
(Genesis 3:6)
Dr. Carl F. Henry, one of the most important and influential Evangelical
thinkers of the 20th century, pointed out that the original sin was not the
physical act of eating the forbidden fruit but the intellectual shift from a
theistic view of life revealed by God to a humanist view of life derived
from human reason through the deceit of Satan.
The arch-liar begins by calling into question the truth of God’s
word. He skillfully leads the woman to question the goodness
of God. Such questioning is mistrust and doubt, the opposite of
faith. The very moment the woman began to mistrust God the
Fall took place; the act of taking forbidden fruit was merely
evidence that the Fall had occurred. The woman apparently
used the same approach upon Adam when “she gave some to
her husband, and he ate.”
This is why conversion begins with God opening the mind or heart of
man to understand the biblical worldview.
And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a
seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and
the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by
Paul. (Acts 16:14)
 καί τις γυνὴ ὀνόματι Λυδία, πορφυρόπωλις πόλεως Θυατείρων
σεβομένη τὸν θεόν, ἤκουεν, ἧς ὁ κύριος διήνοιξεν τὴν
καρδίαν προσέχειν τοῖς λαλουμένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου.
It is also interesting to note that while sin entered the world through a
tree, salvation entered the world through another tree (Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet.
2:24). God has a great sense of humor!

In the Beginning
The very first concept that God wants you to understand when you open
the Bible is that the space/time universe is not eternal, but had a
Beginning. We translate the first two verses of Genesis as follows in order
to emphasize its dynamic character.
When the Beginning began,
Out of nothing,
God created the heavens and the earth,
And the earth was devoid of life and a desert,
And darkness covered the surface of the sea,
And the Spirit of God was brooding over
the surface of the waters.
‫ֵאשׁית‬
ִ ‫ְבּר‬
‫ָבּ ָרא‬
‫ָאָרֶץ׃‬ ָ ‫ֱאלִֹהים ֵאת ה‬
ֽ ‫ַשּׁ ַמיִם וְֵאת ה‬
‫וְהָאָרֶץ ָהיְָתה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ‬
‫וְחֶֹשׁ ְך עַל־ ְפּנֵי תְהוֹם‬
‫ַחפֶת‬ֶ ‫וְרוּ ַח ֱאלִֹהים ְמר‬
‫עַל־ ְפּנֵי ַה ָֽמּיִם׃‬
We must remember that the punctuation found in our English Bibles is
not part of the Hebrew text, but is a modern interpretation, not a
translation.
The Hebrew text has a series of vav ‫ וְֲע‬consecutives that reveal that
verses one and two are actually one sentence in terms of the grammar of
the Hebrew syntax, not two sentences as found in the KJV. The description
of the earth as it came forth from the hand of the Creator is given by three
vav consecutives.
 And ‫ וְֲע‬the earth was devoid of life and a desert,
And ‫ וְֲע‬darkness covered the surface of the sea,
And ‫ וְֲע‬the Spirit of God was brooding over the
surface of the waters.
The KJV made the mistake of putting a period at the end of verse one,
thus giving the false impression that verse one was a title.
Because of this error, verse one was cut loose or separated from the
verses that followed. This is the root error of such obnoxious doctrines as
the “gap theory” and all the vain attempts by “theistic” evolutionists to
insert billions of years between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. As Keil and Delitzsch
pointed out,
Heaven and earth have not existed from all eternity, but had a
beginning; nor did they arise by emanation from an absolute
substance, but were created by God. This sentence, which
stands at the head of the records of revelation, is not a mere
heading, nor a summary of the history of the Creation, but a
declaration of the primeval act of God, by which the universe
was called into being. That this verse is not a heading merely,
is evident from the fact that the following account of the
course of the Creation commences with w> (and), which
connects the different acts of the Creation with the fact
expressed in ver. 1, as the primary foundation upon which they
rest.
All pagan thought is built on the assumption that the space/time
universe is eternal.
What is
Has always been,
And shall always be
What it is.
It does not matter if you look to the East or to the West, the eternity of
the space/time universe is the foundational concept of all Natural
philosophies and religions, and it forms and shapes all their other
concepts. Mathew Henry, the most famous of all English preachers,
commented on Gen. 1:1,
 The foundation of all religion being laid in our relation to God
as our Creator, it was fit that the book of divine revelations
which was intended to be the guide, support, and rule, of
religion in the world, should begin, as it does, with a plain and
full account of the Creation of the world—in answer to that
first enquiry of a good conscience, “Where is God my Maker?”
(Job 35:10). Concerning this the pagan philosophers
wretchedly blundered, and became vain in their imaginations,
some asserting the world’s eternity and self-existence, others
ascribing it to a fortuitous concourse of atoms: thus “the world
by wisdom knew not God,” but took a great deal of pains to
lose him.
Rationalism, empiricism, mysticism, and fideism never produced or
discovered the doctrine of Creation ex nihilo. It never crossed the mind of
any pagan philosopher or religious sage that the space/time universe was
created out of nothing by an infinite and personal God.
This is why the biblical concept of Creation ex nihilo is maligned and
hated by both secular and religious humanists. The famous German
commentator, Peter Lange, comments,
By faith we understand that the world was made (prepared) by
the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not
made of things which do appear. The record of Creation is
therefore a record of the very first act of faith, and then the
very first act of revelation, which, as such, lies at the
foundation of all the following, and in its result reproduces
itself in the region of faith, from the beginning on to the end of
days. It is the monotheistic Christian creative word, the special
watchword of the pure believing view of the world. Ex ungue
leonem. The first leaf of scripture goes at a single step across
the great abyss of materialism into which the entire heathen
view of the world has fallen, and which no philosophic system
has know how to avoid, until perfected by this. Pantheism
here meets its refutation in the word of the eternal personal
God of Creation, who established the world by his almighty
word; abstract theism, in the production of the world out of
the living word of God; dualism, in the doctrine that God has
 created matter itself; naturalism, in the clear evidence of this
positive divine foundation of the world, in the origin of every
new step in nature. With the pure idea of God, we win at the
same place
with the pure idea of the world, and with the pure idea if
Creation, the pure idea of nature.
Humanists are always offended when you tell them that God created the
world. Lange goes on to state,
The Pantheist often takes offense here, because the record
speaks of an eternally present God, and, in opposition to his
view, of a temporal world which the eternal God has called
into being through his word; the dualist stumbles at the
assumption that even matter itself, the original substance of
the world, has sprung from the creative power of God; the
deist, on the contrary, finds in the assumption that God, after
the day’s works were completed, had then rested, a childish
dream, which ignores the idea of omnipotence; the naturalist
believes that with the co-working of omnipotence from
moment to moment the idea of the natural orderly
development of things is destroyed; philosophy generally
thinks that it is here dealing with a myth, which is arranged
partly through its orthodox positiveness, and partly through its
sensuous pictures or images; the modern skeptical natural
philosopher makes it a matter of ridicule that the sun, moon,
and stars should first be formed in the fourth creative day, and
indeed that the whole universe is viewed as rendering a service
to this little world; that the heavenly light should have existed
before the heavenly lights, but especially that the original
world should have arisen only 6000 years ago, and that its
present form, for which millions of years are requisite, should
have been attained in the brief period of six ordinary days. But
the opponents who differ most widely agree in this, that it is
fabulous, that the Bible should make an entirely new report of
pre-historical things, with the most perfect assurance.
 In his classic commentary on Genesis, H. C. Leupold surveys all the
ancient cosmologies and demonstrated that none of them taught the
concept of Creation ex nihilo.
This poses a tremendous problem for those professing Christians who
believe in Natural Theology and Natural Law instead of revealed truth. All
the Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, believed that the world was
eternal.
Aquinas usually followed Aristotle. But even he could see that
Aristotle’s eternal world contradicted Scripture. This was a problem also
for the Muslim philosophers who likewise followed Aristotle.
To solve this problem, Muslim philosophers set up a false dichotomy
between faith and reason. Their “reason” told them that the world was
eternal, but their “faith” told them it was created. They could accept both
“truths” at the same time if they assumed a false dichotomy between
“reason and faith.”
They argued that knowledge came only from human reason. Faith did
not give man any knowledge per se, but referred to the disposition of the
heart or emotions. It is a humanistic trap in which the only option you are
given is, which aspect of man should be absolutized into the Origin. You
could choose man’s reason, experience, feelings or faith. God had nothing
to do with the issue.
Many professing “Christians” today have adopted humanism as the
basis of their worldview. They often claim that evolution is a “fact” of
reason while Creation is a statement of “faith.” They “know” evolution is
true, while they “believe” in Creation.
They foolishly think that they can have their cake and eat it too! While
they like to think of themselves as smarter than other people, they are,
according to God, quite stupid (Jer. 10:8, 14, 21). They know neither the
power of God nor the Scriptures (Mat. 22:29).
It is either one way or the other. Either the Bible is true or it isn’t.
Either one of the various conflicting theories of evolution is true or it is
false. There is no middle ground.
Dear Reader, you must make up your mind about who will you believe:
Moses or Marx; Jesus or Socrates; Paul or Plato; the Bible or the
philosophers; David or Darwin. Your eternal destiny hangs on your choice.
Choose wisely.
Out of Nothing
When we read the Hebrew text of Gen 1–2, what do we find?
First, the word ‫“ ָבּ ָרא‬created” in Gen. 1:1, means that the universe was
created by God without using any pre-existing eternal materials
whatsoever.
The universe was not even made out of God’s being. The world is not
divine, but created; it is finite, not infinite; temporal, not eternal;
particular, not universal; dependent being, not independent being.
Liberals in the 19th and 20th century tried to twist ‫ ָבּ ָרא‬into meaning
that God only formed or molded pre-existing materials. They were guilty
of trying to reduce the God of the Bible to Plato’s Demiurge! But their
assertion was not based on sound linguistic principles of Hebrew grammar.
It was actually philosophic in nature. Why?
Humanists assume that the Jews had to borrow their ideas from the
surrounding pagan religions. Since no ancient pagan religion or
philosophy taught Creation ex nihilo, how could the Jews teach something
that was totally unique and out of step with the surrounding religions?
If they admitted that the Jews had a unique idea of Creation ex nihilo,
this might lead to the abhorrent idea that their religion was actually
revealed by their God as they claimed. This cannot be tolerated!
This is why liberals are both deceitful and foolish when they claim that
the Genesis Creation account was “borrowed” from the Babylonian
Gilgamesh or another ancient pagan mythology. The Gilgamesh poem and
other pagan mythologies all teach an eternal universe! They do not teach
Creation ex nihilo.
The average professor of religion usually delights in telling his
Christians students, “The Bible got its ideas of Creation from older pagan
stories such as the Gilgamesh myth. Thus the Bible is not the Word of
God.”
The Christian student should be trained how to deal with such nonsense
by asking the question: “Are you saying that the Gilgamesh poem or some
other ancient pagan mythology spoke of Creation ex nihilo? Are you
prepared to stake your academic credentials on it? The truth is that no
ancient religion ever taught Creation ex nihilo. They all believed that the
world was eternal.”
 Second, the tenses of the Hebrew verbs used in the Genesis account of
Creation describe God’s acts of Creation as taking place at once, i.e.
instantaneously. They were not slowly done over a long period of time and
the process was not a long drawn out affair.
An analysis of the tenses of the Hebrew verbs used in Genesis chapter
one, reveals that Creation was a fast, instantaneous, series of divine fiats.
Three illustrations are sufficient to establish this grammatical fact.
Then God said [‫]ויֹּאמֶר‬, “Let there be light”;
and there was light [‫]ויְהִי־ ֽאוֹר‬. (Gen. 1:3)
Then God said [‫]ויֹּאמֶר‬, “Let the waters below
the heavens be gathered [‫ ]יִָקּווּ‬into one place,
and let the dry land appear [‫ְת ָר ֶאה‬ ֵ ‫;”]ו‬
and it was so [‫]ֽוַיְהִי־ֵֽכן‬. (Gen. 1:9)
Then God said [‫]׃ויֹּאמֶר‬, “Let the earth sprout
[aveÛd>T;(] sprouts, plants yielding seed, and fruit
trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in
them, on the earth”; and it was so [‫]ֽוַיְהִי־ֵֽכן‬. (Gen. 1:11)
The Hebrew grammar refutes the liberal interpretation that sees billions
of years transpiring in Genesis one. The verbs are dynamic and
instantaneous in nature. God commanded and it came into existence at
once.
The pernicious theory of theistic evolution requires billions or millions
of years between God’s divine command and the event taking place. But
this is not grammatically possible.
God created the world by speaking it into being. In Psa. 33:9 we read,
For He spoke-
‫אָמר‬ַ ‫ִכּי הוּא‬
and it was done;
‫וַיֶּהִי‬
He commanded-
‫הוּא־ ִצוָּה‬
and it stood fast.
‫ֽד‬ֹ‫ֽֽוַיֲַּעמ‬
Notice the tenses of the verbs.
 ‫אָמר‬ַ qal perfect
‫וַיֶּהִי‬ qal imperfect
‫ הוּא־ ִצוָּה‬piel perfect
‫ֽד‬ֹ‫ ֽֽוַיֲַּעמ‬qal imperfect
The Hebrew text pictures God’s creative acts as instantaneous in nature,
not drawn out and protracted over billions of years. Nowhere in Scripture
is it ever taught that Creation took billions or even millions of years. Thus
the “old earth” people are fideists in that they make blind leaps of faith to
believe that evolutionists are more reliable than the inspired authors of the
Bible.
The only example of man’s creative word has to do with legal
declarations. When a judge pronounces you “guilty” or “innocent,” his
words render you instantaneously guilty or innocent before the law.
When a minister or Justice of the Peace or pronounces a man and a
woman “husband and wife,” their marriage is created by his speaking the
words.
The “old earth” theory of Creation is championed by humanistic
Christians who want to accommodate the heathen idea of evolution. But it
is simply not biblical. The billions of years required by the heresy of
evolution cannot be reconciled with the dynamic tenses of the Hebrew
verbs used in Genesis.
God commanded,
“Let there be light,”
and instantaneously
“there was light!”
God commanded,
“Let the earth sprout sprouts,”
and instantaneously it happened.
There is simply no way that you can squeeze billions of years out of
these texts. In the end, they must choose between God and man. Oh that
they, like the Apostle Paul, would proclaim,
Let God be true even if it
means that all men are liars!
(Rom. 3:4)
 Third, Adam and Eve were both instantaneously created. God did not
take an ape and transform him into Adam. The text says, “man became a
living being” (‫)יְִהי ָֽהאָדָם ְלנֶפֶשׁ ַחיָּֽה‬, not “a living being became man.” Any
theory that entails the existence of pre-Adamic humanoids that became
man is a very serious heresy. It should be rebuked as such.
Fourth, the days of Genesis were literal 24 hour days. It is so amusing
to see humanists dancing around the six days of Creation, trying
desperately to magically transform each day into billions of years.
I once debated a liberal theologian on the “days” of Genesis. I took a
different approach by asking, “Since we are dealing with a biblical text,
the first issue to debate is hermeneutics. A biblical text must be
interpreted in the light of its cultural context as well as its literary context.
A text taken out of context becomes a pretext for false teaching. Do you
agree with the hermeneutical principle that the context rules the
interpretation?”
The “Christian” evolutionist was not prepared to discuss the
hermeneutical principles that he had to follow when attempting to
interpret the days of Genesis. But I would not let him off the hook until he
promised to submit to the historical grammatical hermeneutic that all
Bible-believing Christians utilize when interpreting Scripture. Once this
was established, I then asked him, “The second issue we need to debate is
the hermeneutical principle that we must not read back into the Bible
modern concepts that could not, in principle, be found in biblical times
because those ideas did not exist at that time. For example, if you tried to
convince me that the authors of the Bible ate “Kentucky Fried Chicken,”
you would be wasting your breath. Do you agree that the attempt to insert
modern ideas into ancient biblical texts is a false hermeneutic?” I could
tell he did not like where we were going, but I made him admit that it
would be wrong to take modern ideas and insert them into the Bible.
My next point was his “Waterloo.” “The most important aspect of this
debate is the history of numbers and mathematics. According to what you
have written on the “days” of Genesis, your position is that Moses and the
people of his day understood that the “days” of Genesis represented
billions of years and not literal twenty four days? Yes? Ok. Then it is
crucial to your position that the abstract mathematical concept of “billion”
be present in the culture of the age in which Genesis was written.”
 The evolutionist could see that I had just placed a hood over his head, a
noose around his neck, and my hand was on the lever of the trapdoor under
his feet. Of course, I pulled the lever and let him swing in the breeze. I
pointed out:
I have in front of me various histories of numbers and
mathematics. The abstract concept of “billions” of years is a
Western European idea of recent origin and was not known in
biblical times. The authors of Scripture, such as Moses, knew
only concrete numbers and the very idea of “millions” or
“billions” of years or anything else for that matters was simply
not possible in that time frame. What we call “Arabic
numbers” (1, 2, 3, etc,) were unknown to the authors of the
Bible. If you asked Abraham, “What does 2+2 equal?” he
would not have a clue what you were talking about. The
authors of the Bible used concrete items to correspond to
things. For example, the number of stones in a bag
corresponded to how many sheep were in their flock. The
highest Hebrew word with numeric value was ten thousand.
The ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc., did not
have any abstract numbers either. How were amounts of items
recorded in Scripture? They wrote out the words that indicated
the amounts in view. For example, they wrote out the three
words “one hundred thousand” because “100,000” did not exist
at that time. I submit that it was impossible for Moses and his
readers, in their cultural context, to teach or even to
understand the modern abstract mathematical concept of
“billion” that is essential to your view.
The debate began to fall apart at that point, as he did not want to
discuss the history of mathematics. Instead, he tried to change the subject
to modern Western European interpretations of Genesis such as the
framework theory. Of course, I dismissed all modern interpretations as
logically and hermeneutically irrelevant to the issue of what Moses and
his readers understood the “days” of Creation meant. It was at this point
that he made an astounding admission: “Ok. But what if I admitted that
Moses and his readers understood the days of Creation to mean 24 hour
days? It doesn’t matter. They were ignorant and were in error. They also
believed that the world was flat and had four corners. Surely you don’t
defend them on this issue, do you?”
Now the truth finally came out. After claiming all along that he was a
fellow born-again Christian and “Evangelical” theologian who believed in
the full inspiration of the Bible, he revealed that he was actually an
apostate liberal masquerading as an Evangelical. He had thrown off his
sheep skin and now we could all see that he was a vicious wolf!
In my reply, I pointed out that his response was a flat denial of the
inerrancy of Scripture. If the authors of Scripture wrote things that were in
fact not true, who was the pope to tell us which verses to believe and
which verses to ignore?
He went on to assert that the Hebrew word “yom” could mean an
indefinite number of years. When I pointed out that when the word “yom”
was modified by a number, for example, “first day, second day, etc.,” it
always meant a literal day. He responded that in Hosea 6:2 yom was
modified by a numeral, but it clearly did not mean a literal day. But, when
I pressed him, he admitted that he had not bothered to look up the Hebrew
text. But I had already done so and found that he was 100% in error. The
passage is as follows.
He will revive us after two days;
‫ֹמיִם‬ָ ‫ְחיֵּנוּ מִיּ‬
ַ‫י‬
He will raise us up on the third day
‫ִישׁי י ִק ֵמנוּ‬
ִ ‫ַשּׂל‬ ְ ‫בּיּוֹם ה‬
That we may live before Him.
‫ִחיֶה ְל ָפֽנָיו׃‬
ְ ‫וְנ‬
In the first occurrence of “yom,” it is a simple dual absolute and it is
not modified by a numeral. The English word “two” was added by the
translator and is not in the Hebrew text per se.
In the next occurrence of “yom,” it is indeed modified by the numeral
“third” (‫ִישׁי‬
ִ ‫)השּׁל‬ ְ as in “third day.” But the question still remains whether
the word “yom” modified by a numeral in this passage refers to a literal 24
hour day or an indefinite period of time.
Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 15:4
interpreted Hosea 6:2 as prophesying the resurrection of Messiah “on the
third day” after His death.
 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also
received, that Messiah died for our sins according to
the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised
on the third day according to the Scriptures.
If the professor would have bothered to read the Hebrew text on Hosea
or exegete 1 Cor. 15:4, he would have seen that Hosea was prophesying
about the literal three 24 hour days between the death and resurrection of
the Messiah.
Jesus had promised that on the “third day” after his death He would be
resurrected.
From that time Jesus Christ began to show His disciples that
He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the
elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be
raised up on the third day. (Matt. 16:21)
Matthew Henry pointed out that Hosea 6:2
seems to have a further reference to the resurrection of Jesus
Christ; and the time limited is expressed by two days and the
third day, that it may be a type and figure of Christ’s rising the
third day, which he is said to do according to the scriptures,
according to this scripture; for all the prophets testified of the
sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.
By Old-Testament predictions. He died for our sins, according
to the scriptures; he was buried, and rose from the dead,
according to the scriptures, according to the scripture—
prophecies, and scripture—types. Such prophecies as Ps.
16:10; Isa. 53:4–6; Dan. 9:26, 27; Hos. 6:2 … Note, It is a
great confirmation of our faith of the gospel to see how it
corresponds with ancient types and prophecies.
The classic commentaries agree:
The burial was a single act; the Resurrection is permanent and
eternal in its issues. According to the Scriptures (Ps. 16:10;
Isa. 53:10; Hos. 6:2; Jonah 2:10; comp. Matt. 12:40; 16:4; Acts
2:31; 13:34).
 It is impossible for the Christian to read this text and not
wonder if it foreshadows Christ’s resurrection on the third day.
Wolff attempts to eliminate the idea of resurrection here,
which he casts in a pagan light, and asserts that this text only
describes recovery from illness. The language Hosea employs,
however, renders this view impossible. Besides that, recovery
after a two-day illness, as opposed to two days in the grave, is
hardly significant. The New Testament does not explicitly cite
this verse, but 1 Cor 15:4 asserts that Christ arose on the third
day “in accordance with the Scriptures,” and no other text
speaks of the third day in the fashion that Hos 6:2 does. It is
clear that in its original context this passage describes the
restoration of Israel, the people of God; and for many
interpreters this is proof enough that the resurrection of Christ
is not in view here. Such interpretation, however, understands
messianic prophecy too narrowly as simple, direct predictions
by the prophets of what the Messiah would do. In fact, the
prophets almost never prophesied in that manner. Instead, they
couched prophecy in typological patterns in which the works
of God proceed along identifiable themes. Furthermore, Christ
in his life and ministry embodied Israel or recapitulated the
sojourn of Israel. Thus, for example, Christ’s forty days in the
wilderness paralleled Israel’s forty years of wandering, and his
giving of his Torah on a mountain (Matt 5–7) paralleled the
Sinai experience.
I have waited over forty years for those who believe that the days of
Genesis refer to billions of years to show me just one clear verse in the
original text where yom modified by a numeral meant anything other than
a literal 24 hour day. Hosea 6:2 is the only text they tried to twist, but it
actually proves our position.
Since this is not a book on the days of Genesis per se, we will leave the
issue at this point. Enough has been said to establish that any attempt to
insert modern abstract ideas of billions of years into the Genesis Creation
account is hermeneutically fallacious.

Conclusion
 One last word is needed. Should we make the length of Creation days of
Genesis a test of salvation? Of course not! There are many true Christians
today who have never studied the issue and naively follow their
humanistic pastors and teachers on this point. They don’t know any better.
Our evangelical colleges, seminaries, and universities today are
dominated by ignorant professors who are incapable of exegeting the
original text of Scripture. They are now controlled by Boards who are only
interested in studying “market driven” techniques for hyper-church
growth. “Buildings, numbers, and money” are the new “holy trinity” of the
church growth movement, not Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The bottom line
is not knowledge but sales.
The ignorant professor I debated is just one example of thousands of
teachers who are leading their students astray. He did not even bother to
check the Hebrew text because he was philosophically committed to a
humanistic view of God, the world, man, and the long days of Creation. It
really did not make any difference to him what the Bible actually taught.
His mind was already made up before he picked up his Bible.
True Christians can and do disagree over the days of Genesis. But, if
someone honestly believes that Moses was in error in his understanding of
the days of Genesis, that is a serious issue. Anyone who denies the
inerrancy of Scripture is not a fellow Christian. He is a “false brother”
who is preaching a “false gospel” and is under the divine anathema of Gal.
1:8.
The biblical doctrine of Creation is the first pillar of divine revelation.
Everything in life must be interpreted and understood in its light. No
philosophy or theology deserves to be called “Christian” if it does not
begin where the Bible begins.
 Chapter Four
The Radical Fall of Man into Sin and Guilt

Most theological errors begin with the failure to take seriously the
radical nature of man’s Fall into sin and guilt. Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman
Catholicism, Arminianism, liberalism, Open View heretics, New Agers,
Natural theologians, and Natural Law advocates all begin their descent
down “the highway to hell” by denying that man was radically affected by
the Fall.
They all admit that man was weakened somewhat by the Fall and is no
doubt sick to some extent today, but they do not really believe that man
died in a spiritual sense. He only needs a little help to find the truth and
earn his salvation for himself and from himself.
They believe that man still has a free will and his mind is still capable
of being the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. Man can
still figure out things without any information from God via special
revelation. Human reason, feelings, experience, and faith are autonomous
and self-sufficient to find the truth. Man does not really need God or His
Word.

Father Adam
Most Christians understand that Adam is the “Father” of the human
race in the sense that he was the first human being from which all others
originated. For this reason, Adam is called the “first” man in such places
as 1 Cor. 15:45.
What most modern Christians do not seem to understand is that we are
related to Adam in more ways than DNA. In Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15, the
Apostle Paul draws several parallels between Adam and Christ. Jesus is
described as the “last Adam” just as Adam is described as the “first”
Adam (1 Cor. 15:45).
Adam and the Messiah
In both passages it is clear that Adam’s fall into sin was substitutionary
and vicarious in nature. His sin was our sin. His Fall was our Fall too. We
“sinned” in Adam and “died” in Adam.
In the same way with the same language, the work of the Messiah is
described as substitutionary and vicarious in nature. We died when He died
and rose when He rose.
In fact, as we shall see, Rom. 5 says that we are condemned by virtue of
Adam’s disobedience just as surely as we are justified by virtue of Christ’s
obedience. While the imputation of Adam’s sin is the problem confronting
all men (Rom. 5:12), the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is the
remedy to that problem (Rom. 5:17).

Bound Together
Our participation in Adam’s disobedience and our participation in
Christ’s obedience are linked together in such a way that if one rejects the
doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin—the basis of the doctrine of
original sin—he must also reject the imputation of Christ’s righteousness
—the basis of the doctrine of forensic justification.
Throughout church history, intelligent heretics have always seen that
the doctrines of original sin, substitutionary atonement, and forensic
justification stand or fall together. This is why Socinus, the father of
Unitarianism, and Charles Finney, the father of revivalism, felt compelled
to deny all three doctrines.

The Same Terms

Our relationship to Adam is spoken of in the same terms that are used
to speak of our relationship to Christ. For example, we are described as
being “in Adam” just as we are “in Christ.” Thus, union with Adam and
union with Christ are two realities that share mutual meanings.
All those “in Adam,” i.e. in union with Adam, receive certain things by
virtue of that union just as all those “in Christ,” i.e. in union with Christ,
receive certain things by virtue of that union.

Part I
Inconsistent Denials
Because the Evangelical world is filled with teachers, pastors, and
evangelists who have very little theological knowledge, no grasp of church
history, and absolutely no training in logic, it is not surprising to find some
people objecting to the doctrine of original sin on the grounds that it
would be “unjust” if God punishes us on the basis of evil done by someone
else. According to them, the very idea that God would view and treat us on
the basis of what someone else did or did not do is “absurd.”
Yet, at the same time, these same people when pressed will admit that
God viewed and treated Jesus on the basis of their sin! If “Jesus died for
our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:4), then how can it be
unjust for us to die for Adam’s sin?

What Church History Reveals

Church history demonstrates that a rejection of the doctrine of original
sin will in time lead to a rejection of the vicarious atonement and forensic
justification. This is exactly what happened in 18th Century Liberal
Theology.
Liberal theologians began with a rejection of the doctrine of original
sin and its resulting depravity. This led them to reject the doctrine of
Christ’s substitutionary atonement.
On the basis of “Reason,” they then concluded that if it is unjust to be
condemned on the basis of the work of another, then it is equally unjust to
be saved on the basis of the work of another. Their rationalism eventually
led them to deny the blood atonement of Christ.
This is why the doctrine of original sin is absolutely essential to
Christian theology and why the Christian Church has always condemned
as heretical all Pelagian and semi-Pelagian views of man, which in some
way deny or weaken the doctrine of original sin and its resulting depravity.
The validity of a substitutionary atonement and forensic justification is
based on the validity of the imputation of Adam’s sin to us.

Three Essential Concepts

There are three essential concepts that form the basis of the doctrines of
original sin, vicarious atonement, and forensic justification:
#1 Solidarity
The Bible teaches a concept of solidarity in which an individual is
viewed and treated in terms of his relationship to a group, whether it is a
tribe, a nation or mankind as a whole, while the “group” is viewed and
treated in terms of its relationship to its original head.

Man as Image Bearer

This is why the Bible can speak of each individual human being as
having dignity and worth by virtue of his or her participation in the
solidarity of the human race. Each individual person is important because
mankind as a whole is important. We can view each person we meet as
being in the image of God by virtue of mankind’s relationship to Adam
who was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27; James 3:9).

Corporate and Individual Election

An individual Jew was viewed as “chosen” by virtue of his participation
in the solidarity of the “chosen” nation. Yet, at the same time, the nation
was viewed as “chosen” because of its relationship to Abraham who was
individually chosen by God (Gen. 12:1–7).

The Levitical Priesthood

An individual could be blessed by virtue of his participation in the
solidarity of his tribe. For example, an individual Levite could be a priest
by virtue his participation in the solidarity of the Tribe of Levi while the
Tribe of Levi was viewed as the priesthood by virtue of its relationship to
Levi who was individually chosen to be the high priest (Num. 18:6–24).

The Ninevites
Each individual Ninevite was delivered from judgment by virtue of his
participation in the solidarity of the nation of Nineveh whose King
repented before God (Jonah 3; 4:11). He could just as easily have been
punished for the corporate guilt he bore. But the nation as a whole was
delivered on a corporate basis when its head repented in sackcloth and
ashes. It did not matter if he, as an individual, had sinned or repented. The
destiny of his nation was his destiny.

Corporate Guilt and Punishment

The suffering experienced by individual Egyptians during the plagues;
by individual Canaanites, Philistines, Amorites, Hittites, etc., during the
Conquest; by individual Jews in the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities;
and all the other judgments sent against nations, were justified by God on
the basis of their participation in the solidarity of their nation.
For example, even though a certain individual Egyptian may not have
harmed or mistreated the Jews in any way, yet, because he was an
Egyptian, he suffered under the ten plagues. His individual actions did not
negate his corporate guilt which arose out of his participation in the
solidarity of the nation of Egypt.

Even the Righteous

A righteous man can view himself guilty in a corporate sense by virtue
of the solidarity of his tribe’s or nation’s sin. Thus Nehemiah confessed the
corporate sins of his nation (Neh. 1:5–11).
In the passage above, it is clear that an individual can be viewed and
treated by God as being guilty of sins for which his nation was guilty. The
fact that he himself had not committed the particular sins in question did
not negate the corporate guilt he bore.
It is on this basis that punishment for certain sins was visited on entire
cities like Sodom or entire nations such as Egypt. Because of the solidarity
of the family unit, the punishment for certain sins could rest on several
generations (Exo. 20:5; Josh. 7:24–26; Jer. 22:28–30; 36:31).
God’s corporate blessing or judgment on tribes, cities, nations, and
mankind as a whole are possible only on the basis of the concept of
solidarity. Such judgments as the Flood or the Conquest can only be
understood and justified in this way.

In Our Secular life

The concept of solidarity is also an essential aspect of politics as well
as a Biblical principle. When the leadership of a nation declares war on
another nation, each individual citizen is at war whether he knows or
agrees with it. He can be killed or his goods seized simply on the basis of
being a part of his nation. He must bear corporate guilt and punishment
due to the sins of his nation. Thus, human government itself is based on
the concept of solidarity. If we condemn the biblical principle of solidarity,
then human government must be rejected as well.

#2 Representation
The Bible teaches a concept of representation in which the acts and
decisions of one’s representative is viewed and treated as one’s own acts
and decisions.
In its secular sense, this concept serves as the basis for representative
government. If our representatives in Congress declare war, it means that
we are viewed and treated as having declared war.
If our representatives vote in a new tax, we have to pay it because we
are viewed and treated as if we voted it into law. It does not matter if you
disagree with or are ignorant of the actions of your representative. You are
legally and morally responsible for the acts and decisions of your
representatives.

Examples in Scripture
We find this same principle at work in Scripture. Individuals are viewed
and treated by God according to the actions and decisions of their
representatives. This worked for either cursing or for blessing.

For Cursing
In terms of cursing, Pharaoh’s stubbornness led to God’s judgment on
the entire nation of Egypt (Exo. 7–11). Those who followed Korah,
Dathan, Abiram, and On suffered their fate (Num. 16). Each evil king of
Israel or Judah brought judgment on the entire nation. For example, Israel
had no rain because of the evil deeds of King Ahab (1 Kings 17f).

For Blessing
In its positive sense, the actions and decisions of good kings brought
blessing to the entire nation. For example, the nation was delivered
because godly King Hezekiah sought the Lord (2 Kings 19).

The Atonement
The greatest illustration of the principle of representation is the
substitutionary and vicarious atonement of Christ (1 Cor. 15:3–4).
We are saved on the basis of the actions and decisions of Christ our
representative. He is our mediator, advocate, and great high priest (1 Tim.
2:5; 1 John 2:1; Heb. 2:17). Atonement, justification, and original sin are
all based on the principle of representation.

#3 Imputation
The Bible teaches a concept of imputation in which God takes the life
and works of someone and applies them to the record of another who is
then treated on that basis.
Christian theology has always taught that there are three great acts of
imputation:
1. Adam’s sin was imputed to us at conception.
2. Our sin was imputed to Christ in the atonement.
3. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us in justification.
The imputation of Adam’s sin to us should not bother us any more than
the fact that our sins were imputed to Christ. That we should suffer for
Adam’s sin is just as acceptable as Christ suffering for our sins. The fact
that death came to us through Adam is just as acceptable as life coming to
us through Christ.
Divine justice is as equally satisfied with the imputation of Adam’s sin
as it is with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The justice of all
three acts of imputation rises or falls together.

Biblical Examples
The fact that God can choose to “impute” sin or not to “impute” sin is
clear from Psa. 32:2 and Rom. 4:6. That it is God who determines what
sins are to be placed on one’s record is clear from the usage of the word in
Scripture: Lev. 7:18; 17:3–4; 1 Sam. 22:15; Rom. 4:8, 11, 22, 23, 24; 5:13;
2 Cor. 5:19; James 2:23.
 That Christ suffered and died for our sins, which were imputed to His
account by the Father, is the very heart and soul of the Christian Gospel (1
Cor. 15:3–4). Our sins were imputed to Christ, and He was viewed and
treated by God accordingly.
Such passages as Isa. 53:4–6; John 1:29; 1 Cor. 15:3–4; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1
Pet. 2:24, etc., are so clear that only a deranged mind could miss this
point.
Once a person accepts the justice of Christ bearing his sin, guilt, and
punishment, then he cannot reject the justice of bearing the sin, guilt, and
punishment of Adam.

Forensic Justification
In the Biblical doctrine of justification, the righteousness of Christ is
“imputed” to us, i.e., God places it on our record and then views and treats
us in terms of that righteousness (Rom. 5:1–21; Phil. 3:9).
Righteousness can be imputed to us because Christ is our representative
(Heb. 9:11–28) and because of the solidarity of His people for whom He
came (Matt. 1:21). Justification is based on the concept of imputation just
as much as the doctrines of original sin and the atonement.
It is no surprise that those who deny the imputation of Adam’s sin also
deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
The modern heresy called the “New Perspective on Paul” popularized
by apostates such as E. P. Sanders, N. T. Wright, James Dunn, Norman
Shepherd, etc. always leads to a denial of original sin. They work
backward from a denial of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to a
denial of the imputation of Adam’s sin.

Part II
Our Relationship to Adam
In what ways are we related to Adam according to the Bible?

#1. We are related to Adam in terms of genetic solidarity

In Scripture, genetic solidarity in and of itself can serve as a sufficient
basis for moral and spiritual implications. Thus the superiority of Christ’s
priesthood over against the Levitical priesthood is based solely on the fact
that Abraham, the genetic source of Levi, paid tithes to Melchizedek (Heb.
5:6; 7:4–10).
The fact that all men participate in a genetic solidarity with Adam is
the basis for the doctrine that all men are created in the image of God.
Thus if you deny the justice of genetic solidarity when it comes to original
sin, you have also in principle denied that mankind is God’s image bearer.
Ideas are not like taxi cabs in which you can get out of whenever you
want. You have to ride in that cab until you get to the end of your journey.
The attempt to deny the principle of solidarity when it comes to the Fall
but accept it when it comes to Creation, is sheer hypocrisy.

#2. We are related to Adam in terms of spiritual solidarity

Adam procreated his descendants “in his own image,” which had been
corrupted by his fall into sin and guilt (Gen. 5:3). That Adam’s depravity
was passed on to his children is manifested by the universality and
inevitability of man’s sinfulness, which reveals itself “from the womb”
and even “in the womb” (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; 25:22–26; Psa. 14:1–6; 51:5;
58:3; Rom. 3:23; Eph. 2:1–3).
Cain’s murder of Abel is sufficient evidence that Adam’s depravity was
passed down to this children.

#3. We are related to Adam in terms of representation

In Rom 5:12–21, Paul clearly draws several parallels between the
representative nature of Christ’s actions and the representative nature of
Adam’s actions.
In 1 Cor. 15, Paul tells us that by virtue of our being “in Adam,” i.e. in
union with Adam as our head and representative, we are all spiritually
dead. He sets forth a parallel between being “in Adam” and being “in
Christ.”
What Adam or Christ did is viewed by God as what we did. When
Adam sinned, we sinned (Rom. 5:12). When he died spiritually, we died
spiritually (1 Cor. 15:22).
In the same way, when Christ was crucified, we were crucified with
Him (Gal. 2:20). We died, were buried, and rose when Christ our Head and
Representative died, was buried, and rose from the dead (Rom. 6:1–6; Eph.
2:6).
 It does not matter to me if you whine about this reality and complain
that “it isn’t fair.” What is “fair” according to your limited, subjective, and
culturally conditioned ideas means nothing. What is “fair” is what God
decides to be fair.

#4. We are related to Adam by imputation

Rom. 5 clearly teaches that Adam’s sin and condemnation were
imputed to his descendants. Thus the universality of death is traced to the
solidarity of mankind’s participation in the sin of Adam (v. 12–17).
The universality of condemnation is also traced back to man’s
solidarity in Adam (v. 18). Paul also tells us that all men are “constituted”
or “made” sinners by virtue of their union with Adam (v. 19).
Again, if you don’t like this truth, there is really nothing you can do
about it. You can deny total depravity, but in doing so you are only
illustrating the truth of it!

Part III
Eden and Calvary
What Christ did on Mt. Calvary is viewed in Scripture as the remedy to
what Adam did in the Garden. Thus, as our legal representative and
substitute, Christ lived and died in our place.
In other words, what He did was credited to our account as if we did it.
His life and death were substitutionary in the same way that Adam’s life
and death was substitutionary.
For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God
through the death of His Son, much more, having been
reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Rom. 5:10)
εἰ γὰρ ἐχθροι ̀ ὄντες κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου
τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα
ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ·
Christ’s atoning work is the answer or remedy to the consequences of
Adam’s Fall into sin and guilt. Thus God designed forensic justification to
remove the forensic imputation of Adam’s guilt, while progressive
sanctification is designed to remove the impartation of Adam’s depravity.
 The atonement of Christ is structured to be the parallel remedy to the
imputation and impartation of Adam’s sin and guilt. To claim that it is
unjust for us to share in Adam’s sin and, yet, at the same time, to claim
that it is just to share in Christ’s righteousness is anti-scriptural. You
cannot have your cake and eat it too! This is why the “New Perspective on
Paul” will only populate hell.

The Temptation
The obvious parallel between Christ’s temptation in the wilderness
(Matt. 4) and Adam’s temptation in the Garden (Gen. 3:1–7) cannot be
ignored. But, whereas Adam was defeated by the devil, Christ was now
victorious over Satan.
Did the Messiah have to go through the Temptation? Yes. Jesus had to
endure the same trial that Adam endured. But the second Adam had to pass
the same trial that foiled the first Adam.

The Parallels
The following chart reveals some of the parallels between Adam and
Christ
The First Adam The Second Adam

The Son of God (Lk. 3:38) The Son of God (Mk. 1:1)

Temptation (Gen. 3) Temptation (Matt. 4)

Disobedience (Gen. 3) Obedience (Matt. 4)

Condemnation (Rom. 5) Justification (Rom. 5)

Death (Rom. 5: 1 Cor. 15) Life (Rom. 5: 1 Cor. 15)

Obedience Vs Disobedience
The chart above reveals that it is the “obedience” of Christ which
removes the “disobedience” of Adam (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:5–11; Heb. 5:8).
We are saved by His active and passive obedience, not just by His death on
the cross alone. This is why the “New Perspective” heresy is exegetically
impossible.
Creation
All men are viewed as being in the image of God because of their
solidarity with Adam, who as their representative was created in the image
of God. Although this image is marred by sin, man is still the image-
bearer of God and has intrinsic worth and dignity (Gen. 1:26–27 cf. James
3:9).

The Creation Mandate

Because of man’s solidarity with Adam, when he was given the task of
taking dominion over the earth, all his descendants were given the
responsibility to be good stewards of the earth and its resources. Thus
mankind as a whole was given the Creation Mandate through Adam their
representative (Gen. 1:27–30; 2:1–17).

The Radical Fall

The imputation of Adam’s sin, guilt, and condemnation to his
descendants and the resulting universality of death and totality of
depravity are clearly revealed in Scripture.
In Rom. 5:12–21, we are said to receive the following things from our
solidarity with Adam our representative:
sin (v. 12a)—legal and personal
physical death (v. 12b)—consequence
spiritual death (v. 15)—depravity
judgment/condemnation (v. 16)—guilt
the reign of death (v. 17)—bondage
condemnation for all (v. 18)—guilt
all made sinners (v. 19)—depravity
In 1 Cor. 15, our union with Adam means:
1. death (v. 21)—consequence
2. all “in Adam” died when he spiritually died (v. 22)—
consequence
 3. we bear his image and likeness which is sinful, mortal and
corrupt (v. 45–49)—nature

Redemption
The results of Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s obedience are
paralleled to each other in Scripture.
Adam Christ

condemnation (position) justification (position)

depravity (condition) sanctification (condition)

life (future)

death (future)

The doctrine of original sin is based on the same biblical principles

which underlie the doctrines of man as the image bearer of God, the
atonement of Christ, and forensic justification. We are viewed and treated
by God as sinners on the basis of the imputation of Adam’s sin, guilt, and
condemnation to our account and the impartation of Adam’s depravity and
death to our natures.
In short, we sin because we are sinners by nature from conception. Thus
it is no surprise that sin and death are universal, total, and inevitable.
All of humanity is in solidarity with Adam in his Creation and his Fall.
Just as man’s dignity is based on his solidarity with Adam in his Creation,
man’s depravity is based on his solidarity with Adam in his Fall. Both
begin at conception. To reject one is to reject the other.
Christ’s work of atonement is based on the same kind of solidarity and
representation that are found in our relationship to Adam. They are both
substitutionary and vicarious in nature. To reject one is to reject the other.
The imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification is structured in
Scripture to be the remedy to the imputation of Adam’s unrighteousness in
original sin. To reject the one is to reject the other.
The impartation of Christ’s righteousness to our natures in
sanctification is structured in Scripture to be the remedy to the impartation
of Adam’s depravity and death to our natures. To reject the one is to reject
the other.
In short, the decisions and actions of Adam and Christ are so
intertwined in Scripture that they cannot be separated. To deny one is to
deny the other. Thus any denial of the doctrines of original sin,
substitutionary atonement, and forensic justification must be deemed as
serious heresy and sufficient grounds for excommunication.

Part Three
Implications of the Radical Fall
The implications of the Fall penetrate every aspect of how Christians
view the world, man, and society. Since we have already developed this in
previous books, we will only give a brief overview.

The Way We See the World

When a humanist sees a tree, he does not think anything about it. After
all, he assumes that man is the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning,
and beauty and thus trees, dead or alive, have no intrinsic value or
meaning. A tree has no meaning apart from what he gives to it.
When a Christian sees a tree, he understands that the entire Creation is
under the curse of Adam’s Fall into sin. But when Jesus comes back to this
old world of sin and death, the trees and all creation will be delivered from
that curse.
For the anxious longing of the Creation waits eagerly for the
revealing of the sons of God. For the Creation was subjected to
futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected
it, in hope that the Creation itself also will be set free from its
slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the
children of God. (Rom. 8:19–21)
The storms, earthquakes, forest fires, tidal waves, droughts, floods, etc,
that disrupt and destroy the planet are the result of man’s sin. Thus the
ecological crisis we face today is rooted in the moral issue of man’s sin.
Pollution is a moral issue, not just a financial problem.
Pollution and the rape of the planet will continue until Jesus comes
back to raise the dead and to judge all mankind. Until then, Christians
have a divine mandate to be good stewards of the planet.

The Way We Treat Animals

How animals should be treated is another good example. The righteous
are kind to animals, but the wicked are cruel.
A righteous man understands for the life of his animal, But the
compassion of the wicked is cruel. (Pro. 12:10)
‫יוֵֹד ַע ַצדִּיק נֶפֶשׁ ְבּ ֶהמְתּוֹ‬
‫ֽוְַר ֲח ֵמי ְר ָשׁ ִעים אַ ְכזִָֽרי׃‬
A righteous man will ‫( יָדַע‬i.e., understand) the needs and proper care of
his animals. His treatment of them will be kind. In contrast, a wicked man
does not bother to understand his animals. Even his acts of ‫( ַר ֲחמִים‬i.e. lit.
compassions) lead to all kinds of cruel abuse. Solomon points out that
what unbelievers think is “compassion” for animals is actually cruel if
judged by the Law of God. The “green” humanists can pretend to care
about the planet but, in the end, since they reject the Creator and the Fall
of man into sin and guilt, they have no intellectual basis for understanding
or solving the ecological problems that face us.

How We View Marriage and Divorce

We have already seen that Jesus in Mat. 19:3–10 interpreted marriage
and divorce in terms of Creation and the Fall. The pain and suffering of a
failed marriage is the result of Adam’s Fall into sin and guilt.

How We View Prisons

Humanists live in a fantasy world in which people are viewed as
intrinsically good. People are not really “sinners” per se. Man’s problems
are not rooted in what he is. They are rooted in what he does due to a lack
of education. Thus man does bad things because he doesn’t understand
that they are bad. Since his problems are rooted in ignorance, public
education is the solution to all the problems man creates.
The humanist perspective has changed prisons from being a place
where criminals are punished to “correctional institution” where the
“inmates” can be transformed by education. It is hoped that if they can
earn a high school or college degree while in prison and have plastic
surgery to better their looks, they will go straight when they get out. All
the statistics reveal that the ugly truth that the “bleeding heart liberals”
have not delivered the goods. All they have managed to produce are better-
looking well-educated criminals!
Their failure to view man in the light of the Fall has resulted in
rewarding criminals with free education to make them smarter and free
plastic surgery to make them better looking. They have only made the
situation worse, not better.
Christians understand that people sin because they are sinners by
nature. Jesus said that people are intrinsically bad, not good. What we are
determines what we do. Man’s problem is not educational but moral. His
sin is his problem, not a lack of knowledge. Prisons should be a place of
punishment for crimes committed, not a resort with tennis courts.
Liberals can throw all the money in the world into public education but
it will not change society one iota. Education is not the final answer
because man’s real problem is not his ignorance, but his sinful depravity.
Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is the only
hope for a sinful mankind.

Conclusion
Christians must apply the biblical truth of the radical Fall of man to all
of life. Only from that perspective can they deal with the evils that plague
our society. Any attempt to develop a “Christian view” of psychology,
anthropology, sociology, law, medicine, science, politics, etc. that is not
based upon Creation, Fall, and Redemption is not “Christian.” Be not
deceived. God is not mocked.
 Chapter Five
Redemption

The marvelous surprise in Genesis is the promise of Divine Redemption

given in Gen. 3:15. It has been called the “proto-evangelium,” i.e. the first
preaching of the Gospel.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and
between your seed and her seed; He shall crush you on the
head, and you shall crush him on the heel.
‫ִשּׁה וּ ֵבין זְַר ֲע ָך וּ ֵבין זְַר ָעהּ הוּא יְשׁוּ ְפ ָך רֹאשׁ‬
ָ ‫אָשׁית ֵֽבּינְָך וּ ֵבין ָֽחא‬
ִ ‫תּשׁוּ ֶפנּוּ ָעֵֽקב׃ ס‬
‫ְאַתּה וְאֵי ָבה‬
ָ ‫ו‬
Dr. D. A. Carson comments,
It has, therefore, traditionally been seen by Jews and
Christians, as the first hint of a saviour for mankind, and 3:15
is often called the ‘protevangelion’ the ‘first gospel’.
Allusions to it in the NT include Rom. 16:20; Heb. 2:14; Rev.
12.

To Whom the Promise Was Given

It is important to note that the promise of salvation was not announced
to Adam or Eve when God placed His curse upon them. It was announced
to the devil when God cursed the serpent! Why?
The greatest curse that could ever be placed upon Satan for his role in
the Fall of man was the announcement that God would undo what Satan
had done to man. A Redeemer called the “Seed of the woman,” identified
in the Aramaic Targums as the Messiah, would “crush the head of the
serpent,” i.e. defeat him.

The Meaning of “Crush”

 The same Hebrew word “crush” [‫ ]שׁוּף‬is used to describe what the Seed
would do to the serpent and what the serpent would do to the Seed. The
defeat of Satan is illustrated by crushing a snake’s head under a heel and
killing it. But before the snake died, he would manage to bite the heel of
the one killing him.
The difference between crushing the “head” and crushing the “heel” of
someone is important. Once the head of a snake is crushed, there is no
hope that he will recover, but one can recover from a bite on the heel. This
is the first indication that the Messiah would be resurrected after His
defeat of Satan on the cross. This is why the head of the Seed was not
crushed.
The same word is used in connection with both head and heel,
to show that on both sides the intention is to destroy the
opponent; at the same time, the expressions head and heel
denote a majus and minus, or, as Calvin says, superius et
inferius. This contrast arises from the nature of the foes. The
serpent can only seize the heel of the man, who walks upright;
whereas the man can crush the head of the serpent, that crawls
in the dust. But this difference is itself the result of the curse
pronounced upon the serpent, and its crawling in the dust is a
sign that it will be defeated in its conflict with man. However
pernicious may be the bite of a serpent in the heel when the
poison circulates throughout the body (Gen. 49:17), it is not
immediately fatal and utterly incurable, like the crushing of a
serpent’s head.

Surprised by Grace
First, the idea that God would provide salvation for lost and fallen
sinners comes as a complete surprise. After all, why in the world would
God redeem the very rebel sinners who had trampled His Law under their
feet, rebelled against His Word, questioned His motives, condemned Him
as a liar, and chosen Satan over Him, etc.? Grace is truly amazing!
Second, no pagan religion ever conceived of salvation by grace alone
through faith alone. Works-based salvation has always been the pagan way,
not the biblical way.
 Heathen religions assume that the only way to gain acceptance before
offended spirits, devils, and deities is to merit or earn it on the basis of
man’s person and performance.
Third, God could have justly left man in his sin and guilt because He
did not owe man anything but hell and destruction. In one debate with an
Arminian, he challenged me as follows: “Are you saying that God chose to
save only some of mankind? That’s not fair!” I responded, “Why do you
assume that God has an obligation to save anyone? That God chose to save
any sinners at all is the mystery of grace!”

Grace is Found—Not Earned

Throughout the history of Redemption, sinners “found grace” in the
eyes of the Lord, not earned it!
Noah “found grace”: Gen. 6:8
Abraham “found grace”: Gen. 18:3
Lot “found grace”: Gen. 19:19
Moses “found grace”: Exo. 33:12–13, 16–17; 34:9
Mary “found grace”: Lk. 1:30
David “found grace”: Acts 7:46
The Hebrew word ‫ ָמצָא‬, translated “found,” means that grace was
something that they discovered as a complete surprise. It is like finding a
twenty dollar bill on the street. You find it—not earn it.
Gen. 6:8 But Noah found grace. Hēn; the same letters as in
Noah, but reversed (cf. ch. 18:3; 39:4; 1 Kings 11:19). The
present is the first occurrence of the word in Scripture. “Now
for the first time grace finds a tongue to express its name”
(Murphy); and it clearly signifies the same thing as in Rom. 4,
5, Ephes. 2, Gal 2, the gratuitous favour of God to sinful men.
This is why salvation in the Bible is a free act of God 100% and not
something that man has earned or merited. This is the point that Paul
emphasized in his Epistle to the Romans.
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according
to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works,
he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what
 does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it
was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who
works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.
But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who
justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,
(Rom. 4:1–5)
Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ
σάρκα; εἰ γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχημα, ἀλλʼ
οὐ πρὸς θεόν. τί γὰρ ἡ γραφὴ λέγει; Ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ
θεῷ και ̀ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. τῷ δὲ ἐργαζομένῳ ὁ
μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται κατὰ χάριν ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα, τῷ δὲ μὴ
ἐργαζομένῳ πιστεύοντι δὲ ἐπι ̀ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ
λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην·

Salvation, A Gift, Not a Wage

In the passage above, Paul argues that salvation must not be viewed as
“wages” that we have earned or merited, and thus God owes us. The word
μισθὸς is the normal everyday word for remuneration for work done.
the laborer is worthy of his wages. (Luke 10:7)
ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
The moment we think that God owes man anything other than divine
wrath and judgment, we have denied that salvation is by grace alone. The
classic commentaries concur that Paul uses,
an illustration of the workman (ἐργαζομενῳ [ergazomenōi])
who gets his wages due him, “not as of grace” (οὐ κατα χαριν)
[ou kata charin]).
Not grace but debt is the regulative standard according to
which his compensation is awarded. The workman for hire
represents the legal method of salvation; he who does not work
for hire, the gospel method; wages cannot be tendered as a gift.
Grace is out of the question when wages is in question.
 He pointed out that a worker’s wages are what are owed him
because he earned them, and are not graciously given to him
as a gift. Conversely, a person who is not working but is
believing on (these participles are in the pres. tense) God who
justifies the wicked (asebē, “the ungodly, impious”; cf. 5:6),
his faith is credited as righteousness (cf. 4:3).
The idea is the same in all cultures:
“Wage” implies a transaction involving an exchange of
services for money or something of value. Paul insists that
God does not relate to us as an employer, “paying” us with
salvation in exchange for some service we render by doing
what is right and good. Since we have all sinned, the only wage
we have “earned” is death! (Rom. 6:23) Instead, God relates to
us through promise and freely gives us righteousness
(salvation) if we have faith in Him. Since “wages” and “gift”
are contradictory concepts, “law” and “promise” can never be
mixed in relating to God. We must choose to relate to either by
faith, or by works. We can’t have it both ways.
Salvation is either a reward for works or a gift through grace;
it cannot be both. Verse 5 states that God justifies the ungodly
(not the righteous) through faith and not works. The Jews
thought that God justified religious people on the basis of their
works; yet Paul has proved that “Father Abraham” was saved
simply on the basis of faith. Then Paul refers to David and
quotes Ps. 32:1–2, proving that Israel’s great king taught
justification by faith, apart from works. God does not impute
sin to our account, because that was charged to Christ’s
account (2 Cor. 5:21, and see Phile. 18). Rather, He imputes
Christ’s righteousness to our account purely on the basis of
grace! What a wonderful salvation we have!

God Does Not Have To Save Anyone

Salvation is not something that God does because He has to. It is not
something that is required of Him. Salvation is not a necessary act of God,
but a free act of a sovereign God.
 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for
us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
(Romans 8:32)
ὅς γε τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο ἀλλα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων
παρέδωκεν αὐτόν, πῶς οὐχι ̀ και ̀ σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ἡμῖν
χαρίσεται;
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the
Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely
given to us by God, (1 Cor. 2:12)
ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου ἐλάβομεν ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα εἰδῶμεν τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ χαρισθέντα ἡμῖν·
to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely
bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Eph. 1:6)
εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν
τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ.
The word χαρίζομαι, translated “freely given or bestowed,” literally
means that God was under no necessity to save us. It was His free act to
redeem us.

No One Deserves a Chance To Be Saved

This is in sharp contrast to Natural Theology, which is based on the
erroneous idea that God owes man salvation. This is the rotten foundation
of the heresy that the heathen “deserve” the chance of salvation. Thus they
cannot be denied heaven simply because they never heard of or believed in
Jesus.
While the Bible describes those who die without faith in Jesus as
having “no hope” (1 Thess. 4:13) and “perishing” (Rom. 2:12), heretics
always teach a “wideness to God’s mercy” in which there is always “hope”
for anyone who is good, regardless of what they believed. This “wider
hope” heresy is based on a works-based salvation, and is antithetical to the
gospel, evangelism, and missions.

The Basis of Orthodoxy and Catholicism

 The works-for-salvation foundation of both Eastern Orthodoxy and
Roman Catholicism is based on the “wage model” in which God owes
salvation to good people who do good works. The “fly in the ointment” is
that, from God’s perspective, there are no good people!
as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one; There
is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;
All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good, There is not even one.” (Rom.
3:10–12)
καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ
συνίων, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν. πάντες ἐξέκλιναν ἅμα
ἠχρεώθησαν· οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ποιῶν χρηστότητα, [οὐκ ἔστιν] ἕως
ἑνός.
Paul is simply echoing what was taught in the Psalms.
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are
corrupt, They have committed abominable deeds; There is no
one who does good. YHWH has looked down from heaven
upon the sons of men, To see if there are any who understand,
Who seek after God. They have all turned aside; Together they
have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even
one. (Psa. 14:1–3)
‫ה־טוֹב׃‬
ֽ ‫ֽשׂ‬ ֵֹ‫ְלָדוִד אָ ַמר נָָבל ְבּלִבּוֹ ֵאין ֱאלִֹהים ִֽה ְשׁ ִחיתוּ ִֽה ְת ִעיבוּ ֲעלִי ָלה ֵאין ע‬
‫ֶת־אלִֹֽהים׃‬
ֱ ‫ַשׂ ִכּיל דֹּרֵשׁ א‬ ְ ‫ִשׁ ִקיף ַֽעל־ ְבּנֵי־אָרָם ִלרְאוֹת ֲהיֵשׁ מ‬ ְ ‫ִשּׁ ַמיִם ה‬
ָ ‫יְֽהוָה מ‬
‫ֽשׂה־טוֹב ֵאין גַּם־ ֶא ָֽחד׃‬ ֵֹ‫ַמנֵַצּ ַה ַהכֹּל סָר יְַחָדּו נֱֶא ָלחוּ ֵאין ע‬
ְ‫ל‬
Salvation is not something we earn or merit. Works and grace cannot be
mixed together as they are diametrically opposed to each other.

Unconditional Election
For example, divine predestination is not based upon our works. God
does not choose sinners on the basis of what they have done or what they
will do in the future, but election is based on sovereign grace alone.
Election is thus either by grace alone or by works alone. It is either one or
the other, not both. This is argued by Paul in Rom. 11:5–6,
 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present
time a remnant according to election by grace. But if it is by
grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is
no longer grace.
οὕτως οὖν και ̀ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ λεῖμμα κατʼ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος
γέγονεν εἰ δὲ χάριτι, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἔργων, ἐπει ̀ ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι
γίνεται χάρις.
It is amazing that so many Natural Theologians think that they have
figured out a way to mix grace and works together. But, no matter how
hard they shake grace and works together, just like an oil and vinegar,
given enough time, they will separate because they cannot be blended
together.
Fourth, salvation in the Bible is based entirely on the person and work
of Christ. His oath, His covenant, His righteousness, and His good works
are the basis of salvation. Jesus paid it all!
Biblical Redemption is thus unique because it is by way of the
vicarious substitutionary blood atonement of the Incarnate of Son of God.
Jesus paid all the costs necessary to satisfy Divine Justice and to set us
free from eternal condemnation and perdition. He lived the life we never
lived and died the death we should have died. See my book, Studies in the
Atonement, for the details of this most wonderful plan of salvation.
Fifth, biblical Redemption is Trinitarian. We are:
Chosen by the Father,
Purchased by the Son,
Sealed by the Spirit,
Blessed God Three in One!
Each member of the economical Trinity has a distinct role to play in
salvation. Redemption is planned by the Father, accomplished by the Son,
and applied by the Spirit. Any view of salvation that is not Trinitarian is
not biblical. See my work, The Trinity, Evidence and Issues, for an
exegetical defense of this position.
Sixth, biblical Redemption is monergistic (God working alone), not
synergistic (God and man working together). This means that salvation is
100% of God. It is not a 50/50 deal between God and man. As Jonah
confessed,
 Salvation is from YHWH. (Jonah 2:9)
Hebrew: ‫יְשׁוָּֽעתָה לַיהֽוָה‬
Septuagint: σοι σωτηρίου τῷ κυρίῳ
Latin Vulgate: pro salute Domino.
Matthew Henry comments,
He concludes with an acknowledgment of God as the Saviour
of his people: Salvation is of the Lord; it belongs to the Lord,
Ps. 3:8. He is the God of salvation, Ps. 68:19, 20. He only can
work salvation, and he can do it be the danger and distress ever
so great; he has promised salvation to his people that trust in
him. All the salvations of his church in general, and of
particular saints, were wrought by him; he is the Saviour of
those that believe, 1 Tim. 4:10. Salvation is still of him, as it
has always been; from him alone it is to be expected, and on
him we are to depend for it. Jonah’s experience shall
encourage others, in all ages, to trust in God as the God of
their salvation; all that read this story shall say with assurance,
say with admiration, that salvation is of the Lord, and is sure
to all that belongs to him.
Henry is not alone in his interpretation.
In the words “salvation comes from the LORD,” Jonah
extolled the work of the Lord as Savior. Here also is an
emphasis on the Lord’s sole sovereignty in the area of
salvation. No one else can provide in such a way, though Jonah
already showed in v. 8 how one might reject God’s offer. It is
correct to say that this line may serve as the key verse in the
book. Fretheim is possibly correct in pointing out that
salvation does seem to be the key motif in the book, and this
verse points to that motif. Salvation for the sailors is
emphasized in chap. 1, for Jonah in chap. 2, for the Ninevites
in chap. 3; and it is the objective of God’s questioning of Jonah
in chap. 4. Jonah recognized that he deserved death, not
deliverance. He then knew, as we do, that no one deserves
deliverance. It is an act of mercy by a gracious God.
 It doesn’t matter how you cut it, God saves sinners all by Himself.
• He devised the plan of salvation from eternity past.
• Mankind was prepared for the Incarnation of the Divine Son
of God by His appearance in human form in the Garden and
throughout human history. The theophanies prepared the way
for the coming of Messiah. See my book, The Trinity, for full
documentation on this point.
• Jesus came, lived, died, rose again, and sat down at the right
hand of the Father.
• He is now reigning as King of kings and Lord of lords until
He has put all His enemies under His feet.
• One day the Messiah is coming back to this wicked world to
stop the madness of sin, resurrect the dead, initiate the Day of
Judgment, cast the wicked into eternal conscious punishment,
and create a new earth in which the people of God will fulfill
the original Creation Mandate found in Gen. 1:26–31.
• The eternal state of the saints will be filled with worship, art,
music, science, architecture, theology, animal sciences, space
exploration, etc. A New World is coming and it will be ushered
in by the literal Second Coming of the Lord Messiah Jesus.

All For The Glory of God

Seventh, we must emphasize the biblical truth that the goal of all things
including salvation is not the happiness of man, but the glory of God.
Isaiah declared,
Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created
for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.
(Isa. 43:7)
‫יתיו׃‬
ִֽ ‫ֲשׂ‬
ִ ‫ְתּיו אַף־ע‬
ִ ‫ִשׁ ִמי וְִלכְבוִֹדי ְבּרָא ִתיו יְַצ ְר ִתּיו יְַצר‬
ְ ‫כֹּל ַהנְִּק ָרא ב‬
πάντας ὅσοι ἐπικέκληνται τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐν γὰρ τῇ δόξῃ μου
ατεσκεύασα αὐτὸν και ̀ ἔπλασα και ̀ ἐποίησα αὐτόν
We were created to increase the acquired glory of God. We are saved
from eternal damnation to increase the acquired glory of God. Everything
God does is focused on increasing His glory.
 “Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and
honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because
of Thy will they existed, and were created.” (Rev. 4:11)
Αξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος και ̀ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν και ̀ τὴν
τιμὴν και ̀ τὴν δύναμιν, ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα καιδ̀ ιὰ τὸ
θέλημά σου ἦσαν και ̀ ἐκτίσθησαν.
Much of “Christian” evangelism is now totally man-centered. The
question usually asked of unbelievers is, “Do you want happiness, health,
and prosperity?” This reveals how man-centered the evangelical world has
become.

God-centered Evangelism
Sinners need to be reminded that they exist for God’s glory and that He
does not exist for their happiness. The famous agnostic, David Hume,
never understood the gospel that he loudly repudiated. He argued that
since God existed “for the felicity of man,” and, manifestly not all men are
happy, then perhaps God did not exist. He falsely assumed that God
existed to serve the needs of man and the greatest need of man was to be
happy.
In his Anglican Arminian church background, he had been taught that
God wants man to be happy, healthy, and wealthy. This is why Jesus came
to earth. The gospel was presented to him as a means whereby we can be
happy. Thus the beginning and end of the gospel message is the happiness
of man.
If he had heard the true gospel of Sovereign grace that man exists to
glorify God and that we are here on earth to serve Him, perhaps he would
not have become so vile an unbeliever and enemy of Jesus Christ.
The “seeker-ftiendly” church phenomenon, the health and wealth TBN
gospel, the emergent church, and emerging church movements are all
man-centered. They cater to the felt needs of man and sacrifice the biblical
gospel in the process.

The Biblical Message

We need to return to the biblical gospel that man is a rebel sinner who
is under the wrath of Almighty God. His only hope is that God will
somehow rescue him. God devised a plan by which He could be “just and
the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). Wiersbe
comments,
God must be perfectly consistent with Himself. He cannot
break His own Law or violate His own nature. “God is love” (1
John 4:8), and “God is light” (1 John 1:5). A God of love wants
to forgive sinners, but a God of holiness must punish sin and
uphold His righteous Law. How can God be both “just and the
justifier”? The answer is in Jesus Christ. When Jesus suffered
the wrath of God on the cross for the sins of the world, He
fully met the demands of God’s Law, and also fully expressed
the love of God’s heart. The animal sacrifices in the Old
Testament never took away sin; but when Jesus died, He
reached all the way back to Adam and took care of those sins.
No one (including Satan) could accuse God of being unjust or
unfair because of His seeming passing over of sins in the Old
Testament time.

Conclusion
The third pillar of the biblical worldview is its unique concept of
Divine Redemption in which it was decreed by God the Father in eternity
past, accomplished by God the Son in history, and applied today by God
the Holy Spirit in the present.
To the One in Three,
And Three in One,
Be all the glory
Both now and forever more,
Amen!
 Chapter Six
The Book of Ecclesiastes

The greatness of the Book of Ecclesiastes has been recognized by many.

It exposes and destroys all humanistic hope that man can find truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty in life apart from and independent of
God’s revelation in Scripture. Its relentless logic has impressed
unbelievers as well as believers, Jews as well as Christians.
The well-known novelist Herman Melville stated, “The truest of all
books is Solomon’s and Book of Ecclesiastes is the fine hammered steel of
woe.” The author Thomas Wolfe declared, “the Book of Ecclesiastes is the
greatest single piece of writing I have ever known, and the wisdom
expressed in it the most lasting and profound.”113 Derek Kidner states,
“Anyone who spends time with Book of Ecclesiastes (that least
ecclesiastical of men) finds himself in the company of a highly
independent and fascinating mind.”
The famous French theologian, Jacques Ellul, was one of twentieth
century’s most outspoken opponents of Natural Theology and Natural Law.
He was motivated by his lifelong study of the Book of Ecclesiastes.
I have read, meditated on, and prayed over Book of
Ecclesiastes for more than fifty years. I have probably
explored it more than any other book in the Bible. It has
perhaps given me more than any other.
Duane Garrett correctly points out that the Reformers, Puritans, and
many great Evangelical leaders of the past viewed the Book of
Ecclesiastes as an apologetic against unbelief by demonstrating that
human reason cannot find meaning apart from God. It is thus no surprise
that such apologists as Francis Schaeffer used the Book of Ecclesiastes to
show unbelievers that if we adopt their secular worldview, all meaning and
morals are lost. The historic evangelical position was based on revealed
theology and maintained Sola Scriptura as its foundational principle.
 This is in sharp contrast to modern “evangelical” Natural Theologians
who have avoided the Book of Book of Ecclesiastes. They are not stupid.
Why would they draw attention to a Book in the Bible that destroys the
very foundation of Natural Theology? Thus, whereas the Book of
Ecclesiastes was historically viewed as an apologetic refutation of
humanism, it has now been set aside as irrelevant.

A Difficult Book
Most modern people have trouble understanding the Book of
Ecclesiastes. Iain Provan calls it “a difficult book.” J. Stafford Wright
states that it is “one of the most puzzling books of the Bible.”118 Scott
describes it as “the strangest book of the Bible.” Moore and Akin both feel
that the Book of Ecclesiastes is “the most misunderstood book of the
Bible.”120
It is hard for modern Gentiles to understand ancient Jewish Wisdom
literature because there are no modern literary parallels. The sarcasm,
humor, and wit displayed in the book are out of sync with modern culture.
As Murphy and Huwiler point out, “The Book of Ecclesiasteshas a distinct
voice among the texts of the Bible.”

Book of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs

Perhaps the best way to understand the Book of Ecclesiastes is to
compare it to the book of Proverbs. Both books are found within the poetry
section of the Old Testament. The five poetical books of Job, Psalms,
Proverbs, Book of Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs deal with the practical
issues of life instead of such things as prophecy, history, or theology. They
are also called “Wisdom literature” because they seek to educate us about
life and how to live it.
Although Proverbs and the Book of Ecclesiastes are both wisdom
literature, they teach us about life in two totally different ways. Proverbs
begins with the assumption that there is a personal God who gives
meaning to all of life (Prov. 1:7). The Book of Ecclesiastes begins with the
assumption that life without God is meaningless (Ecc. 1:16, 17).
• Proverbs begins with the assumption that there is a personal
God who gives meaning to all of life (Prov. 1:7). The Book of
 Ecclesiastes begins with the assumption that life without God is
meaningless (Ecc. 1:16, 17).
• Proverbs begins with God and asks the question, “How should
we live.” The Book of Ecclesiastes begins without God and asks,
“Why should we live?”
• Proverbs is positive in tone. The Book of Ecclesiastes is
negative.
• Proverbs gives believers hope for tomorrow. The Book of
Ecclesiastes denies unbelievers any hope for tomorrow.
• Proverbs promises us that life will have meaning if we begin
with God (Pro. 1:1–7). The Book of Ecclesiastes warns us that life
will be meaningless if we begin without God (Ecc. 1:2).
• Proverbs tells us that wisdom is more important than money
(Pro. 3:13–18). The Book of Ecclesiastes tells us that money is
more important than wisdom (Ecc. 10:19; 1:17, 18).
• Proverbs assures us that a good reputation is important (Pro.
22:1). The Book of Ecclesiastes tells us that it is meaningless
(Ecc. 6:2).
In many other ways, the Book of Ecclesiastes reveals that without God,
nothing in life will have any meaning or significance. It teaches this by
being the “mirror reflection” or opposite of Proverbs.

The Hermeneutics of the Book of Ecclesiastes

The hermeneutical principle of the “passage of full mention” is another
key to understanding the message of the Book of Ecclesiastes. This
principle refers to an interesting phenomenon of Scripture. In addition to
scattered references throughout the Bible to a specific biblical concept,
sometimes there is a seminal passage in Scripture where that specific truth
is developed in depth. For example, Isa. 40 is the “passage of full
mention” on the transcendence of God, 1 Cor. 15 is the “passage of full
mention” on the bodily resurrection, Rom. 4–5 is the “passage of full
mention” on the doctrine of justification.
 When confronted by Natural Theology, we must ask, “Is there a
“passage of full mention” in Scripture where God specifically addresses
the foundational idea upon which Natural Theology is based?” We are not
asking if Scripture specifically addresses this or that modern expression of
this foundational concept. That would be a violation of cultural context.
All forms of humanistic theology are based on the fundamental idea
that man starting from himself, in himself, and by himself, apart from and
independent of God and His revelation in the Bible, can discover truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty, through human reason, experience,
feelings, or faith. Is this foundational issue ever addressed in Scripture?
Yes.
The Book of Ecclesiastes is the Scriptural “passage of full mention” in
which the Creator of the universe addresses the foundational principle of
all Natural theologies. In the Book of Ecclesiastes the one true God
destroys any hope whatsoever that man is the Origin of truth, justice,
morals, meaning and beauty. The Book of Ecclesiastes establishes the
divine truth that if we begin with man, we will end with complete and total
meaninglessness.
When we turn to see how “Evangelical” Natural theologians and
philosophers have handled the Book of Ecclesiastes, what do we find?
Ninety nine times out of a hundred, they completely ignore the Book. They
do not even refer to it at all! Like the proverbial ostrich, they stick their
head in the sand and pretend that it does not exist. They know that if they
attacked the inspiration and canonicity of Ecclesiastes, they would be fired
from the Evangelical schools or churches were they are employed.

Liberal Attacks on the Book of Ecclesiastes

When we turn to Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant Natural
theologians and philosophers, we find that they attack the inspiration and
canonicity of Ecclesiastes. Why are they so hostile to this Book? They
recognize the threat that this biblical Book poses to their worldview. If the
Book of Ecclesiastes is inspired, then God has declared all Natural
Theologies “Meaningless! Utterly meaningless!”
This is why the Book of Ecclesiastes has been relentlessly attacked
since the rise of Western European Natural Theology. They correctly see
that the Book of Ecclesiastes is a dagger aimed at the very heart and soul
of Natural theology. John Gill, the great Hebrew scholar, documented that
the most consistent of all Natural theologians, the Deists, were united in
their rejection of the Book of Ecclesiastes.
After spending several years reading all the rationalistic arguments
against the Book of Ecclesiastes, I have come to the conclusion that they
are worthless and wicked. They do not disprove the inspiration or
canonicity of the Book. Most of the arguments today were originally given
by German rationalists in the 18th or 19th centuries and are hopelessly out
of date. For example, they ignore all the archeological and textual
discoveries since that time.

Authorship
Theological rationalists erroneously assume that if they can disprove
(sic) that King Solomon was the author of the Book of Ecclesiastes, the
book’s inspiration is automatically refuted. Albert Barnes noted in his day,
“modern critics have indeed alleged that Solomon could not have written
it.”
The apostate assumption is gratuitously accepted today by all liberals.
They assume that it was impossible for King Solomon to write the Book of
Ecclesiastes. Liberal commentaries simply wave aside the idea that
Solomon wrote the book. Lange pointed out that the philosophers in his
day did all in their power to destroy the Book of Ecclesiastes.125
Why are theological rationalists so desperate to overthrow the Book of
Ecclesiastes? What is it about the Book that makes them so afraid? Stop
and ask yourself, “If the smartest man who ever lived tried to find
meaning in life, apart from and independent of God’s special revelation in
Scripture, through human reason and experience and, in the end, concluded
that without Divine Revelation life has no meaning, is the basis of all
humanistic thought in jeopardy? The only possible answer is, “Yes!”
This is why theological rationalists expend so much energy attacking
the Book of Ecclesiastes. It destroys all hope that unregenerate man can
find truth without God, morals without Scripture, and meaning without
revelation. Hengstenberg comments,
… the soulless, spiritless, vulgar Rationalism has been capable
of little sympathy with the book. A Th. Hartman gave most
open expression to his antipathy to it. He describes it as “the
 work of a morose Hebrew Philosopher, composed when he was
in a dismal mood and in places thoroughly tedious.”
In terms of authorship, several facts are agreed upon by all. First, both
Jewish and Christian traditions identify Solomon as the author. F. C. Cook
comments,
This Book is placed, in the most ancient Jewish and Christian
lists, between the other two Books (Proverbs and the Song of
Songs) attributed to Solomon, and the constant tradition of the
Jewish and Christian Churches has handed down Solomon
without question as the author.
Second, rationalists have argued that the vocabulary, geographical
references, theme, and personal comments of the author demonstrated that
Solomon could not be the author, because the book had to be written many
centuries after Solomon died. But, conservative scholars have refuted
these arguments one by one by showing that the vocabulary, geographical
references, theme, and personal comments of the author were indeed
possible in Solomon’s day. They have also argued that Solomon was the
only author who had the depth and breadth of knowledge to have written it.
In summary, though many scholars deny Solomonic authorship
because of the supposed lateness of the language of the Book
of Ecclesiastes, recent studies have called into question the
validity of their linguistic evidence and reopened the
possibility of identifying the unnamed author with Solomon.
Since the evidence is inconclusive, the following commentary
assumes the traditional view that Solomon was the human
author. However, regardless of who wrote it, whether Solomon
or a later Jewish sage, the presence of this book in the Bible
indicates that it is God’s Word.
Some modern scholars have argued that the philosophical cast
of the book and its many distinctive words point to a postexilic
date. However, the linguistic arguments have all been
satisfactorily answered by conservative scholars, and a pre-
exilic date is fully justified. It is likely the book was composed
 near the end of Solomon’s reign, perhaps in his last decade
(940–930 B.C.).
Since the book itself does not name Solomon as the author, the issue of
authorship is not tied to its inspiration. The authorship of the book is not
mentioned elsewhere in Scripture. Thus, if Solomon did not write it, its
inspiration is not threatened. Some conservative commentators have held
to the inspiration of the Book of Ecclesiastes but not to Solomon’s
authorship.

Inspiration
Its inspiration was never questioned in either the Jewish or Christian
traditions. The authors of the New Testament utilized it as Scripture. Just
because you do not like its message is not sufficient to reject its
inspiration. For the biblical Christian, the Book of Ecclesiastesis is
inspired Scripture.
The book, entitled Koheleth, or Book of Ecclesiastes, has ever
been received, both by the Jewish and Christian Church, as
written under the inspiration of the Almighty; and was held to
be properly a part of the sacred canon.

Date of Composition
The exact date when the Book of Ecclesiastes was written remains an
open question. Unlike Isaiah, the book nowhere ties its composition to a
particular king. A book based upon the teachings of Solomon could have
been written long after his death. Editorial updates that modernized the
vocabulary and spelling in the text could have been done several times
without threatening that the book is a faithful summary of Solomon’s
belief system.

The Original Text of Book of Ecclesiastes

We are happy to report that “The Hebrew text is in good condition.”
The LXX and other translations are accurate for the most part. The
fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls are generally identical. Leupold
concludes, “The fact remains that we have in this book, as ordinarily, a
good Hebrew text.”136

Place in Canon
First, its relationship to the Old Testament as a whole is best described
as follows.
5 Basic Law 5 Basic Prophecy

9 Pre-exile history 5 Personal life 9 pre-exile prophecy

3 Post-exile history (Book of Ecclesiastes) 3 post exile prophecy

Second, the five Wisdom books have been described as the “Second
Torah.” The differences between the first and second Torahs are profound.
The first “Torah” (Gen.-Deut.) reveals the divine laws that govern the
external universe. The second “Torah” (Job-Songs) reveals the laws that
govern the internal universe. This second Torah has been viewed in three
different ways.
a. Literary style: There is a great amount of poetry in these
five books. Thus some commentators have labeled this
section of the canon as Poetical Books.
b. Focus: This second Torah is intensely personal in tone.
Your personal relationship to God, your neighbor, you wife,
and others is the focus.
c. Law: This Torah gives us the laws that govern true
spirituality, such as prayer and praise.
Third, its relationship to the other Wisdom books:
▪ Job: the problem of Evil. How do I cope with evil when it
happens to me?
▪ Psalms: the practice of Prayer. How do I pray to the Lord?
▪ Proverbs: the way of Wisdom. How will a wise person
treat others?
▪ Book of Ecclesiastes: the meaning of Life. How can we
have meaning in life?
 ▪ Song of Songs: the happy marriage. How can I have a
happy marriage?
Fourth, its relationship to the New Testament: The NT parallel to the
Book of Ecclesiastes is found in 1 Cor. 15:12–20, 32. Paul’s use of such
key words as “vain,” “profitless,” etc. and his relentless logic that if
Messiah has not been bodily raised from the dead, life has no meaning are
all clear echoes of the Book of Ecclesiastes.
Now if Messiah is preached, that He has been raised from the
dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection
of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not
even Messiah has been raised; and if Messiah has not been
raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
Moreover we are even found false witnesses of God, because
we testified against God that He raised Messiah, whom He did
not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are
not raised, not even Messiah has been raised; and if Messiah
has not been raised, your faith is profitless; you are still in
your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ
have perished. If we have hoped in Messiah in this life only,
we are of all men most to be pitied. If from human motives I
fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If
the dead are not raised,
“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (1 Cor. 15:12–19,
32)

Literary Style
Book of Ecclesiastes is a mixture of several different styles, of which
Hebrew poetry is only one type.
Some have supposed that the Book of Ecclesiastes is a poem.
That some poetic lines may be found in it, there is no doubt;
but it has nothing in common with poetic books, nor does it
exist in the hemistich form in any printed edition or MS. yet
discovered. It is plain prose, and is not susceptible to that form
in which the Hebrew poetic books appear.
 Garrett comments, “Due to a testimony to the stylistic complexity of
Book of Ecclesiastes, scholars are not even able to agree on whether the
book is predominately prose or poetry.” Murphy and Huwiler agree,
“Translators do not agree on which parts of the book are poetry and which
are prose.”139

Pagan Sources for the Book of Ecclesiastes?

Once the theological rationalists rejected the divine inspiration of the
Book of Ecclesiastes, they had to explain the obvious greatness of the
book. They retreated to the old argument that whenever anything of
greatness appeared in Israel, it had to come from the pagans around them.
The Jews were incapable of being original, unique or great in their ideas.
Thus they always borrowed their ideas from the brilliant Gentile thinkers
in the pagan world around them. Ellul comments,
The third presupposition of commentators has to do with their
certainty that Book of Ecclesiastes is not based on authentic
Hebrew thought, but rather derives from one of the
surrounding cultures. When scholars make this hypothesis the
center of their research, presupposing a foreign origin for the
book, they plunge into very dubious waters.
Modern Natural theologians disagree as to the sources of the Book of
Ecclesiastes. This alone should cast doubt on the entire enterprise of trying
to find Gentile sources for Jewish ideas.
Duane Garrett: Egyptian instructional literature (with a fair
amount of influence also coming from Babylonian and other
sources.
William P. Brown: The Babylonian Gilgamesh Myth.
Murphy: Egyptian, Canaanite-Phoenician, Greek sources.
After surveying the arguments that the Book of Ecclesiastes came from
Aramaic, Phoenician, Greek, Egyptian, or Babylonian sources, Jacques
Ellul concluded, “The diversity of theories is amazing … Typically, we
find as many different possibilities as we have scholars.”
 He examined the pagan source materials that supposedly were parallels
to the Book of Ecclesiastes and concluded, “I remain rather skeptical of
these parallels.” Prof. Barton’s conclusion should be repeated, “there is
even less trace in Qohleth of Greek philosophical, than of Greek
linguistical influence.”146
The idea that the Jews were incapable of original or inspired ideas is a
subtle form of anti-Semitism that eventually produced the Holocaust. It is
time to call “source theories” what they really are: racial prejudice and
hate speech.
Finally, Hengstenberg points out that one of the goals of the author of
the Book of Ecclesiastes was to warn the people of God not to adopt the
philosophies of the surrounding pagan nations.
At all periods in which the powers of this world have weighed
oppressively on the people of God, the temptation has been
peculiarly strong to approve and adopt the worldly wisdom
which prevailed amongst the surrounding heathen nations. The
danger lay very near of coming, in that manner, to terms with
the world, and seeking thus to be on equal footing with it …
the author utters his warning in chap. 7:25. 26; he further
admonishes the Israelites to offer energetic resistance to its
attackers themselves. In chap. 12:12, he warns them against
familiarizing themselves with worldly literature.
The “pagan source theory” contradicts the very purpose of the Book of
Ecclesiastes. As such, it is useless as well as false.

The Epistemology of the Book of Ecclesiastes

How the author tried to find meaning without God is important. He
tried rationalism and empiricism, and they both failed to find meaning or
morals.

The Idealism of Rationalism

Rationalism is the attempt to discover meaning and morals through the
fallen mind or reason of man. The rationalist believes that if he uses such
philosophic tools as logic and discourse, he could discover final answers
to the ultimate questions of life. It does not matter if we are talking about
pagan or “Christian” rationalists. For both of them, the real is the rational
and the rational is the real. Man’s reason is the measure of all things.
Solomon diligently studied the Natural theology and philosophy of his
day to see if he could, through them alone, discover truth and meaning. He
“talked to himself” about the meaning of life, not to God. He applied his
“mind” to find the meaning of life. He never once gave a “Thus says
YHWH” or cited the Torah as his authority. His rationalism is expressed in
the verses below.
Book of Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I set my mind to seek and
explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under
heaven.
Book of Ecclesiastes 1:16 I said to myself, “Behold, I have
magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were
over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has observed a
wealth of wisdom and knowledge.”
Book of Ecclesiastes 1:17 And I set my mind to know
wisdom and to know madness and folly.
Book of Ecclesiastes 7:25 I directed my mind to know, to
investigate, and to seek wisdom and an explanation, and to
know the evil of folly and the foolishness of madness.
Book of Ecclesiastes 8:9 All this I have seen and applied my
mind to every deed that has been done under the sun wherein a
man has exercised authority over another man to his hurt.

The Hope of Empiricism

Empiricism is the attempt to find meaning through the five senses.
Since philosophy failed to produce anything, he turned to the sciences.
This is another reason why Solomon could be the author.
And Solomon’s wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the sons
of the east and all the wisdom of Egypt for he was wiser than
all men, than Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman, Calcol and Darda,
the sons of Mahol; and his fame was known in all the
 surrounding nations. He also spoke 3,000 proverbs, and his
songs were 1,005. And he spoke of trees, from the cedar that is
in Lebanon even to the hyssop that grows on the wall; he spoke
also of animals and birds and creeping things and fish. (1
Kings 4:30–34)
The author looked at the world around him and tried to find meaning on
the basis of what he saw with his own eyes. The epistemological impact of
the following verses should be noted.
Book of Ecclesiastes 2:13 And I saw that wisdom excels folly
as light excels darkness.
Book of Ecclesiastes 4:1 Then I looked again at all the acts of
oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I
saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to
comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power,
but they had no one to comfort them.
Book of Ecclesiastes 8:17 and I saw every work of God, I
concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been
done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously,
he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, “I
know,” he cannot discover.
Book of Ecclesiastes 9:11 I again saw under the sun that the
race is not to the swift, and the battle is not to the warriors, and
neither is bread to the wise, nor wealth to the discerning, nor
favor to men of ability; for time and chance overtake them all.
Book of Ecclesiastes 4:1 Then I looked again at all the acts of
oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I
saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to
comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power,
but they had no one to comfort them.
Book of Ecclesiastes 4:7 Then I looked again at vanity under
the sun.
Book of Ecclesiastes 1:14 I have looked all the works which
have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and
striving after wind.
Book of Ecclesiastes 2:24 There is nothing better for a man
than to eat and drink and tell himself that his labor is good.
This also I have looked, that it is from the hand of God.
Book of Ecclesiastes 3:10 I have seen the task which God has
given the sons of men with which to occupy themselves.
Book of Ecclesiastes 3:16 Furthermore, I have seen under the
sun that in the place of justice there is wickedness, and in the
place of righteousness there is wickedness.
Book of Ecclesiastes 3:22 And I have seen that nothing is
better than that man should be happy in his activities, for that
is his lot. For who will bring him to see what will occur after
him?
Book of Ecclesiastes 5:13 There is a grievous evil which I
have seen under the sun: riches being hoarded by their owner
to his hurt.
Book of Ecclesiastes 5:18 Here is what I have seen to be good
and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor
in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life
which God has given him; for this is his reward.
Book of Ecclesiastes 6:1 There is an evil which I have seen
under the sun and it is prevalent among men-
Book of Ecclesiastes 7:15 I have seen everything during my
lifetime of futility; there is a righteous man who perishes in
his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his
life in his wickedness.
Book of Ecclesiastes 8:9 All this I have seen and applied my
mind to every deed that has been done under the sun wherein a
man has exercised authority over another man to his hurt.
 Book of Ecclesiastes 8:10 So then, I have seen the wicked
buried, those who used to go in and out from the holy place,
and they are soon forgotten in the city where they did thus.
This too is futility.
Book of Ecclesiastes 10:5 There is an evil I have seen under
the sun, like an error which goes forth from the ruler—
Book of Ecclesiastes 10:7 I have seen slaves riding on horses
and princes walking like slaves on the land.
The author concluded that, without God, science was just as
meaningless as philosophy. Ellul pointed out that,
For all their phenomenal devices, modern scientists find
themselves faced with more and more insoluble enigmas. The
more science advances, the more it discovers how much we
don’t know. So scientists today are not much better off than
Qohelet when he declares that science amounts to a chasing
after wind. Since we cannot grasp ultimate reality, each step
we take shows us a vaster horizon. It shows how far we are
from the boundary of possible knowledge. A chasing after
wind.

The Realistic Conclusion of the Author

As an apologetic against Natural Theology and philosophy, the author
of the Book of Ecclesiastes put himself in the shoes of the typical
humanist who assumes that he can find meaning and morals without God.
He then proved that if we begin only with man, all meaning will be lost.
Jacques Ellul’s acerbic comments are insightful,
What shall we say about all the writers who use the well-
known rhetorical tactic of presenting the opinion of their
adversaries as their own, in order to let the reader gradually
discover how impossible that opinion is? Such a text requires a
reading on a second level. The historian and the exegete never
venture out onto the shifting ground. But I believe all of Book
of Ecclesiastes requires such a second-level interpretation. The
thing that has most surprised me in the majority of Book of
 Ecclesiastes commentators was their extraordinary knowledge
of Hebrew, coupled with the superficiality of their thought.
Some of them know Hebrew better than the author of Book of
Ecclesiastes himself; they know other ancient languages,
Babylonian and Egyptian culture, and offer us an impressive
bibliography. But their thinking is inconsistent and their
theology empty. In brief, their utter lack of comprehension of
the text stems from a total lack of interest and research into
this area.
Kidner saw the same apologetic thrust of Book of Ecclesiastes as Ellul
saw.
For so famous a thinker the search must naturally begin with
wisdom, the quality most highly praised in his circle. But he
says nothing of its first principle, the fear of the Lord, and we
can assume that the wisdom he speaks of is (as his method
demands) the best thinking that man can do on his own … So
Qoheleth is taking wisdom with proper seriousness as a
discipline concerned with ultimate questions, not simply a tool
for getting things done.
The author of the Book of Ecclesiastes demonstrates that both
rationalism and empiricism, the two main epistemologies of Natural
Theology, cannot discover meaning in life. In Ecc. 8:17 he concluded,
man cannot discover the work which has been done under the
sun. Even though mankind should seek laboriously, he will not
discover it; and though the wise man should say, “I know,” he
cannot discover it.
The word ‫מצָא‬,ָ translated “discover” in the passage above, is found 450
times in the Old Testament. When used of intellectual pursuits, it means to
seek out the truth or meaning of something by diligently searching it out.
The author now states with absolute clarity that mankind ‫“ הָאָָדם‬cannot
discover” the meaning of life. He repeats the word “cannot” in this verse
and throughout the Book of Ecclesiastes to emphasis the absolute inability
of man, apart from and independent of God, to discover truth, justice,
morals, meaning or beauty. Dr. Walvoord comments,
 Solomon closed his treatment of the enigma of contradictions
in divine retribution much as he had concluded his discussions
on the significance of adversity and prosperity (7:1–14) and on
the significance of righteousness and wisdom (7:15–29),
namely, by acknowledging man’s ignorance of God’s ways (cf.
7:14b, 28a). After searching diligently (I applied my mind;
cf. 1:17; 8:9) to gain wisdom and observing man’s many
activities, he concluded that man is ignorant of God’s work
(the phrases all that God has done and what goes on under
the sun are synonymous). In emphatic terms, repeating the
negative three times (v. 17) and the verb “comprehend” twice
—no one can comprehend … man cannot discover … he
cannot really comprehend—Solomon said that no one can
understand God’s ways (3:11; cf. Isa. 55:9; Rom. 11:33) even
if he expended all his energies or were wise and claimed he
could.
Other commentators agree.
The person who has to know everything, or who thinks he
knows everything, is destined for disappointment in this world.
Through many difficult days and sleepless nights, the Preacher
applied himself diligently to the mysteries of life. He came to
the conclusion that “man cannot find out the work that is done
under the sun” (v. 17; see 3:11; 7:14, 24, 27–28). Perhaps we
can solve a puzzle here and there, but no man or woman can
comprehend the totality of things or explain all that God is
doing. Historian Will Durant surveyed human history in his
multivolume Story of Civilization and came to the conclusion
that “our knowledge is a receding mirage in an expanding
desert of ignorance.”
He also relies only on the power of human reason, stating
seven times that he “communed with my own heart.” In
essence, the writer consciously ignored special revelation to
find out if life holds any meaning apart from insights provided
by God. Given this framework, the book makes an important
contribution. It resonates with the emptiness we all feel when
 alienated from God and demonstrates that apart from a
personal relationship with Him, life is meaningless indeed.
The Teacher’s conclusions also remind us that, while nature
does witness to God’s existence, and human experience
commends a moral lifestyle, only a living Word from God can
pierce the darkness in which we live. Reason apart from
revelation is powerless to provide mankind with valid spiritual
hope.
This is also stated in Ecc. 7:14, “man cannot discover anything that
will be after him.” Or, again in Ecc. 7:23–24,
I tested all this through wisdom, and I said, “I will be wise,”
but it was far from me. What has been is remote and
exceedingly mysterious. Who can discover it?
Dr. Michael Eaton comments, “Who can discover? is a rhetorical
question. The answer is, generally speaking, no-one.” The standard
reference works agree,
Even Solomon with all his God-given wisdom could not
understand all that exists, how God manages it, and what
purposes He has in mind. He searched for the “reason
[scheme] of things” but found no final answers to all his
questions.
Who can find it out? Here the rhetorical question is the
equivalent of a negative statement, “nobody can find it out.”
Find out is to discover by means of observing and reflecting. It
is a key verb not only in the subsection to follow, but also in
much of the remainder of the book. The intention of this
question and that in 6:12 are not very different.
Simply stated, wisdom was beyond his human reach. that
which is (‫ )איאהסֵ־האמ‬refers to all things, “reality” according to
Fox and Bezalel Porten’s interpretation.

The Key Phrases in the Book

 There are phrases that are repeated that help us understand the Book of
Ecclesiastes.
1. The writer used the phrase “under the sun” (‫ַשּׁמֶשׁ‬ ָֽ ‫)תּ ַחת ה‬
ַ twenty-
nine times and the phrase “on the earth” (‫ )עַל־הָאָרֶץ‬nine times. What
was the author saying when he used these phrases?
The society which Qoheleth addressed was an earthly—a
secular one imprisoned by this world, Its view was bounded by
the horizons of this world … Such a condition accounts for the
frequent reoccurrence of the phrase under the sun. This was
the area of concern for Qoheleth’s audience and he chose to
meet his audience on their own ground to reveal the vanity of a
self-contained world, of a purely secular order.
Qoheleth writes from concealed premises, and his book is in
reality a major work of apologetic … Its apparent worldliness
is dictated by its aim: Qoheleth is addressing the general
public whose view is bounded by the horizons of this world; he
meets them on their own ground, and proceeds to convict them
of its inherent vanity. This is further borne out by his
characteristic expression “under the sun”, by which he
describes what the NT calls “the world … His book is in fact a
critique of secularism and of secularized religion.
Qoheleth’s phrase under the sun, which is a common
expression in the Book of Ecclesiastes (twenty-nine times) and
one that appears nowhere else in the OT. Qohelet thus restricts
his remarks to terrestrial human activity and work.
If we look at the world without God … If with the atheist, we
lay aside the idea of God … the mysteries of the world …
remain … without solution.
Leupold correctly sees that the words “under the sun” are the key to
understanding the purpose, theme, and argument of the book.
“under the sun” Few interpreters have understood it rightly;
hardly any have applied it consistently. In it lies the corrective
for the extravagant views that Koheleth seems to utter. It must
always be borne in mind that the use of this phrase the author
 rules out all higher values and spiritual realities and employs
only the resource and gifts this world offers. The use of this
phrase is equivalent to drawing a horizontal line between
earthly and heavenly realities and leaving out of consideration
all that is above that line, that is to say, all higher values.
… the correct appreciation of this phrase is one of the major
safeguards of the message of the entire book.… Each time the
phrase occurs it is as though the author had said, “Let us for
the sake of argument momentarily rule out higher things.” …
The proper evaluation of this phrase removes a number of
difficulties of interpretation. Time and again the author
presents what would normally have been regarded as a very
extreme utterance, if not rank heresy. But the presence of the
little phrase: “under the sun” always says in effect, “What I
claim is true if one deals with purely earthly values.”
2. The word “vanity” or “meaningless” (‫ ) ֲה ֵבל‬appears thirty-seven
times and is intensified in the phrase, “Vanity of vanities!” or
“Meaningless! Utterly Meaningless!” (‫) ֲה ֵבל ֲה ָבלִים‬.
The repletion of the word Hebel, like the repetition of the word
“holy” in Isa, 6, intensifies the nature and comprehensiveness
of the meaningless. Absolute meaningless, utter meaningless,
of all things!
‘All is vanity.’ In the terms we use today the summing up
could be: ‘Utter futility … utter futility! The whole thing is
futile.’
Hebel means “absurd” in the sense of meaningless.
… the main point of the book is to demonstrate the futility of
life apart from God (3:12; 12:13–14).”
… the thesis which forms the subject of his treatise: “Vanity of
vanities; All is vanity.” Man’s labor is profitless; nature and
human life repeat themselves in monotonous succession, and
all must fall ere long into oblivion. Nothing is new, nothing is
lasting.
 The book addresses two principle questions. The first issue is
whether human experience is meaningful, controllable, and
predictable. The author suggests that it is not. People are
unable to put meaning into life, to discern a coherent pattern in
their existence, or to control or even know what will happen to
them. The only certainty in life is death … life has no
meaning.
Eaton attempts to interpret the Book of Ecclesiastes as
essentially an apologetic work. He observes that much of the
book does not take God into account and is characterized by
gloom and pessimism. He argues that when God is introduced,
however, the “under-the-sun” terminology drops out and the
Teacher speaks of the joy of man (2:25; 3:12; 5:18, 20; 9:7;
11:7–9) and the generosity of God (2:26; 3:13; 5:19). Like
earlier Protestant scholars, he asserts the book to be
evangelistic and apologetic: “What, then, is the purpose of the
Book of Ecclesiastes? It is an essay in apologetics. It defends
the life of faith in a generous God by pointing to the grimness
of the alternative.”
Rejoice, Know, Remember
When we arrive at Ecc. 11:9, the fog suddenly disappears and the sun
shines through the humanistic despair of the meaninglessness of life.
Young people are suddenly commanded to “Rejoice!” Hengstenberg
comments bear repeating,
At a time when dark discontent had got the mastery over the
minds of men, the Spirit of God exhorts them through the
writer through this book to enjoy cheerfully divine gifts,
admonishing them, however, in order to prevent carnal
misunderstandings, to keep in view the account they will have
one day to give to the Holy God, of all their doings: he warns
them to remember their Creator, who alone has the power to
render their life prosperous and happy. In depicting the
joylessness of the age, he shows how fitting it is to enter
betimes on this path of self-surrender to the Creator, to
consecrate even the bloom of youth to Him.
 The Hebrew word mf (rejoice) is a qal imperative and is thus emphatic.
Cheerfulness, here, is not merely permitted: it is commanded,
and represented as an essential element of piety.
It appears for the first time in the Book of Ecclesiastes as the answer to
the gloom and doom of existential meaninglessness. But, on what grounds
are young people now commanded “Rejoice?” The author now gives a
second command: Know that God will bring you to judgment for all these
things.
The word ‫( יָדַע‬know) is also a qal imperative. You must now rejoice
because you know that your life has meaning and significance because it is
important to God, who is the “measure of all things.” Leupold explains,
The “know thou” that follows is certainly to be more than a
dead awareness. It must mean a knowledge that possesses and
controls the heart. It implies that a man must actually reckon
with this fact … The command implies simply: Do all your
enjoying in such a way that you regulate it by the thought of
the last judgment. For that the last judgment is referred to and
not such visitations as may come when living already in this
life is distinctly indicated by the article: God will bring you
into the judgment” (bam-mishpat); not into various judgments,
but into the one great judgment.
If we begin with man as the “measure of all things,” life will be
meaningless. But the author now brings God, the Day of Judgment, and
eternity into perspective. Since we are going to be held accountable by
God for what we think, say and do, then they evidently have eternal
significance and meaning!
But, on what grounds does God have the right to hold you accountable
on the Day of Judgment? The third command is found in 12:1: “Remember
now your Creator in the days of your youth.” Kidner comments,
At last we are ready—if we ever intend to be—to look beyond
earthly vanities to God, who made us for Himself. The title
Creator is well-chosen … to remember Him is no perfunctory
or purely mental act: it is to drop our pretence of self-
sufficiency and commit ourselves to Him.
 Once you interpret life from “above the sun” or heaven, then life makes
sense. Leupold correctly points out,
12:1a gives the absolutely essential foundation of true joy:
“And remember your Creator while you are young.” To
“remember” certainly implies more than to recall that there is
a Creator. It surely means to let that remembrance shape
conduct, for He is to be remembered as “Creator.” As such,
being the Author of our being, He has complete and absolute
claims upon us. These we should acknowledge by our
surrender to Him.
What about all the liberals who claim that the Book of Ecclesiastes is
only a skeptical work written by someone who had lost his faith in God?
How can they handle the dramatic change of perspective from “under the
sun” to “from heaven” that begun in 11:9? Leupold points out that the
liberals simply dismiss the entire passage as a later interpolation.
The more critical extreme criticism does not approve of the
reference to the Creator here, being of the opinion that neither
the thought nor the expression fits into the context (e.g.
Galling). One might expect such a view as far as the critical
approach is concerned, Since he is of the opinion that the
entire book moves on a low level of thought, every touch of
higher values must of necessity be deleted.
The Book changes its tone and thrust once the author has demonstrated
that life without God is life without meaning. He then gives the divine
revelation that life has meaning because God gives it meaning.

The Theme of the Book of Ecclesiastes:

In the light of its apologetic purpose, Franz Delitzsch correctly saw that
“the Book of Koheleth is … proof of the power of revealed religion.” Dr.
Larry Richards hit the nail on the head when he said,
(1) Twenty-nine times the writer used the phrase “under the sun”
to define the limits he chose for his search. Only data which
the senses can test and probe would be considered. Nothing
from beyond this space-time universe would be considered.
 Nowhere in the Book of Ecclesiastes is Moses or Scripture or
any form of revelation mentioned. Verse 13 of chapter 1
illustrates the limits that Solomon set for himself: “I devoted
myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done
under heaven.”
(2) The second key phrase appears seven times and reflects the
same limitation. Solomon said that, “I thought in my heart” or
“thought to myself” in reaching his conclusions. His
methodology was empirical, but all the data he gathered was
evaluated by the standard of his own intelligence. In this book
Solomon recognized no higher wisdom than his own; he never
looked beyond the conclusions unaided intelligence can draw.
The third key word appears 34 times! It is “meaningless,” a
term translated in other versions as “vanity” or “emptiness.”
Solomon’s determined effort to make sense of human life led
him to the same tragic conclusion of many modern
philosophers. Life is absurd. There is no meaning or purpose in
human experience. There may be fleeting joys. But ultimately,
above the doorway through which men are born into this world
and the doorway through which they exit is written the same
phrase: “Meaningless, meaningless, everything is
meaningless.”
The well known commentators, Murphy and Huwiler, conclude,
The book addresses two principle questions. The first issue is
whether human experience is meaningful, controllable, and
predictable. The author suggests that it is not. People are
unable to put meaning into life, to discern a coherent pattern in
their existence, or to control or even know what will happen to
them. The only certainty in life is death … life has no
meaning.

The Outline of the Book

The structure of the book has remained a great controversy. The
humanists rearrange the contents to fit their preconceived notions, even
deleting the sections that do not fit with their fanciful interpretations.
Literary critics show off their “genius” by using various visual aids such
as weave patterns or geometric forms. Dr. Walvood comments,
The view that the Book of Ecclesiastes consists of a
combination of the contradictory views of three men (a
skeptic, a writer of wisdom, and a believer)—a view common
among critics at the beginning of the 20th century—has been
largely abandoned. And the unity of the book, at least its
thematic unity, has been generally affirmed. However, there is
still no general consensus that the book follows a logical
development or argument. Many scholars see the book as a
loose collection of wisdom sayings similar to the Book of
Proverbs. Other scholars see a connected argument only in the
first part of the book (Ecc. 1–6) and a collection of practical
exhortations in the second part (chaps. 7–12).
We found many outlines that are clear, concise, and useful. But we have
chosen Walvood’s and Zuck’s outline as one of the best.
I. Introduction: The Futility of All Human Endeavor (1:1–11)
A. Title (1:1)
B. Theme: The futility of human effort (1:2)
C. General support: The futility of human effort demonstrated
from nature (1:3–11)
1. Thesis: No ultimate profit in human labor (1:3)
2. Proof: Ceaseless, wearisome rounds (1:4–11)
II. The Futility of Human Achievement Empirically Demonstrated
(1:12–6:9)
A. Personal observations on the futility of human achievement
(1:12–2:17)
1. Futility of human achievement shown by personal
investigation (1:12–15)
2. Futility of human wisdom (1:16–18)
3. Futility of pleasure-seeking (2:1–11)
4. Futility of a wise lifestyle (2:12–17)
B. The futility of human labor empirically demonstrated (2:18–
6:9)
1. Labor’s fruits may be squandered by someone else (2:18–
26)
 2. Labor cannot alter God’s immutable, inscrutable providence
(3:1–4:3)
3. Labor is often motivated by inappropriate incentives (4:4–
16)
4. Labor’s fruits may sometimes not be enjoyed (5:1–6:9)
III. The Limitations of Human Wisdom Empirically Demonstrated
(6:10–11:6)
A. Introduction: Everything is immutably and inscrutably
foreordained (6:10–12)
B. Man cannot fathom the plan of God (chaps. 7–8)
1. Man’s ignorance of the significance of adversity and
prosperity (7:1–14)
2. Man’s ignorance of the significance of righteousness and
wisdom (7:15–29)
3. Man’s ignorance of the enigma of divine retribution (chap.
8)
C. Man does not know what will happen (9:1–11:6)
1. No one knows what will happen to him (9:1–10)
2. No one knows whether his wisdom will succeed (9:11–
10:11)
3. Criticism is risky in view of one’s ignorance of the future
(10:12–20)
4. Work diligently despite ignorance of the future (11:1–6)
IV. Conclusion: Live Joyously and Responsibly in the Fear of God
(11:7–12:14)
A. Call to live joyously and responsibly (11:7–12:7)
1. Enjoy life because the darkness of death is coming (11:7–8)
2. Enjoy life in your youth, remembering that God will judge
(11:9–10)
3. Live responsibly in your youth for old age and death are
coming (12:1–7)
B. Final advice in view of the futility of all human endeavor
(12:8–14)
1. Reiteration of the theme: The futility of all human endeavor
(12:8)
2. The peculiar authority of this book (12:9–12)
 3. Final advice: Fear God and keep His commandments
(12:13–14)

Conclusion
In the light of the Book of Ecclesiastes, what should be our judgment of
Natural Theology and Natural Law? If we follow the Word of God, then we
must condemn them as apostate thinking. The Book of Ecclesiastes is the
passage of full mention in Scripture that directly refutes the idea that man
is the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty, i.e. the
measure of all things. God declares all forms of Naturalism as:
Meaningless!
Utterly Meaningless!
Absolutely Meaningless!
Our rejection of Natural Law and Natural Theology is based on the
three pillars of Job, Genesis, and Book of Ecclesiastes. Creation, Fall, and
Redemption, which are the core beliefs of the biblical worldview, rest
securely on these three books of the Bible. They are immutable and
transcendent in truth and power.
To God alone belongs the glory!
 Chapter Seven
Biblical Theism
Introduction

The first application of the biblical worldview is to question, “What is

God?” Is God a he, she or it? Is God a personal being or an impersonal
force? Are there more gods than one? Is God finite or infinite? Does God
know nothing, anything, some things or everything? What can God do and
not do?
Natural theologians assume that the attributes of God falls within the
domain of philosophy, not the Bible. Autonomous man, starting only with
himself, by himself, and through himself, apart from and independent of
any Revelation, can discover God’s attributes through human reason,
experience, feelings or faith. Man does not really need the Bible per se to
figure out God. “Just give us until tomorrow and we will figure God out,”
is their motto.

A History of Failure and Heresy

The history of Natural Theology is littered with fruitless attempts and
numerous heresies. They have tried and utterly failed to identify and
define God’s attributes apart from and independent of Special Revelation.
It seems that “tomorrow” never came!
In one debate, the natural theologian asserted, “We do not really need
the Bible to discover the attributes of God. Philosophy can do a better job
than simply sitting around reading Bible stories. The attributes of God is a
subject far beyond and above the limited IQs of the primitive authors of
the Bible. Scripture is OK for salvation, but deficient for such deep
subjects.”
I pointed out that the entire debate was dependent upon the Bible. “To
discuss the attributes of God is stupid if we are not taking about the God of
the Bible. Plato’s “god” was an abstract principle and Aristotle believed in
many gods. The philosophers could not agree on anything about the gods.
Nothing! Zero! Nada!”

Bad Attitudes
This attitude comes out most clearly when the subject is whether or not
“God” knows the future. The failure of philosophy is apparent the moment
you point out that you must first define the word “God” before you debate
what this “god” can and cannot know.
Most natural theologians begin by assuming a limited god. Thus they
are arguing in a circle when they ask, “Does a limited god have unlimited
knowledge?” They end where they began, a god created in their own image
and likeness!
“Does God know the future?” cannot be answered until you first define
who and what “God” is. To ask if “X” knows this or that is fruitless if you
cannot first define “X.”
Natural theologians spend their time arguing over whether “God” (not
defined) can know if Pat will mow his lawn next Tuesday. If God does
know the future, is Pat “truly free” not to mow his lawn next Tuesday?
They assume that in order for Pat to be “truly free,” God cannot and must
not know what Pat will or will not do next Tuesday. In order for Pat to be
“truly free,” God must be “truly bound.”
Of course, since natural theologians and philosophers begin with the
classic Greek pagan concept of libertarian “free will,” it does not surprise
us in the least that they end up with a limited finite pagan god, much like
Zeus. “Garbage in, garbage out” can be written over their abortive
attempts to answer the question of whether God knows the future.

The Bible Reveals the Truth

In this chapter we will demonstrate that the Bible gives us final answers
to such ultimate questions because it is God’s self-disclosure of what He
is, does and knows. God tells us in Scripture that He knows all of the
future and that His knowledge is infallible and certain because the future
is “fixed” by His eternal decrees.
A skeptical professor at a local university asked me one day, “Why did
God allow evil?” I responded, “Because He wanted to.”
 This answer stunned him. No other Christian had given him such a
blunt answer. He asked, “Where did you get that answer?” I responded, “In
the Bible, Romans 9. Let us read it together.” We sat side by side and read
about the Potter and the clay. The skeptic had never read this passage
before and he was visibly moved by the power of what Paul wrote.
“But what if I don’t like the idea that God does what He wants to do?”
“Then I will tell you something else that God may want to do: Cast you
into hell for all eternity.” “Are you saying that GOD determines whether or
not I end up in hell?” “Yes. You are nothing more than a lump of ordinary
clay and He can make you a vessel fitted for hell if He so chooses. Your
destiny has already been decided by God before He created the universe.”
My answer utterly destroyed his self-confidence and pride. He had
assumed that he determined what God could or could not do while the
reverse was true.
“But, I am happy to tell you there is something else God may want to
do.” “What?” “God may want to open your heart to the gospel; give you
repentance and faith; make you his child; forgive your sins through the
merits of Christ and take you to heaven at death. God may decide to save
you instead of damn you. But, don’t make a mistake about this one point:
Your destiny is in the hands of almighty God and you should go to Him for
salvation.”
The skeptic was shaken by these biblical truths. I do not know the end
of that story as he did not come back to teach the next school year. I would
not be surprised if he rushed up to me one day and shouted, “God did not
want to damn me but to save me! I am now a Christian by His grace!”

An Essential Christian Doctrine

It is amazing that we must once again defend the omniscience of God
since it is enshrined in every creed of Christianity since the first century.
No historic creed has ever confessed that God is ignorant of the future.
The concept that the God of the Bible knows everything and that
“everything” means EVERYTHING, including the future, is the historic
Christian position. The idea that God does not know the future in its
entirety has always been a tenet of every major heresy condemned by all
churches. It is amazing to us that the doctrine of God’s knowledge has
once again been cast into controversy by the vaunted claims of natural
theologians and philosophers who pretend to be “Evangelical Christians”.
 We must remember that heresies do not simply vanish into thin air once
they are repudiated by the Christian Church. They reappear under a new
name in the next generation. Thus the purity of the Gospel, like political
freedom, is something that must be fought for in each new generation.
Is the question of whether God knows the future an “ivory tower” issue,
such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? No. Our only
confidence in the future turning out as God has promised in His Word is
that He knows “end from the beginning.” The basis of the inspiration of
Scripture, the sufficiency of the atonement, and our hope of heaven all rely
upon God’s infinite knowledge of the future.

The Main Issues

The central issues and questions are as follows:
• Does God control the future or does the future control God?
• Does God’s Will determine what man does or does man’s will
determine what God does?
• Does God respond to man’s decisions or does man respond to
God’s decisions?
• Do God’s decrees precede or follow man’s actions?
• Who acts first and who follows?
• Is God a knee-jerk deity or the sovereign Lord of heaven and
earth?
• Is there a place in space or time where we can draw a line and
say that God’s knowledge starts or ends there?
• Is the future a safe hiding place to escape the omniscient eye of
the Maker of heaven and earth?
The only basis of our salvation and hope of heaven rests on the biblical
and historic Christian view that God is infinite in all His attributes
including His knowledge. Thus the salvation of your immortal soul
depends on your answer to these questions because God’s attributes stand
or fall together. As we will see, once you deny that God knows the future,
all the other “omni” attributes fall like dominos.

PART I
PRINCIPLES OF APPROACH
 As we begin our study of the extent of the knowledge of God, we must
emphasize that we are not referring to our knowledge of God. Instead, we
are referring to God’s knowledge of himself and His Creation.
The first question that comes to mind is why did God create the
universe? Natural Theology has come up with all kinds of silly answers,
such as “God was lonely.” God has revealed in Scripture that He created
the universe for His glory.
Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created
for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.
(Isa. 43:7)
‫יתיו׃‬
ִֽ ‫ֲשׂ‬
ִ ‫ְתּיו אַף־ע‬
ִ ‫ִשׁ ִמי וְִלכְבוִֹדי בּרָא ִתיו יְַצר‬
ְ ‫כֹּל ַהנְִּק ָרא ב‬
πάντας ὅσοι ἐπικέκληνται τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐν γὰρ τῇ δόξῃ μου
κατεσκεύασα αὐτὸν και ̀ ἔπλασα και ̀ ἐποίησα αὐτόν
Notice the three verbs “called,” “created,” and “made.” The Pulpit
Commentary points out,
I have created … formed … made him (comp. ver. 1) “The
three verbs describe the process of formation from the first
rough cutting to the perfecting of the work” (Cheyne) The
third verb would, perhaps, be best translated. “I have
perfected,” or “I have completed (him)” All three acts—
creation, formation, and completion—are done by God for his
own glory (comp. Prov. 16:4)
Did God create the universe for His glory? Yes. Then He must have
known and ordained that it would glorify Him in the future. This is also
revealed in Isa. 43:21
The people whom I formed for Myself will declare My praise.
‫עַם־זוּ יַָצרְתִּי ִלי ְתּ ִה ָלּ ִתי יְַסֵֽפּרוּ׃‬
λαόν μου ὃν περιεποιησάμην τὰς ἀρετάς μου διηγεῖσθαι
The text plainly states that the people whom He created for His glory
“WILL” in the future declare the praise of God. This is also stated in Isa.
29:23.
 They will sanctify My name; Indeed, they will sanctify the
Holy One of Jacob, And they will stand in awe of the God of
Israel.
This future praise and worship is predicted because it is foreknown.
Prediction without foreknowledge is not possible. Why would God create a
universe for His glory if He did not know that it would in the future
increase His acquired glory?
The question, “Does God know the past, the present, and the future of
the Creation or is its future somehow’ closed’ to God?” This needs to be
analyzed further.
• Is God by His very nature incapable of knowing the future?
• Thus the problem lies in some defect within the nature or being
of God?
• Are we saying that even if God really wanted to know the future
that He is not able to do so?
• That even if God really, really tried hard with all of His power
to know the future, He would fail because He was not powerful
enough?
• Thus, He is not REALLY omnipotent as well as not really
omniscient?
• What if other beings in the universe can know the future,
doesn’t this make God less in power and glory than those who can
know the future?
Note: The Adventist “Open View” theologian, Richard Rice, argued
that while the Seventh Day Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White
knew the future, God did not. Was she therefore greater than God?
• What if the devil was capable of knowing and predicting the
future?
• What about fortune tellers and psychics?
• What if they can predict the future?
• Wouldn’t they be greater than a god who could not know the
future?
• If we say that God could know the future, but that He decided
not to know some of it, doesn’t He have to know what He does
not want to know before He can choose not to know it?
 • Does He roll the dice and let Lady Luck decide what He can and
cannot know in the future?
• If God chooses not to know the future of the universe, is this not
a form of Deism?
• Is God so heartless and cruel that He does not care what will
happen to His creatures in the future?
• Does this mean that God makes no plans or provision for the
future pain and suffering of His creatures because they were
unforeseen to Him?
• That He made no plans to overcome future evil because He did
not know it would appear?
• What if we say that the problem is not in the nature of God but
in the nature of the future itself?
• That the future of the universe is totally random and chance-
based?
• That there are an infinite number of possible universes that
could come into existence on the basis of pure chance and luck?
• That not even God can know which possible universe will
actually exist?
• If we say that chance decides which possible universe happens,
is not Chance the GOD above God?
• Or, do we say that God does know some of the future, but not all
of it?
• That He knows the “main points” of the future, but not the dirty
details?
• What if He decided not to know the future “free-will” decisions
of angels and men?
• But isn’t the universe so interconnected that what men and
angels choose to do affects the rest of the universe?
• Is it really possible to isolate the decisions of men and angels
from the motives, means, and results of those decisions?
• Are we really to believe that the decisions of men and angels do
not cause ripples in the space/time continuum?
• That the effects of “free will” decisions do not set in motion
domino affects all around them?

Beyond The Intellect of Man

 By this time you realize that the question of whether God knows part of
or all of the future by choice or nature is far beyond the finite capacity of
man’s limited mind. Thankfully, God is not silent! He has revealed the
answer to us in Scripture.

False Assumptions Cloud the Issue

It is thus very important that anyone who is going to discuss this issue
“come clean” about the presuppositions he is bringing to the discussion.
The failure to reveal the hidden principles that contextualize theological
issues results in much confusion and self-contradiction.
For this reason, we are going to lay out the principles that will guide us
in our study of the extent of the knowledge of God. To make them
absolutely clear, we will contrast our principles with those of Natural
Theology.
The Biblical View Natural Theology

God’s self-disclosure in Holy Autonomous human reason

Scripture is the only way we can unaided by divine revelation can
have true knowledge of the extent discover the nature and extent of
of God’s knowledge (1 Cor. 1:18– God’s knowledge.
2:16)

Thus the extent of God’s Thus the nature and extent of

knowledge is the sole domain of God’s knowledge is not the sole
special revelation, and must be domain of special revelation.
decided by Scripture alone (Sola
Scriptura: 1 Cor. 4:6)

The only method by which we Philosophic reflection and

can ascertain the teaching of argumentation are more
Scripture on God’s knowledge is important than biblical exegesis.
the historical, grammatical,
exegesis of relevant texts.

We must distinguish between There is no need to resort to such

primary and secondary texts. distinctions. Secondary texts are
“Primary texts” are those just as valid for proof texting as
passages that have the extent of are primary texts.
God’s knowledge directly in view.
“Secondary texts” are those
passages that do not have God’s
knowledge in direct view but may
by inference bear on the subject.
Secondary texts must be
interpreted in the light of the
teaching found in the primary
texts.
Secondary texts cannot negate,
overthrow or contradict the
teaching found in primary texts.

The speculations of philosophy The speculations of philosophy

(Christian or pagan) that either (Christian or pagan) may modify
contradict or go beyond the any aspect of divine revelation
teaching of the primary biblical that is not in conformity to the
texts must be rejected as opinions of the great
spurious. “Let God be true and philosophers.
every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4)

Humanistic philosophy is built on If man is “truly free,” then he

the false doctrine of the must not be limited by divine
autonomy of human reason. revelation. Man’s autonomous
Scripture tells us that this is why reason is sufficient to discover
philosophy never found God (1 the nature and extent of God’s
Cor. 1:21) knowledge.

The incomprehensibility of God We can modify any aspect of the

means that we will not be able to nature and extent of God’s
explain fully the “whys” and knowledge that we cannot fully
“hows” of the knowledge of God. explain. If we cannot explain
“how” God can know something,
then we can deny that he knows
it.
 The chart above reveals the presuppositions that guide most discussions
of God’s knowledge. If one begins with the assumption of human
autonomy, i.e. that fallen man can by his depraved and finite reason alone
determine what God can or cannot know, then he will eventually end up
reducing God to what man can or cannot know. In effect, he ends up
making a god in his own image.

The “How” Questions

On the other hand, if we begin with God’s self-disclosure in Scripture,
then we can have the certitude of absolute truth. Does this mean that we
will be able to explain fully to everyone’s satisfaction “how” God can
know such things as the future? No. Does this bother us? No. Since
Scripture is the Revelation of an Infinite Mind and man has only a finite
and depraved intellect, then the finite mind of man will not be capable of
an infinite understanding of what is revealed by God. This is why
Scripture tells us that many of the truths it reveals go beyond the finite
capacity of the human mind to understand or explain (Rom. 11:13; Eph.
3:19; Phil. 4:7; etc.) Once you take the “mystery” out of Christianity, it
becomes just another boring man-made religion.

Not a “Cop Out”

Is our appeal to the incomprehensibility of God a “cop out”—as some
humanistic theologians have charged? No. The doctrine of the
incomprehensibility of God is the clear teaching of Scripture, and we have
yet to see any humanistic theologian attempt to refute the exegetical
evidence for it.
Those who reject revealed truth because it does not “make sense” to
them eventually end up in some form of atheism. Indeed, the highest
conceit of man is to demand “how” and “why” Scripture is true before
accepting it (Rom. 9:19–20) It reveals a commitment to the humanistic
principle: Man is the measure of all things—including God.

Clark Pinnock As An Example

 One example of this is Clark Pinnock. In the book, Predestination and
Free Will, Pinnock uses the typical humanistic buzzwords and cliches such
as “the demands of reason,” etc., to indicate that human reason unaided by
Divine Revelation is the Origin of truth and meaning.
Pinnock condemns those who appeal to the incomprehensibility of God
(p. 143) Instead, he offers a “rational hypothesis to explain sovereignty
and freedom” that will satisfy “the requirements of intelligence” (p. 144)
His “rational hypothesis” will “require us to rethink aspects of
conventional or classical theism” (p. 144) But how do we know that his
“rational hypothesis” is true? He refers to his “intuition” and “reason” that
can “sense” what it is true (p. 150) Thus, he is perfectly “rational” to say,
“I stand against classical theism” (p. 151)
This is how you can spot a humanist. He will use such phrases as:
It seems to me that …
I think that …
It is only rational that …
Intelligent people understand that …
Before the Bar of Reason …
My intuition tells me …
Common sense tells me that …
It is only reasonable that …
I do not see how …
It is not comprehensible to me that …, etc.
Biblical theologians do not accept the humanistic principle of human
autonomy. They are committed to the opposite proposition: God is the
measure of all things—including man. Without Divine Revelation, we can
never know God.
To the Law and to the Testimony! If they do not speak
according to this Word, they have no dawn light. (Isa. 8:20)
With these brief words of introduction, we will now examine the
Scriptures to see the self-disclosure of God concerning what He knows.

PART II
THE EXTENT OF GOD’S KNOWLEDGE
 If the authors of Scripture, under Divine inspiration, believed that
God’s knowledge could not be limited by anything, but was absolute
Omniscience, how would they communicate that idea to their readers?
This question must be answered before we even pick up the Bible. If we do
not answer it, then we do not know what to look for and what to expect to
find in Scripture. The following list reveals what we need to look for when
we open the Bible.
• The Vocabulary of God’s Knowledge
• The Fact of God’s Knowledge
• The Extent of God’s Knowledge
• The Primary Texts
• The Secondary Texts

The Vocabulary of God’s Knowledge

If the authors of Scripture believed that God has infinite knowledge of
Himself and the world He created, we would expect to find them using
those Hebrew and Greek words which would indicate to their readers that
God is capable of understanding, comprehending, and knowledge. In other
words, we would expect to find that the God revealed in Scripture is a God
of knowledge, not a god of ignorance.

Old Testament Vocabulary

In the Hebrew language there are several words that are mean
knowledge, understanding and comprehension.
A. The word ‫ יָדַע‬is the most common word for understanding and
knowledge in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is used of man’s knowledge and
understanding hundreds of times. It is also applied to God to indicate
that He has true knowledge of Himself and the world He created for His
glory. (See: Exo. 3:7, 19–20; 2 Sam. 7:20; 1 Kings 8:39; Job 23:10; Psa.
31:7, 40:9, 69:5, Jer. 1:5, etc.)
B. The word ‫ בִּין‬is used to describe God’s knowledge in Job 11:11,
28:23; Psa. 5:1, 33:15, 139:2. The wicked deny that God “takes notice”
of their sin in Psa. 94:7b.
“Neither shall the God of Jacob notice it” ‫לֹא־יָבִין ֱאלֹהֵי יֲַעקֹב׃‬
C. The word ‫ ֵדּעָה‬is used in 1 Sam. 2:3 in the phrase, “Yahweh is a God
of knowledge” (‫ )אל דֵּעוֹת יְהוָה‬The wicked used this word when
questioning whether God knows anything. “How doth God know?” (Psa.
73:11a) ‫ַע־אל‬ ֵ ‫אֵיכָה יָד‬:
D. The word ‫ ָחזָה‬is used in Psa. 11:4, 7 and Psa. 17:2 to indicate that
God “sees” all things.
E. Another word for “consider,” “behold,” and “see” is ‫ראָה‬. It is applied
to God’s knowledge in Gen. 29:32, 31:42; Exo. 3:7, 4:31; Psa. 9:14,
10:11, 25:18, 19, 84:10, 119:153, 159. The wicked deny in Psa. 94:7
that God really sees anything.
“Yet they say, YHWH shall not see”. ‫יֹּאמְרוּ לֹא יְִראֶה־יָּהּ‬
F. In Job 34:25, we told that God “takes knowledge of” (‫ )יכִּיר‬the works
of man.
G. The Psalmist declared in Psa. 147:5, “His understanding is infinite.”
‫ֹח ִלתְבוּנָתוֹ אֵין ִמ ְספָּר׃‬
ַ ‫רַב־כּ‬
H. The biblical authors referred to “the eyes” of God to indicate that He
sees all things. Nothing escapes His omniscient sight.
For the eyes of YHWH run to and fro throughout the whole
earth. (2 Chron. 16:9)
For my eyes are upon all their ways; they are not hid from my
face, neither is their iniquity concealed from my eyes. (Jer.
16:17)
The eyes of YHWH, which run to and fro throughout the whole
earth. (Zech. 4:10)
The authors of the Hebrew Scriptures used every word in their
vocabulary to affirm that God has knowledge. The only ones who deny or
question this are the wicked.

New Testament Vocabulary

When we turn to the New Testament Hebrew Scriptures, the same
pattern is followed. The common Greek words for knowledge,
understanding, and comprehension are applied to God without hesitation.
A. The common Greek verb for “knowing” is γινώσκω. It is applied to
God in Lk. 16:15; John 10:15; 1 Cor. 3:20; Gal. 4:9; 2 Thess. 2:17; 1
 Thess. 3:13 and 1 John 3:20.
B. The noun γνῶσις is used for God’s knowledge in Rom. 11:33, where
we are told that God’s γνῶσις is incomprehensible.
C. In Acts 15:18, God’s knowledge (γνωστα) is described as eternal
(απο αἰῶνος)
D. Two different Greek words are used in the New Testament to signify
God’s foreknowledge of the future. The noun πρόγνωσίς
(foreknowledge) is used in Acts 2:23 and 1 Pet. 1:2. The verb
προγινώσκω (to foreknow) is used in Rom. 8:29; 11:2 and 1 Pet. 1:20.
E. In Greek, the word for intellect or mind is νοῦς. It is used of God in
Rom. 11:34 and 1 Cor. 2:16.
F. The Greek verb οἶδα means “to know” and is used of God in 2 Cor.
11:11; 12:3 and 2 Pet. 2:9.
G. The noetic sense of “seeing” is expressed by the Greek word βλέπω
and is used in Mat. 6:6 to refer to God’s seeing us wherever we are.
H. The authors of the New Testament, like the authors of the Old
Testament, used every word that existed in the language of their day to
convey the idea that God knows Himself and the world He made
without limitation.

The Fact of God’s Knowledge

The nouns and verbs used for God’s knowledge in both the Old and New
Testaments are sufficient to establish its factuality beyond all doubt. This
doctrine played a significant role in the life of the believer. In her prayer,
Hannah states in a matter of fact manner,
“YHWH is a God of knowledges.”
(1 Sam. 2:3)
‫ֵאל דֵּעוֹת יְהוָה‬
θεὸς γνώσεων κύριος
Notice that in both the Hebrew (‫ )דֵּעוֹת‬and the Greek (γνώσεων) text, the
word “knowledge” is actually in the plural. This indicates that Yahweh is
the God of “knowledges;” i.e. all knowledge. Notice also that the
Septuagint emphasizes that God is the Sovereign Lord (κύριος) of all
knowledge.
 Hanah argues in her prayer that because God is “a God of knowledges,”
there is no GOD like Him (v. 2.) To her the very idea that God was
ignorant of anything including the future acts of angels and men would
have been blasphemous. How could He judge the world if He were
ignorant? (vs. 3–10)
“For Jehovah is a God of omniscience.” The plural
“knowledges” (‫ )דֵּעוֹת‬indicates that God knows and is
acquainted with every individual thing, that, as He is raised
above every created thing, and thus present with all things and
creatures, so they are present and known to Him; and thus it
expresses the thought that the concrete For Jehovah hears such
words; He is “a God of knowledge” (Deus scientiarum), a God
who sees and knows every single thing. The plural ‫ ֵדּעֹות‬has an
Intensive signification.
In ver. 3 she appeals to God’s omniscience, “for Jehovah is a
God of knowledges,” the pl. being intensive, and signifying
every kind of knowledge.
Throughout the Psalms, God is addressed as the One who knows all
things. In Psa. 139 David said in verse 2,
You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand
my thoughts from afar.
‫ָתוֹק׃‬
ֽ ‫אַתּה יַָד ְע ָתּ ִשׁ ְב ִתּי וקוּ ִמי ַבּנְתָּה ְל ֵר ִעי ֵמר‬
ָ
In verse 6, David concludes,
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is too high, I cannot attain to it.
‫יאָה[ ַדעַת ִמ ֵמּנִּי נִ ְשׂגְּ ָבה לֹא־אוַּֽכל ָֽלהּ׃‬
ֽ ‫] ְפּ ִל‬
ἐθαυμαστώθη ἡ γνῶσίς σου ἐξ ἐμου ἐκραταιώθη
οὐ μὴ δύνωμαι πρὸς αὐτήν
Several comments are in order.
First, God’s knowledge is directly in view. Thus, this is a primary
passage of full mention on the subject of the extent of God’s knowledge.
 Second, this passage is very significant because the focus is on God’s
knowledge of the future. BEFORE an idea or a word proceeds from man,
God knows all about it. Walvoord and Zuck correctly point this out.
The Lord (You is emphatic in Heb.; cf. v. 13) knew every move
he made; the two opposites of sitting and rising represent all
his actions (this is a figure of speech known as a merism; cf.
vv. 3, 8) God knew not only David’s actions; He also knew his
motivations (thoughts; cf. v. 17) Afar evidently refers not to
space but to time.
The daily activities of the psalmist were also thoroughly
familiar to the Lord. The opposites of going out in the
morning and lying down at night represent the whole day’s
activities (another merism; cf. vv. 2, 8) But the one sample that
epitomizes God’s omniscience is in verse 4. Before the
psalmist could frame a word on his tongue, the LORD was
thoroughly familiar with what he was about to say. (The Heb.
for “word” is millâh and the similar-sounding word for
completely is kūllāh ̣)
Third, the extent of it is revealed by contrasting it with the limited
mind of man. God’s knowledge is “too high”, i.e. beyond the capacity of
man’s finite mind to understand. David’s initial response to this staggering
knowledge was that he was troubled. Like many who respond to the fact of
God’s omniscience, he thought it was confining, that God had besieged
him and cupped His hand over him.
Moreover, this kind of knowledge was out of David’s control—it was
too wonderful for him. The word “wonderful” is in the emphatic position,
at the beginning of the sentence. On the meaning of “wonderful” as
“extraordinary or surpassing,” In other words divine omniscience is too
high for humans to comprehend (also cf. comments on 139:14)
Even though David could not explain “how” or “why” God knows all
things, this did not make the doctrine odious to him. Instead, it caused
David to fall at God’s feet in worship, awe, and praise.
The New Testament is just as committed to the fact of God being a God
of all knowledges. When Paul encountered a situation which exceeded his
capacity to understand, he would rest in the fact that ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν “God
knows” (2 Cor. 12:3) Paul makes it clear that God knows even when we do
not. See also 2 Cor. 11:11 where Paul appeals to the fact that ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν
“God knows.”

The Attributes of God’s Knowledge

The attributes of God’s knowledge are directly addressed in both
Testaments. Instead of sitting in a dark room trying to figure out what God
can or cannot know by our own limited intelligence, why not turn to the
light of Scripture?

Perfect in Knowledge
First, God’s knowledge is ‫“ תּמִים‬perfect” according to Job 37:16.
The wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge.
‫ְשׂי־עָב ִמ ְפלְאוֹת ְתּמִים ֵדּעִם׃‬
ֵ ‫ֲתדַע עַל־ ִמ ְפל‬
ֵ‫ה‬
The perfection of God’s knowledge means that it is not deficient in
anything for
he who is perfect is not lacking in anything.
τέλειοι και ̀ ὁλόκληροι ἐν μηδενι ̀ λειπόμενοι
(James 1:4)
God’s knowledge is thus complete and nothing need be added to it. This
means that God’s knowledge is self-existent and independent of anything
outside of His own divine nature. He does not need to use logic or the
scientific method to discover Truth. His knowledge is one, unified, single,
perfect vision of all things from the end to the beginning of the Creation
from and to all eternity. Paul tells us that God is not in need of anything
because He is perfect in every respect (Acts 17:25)

He Does Not Need Our Information

Because God’s knowledge is perfect, He is not in need of any
information from us.
Can anyone teach God knowledge, Seeing He judgeth those
that are high? (Job 21:22)
 ‫ִשׁפּוֹט׃‬
ְ ‫ַה ְל ֵאל יְלַמֶּד־ָדּעַת וְהוּא רָמִים י‬
πότερον οὐχι ̀ ὁ κύριός ἐστιν ὁ διδάσκων
σύνεσιν και ̀ ἐπιστήμην αὐτὸς δὲ φόνους
διακρινεῖ
In order for God to judge man on the Day of Judgment, He has to have
perfect knowledge of all things. This is why God is not in need of someone
to give Him counsel, which is information and advice (Rom. 11:34)
Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Τίς γὰρ ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου;
Who has become his adviser?
ἢ τίς σύμβουλος αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο;

It Does Not Increase or Decrease

Since His knowledge is perfect, it cannot increase or decrease. It is
complete and whole. He does not have to investigate to find out anything.
He sees iniquity without investigation.
(Job 11:11)
‫וַיַּרְא־אָוֶן וְלֹא יִתְבּוֹנָן׃‬
For He does not have to wait for the results of a judicial
investigation to regard a man. (Translation K&D, Job II:255–
256) (Job. 34:23)
‫ִשׁפָּט׃‬ ֵ ‫ָשׂים עוֹר ַלהֲלְֹך ֶא‬
ְ ‫ל־אל בַּמּ‬ ִ ‫כִּי לֹא עַל־אִישׁ י‬
He will break mighty men without inquiry and puts others in
their place. (Job 34:24)
‫יָרַֹע ַכּבִּירִים לֹא־ ֵח ֶקר וַיֲַּעמֵד ֲא ֵחרִים ַתּ ְחתָּם׃‬
But don’t we have to tell God in prayer what we need? If we don’t tell
Him, how will He know what we need or want? The purpose of prayer is
not to inform God of your needs. He knows what you need and what you
are going to say BEFORE you say it. Prayer is for our benefit, not God’s
information.
 Your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Mat.
6:8)
οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς
αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown comment:
[God] needs not to be informed of our wants, any more than to
be roused to attend to them by our incessant speaking. What a
view of God is here given, in sharp contrast with the gods of
the heathen!

It Is Infinite
Since His knowledge is perfect, it is no surprise to us to find that it is
infinite according to Psa. 147:5.
His understanding is infinite.
‫לְתְבוּנָתוֹ אֵין ִמ ְספָּר‬
Being “infinite” means that we cannot place any limitations on His
knowledge. There is no “cutting off” place where we can say that His
knowledge begins or ends.

It Is Eternal
Since it is infinite, God’s knowledge is eternal. In Acts 15:18, James
reminded the counsel that the inclusion of the Gentiles into the church did
not catch God by surprise. God had known (γνωστα) everything from
eternity (ἀπʼ αἰῶνος)
Nothing could be more germane to St. James’s argument than
thus to show from the words of Amos that God’s present
purpose of taking the Gentiles to be his people was, like all his
other works, formed from the beginning of the world (comp.
Eph. 1:9, 10; 3:5, 6; 2 Tim. 1:9, etc.)
God does not have to wait until the end to see what will happen like we
do. He knows “the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10) A. T. Robertson
comments,
There is no occasion for surprise in the story of God’s dealings
with the Gentiles as told by Barnabas and Paul. God’s eternal
purpose of grace includes all who call upon his name in every
land and people (Isa. 2:1; Mic. 4:1) This larger and richer
purpose and plan of God was one of the mysteries which Paul
will unfold in the future (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:9) James sees it
clearly now. God is making it known (ποιων ταυτα γνωστα
[poiōn tauta gnōsta])

It Is Immutable
Being perfect, infinite and eternal, God’s knowledge is immutable (Mal.
3:6; James 1:17) Because it is immutable, God cannot make a mistake; He
cannot lie; He does not change His mind.
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
that he should change His mind: hath he said, and shall be not
do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
(Num. 23:19)
And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is
not a man, that he should change His mind. (1 Sam. 15:29)
These Old Testament passages teach us a great truth we can live by and
die by. D. A. Carson emphasizes that,
V 29 offers us a description of God as one who does not lie
(unlike Saul!) nor change his mind. God may in mercy delay
punishment, or give men and women opportunities to change
their minds in repentance; but he does not change his mind
about his purposes and plans. God had determined that the
future of Israel would be in the hands of a better man, David
(28) Later readers, no doubt in very different circumstances,
could take comfort and assurance from the fact that their God
made them promises, and his promises were absolutely true
and certain.
The New Testament is just as clear on this point.
 The hope of eternal life that God, who cannot lie, promised
before the world began. (Tit. 1:2)
In the same way, when God wanted to make the unchangeable
character of his purpose perfectly clear to the heirs of his
promise, he guaranteed it with an oath so that by these two
unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to
prove false, we who have taken refuge in him might have a
strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
(Heb. 6:17–18)
Several comments should be made on the passages above. First, the
authors of Scripture repeatedly emphasize that God is not a man and thus
His knowledge is not limited or flawed as man’s knowledge. This is
stressed in other passages as well.
But YHWH said unto Samuel, “Do not look on his
countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have
refused him: for YHWH does not set as a man sees; for a man
looks on the outward appearance, but YHWH looks on the
heart. (1 Sam. 16:7)
Do You have eyes of flesh? or do You see as man sees? Are
Your days as the days of man? Are Your years as man’s
days, that You have to inquire after my iniquity, and search
after my sin? (Job 10:4–7)
For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways
My ways, saith YHWH. For as the heavens are higher
than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My
thoughts than your thoughts (Isa. 55:8–9)
The main reason why humanists are always trying to limit the
knowledge of God is to bring God down to the level of man. They have
forgotten God’s stern rebuke,
You thought that I was altogether such a one as yourself: But I
will reprove you, and set them in order before your eyes. (Psa.
50:21)
 Since God’s knowledge is absolute and unlimited, He is incapable of
lying. Notice that Heb. 6:17–18 clearly links together God’s immutability
and omniscience in such a way that you cannot have one without the other.
Thus God’s knowledge is infallible and cannot err in any sense.

It Is Clear, Distinct, Certain, and Orderly

Since God’s knowledge is perfect in all aspects, it is clear instead of
unclear, distinct instead of vague, certain instead of uncertain, and orderly
instead of chaotic. Why?
For God is not a God of confusion but of harmony/peace. (1
Cor. 14:33)
οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλὰ εἰρήνης.

It Is Infallible
Is God’s knowledge an “iffy” thing that may or may not pan out as the
future unfolds? Does the infallibility of God’s knowledge mean that the
future must necessarily happen as He knows it? In order for the future
necessarily to happen as God sees it, must it be certain, fixed, preordained
and predetermined from eternity? Is anything left to luck or chance?
How can we answer such deep questions? Sola Scriptura! Scripture
alone can give us God’s answers to such questions. Why?
First, human reason is not adequate to come up with an answer, because
the world with all its philosophic reasoning and logic never knew the true
God according to 1 Cor. 1:21.
the world through its wisdom did not know God.
οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμος διὰ τῆς σοφίας τὸν θεόν
The word “not” (οὐκ) is taken out of its normal word order and placed
first in the phrase in order to make it emphatic that the world through
human philosophy NEVER, EVER knew the true God. Jamieson, Fassuet,
and Brown are right on target with their comment.
The deistic theory that man can by the light of nature discover
his duty to God, is disproved by the fact that man has never
discovered it without revelation. All the stars and moon cannot
 make it day; that is the prerogative of the sun. Nor can nature’s
highest gifts make the moral day arise; that is the office of
Christ.
The classic Evangelical commentators agree with them.
Christians must abandon human philosophy’s appeal to
rationalism and rely on revelation if we are to resolve our
differences and maintain our essential unity in Christ.
All the valued learning of this world was confounded, baffled,
and eclipsed, by the Christian revelation and the glorious
triumphs of the cross. The heathen politicians and
philosophers, the Jewish rabbis and doctors, the curious
searchers into the secrets of nature, were all posed and put to a
nonplus. This scheme lay out of the reach of the deepest
statesmen and philosophers, and the greatest pretenders to
learning both among the Jews and Greeks. When God would
save the world, he took a way by himself; and good reason, for
the world by wisdom knew not God, v. 21. All the boasted
science of the heathen world did not, could not, effectually
bring home the world to God. In spite of all their wisdom,
ignorance still prevailed, iniquity still abounded. Men were
puffed up by their imaginary knowledge, and rather further
alienated from God.
In spite of the highly sophisticated discussion of natural
theology by the Stoics and Epicureans on ‘the nature of the
gods’, that intellectual world did not know God.
Paul quoted Isaiah 29:14 in 1 Corinthians 1:19, proving that
God has written a big “0—Failure!”—over the wisdom of men.
In his address on Mars’ Hill, Paul dared to tell the
philosophers that Greek and Roman history were but “times of
this ignorance” (Acts 17:30)
These words might be written as an epitaph on the tomb of
ancient philosophy, and of modern philosophy and science so
far as it assumes an anti-Christian form (Luke 10:21) Human
 wisdom, when it relies solely on itself, may “feel after God,”
but hardly find him (Acts. 17:26, 27)
With all its “wisdom,” the world was not able to find God or
salvation. When we trace human history, we discover a record
of man gaining more and more knowledge, but less and less
real wisdom, especially about spiritual matters. Review Rom.
1:18–32 to see how the world turned from God. God’s plan was
so simple and unique that it seemed to be foolishness to the
world! God saves those who believe what He says about His
Son.
Knew not God (οὐκ ἐγνω [ouk egnō]) Failed to know, second
aorist (effective) active indicative of γινωσκω [ginōskō],
solemn dirge of doom on both Greek philosophy and Jewish
theology that failed to know God. Has modern philosophy
done better? There is today even a godless theology
(Humanism) “Now that God’s wisdom has reduced the self-
wise world to ignorance” (Findlay)
Second, Paul warns us that speculative theology, in which you try to
figure out God by your own intellect instead of going to Scripture,
produces nothing but pride and conceit.
Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to
myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn,
“Do not go beyond what is Written,” that no one of you should
be puffed up for the one against the other. (1 Cor. 4:6)
Ταῦτα δέ, ἀδελφοί, μετεσχημάτισα εἰς ἐμαυτὸν και ̀ Ἀπολλῶν
δια ὑμᾶς, ἵνα ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε τὸ Μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται, ἵνα
μὴ εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἐνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου.
If the authors of Scripture believed that the future, including the
decisions and works of man, is already fixed, certain, preordained and
predetermined, and that at the same time, man is accountable to God for
his thoughts, words and deeds, how would they convey that idea to their
readers? By what vocabulary? By what exegesis?
What if we find that they held to the certainty and necessity of the
future and that man was accountable at the same time? Just because pagan
Greek philosophy taught that man is not accountable if his actions are
predetermined, are we to throw the Bible in the trash and follow the
philosophers instead of Scripture?

Back to the Bible

To answer the questions stated above, all we have to find is just one
passage in the Bible where the acts of a man were both predetermined and
accountable at the same time. Why? If Divine predetermination and
human accountability are both revealed in Scripture, then in principle both
truths are compatible; i.e. not contradictory.
This is why the historic Christian view is sometimes called the
“compatibility” view and the contrary views are called the “contradictory”
views. If the authors of Scripture believed and taught that Divine
predetermination and human accountability were compatible truths
because God understood how they were compatible even though man does
not, on what grounds can those who claim to be Christians state that the
two doctrines are incompatible and thus inherently contradictory to God as
well as man? On what grounds do they limit God’s ability to understand
what He has revealed in Scripture?
First, did the authors of Scripture ever describe the future, including the
acts of man as “certain,” “necessary,” “determined,” “fixed,”
“foreordained” or “appointed?” Did they ever say that the future “must”
happen? Is the future “certain?” Or is it up to the roll of the dice in a
cosmic crap game?

The Exodus Prediction

And He said unto Abram, Know for certain that your seed hall
be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and they shall serve
them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also
that nation, whom they shall serve, I will judge: and afterward
they shall come out with great substance. (Gen. 15:13–14)
The passage above is remarkable in that it gathers all the decisions and
acts of all the people involved in the move to Egypt, the enslavement and
oppression of the Jews, the coming of Moses and the events leading to the
Exodus. God told Abraham that all these things were “certain” to happen.
The use of “shall” and “will” instead of “may” or “might” reveals that all
these future things would happen just as God said they would.
If these future events were certain to happen, then Abraham’s
knowledge of them would likewise be certain. You cannot have certain
knowledge of that which is fundamentally uncertain. Thus God told
Abraham that he could count on this prediction of future events coming
true.

The Story of Joseph

That this is what Moses understood is clear from his account of Joseph
in Genesis chapters 38–50. The decision of his brothers to beat him and
then sell him into slavery, the slave masters taking him to Egypt instead of
another country, the false rape charge made by Potiphar’s wife, his prison
experience, his rise to Pharaoh’s side and the decision of Jacob to move to
Egypt; were all these decisions and acts of all the people involved
autonomous; i.e. were they independent of God? Can we really describe
them in terms of mere coincidence and luck? Was Joseph just unlucky
when he experienced bad things and lucky when he experienced good
things? Was it merely by chance that the jailer liked him? Was it really a
mere coincidence that Pharaoh made him second to himself? Instead of
sitting around speculating, let us turn to the testimony of Joseph to see
what he believed.
But as for you, you thought to do evil against me; but God
meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save
many people alive. (Gen. 50:20)
Can words be clearer? Did not Joseph believe that God planned
everything including what his brothers did to him in order to save many
people from starvation? Did he believe that everything that happened to
him happened necessarily as part of God’s plan? Why did Potiphar like
Joseph? Moses tells us,
And his master saw that YHWH was with him, and that
YHWH caused all that he did to prosper in his hand. (Gen.
39:3)
‫ֲשׁר־הוּא‬
ֶ ‫ֹשׂה יְהוָה ַמ ְצלִי ַח ְבּיָדוֹ׃ וַיַּרְא אֲדֹנָיו כִּי יְהוָה אִתּוֹ וְכֹל א‬
ֶ‫ע‬
 ᾔδει δὲ ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ ὅτι κύριος μετʼ αὐτοῦ και ̀ ὅσα ἃν ποιῇ
κύριος εὐοδοῖ ἐν ταῖς χερσιν̀ αὐτοῦ
According to Moses, “Yahweh caused” (Heb. ‫ יְהוָה ַמ ְצלִי ַח‬Gk. ποιῇ
κύριος) everything Joseph did to prosper. Joseph believed that God was in
control of the entire situation.
But did the belief that God planned the whole thing in any way lessen,
negate or reduce the responsibility of all those involved? No. The brothers
admitted that their decisions and actions that led to selling Joseph into
slavery were wicked and evil. They knew that they were responsible for
what they did. They knew that they deserved punishment.
So shall you say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray you now, the
transgression of your brothers, and their sin, for what they did
unto you was evil. And now, we beg you, forgive the
transgression of the servants of the God of your father. And
Joseph wept as they spoke unto him. (Gen. 50:17)
Joseph agreed that they had intended to do evil to him. BUT everything
they did was also part of a bigger picture, the sovereign purpose and plan
of God. As Joseph looked back at his life with all its ups and downs, he
saw the hand of God behind it all.

David and the Philistines

And David inquired of YHWH, saying, “Shall I go up against
the Philistines? Will You deliver them into my hand?” And
YHWH said unto David, “Go up; for I will certainly deliver
the Philistines into thy hand.” (2 Sam. 5:19)
What was going to happen when David entered into battle with the
Philistines? Was there the possibility that the Philistines would win and
David would lose? Was it only up to the decisions of all the men involved
and to Lady Luck as to who would decide to run away in defeat? Could
things turn out in any different way? Or was the future battle “certain” to
happen just as God said, because God would see to it? Did God interfere in
the affairs of men to determine who would win the battle? Was the final
outcome of the battle already “certain” before David left camp? The
passage is quite clear that David’s victory was already certain and “in the
bag” before he picked up his spear.

Death Awaits You

YHWH had showed me that he shall certainly die. (2 Kings 8:10)
Hazael wanted to know if he would in the future recover from his
illness. He asked the prophet of YHWH and was told that he “shall
certainly die.” But was this already set in stone? Could not something
happen that would heal Hazael? Or was his death already certain? It was
as certain as God lives.

The Babylonian Captivity

The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this
land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast. (Jer.
36:29)
Thus says YHWH, “This city shall certainly be given into the
hand of the army of the king of Babylon, and he shall take it.
(Jer. 38:3)
But seek not Beth-el, nor enter into Gilgal, and pass not to
Beer-sheba: for Gilgal shall certainly go into captivity, and
Beth-el shall come to nought. (Amos 5:5)
For thus Amos said, “Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and
Israel shall certainly be led away captive out of their own land.
(Amos 7:11)
Israel shall certainly go into captivity. (Amos 7:17)
Were the invasion of Babylon and the captivity certain to happen in the
future? Couldn’t the king suddenly decide not to invade Israel? Wasn’t
there the possibility that Israel would defeat the Babylonians? No. It was
already certain before the Babylonians climbed into their chariots.

Would Jeremiah Die?

 For I will certainly deliver you, and you shall not fall by the
sword. (Jer. 39:18)
How could God guarantee Jeremiah that the future would turn out as He
said it would? Was it really “certain” and already “fixed” that Jeremiah
would not die? Could some Babylonian soldier suddenly decide to run his
sword through Jeremiah? No. God would interfere and see to it that
Jeremiah would not be harmed.

Future Events Already Appointed

For the vision is yet for the appointed time; It hastens toward
the goal, and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; For
it will certainly come, it will not delay. (Hab. 2:3)
Since the captivity has been “appointed” by God, it will certainly come
to pass in the future in exactly the way God said it would happen. If future
events could turn out differently than the vision stated, then God would be
guilty of telling a lie.

Are Future Events Fixed?

He answered them, “It is not for you to know what times or
seasons the Father has fixed by His own authority. (Acts 1:7)
εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς, Οὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστιν γνῶναι χρόνους ἢ
καιροὺς οὓς ὁ πατὴρ ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ
The disciples asked Jesus if the Old Testament prophecy of a future
restoration of Israel was to be fulfilled at that time.
And so when they had come together, they were asking Him,
saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom
to Israel?” (Acts 1:6)
Οἱ μὲν οὖν συνελθόντες ἠρώτων αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Κύριε, εἰ ἐν
τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ ἀποκαθιστάνεις τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ Ἰσραήλ?
Jesus answered that the timing of the fulfillment of a future restoration
of Israel was none of their business and He was not going to reveal them
the timing of that prophecy. But lest they give up hope that Israel would be
restored, He went on to state that the future was already been “fixed” by
the Father. Thus the “times and seasons” in focus were future χρόνους ἢ
καιροὺς and cannot be limited to the present situation as some heretics
have proposed.
The word ἔθετο is a second aorist middle indicative of τίθημι and
emphasizes the sovereignty of the Father over the future times and
seasons. The standard Greek Lexicons document that the word is used in
several senses in secular and biblical literature. One of its clear meanings
is to fix, set in place, destine, appoint or pre-determine something or
someone by your own authority.
Friberg: God’s designed self-activity to arrange,
establish, fix (AC 1:7; 2 C 5:19; 1 T 1:12)
UBS: appoint, destine; arrange.
Thayer: to set, fix, establish (Latin statuo)
BDAG: mid. w. acc. fix, establish, set.
In terms of how Luke uses the word when man “fixes” something or
someone, in Acts 12:4, King Herod by his own authority “fixed” Peter in
prison. In Acts 19:21, Paul “fixed” his resolve to go to Jerusalem with
such firmness that no one could dissuade him otherwise.
When we turn to passages where God or Messiah is said to “fix” things
or people, in Acts 20:28, Luke tells us that the elders were “fixed,” (i.e.
“set over” or “appointed”) over the church by the authority of Christ. In 1
Cor. 12:18, the Holy Spirit by His own authority “fixes” each believer in
the Body of Christ with a specific function. In 1 Cor. 12:28, by His own
authority Christ “fixed” various offices in the church.
Then in a very significant passage, 1 Thess. 5:9, Paul states,
For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining
salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
ὅτι οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ εἰς περιποίησιν
σωτηρίας διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Paul clearly states that God has by His own authority not “destined,”
(i.e. “fixed”) believers for wrath but salvation. In order to be emphatic
about this, Paul takes the word “not” (οὐκ) out of its normal word order
and places it first at the head of the phrase. But is the “wrath” in the
passage a reference to present or future wrath? The context is absolutely
clear that Paul has in mind the future wrath of Christ when He returns to
judge the world (v. 2)
God has by his own authority “fixed” or “destined” the future in such a
way that believers will not suffer “the Wrath of the Lamb” (cf. Rev. 6:16)
when He returns to judge the world in righteousness. The “Prince of
Preachers,” Matthew Henry comments,
If we would trace our salvation to the first cause, that is God’s
appointment. Those who live and die in darkness and
ignorance, who sleep and are drunken as in the night, are, it is
but too plain, appointed to wrath; but as for those who are of
the day, if they watch and be sober, it is evident that they are
appointed to obtain salvation. And the sureness and firmness
of the divine appointment are the great support and
encouragement of our hope. Were we to obtain salvation by
our own merit or power, we could have but little or no hope of
it; but seeing we are to obtain it by virtue of God’s
appointment, which we are sure cannot be shaken (for his
purpose, according to election, shall stand), on this we build
unshaken hope, especially when we consider, (2.) Christ’s
merit and grace, and that salvation is by our Lord Jesus Christ,
who died for us. Our salvation therefore is owing to, and our
hopes of it are grounded on, Christ’s atonement as well as
God’s appointment: and, as we should think on God’s gracious
design and purpose, so also on Christ’s death and sufferings,
for this end, that whether we wake or sleep (whether we live or
die, for death is but a sleep to believers, as the apostles had
before intimated) we should live together with Christ live in
union and in glory with him forever. And, as it is the salvation
that Christians hope for to be for ever with the Lord, so one
foundation of their hope is their union with him.
In Acts 1:7 Jesus is emphatic that the details of the future times and
seasons were already fixed, set, appointed, ordained, and destined by the
Father by His own authority. The fact that the disciples would not be told
the future did not mean that the future was not known and fixed by God.
Paul even preached this truth to the heathen philosophers on Mars Hill.
 For he has fixed a day when he is going to judge the world
with justice through a man he has appointed (Acts 17:31)
καθότι ἔστησεν ἡμέραν ἐν ᾗ μέλλει κρίνειν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν
δικαιοσύνῃ ἐν ἀνδρι ̀ ὧ ὥρισεν, πίστιν παρασχὼν πᾶσιν
ἀναστήσας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν.
The Day of Judgment has already been “fixed” by the Father. It is an
inescapable and unavoidable appointment that we must all keep. But is
there not the possibility that something could happen that God did not
foresee and that would cancel or change the Day of Judgment? No. It is
“set in stone” and cannot tarry or be overthrown.
The word “fixed” is a translation of the Greek verb ἔστησεν. It is an
indicative aorist active 3rd person singular of ἵστημι. According to the
Lexicons it means:
Friberg: of time set, appoint (AC 17:31)
UBS: fix (a day of judgment)
Thayer: to appoint (cf. colloquial English set): ἡμέραν,
Acts 17:31.
BDAG: to set/fix a time a period of time ἡμέραν
(s. ἡμέρα 3a) Ac 17:31.
The way it was used in secular and biblical literature means that the
future Day of Judgment has been pre-determined and set in concrete by
God. As Matthew Henry put it,
There is a day appointed for this general review of all that men
have done in time, and a final determination of their state for
eternity. The day is fixed in the counsel of God, and cannot be
altered; but it is his there, and cannot be known. A day of
decision, a day of recompense, a day that will put a final
period to all the days of time.
Other commentators agree:
A day fixed by God, they were told, was at hand, in which God
would judge the world in righteousness, and in which they
themselves would be judged also. And the certainty of this was
made apparent by the fact that he who was ordained to be
 Judge was raised from the dead, and so ready to commence the
judgment. The time for immediate action was come; God’s
revelation had reached them.
God did set the day in his counsel and he will fulfil it in his
own time. Will judge (μελλει κρινειν [mellei krinein]) Rather,
is going to judge, μελλω [mellō] and the present active
infinitive of κρινω [krinō]. Paul here quotes Psa. 9:8 where
κρινει [krinei] occurs.
From one man he made every nation of humanity to live all
over the earth, fixing the seasons of the year and the
boundaries they live in (Acts 17:26)
ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπι ̀ παντὸς
προσώπου τῆς γῆς, ὁρίσας προστεταγμένους καιροὺς και ̀ τὰς
ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν
If man were free in the Greek ideal of absolute human autonomy, then
he would be absolutely free to choose when and where he lives. But Paul
says that the time and place of your birth and your habitation is something
that God determines and appoints before you were ever born.
The Greek word προστεταγμένους is a perfect passive participle
accusative masculine plural of προστάσσω. It means that the time and
place of your birth, life, and death were not only known by God but also
pre-determined by God from all eternity.
That he is the sovereign disposer of all the affairs of the
children of men, according to the counsel of his will (v.
26): He hath determined the times before appointed, and
the bounds of their habitation. See here, (1.) The
sovereignty of God’s disposal concerning us: he hath
determined every event, horisas, the matter is fixed; the
disposals of Providence are incontestable and must not
be disputed, unchangeable and cannot be altered. (2.)
The wisdom of his disposals; he hath determined what
was before appointed. The determinations of the Eternal
Mind are not sudden resolves, but the counterparts of an
eternal counsel, the copies of divine decrees. He
 performeth the thing that is appointed for me, Job 23:14.
Whatever comes forth from God was before all worlds
hid in God. (3.) The things about which his providence is
conversant; these are time and place: the times and
places of our living in this world are determined and
appointed by the God that made us. [1.] He has
determined the times that are concerning us. Times to us
seem changeable, but God has fixed them. Our times are
in his hand, to lengthen or shorten, embitter or sweeten,
as he pleases. He has appointed and determined the time
of our coming into the world, and the time of our
continuance in the world; our time to be born, and our
time to die (Eccl. 3:1, 2), and all that little that lies
between them—the time of all our concernments in this
world. Whether they be prosperous times or calamitous
times, it is he that has determined them; and on him we
must depend, with reference to the times that
are yet before us.
The apostle here opposes both Stoical Fate and
Epicurean Chance, ascribing the periods and localities in
which men and nations flourish to the sovereign will and
prearrangements of a living God.
He himself fixed beforehand correctly translates the
force of the Greek participle which describes action that
took place before he created and made them live. In some
languages it is impossible to translate beforehand
without indicating specifically what event is being
referred to; therefore “before he created them he decided
when and where they would live.”

Are Future Events Going to Happen Necessarily?

Did anyone ever do anything that was “necessary” for him to do
according to the preordained plan and purpose of God? This question is so
important that only special revelation can answer it.
 Was it not necessary for the Messiah to suffer these
things, and to enter into his glory? (Luke 24:26)
οὐχι ̀ ταῦτα ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν και ̀ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς
τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ;
Certain questions come to mind.
○ Was it necessary for Judas to betray Christ?
○ For the Romans to deliver Him to death?
○ For the Jewish leaders to demand His death?
○ For the soldier to pierce His side with a spear?
○ Did all the choices of everyone involved take place
necessarily?
○ Was it all mere coincidence?
○ Was there a chance that He would not have been arrested, tried,
tortured and crucified or did those things have to done by all
those involved because it was necessary?
○ If they did things because they had to; i.e. it was necessary,
were they held accountable to God for what they did?
The present text and the next one answer these questions.
Brothers, it was necessary for the Scripture to be
fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through
the mouth of David about Judas, who was the guide to
those who arrested Jesus (Acts 1:16)
Ανδρες ἀδελφοί, ἔδει πληρωθῆναι τἠν γραφὴν ἣν
προεῖπεν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον διὰ στόματος Δαυιδ̀ περι ̀
Ἰούδα τοῦ γενομένου ὁδηγοῦ τοῖς συλλαβοῦσιν Ἰησοῦν,
Luke tells us that all the choices and decisions of man that came
together to cause the death of Messiah, including the decision of Judas to
betray the Lord, were done necessarily.
Explaining and showing that it was necessary that the
Messiah should suffer, and to rise again from the dead
(Acts 17:3)
 διανοίγων και ̀ παρατιθέμενος ὅτι τὸν Χριστὸν ἔδει
παθεῖν και ̀ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν και ̀ ὅτι οὗ τός ἐστιν ὁ
Χριστός [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς ὃν ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν.
Was Messiah’s death at the hands of sinners a matter of bad luck, a
chance happening, a mere coincidence? No. All these things happened
because it was necessary for them to take place. They were part of God’s
eternal plan of the ages.

Are Future Events Ever Predetermined?

Do the biblical authors say that someone ever chose to do something
that God predetermined that he should chose to do it?
For the Son of man is going away, as it has been
predetermined: but how terrible it will be for that man
by whom He is betrayed! (Lk. 22:22)
ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ τὸ ὡρισμένον
πορεύεται, πλὴν οὐαι ̀ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ διʼ οὗ
παραδίδοται.
When Judas chose to betray the Lord, was his choice predetermined by
God? If Luke was inspired by God to write his Gospel account, then we
have to accept the fact that he clearly stated that Judas’ betrayal was
something that God predetermined.
But, we hasten to add, lest anyone foolishly think that this meant that
Judas was not responsible for his actions, Luke adds, “Woe unto that man
through whom He is betrayed.”
There is no indication in the text to suggest that Luke had a problem
believing that the choices and actions of Judas were predetermined by God
and that he was responsible for his choices at the same time. These two
were compatible and not contradictory.
Him, being delivered up by the predetermined counsel
and foreknowledge of God, you by the hand of lawless
men did crucify and slay (Acts 2:23)
τοῦτον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ και ̀ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ
ἔκδοτον διὰ χειρὸς ἀνόμων προσπήξαντες ἀνείλατε
 The men who crucified the Lord did not know that what they did was
predetermined by God before time began. They are responsible for what
was predetermined for them to do. Peter did not give any indication that he
was bothered with these revealed truths. They were compatible in his eyes.

What About Predestination?

If the biblical authors believed that the future was predetermined, we
would expect them to use such words as “predestination.” Did they ever
use such terminology when describing the future acts of men?
For of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus,
whom You did anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate,
with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were
gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy
council predestined to come to pass (Acts 4:27–28)
ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἡ χείρ σου και ̀ ἡ βουλή [σου] προώρισεν
γενέσθαι.
Do you really believe that every word in the Bible is God’s Word?
Then, regardless of how you feel about it, you have to accept the fact that
such words as “predestination,” “foreordained,” “destined,” “election”,
“foreknown”, and “predetermined” are found in the Bible.
Those who had a hand in putting to death the Son of God are held
accountable for what they did and, at the same time, what they did was
predestined by God from eternity that they should do it. The text cannot be
dismissed by saying that God knew that they would do it. The word
προώρισεν means to predestine or predetermine that certain things will be
done in the future.

Must the Future Happen?

Does the Bible ever say that the future acts of a man “must” happen?
From that time began Jesus to show unto His disciples,
that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of
the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed,
and the third day be raised up (Matt. 16:21)
 Jesus “must” go, suffer, die and be raised. Why? It was the Father’s
plan for Him to die on the cross. The same statement is repeated in Mark
8:31.
What about “end times” predictions? Will the future events happen
because they must happen?
And you are going to hear of wars and rumors of wars.
See to it that you are not alarmed. These things must take
place; but that’s not the end (Matt. 24:6)
The decisions and actions of men that are predicted in Matt. 24 “must”
happen as God says they will happen.

Is the Future Open to Change?

If the future were open to change, then the Bible could not describe
future events as happening necessarily. But if it does speak of future
events as necessarily happening, then this is clear indication that the
writers believed that the future was fixed.
Acts 23:11, “You must testify in Rome”
Acts 27:24, “You must stand before the emperor”
Paul was told that God had decided that he was going to witness to
Caesar in Rome. The future had already been fixed and predetermined. Not
even a shipwreck could prevent Paul’s trip to Rome.
Paul was immortal until he had completed his destiny. These are but a
few of the passages in the Bible that speak of future events, including the
acts of man, as things that “must” happen.

Are Future Events “Destined” By God?

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and
glorifying the word of the Lord. Meanwhile, all who had
been destined to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)
ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον και ̀ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον
τοῦ κυρίου και ̀ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς
ζωὴν αἰώνιον·
 Luke clearly states that those who had been “destined to eternal life”
believed. Their decision to believe is something that God “destined” them
to do. This is in contrast to the destiny of reprobates.
They keep on stumbling because they disobey the Word,
as they were destined to do (1 Pet. 2:8)
και ̀ λίθος προσκόμματος και ̀ πέτρα σκανδάλου· οἳ
προσκόπτουσιν τῷ λόγῳ ἀπειθοῦντες εἰς ὃ και ̀
ἐτέθησαν.
We have to deal with what Peter says in this verse without violating the
grammar and syntax of the Greek text. He says that those who decided to
disobey the Lord were “destined” to do this. Paul said the same thing in
Rom. 9:22 when he referred to reprobates as “vessels of wrath prepared for
destruction.” Jude says the same thing in Jude 4.
We realize that this is Christianity for the tough-minded and that weak
and obstinate sinners cannot accept the plain teaching of these Scriptures.
They will not bow before God in humility.
I was once told by a well-known Natural Theologian, “I will become an
atheist before accepting the kind of god described in those verses.” I
replied, “But you are already an atheist now because you have already
denied the existence of the God described in these Scriptures!” He became
quite angry and sullen and has refused to talk to me again.

Are Future Events “Ordained” and “Preordained?”

Do the authors of the Bible ever trace man’s decisions and actions back
to God’s preordination?
And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, “The
counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel
of Ahithophel. For YHWH had ordained to defeat the
good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that YHWH
might bring disaster upon Absalom (2 Sam. 17:14)
This passage is remarkable. It answers the questions, “Why did
Absalom and all the men of Israel choose not to listen to Athithophel when
he was clearly the wisest counselor in their midst? Why did they choose to
take Hushai’s advice instead?” The text states that God caused them to
choose Hushai because He had ordained to defeat Absolom. They chose
what He ordained them to choose.
When one Natural Theologian asserted to me, “God is a gentleman,
Bob, and thus He would never interfere with man’s free will,” I took him
to this passage because God only not interfered with the “free will”
choices of Absalom’s advisors, but He did so to bring them to destruction.
Thankfully, this passage exploded his little idol of “free will,” and he is no
longer a rationalist!

It Is Incomprehensible to Man
Since God’s knowledge is perfect, infinite, eternal and immutable, it is
no surprise that it is also incomprehensible. It is beyond our capacity to
understand or to explain how God can know the end of eternity at the
beginning of eternity. But this is what the Bible teaches.
Have you not known? Have you not heard, that the everlasting
God, YHWH, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not,
neither is weary? That His understanding is incomprehensible?
(Isa. 40:28)
O how deep are God’s riches, wisdom and knowledge! How
impossible to explain his judgments or to understand his ways!
(Rom. 11:33)
When the humanists in Augustine’s day objected to the Gospel by
saying, “I will not believe until I understand,” Augustine replied, “I
believe in order that I may understand.”

Secondary Texts
The Wicked and God’s Knowledge
Today, many natural theologians and philosophers question and even
openly deny the fact of God’s omniscience. They boast that they are on the
“cutting edge” of modern theology. But they are merely following in the
footsteps of people whom the Bible describes as “the wicked.”
Is not God in the height of heaven? Look also at the distant
stars, how high they are. And you say, “What does God know?
 How He can judge through thick darkness? Clouds are a
hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see; and He walks on
the vault of heaven.” (Job 22:12–13)
The passage rebukes the arrogance of thinking that God is so
transcendent that He cannot know what is happening on earth. It ridicules
the idea that darkness and clouds can prevent God from seeing what is
happening on earth.
And they say, “How does God know? And is there knowledge
with the Most High?” Behold, these are the wicked. (Psa.
73:11–12)
Notice that the challenge is given to explain “how” God knows. Since
no one can fully explain how God knows anything, much less everything,
the wicked go on to question whether God has any knowledge at all.
And they say, “YHWH does not see. Nor does the God of Jacob
pay heed.” (Psa. 94:7)
The denial of God’s knowledge is used as a reason for not being afraid
of the judgment of God. He will not take notice of our sin, so don’t worry
about it.
Why do you say, O Jacob, and assert, O Israel, “My way is
hidden from YHWH. And the justice due me escapes the notice
of my God?” (Isa. 40:27)
Some people in Isaiah’s day cast doubt on the knowledge of God by
claiming that their sins were “hidden” from God, and thus He did not “take
notice” of them. Who are these people who question the fact of God’s
knowledge? The prophets? No. The righteous? No. Those who love the
Lord? No.
In each context where the knowledge of God is questioned, it is always
the wicked who cast doubt on God’s knowledge. They are the ones who
demand that the righteous tell them “how” and “why” God knows things.
When the righteous fail to do so, this is used as the basis to reject revealed
truth.
I have been judged and criticized severely for saying that those who
deny the omniscience of God are wicked people and not Christians at all.
But I am merely following Scripture and if that offends the politically
correct theologians of today, they can go pound sand! I will obey God
while they obey their master.
The wicked today are just as bold in casting doubt on God’s knowledge.
They have ransacked the Bible for texts which indicate to them that God is
ignorant on some things such as the future. They use the following
secondary texts to contradict the clear teaching of the primary texts.

Does God Know Where You Are?

Then YHWH God called to the man, and said to him, “Where
are you?” And He said, “Who told you that you were naked?
Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not
to eat?” (Gen. 3:9, 11)
These passages indicate to humanistic theologians that God was
ignorant not only of the whereabouts of Adam and Eve, but also of their
sin. They assume that the questions God asked revealed His ignorance. Is
this really what is taught in this passage? Are not the questions asked for
man’s sake so that he might confess his sin? This is the historic Jewish and
Christian understanding of the text.
If this secondary text could overthrow the knowledge of God, it would
mean that God has no present knowledge of where we are and no past
knowledge of what we have done. Prayer would be useless, and the
Judgment Day impossible.
Some natural philosophers have attempted to use this passage to prove
that God cannot know the future. Why they do this is beyond us. The
passage is clearly speaking of the present whereabouts of Adam and his
past transgression. God did not ask, “Where will you be tomorrow? What
will you do tomorrow?” He asked, “Where are you? What have you done?”
If these questions were interpreted literally, God would not know our past
or present! You can see why the wicked would love this idea, as they think
they will escape accountability for the evil they do and the heresies they
teach.

Does God See You?

 And YHWH came down to see the city and the tower, which
the sons of men had built. (Gen. 11:5)
It is claimed by natural theologians that this passage proves (sic) that
God was ignorant of what man was going to do in the future. Thus, He had
to travel down to earth to see what was going on. If taken literally, it would
not only deny the omniscience of God, but also His omnipresence. In order
to find out what was going on, God had to leave heaven and travel to earth
in order to gain knowledge. He would not be present everywhere, but
would be a creature of time and space.
Once again, it is knowledge of the past and present that is in view. God
did not go down to see what they were going to do, but what man had done
and was doing at that time. This is why the historic Jewish and Christian
interpretation has always pointed out that the passage is anthropomorphic
in nature. Early revelation described God as if He were a man and had to
travel from place to place. When Natural theologians try to make literal
what is metaphorical, they err, not knowing the Scripture nor the power of
God. They would overthrow all the primary texts which clearly teach that
God is omnipresent as well as omniscient (cf. Psa. 139:7–12)
Prayer would be a stupid ritual because unless God happened to pass by
at the time you were praying; He would not know that you were praying.
Once again Natural Theology ends up with Zeus or Jupiter.

Sodom and Gomorrah

And YHWH said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is
indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down
now, and see if they have done entirely according to the outcry,
which has come to Me; and, if not, I will know.
(Gen. 18:20–21)
Once again, if taken literally, the omnipresence of God as well as His
omniscience would be denied. God had to go and see if the rumor He had
heard was true. And, if He discovered that it was not true, then He would
know it. But does God really have to travel to the site of sin to know about
it? Does He have to investigate rumors? No. Such primary texts as Job
11:11 state that
“He sees iniquity without investigating.”
 (‫)יַּרְא־וֹאוֶן וְלֹא יִתְבּוֹנָן׃‬

Does God Know Our Hearts?

“… now I know that you fear God.”
(Gen. 22:12)
If taken literally, not until Abraham passed the test did the angel of
YHWH (a theophany of the Son of God) know the spiritual condition of
Abraham’s heart. Yet, there are dozens of primary passages which state
that God and Messiah know the spiritual condition of the hearts of man.
You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men. (1
Kings 8:39)
God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward
appearance, but YHWH looks at the heart. (1 Sam. 16:7)
Some Natural theologians and philosophers have used this passage to
prove (sic) that Abraham changed the future. They assume that when God
told Abraham to kill his son, that is what God had ordained to happen in
the future, but Abraham’s obedience changed the future.
The absurdity of this interpretation is obvious from the fact that, while
Abraham was going up one side of the mountain, a ram was climbing up
the other side to be the substitute sacrifice (v. 13) God provided the ram
because:
(a) He never decreed that Isaac would be killed;
(b) He knew that Abraham would discover that the most precious
person in his life was God, not his son;
(c) A ram would be sacrificed instead of Isaac.

Failed Expectations?
What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have
not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good
grapes did it produce worthless ones? (Isa. 5:4)
It is claimed that this passage teaches that God was ignorant that Israel
was not going to bear good fruit. His expectations were not met because
He did not know the future. If taken literally, it would portray a pathetic,
impotent god! This poor god is constantly frustrated by unforeseen events
that fail to meet his expectations. But this interpretation would contradict
dozens of primary passages that clearly establish the omniscience of God.
In the same book, Isaiah says that God “declares the end from the
beginning” (Isa. 46:10) Thus, whatever Isa. 5:4 means, it cannot be twisted
to contradict what the author elsewhere clearly teaches.

Is God Absent-Minded?
Their sin I will remember no more. (Jer. 31:34)
If taken literally, this text suggests to some philosophers that God can
forget the past. But does God have lapses of memory like we do? Or is this
verse to be interpreted in some other way? The word “anthropomorphic”
simply means that God sometimes spoke of himself as if he were a man.
Thus he had a hand and an eye. In this passage, our debt to God is
“forgotten,” i.e. counted no longer against us in a forensic or legal
canceling of it.
There are dozens of primary texts that indicate that God never “forgets”
the past in the sense of a lapse of memory. The Day of Judgment would be
impossible without God’s omniscient knowledge of the past with all of its
sins.
The word “remember” is used in its judicial sense, that God will not
legally hold our sins against us because the Messiah took the punishment
for those sins in our place (Isa. 53:4–6)

It Never Entered God’s Mind

And they built the high places of Baal that are in the
valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their
daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had
not commanded them
nor had it entered My Mind that they should do this
abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (Jer. 32:35)
Some natural theologians have used this text to prove that God was
ignorant of the future human sacrifices that would take place in the valley
of Ben-hinnom. They claim that it never entered His mind that such a
future abomination would take place. It took Him by complete surprise!
But is this really what the passage is saying? No. The passage is simply
stating that God never told them to kill their children and that it never
crossed His mind to tell them to do so. The Hebrew grammar is clear on
this point.

To Know Is To Love
You only have I known among the families of the earth.
(Amos 3:2)
If taken literally, some have urged that God admits that His knowledge
is limited to the nation of Israel and He is ignorant of other nations. Yet, is
not the word for “known” (‫ )יָדַע‬used for the love relationship between a
man and his wife (Gen. 4:1)? Is not Israel described as the “wife” of
Yahweh? Is not God here speaking of His special love relationship to
Israel? Yes.

The Day of Judgment

Then I’ll tell you plainly, “I never knew you. Get away
from me, you evildoers!” (Matt. 7:23)
If we take these words literally, then Christ on the Day of Judgment will
admit that He was ignorant of the existence of many people. Yet, if Christ
were here admitting that He was ignorant of them, on what basis did He
send them to hell? He says to them, “Get away from me, you evildoers!”
Evidently, Jesus knows of their sin and will send them to hell for it.
Doesn’t the context indicate that Jesus was using the Hebrew meaning of
the word “know?” Thus, He never had a personal love relationship with
these people.

Does God Repent?

What about the passages where God is said in the King James Version
to “repent?” (Gen. 6:6–7; Exo. 32:14; Jud. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:11, 35; 2 Sam.
24:16; 1 Chron. 21:15; Psa. 106:45; Jer. 26:19; Joel 2:13; Amos 7:3, 6;
Jonah 3:9–10; 4:2) Do these passages prove that the future is unknown to
God? Do they prove that God changes His “mind” (i.e. eternal decrees)
about the future?
 First, if we take the King James Version translation and give it a literal
interpretation, it would appear that God “repented” of sin. This would not
bother the Natural philosopher, Stephen Davis, associate professor of
philosophy at Claremont College. He has argued that God can sin, lie, and
even break His own promises! Luckily for us, He has not done these things
so far.
But is this what these passages mean? Is there a GOD above God to
whom He is accountable? To whom does God repent and whose
forgiveness does He seek? The Bible clearly states in many places that
“God cannot lie” (Num. 23:19: Tit. 1:2) He cannot even be tempted to sin,
much less be guilty of sin (James 1:13) Thus whatever the KJV meant by
the word “repent,” the translators did not mean to imply that God sins and
therefore needs repentance.
Second, the KJV is not consistent in its translation of the Hebrew word
‫ וַיִּנָּחֶם‬as “repent.” Elsewhere in Genesis it is translated:
And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and
took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved
her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death
(Gen. 24:67)
And in process of time the daughter of Shuah Judah’s
wife died; and Judah was comforted, and went up unto
his sheepshearers to Timnath, he and his friend Hirah the
Adullamite. (Gen. 38:12)
Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your
little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly
unto them. (Gen. 50:21)
Obviously, the word “repent” would not fit into the other places in
Genesis where the Hebrew word is found. It is translated “to comfort.”
This reveals that the Hebrew word is an emotive term signifying a change
in feelings or emotion. Gen. 6:6 is a good example.
And it repented YHWH that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (KJV)
‫ִת ַעצֵּב ֶאל־לִבּוֹ׃‬
ְ ‫ָשׂה אֶת־הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ ויּ‬
ָ ‫וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה כִּי־ע‬
 Modern translations render the word ‫ ויִּנָּחֶם‬as follows:
1. RSV: was sorry
2. NKJ: was sorry
3. NRS: was sorry
4. NASB: was sorry
5. Moffat: was sorry
6. Torah: was saddened
7. Taylor: broke his heart
Why have modern translators changed “repented” to such an emotive
word as “sorry?” There are good reasons for what they did.
First, there is a parallelism in the Hebrew text that indicates what the
word ‫ ויִּנָּחֶם‬means. The parallel word is ‫ ויְִּת ַעצֵּב‬and is correctly translated
“was grieved.” Thus the word ‫ ויִּנָּחֶם‬refers to the emotions or attitude of
God, not His plans or intellect.
If this is true, then we would expect to find the ancient translations
rendering the Hebrew word ‫ ויִּנָּחֶם‬as an emotive term.
■ The Septuagint: angry (ἐνεθυμήθη possibly from θυμὸω)
■ Targum Neofiti 1: regret
■ Targun Pseudo-Jonathan: regret
■ Syriac: grieve
■ Arabic: grieve
■ Latin Vulgate: regret (paenituit)
Keil and Delitzsch’s comment on Gen. 6:6 is worth repeating.
The force of ‫“ יִּנָּחֶם‬it repented the LORD,” may be
gathered from the explanatory ‫יְִּת ַעצֵּב‬, “it grieved Him at
his heart.” This shows that the repentance of God does
not presuppose any variableness in His nature or His
purpose, In this sense God never repents of anything (1
Sam. 15:29), “quia nihil illi inopinatum vel non
praevisum accidit” (Calvin) The repentance of God is an
anthropomorphic expression for the pain of the divine
love at the sin of man, and signifies that “God is hurt no
less by the atrocious sins of men than if they pierced His
heart with mortal anguish” (Calvin)
 The natural theologians and philosophers should have resisted the
temptation to “twist” the Scriptures “to their own destruction.” (2 Pet.
3:16)
If the authors of Scripture believed that “x” will certainly happen in the
future, they would express that idea by saying that “x” shall or will
happen. They would use “shall” and “will” because they are the language
of certitude. They could strengthen that idea by saying that “x” shall or
will surely or certainly happen in the future.
If they went one step further and used the language of necessity, they
would say that “x” must happen in the future. Thus if “x” shall and must
happen in the future, then future events are both certain and necessary.
If they believed that the future events are neither certain nor necessary,
they would avoid using such language as “shall,” “will,” and “must.” To
say that they used the language of certitude and necessity but did not
believe in them is make them into fools or liars.

Can Man Change the Future?

Some Natural theologians have ransacked the Bible in a desperate
attempt to find passages in the Bible where man changed the future. If
man can change the future, then the future is neither known nor already
decided by God. Instead, it is open to contingency (luck and chance) and
closed to Divine determinism.
Why someone would choose to believe that the universe is open to
Lady Luck but closed to the Lord is beyond us.
One such passage is 1 Sam. 23:6–13. The story is quite simple. David
had fled to the city of Keilah. When David found out that Saul was
planning to march to Keilah, he sought the Lord for guidance. Should he
go or stay at Keilah? If he stayed at Keilah, would the men of Keilah turn
him over to Saul? The Lord said that if he stayed, they would betray
David. Thus he fled the city and escaped Saul.
When God told David that if he stayed at Keilah, he would die, does
this mean that God had predicted that this would happen? Some Natural
theologians say, “Yes, God had planned that David would in fact die at
Keilah. But, when David ran away, he changed the future. His escape
changed God’s plans and decrees.” There are several errors at the core of
the humanist argument.
 First, in the context, the subjects of God’s knowledge, His eternal plans
or decrees, and the nature of future events is not addressed. The passage
has to do with personal guidance in the light of future possibilities from
the standpoint of David. Thus this is not a primary passage, but a
secondary text.
Second, in terms of literary genre, 1 Sam 23 is a historical narrative. A
first year seminary student knows that it is hermeneutically precarious to
establish a doctrine on historical narratives.
Third, when we think about the future, all we can do is imagine the
possibilities from our viewpoint because we do not know the actualities of
what will in fact happen. But God is not so limited. He knows the
actualities as well as all the possibilities because He knows and has always
known what will take place from the beginning of time to the end.
Since man does not know what the future holds, he can only know the
future in terms of what can possibly happen according to his
understanding. He does not know future actualities. Therefore, the future
is “open” to man in the sense that he can imagine many different future
possibilities. The humanists make the fatal error of assuming that God is
limited like man when it comes to the future.
The fourth fatal error is that the humanist assumes that what is possible
to man is actual to God. It is this assumption that controls their
interpretation of 1 Sam 23. For example, if I ask God, “Lord, if I stand in
front of an oncoming bus and it runs me over, will I die?” If the Lord
replies, “Yes, you will die.” Does this mean that God was predicting that
the future actually was for me to be run over by a bus, or were my
question and His answer hypothetical scenarios?
Hypothetical scenarios refer to all the possible situations that I can
imagine that could happen, given the proper circumstances. If a bus runs
over me, given certain hypothetical circumstances, I will die. If David
remains at Keilah, given certain hypothetical circumstances, he will die.
The humanist at this point assumes that since my being run over by a
bus is a possible future event to me, this means that God had actually
ordained it to happen, that when I chose not to get run over by that bus, I
changed the future and then God had to change His eternal decree.
The fifth reason is interesting. When the humanists bring up this
passage, they always neglect to quote 1 Sam 23:14 which says,
 And David abode in the wilderness in the strongholds,
and remained in the hill-country in the wilderness of
Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not
deliver him into his hand.
The reason that Saul at Keilah or anywhere else did not kill David was
not due to David changing the future, but to the intervention of a
Sovereign God.
Lastly, this passage does not refute the omniscience of God, but rather
establishes it. The only grounds on which David could ask God about
possible future scenarios is that he assumed that God knew all things.

Is the Future Open to Infinite Possibilities?

Is it possible for God to lie? For God to make a mistake? To break His
promise? Is it possible that in the future God could become the devil and
the devil become God? Can the devil win in the end? The humanist, given
his worldview, must believe that all these things are possible.
Anyone who says that the future is open to infinite possible worlds,
would have to go down the same path of apostasy as Stephen Davis and
Clark Pinnock.
According to the biblical worldview, it is impossible for God to lie (Tit.
1:3) God cannot fail to keep His word (Num. 23:19) He cannot deny His
own nature (2 Tim. 2:13) The Lord will win, not the devil (Rev. 20:10) The
impossibility of God becoming the devil or lying is only possible because
the future is NOT open to contingency (luck and chance) Only in a
predetermined universe can we say that some things are NOT possible.

Figurative Language
We have no problem handling these secondary texts because Scripture
sometimes speaks to us in “figurative language” (John 16:25) Paul tells us
that he spoke “in human terms” (Rom. 3:5) Why? “I am speaking in
human terms because of the weakness of your flesh” (Rom. 6:19) Thus, he
did not hesitate to “speak in terms of human relationships” (Gal. 3:15)
This is not a “cop out.” Orthodox theologians have biblical precedent to
interpret these secondary texts as the use of the figurative language of
human terminology. Because we would have to go to Sodom to see if it
were as bad as we have heard, God is pictured in this figurative sense as
doing so.

Changes in Revelation
We must also point out that a change in special revelation in which God
commands someone to do something and then, from our perspective,
“changes His mind” and tells him not to do it, does not biblically imply
any change in the eternal plans of God. He sometimes tests the hearts of
men so that they might know where they are spiritually.
As we already pointed out, when God commanded Abraham to kill
Isaac, this does not mean that He had ordained that Isaac would die by his
father’s knife. Thus God had a ram going up the one side of the mountain
while Abraham and Isaac went up the other. The ram was already provided
as the substitute sacrifice because God NEVER intended His command to
be carried out. He wanted Abraham to know that God must have first place
in his life, not Isaac.
When God revealed to Moses, “I am going to destroy Israel,” and then
Moses offered to die instead, from the perspective of man, it would appear
that God changed His mind and decided not to destroy Israel (Exo. 32:10f)
But God never intended to destroy the Jewish people because He had
already predicted the coming of the Messiah. God was not going to
invalidate hundreds of messanic prophecies by wiping out the Jewish
people. A change in revelation does not imply a change in God’s mind or
eternal decrees.
The same point can be made about God’s threat to destroy Ninevah
(Jonah 3) They repented under the preaching of the prophet (Matt. 12:41)
Today we preach, “Turn or burn! Repent or perish!” This does not mean
that God has decreed us to burn and perish, but rather that if we do not
repent, that will be our doom.

Summary
The God who is there is not silent about the fact and nature of His
knowledge of Himself and the universe He created for His glory.
Philosophers may question or even deny revealed truth but they cannot
overthrow it.
THE EXTENT OF GOD’S KNOWLEDGE
Did the authors of Scripture believe that God’s knowledge was infinite
in its extent and that nothing was closed to the knowledge of God? How
would they convey this idea to their readers? By what vocabulary?
Given these questions, we would expect to find them using the same
general format they followed when teaching any revealed truth. They
usually give us general statements which directly teach the truth, which
are then illustrated by specific examples.
General Statements about The Extent of God’s Knowledge
Does the Bible state specifically and directly that God knows
everything? Is this the understanding of the authors of Scripture? If they
believed that God did not know everything, then we would expect them to
state this in a clear manner. Let us turn to the Word of God for our answer.

HANNAH’S CONFESSION OF FAITH

We have already seen that Hannah’s use of the plural ‫ דֵּעוֹת‬indicates that
Yahweh is the God of all knowledge, whatever kind it is.
YHWH is a God of knowledges (1 Sam. 2:3)
When someone says, “The knowledge of the future is a kind of
knowledge that God cannot know,” he is violating Hannah’s clear
confession of faith.

PSALM 139
Psalm 139 is a passage of full mention on the extent of God’s
knowledge. David says to Yahweh, “You know everything” (v. 4) Then he
lists all the things that God knows, including his future thoughts and words
before they even enter his mind.
v. 1 O YHWH, You have searched me and known me.
‫ְתּנִי וַתֵּדע׃‬
ַ ‫ֵח ִלָדוִד ִמזְמוֹר יְהוָה ֲח ַקר‬
ַ ‫ַל ְמנַצּ‬
κύριε ἐδοκίμασάς με και ̀ ἔγνως με
v. 2, You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You
understand my thoughts from afar.
 ‫ְתּ ִשׁבְתִּי וְקוּמִי ַבּנְתָּה ִל ֵרעִי ֵמרָחוֹק׃‬
ָ ‫אַתָּה יַָדע‬
σὺ ἔγνως τὴν καθέδραν μου και ̀ τὴν ἔγερσίν μου σὺ
συνῆκας τοὺς διαλογισμούς μου ἀπὸ μακρόθεν
v. 3, You scrutinize my path and my lying down.
‫ִס ַכּנְתָּה׃‬
ְ ‫אָרְחִי וְִר ְבעִי זֵרִי ָת וְכָל־ְדּ ָרכַי ה‬
τὴν τρίβον μου και ̀ τὴν σχοῖνόν μου σὺ ἐξιχνίασας και ̀
πάσας τὰς ὁδούς μου προεῖδες
v. 4, Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold,
O YHWH, You know everything.
‫כּי אֵין ִמלָּה ִבּלִשׁוֹנִי הֵן יְהוָה יַָד ְע ָתּ ֻבלָּהּ׃‬
ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν λόγος ἐν γλώσσῃ μου ἰδού κύριε σὺ ἔγνως
πάντα τὰ ἔσχατα
v. 5, You have enclosed me behind and before, and laid
Your hand upon me.
‫ָשׁת ָעלַי ַכּ ֶפּכָה׃‬
ֶ ‫ְתּנִי וַתּ‬
ָ ‫אחוֹר וֶָקדֶם ַצר‬
και ̀ τὰ ἀρχαῖα σὺ ἔπλασάς με και ̀ ἔθηκας ἐπʼ ἐμὲ τὴν
χεῖρά σου
v. 6, Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too
high, I cannot attain to it.
‫ִשׂגְּבָה לֹא־אוּכַל לָהּ׃‬
ְ ‫) ִפּ ְל ִאיָּה( ] ְפּלִיאָה[ ַדעַת ִמ ֶמּנִּי נ‬
ἐθαυμαστώθη ἡ γνῶσίς σου ἐξ ἐμοῦ ἐκραταιώθη οὐ μὴ
δύνωμαι πρὸς αὐτήν
The Psalmist uses every word and phrase in the Hebrew language to
indicate the infinite extent of God’s knowledge. The passage above is so
clear and distinct on the infinite extent of God’s knowledge that we have
never seen any attempt by those who limit God’s knowledge to explain it
away. They simply ignore it and proceed with their philosophic
speculations.
IS GOD’S UNDERSTANDING INFINITE?
Instead of sitting around and pooling our ignorance on the subject, what
has God revealed about this question in Scripture?
Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His
understanding is infinite (Psa. 147:5)
‫ֹח ִלתְבוִנָתוֹ אֵין ִמ ְספָּר׃‬
ַ ‫גָּדוֹל אֲדוֹנֵינוּ וְרֵב־כּ‬
μέγας ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν και ̀ μεγάλη ἡ ἰσχὺς αὐτοῦ και ̀ τῆς
συνέσεως αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀριθμός
In the context, God’s glory is revealed by His omniscience because,
He counts the number of the stars;
He calls them all by their names.
‫מוֹנֶה ִמ ְספָּר לַכּוֹ ָכבִים ִל ֻכלָּם ֵשׁמוֹת יְִקרָא׃‬
ὁ ἀριθμῶν πλήθη ἄστρων και ̀ πᾶσιν αὐτοῖς ὀνόματα
καλῶν
The universe may be vast and immeasurable to man, but it is only a
finite speck of dust to the Almighty. He knows its measurements because
He made it.
In v. 5, the Psalmist gives a poetic contrast between the finite universe
and the infinite nature of God. Yahweh is “great” (Heb. ‫ גּדוֹלּ‬Gk. μέγας) He
is a “mega” God, and not a finite deity like the heathen worship.
God is “great” for two reasons:
1. He is omnipotent in power because He is “abundant in strength.” His
power has no limits. There is nothing that is beyond the power of God to
accomplish.
2. He is omniscient in knowledge because, as Leupold correctly
translates the Hebrew phrase, “There is no limit to His understanding.”
The words in v. 5, ‫אֵין מ ְספָּר‬, mean that God’s “knowledge” or
“understanding” cannot be numerically quantified as the stars can. There
is no number which can represent God’s knowledge because it is infinite in
nature; hence, there is no limit to it or on it. The classic commentator
Delitzsch points out,
 To His understanding there is no number; i.e. in its depth
and fullness it cannot be defined by any number. What a
comfort for the church as it traverses its ways, that are
often so labyrinthine and entangled! Its Lord is the
Omniscient as well as the Almighty One.
In his commentary on the Psalms, Moll states,
He has assigned a number to the stars which men cannot
count (Gen. 15:5) This means that, in creating them, He
called forth a number determined by Himself. It is also
said that He calls them all by name; i.e. that He knows
and names them according to their special features, and
employs them in His service according to His will, in
conformity with the names which correspond to such
knowledge. The Omniscience and Omnipotence of God
are thus presented at once to the soul. The greatness of
God (v. 5) with respect to might (Job 37:23) corresponds
to the fullness of His understanding (Psa. 145:3), which
no number can express. The same Lord who, with
infinite power and unsearchable wisdom, rules the stars
in their courses, rules also the world of man.
The prophet Isaiah followed the Psalmist in using the same word
‫ לִתְבוּנָתוֹ‬for God “understands” when he declared,
Have you not known? Have you not heard? The
everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the
earth, fainteth not, neither is weary; there is no
searching out of his understanding. (Isa. 40:28)
The Septuagint is emphatic in its translation. It uses the word
φρονήσεως as the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew ‫ ִלתְבוּנָתוֹ‬. Thus the
translators were stressing that God’s way of thinking; i.e. how He knows
all things, is incomprehensible to man.
και ̀ νῦν οὐκ ἔγνως εἰ μὴ ἤκουσας θεὸς αἰώνιος ὁ θεὸς ὁ
κατασκευάσας τὰ ἄκρα τῆς γῆς οὐ πεινάσει οὐδὲ κοπιάσει
οὐδὲ ἔστιν ἐξεύρεσις τῆς φρονήσεως αὐτοῦ
 The Apostle John declared his understanding of the extent of God’s
knowledge in language that is hard to dismiss.
If our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts
and knows everything. (1 John 3:20)
ὅτι ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ ἡμῶν ἡ καρδία, ὅτι μείζων ἐστιν̀ ὁ
θεὸς τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν και ̀ γινώσκει πάντα.
In the context, John follows David in describing God as the “mega
God” because He is greater (μείζων) than us; i.e. He is omnipotent. Then
he adds that not only is God greater in power than we are, but He is also
greater in knowledge because He knows all things. There is nothing in the
context to indicate that we should limit “everything.”
The author of Hebrews is picturesque as well as transparent in his view
of the extent of God’s knowledge.
No creature can hide from him. Everything is naked and
helpless before the eyes of the one to whom we must
give an account. (Heb. 4:13)
και ̀ οὐκ ἔστιν κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, πάντα δὲ
γυμνὰ και ̀ τετραχηλισμένα τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ, πρὸς
ὅν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος.
The author of Hebrews speaks of God’s knowledge first in the negative
and then in the positive. He first says that there is nothing in the universe
that is closed to God’s sight. There is no creature great or small, not even
man, that escapes the omniscient eye of the Creator.
Second, “all things” are open to God’s sight. How else could God “work
all things together” for our good and His glory (Rom. 8:28)? How could
He be “working all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11) if He
did not know what was going to happen next? This passage is so
comprehensive and all-encompassing, that we cannot limit the Mind of
God in any sense. How then can some claim that the future is closed to His
sight?

AN OMNISCIENT MESSIAH
 The divine nature of the God/man at times revealed itself while He was
on earth. In the following places the divine attribute of omniscience was
applied to Him.
But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, because He
knew all things. (John 2:24)
αὐτὸς δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευεν αὐτόν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὸ
αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας
Note the use of the infinitive γινώσκειν. The divine nature of the
Messiah was at all times omniscient.
… and didn’t need anyone to tell him what people were
like. For he himself knew what was in every person.
(John 2:25)
και ̀ ὅτι οὐ χρείαν εἶχεν ἵνα τις μαρτυρήσῃ περι ̀ τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγίνωσκεν τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ.
We must remember that John is writing after Christ ascended to heaven.
The ascended Messiah knows the spiritual condition of the hearts of all
men because He is omniscient. In Rev. 2:23, the ascended Christ says,
I am the one who searches minds and hearts. I will
reward each one of you as your works deserve.
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἐραυνῶν νεφροὺς και ̀ καρδίας, και ̀ δώσω ὑμῖν
ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν.
Christ uses the same phraseology found in the Old Testament where it
describes the omniscience of Yahweh (Psa. 7:9; Jer. 11:20, 17:10)
Now we know that you know everything and do not need
to have anyone to ask you questions. Because of this, we
believe that you have come from God (John 16:30)
νῦν οἴδαμεν ὅτι οἶδας πάντα και ̀ οὐ χρείαν ἔχεις ἵνα τίς
σε ἐρωτᾷ· ἐν τούτῳ πιστεύομεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθες.
In the context, the disciples had come to realize that Jesus was not
simply a man with limited human knowledge like themselves, but He was
God as well as man and thus He was omniscient in His divine nature (John
20:28)
He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you
love me?” And Peter was deeply hurt that he had said to
him a third time, “Do you love me?” So he said to him,
“Lord, You know everything. You know that I love you!”
(John 21:17)
λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον, Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με;
ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον, Φιλεῖς με;
και ̀ λέγει αὐτῷ, Κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι
φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], Βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου.
Peter inverts the normal word order by putting the word πάντα (“all”)
first to emphasize that Christ knows ALL in an absolute sense. There is no
way in the context to escape the truth of Peter’s confession. Jesus the
Christ, the Son of the living God, Second Person of the Holy Trinity,
knows ALL things.

Specific Illustrations
GOD’S KNOWLEDGE OF HIMSELF
• His eternal plans for man and the universe: 2 Kings 19:25; Jer.
29:11–12; Acts 1:7.
• His future works are known to Him from eternity: Acts 15:18.
• Exhaustive knowledge of each member of the Trinity of the
other members of the Godhead: Mat. 11:27; John 7:29, 8:55,
17:25; 1 Cor. 2:10–11.
GOD’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPACE/TIME UNIVERSE
• All of history, the end from the beginning: Isa. 46:10.
• Extends to the ends of the earth: Job 28:24.
• Sees everything under the heavens: Job 28:24.
• All possible events in the future: Isa. 48:18–19; Ezk. 37:3; Mat.
11:21–23.
• When a sparrow falls to the ground: Mat. 10:29.
 • He speaks of future events as if they already happened: Rom.
4:17; 8:30.
• The number and names of the stars: Psa. 147:4.
• All creatures: Heb. 4:13.
• When He will judge the world: Mat. 8:29; Acts 17:31; Rev.
14:7, 15.
• He foresees the future: Gal. 3:8–9.
• He foreknows the future: Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:2, 18–
20.
GOD’S KNOWLEDGE OF MAN
• All men: 2 Sam. 7:20; Psa. 33:13; Jer. 15:15.
• The hearts of all men: 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39: Psa. 7:9; 17:2;
26:2; 139:2; Jer. 11:20; 12:3; 17:10; Lk. 16:15; John 2:24; 21:17;
Acts 1:24; Rom. 8:27; Rev. 2:23.
• When a man will be born and when he will die: Job 14:5: 21:21;
Psa. 31:15; Mat. 26:18, 45; Mk. 14:35, 41; John 2:4; 7:6, 8, 30;
8:30; 12:27; 13:1; Acts 17:26.
• Man’s ways: Job 23:10; 34:21.
• Man’s thoughts: Psa. 139:2; Ezk. 11:5; Heb. 4:12.
• Man’s meditations: Psa. 5:1.
• Man’s works: Job 34:25; Psa. 33:15; Matt. 16:27.
• Man’s sorrows: Gen. 29:32; 31:42; Exo. 3:7; 4:31; Psa. 25:18–
19; 31:7; 119:153.
• Every word man speaks: Jer. 17:16.
• A man’s future: Exo. 3:19–20; Jer. 18:22–23.
• How many hairs are on his head: Matt. 10:30.
• The folly of man: Psa. 69:5.
• The wrongs of man: Psa. 69:5.
• The wickedness of man: Gen. 6:5.
• Our future needs and prayers before we ask: Mat. 6:8.
• Every intent of the thoughts of man’s heart: Gen. 6:5; Heb. 4:12.
• The shame of man: Psa. 69:19.
• What man is made of: Psa. 103:14.
• Man’s actions: Psa. 139:2–4.
• All about a man before he is born: Jer. 1:5.
 What about the future acts of man, good and evil? Does God know the
future decisions and acts that we will do? The Scripture illustrates that
God knows the good and evil that we will do from all eternity and even
declares it in prophecy. The following is but a few samples of the hundreds
of passages in which God reveals what men will think, say and do in the
future:
• All the evil things that Joseph’s brothers, Potiphar’s wife and
others would do to him would place him where he could save his
family from starvation: Gen. 50:20.
• Pharaoh would not obey Moses: Exo. 7:3–5.
• Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre: Ezek. 26:1–14.
• Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Egypt: Ezk. 30:10.
• Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Judah: Jer. 25:9.
• Judah’s captivity would last seventy years: Jer. 25:11.
• Babylon would fall in seventy years: Jer. 25:12.
• Cyrus would rebuild Jerusalem: Isa. 44:28–45:1.
• Judas would betray Jesus: Psa. 41:9; Lk. 22:21–22; John 6:64;
13:18, 19, 21, 26, 27.
• Peter would deny Him three times: Mat. 26:34.
• The Jews, the Romans, Herod, and Pontius Pilate would murder
Jesus: Acts 4:27–28.

Summary
We have examined in some detail what the authors of Scripture said
about the nature and extent of God’s knowledge. We found them saying
what they would have to say in order to convey the idea that God’s
omniscience is absolute and unlimited by anything past, present or future.
Those who disagree have a great task set before them. If the authors of
Scripture believed that God did NOT know the past, present or future, how
would they express that idea to their readers? By what vocabulary? By
what illustrations? The heretics will have to come up with multiple, clear,
primary biblical passages that clearly state, “He does NOT know
everything” or, “I YHWH do NOT know.”
Let them follow the same procedure as we have followed and marshal
their exegetical evidence. They will have to produce primary passages in
which the knowledge of God is clearly in focus and that knowledge is
specifically limited. Let us now turn to those who deny the omniscience of
God.

PART IV
FALSE VIEWS
There are so many clear biblical passages on the perfection of God’s
knowledge that one wonders how anyone who had ever read the Bible
could come up with the ideas that God does not know everything, that His
knowledge is dependent upon something outside of Himself, that He is
learning new things every second or that His knowledge does not
effectually cause whatsoever comes to pass. Jonathan Edwards, the
greatest intellect that America ever produced, comments,
One would think it wholly needless to enter on such an
argument with any that profess themselves Christians: but so it
is; God’s certain Foreknowledge of the free acts of moral
agents, is denied by some that pretend to believe the Scriptures
to be the Word of God.
There are three clear tests of any view of the nature and extent of God’s
knowledge. Does this view strengthen or weaken the biblical and
evangelical doctrine of:
1. the verbal, plenary, inerrant, infallible inspiration of the Bible?
2. the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ on the cross?
3. Divine Providence over all things?
While there are many other test doctrines that could also be applied to
this subject, these three are sufficient to doom any heretical or deviant
view. Why? Any view of God which destroys His Word, casts doubt on
Christ’s atonement, and rebels against Divine Providence cannot be of
God, but comes from Satan.
All the false views listed below fail the three tests listed above. For
example, in the book, Battle of the Gods, you will find nearly 300 pages
refuting pagan finite godism, Process Theology and philosophy, neo-
processian views and “moral government” theology. Since each of the
false views listed below should receive a detailed refutation and this far
exceeds the limits of this book, we can only summarize in brief the chief
problems with each view. See the resource guide at the end of the syllabus
for further study.

The History of False Views

THE ANCIENT POLYTHEISTIC WORLD
The ancient pagans did not believe in one infinite/personal God who
was Maker of heaven and earth. Instead, they believed that the universe
was eternal, and that there were multiple gods and goddesses who were
finite; i.e. limited in nature, power and knowledge.
In this pagan worldview, the gods fought among themselves for
preeminence. There was no concept of the universe being ruled by one
sovereign, infinite God who filled heaven and earth. The chaos of the gods
allowed a certain view of man’s powers and abilities to develop.
The pagan worldview taught that man was autonomous in an absolute
sense. He was totally and absolutely “free” and even the gods could not
violate this freedom. The Greek philosophers were the first to articulate
the idea that man had a “free will” and that no one, not even a god, could
violate it. The Greek philosopher Epictetus wrote,
Not even Zeus himself can get the better of my free will.
Who can any longer restrain or compel me, contrary to
my own opinion? No more than Zeus.
In a contingent (i.e. chance-driven) universe in which no one was in
control, not even the gods, man was totally free to be or do whatever he
wanted. Man was even free to become a god if he so chose. Nothing was
beyond the ability of man.
The pagan philosophers claimed that man had to be “free” in order for
man to be responsible for his actions. If his choices and actions were in
any way the result of what other people or even the gods themselves
decided, then man was not really free.
The Greek philosophers demanded that man must be autonomous in
order for man to be responsible because they assumed that man was the
measure of all things including his responsibility. They understood the
word “responsibility” to mean response-ability.
 Man’s responsibility was thus limited by two things: ignorance and
inability.
a. If he did not know about something, then he could not be held
responsible for doing it.
b. If he did not have the power to do something, he could not be
held responsible for not doing it.
There was no concept in the pagan worldview that man’s responsibility
meant accountability to his Creator who would one day judge him. Thus
the pagan concept of man’s autonomous “free will” was possible only in
the context of that pagan polytheistic worldview.

ATHENS VERSUS JERUSALEM

When pagans first professed to be “Christians,” some of them retained
much of their pagan worldview. It was not long before they realized that
the biblical worldview did not have room for the pagan concept of man’s
absolute free will.
The choice they faced was whether they should abandon or modify the
biblical worldview to make room for the pagan concept of man’s freedom
or should they abandon the pagan concept of man and submit to revealed
truth?
The rest of church history is the story of those who tried to mix the oil
of the biblical worldview with the water of the pagan worldview and those
who saw that such an attempt was useless. In the end, just as the oil and
the water will separate, any attempt to marry Christ with Baal will fail.
The biblical authors did not buy into the pagan polytheistic worldview
or its doctrine of human autonomy. They taught that man was created by
God to bear His image. Therefore human responsibility meant that man
was accountable to God for whatever God told him to know, be or do. God
was the measure of man’s accountability. Man’s ignorance and inability
had no bearing on the issue.

WHAT ABOUT THE HEATHEN?

Natural “evangelical” theologians and philosophers such as Pinnock
and Sanders do not believe that the heathen will go to hell. They argue that
that if someone has never heard the gospel, he cannot believe. Thus his
ignorance and inability are valid excuses why God should not condemn
him to hell. We have given a full refutation to this view elsewhere and can
only summarize it here.
First, as to whether or not the heathen have an excuse, the Apostle Paul
in Romans 1:20 states that they are “without excuse.” In case he was not
understood, he repeated the dramatic words “without excuse” in Romans
2:1.
Humanistic theologians and philosophers will present all kinds of
excuses why the heathen should not be thrown into hell. When we point
them to clear Scripture that says that they are “without excuse,” they
usually respond, “But … they do have good excuses.” It does not seem to
dawn on them that they have directly contradicted the Word of God.
Second, they are operating on a false definition of human responsibility.
They are assuming the pagan worldview in which man is the measure of
all things including his responsibility.
To the extent that man knows and is capable, to that extent he is
responsible. But the biblical worldview teaches that man is responsible in
the sense that he is accountable to an Authority and Power higher than
himself.
For all of us must appear before the judgment-seat of
Christ, so that each one may give an account of the
things done in the body, according to what he has done,
whether it be good or evil. (2 Cor. 5:10)
τοὺς γὰρ πάντας ἡμᾶς φανερωθῆναι δεῖ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ
βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ
τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε
φαῦλον.
No creature can hide from him. Everything is naked and
helpless before the eyes of the one to whom we must give
an account. (Heb. 4:13)
και ̀ οὐκ ἔστιν κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, πάντα δὲ
γυμνὰ και ̀ τετραχηλισμένα τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ, πρὸς
ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος.
One way to spot a humanistic thinker is to ask, “Is human responsibility
defined in terms of man’s ability and knowledge or is it defined in terms
of one’s accountability to his Creator?” When someone says that man’s
ability and knowledge limit his responsibility, you are talking with a
humanist.
If he or she says that man’s responsibility is defined by accountability
to God, you are dealing with a biblical theist. On the Day of Judgment,
man will not be seated on the throne judging God but God will judge every
thought, word and deed of man.

IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE
In the biblical worldview, man fell into ignorance through sin at the
Fall of Adam. Thus ignorance of one’s duty to God and man is no excuse
before God. This is why in Lev. 4 and Num. 15, if you sinned in ignorance,
it was still viewed as a sin by God and you still had to offer a sacrifice to
atone for that sin. Indeed, Christ will return one day,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not
know God. (2 Thess. 1:8)
ἐν πυρι ̀ φλογός, διδόντος ἐκδίκησιν τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσιν θεὸν
On the Day of Judgment, people will be held accountable to God for
what they did not know and for what they did know but disobeyed. They
are sometimes called sins of omission and sins of commission. This is
why the heathen go to hell even though they did not know the gospel.
Their ignorance does not negate their accountability to God (Psa. 9:17)
Paul put it this way,
For all who have sinned apart from the Law will also
perish apart from the Law: and all who have sinned
under the Law will be judged by the Law. (Rom. 2:12)
ὅσοι γὰρ ἀνόμως ἥμαρτον, ἀνόμως και ̀ ἀπολοῦνται, και ̀
ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον, διὰ νόμου κριθήσονται·
It does not matter if you had or did not have the teaching of the law of
God, if you sin, you will perish. Those who sinned without having a Bible
will perish as certainly as those who had a Bible and failed to obey it.

INABILITY IS NO EXCUSE
 In the biblical worldview, man fell into spiritual inability through sin at
the Fall of Adam. Although man is now a sinner, he still has the
responsibility to be as holy and perfect as God (Matt. 5:48; 1 Pet. 1:16) In
the following texts, notice the vocabulary of inability used by the authors
of Scripture:
No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me
draws him. (John 6:44)
So he said, “This is why I told you that no man can come
to me unless it be granted him by the Father. (John 6:65)
That’s why the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile
toward God. It refuses to submit to the authority of
God’s Law because it is powerless to do so. (Rom. 8:7)
Those who are under the control of the flesh can’t please
God. (Rom. 8:8)
A person who isn’t spiritual doesn’t accept the things of
God’s Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can’t
understand them because they are spiritually evaluated.
(1 Cor. 2:14)
No man can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy
Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:3)
Just because you are not free to come to Christ, submit to God’s Law,
confess Christ as Lord or live a perfect and sinless life because your will is
powerless, does not mean that you will not be held accountable to God. It
is because of sin that you are not able to do these things.

BIBLICAL HISTORY
Lastly, if we go through biblical history and look to see if ignorance or
inability ever let anyone “off the hook” before God, we find that this never
happened.
Were there ignorant people at the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom
and Gomorrah, the conquest of Canaan, the Exodus and the Exiles? Yes.
Did their ignorance or inability qualify them to escape the judgment of
God? No. Did not Jesus say that the Judgment Day will be like those
events? Yes. “As it was in the days of … so shall it be.…” Then ignorance
and inability are not valid excuses before God.
When a humanist responds, “But my god would not condemn ignorant
people,” respond back to them, “You are right! Your god would not do that.
But this is the real problem. You have created a false god in your own
image. Since you would not condemn the heathen, neither can your god.
You are assuming that man is the measure of all things, including God.”

THE CLASH OF WORLDVIEWS

Francis Schaeffer used the following illustration to point out that there
is room in the biblical worldview for only one absolute free will. Imagine
that you were shipwrecked on a deserted island. Since no other person was
on the island, you had absolute freedom to do what you wanted because
there was no one to interfere with that freedom. You did not need to wear
clothes if you did not want to. You picked any fruit you wanted. You went
where you wanted. But one day, another person was shipwrecked on the
island. All of a sudden, you were no longer absolutely free to do as you
please. What if he wanted to eat the same fruit that you wanted? What if
he wanted you to pick it for him? What if he wanted you to wear clothing?
In the end, only one of you can be free.
In the same way, in the biblical worldview, God is the only One with
absolute free will.
But our God is enthroned in the heavens: He does
whatever He pleases. (Psa. 115:3)
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as
nothing; and He does according to his will in the army of
heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none
can stay his hand, or say unto him, “What doest thou?”
(Dan. 4:35)

DO YOU BELIEVE IN FREE WILL?

A “Christian” humanist once asked me, “Do you believe in free will?” I
replied, “Yes. God has an absolute free will to do with you and me as it
pleases Him.”
 The humanist was obviously surprised by my answer. He replied, “I
don’t mean God’s free will, I mean man’s free will.” I then asked,
“Shouldn’t we first begin with God and then proceed to man? Where does
the Bible begin?” “Oh,” said the humanist, “I see your trick. If we begin
with God, then He will end up with an absolute free will and man is
limited. Well, I refuse to begin with God because man must not be limited
—not even by God.” “This,” I said, “is the real issue. As a biblical theist, I
begin where the Bible begins, “In the beginning God” and as a humanist,
you begin where pagan philosophy begins: “In the beginning man.”

AN IRRECCONCILIBLE CONFLICT
Many pagan philosophers, such as Jean Paul Sarte, saw the issues
clearly:
If the biblical worldview is true, then God is the only
One with an absolute free will and man is limited by
God. If the pagan worldview is true, then man is the only
one with an absolute free will and God or the gods are
limited by man. It is impossible to reconcile the pagan
worldview with the biblical worldview.
In the Bible, God is eternal, infinite and unlimited. The
universe was created by God and is limited by Him. In
the pagan worldview, the universe is eternal and the gods
are finite and thus limited by the universe. Man is
unlimited and totally free—even from the gods.
Monotheism and polytheism cannot be reconciled.
Neither can the concepts of man which developed out of
them. I must choose between the two. It is either one or
the other. There is no middle ground.
If I choose the pagan worldview of human autonomy in
which I am absolutely free, then I must deny that the
God of the biblical worldview exists. If He exists, I am
limited. If He does not exist, then I am free. If I choose
the biblical worldview, then I must submit to the
Lordship of Christ over all of life.
 While this train of thought is understood by many secular philosophers,
some “Christian” natural philosophers and theologians have tried in vain
to reconcile the pagan worldview with the biblical worldview. But their
attempts have always failed because they always begin as their
fundamental starting point with the pagan idea that man has to be totally
free and unlimited in the classic Greek philosophic sense of absolute
human autonomy. They never begin with God or His revelation. But if you
begin with man, you will never end with God.

FAILED ATTEMPTS AT SYNERGISM

Throughout church history there have been people who tried to blend
together in some kind of synergistic system the pagan worldview of
autonomous man with the biblical world view of a Sovereign God. They
have always ended in failure because Christ and Satan will never walk
together hand in hand. In the end, there can be only one.
Stop becoming unevenly yoked with unbelievers. What
partnership can righteousness have with lawlessness?
What fellowship can light have with darkness? What
harmony exists between Christ with Belial, or what do a
believer and an unbeliever have in common? What
agreement can a temple of God make with idols? (2 Cor.
6:14–16)
No one will be able to reconcile two radically different worldviews
because we cannot serve two Masters. We will always end up hating one of
them and serving the other. Either we choose the sovereign God of the
Bible or the autonomous man of pagan philosophy.

GNOSTICS, MANICHAEANS, MARCIONITES, AND VALENTIANS

The heresies which plagued the early Church such as Gnosticism,
Manichaeanism, Marcionism and Valentianism all taught that God had to
be limited in knowledge and power in order for man to be absolutely free.
God could not know the future as this would limit man’s freedom. The
early Christian creeds where explicitly written to exclude from the Church
those who limited God’s knowledge or power.
THE RENAISSANCE
The “Age of Reason” has incorrectly been contrasted to the “Age of
Faith.” The battle has never been between reason and faith per se but
between human reason and Divine revelation. It takes a great deal of faith
to believe that man is totally free. It also takes faith to bow before
Scripture. Thus the issue is not faith, but the Object of our faith: either
God or man.

THE SOCINIANS AND UNITARIANS

The Socinians not only denied the Trinity and the inspiration of the
Bible, they also denied that God knew the future and that God’s
foreknowledge guaranteed that future events would necessarily happen
according to God’s decrees.
From the Socinians came the Unitarians who claimed that God did not
choose to know all of the future. He chose not to know the future free acts
of man.

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, MORMONS, AND OTHER CULTS

The idea that God does not choose to know the future free acts of man
was picked up by such Arian cults as the Watchtower, and also by
polytheistic cults like the LDS Mormons.
The main problem with this argument is that not only is it absolutely
unbiblical, but also plainly idiotic. In order for God to choose what future
events He wants to know and what future events He does not want to know,
He has to first know them all.
If A through Z is going to happen in the future, in order for God to
select b, g, I, r, s and t as things He does not want to know, He first has to
know them. Otherwise, His knowledge becomes a haphazard, chance-
driven, cosmic crap game, and Lady Luck is really the Supreme God. To
think that God’s knowledge is decided by the roll of the dice would not
inspire us to worship God!

PROCESSIANISM
Alfred North Whitehead was one of the most vicious heretics and anti-
Christs of the 20th century. He claimed that the God of the Bible was the
devil and that Christianity with its concept of sin was one of the worst
things that ever happened to humanity and that Jesus was not very
intelligent. When asked if he read the Bible, he responded that he
preferred reading Plato.
He taught that God was the soul of the world and the world was God’s
body. The two were in an eternal bi-polar relationship. You can’t have one
without the other. God could not know the future because it was open to
unlimited possibilities. God was evolving, and in the end the heavens and
the earth would beget God.
With such sheer blasphemy and anti-Christian bigotry, one would not
expect anyone to call him a “Christian” theologian and philosopher. But
Natural Christian philosophers and theologians refer to him as a
“Christian” thinker whose “insights” are valuable.
If you think that we are too severe in our condemnation of Whitehead
and the processianism that he invented, Ronald Nash had this to say,
To its critics, Process Theology is the most dangerous
heresy presently threatening the Christian Faith. Process
theology does not eliminate pagan ideas from the faith,
its critics argue. Rather, Process thought is a total
capitulation to paganism. Here there is no middle ground
… A being who is not essentially omnipotent or
omniscient, who is not the sovereign and independent
Creator, is neither worthy to receive our worship nor to
bear the title “God.”
Some of Whitehead’s followers included Charles Hartshorne, Schubert
Ogden, David Griffin, Norman Pittenger, H. P. Owen, John Cobb, Jr.,
Nelson Pike, L. McCabe, and Lewis Ford. They have attacked Christianity
and the Bible with great vigor. No wonder Bruce Demarest concluded,
A former student of Whitehead reported that the master
once commented that Christian orthodoxy could not be
reconciled with his philosophy. Moreover, Brown,
James, and Reeves acknowledge that Process Theology
bears affinities with Theravada Buddhism, the thought of
Heraclitus, the Unitarian Socinus, and the idealist
philosophies of Hegel, Schelling, and T. de Chardin. By
its own admission, then, Process Theology represents a
 departure from a theology that broadly could be called
biblical and historic Christianity.

NEO-PROCESSIANISM IN NEO-EVANGELICAL CIRCLES

In neo-evangelical circles, one finds the heretical theories of Whitehead
taught by such people as Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, Gregory Boyd,
Stephen Davis, Bruce Reichenbach, Gordon Olson, H. Roy Elseth, George
Otis, Jr., and many others.
Neo-processians are absolutely dogmatic that their god cannot know
the future. But while their god does not know or ordain the future, they
think that they and others can know the future!
Richard Rice is a Seventh Day Adventist and was faced with the rude
reality that while he could deny that God knew the future and still keep his
job at an SDA university, if he dared to deny that Ellen G. White knew the
future, he would soon be collecting unemployment checks. Thus in the
first edition of his book, he argued that while God did not know the future,
Ellen G. White did! Need we say more?

CHRIST DID NOT DIE FOR YOU OR YOUR SINS

What are the implications of process thought? If God does not know the
future, did He know that Christ would die? Elseth, Rice and others say,
“No. God did not know that Jesus would die on the cross.”
Does Jesus know the future? “No, he does not know the future.” If God
and Jesus do not know the future, particularly the free acts of man such as
his sins, then did Jesus know of you and die for your sins when He hung on
the tree? “No. God and Jesus did not know of you or your sins because
they were in the future.”
We have engaged in arguments with processians who deny that Jesus
knew of or died for our sins. Yet, they are still running around in
“evangelical” circles claiming to be fellow Christians.
Although it is not politically correct today to question people’s
profession of faith, anyone who denied that Jesus knew us and died for our
sins on the cross has denied the biblical Gospel and is under the anathema
of God (1 Cor. 15:3–4; Gal. 1:8).

DRIFTING INTO MORMON THEOLOGY

 It is interesting to note that when the Mormons responded to
Beckwith’s book, The Mormon Concept of God, they were delighted that
he had abandoned the historic orthodox view of omniscience and was
moving over to their way of thinking. They then applauded Clark Pinnock
for adopting the Mormon doctrine of the Openness of God! Thus, when we
complain that Middle Knowledge and Process Theology are doctrines
found in the cults and in the occult, we have good reason to say this.
My old friend, Dr. Carl F. Henry, in a powerful chapter entitled, “The
Stunted God of Process Theology,” sums up why Biblical theists are so
hard on Process Theology.
Orthodox Christians, both Protestant and Catholic,
deplore the way in which process thinkers reject the
supernatural, spurn the objective reality of the Trinity,
disavow the miraculous, and repudiate a Word of God
mediated solely through Christ. They object to the
elimination by most process theologians of Christ as the
mediator through whom alone God speaks His word.
Process theologians also assail the traditional instance
on divine decrees and election, on creation ex nihilo, on
miraculous redemption and on biblical eschatology. In
place of divine decree and foreordination, process
thinkers stress divine persuasion; they subordinate
history and eschatological finalities broadly to the
endless love of God. So great is the gulf between the two
systems of theology that both can hardly lay claim to the
title “Christian.”

THE COUNTER-REFORMATION
The Pope did not sit idly by while half of Europe walked out of his
church and into the freedom of the gospel. He launched a counter-
Reformation movement whose goal was to recapture nations and
individuals who had become Protestants. The Society of Jesus (or the
Jesuits) was given the task of retaking countries that had been won over by
the preaching of the Reformers. They used two methods to overcome
Protestantism.
 First, they kidnapped, raped, sodomized, tortured, murdered and made
war on Protestants to force them to return to popery. The Jesuits, during
the Thirty Years War and in the Inquisition, slaughtered several million
Protestants. (See Foxe’s Book of Martyrs for the details.)
Second, they invented doctrines that would undercut the four
foundational truths of the Reformation: salvation is by grace alone,
through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone.

The Origin of Molinism

According to all the standard reference works, a Jesuit priest named
Luis de Molina invented the idea that God’s decisions (i.e. decrees) in
eternity are in response to what He foresees us initiating in the future. In
this way, Molina could undercut the Reformation doctrines of the absolute
necessity and efficacy of God’s grace. It is interesting to note that his book
on the subject was dedicated to the Inquisition of Portugal, where the
Jesuits murdered many people.
Does God reward us with the decree of salvation on the basis of what
He foresaw we would do by our own power? Thus, He decreed to save us
because He foresaw that we would repent and believe? Is God’s grace
given in response to what we will do before (and thus without) His grace?
Does He love us because He foresaw that we would first love Him? Does
He choose us because He foresaw that we would first choose Him?
Molina’s end result is that God’s decree to save us is a reward for what
God foresaw we would do by our own power.
Many Catholic theologians were horrified by what Molina invented and
labeled it as nothing more than a modern twist on the old Pelagian heresy.
They almost succeeded in getting one Pope to condemn it as heresy.
Opposition to Molinism died down once it was seen that it deceived
ignorant Protestants quite easily. Jesuit universities in Protestant countries
made a point of indoctrinating Molinism into those Protestants who
foolishly chose to be educated by them.
As these Jesuit-trained Protestants rose to prominence in Evangelical
circles, they in turn introduced the Jesuit doctrine of Molinism in
Protestant circles. But knowing that the average Protestant was suspicious
of anything coming from the bloodthirsty Jesuits who had murdered their
forefathers, it was decided to rename the doctrine “Middle Knowledge”
instead of “Molinism” in an attempt to hide its Jesuit origins. But a rose
by any other name still smells the same.
A few Protestant supporters of Molinism such as William Lane Craig
have admitted the Jesuit origin of the doctrine and even warned that
Molina had defective views of grace. His honesty and openness on such
issues is commendable. But the vast majority of those who teach it either
ignorantly or deceptively hide its historical origins.

HOW TO UNDERCUT THE GOSPEL

Molina saw that the best way to undercut the gospel of grace alone was
to deny that we are spiritually incapable of pleasing God. Instead, he put
forth the old Greek humanist idea that man is totally and absolutely free
from the effects of Adam’s Fall into sin and guilt. Man’s “free will” is thus
not in bondage to sin, and the freedom of the will remains unimpaired.
Molina emphasized the unrestrained freedom of the will.
We once again are confronted with an a priori commitment to a pagan
worldview in which man is autonomous. We searched in vain for any
substantial exegetical evidence put forth by Molina to prove that man is
autonomous. He merely assumes that this is true and proceeds from there.

THE FATAL ERROR

This is the fatal error with all those who follow Molina. Such
“Christian” humanistic philosophers as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane
Craig,230 and those who follow them, naively assume the pagan doctrine
of human autonomy as their starting point. They assume that if God
predetermines the future, then man is not responsible.

A WORD OF CLARIFICATION
We must stop for a moment and emphasize that when we point out that
some philosopher or theologian within “Evangelical” circles is a
humanistic thinker and is teaching a pagan worldview, this does not mean
that we are judging his heart. A philosopher or theologian can be a good
father or mother, kiss babies, pet dogs, etc., but be a pagan in his
worldview at the same time. Just because someone professes that he is
“saved” does not mean he is on his way to heaven. The Apostle of Love
questioned the profession of faith of many people in his day (1 John 2:4)
Being “saved” is no guarantee that you do not have pagan ideas floating
around in your head. We are using Scripture to judge if a man’s philosophy
or theology is humanistic. We have no interest in judging people’s hearts.
God will do that on the Day of Judgment (1 Cor. 4:1–5)

PROBLEMS WITH MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE

The problems with the doctrine of “Middle Knowledge” are so
profound and extensive that any committed Christian who loves the Lord
and obeys Scripture can have nothing to do with it.

NOT A BIBLICAL OR APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE

The first problem that the supporters of Middle Knowledge face is that
it is not a part of apostolic and historic Christianity. In Jude 3, we are told:
… to continue your vigorous defense of the faith that
was passed down to the saints once and for all.
ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ
παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει.
Biblical theologians have always believed and taught that if a doctrine
is new, then it is not true. If it is true, then it will not be new. The
Reformers spent a great deal of time and energy tracing their doctrines in
church history all the way back to the first century. Why did they do this?
They had two reasons that weighed heavily on their mind.
First, from Jude 3, it is obvious that “the Faith;” i.e. the body of
doctrines that constitutes biblical Christianity, was delivered once and for
all of time in the first century in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles
(Eph. 2:20; 3:4–5) The Christian Church is to defend the doctrines given
by the Apostles (Acts 2:42) If the Apostles did not teach a doctrine, it does
not constitute a part of “the Faith.”
Second, Jude used the aorist tense when he used the word παραδοθείσῃ
(delivered) to emphasize the finality of the Faith. When it comes to
doctrine or morals, there will be no “new” revelations after the New
Testament. The principle of Sola Scriptura means that what we believe and
how we live are to be determined by Scripture alone.
This understanding works well when we deal with the Book of
Mormon, the Divine Principle or the visions of Ellen White. They cannot
be accepted because they teach new doctrines that were not a part of
biblical and historic Christianity.
It is a wonder to us that some of those involved in the Middle
Knowledge doctrine will refute Mormonism by pointing out the recent
origins of Smith’s doctrine and then turn around and say that the fact that
the doctrine of Middle Knowledge is of recent origin has no bearing on the
issue! Hypocrisy has no limits!
What should we do with doctrines such as Middle Knowledge that have
appeared only in recent church history? All the Protestant and Roman
Catholic reference works that deal with the history and origin of the
doctrine of Middle Knowledge confirm that it was invented by a Jesuit
priest named Luis de Molina as part of the counter-Reformation, as
discussed earlier.

IN PRINCIPLE NOT IN SCRIPTURE

Since Molinism (or Middle Knowledge) is clearly of recent origin, it is
not a part of “the Faith once for all delivered to the saints.” Thus it cannot
in principle be found in Scripture because the authors of the Bible died
many centuries before Molina invented the doctrine.
How then can some of those who teach the false doctrine of Molinism
claim to find it in the Bible? By reading it back into biblical texts and
thereby committing the hermenutical fallacy of eisegesis.
Most of those who teach this Jesuit doctrine will usually give “rational”
arguments instead of any hard exegesis. Being humanists in their thinking,
they assume that whatever they can come up with by “thinking” about it,
has to be true. They will talk endlessly about someone doing this or that in
the future. There is no need to bring a Bible to their lectures. Frank
Beckwith provides a good example of this procedure.

FRANK BECKWITH’S PROOFS FOR MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE

In his discussion of the Omniscience of God in his book, The Mormon
Concept of God, how does Beckwith prove that the Jesuit doctrine of
Middle Knowledge is true?
First, he uses two illustrations: Pat mowing the lawn on Tuesday and
Jim marrying Kim. That’s it! Does he bring up a single verse of Scripture?
No. Why not? As all humanistic thinkers, he assumes that he is
autonomous. Thus he can come up with the truth without special revelation
from God. He assumes that if he can think of this or that hypothetical
situation, which seems to his mind to prove Middle Knowledge, then it is
automatically true. His eventual conversion to Roman Catholicism is not a
surprise.
What Beckwith and other Molinists fail to understand is that although
stories and illustrations may clarify a doctrine, they can never establish its
truthfulness. They are great at spinning stories and illustrations by the
dozens. But until they come up with solid exegetical evidence for their
position, we are not interested. Speculative theology has always ended in
heresy.
Second, while Beckwith never quoted from Scripture, he did quote the
“guru of Evangelical Middle Knowledge,” Dr. William Lane Craig. But
Craig’s citation does not contain any Scripture either. But that does not
bother Beckwith or many others because, to some of them, Craig’s words
are just as authoritative as Scripture.
Since Molinism was specially invented by the Jesuits to convert
Protestants, it is interesting to note that Beckwith and several other
Molinists have converted to Roman Catholicism! Their apostasy is tacit
proof that our criticism of Molinism is not only accurate, but prophetic.

QUESTIONS FOR MOLINISTS

1. Are God’s decisions or decrees in eternity determined by what He
sees will happen in the future?
2. Thus, is God’s foreknowledge prior to and hence the origin of
God’s decrees?
3. Or, is what will happen in the future determined by what God
decided or decreed in eternity?
4. Thus, are God’s decrees prior to His foreknowledge; i.e. is what
He foresees what He has decreed shall happen?
5. Did God decree to create the universe because He first saw that it
would be created?
6. Or was the universe created because God decreed it?
7. Which came first, the decree to create or the divine
foreknowledge of creation?
8. Did the future universe limit God’s knowledge?
9. Is God’s knowledge dependent or independent of the future
universe?
10. Is His knowledge derived or deduced?
11. Is time the same for God as it is for us?
12. Does God “look into the future” like a man looking through a
telescope?
13. Does God really have “foreknowledge” or is that word
anthropomorphic?
14. Does God control the future or does the future control God?
15. Is the past, present and future the same for God as it is for man?
16. Is God’s will determined by what man will do?
17. Or does God’s will determine what man will do?
18. Is God free?
19. What kind of freedom does He have?
20. Is He free to sin, to lie, to fail, etc.?
21. Is God’s will limited by His nature, thus He cannot sin?
22. Can man interfere with God’s free will?
23. Does man’s “free will” triumph over God’s free will?
24. Or shall God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven?
25. Is it “My will be done” or “Thy will be done?”
26. In the finite universe God created for His glory, how many
ultimate free wills can there be?
27. Does man have a “free will?”
28. Does the Bible ever discuss the subject of man’s free will?
29. Can you give even one passage where this is done?
30. Is man free to be perfect and sinless?
31. Can you choose to be sinless today?
32. If not, why not?
33. Is man free to be omnipotent and omniscient?
34. Can God ever interfere with man’s free will?
35. Does the decree of inspiration follow foreknowledge; i.e. did
God will to inspire the book of Romans (or any other Scripture)
because He first saw Paul writing it?
36. Did the authors of the Bible write their books because God
willed it or did He will it because He saw them writing them?
37. Is man’s free will perfect and infallible?
38. Or is it imperfect and fallible?
39. If man’s free will is imperfect and fallible, then how can the
Bible be perfect and infallible?
40. If God cannot interfere with man’s free will, what prevented Paul
or any other author of the Bible from putting mistaken ideas and
contradictory information in it?
41. Did God violate the free wills of the authors of Scripture and
allow them to write only what He wanted them to write?
42. Did God will that Christ would die because He first saw that He
would die?
43. Or did Christ die because God willed it?
44. Was the betrayal and execution of Christ necessary?
45. Did all the events and choices of the men involved in the
atonement have to happen the way they happened?
46. Could Judas have decided at the last moment not to betray Jesus
and thus abort the atonement?
47. Were Herod or Pilate free to let Jesus go and derail the
atonement?
48. What prevented the soldiers from breaking the bones of Christ?
49. Were the death of Christ and all the choices and acts of the men
that made it transpire part of God’s eternal predetermined plan for
history?
50. Did they do what they did because God planned it?
51. Was the death of Christ a fluke or an accident that was not in
God’s plans?
52. Was the atonement something God decided to do in order to
make something good come out of the death of Christ, which He
foresaw would happen but did not ordain to happen?
53. Was Peter certainly going to deny the Lord three times or was it
possible for him not to do it even though Christ predicted it?
54. Has God fixed, appointed, predestined or ordained the times and
seasons?
55. In prophecy, is God telling us what He definitely knows will
happen in the future?
 56. Or, is there an element of chance or luck concerning the future
that means that it does not necessarily have to come true?
57. Does God love us because He first saw us loving Him?
58. Does God choose us because He first saw us choosing Him?
59. Did God will to give us grace because He first saw us repenting
and believing?
60. Which is right?
Biblical View Molinistic View

As many as were ordained to As many as believed were

eternal life believed. ordained to eternal life.

You did not choose Me but I I chose you because you first
chose you. chose Me.

If the Lord wills, we will go to a If we go to a city and make a

city and make a profit. profit, then the Lord wills it.

I will come to Rome, if God wills If I go to Rome, then God wills it.
it.

Man proposes but God disposes. God proposes but man disposes.

God works in man the willing and Man works in God the willing
the doing and the doing.

God’s will determines the casting The casting of the lots determines
of the lots. God’s will.

61. Where in the Bible is human autonomy clearly taught?

62. Is the “freedom” spoken of in Scripture a moral work of Christ
in which He sets us free from the penalty, power and presence of sin?
63. Where in the Bible is the absolute freedom of human autonomy
discussed or taught?
64. Is salvation a reward for what God sees we will do in the future?
 65. Is damnation a punishment for what God sees we will do in the
future?
66. Does man have “natural powers” to repent and believe?
67. After the Fall, was man’s will affected by sin? In what ways?
68. Can we please God by our own natural powers?
69. Can the saints in heaven sin?
70. If not, are they free?
71. In the eternal state, is there a chance that someone will sin and
start the whole mess over again?
72. Should we begin with God or man in our worldview?
73. In your worldview, is it possible for Christ to die all over again?
74. Do you believe that the future is open to chance and luck?
75. Does the future hold infinite possibilities?
76. Was the time/space universe created as one?
77. Can we separate time from space?
78. Do you believe that time is eternal but space created?
79. If time is eternal, is God eternally “in” time or is time eternally
“in” God?
80. Is God therefore dependent upon time for His existence?
81. If God is dependent upon time for His existence, is time the true
GOD above God?
82. What about the heathen?
83. Are there any valid excuses the heathen can give God as to why
He cannot throw them into hell?

CONCLUSION
In this brief study of the nature and extent of God’s knowledge, we have
demonstrated that the historic Christian view is in line with the clear
teaching of Scripture.
God knows all things, including the future. His foreknowledge is
certain and infallible because it flows from His eternal decrees. The Bible
describes the wicked as the only ones who deny or limit God’s knowledge.
Today, it is necessary to warn God’s people that false teachers have
arisen who will deny “the faith once for all of time delivered to the
saints.” But we must follow the Apostle Paul who said,
Let God be true even if this makes everyone a liar. (Rom. 3:4)
μὴ γένοιτο· γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης.
 Chapter Eight
Biblical Anthropology
Humanism and the Death of Anthropology

The second issue that natural theologians assure us is something that

only human reason can explore and explain is the origin and nature of
man. The Bible was written a time long ago and is of little use in
developing the discipline of anthropology. But, this is not true at all. As we
shall see, the Bible not only reveals final answers about God, but it also
reveals final answers about man.

The Day “Essence” Died, Humanistic Views of Man Died

The greatest mega-shift in Western philosophy was the collapse of
essentialism and the triumph of existentialism. “Essentialism” or
“ontology” was the long-held Western belief in and search for the
“essence” or “nature” of the “being” of reality as a whole or the objects
around you. Once you discovered the “essence” or “nature” of the “being”
of something, then you understood its “meaning.”
The Greek philosophers fought over how and where to find the
“essence” or “nature” of “being” and whether the external form of
something indicated its true essence/nature/being. Plato pointed “up” to
the World of Ideas and claimed that the essence or meaning of something
was “up there” somewhere and could be retrieved by rationalism. Aristotle
pointed to the object and said that its meaning is not “up there” but “in
there,” i.e. in the object. He postulated that we need to “grasp” its
meaning/essence/nature “inside” of it empirically.
Subsequent Western philosophers believed that, instead of the meaning
or nature of things being “up there” or “in there,” meaning was in the mind
of man and in the object at the same time. We are born with “innate” ideas
in the brain and when they come into contact with the inner essence or
nature of something, they connect and knowledge happens. Thus meaning
is “in here” and “in there” at the same time.
As time went by, it became obvious to everyone that there was no
agreement as to what ideas were innate or even how to define the words
“innate” and “ideas.” Thus the “essence” or “nature” of things still
remained out of reach.

The End of the Road

Modern Philosophers concluded that meaning, essence, nature, and
being were only in the mind of man, i.e. “in here.” Things in and of
themselves did not have any meaning, essence, nature or being. We impose
or project our own meaning upon the world around us. Kant was the
greatest of the German philosophers who abandoned any idea of meaning
being “out there” somewhere. Meaning was produced by the categories of
the mind.
It wasn’t long before Western philosophers realized that if meaning,
essence, nature, and being were only in the mind of man, and there was no
agreement as to how they got there or how to define any of the key terms,
the whole thing was stupid and a waste of time. No one was able to
discover the meaning, essence, nature or being of reality as a whole or in
the object themselves.
The humanist attempts to find meaning, essence, nature or being “out
there” objectively in “Nature” or subjectively “in the mind” collapsed.
Secular philosophers concluded that those old Greek ideas did not exist
except as figments of the mind. And, even if they did exist, no one knew
how to define or find them. Thus the knowledge of them is impossible.
And, if no one can know them, why waste time talking about them?

The Mystery of Substance

The word “substance” is a good example of this failure of definition.
What is the “substance” of something? Is it accessible to us? Can we pick
some up and look at it? How do we gain knowledge of it? What is the
“substance” of substance? No one knows. In the end, Western humanism
could not define what it is or how to know it. Thus the word “substance”
lost all meaning, and remains only as a psychological term used to
manipulate people emotionally.
 Essentialism collapsed and Existentialism was born. It taught that all
we can know is what exists in front of us for the moment. What is, is. That
is all we can say. There is no “higher” or “inner” meaning or “essence” to
things. There is no “substance” behind or beneath things that reveal to us
their true “meaning.” Humanism’s attempt to find meaning in life was just
as futile as attempting to jump over your own shadow. What you see—is
what you get.

So What?
What does this have to do with anthropology? Modern philosophy no
longer believes that we should try to discover the “essence” or “nature” of
the “substance” of “mankind”. What makes man man is no longer a
politically correct question. There is no such thing as a permanent,
continuing “human nature” that makes man distinct from other life forms
on the planet. Man qua man is a pipe dream. The day Essentialism died,
anthropology died with it. When God died, man died.

The Myth of Human Nature

Natural Law philosophers tell us that there is a “substance” out there
called “human nature” that is the “seat” of “reason” and the “place” where
natural laws exist and can be discovered. They have been so successful in
indoctrinating Western people with the idea that they have a “human
nature,” that, whenever anyone questions the validity of it, panic and anger
ensues. Maybe you think you have a “human nature.” Since I never found
one lying around somewhere, I don’t have one myself.
Most Western humanists still teach that “human nature” is some
“thing” that each “normal,” “rational” or “civilized” man and woman
supposedly possesses. How, when, where, why, and, from what or whom,
they got “it,” is not agreed upon. But, “it” contains mystical and magical
intrinsic “faculties” or innate “powers” that were given to them before or
after conception. No one knows where they came from. Who or what gave
them these faculties or powers has never been agreed upon. It is “just
there.”

Women, Children and Slaves

 For thousands of years, Natural Law taught that women, children,
slaves and the “barbarian” races did not have a “human nature.” Their
“inner nature” was animal, sub-human. More on that issue later.

Amazing Super-Powers
The Greek philosophers idealized these mysterious divine “faculties” in
that they viewed them as perfect, autonomous, immutable, and self-
sustaining. What affected one faculty did not necessarily affect the others.
They came together as a “package deal” in that they all contained the same
perfect powers in the same amounts. They are so magical as to be defined
as “divine” in some sense. Dr. Jean Porter, one of the most articulate
natural theologians today, pointed out,
This is a striking theological idea and a potentially
powerful social and political claim. If reason is in some
sense divine, if the rational person therefore shares in the
dignity and authority of God, then this implies that the
rational person should have authority within the
community.
These “faculties” include such divine “powers” as reason, feelings,
innate ideas, conscience, free will, etc. They were “mechanical” in nature
because they worked automatically. They were “autonomous” because they
worked regardless if the gods (or God) existed or not. They did not depend
upon the gods (or God) for their creation or maintenance.

Unity, Dignity, and Human Nature

Originally, the Stoics taught that this “thing” called “human nature”
was what made male Greek citizens distinct from animals and the rest of
the world. Without it, the unity and dignity of Greek men disappeared.
Since “human nature” depended upon gender, ethnic, civic, and rational
qualifications, what did the Greeks do with non-citizens, unborn babies,
newborn babies, the mentally handicapped, mentally diseased or damaged
people, slaves, the elderly, women, etc? The Greeks “exposed” or
“disposed” of them because they did not have a “human nature.” Infant
girls and physically defective baby boys were put out with the trash!
Modern Natural Law
Modern Natural Law theorists claim that all people, regardless of race
or rank, have a “human nature.” But, how do they deal with the reality that
not all people are “rational,” or “civilized?” After all, drug addicts are
“addicts” because they do not have a “free will” when it comes to their
dependence on drugs. Demon-possessed people do not have a “free will”,
but are under the control of the devil. What about babies born with brain
damage? The brains of adults can be injured or become diseased.
Can people lose their “human nature?” What about mentally ill people
who no longer manifest reason, consciousness, or free will? Are they still
“human?” Where is the evidence that they have a “human nature?”
J. P. Moreland and William Craig understand that when they claim that
all people have a good and perfect “human nature,” mentally handicapped
children, people with brain injuries, etc. don’t seem to fit their claim. To
overcome this reality, they create an alternate reality.
First, there is what can be called Aristotelian
rationality. In this sense, Aristotle called man a rational
animal. Hence, rational refers to a being with ratio—a
Latin word referring to the ultimate capacity or power to
form concepts, think, deliberate, reflect, have
intentionality (mental states like thoughts, beliefs,
sensations that are of or about things.) Humans are
rational animals in that, by nature, they have the powers
of reason … humans are rational even if through defect
(e.g. being a defective newborn) they cannot exercise
that power, because the power of reason is possessed
simply in virtue of having a human nature. It is
important to distinguish between having a power and
being able to exercise or develop it.
In their fantasy world, all people are born with perfect and immutable
powers such as reason, conscience, free will, innate ideas, etc. Some
people do not manifest these powers because they do not “exercise” them!
How they can believe such nonsense is beyond us.

Secular Humanism’s Love of Death

 Secular humanists today abort infants, kill born unwanted or defective
babies, euthanize mentally or physically challenged people, and assist the
suicide of the elderly because they classify them as “non-persons,” i.e.
non-humans or sub-humans.
We must keep in mind that the Nazi Natural Law theologians redefined
Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals as “sub-humans” and liquidated them by
the millions. In the 20th century, Marxists redefined certain social groups
as “non-persons” and slaughtered hundreds of millions of people. Abortion
has slaughtered millions of babies on the grounds that they are not
“persons,” but only “tissue.” Ideas do have consequences.

Romanticism
Modern Law theorists romanticize that all people start out life with the
same exact perfect faculties at conception. If we delete any of these divine
powers or faculties from the essence or substance of “human nature,” the
entire concept collapses. Thus we have to gratuitously assert that every
human being, from Adam to the last baby born, has the same exact
identical “human nature” that all other people have and that everyone has
exactly the same perfect powers!
Unless we can get into a time machine and travel back to the Garden of
Eden or move forward in time to Armageddon, such claims are impossible
to verify. The idea of an ideal, static, perfect “human nature” possessed by
all human beings is thus a leap-of-faith statement rooted in some kind of
psychological “wish fulfillment.”

Pelagius’ Old Heresy

Christian theologians must remember that the issue of whether man is
born with a good, perfect, and sinless “human nature” was the central
controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. The Western Church
declared at the Council of Orange that Pelagius was teaching heresy and
that man did not have a good and perfect nature. We sin because we are
sinners.
The issue resurfaced at the Reformation in the debate between Luther
and Erasmus. Is man born with a perfect free will or is his will in bondage
to his sinfulness inherited from Adam? Erasmus wrote The Freedom of the
Will while Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will. Old controversies don’t
fade away but are revived from time to time under different names.
Modern Natural Law theologians are guilty of teaching the heresy of
Pelagianism when they claim that all people are conceived or born with a
perfect and good “human nature.” On this basis, they assert that all people
“naturally” seek the good because “human nature” is good. The idea that
some people seek evil and do not want the truth, but rather love lies, does
not fit into their Natural Law theories.

Is Man Naturally Good or Evil?

Pope John Paul in his encyclical Fides et Ratio defined “human nature”
in the following ways.
Reason is by its nature orientated to truth and is
equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive at
truth (no. 94). Humans are by nature truth-seekers,
pausing to ask why things are as they are (no. 3).
Humans seek to know the truth about personal existence,
about life, and about the Creator, for man has been
created as the one who seeks after truth (nos. 5 and 28).
Pelagius would have agreed with the Pope’s definition of human nature.
Jean Porter admits that Catholic Natural Law theorists “consistently say
that human depravity cannot destroy our knowledge of the natural law.
Because the natural law is grounded in human nature, knowledge of it
cannot be wholly lost so long as human beings continue to exist.”
What if “human nature” is now evil and in bondage to sin (Rom. 3:10–
18)? What if people “naturally” prefer the darkness rather than the light
(John 3:19–20)? What if man does not “naturally” seek God but rather
“naturally” rejects God (Rom. 3:11)? What if fallen man no longer has the
“natural” ability to repent of his sins or believe the gospel (John 6:44 cf.
Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; 12:3)? What if man is sinful “by nature” (Eph.
2:3)? How can it be the Source or Origin of “natural” laws, truth, justice,
morals, meaning or beauty? It can’t.

The Origin of Human Nature

 While we are discussing the concept of “human nature,” who invented
the idea of a “human nature” that has all these wonderful perfect, magical,
divine, ideal powers? How can all people have these god-like powers when
only a few people exercise them some of the time? Is the idea of “human
nature” innate, universal, intuitive, and self-evident? If so, how come the
majority of mankind throughout history never heard of or believed in it?
Where did the idea of “human nature” originate? When? Where? By
whom?
I realize such questions are upsetting to natural law theologians because
they strike at the very foundation of their theory. But we must become
epistemologically self-conscious by asking why we believe what we
believe, and, if it is a valid idea, it will withstand scrutiny.

Zeno of Citium
The idea of “human nature” was invented by a pagan Greek philosopher
by the name of Zeno of Citium. He wrote a book entitled, “Concerning
Human Nature” in which he claimed that “within” each rational and
civilized male Greek citizen there was a divine “spark” (i.e. “soul”) that
existed apart from and independent of the body. Since it was divine, it had
the attributes and powers of the gods. These divine powers are “faculties.”
Zeno went on to found the Stoic school of philosophy. Other Greek
philosophers adopted his idea of “human nature” and today it is the
Western humanistic secular basis for the unity and dignity of man. He was
also the inventor of Natural Law theory that was based upon his concept of
human nature. The two ideas have been intrinsically bound to each other
from that day forward.

Natural Law Based Upon Human Nature

It may be a surprise that the historical origins of Natural Law theory
and the idea of human nature can be traced back to the pagan Greek
philosophy of Stoicism. But this is acknowledged by all general reference
works. A few modern scholars have attempted to dig further back in Greek
philosophy to find the roots of Zeno’s thinking. But that Stoicism is the
mother of the heresy of “Natural Law” is clear.
Howard Kainz, one of the most well-known modern natural theologians
today, stated, “Natural law in the strict sense and as an explicit theory
emerged, as we shall see, with the Stoics.” The great Nicholas Wolterstoff
correctly pointed out the independence of these two Stoic ideas.
From its beginnings among the Stoics of antiquity, the
natural law tradition of ethical theory has undergone
many transformations … It is from human nature as such
that they propose to derive ethical principles; and it is
their claim that these are not only knowable, but in good
measure actually known, by every rational adult human
being whatsoever.
Dr. Jean Porter pointed out that the connection between the classic
Greek concepts of “human nature” and Natural Law theory is now
problematic.
Both Kark Rahner and Bernard Lonergan argued that this
account of natural law is inadequate because it
represents a “static” and “classical” view of human
nature. … what we require … the development of a
natural law grounded in human nature.242

The Rationality of Human Nature

Does “human nature” exist in some physical, ontological or
metaphysical sense? No. Is it observable? No. Can we examine it? No. Can
we access it in any sense? No. Do we really know anything about it? No.
Yet, natural theologians and philosophers insist that it must exist for their
various natural law theories to work. They also assert that “human nature”
has to be good or how else can we say that all men seek the good by
nature? It has to be rational or how else can we define man as a “rational
animal” by nature. It has to be free or how else can we say that all men
have free will by nature?
The denial of the existence, rationality, and validity of the Stoic idea of
a static, perfect, divine “human nature” pulls the rug out from under the
feet of all Western humanistic schemes to find truth and morals without
God. One of the Natural Theology’s key presuppositions has unsolvable
problems!
Natural law theorists claim that “human nature” is universal, innate,
static, immutable, and perfect in all respects because it has to exist in
order to have a secular basis for the unity and dignity of man.

Why Accept It?

Why should we accept Zeno’s view of man? Natural theologians tell us
that the alternative is too horrifying to consider. Without “human nature,”
there can be no Natural Law. Without Natural Law, there can be no natural
rights! Without natural rights, woman’s rights, child rights, and even
international law becomes impossible. This is the abyss that modern
humanists are desperately trying to avoid.
In this game of philosophic poker, the secular philosophers “came to
reject the basic claim that there is an unchangeable human nature from
which moral norms can be derived.”
The “romantic” idea of a perfect, good, and universal human nature in
the hearts of all people is crumbling to pieces today. Dr. Porter pointed out
in her second book on natural law that secular philosophers are now
arguing that,
We have no direct access to human nature, and our
attempts to understand it are bound to be conditioned by
our own cultural and even personal presuppositions,
which are likely to determine our sense of what counts as
natural … the idea of a fixed human nature is suspect
because it fails to take account of the socially
constructed, radically contingent character of all
communal practices and moral norms.
The Catholic philosophers cast a spell upon Western man that lasted a
thousand years. Western philosophers blindly accepted the ideas of
“human nature” and “Natural Law.” But now the spell has been broken and
people are awakening to the truth that the “emperor has no clothes,” and
that those old Stoic ideas are bankrupt.

Human Rights and Natural Rights

The Western concepts of “natural rights,” “human rights,” “women’s
rights,” and “child rights,” found in various United Nations declarations,
were based upon the Western Natural Law tradition. As long as Europe
dominated the world, it imposed these ideas on the rest of the world. But
“the day of the white man” has passed and there are now calls for such
Western ideas as “Natural Law,” “human nature,” and “natural rights” to
be cast aside as legacies of European colonialism.
This situation came to a head in 1999 when several non-Western UN
representatives called into question the Western concepts of “natural
rights.” The reaction was swift and brutal. Western humanists warned, “If
you abandon the concepts of “Natural Law,” there is no secular basis for
the “rights” of man.” But the damage was done because the “cat” was now
out of the bag.

But What About The Bible?

Since the Bible is important to those who claim to be a “Christian” in
some sense or the other, we are warranted to ask, “Is Zeno’s concept of
“human nature” found in the Bible?” After over thirty years of reading the
Bible in the original languages, we have yet to find it mentioned
anywhere.
Some “Christian” Natural Law theorists state that the Apostle Paul
believed in Stoicism and put it into his Epistles. But they never give a
detailed exegetical demonstration of their claim. It is just another empty
assertion.
Other theorists claim that “the image and likeness of God” (Gen. 1:28)
can be interpreted as a reference to Zeno’s concept. But, since the book of
Genesis was written long before Zeno was born, the timing is wrong. The
cultural context of Genesis is not the same as the context of Zeno.
The meaning of “the image and likeness of God” in Genesis is
interpreted by Moses in the immediate context as man “taking dominion”
over the earth. It never has any ontological or metaphysical meaning
anywhere in Scripture.

Their Misuse of Scripture

This brings up a huge problem. Whenever natural theologians cite the
Bible in defense of their ideas, they begin by assuming their particular
version of Natural Law as the framework within which Scripture is to be
interpreted! They begin by assuming as true what they have yet to prove
true. They are rowing with only one oar and end up going in circles. Dr.
Jean Porter admitted,
 Their reading of Scripture was itself shaped by wider
assumptions about the natural law, which were in turn
formed by a multifaceted tradition of reflection on the
natural law.
… they employ their overall concept of the natural law
as a framework for interpreting Scripture as a moral
document.
This is why it is unwise to take for granted their interpretation of
Scripture. They read the Bible through the lens of Natural Law instead of
seeking to understand the text in light of its grammar, syntax, and
historical context. They read modern ideas back into ancient biblical texts
without hesitation. As we will demonstrate in a later chapter, they seem
incapable of accurately quoting the text of Scripture but add and subtract
words as they please.

How Then Can Man Have Unity and Dignity?

Since the Bible does not teach the idea of “human nature,” on what
basis can we believe in the unity and dignity of mankind? In the biblical
world view, the unity and dignity of mankind rests upon Creation, Fall, and
Redemption.
Bible-based Christians agree with modern humanists that a secular
basis for the unity and dignity of man is impossible. All secular attempts
to find a basis for the unity and dignity of man have failed. The only basis
left for the unity and dignity of man is a religious basis found in the Bible
alone. With Scripture, man has unity and dignity. Without the Bible, man
is dead.

Creation
In terms of Creation, man-as-image-bearer-of-God is the basis of his
dignity and meaning. Paul told the Greeks that man was “one” because
God created man and providentially ruled where and when he is to be born,
live, and die (Acts 17:25f). If you delete man’s relationship to his Creator,
man is only an animal and has no dignity or rights. Even capital
punishment for murder is just according to the Bible because man is the
image bearer of God.
 Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be
shed, For in the image of God He made man. (Gen. 9:6)
As Larry Richards pointed out,
Capital punishment. The text quotes God as
commanding capital punishment for murder. The reason
given is that God made man in His own image. It is
important to understand that the death sentence is neither
retribution, nor simply preventative. Because we bear
God’s image, each human being is irreplaceable. Every
human life is so significant that no penalty less than
death provides an adequate measure of its value. Only by
decreeing capital punishment as a penalty for murder can
society affirm the ultimate worth and value of each
individual citizen.
Once you deny the Creator-creature relationship between God and man,
murder loses all meaning because all is meaningless. James, the half
brother of Jesus, tells us that we “ought” not curse people with our tongue.
With it we bless our Lord and Father; and with it we
curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God.
From the same mouth come both blessing and cursing.
My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.
(James 3:9–10)
ἐν αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν κύριον και ̀ πατέρα και ̀ ἐν αὐτῇ
καταρώμεθα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ
γεγονότας, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στόματος ἐξέρχεται εὐλογία και ̀
κατάρα. οὐ χρή, ἀδελφοί μου, ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι.
In his commentary on James, Peter Davids tell us that,
The idea that man was made in God’s image refers to Gn.
1:26 LXX (καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν; cf. Gn. 9:6; Sir. 17:3; Wis.
2:23; 2 Esd. 8:44; Clem. Hom. 3:17, which have the same
concept with different vocabulary). But it is important to
realize that this fact was used in Jewish traditions to
reject the cursing of men: Mek. on Ex. 20:26; Gn. Rab.
 24:7–8 on Gn. 5:1; Sl. Enoch 44:1; 52:12; Sipra on Lv.
19:18. The connection is simply that one cannot pretend
to bless the person (God) and logically curse the
representation of that person (a human). Likewise, the
angry curse upon a person while liturgically blessing
God makes moral and logical nonsense from James’s
theological standpoint.
The biblical basis of “oughtness” is rooted in its doctrine of man-as-
image-bearer. The only basis for the ethical treatment of men and animals
is the doctrine of Creation. Once you deny Creation and replace it with a
secular “nature-without-God,” there is no way to discover what we ought
and ought not to do.

The Radical Fall of Man

In terms of the Fall, Paul proclaimed to the Greek philosophers that
man was sinful and that God has fixed a Day of Judgment at the end of
history when each person must give an account to Him (Acts 19:30–31 cf.
2 Cor. 5:10). God’s Revealed Law will judge all mankind, not some
“Natural Law” found in “nature.” (Acts 17:30–31).

Redemption
In terms of Redemption, God calls all sinners to repent and to believe
the Gospel (Acts 17:30). The salvation of the soul through regeneration
and the salvation of the body through resurrection is the focus of
redemption (Acts 17:31–34).
The Bible knows nothing of a secular “human nature” or its god-like
powers or faculties. Man-as-image-bearer (Gen. 1:26–27) received
revealed Laws from his Creator (Gen. 2:15f). Thus the biblical basis for
the unity, dignity, worth, meaning, and significance of man is founded on
the revealed truth that man was created to glorify God (Isa. 43:7; 1 Cor.
10:31). No Jew or Christian in the Bible ever believed in “human nature.”
This is why the Bible does not mention such “faculties” or “powers” as
“reason” or “free will.”

Biblical Christians Cheered

 Biblical Christians cheered when they saw the non-Western president of
the UN call for the rejection of such Western secular concepts as “human
nature,” “natural rights,” and “the rights of man,” because the Bible is the
only basis upon which such rights can be sustained. The sooner non-
Christians understand that without the Bible the rights of man cannot be
sustained, the sooner they will be willing to listen to the Gospel. As long
as they think they can have truth and morals without God, they will turn a
deaf ear to the Gospel. When natural theologians defend a secular basis
(i.e. without God or His Word) for truth, justice, morals, meaning, and
beauty, they do biblical Christianity a disfavor and give unbelievers a
reason not to accept Christ.

The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

The Greek concept of “human nature” entered Christendom when Greek
philosophy overwhelmed the Biblicism of the early church. It is now an
essential element in Catholic Natural Theology and neo-Protestant Natural
Theology. This explains why natural theologians and philosophers went
into panic mode when the humanistic concepts of “human nature” and
“human rights” were attacked by secular humanists. B. F. Skinner’s book,
Beyond Freedom & Dignity, was a shot heard in the secularized church as
well as around the world.
Skinner has won the day so far as state education is concerned. The
only ones who still believe in “natural rights” based on “Natural Law” and
“human nature” are Catholics and erstwhile Protestants. Western secular
humanists have abandoned these Greek ideas and moved on to post-
modernism.

Man is Dead
If modern secular anthropologists no longer believe there is such a
thing as “human nature,” what do they teach at the local junior college or
university? Anthropology has now been reduced to:
Zoology: Man is only a primate. Thus “man” does not
exist as a separate category. This is why there are so
many TV programs focusing on lemurs, chimpanzees,
and orangutans. “See, man is only one primate among
 many,” says the humanist on National Geographic or
Nature cable TV programs.
Psychology: Man is only one self-conscious animal
among other animals. This is why there is such a
desperate search to find some animal somewhere that is
self-aware. Gorillas, dolphins, and other animals are
often portrayed as self-conscious animals just like man.
“See, man is not really unique!”
Sociology: Marxism and socialism are popular in
Western education today because man is understood only
in terms of sociological units and relationships.
Humanists have given up trying to define what man is.
Instead, they discuss man as a social animal interrelating
and interacting with each other as a troop of primates.
This why there is a flood of TV programs describing the
social interactions of meerkats, lemurs, monkeys, etc.
“See, people are only the same as meerkats!”
Western education no longer believes that there is any truth to find, any
morals to follow, and any meaning to life. This is all true once you reject
the God who is there and is not silent. With God, all these things are
possible. Without God, all is meaningless.

O Happy Day!
Biblical Christians rejoiced to see that secular and religious humanism
are now officially D.O.A. The inerrant, propositional Revelation given to
us in Scripture is the only Light in a world of philosophic darkness and
despair. It is either God’s way or the highway!
Existentialists such as Paul Sartre openly admitted that without God,
life has no meaning, no morals, no truth, and no justice. In contrast,
natural theologians deny this and try their best to give unbelievers the vain
hope that they can have morals and meaning without God. What does the
Bible say on this issue?

The Book of Ecclesiastes

 First, as we have already established, in the Book of Ecclesiastes, the
smartest man who ever lived stated thirty seven times that, without God,
all of life is meaningless. This is the theme of the book from the very
beginning.
“Meaningless!
Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”
(Ecc. 1:2 NIV)
The classic exegetical commentaries on Ecclesiastes agree on this
point.
After identifying himself as the author, Solomon
declared most emphatically that everything is futile or
meaningless. Five times in this one verse he used heḇel,
the Hebrew word for “meaningless.” Four of those times
are in a twofold repetition of a Hebrew superlative
construction which the KJV renders “Vanity of vanities”
and the NIV renders Meaningless! Meaningless! And
Utterly meaningless! As indicated in the Introduction’s
“Theme and Purpose,” he used this metaphorical term
throughout the book to refer to what is without real
substance, value, permanence, significance, or meaning.
Here at the outset he applied this to everything, by
which he meant all human endeavors, as is obvious from
verse 3 and his argument throughout the book.
He now starkly sets forth the theme of his book in a
manner befitting the theme itself: “Everything is
meaningless.”
The major theme of Ecclesiastes is the pointlessness of
human activity … The expression still endures today to
point out to many the meaningless of life without God.
Vanity. This traditional KJV rendering of a key word in
this book is correctly translated by the NIV as
 “meaningless.” Solomon’s search for meaning in life
apart from God and divine revelation was futile. Like
modern existential philosophers, Solomon concluded
that life is meaningless. How good to know that God’s
revelation of Himself and His purposes give a meaning
to your life and mine which can be found in no other
source.
LIFE IS MEANINGLESS: THE PROBLEM (1:1–11)
1:1–11 “Nothing matters! All is meaningless!” Solomon
began his discourse on life by declaring, “Everything is
meaningless” (1:2; see 12:8; Ps. 39:5–6). He illustrated
this meaninglessness from the realms of nature (1:1–7)
and human experience (1:8–11). Sunrises and sunsets
come and go. The winds blow and the rivers flow, but for
no apparent purpose. The human experience could be
summarized as, “Been there, done that!”
God warns us that if we try to interpret life without His revelation in
Scripture, life will be meaningless.
Second, not only does “without God” mean “without meaning,” it also
means “without hope.” In Eph. 2:12, (ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες και ̀ ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ
κόσμῳ) and 1 Thess. 4:13, (οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα), the Apostle Paul
emphatically states that those who are “without God” are, as a direct
result, “without hope.” As Dr. Wiersbe pointed out in his commentary on 1
Thess. 4:13,
Revelation: We Have God’s Truth (1 Thes. 4:13, 15a)
How can mortal man penetrate beyond the grave and find
assurance and peace for his own heart? From Old
Testament days till the present, mankind has tried to
solve the riddle of death and the afterlife. Philosophers
have wrestled with the question of immortality. Spiritists
have tried to communicate with those who have gone
beyond. In our modern world, scientists have
investigated the experiences of people who claimed to
have died and returned to life again. They have also
studied occult phenomena, hoping to find a clue to the
 mystery of life after death. Paul solved the problem
when he wrote, “For this we say unto you by the Word of
the Lord” (1 Thes. 4:15). We Christians need not wonder
about death or life after death, for we have a revelation
from God in His Word. Why substitute human
speculation for divine revelation? God gave Paul a
special revelation concerning the resurrection and the
return of Christ (see 1 Cor. 15:51–54). What Paul taught
agreed with what Jesus taught (John 5:24–29; 11:21–27).
And God’s revelation is based on the historic fact of
Christ’s resurrection. Since our Savior has conquered
death, we need not fear death or the future (1 Cor.
15:12ff). The authority of God’s Word gives us the
assurance and comfort we need.
Other commentators agree.
Those who have no hope is literally “the others” or “the
rest, who do not have hope.” These are the same group of
people
whom Paul has just called “those outside” (v. 12), that is,
those who are not members of the Christian community.
The contrast is not between kinds or degrees of grief, but
between two groups of people; that is, Christians, who
have reason to hope, and non-Christians, who do not.
Who have no hope. Only believers have hope of life
after death. The speculations and surmisings of pagan
philosophy do not amount to a hope.
In Eph. 2:13, Paul gives us a very startling view of what life is like
“without God.”
Remember that at that time you were: separate from
Messiah, excluded from citizenship in Israel, and
foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope,
(ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες) and without God in the world.
(ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ)
 A.T. Robertson and other commentators point out that Paul was
emphatic that if you are “without God,” then you are “without hope” for
anything.
Having no hope (ἐλπιδα μη ἐχοντες [elpida mē
echontes]). No hope of any kind. In Gal. 4:8 οὐκ [ouk]
(strong negative) occurs with εἰδοτες θεον [eidotes
theon], but here μη [mē] gives a more subjective picture
(1 Thess. 4:5). Without God (ἀθεοι [atheoi]). Old Greek
word, not in LXX, only here in N.T. Atheists in the
original sense of being without God and also in the sense
of hostility to God from failure to worship him. See
Paul’s words in Rom. 1:18–32. “In the world” (ἐν τῳ
κοσμῳ [en tōi kosmōi]) goes with both phrases. It is a
terrible picture that Paul gives, but a true one.
having no … hope—beyond this life (1 Co 15:19). The
CONJECTURES of heathen philosophers as to a future life
were at best vague and utterly unsatisfactory. They had
no divine “promise,” and therefore no sure ground of
“hope.” Epicurus and Aristotle did not believe in it at all.
The Platonists believed the soul passed through
perpetual changes, now happy, and then again miserable;
the Stoics, that it existed no longer than till the time of
the general burning up of all things.
(4) Hopeless: “having no hope” This follows very
naturally, for the Christian’s hope is based on the divine
promise. Accordingly, since in the earlier period the
covenant-promise had not been revealed to the
Ephesians, as has just been indicated, hence they also
lacked hope: solid, firmly-anchored assurance of
salvation. Such hope is one of God’s most precious gifts,
and is mentioned alongside of faith and love (1:15, 18;
cf. 1 Cor. 13:13). It is knowledge of God’s promise plus
confidence with respect to its fulfillment (cf. 2 Cor. 1:7).
It is the proliferation of faith. It amounts to the
conviction that all things will be well, even when all
 things seem to be wrong (Rom. 4:18). It never
disappoints, because it, too, like faith and love, is a
divine gift (Rom. 5:5).
In their state of unbelief the Ephesians had lacked this
hope. Instead, they had been filled with fear and despair.
The Greek and Roman world of Paul’s day was, indeed, a
hopeless world.
The readers had no hope and (5) were without God “in
the world” (RSV). The phrase “in the world”
characterizes both conditions (TEV you lived in this
world; also TNT; NEB is good: “Your world was a world
without hope and without God”). Hope probably has the
broadest sense possible; it is doubtful that it is restricted
to “hope in the Messiah,” as some think (see “without
hope” also in 1 Thes. 4:13). You lived … without hope
may be expressed as “you lived without anything good to
look forward to” or “you lived without being able to
imagine that any good would come to you.” Without God
here means that though pagans have their own gods they
do not have the knowledge of and relation with the one
true God, the God of Israel; there is no implication in the
Greek word that God abandoned or rejected them. You
lived … without God may be expressed as “you lived
without knowing God” or “… without being related to
God.”
The choice is simple. Without God as the Origin of truth, justice,
morals, meaning, and beauty, all is meaningless!

How Sad
This is what makes us so sad when we see religious humanists pick up
the baton where the secular humanists dropped it. Natural Theology and
Natural Law boldly proclaims,
Just give us until tomorrow and we will discover truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty independent of and
apart from God and the Bible. Man starting only from
 himself, by himself, through himself, can discover these
things autonomously through human reason, experience,
feelings or faith. Yes, we can!
How sad! Just when unbelievers finally admit that without the God of
the Bible and the Bible of God there is no truth, justice, morals, meaning
or beauty, “Christian” humanists come along and give them comfort and
aid! What makes this so disconcerting is that they do so in the name of
helping unbelievers to believe! But, believe in what? To believe in
themselves!
The Need for Biblical Anthropology Today
The present crisis in Western philosophy underscores that it is time to
boldly proclaim God’s view of man as revealed in Scripture. Why waste
time on the failed attempts of Zeno, Plato, Kant or Sartre? Why whip a
dead horse?
The Bible reveals much about man because it was written to explain the
Creation, Fall, and Redemption of man. Man qua man must be understood
in the context of these three pillars of Special Revelation or man ceases to
be man.

What Is Man?
One of the most profitable studies of Scripture is to examine the
questions asked in the Bible. One of the most interesting questions is
found in Psa. 8:4. The KJV translated it: “What is man, that thou art
mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” The KJV’s
translation is inadequate at best. The Hebrew text is:
‫י־תזְְכּ ֶרנּוּ וּבֶן־אָָדם ִכּי ִת ְפ ְקֶֽדנּוּ׃‬
ִ ‫מָה־אֱנוֹשׁ ִֽכּ‬
We translate it as follows:
What is weak and wicked humanity,
that You should take any notice of him?
Or the child of a human being,
that You should care about him?
First, there are three regular words for “man” in Hebrew. The first
word, ‫אָדָם‬, is a non-generic term for “people” in general. The second word,
‫אִישׁ‬, is gender specific for males. The third word, ‫ִשּׁה‬
ָ ‫א‬, refers to females.
David does not use any of these words in his first question: ‫ ָֽמה־אֱנוֹשׁ‬. He
uses the rare word ‫אֱנוֹשׁ‬. This word stresses the weakness and sinfulness of
people. Since the Semitic root of the word means sickness and illness.
the basic emphasis would be on man’s weakness or mortality, a
connotation permitted by some contexts, particularly those
that emphasize man’s insignificance (e.g., Psa 8:4 [H 5]; Job
7:17) … Man’s insignificance in view of the vastness of the
universe is set forth in the question, “What is man?” (Psa. 8:4)
… The word vAna, reminds man of his transience and of his
lowly position before the Almighty.
The Heb. word here is ‫ אֶנוֹשׁ‬which emphasizes man’s mortality
and weakness. David is stunned that the all-powerful Creator
should exalt such puny beings by caring for us and by giving
us dominion over His earth.
The way God asks this question is very important. Man is not viewed in
the abstract but as he is in the real world. What is weak, pathetic,
perverted, and wicked man? Why would God take any notice of such an
evil creature? Why would God have compassion on the children of such
wicked and weak people? Why?

The Humanistic Question

In sharp contrast to Psa. 8:4, the humanists ask, “What is perfect and
ideal man?” They do not begin with man’s weakness or wickedness but
with some abstract concept of an ideal, good, and perfect “human nature.”
This is why they refer to man’s “reason” as if it were a perfect, infallible,
and inerrant guide to truth and morals. Man’s “will” is always assumed to
be free of any depravity or moral bias. It is perfectly free in an ideal sense.

The Realism of the Bible

Biblical anthropology is the only worldview that has a realistic view of
man. The Bible does not even hide the “warts and moles” of the patriarchs,
the prophets, and the apostles. They are described as “crooked sticks” that
God used to draw straight lines. Noah had a drinking problem. Abraham
lied his way out of problems. Jacob was a con man. David had a problem
with lust. Peter was a coward. Paul lost his temper. We could go on and on.

I. The Creation
In our chapter on the biblical concept of Creation we learned the
following things:
1. The universe does not begin with the impersonal, but with the
personal because it begins with the personal Creator.
2. Man is not in contradiction of his own existence. His personality
is reflective of the personal Creator who made him. This means that
all humanistic views which reduce man to the level of an animal or a
machine must be viewed as erroneous.
3. Because man was created in the image of God, we must view man
as a unique creature who stands outside of and apart from the rest of
the Creation. Indeed, God placed man over the earth to rule as His
vice-regent (Gen. 1:26–29).
4. Man stands outside of the cosmic machine. Any world view which
traps man in “nature” is false. Man stands outside of and over
Creation as its prophet, priest and king. He is not an animal or a
machine but the unique image bearer of God.
5. We can speak of the unity and dignity of mankind only because all
of humanity ultimately came from Adam and Eve. The different
races are simply genetic variations on the descendants of Adam and
Eve. The unity and dignity of man depend upon the Adam and Eve
model of creation. We can speak of “mankind” because we all came
from Adam and Eve.
6. This is in stark contrast to some humanistic ideas of evolution
which view each race of man as evolving from different primates. If
this is true, then one race could claim to be superior over the other
races. Slavery could be justified because there is no such thing as
“mankind.”
7. Because man is God’s image bearer, he is a responsible moral
agent who will be held accountable by God for his thoughts, words
and deeds on the Day of Judgment at the end of history.
8. While animals are not viewed in the Bible as responsible moral
agents because they do not have immortal souls, man is viewed as
 responsible. This means that all views of man which negate his
accountability must be rejected.
9. The Christian view does not accept any chemical, environmental,
societal or economical determinism. Man is not the victim of his
circumstances. He will be held accountable for what he thinks, says
and does.
10. Only on the basis of the Bible can man have any meaning.

II. The Fall

The Bible tells us that at the very beginning of human history man fell
into a state of sin and guilt. The radical Fall of man is viewed by the
biblical authors as being a real event in space-time history (Rom. 5:12ff; 1
Cor. 15:21ff). It is never viewed as a myth. It was an actual event which
you could have witnessed with your own eyes.
The original sin was not sex. It was open rebellion against God’s
revealed Law, not some kind of “natural law” derived from the world. Man
attempted to become his own god (Gen. 3:5).
Self-deification is one way in which man tries to be autonomous, i.e.
independent from God. This is always the goal of apostate thought. Indeed,
the history of philosophy is nothing more than man’s attempt to escape
God and His revealed Law.
In his temptation, Satan told man three lies:
1. You can be whatever you want to be.
This lie denies that man is a finite being and is thus limited. Just as
man is not a bird and thus cannot flap his arms and fly away, neither is
he autonomous. We can be only what God has made us to be.
2. You can know whatever you want to know.
This denies that man’s understanding is finite. But man and his
thoughts are finite and, hence, cannot obtain an infinite comprehension
of anything. We can know only what God has made us capable of
knowing.
3. You can do whatever you want to do.
In this lie man is told that he can be his own law-giver. He does not
have to obey God’s revealed Law, but he can make up his own laws.
Unbelief is man’s rebellion against God and His revealed Law.
God, Evil and You
The biblical account of man’s radical fall into sin gives us a key to
understanding life. The world that now exists is not to be viewed as
“normal.” This means that death is not normal. Sin is not normal. Evil is
not normal. Man is now subnormal. His problem is not his humanity but
his depravity. Man’s problem is not that he is finite but that he is a sinner
(Eph. 2:1–3).
The old saying, “To err is human but to forgive is divine,” is built on
the humanistic assumption that man’s problem is his humanity. But this is
not true. Adam and Eve were created righteous and sinless at the
Beginning. Jesus Christ was a real human being but He was also sinless.
After the Resurrection, believers will be sinless. “Humanness” does not
automatically mean sinfulness.
Once you equate “humanness” with sinfulness, you arrive at the basis
of the liberal denial of the inspiration of Scripture. They usually argue in
this way: “Since “to err is human,” and the Bible was written by humans,
this means that the Bible has to have errors. The errors and contradictions
in the Bible only prove its humanness.”
This argument fails to take into account man’s original righteousness
and his subsequent Fall into sin and guilt. It also does not take into
account God’s sovereignty in assuring that the Bible was created errorless
through fallen human instruments. The Living Word and the Written Word
are both errorless and sinless (2 Cor. 5:21). Man’s problems are
fundamentally moral in nature and not physical, environmental or social.

III. Redemption
According to Scripture, God did not leave man in a state of sin and
guilt. As we demonstrated in the book, Studies in the Atonement, the triune
God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit worked together to provide a salvation
for sinners.
God the Father planned salvation from eternity past (Eph. 1:4). God the
Son entered history and died on the cross for the sins of His people (1 Cor.
15:3, 4). And God the Holy Spirit takes what Christ accomplished
according to the plan of the Father and applies it to the people of God
(Eph. 4:30). We are Chosen by the Father, Purchased by the Son, and
Sealed by the Spirit, Blessed God Three in One!
 God’s wondrous plan of Redemption began in eternity past and secures
eternity future for His people. Jesus Christ has entered history and through
His life, death and resurrection has created a new humanity which will one
day enjoy a new earth which has been returned to its original paradise
condition (2 Pet. 3:11–13).

The Christian View of Man

The Biblical world view interprets all of life in terms of three basic
ideas:
1. The Creation of the universe out of nothing.
2. The radical Fall of man into sin and depravity.
3. The Redemption accomplished by Christ.
In Christian philosophy, we refer to these three principles as Creation,
Fall and Redemption. They are the basis of all Christian thinking. This is
why they are introduced at the very beginning of the Bible in Genesis 1–3.
The remainder of Scripture is only a development and application of these
three concepts to all of life. Just like a three legged stool, remove one of
these principles and Christianity falls. A Scriptural self-image begins with
an application of Creation, Fall and Redemption to mankind.

Creation
First, in terms of Creation, man is not to be viewed as an animal or
machine but as a unique creature created in the image of God. As such,
man is to be viewed as something wonderful and not as junk.
Man has been invested by his Creator with certain inalienable rights
which no one, not even the state, should violate. Man is a free moral agent
who has not been programmed deterministically by anything in the world
around him. This means that man is accountable to God for his actions and
faces a Day of Judgment at the End.
When you look in a mirror you can say to yourself,
I have been created in the image of God and thus I have worth,
significance, meaning and dignity. God has commanded me to
exercise the talents He gave me for His glory and to take
dominion of the world around me. (Gen. 1:27f)
 The Fall
In terms of the Fall, when we look in the mirror, we see ourselves as
sinners who have rebelled against the God who made us. Adam was given
the choice of either obeying or rebelling against God. In Genesis 3, he
followed the slander of Satan and rebelled against God and plunged the
entire human race into guilt and depravity. This means that we are sinners
by constitution and sin comes as naturally to us as breathing (Rom. 5:12–
19).
The radical Fall explains the darker side of man’s actions. How can
such wonderful creatures, beautifully constructed by God with such great
potential, do such horrible things? Where does human evil come from?
Why do men do the evil they do? When you look into a mirror you can say
to yourself,
I am a rebel sinner in need of God’s grace and forgiveness. I
have broken God’s laws and deliberately transgressed His
commandments. I will one day stand before God on the
Judgment Day to give an account for every thought, word, and
deed. I cannot save myself because I am incapable of doing
good works, repenting of my sins or believing the Gospel.

Redemption
The third concept by which the Scripture interprets all of life is the
concept of Redemption through the merits of Messiah alone. As we
demonstrated in the book, Studies in the Atonement, God did not leave
man in the state of sin, guilt, misery and condemnation. Instead, He sent
His Son to do a work of redemption by which not only man but also planet
earth will be redeemed from the evil consequences of the Fall (John 3:16;
Rom. 8:19–22).
Salvation or redemption is not to be viewed in terms of absorption or
annihilation. When God saves an individual, that person will not be
absorbed into God’s essence or being. As redeemed individuals we will
exist for all eternity.
The atonement is the payment of the price demanded by Justice in order
to set us free from the just condemnation of our sins. Christ Jesus has done
all that is necessary for our salvation. Our responsibility is simply to
receive His wonderful work of salvation (John 1:12). Thus salvation is
100% by the grace of God and it is not based on human merit,
performance or work (Eph. 2:8, 9).
Not only is the soul of man redeemed so that after death he can live in
the presence of God in heaven, but his body will be redeemed at the
Resurrection (1 Thess. 5:23). Thus man and his world are to be redeemed
and purified by the Creator through the saving work of Jesus Christ.
God’s plan of salvation gives us the solution to the problem of evil. Evil
is going to be assessed, brought to judgment, and then quarantined in a
place called hell where it can never again affect the rest of the universe.
All of the evil consequences of sin will be eradicated by God’s work of
redemption. Planet earth will be purified by fire from all the effects of
Adam’s fall into sin (2 Pet. 3).
The work of Messiah is thus the final answer to the problem of evil.
Evil will be dealt with either by redemption or judgment. Messiah Jesus
has triumphed over sin and will one day bring the universe back into its
original harmony and beauty (Col. 1:18–20).
If you are a Christian, when you look in the mirror, you can say to
yourself,
I am a child of God through faith in the atoning work of Jesus
the Messiah. I have been saved by grace alone, through faith
alone, through the person and work of Messiah alone. He is my
Savior and my God. I now trust in Him for all things and live
only to please Him.

Biblical Self-Image
The Christian position on man involves three foundational concepts:
We are wonderfully created in the image of God, terribly marred and
twisted by the Fall and marvelously redeemed by the atonement of Christ.
Any anthropology which does not take into account the threefold state of
man in terms of Creation, Fall and Redemption is not a biblical
perspective.
The threefold biblical view of man’s nature in which he is viewed as an
image-bearer, a sinner, and a saint provides us with a sufficient basis not
only to develop a proper self-image but also to develop a free society.
Checks and Balances in Government
The authors of the American Constitution believed that man was a
sinner and thus he needed a system of checks and balances for government
to work. They believed that power corrupts and that absolute power
corrupts absolutely. Therefore no branch of the government is to gain the
supremacy over the other branches of the government. By a system of
checks and balances, totalitarianism and tyranny can be prevented in this
great land.

Capitalism and the Bible

Compassionate Capitalism and the free market system developed out of
the biblical view of man. A planned economy has always led to utter
disaster. Countries which have gone into Marxism cannot even feed
themselves. Without the free economies of the West, these countries
would have gone down in ruin years ago.
The only hope of humanity is to return to the Christian view of man and
to the principles of form and freedom, dignity and worth that have been
generated by the biblical worldview. The only alternative is totalitarianism
which treats man only as a thing.

Summary
The healthiest self-image is the one derived from Scripture because it
describes man as he really is. Thus there is no contradiction between what
we experience in life and what we find in the Bible. Man and his world are
understandable only if we look at them from the perspective of Creation,
Fall and Redemption. Any other world view is doomed to fail.

Humanism and Human Life

Humanism teaches that man is the result of a chance-governed
evolutionary process in a closed system wherein God or any act of God is
excluded in principle. God is not so much refuted as He is defined out of
existence. Since there is no infinite reference point which could possibly
give meaning or significance to any particular, human life has no intrinsic
value, dignity, freedom or meaning.
 While human life, like animal life, has no intrinsic value or dignity, it
can have “acquired worth” in terms of its utility or function. When a
person’s utilitarian worth is over, so far as the state is concerned, that
person no longer has any “right” to life.
The “privilege of life” can be withdrawn by the state at will. Because
human life has no intrinsic worth, it is perfectly proper, if deemed for
purposes of utility, to abort unborn babies, murder babies already born, to
put to death those who are sick, handicapped, disabled or old.
The following points are usually argued by humanists to demonstrate
that it is perfectly proper to do away with human beings if it is deemed
“useful” to society.
1. Economic considerations may lead to the termination of “useless”
lives. This “useless” person may be the child of a welfare mother. It
is cheaper to kill that child than to give additional financial aid for
the care and education of that child. One of the reasons Planned
Parenthood and its abortion mills were created was for the killing of
poor, non-white babies.
2. People who are “miserable” may be terminated. The argument is
usually given that this person has a “miserable life” due to the fact
that they are handicapped or that they may possibly experience pain
in the future.
What this argument really means is that those around them will feel
“miserable” when they have to care for or look at the individual.
Thus physical deformity as well as disability is usually looked upon
as viable grounds for abortion or mercy killing.
3. Children who are “unwanted” can be killed. This killing may take
place before they are born, which is abortion or after they are born,
which is infanticide. Pagan judges have upheld both forms of
murder.
4. Inconvenient pregnancies can be terminated at will. Human life
has no intrinsic worth and if this child will be inconvenient because
it will interfere with your career or personal pleasure, then it is
perfectly proper to kill that baby.
5. The “right to life” is not absolute. There are no inalienable rights
given by a divine Creator to anyone because there is no God. Rights
are given by the state and can be withdrawn by the state at will.
 6. Over-population necessitates the killing of worthless human
beings. This means that the unwanted, the handicapped, the
terminally ill, or the elderly should be encouraged to take their own
life or they should be forced into suicide clinics where their life will
be forcibly taken from them. Death pills or suicide pills should be
made available to anyone who wishes to take his life. Nationalized
health programs always produce “death panels” made up of
government officials who decide if you live or die.
7. In the future there will be food and fuel shortages, which mean
that the state will have to “liquidate” unnecessary “assets,” i.e.
people.
8. The few (i.e. the poor, the sick and the elderly) should be willing
to sacrifice for the many (i.e. the wealthy, healthy and young). They
should be willing to go to suicide clinics so the rest of us can enjoy
life.
9. If someone wants to die, doctors should be willing to perform this
task. Physicians should become doctors of death as they did in the
Third Reich.
10. People who can no longer make any contribution to society are
to be viewed as “parasites” and since they do not produce any goods
or services, they should be “terminated.” This is what communist
countries have practiced for years. Life is cheap where there is no
God.

Summary
Without the basis of the God of the Bible, human life loses all dignity
and worth. Man is reduced to an animal and is treated as such. Man was
created in the image of God. Thus every human being from the moment of
conception to death has intrinsic worth and inalienable rights. The
intrinsic worth and dignity of man is immutable and cannot be affected by
a lack of “acquired worth” or “economic considerations.” The utility of a
person has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of the worth of man-as-the-
image-bearer-of-God.
The sanctity of human life is clearly taught in Scripture. Killing human
beings because they are in the way of personal pleasure or affluence is
murder. Only the God who gave life has the right to order the death of
anyone. This is why Christians believe in capital punishment and are
against abortion at the same time. While God has ordered capital
punishment in certain cases (Gen. 9:6), He has condemned the killing of
the innocent (Exo. 20:13).

The Sanctity of Life Declaration

1. Genetic experimentation on fertilized human eggs is morally
wrong and should be illegal because the destruction of such eggs is
the killing of human life. Some techniques used to overcome
infertility are immoral and should be made illegal. When fertilized
human eggs are washed down the sink, this is the murder of innocent
human beings.
2. It is morally wrong and should be illegal to experiment on the
human DNA code to predetermine the race, sex or physical
characteristics of human beings. Human beings should not be
genetically programmed or “bred” as is done with cattle. We have
already seen how Hitler’s dream of breeding a “super-race” ended.
3. Abortion is morally wrong and should be made illegal except
where the life of the mother is threatened. Even though the case
where the life of a mother is threatened is exceedingly rare, yet the
biblical principle would be to preserve the life of the mother as
opposed to the life of the child.
4. All acts of infanticide in which babies are murdered either
through active or passive means are immoral and should be made
illegal regardless of what economic or other considerations are
made.
Active means of infanticide include choking the child to death,
stabbing the child in the heart, cutting the brain or poisoning the
child. Passive usually means placing the child in a closet or in a
container and allowing the child to die slowly and excruciatingly
through starvation and dehydration. Some have cried for days before
they died a horrible death. If someone killed a dog this way, it would
be viewed as a crime. How then can human babies be killed this way
without criminal charges? Have we come to the place where to kill a
dog is more heinous than the murder of precious little babies?
5. All so-called “mercy killing” is morally wrong and should remain
illegal. It is nothing more than murder regardless if it is done
through passive or active means.
 6. Active or passive euthanasia is morally wrong and should be
made illegal. To encourage the elderly to commit suicide is to aid
and abet murder.
7. Medical care should not involve age limits or “useful life”
standards. To deny medical care to someone because they are no
longer viewed as being “useful” is nothing but murder.
8. Suicide should not be legalized. Suicide clinics or “death pills”
should not be forced on or offered to the elderly.
9. The state should not have any “final solution” for “undesirables.”
This is exactly what Hitler did to Jews, gypsies and other ethnic and
racial groups which they deemed as “undesirables.”
10. There should be no program of “liquidation” of those who think
or teach differently than the state. The Gulags of the Soviet Union
and the gas chambers of the Nazis both resulted in death for anyone
who thought or taught differently than state policy. This is immoral
and should remain illegal.

Summary
The end result of humanism is death while biblical Christianity brings
life and light through the Gospel. Humanism brings man down to the level
of an animal while Christianity lifts him up to be the image bearer of God.
While Christians promote life,
humanists are the merchants of death.
 Chapter Nine
A Biblical Philosophy of Science
Introduction

The rationale, basis, function, and nature of “science” is something

that natural philosophers and theologians have staked out as the sole
domain of human reason and experience and thus we do not need any
information from Special Revelation, i.e. the Bible. But, must we “put
away our Bibles” when it comes to science? Are science and the Bible like
oil and water, i.e. you cannot mix the two? Humanists assume this to be
true. But, is this really true?

Lots of Questions
There are many questions about “science” that have to be answered
before we can evaluate the different views of science that are in the world
today.
• What is the origin, nature, means, methods, and purpose of
science?
• Can it explain everything, most things, a few things or
nothing?
• Does it have any limits or can it do and be everything?
• Does science deal with absolute truth or are its theories
relative to the surrounding culture and times?
• What are its foundational faith-based principles,
presuppositions, and assumptions?
• What kind of faith is it based upon? Arbitrary faith, blind
faith, cultural faith, etc.?
• Why did science come into existence?
• How, where, when, and through whom did the idea of science
arise?
 • Does the universe really need an explanation?
• If so, what kind of explanation?
• Is a rational, empirical or mystical interpretation the right
one?
• Is the universe actually explainable? In its entirety? Or are
there things in the universe that are mysteries, i.e. not
explainable in nature?
• Or is the universe chance-driven and thus not explainable in
nature?
• Is science actually a psychological phenomenon? Is it the
projection of man’s futile attempt to deal with his fear and
insecurity by projecting order and purpose onto a meaningless
and chaotic universe?
• Or is the universe orderly in and of itself?
• Does everything in the universe have a purpose, function, and
place?
• If the universe is meaningless and purposeless in nature
because it is the result of a random combination of chance plus
time plus energy plus matter, on what grounds do we think that
it is capable of explanation?
• Is history guided by irrational forces?
• Why does man assume he can explain the world around him?
• How can we justify the existence and enterprise of science?
• Is science actually religious in nature?
• How and in what ways?
• Why have the hard sciences fallen on such hard times today?
These kinds of questions are the focus of the philosophy of science.
Humanists usually disguise their philosophy of science by pretending that
science is factual. But, don’t be deceived. What secular humanists call
“science” is actually 99% a mixture of philosophy and religion.
When someone says, “I believe in science,” he actually means that he
believes in a religion called scientism. The following dialogue has taken
place many times in a university setting. The unbeliever has rejected the
Bible and the gospel because he “believes in science.”
Unbeliever: I don’t believe in God. I believe in science.
Christian: What is this “science” in which you believe?
Unbeliever: What do you mean?
Christian: Where can I find this “science?” Does it have a
physical address or an email address? What is the telephone
number for science? Where is its headquarters? Who is the
head of it? Does it pay taxes? Does it have a mission statement
or manifesto?
Unbeliever: Science does not have a physical address or an
email or a website. By “science” I mean what we know by
observation and experimentation.
Christian: So, you admit that “science” does not exist per se.
The word “science” is a symbol for what some people, some of
the time, in some cultures, believe about the world. The word
“science” is what current religious and philosophic ideas are
dominant in a society. Each society creates its own science.
Unbeliever: But “science” is based on objective facts. It is
objective and neutral.
Christian: That’s what some people have said some of the
time. But, one man’s science is another man’s superstition.
Western “science” simply means Western cultural consensus.
If 51% of people who call themselves “scientists” vote for an
idea, is it “science” or politics? Scientific theories change all
the time. Larry Laudan has documented how Western science
has radically changed its view of reality over thirty times.
Unbeliever: But science is not just mob rule! It is not
consensus, but fact.
Christian: Have you read Kuhn’s work?
Unbeliever: What are you talking about? Science is an agreed
upon body of knowledge supported by observation and
experimentation.
Christian: Your definition of science is just one belief among a
vast number of different philosophies of science. It is called
“realism” and was invented by the philosophy of Logical
Positivism. Many scientists today hold to other views of
science such as anti-realism.
Unbeliever: Are you saying that “science” is relative to its
cultural context?
 Christian: You got it! Does the sun revolve around the earth or
does the earth revolve around the sun? Science first taught one
and then the other. Is the world flat? At one time science
taught that it was. Do atoms really exist or is the atom
paradigm only a convenient fiction? Newton’s science taught
that an object’s mass does not depend upon its velocity, while
Einstein’s science taught the opposite. Scientists evangelize
each other and try to convert each other to their position.
Young scientists are told that they have to believe in what
passes as “scientific orthodoxy” at the time. Take the global
warming theory. If a scientist refused to convert to this faith-
based theory, he was punished in various ways, such as being
fired from his job or by losing his government funding.
Unbeliever: I thought science was based on inductive
reasoning.
Christian: The so-called “scientific method” of inductive
reasoning is laden with a priori ideas that are gratuitously
accepted. If you do not accept those presuppositions, then all
the induction is no more than circular reasoning.
Unbeliever: If this is true than all hope for truth and meaning
is lost!
Christian: If you mean that if we start with man as the Origin
and measure of truth, then, yes, all is meaningless. But I have
good news for you. If we begin with the God of the Bible as
the Origin and Measure of all things, including truth, justice,
morals, meaning, and beauty, then we can have all those
things. Humanistic science is sinful man’s attempt to explain
the world without God. It can’t be done. Biblical science
begins with God and then explains the world in terms of its
relation to Him. Unless we start with “In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth,” all is meaningless.
A brief review of ancient Greek philosophy would be helpful to
understand the roots of humanistic ideas about science.

PART ONE
ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSPHY
 The philosophers of Greece supposedly based their ideas on human
reason and experience, and they prided themselves on being “rational” in
all things. From the very beginning of recorded history, the word
“rational” referred to what psychologically “felt” right to the majority of
people in a given culture. To the Greeks, the idea that the world was a flat
plane “felt” rational. The idea that the world was a round sphere would
have been deemed “irrational” in that day.
Science at one time taught that the sun revolved around the earth; that
astrology could predict the future; the spontaneous creation of life; that
disease was healed by bleeding the patient; light is unaffected by gravity;
etc., etc. Thus what is “rational” is relative to the dominant social beliefs
at that time.

The Duckbilled Platypus

The duckbilled platypus is a good example of the psychology of
rationality. When the first explorers of Australia returned to Europe, they
reported the existence of a weird animal that had the bill of a duck,
webbed feet, fur, laid eggs, and suckled its young. The scientists of Europe
pronounced it a fraud and that such a creature could not rationally exist.
They considered it a sick joke.
Then explorers returned to Australia and brought back the skins of the
animal as proof. But the scientists declared the skins of the platypus to be
a clumsy fraud created by sewing together body parts from different
animals. It was stated in universities across Europe that it was not
“rational” that such a creature could exist. The real is the rational and the
rational is the real. If something is “unthinkable,” then it does not exist.
The explorers had to bring a live duckbilled platypus back to Europe,
and only when the scientists were forced to watch it swimming around did
they grudgingly admit it must be real. The “irrational” was the real, and
rationality once again showed one of its weaknesses as a philosophy.

Greek Rationality
Besides the invention of the psychological term “rational,” other
philosophical ideas developed by Greek philosophy are still with us today.
Zeller, one of the more astute humanists of our day, states in his standard
work on the pre-Socratic philosophers,
 From Greek Philosophy, however, the whole of European
philosophy has descended. For the ideas which the Romans
express in their philosophic literature were not original, but
were taken from the Greeks, clothed in the Latin language and
passed on to the medieval and modern world.
Most modern philosophers, such as Alfred North Whitehead, have
admitted their indebtedness to Greek philosophy. On numerous occasions
Whitehead proudly proclaimed that “philosophy only repeats Plato!” He
assumed that the closer we get to Greek philosophy and the farther we
depart from Christianity, the better off we will be philosophically and
morally.

Greek Philosophy and Secular Humanism

Greek philosophy is also important because it represents secular
humanism in full bloom. The Greeks attempted to explain the existence
and form of the universe and the uniqueness of man solely on the basis of
human reason, intuition, experience, and faith. They developed their
philosophies from themselves, by themselves, and upon themselves
without any reliance on divine revelation. Again, Zeller comments,
It was the Greeks who won for man freedom and independence
of philosophic thought, who proclaimed the autonomy of
reason.
Zeller goes on to define what he meant when he said “freedom” and
“independence.” He meant “freedom” and “independence” from God. It
did not matter if one is considering the being, attributes, sovereignty,
salvation, works, law, or revelation of God, man must be “free” of God or
he is not “really” and “truly” free.
First, as Zeller states, the Greek philosopher was free “to live life as he
pleased” because he was “free” from “ethics founded on religious
authority.” This has always been the great goal of man since his Fall into
sin and rebellion in the Garden. Man must be “free” to be his own
lawgiver and judge. God and His Law must go if man is to be free.
Second, the Greek philosopher was free “to behave as he pleased”
because he was “free” from “a religion based on revelation.” If man is to
be a truth-maker, law-maker, and god-maker, he cannot be limited by the
Bible or any other divine revelation. Truth, justice, morals, meaning, and
beauty must be decided by what man thinks or feels about it. The concept
of a God who reveals absolute truth or morals is clearly repugnant to
Zeller.
Religion, philosophy, and science by human reason alone (not by
Revelation) was the basis of Greek thought and is still the basis of all
apostate thought. “Freedom” to apostate man always means freedom from
the God who made him. If man is not free in this absolute sense, he is not
“truly” free.

Human Autonomy
When Zeller spoke of “the autonomy of reason,” he meant that the
Greeks did not think that they were dependent on the gods or God for their
existence, knowledge, or ethics. They assumed that they could “go it
alone” without God because they were “autonomous,” i.e. independent
from God. They did not need God or His grace or revelation.
The philosophic doctrine of human autonomy is the very soul and
substance of all humanistic thought. But, can man really “go it alone” by
relying solely on his own finite and corrupt reason, intuition, and
experience? Is truth or morality possible if man begins by rejecting God
and His revelation and relying only on himself?

When the Rubber Meets the Road

Let us examine the Greek philosophies to see if they were able to
produce anything of lasting worth. After all, if man’s reason, intuition, and
experience are really sufficient, then surely the Greek thinkers would have
come up with a philosophy that was both believable and livable. But, if
after thousands of years in which humanistic thinkers have had all the time
and resources needed to produce something, they have in reality produced
nothing—then evidently man’s reason, intuition, and experience are not
really self-sufficient or autonomous after all.
After all the exaggerated claims about human reason, intuition, and
experience, if man fails to “go it alone,” then this calls for a radical
change in the way that truth, justice, morals, and beauty can be discovered
and known.
 To trace Greek philosophy from the pre-Socratic period to Aristotle
requires us to examine their development of the four main divisions of
philosophy:
1. Metaphysics: The science of Being. What really exists? What is
“reality”? What lies behind or beneath reality?
2. Epistemology: The science of Knowledge. Can we know what
exists? How can we know it? Is it possible to “know” anything?
3. Ethics: The science of Morals. What is “good” and “evil?” Can
we discern good from evil? How do we do this? Are there moral
absolutes or is everything relative?
4. Aesthetics: The science of Beauty. What are “beauty” and
“ugliness?” Are there absolute standards by which we can discern
and judge whether something is “beautiful”? How can we discover
them?

Metaphysics
The Pre-Socratics
With the appearance of a slave-based society, a leisure class appeared
in Greek society. People had the freedom and time to sit around and try to
figure out final answers to the ultimate questions of life. Where did we
come from? How did we get here? Why are we here? What are we to do?
Where are we going?
Thales is considered to be the earliest of the Greek philosophers. The
main question which Thales addressed was, “What is ultimate reality?” i.e.
“Of what is it composed or made?”
Thales assumed many things that he never questioned. They were faith-
based assumptions that he did not question or prove. His philosophy grew
out of and rested upon these assumptions. For example, he gratuitously
assumed that ultimate “reality” was “One,” not “Many.” This is the
doctrine of Monism, which states that there is no qualitative distinction
between gods, men, animals or things. All is One and One is All. They are
all part of “what is.” They are all “One.”
This is in stark contrast to the Biblical idea that God is distinct
qualitatively and quantitatively from the universe. The Biblical doctrine of
Creation means that God and the creation are two totally different things.
They are not “One.” We are not a part of God or one with God or an
emanation from God. While the Greeks, Hindus, Buddhists, and all
monists believe that “All is One,” the Bible teaches that “All is Two.”
Since Thales assumed that everything was eventually and ultimately
“One,” he wanted to know the identity and nature of this “One” thing that
composed all of reality. This “One” made up the existence of the world.
Thales also gratuitously assumed that whatever this “One” thing was:
1. It was a material substance,
2. It could be perceived by the five senses of man.
3. It was as eternal as the world of space and time.

Earth, Air, Fire, Water

In other words, the “One” substance, which made up everything, was
something man could touch, taste, see, feel, or hear. Thales chose WATER
as the “One” ultimate eternal substance which made up all of reality.
Ultimate reality was “One” and this “One” was WATER.
After Thales asked what is the identity and nature of the “One” basis of
reality, other philosophers put forth their own answers. At first, they
assumed along with Thales that this “One” was a material substance
perceivable by the five senses.
Heraclitus chose FIRE as ultimate reality. Anaximenes proposed that AIR
was the “One.” Empedocles and Aristotle topped them all by stating that
reality was composed of a combination of EARTH, AIR, FIRE, and WATER!
If you are tempted to think that these philosophers were just plain
stupid, you must realize that their idea that EARTH, AIR, FIRE, and WATER
made up reality is still with us today. The psychological theory that there
are four basic personality types (sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric,
melancholic) is a modern version of the Greek idea of EARTH, AIR, FIRE,
and WATER!

Idealism
Once the Greek philosophers had exhausted all the material substances
open to sense perception that they thought were qualified to be the “One,”
some of them decided that it was “rational” to believe that the “One” must
be a material substance that was not perceivable by the senses. This
“substance” lay “behind” or “beneath” earth, air, fire, and water. Although
it could not be seen, touched, heard, tasted, or smelled, it existed anyway.
Anaximander was first to propose this step toward abstract idealism. He
stated that “APEIRON” underlay all of reality. It is difficult to translate this
word, but it seems to refer to a material substance lying behind or below
all things as a “ground of being.”
Pythagoras was the philosopher who took the next step. He believed
that a material substance could not be the “One” of reality, regardless of
whether it could be perceived by the senses or not. Reality was actually
something abstract. It was a “Number.”
This step in philosophy opened the door to Idealism, which believes
that “ideas” or “numbers” are more real than material substances. This led
to the classic contrast between “mind” and “matter” in Greek thought.
The Greek philosophers finally came to the conclusion that the “One”
that made up ultimate reality was not a material substance open to sense
perception. It was an “idea” or a “number” that could be perceived only by
the mind apart from the senses.

One or Many?
This led philosophers to consider further questions concerning the
“One” that supposedly made up reality. Was this “One” one or many in
quality or number? Was this “One” at rest in an unmovable and static
sense or was it in constant flux or motion?
Democrates put forth the idea that reality was “One” in quality but
“many” in number, while Empedocles stated that the “One” was many in
quality but one in number! Parmenides felt that reality was “One” in both
quality and number. The “One” was ultimate. All else was illusion. This
idea is the basis of such eastern religions as Hinduism.

Monism and Pluralism

Thus from the Greeks came the conflict between the monists and
pluralists. Yet, they both assumed that reality was “One” and that it was
eternal. No real distinction lay between things in this life. They all existed
as part of “One” world, and man could discover the nature of the “One” by
reason alone.
Being or Becoming?
Another conflict that arose centered in the debate between Parmenides
and Heraclitus. Was the “One” that composed all of reality in a state of
being or was it in the process of becoming?
Heraclitus championed the position that there is no “being,” but all is
“becoming” in a dynamic process of constant change. “No one steps in the
same river twice” was Heraclitus’ slogan. Everything was in flux. Thus
absolute knowledge of truth or morals was impossible because everything
is constantly changing. What seems “permanent” is illusory. Nothing is
fixed, perfect or immutable, not even the gods.
Heraclitus never realized that he had only succeeded in refuting
himself. If “Nothing is true in an eternal immutable sense” is true, than
Heraclitus’ ideas are not true either! If he is wrong, then he is wrong. If he
is right, then he is wrong. Either way, he is wrong!
Parmenides taught that there is no “becoming,” but that all is “being.”
Thus everything is static, fixed, and immutable in the sense of immovable.
His disciple Zeno tried to demonstrate by several famous paradoxes such
as an arrow in flight that motion is an illusion. What is “real” is
permanent. Change and movement are illusory.
The pre-Socratic period ended in a classic stalemate between
Heraclitus’ “becoming” and Parmenides’ “being.” They could not solve
the contradictions between the two.

Plato
Plato was the first philosopher to attempt a synthesis between the two
systems of Parmenides and Heraclitus. He began by assuming by faith that
ultimate reality was “One,” that it was eternal, and that man could
discover its identity on the basis of his reason alone.
The Platonic solution was to place “being” on top of “becoming” like a
sandwich. Plato’s “World of Ideas” with its “Idea of the Good” took on all
the attributes of Parmenides’ being. It was eternal, static, immutable, and
transcendent. Heraclitus’ world of flux became the “World of Matter” that
Plato defined as “non-being.” It had all the attributes of Heraclitus’
“becoming.”
But, merely laying Being (Mind) on top of Becoming (Matter) did not
bring them into contact with each other. No knowledge of this world was
possible as long as “matter” and “mind” remained isolated from each
other.
In order to overcome this problem, Plato invented the concept of a
finite god who exists between the World of Ideas and the World of Matter.
This “Demiurge” was not omnipotent, omniscient or sovereign. The
Demiurge molded formless matter according to the patterns he saw in the
World of Ideas without any idea of what he was making or what the future
of it would be. Thus Plato’s god was not infinite in knowledge or power.
He did not exist prior to or independent of reality. He was a finite part of a
finite world. As such, he could not know the future of what he made.
But, even with a Demiurge, Plato never solved the problem that what
was knowable and what was real belonged only to the World of Ideas. The
World of Matter remained unknowable and only reflected the ideas or
patterns that molded it.
The Platonic system only satisfied philosophers for a brief time.
Skeptics eventually took over Plato’s Academy and ended up teaching that
no true knowledge of anything was possible. Thus no absolute morals were
possible. This is the logical conclusion of all philosophic systems that
begin with the assumption of human autonomy. When man begins only
with himself, from himself, and by himself, he will always end in
skepticism and relativism.

Aristotle
Even though he had been a disciple of Plato, Aristotle saw that Plato
had not really solved the problems of meaning and knowledge. As a matter
of fact, he had merely relocated them. For example, instead of explaining
the meaning of the chair in front of him, Plato pointed up to the idea of
“chair-ness,” which supposedly resided in the “World of Ideas.” But,
merely shuffling the chair from “here” to “there” hardly constitutes an
explanation!
In his Metaphysics, Aristotle put forth fourteen arguments that refuted
Plato’s system. Plato was too idealistic and rationalistic in that he did not
explain matter, he merely defined it away! Rearranging Parmenides’
“being” and Heraclitus’ “becoming” into a dichotomy did not resolve
anything. But, like all the philosophers before him, Aristotle assumed
Monism and human autonomy. Instead of Plato’s dual world, Aristotle had
one world composed of a mixture of “form and matter,” “mind and
matter” or “essence and matter.”
“Matter” was pure potential and “mind” was pure actuality. There was
an Ultimate Cause unto which all things were being attracted. This
produced the motion involved in moving from potential to actual. In this
way, Aristotle hoped to blend together Parmenides’ “being” with Plato’s
“mind” and Heraclitus’ “becoming” with Plato’s “matter.”
The fatal flaw in Aristotle’s reasoning was that the “form” of something
did not have to be consistent with its “essence.” Thus, the knowledge of
particulars becomes impossible. Only universals were knowable in the last
analysis. Once again no knowledge of this world was really possible.
Aristotle believed in many finite gods who were neither omniscient nor
omnipotent and were only a part of the process of potentiality becoming
actuality. These gods did not know the future. Since Aristotle’s gods could
only know universals, they could not know particulars. They were
incapable of knowing you or your future.

Epistemology
The Pre-Socratics
The early philosophers were empiricists, and restricted knowledge to
what was perceivable by the five senses. When this went nowhere, they
turned to rationalism that relied only on ideas in the mind. Further
refinements such as idealism, materialism, realism, etc. flowed out of the
basic conflict between Parmenides and Heraclitus.
The radical problem was that they all assumed that man could “go it
alone,” i.e. he is autonomous. The doctrine of human autonomy doomed
all their philosophies to ultimate relativism and skepticism.

Plato
Since Plato was a rationalist, he did not believe that all knowledge
came from the senses. Man actually already knew everything because he
had pre-existed his birth in the World of Ideas. He had “fallen” into a
physical body. This fall was a bad thing because it made man forget all he
knew. But, as man reasoned, he could “remember” or “recollect” the ideas
that existed in the “World of Ideas.” While the Demiurge god was not
omniscient, Plato felt that man was!

Aristotle
Aristotle championed empiricism against the rationalism of Plato. But,
like Plato, he still assumed monism and human autonomy. In his theory of
knowledge, Aristotle taught that we can “abstract” or “grasp” the
“essence” or meaning of an object logically. Thus Aristotle placed
knowledge not in things “as they are” but in their “essence.” Matter (i.e.
form) was still unknowable. Aristotle’s system as well as Plato’s was
eventually abandoned. Skepticism and relativism triumphed once again.

Ethics
The Pre-Socratics
Not having any authority higher than their own finite reason, the pre-
Socratic philosophers could not generate any ethical absolutes that were
infinite or universal. But, this did not stop them from calling their ideas
universal, intuitive, and self-evident.
The fact that the philosophers had conflicting ideas did not seem to
bother them. But, how can two contradictory ideas, that were mutually
exclusive, be universal, intuitive, and self-evident at the same time? If one
idea is “universal, intuitive, and self-evident,” then how could the opposite
idea also be “universal, intuitive, and self-evident?” Due to this “Law of
Non-Contradiction” they cannot both be all of those things.

Universal, Intuitive, Self-evident

One way to solve the problem that your ideas were not really
“universal, intuitive, and self-evident” even when you pretended they
were, was to claim that your ideas were “universal, intuitive, and self-
evident” among men who were rational, cultured, and of good will. Your
ideas were “universal, intuitive, and self-evident” among those people who
were superior in intellect or class. Anyone who thought differently did not
really count as they were obviously inferior to you. In this way you could
exclude women, children, non-whites, and third world “savages.”
 They based their ideas on the consensus of their society. No one else
matters to them. Whenever you hear or read philosophers claiming that
their ideas are “universal, intuitive, and self-evident,” they are guilty of
racism, classism, and snobbery. They are also hypocritical since they
ignore contradictions between themselves of their same class.

Plato
Socrates and Plato tried to create absolutes on the basis of their own
subjective and personal conceptions of the “idea” of the “Good.”
Everything that conformed to their idea of “Good” was good. Anything
that contradicted their idea of the “good” was “evil.” How convenient!
The main problem with this line of reasoning was this question: How
could Plato or Socrates prove that their subjective, personal, culturally-
limited, and finite idea of what was “good” was better than someone else’s
idea of what is “good?” To Socrates, homosexuality was both natural and
good. We tend to excuse this side of Socrates because it reflected the
consensus of Greek society at that time.
In the end, Socrates never refuted Thrasymachus’s argument that
“Might Makes Right.” Socrates’ and Plato’s own finiteness relativized any
absolutes they tried to make.

Aristotle
Aristotle abandoned Plato’s attempt to generate absolutes by an
arbitrary concept of “the idea” of “the Good.” In its place he taught that
ethics was a sliding scale of pleasure and pain and not an issue of
absolutes. What was “good” would be attracted to the Ultimate Cause to
which all things were moving. But, this attempt to have “relative” and
“mutable” morals failed.

Aesthetics
To the Greek philosophers, ideal perfection was the standard of beauty.
Imperfection was ugliness. This is why they painted and sculpted perfect
bodies for the gods, man, and animals, set in the background of a perfect
nature. For example, the nude male body was pictured in its ideal form
without imperfections of any kind because it was, in their mind, the
pinnacle of ideal perfection. It was not until much later that the female
body was likewise judged perfect ideal beauty.
The dogma of human autonomy ultimately led humanists to the idea
that, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Since man was the measure of
all things, this includes both beauty and ugliness. In the end, this idea lead
to the destruction of any hope of objective standards of beauty and
ugliness. One man’s beauty was another man’s ugliness.

Summary
In the end, each philosopher was contradicted by the philosophers who
followed him. Nothing was permanently established as certain or absolute.
The Greeks failed to produce a philosophy or worldview that was
believable or livable, i.e. they could not live what they believed.
We should not be surprised by this fact. Humanistic thought always
fails in the end because its foundational commitment to human autonomy
renders it incapable of success. When finite man starts only with his own
reason, feelings or experience, he will always end in skepticism (no
knowledge is possible) and relativism (no morals are possible). After all
the exaggerated claims of man’s independence from divine revelation,
when the “rubber met the road,” human reason, intuition, and experience
led man down a blind alley.

PART TWO
Humanistic Science
The history of humanistic science has always followed the history of
Natural Philosophy. As the philosophic worldview of society changed,
science changed along with it. In this sense, humanistic science is a “tag
along” because it always follows the ever-changing wind of philosophic
fads. Like a chameleon that changes its color to match the color of its
background, science has changed and adapted to whatever dominant
worldview is in vogue at the time. It is thus relative, not absolute.

The Golden Age of Greece

Humanistic “science” was first developed by the Pre-Socratic
philosophers who assumed the validity of the pagan dogma of human
autonomy, i.e. “man is the measure of all things.” They assumed that man
was the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty; that man
could understand the universe by reason alone, apart from and independent
of any special revelation from God.
At the beginning, some Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus believed
that their observation of “Nature” was the way to obtain knowledge of the
world around them. Hence, the word “science” originally meant
“knowledge from observation.”
These early philosophers believed that if something could not be
experienced by the five senses, it did not exist. This position was later
revived in modern times under the name “empiricism” and the Vienna
School of Positivism. Scientism and realism are modern expressions of
this ancient theory.

Monism
Another mega-shift took place in Greece around the same time. In
addition to human autonomy, the Greeks now adopted the religious
doctrine of Monism, borrowed from Orphic mysticism, which taught, “All
is One.” The “Many” diversities around us do not really exist even if that
is what our eyes told us. All is ONE, not four.
Note: Monism is the basis of Eastern religions such as Hinduism and
Buddhism. This is why modern science has returned full circle to its roots
in Eastern mysticism.
Once Monism became an article of faith in Western philosophy,
everything could be viewed as being a “uni-verse,” i.e. unity out of
diversity. A “uni-versity” is supposed to bring all knowledge together in
one grand theory. Since humanism begins with man instead of God, it has
not and, indeed, cannot generate a grand theory that encompasses all
things. This is why modern universities teach there is no truth to discover,
no morals to live by, no justice to implement, and no meaning to life.

The Theory of Atoms

In contrast to drifting off into idealistic non-material “Being,”
philosophers such as Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus believed that
the universe was composed of very small material “atoms.” They were the
material “stuff” that made up all four elements.
 “Atoms” were invisible and thus could not be observed by the five
senses. They could not be defined and their existence was accepted by
faith alone. Although they could not be seen or felt, “atoms,” whatever
they were, were said to be the basic building block of the universe. They
were a paradigm or model of what reality was as expressed on a piece of
paper. The diagram of an atom reflected what was out there in the world
although no one had ever seen or touched an atom.
These “atoms” were little particles of matter like very small marbles or
beads. Each atom was an exact replica of the universe complete with a
central sun called a nucleus and planets rotating around it called electrons
and neutrons. Each micro atom was only a miniature version of the macro
universe! This model was neat and tidy and felt “rational.”
The religion of Atomism was later rejected by Aristotle, but resurrected
in the 17th century and is still taught in most high school science classes to
this day. When your high school teacher showed you a plastic model of an
atom, did he or she tell you that it was only one scientific “model” among
many? It is actually a religious myth from ancient Greece.

Quantum Mechanics
When college students take their first class in quantum mechanics, they
discover that “atoms” do not really exit. They are only a “model” or
picture of what philosophers in the past imagined lay “beneath” the visible
universe. No one has ever seen any little atomic micro-universes. No
nuclei, electrons or protons were observed. Instead of little pieces or
particles of matter, like tiny pebbles, ultimate reality was now defined in
terms of “sub-atomic” elements composed of magnetic energy fields.
By this time your head should be reeling with the realization that what
you thought in high school was “science” was oversimplification, poor
models, and even ancient religious dogma. In defense of the atom theory,
realists point out that the theory led to the development of the atom bomb
and nuclear power. Thus the theory worked.
Some people assume that something is true if it works. But anti-realists
rightly point out that the atom idea is only one possible explanation for
such things. After all, we can go to the moon using Newton’s physics or
Einstein’s physics. While they contradict each other, we can make it to the
moon using either one of them.
 Realists argue that while it is true that no one has ever seen atoms, they
have left “tracks” in cloud chambers. But there are other scientists who
can explain these so-called “tracks” without using the theory of atoms.

Plato’s Academy
When Plato set up his famous Academy, over the door was written that
only those who knew geometry could enter. He was referring to the
“plane” geometry invented by some Greek scientists and philosophers who
believed that the uni-verse was a flat plane with four corners. They had no
concept of a round earth or uni-verse.

Astrology
This is why the astrologers such as Ptolemy assumed that whatever
stars he saw over him in the Greek night sky would the same ones that
everyone one else saw. The idea that people could be living on the other
side of a round planet and thus see a different night sky with different stars
in view never occurred to him.
Ptolemy is the father of modern astrology. He assumed that you were
born under a certain astrological signs on a specific date because everyone
is living on the same flat plane. Your “sign” assumes you were born in
Greece! Since I have dealt at length with astrology elsewhere, I refer you
to that resource.
Ptolemy was also the father of “plane” geometry, which taught that
sides of a triangle are never parallel and parallel lines never intersect.
These ideas are the theorems, i.e. faith commitments, of plane geometry.
All calculations are based upon such ideas.

SMSG’s Universe
When I was a tenth grade high school student, I was selected by Yale
University to become part of its Student Mathematics Study Group
(SMSG). Edward Begle introduced us to Einstein’s round earth and a
bubble universe in which sides of a triangle are ultimately parallel and all
parallel lines ultimately intersect. Given the curvature of the surface of the
earth, every line is actually bent as it follows the curvature of the planet. It
is actually impossible to draw a straight line!
 Imagine a large soap bubble floating in the air in front of you. As you
move your head from side to side, you see little flashes of light sparking
on its surface. Now take away the soap film that made up the bubble’s skin
but leave behind the sparkles of light. All you now see is a sphere of
dancing sparkles of light that is expanding outward as you watch it. That
was the universe according to SMSG!

Modern Math
We also learned that modern mathematics no longer assumes the
validity of ancient Greek ideas of mathematics. Most people do not
understand that the Greeks developed a “base ten” mathematical model
because they had ten fingers! But, what happens if we move over to a
different base? For example, if we adopt a base two model instead of a
base ten numeric system, one plus one now equals one-zero instead of
two!
Another new approach we learned is that mathematical equations
cannot “prove” anything because they are only translations from one
language to another. Just because you can translate a sentence from the
English language into a mathematical meta-language, this is no different
than translating English into French or German. This is why I am
unimpressed by natural theologians who think they have proven a theory
because they can put it into the form of a mathematical equation. Big deal!
They are only translating their theory, not proving it.

Aristotle
Aristotle was the first humanist philosopher who divided “science” into
categories such as biology, zoology, physics, theology, etc. He followed the
pre-Socratics in utilizing observation as his basic methodology to discover
reality. He believed that earth, air, fire, and water were the four basic
elements that made up the world.
Based on his observation that the sun rose in the East and set in the
West, Aristotle taught geocentrism, i.e. the earth was the center of the
universe and the sun, moon, and stars revolved around it. This became a
scientific faith-dogma for over a thousand years. It could not be
questioned.
 Note: Since no one at that time had gone into outer space and looked
back and saw the shape of the earth or its relationship to the planets, moon
and sun, was a “geo” or “helio” view of earth the result of observation or
were they both nothing more than mere speculation? They were both
statements of what humanist man believed at that time.

Thomas Aquinas
When the official natural philosopher and theologian of the Roman
Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas, adopted the philosophy of Aristotle,
geocentricism became part of Roman Church dogma. This explains why
there was such a violent reaction when Copernicus and Galileo taught
heliocentricism, i.e. the earth revolved around the sun. If the sun were
indeed the center of the universe, this would threaten the very foundation
of Aristotelian Natural Philosophy and Theology, and, by logical
extension, the foundation of Catholic teaching.

The Copernican Revolution

The issue that faced Copernicus was not science versus religion but
religion masquerading as science versus organized religion. Aristotelian
science taught that the sun revolved around the earth. This was based on
the observation that the sun rose and set. But Copernicus boldly stated that
observation was not a guide to truth. The sun does not really rise or set.
Your eyes are deceiving you.
It took a hundred years for the heliocentric model to triumph over
Aristotle’s geocentricism. But, after the work of Johannes Kepler, the
battle was over. Science changed its worldview once again.

The Rise of Rationalism

Once modern science discarded observation, the way was open for
speculations based solely on an abstract concept of human “Reason.”
Science was now following Rationalism, which had become the dominant
worldview during the Renaissance. The real was the rational and the
rational was whatever felt real to you.
Descartes’ “reason” told him that invisible corpuscles made up the
mechanistic world in which we lived. Spinoza drew up a mathematical
model for the universe in which everything could be reduced to an
equation. Rationalistic science reigned supreme. It supposedly dealt in
absolutes deduced from self-evident, intuitive, universal truths.
Science was now viewed as a rational enterprise that could explain
everything. Nothing was beyond its reach. “Miracles” were mysteries that
science had not yet explained. Scientists were little gods in white coats
running around pontificating on everything. Since they were objective and
neutral in their work, their speculations and theories were accepted as
“facts” regardless of the amount of empirical evidence to support them.
Note: Science now faced the conflict between induction and deduction.
Some scientists arrogantly called induction “the” scientific method. This
claim was first refuted by the philosopher David Hume and later by Karl
Popper.

Isaac Newton
Isaac Newton’s worldview of the universe as a vast machine running
according to immutable mechanical laws became dominant as it fit in with
the rationalist dream that everything had a “rational” explanation. This is
why Darwin’s theory of evolution became an overnight success-even
though there were no hard facts to support it. The “missing links” that he
promised would show up, have never appeared!
Genetics renders Darwin’s belief that acquired characteristics could be
passed on to one’s descendents not only obsolete but absurd. The “survival
of the fittest” is a joke. While we smile at Darwin’s claim that primate-
man lost his tail by sitting on it, the theory of evolution still remains a
religious dogma of scientism.

Empiricism Takes Over

When Empiricism dislodged Rationalism, science adapted to the
change in worldview and became empirical in nature. If a word or
statement could not be empirically verified or falsified in the laboratory, it
was meaningless according to the Vienna School of Logical Positivism.
Since such words as “God,” “soul,” or “angel” are not empirically
verifiable, they were simply dismissed as meaningless. Religion was not
refuted per se. It was simply defined out of existence.
 Laboratory experiments became the rage until people caught on to the
fact that scientists began with a theory in mind and then set up
experiments that would validate it. When they did not get the results they
expected, they tossed those results out and kept trying until they got what
they wanted. For example, whenever an experiment demonstrates that the
universe is actually only thousands of years old instead of billions of
years, it is dismissed because it contradicts the dogma of the old earth.
The test results that support a young earth are thrown into the trash.
Empiricism collapsed when its self-refuting nature became obvious. It
could not be empirically verified that things needed to be empirically
verified! Thus the principle of empiricism was itself meaningless
according to its own foundational principle! Humanistic philosophers and
scientists were once again adrift in the abyss of the unrelated.
This was the same problem with the principle of induction. It itself
could not be validated by induction! It depended on deductions drawn
from a priori ideas such as the uniformity of nature, human autonomy, etc.
Note: Any scientific theory that successfully refutes itself is doomed.

Einstein Rides to the Rescue

Albert Einstein’s “theory of relativity” was another Copernican
Revolution in the philosophy of science. His ideas forever changed the
way we look at the world. He combined his love of music with his
Talmudic heritage and blended them with the philosophy of Spinoza and
ended up with a unified field of knowledge that he called “the theory of
relativity.” His view of the world was as dynamic as Newton’s was
mechanical.
The phrase “theory of relativity” is unfortunate because Einstein did
not believe in moral or physical relativism. Einstein’s scientific laws were
as rigid, immutable, and absolute as Newton’s. The speed of light in a
vacuum is the same everywhere in the universe. There is no such thing as
chance or free will because everything, including the thoughts and choices
of man, are determined. His faith-based presuppositions were written in
concrete.
One surprising element in Einstein’s worldview that is not well-known
is that he believed that science and religions were compatible. Max
Jammer explains,
 Einstein never conceived of the relating between science and
religion as an antithesis. On the contrary, he regarded science
and religion as complementary to each other or rather as
mutually depending on each other, a relating that he described
by the metaphor quoted above, “Science without religion is
lame, religion without science is blind.”
The reason why science and religion are compatible is that science
itself springs from a priori religious ideas. Einstein stated,
Speaking of the spirit that informs modern scientific
investigations, I am of the opinion that all the finer
speculations in the realm of science spring from a deep
religious feeling, and that without such feeling they would not
be fruitful. I also believe that, this kind of religiousness, which
makes itself felt today in scientific investigations, is the only
creative religious activity of our time. The art of today can
hardly be looked upon at all as expressive of our religious
instincts.
When faced with having to “prove” his belief that the speed of light in a
vacuum is the same everywhere in the universe, Einstein retorted, “God
does not play at dice.” Jammer comments,
Einstein’s persistent objection to the new quantum mechanics,
on the grounds that “God does not play at dice,” was, at least
to some extent, religiously motivated.
Where did he obtain his ideas of the unity of nature, the rationality of
the universe, unrestricted determinism, and the denial of free will? All
these concepts are faith-based religious dogmas he derived from Spinoza’s
pantheistic, philosophic religion. Einstein declared his love of and
dependence upon the religious and philosophic concepts of Spinoza on
many occasions.

The Search for the Impossible

One great example of scientific religious dogma is what Jammer
describes as Einstein’s “indefatigable tenacity in searching for a unified
field theory.” Like most past humanists, Einstein believed that man was
the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. He really
believed that someone, somewhere, somehow, some time would create a
unified theory of knowledge that explained EVERYTHING. He spent his
entire life trying to produce a theory that encompassed all things.
While some humanists today have abandoned the search for a unified
field of knowledge, it still resurfaces now and then and creates great
excitement at the possibility. One example is the work of Stephen
Hawking. He created a world in his mind in which God could not exist. His
rejection of God was not intellectual but emotional.

Quantum Mechanics
Einstein’s unified field theory began to fall apart as Quantum
mechanics attacked the basis of the theory of relativism by rejecting his
doctrine of unrestricted determinism. Heisenberg demonstrated that
Einstein’s laws did not work when applied to sub-atomic elements.
Heisenberg’s famous “principle of indeterminacy” demonstrated that we
could not know the position, speed, or direction of sub-atomic particles
because the moment we tried to view or measure them, we alter their
position, speed, and direction.
Stop and think for a moment. Humanists had always assumed that they
could KNOW ultimate reality by observation and experimentation. But, if
Heisenberg was right, then they CANNOT know reality, because the
moment they try to observe it or experiment to know it, they alter it! Thus,
the universe is ultimately unknowable.
Einstein realized that his Spinozian belief in unrestricted determinism
was the foundation of his theory of relativity, and tried his best to refute
Heisenberg. But, as Jammer correctly saw, “Einstein failed to disprove
Heisenberg’s indeterminacy relations.”
Einstein’s worldview fell apart as his assured “laws” of science were no
longer viewed as absolute or true. They were only sentences written on a
piece of paper. Quantum Mechanics now rendered Einstein just as obsolete
as Newton had done to Aristotle.

Constant Change
As we have pointed out, science tags along with contemporary religious
philosophy and Natural Theology tags along with science, in that it always
adopts whatever secular view of science is in vogue at the time.
• Medieval Roman Catholic Natural Theology based its
arguments on the philosophy of Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas.
Today many Catholic philosophers (and a few erstwhile
Protestant philosophers) still yearn for the “good old days”
when Aquinas was the dominant worldview.
• When Newton displaced Aquinas, Protestant Natural
Theologians, particularly in Great Britain, shifted their
theoretical base to Newtonian physics. The world was one vast
machine like a watch. This is why there were so many
arguments from the watch to the Watch Maker.
• When Einstein displaced Newton, Protestant Natural
theologians, British ones taking the lead once again, simply
switched their theoretical base over to his Theory of Relativity.
• When Quantum Mechanics displaced Einstein, a few Natural
Theologians once against had to shift their theoretical base to a
new mystical, Eastern worldview.
When you build your worldview on the shifting sand of popular opinion
instead of upon the solid rock of Scripture, your views will change from
day to day as you try to keep up with the ever-changing culture around
you. Being “relevant” can be exhausting.

Time and Eternity

This is particularly true of Einstein’s concept of the relationship
between time and eternity. Roman Catholic theology traditionally based its
understanding of time and eternity on Aquinas who had “Christianized”
Aristotle’s view. Most modern Catholic theologians have yet to move on in
their worldview.
Since Protestant theologians are always trying to be “relevant,” they
have been faster to adopt whatever is in fashion at the time. But, they are
usually twenty five years behind the secular world. By the time they adopt
a new worldview, the world has already moved on to newer ideas.
With the advent of Einstein’s physics, a shift took place in Natural
Theology. Aquinas and Newton were “thrown under the bus” and Einstein
was now enthroned.
Post-Modern “Christian” Theologians
This is the key to understanding the writings of such scholars as
Whitehead, Hartshorne, Torrance, Pannenberg, Boyd, Sanders, Rice, etc.
They abandoned Newton and moved over to Einstein’s view of time and
eternity. But, their dependence on the theory of relativity is a sign of
spiritual weakness, not strength. They are violating the biblical command
not to conform to this world (Rom. 12:1–2).
Evangelical theologians often fail to understand that Process Theology,
Neo-Processianism, the Open View of God, etc. are nothing more than
versions of Einstein’s theories. The origins of such heresies are
philosophic in origin and nature, not biblical. This is why you can cite
Scripture after Scripture to them that clearly refute their heresies but they
remain unmoved. Their faith-based doctrines are from Einstein, not God.
What is particularly absurd, is that “evangelical” rationalists, such as J.
P. Mooreland and William Lane Craig, do not accept Einstein’s doctrine of
unrestricted determinism. They still cling to the old pagan Greek idol of
“free will.” Their attempt to deny the foundation of Einstein’s unified field
of knowledge (i.e. determinism), but, at the same time, adopt his view of
time and eternity will not survive the test of time or consistency. They will
learn the bitter truth that you cannot have your cake and eat it too!

The Black Hole of Existentialism

After the demise of Rationalism and Empiricism, Existentialism took
the philosophic world by storm. Man’s attempt to build a unified field of
knowledge of the universe was now abandoned as not only impossible, but
delusional. The humanistic hope that man could be the Origin of truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty died. Everything became relative and
subjective. There was no objective truth to believe, no morality to live by
or beauty to admire. All was meaningless, including science.
Existentialism revealed that scientific objectivity and neutrality were
illusions. Everything was relative, including math and logic. There were
no absolutes or order behind the scenes, not even the so-called “laws” of
science. The crisis was indeed great as the motivation for and the basis of
humanistic science was now destroyed.
Relativism has always been the inner cancer eating away at the soul of
humanism. If I am the Origin of truth and you are the Origin of truth, and
yet we end up with contradictory “truths,” either I am right and you are
wrong or we are both wrong! We cannot both be right—unless truth is
relative, i.e. there is no truth.

Public Indoctrination or Education?

In the 1960’s the public school system aggressively taught existential
relativism. All is meaningless and without significance. That generation
was excited to learn there were no absolutes in the bedroom. Anything
goes! If it feels good, do it! Make love, not war! Turn on, tune in, drop
out!
The artists caught on quickly and modern anti-art soon became the
norm. A crucifix in a jar of urine was viewed as art. The line between
pornography and modesty was erased. In film, murder without guilt and
sex without meaning was the new art.
Relativism then moved on to the factory. It did not make any real
difference if you made a good car or a shoddy one. It is all relative in the
end and without meaning. People no longer took pride in their work
because it had lost all meaning. We should work to live, not live to work.
It then moved to politics. Political “science” died. Politicians could
now say something, deny they said it, and later boast that they had said it.
What they said was relative to the audience at hand.
Medicine was relativized and doctors were called upon to murder
unborn and newly born babies, children with physical or mental defects,
the mentally disturbed, and, finally, the elderly. They now became
merchants of death.

The Last Idol to Fall

The last vestige of the old Newtonian worldview to succumb to the
killer virus of relativism was science. Once humanists took relativism to
its logical conclusion, science died. It no longer had any absolute value or
meaning. Science was not good or evil. It just was.
This downward process is why students today are not interested in
protesting wars or becoming chemists. It all means nothing. Personal
peace and affluence are the only values today. We have finally arrived at
the end of the yellow brick road of humanism and the Emerald city was
only a mirage.
How Did We Destroy Ourselves?
How did we get in such a mess? By falling prey to the humanist dream
that man, starting only from himself, by himself, with himself, could
understand the world around him without special Revelation from God.
Any progress the West made in scientific knowledge came from those
early scientists who believed that the Bible was the basis for the existence
and necessity of science.
Francis Schaeffer traced this line of despair and then challenged
humanists to turn back to the Bible as the only basis of science. In
contrast, Natural Theologians, i.e. religious humanists, do not call secular
humanists to turn to the Bible. Instead, they pick up the torch dropped by
secular humanists and continue to dream the impossible dream that man is
the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.

The Alternatives
Some scientists could not tolerate Existentialism and moved over to
“new” worldviews and “new” epistemologies. Following the Beatles and
the hippie drug culture of the 1960s, some scientists abandoned Western
secular philosophy entirely and moved their theoretical base over to New
Age forms of Hinduism and Buddhism. The findings of modern physicists,
particularly in the field of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s principle
of indeterminacy, have raised serious doubts about the scientific validity
of materialism’s understanding of the nature of reality.
Many young physicists have adopted Eastern idealism, which assumes
reality to be “mind,” and denies the existence of “matter!” There is a
growing fascination with Taoism or Buddhism which have become a
popular religious framework for modern physics.
Why? The sterile character of Western materialism has driven people
into the seductive arms of Shiva. The pendulum has begun to swing from
the extreme of materialism to the extreme of idealism.
Dr. Bernard Ramm foretold this shift toward idealism in modern
physics in 1953. His prophetic words are worth considering:
Both Nevius and Hocking believe that the current shift in
physics from the older Newtonian physics to the new relativity
and atomic physics is seriously damaging to the naturalistic
 program … If the contentions of such men as H. Weyl, A.
Compton, J. Jeans, W. Carr, A. Eddington, and F. Northrop are
correct, then it is conceivable that fifty years of science will
see an abandonment of the naturalistic program by the
scientists … The slight breeze in the direction of idealism may
turn to prevailing winds.
People familiar with modern physics know today Eastern idealism is
fearless and aggressive. Materialism is vulnerable, because it is beset by a
simplistic and reductionistic methodology that renders it philosophically
unacceptable.298
The Tao of Physics, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, Instant Physics, and a
host of other books have signaled the shift to Eastern philosophy. But,
since Hinduism and Buddhism were not capable of developing a
theoretical basis for science in the East, how could it provide a basis for
science in the West? The attempt to find a basis for science in Eastern
Mysticism will fail because the Eastern denial of material reality renders
science delusional.
Second, those who did not move toward the East, went in the direction
of Linguistic Analysis in which everything is reduced to semantics. They
have concluded that a scientific “law” expresses someone’s personal and
subjective culturally-bound perception of what he or she thinks is reality.
But, one person’s reality is another person’s fantasy. Thus, linguistics has
not been able to generate an intellectual basis for science.

Summary
Humanistic science has tried every possible method to find an
intellectual basis of and motivation for science. It has followed Western
philosophy into the abyss of the unrelated. In the end it has fallen into the
black hole of Existentialism and lost any hope or meaning.
This gives the biblical Christian a window of opportunity to remind the
heathen that God has made foolish the philosophy of this world 1 Cor.
1:20). It is by the Bible alone that science can have any meaning or
significance. Let us now turn to the Biblical view of science.

PART II
The Bible and Science
The humanists have done a great snow job in obscuring the relationship
between science and the Bible. They want you to believe that science is
against the Bible and the Bible is against science. Thus there is a natural
antagonism between religion and science. They claim that religion is
based on faith while science is based on facts. They usually bring up the
Scopes Monkey trial and then mock Christians as ignorant baboons.
First, the truth is that humanistic science and the Bible are enemies
because humanism (i.e. scientism) is itself a religion. Since the Humanist
Manifesto I and II both state that humanism is a religion, the underlying
conflict is between the religion of humanism and the religion of the Bible.
Don’t let them bully you on this issue.
Second, humanists presuppose the classic Greek philosophic dichotomy
in which reality is divided into a lower and upper level.
mind essence grace freedom faith

matter form nature nature reason

belief noumenal religion faith sacred

knowledge phenomenal science facts secular

By framing philosophic issues within these dichotomies, humanists

have already rigged the issue. You must object to these dichotomies
because they are a priori religious ideas that contradict the Bible. I simply
refuse to be pigeonholed into these dichotomies.
Third, humanists like to pretend that they are neutral and objective and
that their theories come from their observation of brute facts. In reality,
they presuppose a host of unproven faith-assumptions such as human
autonomy, ontological thinking, evolution, brute facts, Monism, etc., and
these presuppositions control their perception and interpretation of the
world. To ask proof for the so-called method of induction is “to cry for the
moon” according to Frank Ramsey.
Humanistic scientists begin with blind faith in certain presuppositions
that they use to build their worldview. Their philosophy of science is
derived from their worldview. Their so-called “scientific theories” are
applications of their philosophy of science, which were derived from their
worldview based entirely on faith assumptions. The following diagram
may help. You move up from faith to scientific theories.
false scientific theories

false philosophy of science

false philosophic worldview

false presuppositions

faith assumptions

Fourth, the development of science did not take place in the non-
Christian pagan world because humanistic worldviews could not provide a
sufficient theoretical basis of or motivation for science.
• The Greeks believed that the world came out of chaos, that
chance and luck control it, and that it will one day fall back
into chaos.
• Eastern humanists denied material reality.
• African and Meso-American cultures were based on
mythological cosmologies that could not generate science.

The Biblical Philosophy of Science

As with all things, science must be understood in the context of
Creation, Fall, and Redemption.

Science in the Light of Creation

First, the biblical doctrine of Creation gives us the only basis of and
motivation for science. The Christian knows from his Bible that he can
pick up a rock and ask, “What is the meaning of this rock? What is its
purpose? What function does it have in the environment? How can I use it
to benefit mankind? How can I glorify God through this rock?”
Humanism cannot answer any of these questions because it begins with
the faith assumption that there is no Creator who made the rock with
meaning and purpose. It cannot give us any reason why the rock should be
used to benefit mankind. What if there is a rare slug that lives under that
rock?
I know from the Bible that all things, including the rock, have objective
meaning because it was given meaning by the Creator.
YHWH has made everything with its own purpose in mind.
(Pro. 16:4)
‫כֹּל ָפּ ַעל יְהוָה ַֽל ַמּ ֲענֵהוּ וְגַם־ ָר ָשׁע לְיוֹם ָרָֽעה׃‬
The Hebrew text is clear that,
… all is made by God for its purpose, i.e. a purpose
premeditated by Him, that the world of things and of events
stands under the law of a plan, which has in God its ground and
its end.
Everything in God’s design has its own end and object and
reason for being where it is and such as it is; everything
exhibits his goodness and wisdom, and tends to his glory.
God told Adam to pick up a rock, a plant, or an animal and try to
understand its divine meaning and purpose. How can we use these things
to benefit mankind and to glorify Him? Man was to use his capacity to
reason within the context of Revelation, not outside of it or in opposition
to it. Logic, like fire, is good in its place. But once logic, like fire, runs
wild, it destroys all there is including itself.
The biblical worldview of Creation teaches us the following points that
provide the philosophic framework for the existence and value of science.
These points were already discussed in previous chapters on Creation.
• Man was created by God. Thus he did not evolve from lower
animals.
• God made man unique in that he is the image bearer of God.
 • No animal was created to bear God’s image.
• Man has intrinsic dignity, worth, and significance because he
is the image bearer of God.
• Man is more valuable and important than animals. Thus
animals serve the existence and benefit of man as well as the
glory of God.
• God commanded man to take dominion of the earth. Thus
man has the responsibility to take dominion over the animals
and the earth itself.
• God commanded man to name the animals and to take care
of the garden, which means that science began in the Garden of
Eden as a command of God to man.
• In naming the animals, man used observation and his mind to
come up with names that reflected the nature of the animal
named. The Hebrew concept of naming someone or something
was significant (eg. Gen. 17:5; 28:19). We must not confuse it
with the modern practice of giving arbitrary and meaningless
names.
• Since everything has a divine purpose and a meaning, man is
responsible to discover the purpose and meaning of
everything.
• The basis of science is the Genesis Cultural Mandate to take
dominion of the earth.
• Man has the responsibility to be a good steward of the planet
because he will have to answer to God for what he did with it.
Second, in the Biblical worldview, science is man’s fallible attempt to
understand the divine purpose and meaning of things, how to use that
knowledge to take dominion over them, and then to use them for the glory
of God and the benefit of mankind.
Third, science is limited to taking dominion over the earth. It cannot
answer the following ultimate questions:
• Does the universe exist, or is it an illusion?
• Did the universe have a beginning?
• Will it have an end?
• How long did it take for the universe to come into existence?
• How old is the universe?
 • Why does it exist as opposed to not existing?
• Why does the universe have a uniform structure capable of
prediction?
• Is man to be viewed as separate from other life forms on the
planet?
• Is man only an animal, or is man a “higher” form of life?
• Is man’s existence and comfort more important than the
existence and comfort of animals?
• Does man have intrinsic purpose, meaning, significance,
dignity, and worth?
• Is man more important than plants and animals?
• Does man have the right to alter his environment?
• Does man have the right to consume and control animals?
• Are there moral absolutes?
• Does man have an immortal soul?
• Is the soul conscious after death?
• Does it go to heaven or hell, or is it reincarnated into another
body?
One example is light. Science cannot explain what it is. Some say it is
composed of particles and others say it is composed of energy waves.
They have each created tests that confirm their theory. According to the
Bible, science should take dominion over electricity and use it for benefit
of mankind and the glory of God.
Fourth, the Bible reveals absolute answers to the questions above.
• The universe exists.
• It had a beginning.
• It will have an end.
• It took six days for God to bring the universe into existence.
• The universe is between six to ten thousand years old.
• It exists for the glory of God.
• The universe has a uniform structure capable of prediction.
• Man to be viewed as separate from all other life forms on the
planet.
• Man is not an animal, but a “higher” form of life.
• Man’s existence and comfort are more important than the
existence and comfort of animals.
 • Man has intrinsic purpose, meaning, significance, dignity
and worth.
• Man is more important than plants and animals.
• Man has the right to alter his environment.
• Man has the right to consume and control animals.
• Man has an immortal soul.
• Man is conscious after death.
• He ends up in hell or heaven.
• Reincarnation is not true.
• There are revealed moral absolutes.
Fifth, the Biblical worldview begins with God (Gen. 1:1) and
everything is defined in terms of its relationship to that God, who is the
measure of all things.
God

Miracles

Angels

Demons

Man

Morals

Meaning

Animals

Plants

Things
 Sixth, the humanistic worldview begins by denying the existence of the
infinite/personal Creator revealed in the Bible. Once there is no God, there
begins a downward spiral that reduces everything in the end to the level of
meaningless “things.” Once God is dead, man is dead; meaning is dead;
everything is dead, including science.

No Meaning Means No Morals

This is why humanistic science cannot generate any values or morals. It
has never been able to generate an “ought” from what “is.” Because of
this, humanism cannot distinguish between evil and good science. It
cannot judge that inventing a bomb that will kill all life is evil or that
inventing a cure for cancer is good. It is all one and same.
Seventh, only Creation gives us two essential ideas that make science
possible.
1. The universe is intrinsically intelligible, understandable; it can be
organized, altered, and controlled because it was created by the
infinite mind of a God of order, not confusion. The pagans always
assumed that the universe was ultimately mysterious in nature and
thus not really intelligible. It is a waste of time to try to figure things
out because there is nothing to figure out.
2. Man was created by God with the mental capacity to understand,
relate, alter, and control the world around him because he was
created in the image of God.
What good would an intelligible universe be if the brain of man was not
wired by the Creator to understand it? A universe not quite intelligible or a
man not quite intelligent enough to understand it would be a bridge broken
at either end.
Humanism is the bridge broken at both ends. This is why modern
animal rights groups commit terrorism. They do not believe that “man”
exists. We are only one species of primates that got in control of the world
because we evolved a thumb. Man-ape does not have any rights that the
other life forms on the planet do not share. Man-ape is not special with
special rights over and above other animals. Given the history of man-ape,
he should go extinct for the good of the world. If we have to kill millions
of people to save one bald eagle, so be it. Human life is no more important
or sacred than the toad squashed under the wheels of a truck on Route 66.

Science in the Light of the Fall

The implications of man’s radical Fall into sin and guilt are important.
The pre-lapsarian world of man and his environment were totally different
from the post-lapsarian world in which we now live. The Bible records
that God placed various curses upon the environment as part Adam’s
punishment (Gen. 3:17f; Rom. 8:20–22). Divine judgments such as the
Flood, the destruction of Sodom, etc. were catastrophic in nature. Thus the
humanistic dogma of uniformitarianism, which teaches that everything has
always been the same, is erroneous.
Man was radically altered by the Fall. Every aspect of his thoughts and
life was corrupted and polluted by sin. All of psychology and sociology is
aberrant in nature and not normal because man is not normal. He is a
fallen creature in rebellion against his Creator.
It is important to remember the Fall because Natural Theology and
Natural Law presupposes that man’s “mind” and “will” escaped totally or
to a great extent the effects of the Fall. Man’s “Reason” is still inerrant
and his will is still “free”! These are the hidden assumptions upon which
humanists view man as the measure of all things.

Science In the Light of Redemption

In the 1960’s, Star Trek gave young people the hope that mankind
would one day ultimately overcome nationalism and become a united
earth under a one-world government. Man would cast off materialism and
capitalism. This is why the crew were never seen being paid money or
spending money. Everyone worked for the common good and their needs
were met. No one was interested in getting rich.
Star Trek also pictured all religions, even alien ones such as Spock’s, as
equally valid. It did not matter what you believed as long it did not hurt
anyone but yourself. But, did the humanists who created the TV series
have any basis for their utopian hopes? None whatsoever! Given the
history of mankind, there is no reason to believe that man can change
himself or his environment for the better.

Utopian Dreams
Where did the producers of Star Trek get their utopian hopes? They
borrowed them from the biblical doctrine of Redemption. The Bible alone
gives us a sound basis for utopian hopes for human nature and the earth.
Paradise was lost, but one day it will be regained! Man will be perfect in a
perfect world once Messiah comes back.
When King Messiah returns to this world, human history as we know it
will be brought to its preordained conclusion. The resurrection of the body
and the Day of Judgment will encompass all of humanity (Matt. 25:31–
46). The old earth will be purged by fire and a new earth with a new
atmosphere will be created (2 Pet. 3:3–15). The elect will be recreated
incapable of sin (1 John 3:2) and, as a result, there will be no pain,
sickness, suffering, death or crime for all those things will have passed
away (Rev. 21:4).

The Biblical View of Aesthetics

Most Christians understand that the Bible has much to say about ethics,
but they seem unaware that it also has a lot to say about aesthetics. Prof.
Caverno in his excellent article on beauty in The International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia begins his discussion with this comment.
That the Bible is an ethical book is evident. Righteousness in
all the relations of man as a moral being is the key to its
inspiration, the guiding light to correct understanding of its
utterance. But it is everywhere inspired and writ in an
atmosphere of aesthetics. Study will bring out this fact from
Genesis to Revelation. The first pair make their appearance in
a garden where grew “every tree that is pleasant to the sight”
(Gen 2:9), and the last vision for the race is an abode in a city
whose gates are of pearl and streets of gold (Rev 21:21). Such
is the imagery that from beginning to end is pictured as the
home of ethics—at first in its untried innocence and at last in
 its stalwart righteousness. The problem will be to observe the
intermingling of these two elements—the beautiful and the
good—in the whole Scripture range.
The extensive vocabulary of Hebrew words for beauty found in the Old
Testament is astounding. God is described as “beautiful” (Psa. 27:4). Thus
His House of Worship was filled with works of art “for the glory of God
and for beauty’s sake.” (Exo. 28:2, 40; 2 Chron. 3:6).
The word “beauty” was used by Solomon more than any other writer.
He described the husband and wife in the Song of Songs as calling each
other “beautiful” at least fifteen times. This is one of the keys to a happy
marriage.
We are also warned that physical beauty will not last, but will fade
away with time (Pro. 31:30). Thus your relationship to your mate must not
be based upon external beauty but upon the inner beauty of a godly
character (1 Peter 3:1–6).
Beautiful jewelry, clothing, crowns, buildings, etc, are described as
“beautiful” (ex. Isa. 3:18). There is nothing wrong with surrounding
yourself with beauty.
After several years of studying this issue, the following is a brief
summary of the biblical view of aesthetics.

Aesthetics in the Light of Creation

The biblical account of Creation supplies us with the only valid basis
for a proper understanding of the Origin, existence, function, and
explanation of beauty and the art that expresses it. Thus art is not a
meaningless fluke of a meaningless chance-driven evolutionary process. It
is a reflection of the image of God in man.
Man’s aesthetic being is patterned after God’s aesthetic being. Animals
and machines do not produce or appreciate art. But man, as God’s image-
bearer, is both an art-maker and an art-appreciator. Art is part of human
existence from the very beginning because it is based on the Creator-
creature relationship.
Man as image-bearer was given a Creation Mandate in Genesis 1:28–
30. Man’s art was intended to be a vital part of his obedience to this
Mandate. Humanism tries vainly to provide a mandate for art or science.
 After the work of Creation was finished, God looked over all He had
made and pronounced it ‫ ֶטוֹב‬i.e. the creation was beautiful as well as
perfect. The intrinsic goodness of the Creation means that no art medium
is intrinsically evil. No combination of sounds, forms, colors or textures is
intrinsically evil.
This is why Christian artists must take their stand against the idea that
matter (ex. the human body) is intrinsically evil. There is no biblical
reason to put diapers or leaves on nude statutes! No combination of tones
or colors is intrinsically evil or demonic.
Christian art should reflect the original Creation in all of its beauty,
form, harmony and goodness. For example, David composed musical
compositions that celebrated Creation by using the mediums of poetry,
song, and instrumental music (Ps. 8; 19; 89; 100, etc.). Franz Joseph
Haydn’s Creation is another good example of an artistic display of the
beauty of the original creation.
The biblical doctrine of Creation supplies us with the only valid basis
upon which to explain the origin, existence, function and diversification of
color. The theory of evolution can never explain why a black cow eats
green grass and produces white milk.
The Bible reveals that color is here in all of its diversification simply
because God likes color. Beauty is thus ultimately in the eye of the
Beholder—the Creator God. He is the original artist who is the aesthetic
pattern for man who was created in God’s image.
When we look at the world of color and form that God created (such as
a beautiful sunset), we must confess that God is the great Painter. When
we examine the shape of the mountains, the different forms of animal and
plant life, and the human body, we know that God is the great Sculptor.
When we read in Scripture that in heaven God surrounds Himself with
angelic and human choirs; that angelic choirs sang their heavenly music at
Creation and the birth of Christ; that the stars sing for joy; that God made
musical instruments in heaven to be played continuously before Him; that
God commanded man to worship Him through music, we know that He is
the great Musician (Rev. 5:8; 14:1–3; Luke 2:13, 14; Job 38:7; Ps. 30:4;
33:3).

Ideal Geometric Form

 One interesting feature of biblical aesthetics is the geometric form that
symbolized perfection. While the Greeks thought that the circle
represented perfection and the Egyptians thought that the pyramid form
was perfection, the Bible always pictured perfection in terms of a
rectangle.
The Ark, the Tabernacle, the Temple, the Heavenly Jerusalem, the
rebuilt temple of Ezekiel, etc., were all rectangles, not circles or pyramids.
God revealed rectangle blueprints to Noah, Moses, and Ezekiel. Since He
is the Great Architect, what is the significance of the rectangle as opposed
to the circle or pyramid?
When we examine the literary forms within Scripture, we find beautiful
poetry, prayer, prose, praise and proclamation. Thus we must confess that
God is the great Poet and Writer.
Art is not for art’s sake. It exists for God’s glory for He is here and is
not silent. The little bird singing in the forest, where and when no human
ear can hear it, is still beautiful because God hears it. The desert flower,
where and when no human eye can see it, is still beautiful because God
sees it.

Aesthetics in the Light of the Fall

The radical Fall of man into sin and guilt supplies us with the only
valid basis to understand the origin and existence of ugliness, evil, pain,
suffering, chaos, war, pain, sorrow, and death. What is now is not what
originally was.
Since the Fall polluted every aspect of man’s being, the aesthetic aspect
of the image of God in man was corrupted by sin. Man’s aesthetic abilities
are now used against God instead of for God. Thus we find the rise of
apostate art which finds its climax in idolatry where the art object is
worshiped as God. Idolatry reveals that man now worships the creature
instead of the Creator (Rom. 1:18–25).
Biblical art should reflect the ugliness of man that sin has caused. It
should reveal the misery, agony, and pain of sin, death, and hell. It should
point to the ultimate despair of a life without God. It should portray the
horror of hopeless sinners in the past who were the recipients of the great
judgments of God against sin. The Flood or the destruction of Sodom
should be depicted by art.
 Art should supply the mediums through which the people of God can
express their own despair, conviction of sin, confusion, pain,
discouragement, etc. We need “songs in the night,” songs when loved ones
die, songs of confession of sin. The Psalms supply us with many examples
of this kind of art (Psa. 51, etc.)
The Christian artist should aesthetically surpass the pessimistic
existentialist artist when it comes to portraying the despair, ugliness and
hopelessness of sin. The doctrine of total depravity as taught in such
places as Rom. 3:9–19 is more realistic and frightening than anything the
humanists can come up with. We need aesthetically to confront man with
the ugliness and horror of his rebellion against God and with the reality of
divine judgment against sin.

Aesthetics in the Light of Redemption

The biblical doctrine of Redemption gives us the only basis for artistic
portrayals of truth, justice, meaning, morals, and beauty. We should
reclaim every square inch of this world for Christ. Every thought and
talent is to be redeemed unto God’s glory for all of life is to be lived for
Him (1 Cor. 10:31; 2 Cor. 10:5). All of culture is to be conquered for
Christ. Even though sin makes it impossible to attain total perfection in
this life, Christians are given the Spirit of God to execute this Mandate as
much as possible in all of culture.
It is from the Bible we get the idea that the good will ultimately
triumph over evil; that justice will established and injustice punished.
Christians know from the Bible that they “will live happily ever after”
through the merits of the person and work of Messiah.
When Jesus returns and creates a new earth, the Elect will fulfill the
original Creation Mandate given to Adam. Our wildest dreams cannot
comprehend the wondrous art, science, and philosophy that shall be
produced by the glorified saints in the eternal state. Redemption supplies
us with the only valid basis for Christians going into the arts. It is through
grace alone and Christ alone that we escape apostate art such as the
veneration of idols and icons. Redeemed sinners respond aesthetically to
God because the image of God is renewed within them (Eph. 4:24; 5:18,
19).
The arts should be viewed as:
 • Obedience to the Creation Mandate (Gen. 1:28).
• Obedience to the Mission Mandate (Matt. 28:19, 20).
• The stewardship of God-given talents (Matt. 25:14–30).
• Worship, praise, rest, recreation, prayer, and confession (ex.
Psa. 19; 23; 51; 90; 100).
• The edification of the saints.
• The evangelism of sinners.
Christian art should at times reflect the great moments in the history of
redemption, the thanks, prayer, and praise of redeemed sinners, and the
saints’ desire for sinners to be saved. Again, many of David’s Psalms are
artistic expressions of thankfulness to God for salvation (Ps. 103, etc.).
Christian art should portray the following:
• God exists and has communicated to man.
• There is hope, love, meaning, truth, etc.
• The beauty and dignity of Christ.
• There is order behind the chaos of life. God is still in control.
• The beauty that will be in the new creation.
• That good will ultimately triumph over evil.
• That the righteous will be vindicated and the wicked punished.
Christian artists engaged in evangelism should attempt to push sinners
to despair in order to drive them to Christ. We should reveal both the
ugliness of sin and the beauty of salvation. In this sense every artist is an
evangelist to a lost, sick, and dying world, for every Christian is
scripturally called upon to evangelize his world for Christ (Matt. 28:19–
20). This means that the Christian artist should viewed himself or herself
as a prophet, priest and king to the people of God.
• As a prophet, he should protect the people of God from idolatry.
• As a priest, he should lead people to worship of God alone
through the arts.
• As a king, he should provide for the aesthetic needs of the
people of God and protect them from apostate art which leads to
idolatry.
Perhaps it would be helpful to see that art has various functions. The
following describes some of these functions. A given piece of art may
have one, some, or all of these functions:
 • “Cool” art: art aimed at creating a distinct mood, impression or
emotion on those exposed to the art. Example: Psalm 150.
• “Hot” art: art aimed at communicating truth to the intellect.
This can be called “message art.” Example: Psalm 1 and
Proverbs.
• “Reflective” art: art which expresses and reflects the mood and
emotional state of the artist. Example: Psalm 51.
• “Aesthetic” art: art aimed purely at the aesthetic sense of man.
It is “beautiful” without being cool, hot or reflective. It is for
entertainment purposes. This is art for beauty’s sake. Example:
the artwork in the tabernacle and temple (Exod. 25; 2 Chron. 3:6).
• “Enrichment” art, i.e. the “hidden art” of daily life: flower
arrangements, table settings, attention to the selection of color of
different foods, etc. This is art in which every home should be
involved.

Closing Questions on Aesthetics

1. Is it proper to distinguish between secular and religious art?
Answer: Yes/No. Yes, if you mean the distinction between art which
portrays a biblical or “religious” event or scene and art which has a
non-religious subject as its focus. There is a difference between a
picture showing Noah’s Flood and one showing a country picnic. No, if
you mean that only religious art is “Christian art.” Christian art is not
restricted to events in biblical history, for the entire world is God’s
world (Ps. 24). Also, all art is “religious” in the sense of being either
apostate or God-glorifying or somewhere in between. There is no
“secular” art in the sense of “neutral” art.
2. Can a Christian artist create art to entertain people? Answer: We
are to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. Entertainment and
recreation are legitimate creature necessities and, therefore, legitimate
fields of work for the Christian. Those who are negative and suspicious
of entertainment reveal a hidden strain of Platonic thinking.
3. Should we judge a work of art on the basis of the life style of the
artist? Answer: No, just as we can take a crooked stick and draw a
straight line, even so wicked men and women can produce beautiful art.
4. Can a Christian artist create “cool,” reflective, or aesthetic art or
must he restrict himself to portraying and conveying the gospel through
“hot” art? Answer: The Christian is not restricted to any one particular
function or form of art. A still life painting of a bowl of fruit is just as
“Christian” as a painting of the crucifixion if it is done for God’s glory.
The artist is not restricted to “hot” art.
5. Is “good” art determined on the basis of the intent of the artist or on
the amount of biblical truth it conveys? Answer: The quality of a work
of art is not determined solely on the basis of the intent of the artist or
the clarity of its message. A Christian artist can produce poor art even
though he did it for God’s glory and tried to convey the gospel.
6. How do we judge the quality of art? Answer: By such aesthetic
standards as:
a. Technical excellence: Does the artist have the technical ability
to do superior work in his medium of choice?
b. Validity of style and medium: Is the medium the appropriate
one to the style?
c. Intellectual content: Is the artist’s worldview clearly expressed
in the art?
d. The integration of content and vehicle: Are the two united in
making one statement?
e. The difference between art and pornography. The portrayal of
the nude body is art when done to glorify God in His creation of
the human body.
f. Pornography is the portrayal of the nude body to simulate
sexual lust and immorality.

Conclusion
Many humanists today believe that “science” is a curse that has brought
us Global warning, nuclear energy, and other environmental disasters. We
should all go back to living in a grass hut; walking around looking for
vegetables and fruit to eat; living without electricity or cars.
The Bible alone gives us the only theoretical foundation for science and
the arts. It alone provides us with a reason why they should exist and why
we should do them. Humanism cannot provide us with any rationale or
motivation for either one.
To God alone belongs all the glory!
Great things He has done.
 Chapter Ten
The Failure of Definition

The insurmountable problem facing natural theologians is their

inability to define who they are, what they do, how they do it, what they
hope to accomplish, and why they bother to do it. In order to define the
nature, origin, function, methodology, and goal of “Natural Theology,”
“Natural Religion,” “Natural Law,” and “Natural Apologetics” they have
to define the adjective “natural” and the nouns “nature,” “theology,” “law,”
and “apologetics” solely through human reason, experience, feelings and
faith apart from and independent of God and the Bible. But this is where
everything collapses into ruins.

Nature
Let us begin with the most important noun. What is the meaning of the
word “Nature?” It is the key term from which they derive the words
“natural,” “unnatural,” and “naturally.” Why do some authors write
“Nature” while others write “nature?” Does the meaning change when the
“n” is capitalized? If so, how does it change the meaning of the word? Is
“Nature” visible or invisible, material or ideal, objective or subjective? Is
man inside “Nature” as a part of it or man outside of “Nature?” Is
“Nature” something inside man or something he projects onto the world
around him? Is “nature” controlled and predetermined by fate, the gods,
devils, etc. or does chance and luck determine the future of “Nature?”
I have asked natural theologians and philosophers these questions for
many years but they have never given me any clear answers. Some of them
have even admitted that they do not have any answers to give me! There
are no agreed upon definitions for any of their key terms. Yet, they still
believe in “nature” or “Nature” even if they cannot define it. The failure to
define what they talking about renders all their work meaningless.
“Evangelical” natural theologians, philosophers, and apologists often
cheat at this point. They make the claim that they are able to generate truth
and morals apart from and independent of the Bible solely on the basis on
their own reason, experience, feelings or faith. Yet, when I ask them for
clear definitions of their key terms, they start quoting the Bible! If you use
the Bible to prove that you do not need to use the Bible, something is
wrong!

Natural
Since no one knows what the word “Nature” or “nature” means, you do
not need a degree in rocket science to understand that they cannot define
the adjective “natural.” Does the word “natural” only refer to good things
or can evil things be “natural” as well? Does the word “natural” describe
what is or what ought to be? If something is “natural,” is it beautiful or
ugly?

Theology
It is amazing to us that natural theologians never define the word
“theology.” What is the meaning of “theology?” Where did the word
originate? Why does the Bible never use the word? The Bible has
prophets, apostles, priests, and pastors but not one “theologian.” Why is
that?

A Brief History Lesson

The word “theology” was invented by Aristotle as one of the “sciences”
that man creates through rational reflection. The idea of “divine
revelation” in which God tells man what to believe and how to live never
crossed his mind. In its historic and classical sense, “theology” is a
humanistic enterprise built solely on human reason, experience, feelings
or faith apart from and independent of God and the Bible. “Theology” is
man’s speculations about God instead of an exposition of what God has
revealed about Himself.

Is Theology a Science?
Natural theologians have always been desperate to be accepted as a
“science” by unbelievers. This has led them to adopt rationalism,
empiricism, mysticism or fideism as the basis of their theology. Once they
adopt such apostate epistemologies, it is no surprise that they end up
denying Revelation in the name of Reason.

Law
Given their failure to produce an agreed-upon definition of the words
“nature,” “natural,” “unnatural,” and “theology,” it should not be a surprise
to find that natural theologians have also failed to define the key word
“law.” What is the exact meaning of the word “law?”
Some natural theologians use the capital “L” when they write the word
“Law.” Do they intend to signify that the meaning of “Law” is different
from “law?” Are there absolute, universal, self-evident, intuitive,
transcendent, and eternal “laws” floating around somewhere in the
universe? If so, how do we find them? How do we abstract them from trees
or mountains? Should we study animal behavior to derive these “laws”?
“Natural” laws must be accessible and definable if we are going to
apply them to society as civil law. Since everyone disagrees over what is
or is not a “natural law,” how do we determine who is right? If we appeal
to the Bible as the “higher law” by which we judge “natural laws,” then the
basis of “natural law” is overturned.
Are there are relative, limited, culturally-conditioned “laws?” How can
the same word “law” be used for both absolute and relative rules of
behavior? Is the word “law” only a cloak for personal opinion and
prejudice?
Are there natural laws-without-God, moral laws-without-God, civil
laws-without-God, scientific laws-without-God, logical laws-without-God,
and aesthetic laws-without-God? Are these laws in “matter” or only “in”
“mind?” Natural theologians have utterly failed to agree on any answers to
these questions.

The Laws of Logic

Aristotle assumed that the “laws” of logic “existed” somewhere out
there in the universe, (i.e. in Nature). But, if so, in what sense do they
“exist?” Do they have any metaphysical or material existence? Can we
find them in the stars or in the rocks and trees around us? Where are they?

The First Move

 The attempt to find these “laws” in “matter” failed. So, natural
theologians retreated from “matter” to “mind.” Once the “Laws of logic”
were reduced to the mind of man, they were pronounced “rational” instead
of “material.”

The Second Move

The Don Quixote quest to find the laws of logic in the external world of
Nature or in the internal world of the mind failed. Once again, natural
theologians were forced to move the laws of logic.
Today, the “laws” of logic are said to be linguistic in nature and reflect
the “nature” of human language. They have now retreated from matter to
mind to language! Each time the laws have been moved, they have
retreated further and further away from reality. Like a helium balloon cut
free from its string, the laws of logic have floated away out of the reach of
man.

The Last Move

An interesting twist has recently occurred in humanistic circles that
may surprise Christians. Some logicians have announced that there is an
extraterrestrial Origin for the laws of logic! This is the latest step in
humanism’s flight from reality. They would rather believe that little gray
men in UFOs brought these “laws” to earth than to bow before Divine
Revelation. Truly Paul was inspired when he wrote, “They became futile
in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to
be wise, they became fools.” (Rom. 1:21–22)

Eastern Rejection
On what basis do natural theologians claim that their “laws” of logic
are valid? They assert that Aristotle’s “laws” are universal, intuitive, and
self-evident. If Aristotle’s laws were universal, then all men in all cultures
throughout all of history would have heard of and believed in them. But, as
we have already pointed out, Eastern philosophies and religions do not
believe in Aristotle’s “laws” of logic. Many non-Western cultures,
philosophies, and religions do not believe in these ancient Greek laws of
logic.
 Since belief in these laws is manifestly not universal, then they are not
self-evident or intuitive. But natural theologians and philosophers do not
let those facts get in the way of claiming Aristotle’s laws are “universal,
self-evident, and intuitive.” It seems to me that they use these words to
psychologically manipulate people.

Not Mentioned in the Bible

Are Aristotle’s laws of logic mentioned in the Bible? No. Did the
prophets, the apostles or Jesus ever appeal to them as the basis of truth and
morals? No.
If the prophets, apostles, and Messiah never appealed to these “laws” as
the basis of truth or morals, what does this mean? Since they did not refer
to these laws of logic, how should Christians view them? If you are a
Christian, you cannot avoid these questions and their implications.

Theism
Natural theologians have failed to define their other key words as well.
When they say they want to prove “theism,” what do they mean by that
word? Is it really possible to define theism-without-God? Does “theism”
refer to the God of the Bible or some vague idea of some kind of god or
goddess? Does Zeus fit the meaning of “theism?” What about polytheism,
pantheism, etc.? Does the “theism” they are attempting to prove include
the “gods” of Islam and modern Judaism as well as Christianity? Is the
“god” they hope to find at the end of a chain of their arguments, the
biblical God as distinct from the demon god of Islam?
Some natural theologians admit that all they hope to “prove” through
“reason” is some vague form of “theism.” Others claim to be able to prove
the existence of the God of the Bible. Some claim that Natural Religion
and Natural Theology form the basis of Christianity while others deny
this. Who is right?

The Words “Reason” and “Rational”

Some natural theologians say that they can prove that their notion of
“theism” is “rational,” i.e. in line with the demands of something they call
“Reason.” Others like Kierkegaard claim that the proof of their brand of
theism is irrationality!
What does the word “reason” mean? Some natural theologians write
“Reason” while others write “reason.” Does using a capital “R” mean
something? Why do they capitalize the “r?” Have they abstracted the
fallible ability of some people some of the time to think and made it into
an ideal, infallible, romantic, omniscient, and omnipotent “Reason?” Is
this why they capitalized the “r”?

Which Is the Basis of the Other?

Does “reason” justify “Reason” or does “Reason” justify “reason?” If
“reason” justifies “Reason,” are we arguing in a circle? Do “reason” and
“Reason” stand before the “bar” of a yet higher authority over them? Is
there an authority higher than “Reason,” to whom it must bow? On what
basis do they assume that the “rational” is always good and not evil?
Hitler felt that the Holocaust was the “rational” solution to the Jewish
problem.

Not in the Bible

Why does the word or concept of “Reason” never appear in the Hebrew
and Greek text of Scripture? No. Did the prophets and apostles ever appeal
to “Reason” as the basis of truth or morals? No. Since the prophets and
apostles never claimed to be “rational” or “irrational,” why should
Christians rush around trying to prove to unbelievers that Christianity is
“rational”? Did Paul say that the revealed Gospel was “foolishness”
according to Greek philosophy (1 Cor. 1:23)? Yes. Why then do natural
theologians argue that the gospel is not “foolishness” but “rational?” Are
they violating Scripture?

Is Irrational the Opposite of Rational?

Is the word “rational” a logical or psychological term? One clue would
be the meaning of the word “irrational.” Since it is the opposite of
“rational,” they are bound together. But, what feels “rational” to one man
may feel “irrational” to another man. Is it possible that what natural
theologians mean by the word “rational” is only the psychological feeling
of “certainty”?

Certainty and Doubt

Do our “feelings” of certitude ride up and down an emotional scale all
day long? Is “certitude” more psychological than logical or metaphysical?
Do our “feelings of certitude” depend more on blood sugar than on
syllogisms? Is it possible to “feel” certain that something is “rational” in
the morning, but, by noon “feel” that it “irrational?”
Since the word “doubt” is often used as the opposite of the word
“certain,” isn’t it also a psychological term? We “doubt” something when
we feel uncertain or uneasy about it. If “certainty” and “doubt” are both
psychological terms, does this mean that the words “rational” and
“irrational” are only psychological terms as well?

The Problem
When I begin to push for precise definitions of these key terms, I
usually get a blank stare. “Oh,” one natural theologian responded, “the
word ‘rational’ means ‘rational.’ It means what it means.” He could not
define any of his words.
We surveyed hundreds of Natural Theology books written by Catholics
and neo-Protestants alike. Very few attempted to define their key words
with any precision. They usually assumed that their readers would pour
into those terms whatever cultural meaning was in their heads. By
avoiding precise definitions of the key terms in their arguments, their
arguments would have an appearance of validity because the readers
would pour into those words what they already believed.

A Brief history of The Middle Ages

A “mega-shift” takes place when a fundamental change occurs in the
foundation or basis of thought and life. For example, Thomas Aquinas
caused a mega-shift in European thought and life by abandoning Platonic
mysticism and replacing it with Aristotelian empiricism. The conflict
between Platonic and Aristotelian forms of Christianity led to the Great
Schism between Greek and Latin Christendom.
 The shift in worldview from Plato to Aristotle had far reaching
consequences that are still with us today. Through the labors of Thomas
Aquinas, the Medieval Roman Catholic Church became dependent upon
the humanistic philosophy and theology of Aristotle.
Some neo-evangelicals have claimed that Aquinas was the first
“Protestant” or “Evangelical” theologian. Norman Geisler lists R. C.
Sproul, John Gerstner, Stuart Hackett, and Arvin Vos as joining him as
self-declared Thomists. To his credit, he also admits that Aquinas’ Natural
Theology was vigorously rejected by Schaeffer, Van Til, Henry, Clark,
Carnell, and Holmes.311
After spending 176 pages extolling Aquinas as “evangelical,” on the
last page (p. 177) Geisler admits that Aquinas taught things he could not
accept:
• The divine authority of the Church of Rome (and the pope)
• The supremacy of Aristotle’s philosophy
• The Apocrypha as part of Scripture
• The transubstantiation of the bread and wine in the Mass
• Baptismal regeneration
• Human life begins forty days after conception for males and
eighty days for females
• The number and nature of the sacraments
We would also add that Aquinas taught praying to and the veneration of
Mary and the saints, the veneration of relics, pictures, and statues, putting
to death those who disagreed with Rome’s theology, the Catholic doctrine
of justification by works, it is not necessary to hear of or believe in Jesus
or his Gospel to go to heaven, the existence of purgatory and limbo, etc.
Aquinas mixed works with faith and grace with merit in his view of
salvation. His understanding of justification was erroneous. In short, he
taught a false gospel condemned by Gal. 1:8.
Despite the attempts of those on the payroll of the Acton Institute to
prove that the Reformers followed Aquinas, they have never produced a
single passage where Calvin, Luther, et al, based their doctrine on the
authority of Aquinas or his Summa. The Reformers consistently judged
Aquinas by Scripture and never appealed to his authority as the basis of
truth and morals. The anti-Protestant Catholic councils such as Trent
quoted Aquinas as their authority to reject the Reformation gospel but also
to torture and murder Protestants.

The Islamic Influence

Aquinas derived his philosophy from the works of such Muslim
philosophers as Ghazali and Averroes. They, in turn, derived their ideas
from the pagan Greek philosophy of Aristotle. Their arguments for Islam
and against Christianity were drawn from the pagan Greek concepts of the
autonomy, self-sufficiency, and dominance of human “reason.”

A Muslim Philosophic Jihad

The Roman Catholic Church faced a philosophic Jihad that threatened
to overwhelm the intellectual life of Europe. Catholic theologians and
philosophers had no answers to the “rational” arguments of the Muslim
apologists. Obviously, a “Catholic” answer had to be found that could
counter the Muslim influence in academia.
The Muslims had intimidated the Catholics and made them feel inferior
because, while the Muslims appealed to an idealistic Aristotelian human
“Reason” as the basis of their doctrines, all the Catholics had was blind
“faith” in the dogmas of Rome. Thus the conflict was between Islamic
“Reason” versus the Catholic “Faith.” Framing the conflict as “reason or
faith” is still with us today.

If You Can’t Beat Them, Join Them!

The answer came from an unlikely source. A monk, whose nicknamed
was “the dumb ox,” came up with the solution. Aquinas suggested that the
best way to deal with Islam was to abandon Catholic blind “faith” and
adopt Aristotle’s “Reason!” Thus Aquinas abandoned the dogmatic faith of
popery and adopted the same pagan philosophic worldview as the Muslim
apologists. He embraced the Aristotelian dogma of the autonomy of
human reason in which man is the “measure of all things” and the Origin
of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
It is no surprise that Aquinas’ ideas were first officially condemned as
heresy and viewed as undermining the authority of the papacy. But, after
his death, the condemnation was removed and he was proclaimed the
official philosopher of the Roman Catholic Church.
Aquinas took Aristotle’s dichotomy of form/essence and turned it into
the nature/grace dichotomy. He later refined it into the secular/sacred
dichotomy that still plagues us today. It was thus Aquinas who opened the
way for secular humanism to take over Western philosophy, science,
ethics, art, politics, and theology. Like a malignant cancer, secularism
cannot stop consuming all of life and culture until there is no sacredness
left.

What is Happening Today?

This gives us a practical insight into the secular humanist’s all-
consuming lust to root out all sacred symbols from society. It can be a
monument to the Ten Commandments, “In God we trust” on our coins or
prayer before a football game. Any and all “sacred” things must be
destroyed. Secularism cannot tolerate these things. As Francis Schaeffer,
Gordon Clark, Carl F. Henry, and many other well-known Evangelical
scholars have pointed out, Thomas Aquinas is directly to blame for setting
in motion the secularist vision of life.

Look Before You Leap

Protestants should “look before they leap” to embrace Aquinas’
Aristotelian worldview. Aquinas’ “Natural” Theology and “Natural” Law
are only pseudo names for “Secular” Theology and “Secular” law! Last
time I checked, “without God” means “without God.”
Besides being an oxymoron, “Natural” (i.e. Secular) theology and
“Natural” (i.e. Secular) Law are only religious forms of secular humanism.
Natural (i.e. Secular) theology and Natural (i.e. Secular) Law both attempt
to find final answers without God (i.e. they are God-less) or His Word (i.e.
they are Bible-less) solely on the basis of “Nature” (i.e. man’s reason,
experience, feelings, and faith), apart from Christ (i.e. they are Christ-
less).
The attempt to find God-without-God, and to find morality-without-
God has always been a failure according to the Bible (1 Cor. 1:21). Once
Aquinas let religious humanism out of Pandora’s Box, it unleashed great
evils upon the earth.
His Last Testimony
One year before his death in 1274, Aquinas had an experience that
shook the foundations of his theology. His contemporaries described it as a
religious or mystical experience in which he encountered God in a
powerful way. As a result of this experience, Aquinas declared, “All my
work is as worthless as straw!” He renounced his philosophical work and
refused to write one more page of Natural Theology, Natural Philosophy or
Natural Law!
It is amazing to us that while erstwhile Evangelicals are rushing to
embrace the Natural Law and Theology of Aquinas, he repudiated it as
worthless straw. Since he rejected it himself at the end of his life,
shouldn’t this put a question mark over his theology? We think so.

A Muslim Crisis
The Muslim philosophers and apologists followed Aristotle’s reasoning
that the world had to be eternal. But this did not sit well with Muslim
theologians who pointed out that the Qur’an clearly taught that the world
was created. When the philosophers were accused of heresy, they devised a
trick or ruse to avoid the charge.
The Muslim philosophers and apologists divided philosophy into a
dichotomy in which something can be true according to “Reason” and, at
the same time, be false according to “Faith.” The reverse could also be
true. Thus it was the Muslims who set up the original false dilemma of
“Reason or Faith” as the only two options before us. Then they demanded
that people must choose either one or the other. By “Reason” they meant
the classic pagan concept of man as the Origin of truth and thus the
measure of all things. By “Faith” they meant blind Islamic faith.
They went on to restrict “knowledge” to that which comes from human
Reason, which rested on “facts.” “Belief” came from human faith, which
rested on religious authority. While “reason” tells us what we “know,”
faith tells us what we “believe.”
By this ploy, when the Muslim apologists were asked if the world was
created or eternal, they answered, “While Reason tells me that it is eternal,
Faith tells me that it was created.” They knew that the world was eternal
and they believed that it was created at the same time! Knowledge came
from reason, not from faith.
Aquinas’ Natural theology
Since Thomas Aquinas was the first (and greatest) of Western attempts
to produce a “Christian” version of Aristotle’s Natural Theology, how did
he define his key words? He simply followed Aristotle’s definitions as
given in the Metaphysics.
To Aquinas, Aristotle was the unquestioned authority on the meaning of
all these terms. Indeed, Aristotle’s Metaphysics was the “Bible” of
Medieval Roman Catholic Natural Theology. Since Aquinas adopted the
worldview of Aristotle, he accepted his definitions without question. J. P.
Mooreland and William Craig acknowledge that, “The English term
substance has many different meanings associated with it. Likewise, there
have been different uses of the term in the history of philosophy.”
Almost every philosopher acknowledges that Thomas Aquinas’ Natural
Theology was a Christian version of Aristotle’s humanistic philosophy.
Even the fanatical natural theologian Dudziszewski admitted,
There is much for a Christian to complain of in Thomas
Aquinas and I speak as one who loves him. Some of the
obstacles may result from his having borrowed a subscriptural
ontology from pagan philosophers … his reliance upon pagan
sources seems to lead him into misinterpretation of Scripture
itself.
This is why Aquinas’ “Catholic” doctrines depended more on Aristotle
than on the Bible. For example, his view of the Eucharist came directly
from Aristotle’s “form and essence” dichotomy.
Protestant natural theologians as well as Catholic theologians adopt the
traditional view of Aristotle/Aquinas on “inner nature” and “substance.”
Moreland and DeWesse use such phrases as “inner nature” that reflect
Plato’s universalism and Aristotle’s empiricism. They parrot Aristotle’s
definitions as modified by Aquinas. If Aristotle said it, that settles it, they
believe it! They are so committed to the pagan concept of “substance, that
they boldly state, “God is a substance.”319 We note that they did not cite
one Scripture to support their position that “God is a substance.”
The statement “God is a substance” will surprise most Christians
because Jesus said “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and that a spirit does not
have “flesh and bones” (Lk. 24:39). The moment we reduce God to
“substance,” He is no longer spirit, i.e. without substance.
To say that God is a spiritual substance does not help us either. Since
the word “substance” (like “nature,” “essence,” “meaning,” “reason,”
“rational,” etc.) means anything and everything, it means nothing.

Aristotle and the Catholic Mass

Aristotle taught that all things were a combination of external form and
internal essence. The real “inner nature” or “meaning” of an object was its
“essence,” not its external physical form. The form of something did not
have to conform to its essence. It could look like one thing but actually be
something else.
The Eucharist had the external “form” of bread. It looked, smelled, felt,
and even tasted like bread. You would gain weight if you ate too much of
it. But, according to Aquinas, its inner “essence” or “nature” was changed
by the priest into the living flesh of Christ.
The communion wine may look and taste like wine and you could even
get drunk on it, but its “inner nature,” (i.e. its “essence” or “substance”)
was the living blood of Jesus. This is why the Roman Catholic Church
made Aquinas their official philosopher. Many of their doctrines depended
on the Aristotelian formulations given by Aquinas.
This explains why so many Protestants who adopt Natural Theology
end up converting to Roman Catholicism. Once they adopted Aristotle’s
pagan philosophy of “inner nature” and “substance,” they were
philosophically prepared to accept Roman Catholicism. Natural Theology
was correctly described by the Puritans as a Trojan Horse in which the
pope was hiding! Its purpose has always been to replace Sola Scriptura
with sola ratione.

Why The Reformation Happened

The Reformation happened partly because Aristotle’s philosophy had
become passé in Europe. Occam’s Realism was now the cultural consensus
of the day. If something looked, smelled, felt, and tasted like bread, it was
bread. If it tasted like wine and you got drunk if you drank too much of it,
it was wine. The Mass was nonsense.
 The moment you say that the “inner nature” or “essence” of something
need not correspond to its external form, no knowledge of the world
around you is possible. The “form” lying in the bed next to you may look
like your wife, but its true “inner nature” or “essence” could be something
else!

Aristotle’s Geocentrism
Aquinas taught Aristotle’s doctrine that the earth was the center of the
universe. The sun, moon, and stars rotated around the earth. If Aristotle
said it, that settled it, Aquinas believed it! This is explains why there was
such a violent reaction to Copernicus’ idea that the sun was the center of
the universe and the earth revolved around it.
The Medieval Catholic Church was built upon the worldview of
Aristotle. The Catholic natural theologians clearly understood that a
“domino” effect would happen if Aristotle’s geocentrism was rejected. If
Aristotle and Aquinas were in error on this fundamental point, how many
other Catholic doctrines would also be in error? Of course, they were right
and the falling dominos led eventually to the Reformation.

Nature Moves Inside

Philosophy took a major leap with Descartes and Leibniz. The “nature”
of something was no longer “out there,” “beneath there,” “up there” or “in
there.” “Nature” was now “in here,” i.e. in the mind of man as well as “in
there,” in the object. The word “Nature” described some vague kind of
correspondence between the mind of man and objects in the world. Ideas
were magically innate, self-evident, universal, and intuitive in the mind of
man. Of course, no one could define what those terms meant but they were
psychologically useful to manipulate the naïve masses.
The correspondence theory did not last long. How the inner “nature” or
“essence” of things in the world “corresponded” to some kind of Platonic
“innate” ideas in the mind could not be explained or demonstrated. If ideas
were innate in the mind, why don’t we all have the same ideas? How did
this correspondence work? No one knew for sure.

And the Beat Moved On

 Western philosophers eventually abandoned the idea that the “inner
nature” of things, i.e. their meaning, essence, or substance, was “in there,”
i.e. in the object. Instead, “Nature” was now moved totally into the mind
of man. Our minds projected meaning, essence, substance, and order upon
the chaos around us. We create the world we see around us.
This is why modern philosophy is divided into pre and post Emmanuel
Kant. His epistemology forever reshaped the history of modern
philosophy. The fourteen categories of the mind created “Nature.” We
impose order, number, texture, color, sound, etc. onto the indefinable
sensations (ding ah sich) coming into us. The “inner nature” or “meaning”
of things is in our mind alone.

Existentialism
The next step was obvious to Jean Paul Sartre. If the “inner nature,”
“meaning,” “essence,” and “substance” of things, individually or
corporately viewed, is not “out there,” “beneath there,” “up there,” or “in
there,” but, only “in here,” then it is nowhere! There is no such thing as
“nature,” “substance,” “meaning,” “being,” “essence,” etc. Existence is all
there. What is, is. That is all we can say.
The birth of Existentialism meant the death of Western metaphysics,
epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. This is why secular education today
teaches that there is no truth to find in philosophy, no knowledge in
epistemology, no morality in ethics, and no beauty in aesthetics.
Since Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ beliefs such things as “reason, “free
will,” “human nature,” “substance, etc. are not part of the biblical
worldview, the secular abandonment of such beliefs did not panic Bible-
based Christians. But it did throw natural theologians and philosophers
into hysteria. Their worldview was falling to pieces before their eyes.
Instead of a “Back to the Bible” movement, natural theologians
launched a “Back to Aquinas” movement in the late 20th century and early
21st century. Dr. Norman Geisler was the one who spearheaded the
movement and was later joined by Sproul, Moreland, Craig, etc.

Nature Loses its Meaning

When Western culture abandoned Aristotle’s philosophy, it no longer
served as the philosophical glue that held together Western cultural
consensus. Once the consensus disappeared, all the definitions that
depended on that consensus disappeared as well.
The attempt to attach the meaning of such terms as “theism” to
whatever is the consensus at the moment is how modern natural
theologians define their terms. This is a sad commentary on the power of
relativism in religious communities.
This also explains why appeals to “common sense” collapsed. What
made “sense” to the “common” man changed whenever the consensus of
his culture changed. “Common sense” said that the earth was the center of
the universe and the sun revolved around it. Our eyes saw the sun rise and
set. When the consensus changed over to a heliocentric worldview, it now
made “sense” to the “common” man that the earth revolved around the
sun. It did not matter that this contradicted what he saw with his own eyes.

Relative Natural Law

Even “Natural Law” changed as the cultural consensus changed. British
and American Natural Law philosophers (such as Thomas Hobbes)
followed Aristotle and Aquinas in defending slavery and the subjugation
of women. Natural theologians attacked Wilberforce, Spurgeon, Whitfield,
and other evangelicals who sought to free the slaves and give women equal
rights.
Natural Law philosophers proclaimed that “common sense” and
“Nature” were absolutely united in defending slavery and the subjugation
of women. The “inner nature” of women proved they could not be treated
as equals. The “inner nature” of black slaves was animal and not human at
all. Their “external form” may look human, but their “inner nature” was
beast. Thus slavery based on race and the rape and murder of hundreds of
thousands of Africans were justified by appeals to Aristotle and Aquinas.
What happened when the political situation changed and the slaves
were set free? The cultural consensus changed and Natural Theology and
Natural Law theorists abandoned their original position and announced
that “common sense” and “Nature” were now in favor of the abolition of
slavery and the emancipation of women.
The conceit, haughtiness, and triumphalism of modern day proponents
of Natural Theology and Natural Law require us to remind them of their
past support of slavery, the subjugation of women, British Colonialism,
American Manifest Destiny, the genocide of Native Americans and other
races. How can “Natural Law” give us absolutes when it changes from
generation to generation?
I know that such questions are unsettling to natural theologians and
philosophers. But these questions must be answered or Natural Theology,
Natural Law, and Natural Apologetics go down the drain as a waste of
time.

The “nature” of Nature

Modern natural theologians are nostalgic for the good old days when
Aristotle’s philosophy was the cultural consensus. If “Nature” refers to the
world that is empirically experienced, then what do we mean when we talk
about the “inner nature” of things? For example, the “nature” of man is
invisible to the eye. All we see are individual people. No one has ever
seen, touched, heard, or smelled “human nature.” It supposedly lies
“behind,” “beneath” the man or woman that we see in front of us. This
“nature” is the invisible “ground of” of visible man and is intangible. This
is why modern philosophy denies there is such a thing as “human nature.”
The same holds true for all other particular things. If our knowledge is
limited to the empirical, then we cannot know the universal “nature” of
dogs, fish, rocks, trees, man, etc. Plato said that we must have universals if
we want to have knowledge. But, whoever saw or touched a universal? We
cannot pick them off trees like apples!
If truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty are objectively “out
there” somewhere in “Nature” waiting for us to discover, particular things
cannot give us any way to know them because empiricism cannot generate
universals. Schaeffer told us at L’Abri over and over again that no matter
how high you pile finite experiences, they won’t magically morph into
universals just because you want them to! Empirical experience is finite
experience and thus it cannot generate universal knowledge. No
experience carries within itself its own interpretation. Interpretations of
experience always come from outside experience.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The other problem that confronted modern secular humanists is that
when they looked at “Nature,” they saw a very cruel and chaotic world. We
see and experience the good, the bad, and the ugly in “Nature!” The
idealistic and romantic idea of the “noble savage” and the tame, majestic
lion was pure fantasy.
Another problem that surfaced was when you followed a chain of finite
effects back to their finite causes you are still only dealing with finite
things. It seemed “rational” to the majority of mankind for the majority of
history that finite effects lead back to finite deities, not the infinite
personal God of the Bible. How can we argue from finite things to one
infinite Being? The idea of monotheism never crossed the minds of the
ancient philosophers. Even Aristotle believed in many gods and
goddesses!
If it is valid to argue from the good we experience to a good god, then it
is equally valid to argue from the evil we experience to an evil god. This is
why Natural Religions have always been polytheistic in believing in good
and evil gods.
“Nature” is filled with conflict and chaos. This indicated to purveyors
of “Natural Religions” that there must be many conflicting deities fighting
each other. One deity sends a storm and another one tries to stop it. And,
since the male/female matrix is found in “Nature,” then most “Natural
Religions” concluded that these finite deities were male and female as
well.

The Chaos of the Words

The Medieval meaning of the words nature, natural, theology, law, etc.
depended on an Aristotelian consensus in society. Once this consensus was
broken, the terms, like helium balloons, whose strings have been cut,
floated away into meaninglessness. To see how confusing and
contradictory key words like “nature” became, ask yourself the following
questions: “What is the nature of the nature of Nature? Do we all
naturally know it by nature? Is it discoverable by natural, unnatural, or
supernatural methods?”

The Psychology of Nature

It gets even more complicated when we realize that the word “natural”
is a psychological term. Ever since the “back to nature” movement that
developed during the Renaissance, Western people assumed that whatever
is “natural’ is automatically good and right. TV ads pitch “natural”
vitamins and “natural” cures because the word “natural” has the
psychological power to manipulate the naive. Products are better because
they are “natural.”

Same Sex Marriage

During 2007, a political controversy arose over whether to legalize
same sex marriage. Since same-sex acts were no longer illegal due to
sodomy laws being ruled unconstitutional in most states, modern
humanists argued that same sex marriage should no longer be illegal.
Secular natural theologians and philosophers argued: “What is natural
sex? If heterosexual sex feels natural to you, then it is natural. In the same
way, if gay sex feels natural to you, then gay sex is natural. On what basis
can either group claim that what feels “natural” to them is the only
meaning of what is “normal?” In “Nature,” animals have gay sex as well
as heterosexual sex. Thus, isn’t gay sex both natural and normal? Ergo,
same sex marriage should be legalized.”
Various Catholic and Neo-Protestant Natural theologians went on
national radio and TV programs and boasted that they could prove, without
any reference to God or the Bible, solely on the basis of “Nature” and
“Reason,” that same sex acts and same sex marriage should be illegal
because they were “unnatural,” i.e. not “normal.” They invoked “reason,”
“experience,” and “common sense” as proving their position.
These theologians assumed that there was enough Christian cultural
consensus left to provide a psychological edge to their arguments, but,
they were living in the past. They did not realize that Western culture had
moved to a new consensus that was relativistic. Whatever feels “natural”
to you is “normal” to you.
Both liberal and conservative natural theologians cannot define the
words “natural,” “unnatural,” or “normal” because they cannot define the
word “Nature.” The attempt of Natural Religion, Natural Theology, and
Natural Law to derive what is “normal” from “Nature” is useless. Without
the Bible, there is no way to condemn homosexuality and same-sex
marriages. Once you lay aside the Bible, then what is, is right. You cannot
get an “ought” from an “is.” No matter how much you want to get morality
from matter, it will not happen.
Christians would have made a better case if they had pointed out that
according to the Bible, marriage belongs in the sphere of the family and
not the spheres of the state or the church. The state cannot define marriage
because it does not have the divine right to do so. Marriage is not a
sacrament of the Church because it is not a “church” institution. Gen. 2
and Heb. 13:4 declare that marriage is a creation institution that is valid
for all of mankind. It is not a “Christian” institution.
The failure to define the words “natural” and “unnatural” doom all their
ethical judgments. I will never forget a natural apologist on a CA Christian
radio program debating a homosexual on marriage. He claimed that he
could condemn homosexuality solely on the basis of “reason” apart from
and independent of God and the Bible. I waited to see how he was going to
pull that rabbit out of his hat as I had heard him the week before make the
claim that he could condemn abortion solely on the basis of “reason” and
he had only succeeded in making himself look like a fool.
A sharp gay guy called the program and pushed the Christian host to
prove that homosexuality was wrong without recourse to God or the Bible.
The natural apologist had only one “rational” argument: gay sex was
“unnatural.” That was his big argument.
The gay responded that sex with a man was “natural” because in
“Nature” dogs and other animals do it, gay sex felt “natural” to him, and
sex with a woman would feel “unnatural” to him. The natural apologist did
not have a good answer to these arguments. He repeated the charge that
gay sex was “unnatural” because it was “unnatural” to him.
Things really heated up when the gay pushed the apologist to prove that
gay sex was “unnatural.” This is when things fell apart. The apologist
meekly replied that Paul in Rom. 1 calls it “unnatural.” After all his
boasting that he could condemn homosexuality solely on rational grounds
apart from and independent of the Bible, in the end, he was quoting the
Bible! What a bummer! This is what results from failing to define you
terms. Once you claim that if something feels “natural” to you, it is OK to
do it, you have just validated every sexual perversion known and unknown.

Nature Becomes Man

Four things became clear to Western philosophers.
1. There are no objective truths, morals, or laws “out there” in
“Nature.”
 2. Even if they were “out there” in “Nature,” we have no way
to epistemologically dig them out so we can know them.
3. The search for meaning has led nowhere.
4. All is meaningless.
Faced with these four realities, Natural Theology retreated from the
external world of “Nature” to the internal world of “human nature.” Truth,
justice, morals, meaning, and beauty are not “out there” among the birds
and trees but “in here,” i.e. in the mind of man.
Natural theologians now looked within themselves to find truth, justice,
morals, meaning, and beauty. But, which aspect of “human nature” should
be abstracted, idealized, romanticized, and deified as the Origin? They
disagreed on which part of “human nature” is the Origin and Measure of
all things.
• Some chose their reason and became rationalists.
• Some chose their experience and became empiricists.
• Some chose their feelings and became mystics.
• Some chose their faith and became fideists.

Natural Theology Is a Myth

There is no “Natural Theology” in a monolithic sense. There are only
competing Natural Theologies that contradict each other on metaphysics,
epistemology, ethics, and esthetics. There is no consensus among them on
the meaning of the word “God.” The kinds of Natural Theologies that exist
today include: Christian, Muslim, liberal, conservative, Catholic,
Orthodox, Protestant, Process, neo-Process, New Age, Arminian,
Reformed, and Open View.
Since they each define their terms in a relativistic way, they can use the
same arguments developed by opposing theologies. This is why Protestant
Natural theologians use the Muslim Kalam argument even though they
admit that the word “God” does not mean the same in Islam as it does in
Christianity. If the Kalam argument were valid, then Islam is true and
Christianity false. But, if we redefine all the key terms according to our
own subjective belief system, we can pretend it is valid for all religions.

What They Do Have in Common?

 Modern Natural Theologies only have one thing in common: their
hostility to Sola Scriptura, which they denounce as “bibliolatry.” They are
absolutely irate at the very idea that the Bible alone is the final and
ultimate authority over what we should believe and how we should live.
Why? They believe that man (not God) is the Origin of truth, justice,
morals, meaning. Beginning only with their own reason, experience,
feelings or faith, they can produce truth, justice, morals, meaning, and
faith without God and His Revelation.
This is why Biblical Christians are happy that the authors of the Bible
never used such philosophical concepts and terms to define God, the world
or man. If they had tied the Bible to the philosophical fads of their day, the
Bible would not be the inerrant Word of God for today. Those who attach
their religion to the wagon of whatever philosophic fad is in vogue at the
time have guaranteed that their religion will be obsolete tomorrow.

Conclusion
The convoluted history of the contradictory and relative meaning of the
terms thrown around by Natural Theology, Natural Law, Natural
Apologetics leave us high and dry. Natural theologians dream the
impossible dream of defining God-without-God; morality-without-God;
aesthetics-without-God; the universe-without-God; man-without-God;
meaning-without-God; justice-without-God. Isaiah’s comment is most
apropos at this point.
To the Law and to the Testimony!
If they do not speak according to this Word,
it is because they have no light.
 Chapter Eleven
Natural Law
A great number of people are continually talking of the Law of
Nature; and then they go on giving you their [personal]
sentiments about what is right and what is wrong; and these
sentiments, you understand, are so many chapters, and sections
of the Law of Nature … [The “Natural Law” consists] in so
many contrivances for avoiding the obligation of appealing to
any external standard, and for prevailing upon the readers to
accept of the author’s sentiment or opinion as a reason, and
that a sufficient one, for itself.
Jeremy Bentham

Introduction
The Foundation of Natural Law

Humanism is without question the philosophic foundation of all

Natural Law theories. This is why it does matter if the particular theory is
pagan or Christian, objective or subjective, rationalistic or mystical. They
are all based on the assumption that man, starting solely from himself, by
himself, through himself, only with the resources within himself, is the
Origin and Measure of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty, apart
from and independent of God and the Bible. Natural Law has manifested
itself in both secular and religious forms.

Secular Humanism
Secular Humanism is theoretical atheism because it assumes that man
can discover truth and morals without God. Not only are God and the Bible
not necessary for truth and morals, but belief in God and the Bible stands
in the way of man’s upward and onward evolution. Religion is a social and
a psychological illness that must be rooted out of modern life in order for
mankind to progress. Its political expression as found in the Soviet Union,
North Korea, China, Cuba, and other Marxist societies, has demonstrated
that secular humanism cannot generate truth without God or morals
without God. The oppression of all freedom is the end result.

Religious Humanism
Religious Humanism is practical atheism. It is the heartfelt conviction
that there is spiritual virtue in finding a foundation for truth and morals in
some place other than God and the Bible. It does not matter if the
foundation is external Nature or internal human nature. As long as the
Origin of truth and morals is not God and His Word, the religious
humanist is happy.
In an unholy and perverted alliance, religious humanists have become
the “priests” of secular humanists who become depressed and afraid that
because they have thrown out God and the Bible, they threw out truth and
morals.
Secular Humanist: “Now that I have thrown out God and the Bible, I am
afraid and depressed that truth and morals are no longer possible.”
Religious Humanist: “There, there, Dear, don’t you worry! Cheer up
because I will help you to think of a way in which you can have truth and
morals without God or the Bible. We are actually doing God a favor by
deleting Him and the Bible from Law, Religion, Theology, Philosophy,
Science, and Apologetics. God wants us to build a unified field of
knowledge without Him or His Scripture. Be comforted with the thought
that there are no philosophic consequences to denying the existence of the
God of the Bible. You can live a happy and virtuous life without God.”

Naturalism
Naturalism is another word for Humanism. It has both secular and
religious forms and emphasizes that “Nature” is the mine out of which
humanists can dig the ore of truth and morals. It does not matter if
“Nature” is conceived of as the external world of matter or the interior
world of mind. Natural Law, Natural Religion, Natural Theology, and
Natural Apologetics are supposedly dug out of the mine of “Nature.”
The following chart shows the theoretical relationship between
humanistic disciplines. Humanism is the foundation of Naturalism, which
is the foundation of Natural Law. It is the foundation of Natural Religion,
which is the foundation of Natural Theology. It in turn is the foundation of
Natural Apologetics.
Natural Apologetics

Natural Theology

Natural Religion

Natural Law

Naturalism

Humanism

The theoretical links between these disciplines supply us with the

pedagogical order in which we will discuss them. Since we have already
dealt with humanism and naturalism in Part One, we will begin with an
analysis of the theory of Natural Law.

Standard Definitions
Although the standard reference works do not agree in their definitions
of “Natural Law,” there are several common ideas associated with the
theories.
Along with his concept of natural theology, Aquinas developed
the concept of natural law. Human beings, by their own reason,
can gain knowledge of the ethically good without reference to
God’s revelation.
… those absolute and universally value imperatives that are
innate in the reason of every individual and necessarily come
 into consciousness with the development of the mind … a
means of emancipation from the supernatural ontology of
revelation.
a law or rule of action that is implicit in the very nature of
things.
What is right is inherent in our human nature and that is
known to us intrinsically.
a body of law derived from nature and binding upon human
society … discernable … by right reason … but not directly
revealed.
Natural law: common to all people … fundamental to human
nature.
The validity of natural law … even if we were to suppose …
that God does not exist or is not concerned with human affairs.
Natural law was the rational principles governing the universe.
Because it is rational it can be known and obeyed by
reasonable men.
natural moral law consists in true moral principles grounded
in the way things are and, in principle, knowable by all people
without the aid of Scripture.
natural moral law—the notion that there are true, universally
binding moral principles knowable by all people and rooted in
creation and the way things are made.
Mortimer Adler in his monumental work, The Great Ideas, traced the
history of Natural Law theory back to ancient Stoic Greek philosophy
where “the laws of nature are often conceived of expressing an inherent
rationality in nature itself.” He goes to state,
“Nature” was not viewed as dead matter but a living sentient
Being with intelligence and feelings. This led in ancient times
to the worship of Nature.”
 This ancient Greek paganism has come down to in such terms as
“Mother Nature” and is worshipped by Wicca and other modern pagan
cults as Gaia.

No Clear Definition
Modern philosophers have pointed out that there has never been a
commonly agreed upon definition of “Natural Law” because there has
never been any agreed upon definition of the key words “nature,”
“natural,” and “law.” The different theories that call themselves “Natural
Law” differ on essential things as the nature, origin, substance, method,
and goal of “Natural Law.” The well-known natural law theorist, Dr.
Howard Kainz, was honest enough to admit that when you examine the
Natural Law theories of …
Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics, Aquinas, Surez, Hobbes, Locke,
Grotius, Pufendorf, and Kant … there are major differences in
the approaches and presuppositions and tenets, so that it would
seem to be oversimplifying and misleading to talk about
multiple applications of “the” natural law … One thinks of the
various “natural law” movements taking place now … which
have by no means tried to arrive at a consensus about what is
meant by natural law, or about which theory offers the best
expression of natural law.
The German scholar Erik Wolf in 1955 counted over 120 conflicting
definitions of the words “nature” and “law.” We stopped counting after we
identified over 200 conflicting definitions. One dictionary had 36 different
definitions of the word “nature!” Is “reason” a part of “nature” or “nature”
a part of “reason”? Is “nature” out there, up there, in there, in here, etc.?
No knows for sure.
Many modern natural law theorists, especially “Evangelical” ones, are
not as honest as Kainz. They pretend that Aquinas’ Medieval
understanding of Natural Law is the “traditional” view. But, as Dr. Jean
Porter pointed out,
I speak of traditional versions or accounts of the Natural law,
rather than of one traditional theory of the natural law, because
there have been a number of such accounts. The most familiar
 of these is the version that emerged in early Catholic theology
and was subsequently was incorporated into official Catholic
teachings … this version presupposes a definite idea of human
nature and offers a natural law comprised of definite, stringent
moral precepts.
However, medieval interpretations of the natural law are
significantly different from most later versions, including the
influential “new natural law” theory of German Grisez and
John Finnis.
The widely influential “new natural law” theory developed by
German Grisez and John Finnis might seem to offer a
counterexample to this claim. However, this theory is
explicitly distinguished from “old” natural law theories by the
fact that it does not attempt to derive moral conclusions from
observations about human nature.
Even Stephen Grabill is forced to admit,
it is already possible to differentiate two types of natural-law
theories within late medieval scholasticism, each proposing
distinct moral ontologies: a realist theory of natural law,
represented by—among others—Thomas Aquinas and Duns
Scotus, and a nominalist theory of natural law, represented by
—among others—Willaim of Occam and Pierre d’Ailly. Thus
given the scope and importance of these developments, it is
simply improper to speak of any single “classical and
Christian,” or even “medieval” natural-law tradition.
While the older Natural Law theorists pretended that there were
objective laws “out there” inherent in the material universe, modern
theorists, like Hobbes, argued that “Nature supplies no pattern for the good
state.” The Protestant apostate, Budziszewski, brushed aside all these
essential differences and pretended that the different theories of Natural
Law did not disagree over fundamental ideas,
Some people think that there cannot be a natural law simply
because there is more than one theory about it. After all, if the
natural law is made up of objective moral principles that
 everyone knows, shouldn’t all of us have the same theory
about it? This is not a convincing argument because the
different theories of natural do agree about its basic content.
What they disagree about are secondary things, such as where
the knowledge of it comes from.
Budziszewski’s answer is ignorant at best and deceptive at worse. First,
he admits that there are conflicting theories of “Natural Law.” Anyone
who is familiar with the history of Natural Law theories cannot deny this
reality.
Dr Carl F. Henry, perhaps the most profound Evangelical thinker of the
th
20 Century, commented,
Natural law theorists-reaching back to and before the pre-
Socratics have themselves at times disagreed over the precise
content of natural law. It has been invoked to defend freedom
and slavery, hierarchy and equality.
Second, Budziszewski claims that disagreements over the nature,
origin, attributes, methodology, ontology, number, and identity of these so-
called “Natural laws” are “secondary things!” Last time we checked,
metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics are primary things, not
secondary.
Third, he dismisses this objection because he asserts that all theories
have the same content. He does not document this claim. He merely
asserts it.
Classic “Catholic” versions of Natural Law supported slavery, wars of
aggression and conquest, the Inquisition, the murder of hundreds of
thousands of Protestants, genocide of non-Europeans, and the subjugation
of women. They also condemned masturbation, the use of contraception
for birth control, and oral sex between a husband and wife as “unnatural.”
All non-Catholic marriages were condemned as illegal.
Fourth, he gave what must be called a “lame duck argument” to support
his claim that his view of Natural Law was intuitive and self-evident to all
men.
You know, don’t you, that nothing can both be and not be in the
same sense at the same time?”
 Budziszewski asserts that Aristotle’s “law” of contradiction is an idea
that is “intuitive, self-evident, innate, and universal” to all human beings
in all ages and cultures. He counts upon the ignorance of his readers who
do not know that, while this “law” is a part of Western cultural consensus
due to the influence of Aquinas, it is not a part of Eastern cultural
consensus. A Hindu or Buddhist has no problem ignoring Aristotle’s “rule”
of logic.
Budziszewski knows that most of his readers have been indoctrinated
with such Catholic ideas their entire life. Western people assume the law
of contradiction to be true because that is all they know. Thus they will not
notice that he has just run a con-game on them. But those who know the
history of ideas are not deceived by such shell and pea games.

The Root Problem

Budziszewski foolishly assumes that there are brute “laws” in “Nature”
that somehow, someway “just there.” He assumes that the “laws” of logic
are “just there” in “Nature” and that all men and women automatically
know them.
But, were these “laws” known before Aristotle? No. Do children
automatically know and obey these laws? No. Is it not the case that a
child’s imagination often involves things that can both “be” and “not be”
at the same time? The “monster under the bed” comes to mind.
If all human beings innately know Aristotle’s Greek “laws of logic”
from conception, why do we have to teach courses on logic? Why don’t all
students earn an “A” on the subject? As someone who has taught logic, I
know that most people do not know of or obey the “rules” of Western
Greek logic!
Despite the tricks of Budziszewski and his “Evangelical” followers, the
fact remains that Natural Law theorists have never agreed among
themselves on the fundamental issues of the origin, nature or content of
“natural laws.”

Natural Law a Myth

“Natural Law” is thus a myth in that there is no historic monolithic
form, school or agreed-upon definition of “Natural Law.” Since “Natural
Law” has no definite meaning and has been used to support and refute
such things as slavery, it means nothing.
The trick of modern Natural Law theorists is to cite Aristotle’s
definitions of key terms without informing their readers that they no
longer believe in Aristotle’s worldview. For example, while Aristotle
claimed to find objective laws in the material world of earth, air, fire, and
water (i.e. “Nature”), modern Law theorists find subjective laws in the
mind of man (i.e. “reason as nature”). They have shifted the laws from
“matter” to “mind.” Who today accepts Aristotle’s world view in which
the sun revolves around the earth?

Why the Flag of “Natural Law” Is Still Waved Today

The phrase “Natural Law” has become an emotive term that is used to
psychologically manipulate people. It is like a flag waved at a football
game. It has more to do with psychology than metaphysics, and, like
Pavlov’s dogs, many Western people still genuflect when they hear the
words “Natural Law.”
The raw truth is that the phrase has evolved in meaning from generation
to generation as it followed the philosophic and cultural consensus of the
meaning of such words as “Nature,” “natural,” “law,” “substance,”
“meaning,” and “essence.” The reason for this “paralysis of definition” is
that there has never been any agreed-upon authority by which a definition
could be created. Each philosopher defined it according to his or her own
personal epistemology and the definitions were free to move with cultural
consensus. How convenient!

No Consequences
One of the greatest problems with Natural Law theory is that breaking a
law is supposed to have physical or legal consequences. But nothing
happens when you break natural “laws.” Old Catholic “Natural Law” used
to teach that if you masturbated, you would go blind. Are you blind yet?
Are people put in jail for using contraception?
For this reason, modern natural law theorists have now dumped the
word “law” and replace it with the word “principle.” This is why Dr. Kainz
pointed out that Modern Natural Law theorists such as Grisez and Finniss,
argue that the word “law” is used only in an analogical or metaphorical
way and should not be understood as an ontological term.

The Greeks
At the beginning, Aristotle and the Greek philosophers defined “Natural
Law” as composed of those objective and absolute “laws” of truth, justice,
morals, meaning, and beauty found intrinsically within the material
universe that some men some of the time were able to abstract from
Nature and by which they were able to construct a worldview that told
them what to believe and how to live as individuals and as city states. Why
or how these intrinsic “laws” of truths and morals are in “Nature,” no one
knew. Who or what put them there was not discussed. There are “just
there.” My dear friend and mentor, Dr. Van Til, explains,
The “natural man” assumes that he can and must interpret
himself and the facts of the universe without any reference to
the God who is actually there. The “natural man” assumes that
the facts of the space-time world are not what Christ, speaking
for the triune God, says they are. For the “natural man” the
facts are just there. They are contingent, i.e. not pre-
interpreted by God. The “natural man” assumes that there is a
“principle of rationality,” including the laws of logic, i.e. the
law of identity, the law of excluded middle and the laws of
contradiction which is, like the facts,” just there. The facts he
speaks of he assumes to be non-created facts. There is no
“curse” that rests upon nature because of man’s sin. The
“natural man” assumes that he himself, being “just there,” can
relate the space-time facts which are “just there” by means of
a “principle of rationality” that is “just there” to one another or
that if he cannot do this, no one can.
How we dig ‘laws” out of the material universe was never agreed upon
by the Greeks. Human reason, experience, feelings and faith were all
chosen as the method by which man could discover the objective laws that
govern all of life. Why, how, and through whom these laws were
autonomous, (i.e. they exist apart from and independent of the gods), was
never explained. Why these laws were valid regardless if the gods did not
exist was never demonstrated.
The idea that natural law might be valid and binding even if
God did not exist had been suggested before Grotius. For
example, by Robert Bellarmine and other scholastics. But
Grotius made this point more explicitly and forcibly, and is
frequently credited with the groundbreaking proto-modern
attempt to disengage natural law from the question of the
existence of a Divine Legislator.
Since they used the “natural” laws of logic to prove other “natural”
laws, in the end, it was one vast circular argument. The early Greek
philosophers assumed that they could pick absolute laws off the trees like
apples or dig them out of the ground like potatoes because they are “just
there.”

The Revolving Door of Logic

Western forms of logic are like a revolving door that cannot work on its
own. It has a pin on the bottom and one on the top that rests in a solid
frame work. The door cannot simply revolve on its own but is dependent
on the frame in which it is set. In the same way, Aristotle’s Greek “laws”
of logic must be “set” in a frame work that will enable them to work.
Western Humanism’s assumption that the laws of logic are “brute” facts,
i.e. they are “just there,” leaves the revolving door lying on its side,
useless.

Philosophic Slogans
How did the Greeks know when they found one of these autonomous
laws-without-God in Nature? It would be “obvious” to them because it
would be “universal, self-evident, and intuitive.” That is all that was
needed to be said. Just intoning these slogans was sufficient proof in and
of itself.
Now, when they said that an idea was “universal, self-evident, and
intuitive,” they did not mean that all men and women in all places
throughout all of time knew of and believed in those ideas. No, the Greeks
restricted the words “universal, self-evident, and intuitive” to the cultural
consensus among rational, civilized, white, Greek males who were
citizens. If an idea was true to them, then it was “universal, self-evident,
and intuitive.” Truth by cultural consensus is the basis of natural law
theory.
Most Natural theologians invoke the word “universal” as a justification
for what they believe but then define it away. The classic work by
Chadbourne on Natural Law is marred by this trick. He assets that his
ideas are ‘universal, intuitive, and self-evident” to “every civilized man”
who lives “in the highest forms of society.”357 If you disagree with him,
then you are an uncivilized ignorant savage!

Women and Slaves

Women, children, slaves, and the non-white “barbarian” races were not
viewed as “rational” or “civilized.” They were not included in the word
“universal.” Whether or not the majority of mankind throughout history
ever heard of or believed in these “universal” ideas did not matter. As long
as the upper class of Greek citizens, i.e. the white male philosophers and
politicians, believed in those ideas, they were universal, self-evident, and
intuitive. Others need not apply.

Modern Cliches
Modern Natural theologians and Natural Law theorists use such clichés
as “normal people,” “rational man,” “civilized man,” “rational mind,”
“moral intuition,” and “rational thought,” etc. in order to exclude the vast
majority of mankind. They assert that their ideas are “universal, self-
evident, and intuitive” to “rational,” “normal,” and “civilized” people.
What if you do not buy into their ideas? Obviously, the problem is with
you, not their ideas. You are intellectually deficient, not the idea.

The Bible is for Stupid People

This is why some Natural theologians put down those who believe in
the Bible as “stupid.” Car washers, dog walkers, checkout clerks, ditch
diggers, maids, janitors, etc. are not smart enough to be Natural
theologians. The Bible is written for those types of people. High IQ people
do not need the Bible because they can figure out things on their own. This
is why elitism, pride, and conceit have always plagued Natural Law
theorists.

The Bible
The philosophic slogans “universal, self-evident, intuitive” never
appear once in the Bible. No author of the Bible ever claimed in fact or
principle that his teachings were “universal, self-evident, and intuitive.”
As we have demonstrated in other books the prophets, priests, people,
apostles, and Messiah Yeshua based truth and morals upon “Thus says
YHWH,” i.e. Revelation. Their favorite phrase was “as it is written.”

A Classic Fallacy
Natural Law theorists who still claim to be “Christian,” (in some sense
or the other), feel the emotional need to find Natural Law theory
somewhere in the Bible. But it does not take them long to realize that the
Torah and the Gospel are not natural but supernatural in origin. There are
no clear biblical passages that explicitly teach any theory of “Natural
Law.” Thus another approach had to be adopted.
First, Natural theologians and Natural Law theorists assume the
traditional dichotomy between “general revelation” and “special
revelation.” Since such terminology is theological terminology developed
in Medieval Scholastic Catholic theology and not from Scripture per se,
we need to ask ourselves if such language is valid? Western philosophers
have always loved dichotomies.
Plato: mind/matter

Aristotle: form/essence

Aquinas: nature/grace

Rousseau: nature/freedom

Kant: phenonmenal/noumenal
 The theological dichotomy between “general” and “special” revelation
is an extension or application of the “nature/grace” and “secular/sacred”
dichotomies.
special = sacred = grace = mind

general = secular = nature = matter

If we do not adopt pagan Greek dichotomies, why are we using them to

describe divine revelation? Furthermore, how can they both modify the
noun “revelation” when that word does not have the same meaning in each
phrase?
How can the noun “revelation” be both verbal and non-verbal? If it can
mean anything and everything, it means nothing. It seems to us that the
medieval theologians who invented this dichotomy based it on the
nature/grace dichotomy. This is an issue that needs to be discussed.
Second, “Christian” law theorists assume that their particular theory of
“Natural Law” and “General Revelation” are one and same thing. In this
way, they can cite all the passages in the Bible that teach “general
revelation” as if they proved their personal relative idea of “Natural Law.”
Budziszewski gratuitously asserts, “I have defended the view that natural
law is general revelation.”
This “categorical fallacy” is the foundation of J. Daryl Charles’ work,
Retrieving the Natural Law.
The present volume represents an attempt to focus on human
moral intuitions that, like wisdom, are universal, and thus part
of what theologians call “general revelation” and “common
grace.”
Given this erroneous assumption, Charles cites such biblical passages
as Psa. 19; Rom. 1 and 2 as if they referred to his personal view of
“Natural Law.” But this error is typical of Natural Law theorists in general.
They fail to define terms and thus habitually commit the “fallacy of
equivocation” and the “categorical fallacy.”

Natural Law is Not General Revelation

 Upon examination, it is clear that General Revelation is not Natural
Law. The following chart summarizes the differences between the two.
The Differences between Natural Law and General Revelation
General Revelation Natural Law

Activity of God Activity of Man

Began at Creation. Began in Greece with Zeno of

Citium.

Universal: throughout the entire Western Europe and America.

universe.

Continuous, seven days a week, Some of the time by some men.

24 hours a day.

Two things witnessed: Two issues discussed:

a. the attributes of God a. the existence of gods

b. the sinfulness of man b. the problem of evil

Origin: God’s immediate self- Origin: man’s reason, experience,

revelation. feelings or faith.

Non-verbal witness.

Renders all men without excuse Philosophic discourse.

Does not reveal the way of Does not render all men without
salvation. excuse.

Gives conflicting ways of

salvation.
 After his analysis of whether Natural Law should be identified with
General Revelation, the great Dutch theologian Berkouwer, concluded,
“the identification of general revelation and natural theology is an
untenable position.” His book on General Revelation is one of the greatest
theological works of the twentieth century.
Paul tells us that General Revelation is God’s activity in that “GOD
made it evident to them,” i.e. the Gentiles (Rom. 1:19).
For God made it evident to them.
ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν
The verb ἐφανέρωσεν is an indicative aorist active 3rd person singular.
The word ὁ θεὸς is emphatic. God and God alone is the One who is
revealing Himself. The point Paul is making is that the unbelief of the
pagan Gentile world is not God’s fault. He is revealing Himself in the
Creation around twenty four hours a day seven days a week. The problem
is that man’s depravity does not allow God’s revelation to get through.
Paul states that men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (τῶν τὴν
ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων) (Rom. 1:18). Dr. Wiersbe comments,
The word translated “hold” in Rom. 1:18 can also be translated
“hold down, suppress.” Men knew the truth about God, but
they did not allow this truth to work in their lives. They
suppressed it in order that they might live their own lives and
not be convicted by God’s truth. The result, of course, was
refusing the truth (Rom. 1:21–22), and then turning the truth
into a lie (Rom. 1:25). Finally, man so abandoned the truth that
he became like a beast in his thinking and in his living.
The universality of man’s condemnation is based upon the universality
of God’s General Revelation. God has revealed Himself to every human
being who ever existed, is existing now, and will ever exist. He is now
revealing Himself (ἐφανέρωσεν) to all people everywhere at the same
time. Universal condemnation rests upon universal revelation.
The endless variety of relativistic forms of “Natural Law” theory
cannot be equated with general revelation because they are not universal
but limited to specific people, places, individuals, cultures, religions, and
times. Until Natural theologians can teach every human being who ever
lived, is living now, and shall ever live in the future, their theories are not
universal.
Another important difference is that the different theories of Natural
Law represent the failure of sinful man to accept the light of General
Revelation. This is why Natural Law theories cannot be the foundation of
ethics.

The Light of the World

Jesus said that He was the “Light of the world” (John 9:5). His
incarnation was described by John as Light “coming into the world”
(ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον) (John 1:9). Even though the Light that entered
the world had the potential of “enlightening” every man, it failed to do so.
What was the cause of the failure of all human beings to embrace the
Light of the world?
First, John tells us that there was nothing wrong with the Light. It was
not defective in any sense. It was brightly shinning.
Second, the problem is rooted in the fact that man is spiritually blind
and thus cannot comprehend (οὐ κατέλαβεν) the light!
And the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness did not
comprehend it. (John 1:5)
και ̀ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει ̀ και ̀ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ
κατέλαβεν.
The light is shining, but man does not comprehend it. Why? Man’s
spiritual depravity blinds him to the Light. Our love of darkness blinds us
to the Light.
And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world,
but men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their
deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light,
and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be
exposed. (John 3:19–20)
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον και ̀
ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς· ἦν γὰρ
αὐτῶν πονηρὰ τὰ ἔραγα πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων μισεῖ τὸ
 φῶς και ̀ οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα
αὐτοῦ·
Paul said that the “natural man” is not capable of understanding
spiritual things.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of
God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand
them, because they are spiritually appraised. (1 Cor. 2:14)
ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ,
μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν και ̀ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς
ἀνακρίνεται·

Is Man Really Blind?

The foundational assumption of all Natural Law theories is that man is
not really blind. He can and does “comprehend” and “understand” the light
of general revelation. He is not so wedded to his sin that he refuses to see
the Light. But John, Jesus, and Paul said that the light is shining but
unregenerate man cannot and will not comprehend it because he is
spiritually blind.
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are
perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the
minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of
the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2
Cor. 4:3–4)
εἰ δὲ και ̀ ἔστιν κεκαλυμμένον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς
ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστιν̀ κεκαλυμμένον, ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος
τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι
τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν
εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ.
Natural Law theorists claim that man does comprehend the light
because he is not really blind. So, you will have to choose whom you are
going to believe. The prophets, apostles, and the Messiah said that
unregenerate man cannot “comprehend” (ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν) or
understand (οὐ δύναται γνῶναι) general revelation because their mind has
been blinded (τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα). Natural law theorists say
the exact opposite. Whom are you going to believe?

In the Beginning There Was Nature

Originally, “Nature” was the objective, external, material, universe just
“out there.” Who, what or how these “laws” were put into Nature was not
agreed upon. But these intrinsic autonomous laws governed the gods as
well as man.

External Nature
The external, objective, material universe “out there” all around us was
assumed to be the meaning of the word “Nature” for some time. But, in
time, this meaning was abandoned. The meaning of “Nature” shifted from
“matter” to the internal, subjective, non-material “mind” of man, i.e.
human reason.

Internal Nature
When “Nature” morphed into the subjective “reason” of man, the laws
were longer “out there” but “in here,” i.e. within the mind of man. As we
saw in our chapter on biblical anthropology, this is when the idea of
“human nature” was invented for the first time. Internal natural laws
needed a “container” or “box” within man. “Human Nature” was invented
to be the “seat” or box into which natural laws could be placed and then
discovered later on.

Natural Rights and Slavery

We must remind the reader that for thousands of years Natural Law
theories did not extend natural rights to all people. British and American
Natural Law philosophers (such as Thomas Hobbes) followed Aristotle
and Aquinas in defending slavery, the subjugation of women, wars of
conquest, genocide, etc. They proclaimed that slavery was in accord with
the “laws” of Nature, reason, and common sense.
Natural Law philosophers believed and taught that “Nature,” “reason,”
and “common sense” supported slavery and the subjugation of women.
The “inner nature” of women proved they were not equal to men and
should not be allowed to vote. The “inner nature” of slaves was animal.
Their “external form” may look human, but their “inner nature” was pure
beast. Thus slavery based on race and the rape, murder, and enslavement
of millions of Africans was justified by appeals to Aristotle’s and
Aquinas’ Natural Law theories. Dr. Anyabwile, whose work on the roots of
race-based slavery is outstanding, documents that,
The institution of slavery with all its inhuman brutality
demanded a psychologically satisfying justification. The
panacea offered by proslavery adherents involved the denial of
the African’s humanity … the African had no soul, was the
result of human-ape intercourse, was sub-human or at least a
lower species of humanity, was uneducable and uncivilized,
and so on.
The well-known commentator Prof. Dr. H. Moule noted in his
commentary on Philemon,
Meanwhile the law and usage of slavery had the support of
philosophic theory, which maintained an aboriginal and
essentially natural place of slavery in the order of human life.
Plato, in his ideal Commonwealth, gives slavery ample room,
and the master who kills his slave, though regarded as a
wrongdoer, is visited with only a ceremonial purification.
Aristotle, in the opening pages of his “Polity,” discusses the
relation of slave to master as one of the foundations of society.
He defines the slave as a being who is by nature the property
of another; who is and has nothing outside that fact; who is
merely, as it were, his master’s limb, and extension of his
master’s physical organism, with other one function of
capacity to do his master’s pleasure. In short, he is a human
being devoid of all personal rights … they are formidable
words indeed; exactly fitted to supply a supposed intellectual
justification for usages of pitiless cruelty in the field of real
life … It is important to point out by the way how totally
absent from the teaching of the Old Testament is the
Aristotelian view of slavery.
Relative Natural Law
Ernest Van den Haag correctly pointed out that “natural law” has been
used to support and condemn the same position. It can evidently mean all
things to all men.
Just as some philosophers inferred from natural law that
slavery is wrong, others, particularly in antiquity (Aristotle
among them), found that slavery is justified by natural laws.
Just as some will deduce from natural law that women are
equal to men and ought to be treated as equals other concluded
that women are inferior and should be subordinated to men.
Similarly, capital punishment can be opposed or supported on
natural law grounds.
The root problem is pointed out by Alan Richardson.
Natural law theorists have tended to defend the status quo
since it presumably is based on the nature of things.
Natural Law theorists have always defended the status quo in society.
They have to do so because they have already declared the status quo as
self-evident, intuitive, necessary, absolute, and universal. If they admitted
that they were wrong and that “nature” now dictates the opposite view,
how can they escape the charge of arbitrary natural law? They can’t
change because it would nullify the entire premise of natural law itself. As
Leslie Stephens pointed out “Nature is a word contrived in order to
introduce as many equivocations as possible into all theories, political,
legal, artistic or literary, into which it enters.”
What happened when the status quo changed, women were allowed to
vote, and the slaves set free? The cultural consensus changed and, all of a
sudden, Natural Law theorists abandoned their original position and
announced that “Nature,” “reason,” and “common sense” now supported
the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women. George
Hunsinger explains,
Barth rejected the idea of an unmediated and unconditioned
moral law to which human beings has universal access, even in
their fallen state. What is regarded as “natural law” is always
at bottom a cultural construct. From the standpoint of
 Christian ethics, it can offer no reliable basis for knowing what
is right, nor can it offer any firm and clear basis for making
ethical decisions, natural law theory posits an autonomous
ground of ethical reflection completely separate from divine
revelation. Christian ethics cannot build on this basis, Barth
argued, because no such basis exists on which to build.
The only way to counter the conceit, haughtiness, and triumphalism of
modern day Natural Law theorists is to remind them of their past support
of race-based slavery, the subjugation of women, British colonialism,
American Manifest Destiny, the genocide of Native Americans and other
races. Lest we forget, the history of Natural Law is not glorious because it
usually supported the denial of rights to many people.

Colonial America
This exposes the ugly side of Colonial America. We have conveniently
forgotten that the “natural rights” found in the Declaration of
Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights and other documents from that
period did not extend to women, children, slaves or Native Americans. Not
even all white males had these rights. Only landholders were allowed to
vote!
When modern natural theologians pine for the “good old days” of
Colonial America, I cringe. It means the suppression of women and the
enslavement of non-whites. It means slave ships, whips, shackles, auction
blocks, rape, murder, selling of children, forced labor, torture, sending
small pox infected clothing to Indian Reservations, and other horrors. No,
they were not the “good old days.” The historical reality is that Natural
Law did not give natural rights to all people. It always fought against
extending rights to all people.

The Abolitionist Preachers

It took preachers with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other to
abolish slavery and to extend rights to all people regardless of race or
creed. The leaven of Scripture finally worked its way through society and
brought an end to slavery. The Civil War was not the beginning, but the
end of that process.
 There was one American church denomination that was always opposed
to slavery. Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906) commented in one of her fiery
speeches,
The Scotch Covenanters or Reformed Presbyterians is the only
evangelical church in all the nominally free states of the North
that can consistently claim freedom from all sanction of, or
compromise with slavery, “the sum of all villainies.” The Old
Scotch Covenanters refuse church fellowship not only to slave-
holders, but to churches that fellowship slave-holders.

Natural Law Theories Today

Divergent Natural Law theories have returned with a vengeance today.
Like the mythical Phoenix, they spring from the ashes of their past
refutations. They have been resurrected by no longer anchoring natural
laws in objective external laws found in the material universe. They have
given up that attempt. Einstein and Quantum Mechanics have forever
killed it off. Ned Wisnefske comments,
To listen to an account of natural theology in the modern
period is to hear the story of the demise of a way of thinking,
until in the end natural theology is left for dead. The story
begins in philosophy with the “world-destroying” Kant, drags
on through a century of scientific achievements which rubbed
out the hand of God from nature, and ends with Barth’s
“Nein!”—the repudiation of natural theology by theology
itself. Isn’t it odd, then that natural theology is again with
us?… What is it about natural theology that it was not finished
off by even the most influential and resolute thinkers?
Wisnefske explains modern Naturists have redefined the phrase
“Natural Law” to refer to some subjective aspect of the inner non-material
mind of man. Some choose human reason, feelings, experience, faith or
common sense. The word “Nature” has been demoted to “nature.”

Catholic Natural Law

 Since Aquinas wrote Aristotle’s Natural Law theory into the theology of
Roman Catholicism, Catholic theologians and philosophers have never
stopped defending it. The Greek doctrine is so enshrined within
Catholicism that if they were to abandon it, Catholicism would collapse
into ruins.
During the Renaissance, Catholic Natural Law fought two wars. The
secular humanists on the left sought to delete God from the world and the
Reformers on the right sought to delete Catholicism from the Church.

Secular Humanism
Secular Humanism has, for all practical purposes, ended the power of
the papacy over Catholic Europe. Only 2% of European Catholics attend
weekly Mass. The Pope did not even have enough influence to force the
European Common Market to include a statement that Christianity was an
important element in European history. Abortion and easy divorce have
increased in direct proposition to the loss of Rome’s influence on the
culture of Europe.

The Reformation Mega-shift

The Reformation was a reaction to and rebellion against the
form/essence dichotomy of Greek philosophy that had become the official
position of the Roman Church. The Reformation was thus a mega-shift
against the Catholic/Islamic/Aristotelian worldview.
In the aftermath of the Protestant of the Reformation, and due
in part to the reaction of Luther and other Reformers to
scholastic or Thomistic philosophy, development of natural-
law theory was primarily the province of Catholic thinkers.
Luther said that Aquinas went to hell like all the pagans before him!
Aristotle and the other pagan philosophers were in error and we should
reject them. Calvin and the other Reformers dismissed the “schoolmen,”
i.e. followers of Aquinas, as heretics and fools.
Luther and Calvin (the differences between them on this point
are not significant) argued that natural theology was blind
 apart from the Word of God: Nature presented human beings
with a hidden God.
While all this is true, the Reformers reminded their followers that they
had only begun to jettison all their inbred Catholic doctrines. While they
had left Rome, Rome has not completely left them. For example, they still
retained such Catholic doctrines as the perpetual virginity of Mary!
It is thus no surprise that at times they lapsed into the language of
Natural Law and Natural Theology by way of habit and education. Their
motto “Always Reforming” clearly indicated that they understood that
they did not have the time to root all Catholic teaching out of their
thinking. It was left to their heirs to continue to purify theology of
Catholic heresies.

Modern Revival of Natural Law

The Roman Catholic Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, headed by Father
Sirico, has played a major role in the modern revival of Natural Law
theory in Protestant circles. It funded various Protestants as well as
Catholics to write books in defense of Natural Law. It also sponsored
seminars introducing Natural Law in many Protestant schools. Stephen
Grabill’s work, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological
Ethics, is an example of the influence of the Acton Institute. In his
introduction, Grabill writes,
I also wish to express my appreciation to the Acton Institute
where I have been employed throughout the process of writing
this book. The Institute provided assistance through the
dissertation itself and through its subsequent revision into the
current form. I thank its president. Father Robert Sirico, and
executive director Kris Mauren, personally for their support of
this project.
Grabill describes himself on the back cover of his book as, “a research
scholar in theology at the Acton institute.” He incorrectly asserted that
“the Reformers inherited the natural-law tradition from their late medieval
predecessors without serious question.” He misrepresented the historical
record deliberately in order to trick Reformed people into accepting
natural theology and rejecting Sola Scriptura.
 We admit that there were times when the Reformers lapsed into the
European cultural consensus created by Catholic Natural Law. Grabill’s
conclusion is worth repeating. But Scripture, not Aquinas, was the rule of
faith.
Calvin, Vermigli, and the Reformed scholastics all share the
conviction that Scripture is the cognitive foundation
(principium cognoscendi) of theology and that moral
arguments can be based on axioms derived from that
principium. Consequently, they recognize the existence of a
natural knowledge of God that is present in the natural order
and discernible with in conjunction with or apart from
Scripture. This knowledge, however has no saving efficacy and
merely serves to render all people to be “without excuse” for
their moral infractions.
Grabill bases his conclusion on scattered remarks here and there,
usually taken out of context. However, the Reformers did not actually
defend Aquinas’ Natural Theology as part of their systematic theology.
Most importantly, instead of dividing life into the mind/matter,
form/essence, reason/faith, nature/grace, and secular/sacred dichotomies
of pagan and Catholic philosophy, the Reformers brought all of life under
the divine authority of Scripture. What we believe and how we live is to be
decided by God through Special Revelation alone. All of life is sacred and
under the rule of Scripture. There is no secular realm where the Lordship
of Christ and the Bible are irrelevant. Therefore, Natural Law without
Scripture is blind.
The Reformers unified all of life by bringing it under the Lordship of
Christ by putting all things under the objective absolute authority of
Scripture. It became the basis of their theology, philosophy, science, the
arts, law, government, and ethics. The Lordship of Christ was applied to all
of life and every square inch of earth was claimed for Christ alone.
We must also point out that one searches in vain in the writings of
Luther or Calvin for any passages in which they appealed to Aquinas or his
Summa as their authority for doctrine or morals. The Creeds of the
Reformation nowhere appeal to Aquinas or his Natural Theology as their
authority. The only ones appealing to Aquinas are the anti-Reformation
Catholic Creeds such as Trent.
The Eyes of Lady Justice
The Swiss Reformers symbolized Sola Scriptura by changing the
symbol of Lady Justice. The pagans always pictured Lady Justice as being
blindfolded. But the Swiss took off her blindfold and had her point her
sword to the open Bible at her feet. Revealed Law was the only way for a
nation to have moral laws. “Natural” (i.e. secular) law was a fraud.
Instead of the Catholic/pagan doctrine of “Natural” Law, the Reformers
saw society being regulated according to the Revealed Laws found in the
Bible. Justice was no longer blind and in the dark, but now she stood in the
blazing light of the Word of God.

Our Evangelical Fathers

The heirs of the Reformation, such as the Puritans, rebelled against the
pagan dogma of the self-sufficiency of human reason. Instead of looking
to man’s reason or man’s faith as the Origin and measure of all things,
including God, the Puritans taught that we should look outside of
ourselves to God’s Word alone for the final answers to truth, justice,
morals, meaning, and beauty. Their doctrine of Sola Scriptura was the
answer to the Greek dogma of sola ratione.

The Great Awakening

One of the themes of Jonathan Edwards’ Great Awakening was the
insufficiency of human reason and general revelation. Princeton
theologians such as Archibald Alexander argued against the exaltation of
human reason above the authority of Scripture.
We must unequivocally deny to reason the high office of
deciding at her bar what doctrines of Scriptures are to be
received and what not.
Instead of bowing before the idol of reason, Alexander stressed that we
must,
insist that all opinions, pretensions, experiences, and practices
must be judged the standard of the Word of God.
 Evangelical scholars such as Schaeffer, Henry, Clark, Ellul, Van Til,
Berkouwer, etc., followed the lead of the Reformers in rejecting Natural
Law and Natural Theology. They taught that God, instead of man, was the
Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning and beauty; Revelation was the
final authority instead of human reason or faith; Jesus is Lord—not Plato,
Aristotle, Whitehead, etc. Francis Schaeffer’s comments on Aquinas are
representative of the historic Evangelical view of Aquinas.
Aquinas held that man had revolted against God and thus was
fallen, but Aquinas had an incomplete view of the Fall. He
thought that the Fall did not affect man as a whole but only in
part. In his view the will was fallen or corrupted but the
intellect was not affected. Thus people could rely on their own
human wisdom and this meant that people were free to mix the
teachings of the Bible with the teachings to the non-Christian
philosophers.
Among the Greek philosophers, Thomas Aquinas relied
especially on one of the greatest, Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). In
1263 Pope Urban IV had forbidden the study of Aristotle in the
universities. Aquinas managed to have Aristotle accepted so
the ancient non-Christian philosophy was re-enthroned.
This opened the way for people to think of themselves as
autonomous and the center of all things.
Aquinas opened Pandora’s Box when he introduced Aristotle’s dogma
of the autonomous reason. It led to the rise of rationalism. Francis
Schaeffer explained it this way.
A rationalist is someone who thinks that man can begin with
himself and his reason plus what he observes, without
information from any other source, and come to final answers
in regard to truth, ethics, and reality … No one stresses more
than I that people have no final answers in regard to truth,
morals or epistemology without God’s revelation in the Bible.
This is true in philosophy, science, and theology. Rationalism
can take a secular or theological form. In both, the rationalist
thinks that on the basis of man’s reason, plus what he can see
 about him, final answers are possible. My books stress that
man cannot generate final answers from himself. First, even
without the Fall, man was finite and needed the knowledge
God gave him (revelation). Second, on this side of the Fall this
is even more necessary.
Bernard Ram explained,
Just as Scripture was the supreme source of revealed truth so
Aristotle was the supreme source of our natural knowledge.
Thomas repeatedly calls him “The Philosopher,” and cites him
as possessing full authority. To be with Aristotle was to be with
the truth, and to be against Aristotle was to be against the truth
… He Christianized Aristotle and Aristotelianized Christianity.
J. I. Packer pointed out that, despite loud affirmations, Aquinas’s five
“proofs” for the existence of God are not logical.
All arguments for God’s existence, all expositions of the
analogy of being, of proportionality and of attribution, as
means of intelligently conceptualizing God, and all attempts to
show the naturalism of theism, are logically loose. They state
no more than possibilities (for probabilities are only one kind
of possibility) and can all be argued against indefinitely. They
cannot be made watertight, and if offered as such they can be
shown not to be watertight by anyone who knows any logic.
This will damage the credit of any theology that appears to be
building and relying on these arguments.

Norman Geisler
Dr. Norman Geisler was the first to openly break with the historic
Evangelical position on Aquinas. In his book defending Thomas Aquinas,
he stated that since the previous generation of Protestant apologists, such
as Carl Henry, Francis Schaeffer, Van Ti, etc. were now dead, the time was
now ripe for him and other secret Thomists to come “out of the closet.”
Geisler was right. If these Jesuit-trained Thomists would have revealed
their beliefs while these past great Evangelical scholars were alive, they
would have been run out of evangelical circles. The great Evangelical
philosophers and theologians such as Van Til, Gordon Clark, Carl F. Henry,
Francis Schaeffer, Ellul, etc. all rejected Natural Theology and Natural
Law. They understood that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was the basis of
the Reformation. Any doctrine that was not compatible with Sola
Scriptura was neither Protestant nor Reformed.

Back to Rome
Norman Geisler represented a new generation of “neo-Protestants”
(Carl F. Henry’s terminology) that had received their higher education
from Catholic universities such as Notre Dame, Marquette, Fordham, etc.
They were all indoctrinated by their Jesuit professors into Catholic Natural
Law, Natural Religion, Natural Theology, and Natural Apologetics.
“Nature” took the place of Scripture. Sola scriptura was replaced with sola
ratione.
As “Evangelical” schools, such as Wheaton, Baylor, BIOLA, Azusa,
Messiah, Regent University, Dallas Seminary, etc. hired Jesuit-trained
theologians and philosophers, they changed from their original Bible-
centered education to a new curriculum that was based on Catholic Natural
theology, Law, philosophy, and apologetics. This has led to “evangelical”
professors and their students converting to Roman Catholicism while in
“evangelical” colleges and universities!

Reformed Law Theory

The Reformed colleges and seminaries were the last to abandon Sola
Scriptura and to enshrine Humanistic Naturalism. Westminster
Theological Seminary is an example of this degeneration.
Francis Schaeffer was educated by C. Van Til and Gordon Clark at
Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia, PA). Van Til’s letter to
his student Schaeffer is indicative of their rejection of Natural Theology.
I think you will agree then, that no form of natural theology
has ever spoken properly of the God who is there. None of the
great Greek philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle, and none of
the great modern philosophers, like Descartes, Kant or
Kierkegaard and others, have ever spoken of the God who is
there. The systems of thought of these men represent a
 repression of the revelations of the God who is there. However,
no man has, from a study and of the facts of nature by means
of observation and ratiocination, ever come to the conclusion
that he is a creature of God and that he is a sinner in the sight
of God, who, unless he repents, abides under the wrath of God.
Dr. John Frame was a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary
at both the Philadelphia and California campuses. His insight on the
whether the ideas of “Nature” or “Natural Law” are found in the Bible is
significant.
So the biblical view of the natural world is intensely
personalistic. Natural events come from God, the personal
Lord. He also employs angels and human beings to do his work
in the world. But the idea that there is some impersonal
mechanism called ‘nature’ or ‘natural law’ that governs the
universe is absent from the Bible. So is the notion of an
ultimate ‘randomness,’ as postulated by some exponents of
quantum mechanics.
Prof. Frame’s comment is in sharp contrast to the new “Natural Law”
professors at Westminster Seminary (CA).

David VanDrunen
Grabill listed a number of modern Natural Law theorists including Dr.
David VanDrunen. When I heard that Westminster Theological Seminary
(CA) had hired him as a faculty member, I purchased his book Aquinas
and Natural Law and corresponded with him concerning his views.
He was educated by the Jesuits in Natural Theology and Natural Law. It
was thus no surprise to find that he, like Grabill, was on the payroll of the
Catholic Acton Institute. The Institute even published his second book!
VanDrunen’s relationship to this Roman Catholic organization is very
disturbing.

Guilt by Association?
One defense given by WTS professors was to pretend that our
objections to VanDrunen were based solely upon “guilt by association.”
They admitted that some of their teachers have:
• graduated from Catholic universities,
• taught at Catholic universities,
• dedicated their books to Catholic scholars and priests,
• been members of Catholic societies and institutions,
• received money from the Catholics,
• books published by Catholic publishers,
• written books that are used in Catholic schools.
They assured us that none of the above should concern Reformed
Christians. Who are they kidding? We are not so naïve as to believe that a
true-blue Protestant at a Catholic university would be allowed to preach
the Reformation truths of grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, Scripture
alone.
The issue is not just their associations and financial ties to Catholic
institutions, but the fact that these professors are teaching and defending
Catholic Natural Law, Natural Religion, Natural Theology, and Natural
Apologetics, therefore leading many astray.

The End of Van Til’s Apologetic

When CA Westminster Seminary hired David VanDrunen, this signaled
the final end of Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics at WTS and the rise
of Catholic thought at what once was the premier Reformed Seminary.
Like Grabill, VanDrunen in his introduction to his book, thanked his Jesuit
teachers for their counsel and Catholic financial support while writing his
book. Eric Landry introduced VanDrunen to the WTS community with the
following words.
Orthodox Presbyterian theologian David VanDrunen, presents
a positive case for engaging non-Christians in the public
square by utilizing the insights of natural law.
VanDrunen sets forth his case for Natural Law in an insightful article:
But when Christians face a moral impasse in the public square,
what is the proper way to proceed in order to attain some
measure of agreement among the different parties? In this
 article, I point to the idea of natural law as an answer to this
question.”
It seems to me that one of the best ways for Christians to make
natural law arguments is to begin with these general truths that
most people would not dispute and then attempt to show by
use of wisdom and appeals to common sense how more
particular on controversial actions would or would not be
consistent with these general moral truths.
Knowing that I had uncovered VanDrunen’s connection to the Catholic
Acton Institute, and once this book was published, the WTS alumni would
feel nervous about throwing Van Til, Gordon Clark, John Murray, and
Francis Schaeffer “under the bus,” VanDrunen tried to prove (sic) from
Scripture that we do not need to go to the Bible for truth and morals.
Romans 2:14–15 speaks of the law of God being written on
people hearts, such that even those without access to the law
revealed in Scripture are held accountable to God through their
consciences. Many prominent Christian theologians have
identified natural law as the standard for civil law and
government, including not only medieval theologians such as
Thomas Aquinas but also reformers, such as John Calvin.
God has inscribed the natural law on the heart of every person
(Rom. 2:14–15), and all people know the basic requirements of
God’s law, even if they suppress that knowledge (Rom. 1:19,
21, 32).
… the law of God still written on all people’s hearts.
If Natural Laws are indeed written on every human heart (i.e. part of
“human nature”), how is it that the vast majority of mankind throughout
human history never heard of, believed in or practiced them? Furthermore,
is this a correct interpretation of this passage?
VanDrunen modified his claim to “most every unbeliever … most
people … most unbelievers … most Christians” believe is true and moral.
Notice that he went from “all” to “most.” He should have said “few”
instead of “most” because Natural Law depends upon whatever the relative
cultural consensus says is true and moral at the time. Most Christians
would have trouble basing their faith on these shifting sands.

Michael Horton
WTS professor Michael Horton felt the need to support hiring Prof.
VanDrunen by giving more arguments in favor of Natural Law. He began
by asking a question.
How can we say that God cannot be truly known at least in a
saving way, unless one has been exposed to the Christian
Scriptures?
He tried to prove from the Bible that it is not necessary to prove things
from the Bible! Of course, by going to the Bible to prove that we do not
need the Bible is to prove we need the Bible! He also cites Rom. 2:15 as a
proof text.
Gentiles have the moral law indelibly written on their
conscience (2:15). Not only do they know the second table
(duties to neighbors); they know the first table as well (duties
to God).
There is a genuine revelation of God in nature. Who can deny
the wisdom behind the obvious design and order inherent in
the cosmos, without which science could not even begin its
investigation? It is obvious that all of this is the execution of a
marvelous architect, and this communicates real knowledge of
God to everyone.
But he does not mean the external objective “Nature” found in the
material universe. By “Nature” he means
reason, common sense, or the obvious characteristics of human
anatomy will be recognized to the extent that it reveals God as
the source.
If man’s “reason” and “common sense” are sufficient for truth and
morals, apart from and independent of God and His Word, then Horton
correctly asks,
 How much does one have to know to be saved?
This gets to the heart of the Reformation doctrines of Sola Scriptura,
the necessity of hearing of and believing in the biblical gospel for
salvation, the lost condition of the heathen, etc. Horton’s answer will
shock most WTS graduates.
We are not God and we do not have any list of propositions in
scripture to which assent is required in order to qualify as
saving faith.
His answer would have shocked Machen, Van Til, Clark, Schaeffer, etc
… It also flies in the face of Rom. 10:9–10.
If thou shall confess with your mouth that “Jesus is Lord,” and
shall believe in your heart that “God raised him from the
dead,” thou shall be saved for with the heart man believes unto
righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto
salvation.
A proposition is a statement of fact the meaning of which is either true
or false. The proposition “Jesus is LORD (i.e. YHWH)” requires one to
believe in the deity of Jesus the Messiah. Either He was or was not God
manifested in the flesh. The proposition “God raised him from the dead”
requires one to believe that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead. He is
either physically alive or dead. Dr. Horton clearly understands that he is
going against the historic position of Reformed Theology that saving faith
is composed of three things:
(1.) knowledge of the core propositional statements of gospel,
(2.) intellectual assent to those propositional statements, and
(3.) personal trust in Christ.
Horton reduces saving faith to personal faith or commitment to Jesus.
Although we have plenty of propositions about the person and
work of Christ, these merely serve to give definition to the
person in whom we place our trust. It is trust in Christ, not the
number of true propositions we hold, that is the empty hand
that receives the treasures of God’s kingdom.
 Once knowledge and assent are deleted from saving faith, the door is
open to the Catholic doctrines of “invincible ignorance” and “felicitous
inconsistency.”

Roman Catholic Doctrines

The Roman Catholic doctrine of “invincible ignorance” simply says
that the heathen can make it to heaven without ever hearing of or believing
Jesus Christ and his Gospel if they lived a good life according to their
conscience, i.e. Natural Law. According to the new Catholic Catechism,
even atheists can make it to heaven.
The doctrine of “felicitous inconsistency” refers to non-Christians who
have heard of Christ and his gospel but, reject them both. They can still be
saved if they have lived a good life according to what Natural Law tells
them in their hearts.
The new Catholic Catechism even says that Muslims who deny the
Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc.—can still make it to heaven if they lived a
life consistent with the Natural Law written in their conscience. Horton
comments,
We may hold doctrines that, if taken to their logical
conclusion, would obscure or even deny the gospel, yet by
“felicitous inconsistency,” as our older theologians expressed
it, embrace Christ and all his benefits.
Rejecting clear Scripture, Natural Law theologians always points to
themselves as the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
Human reason, common sense, etc, thus become the “measure of all
things,” including the fate of those who have never heard of Christ and His
gospel or those who knowingly reject them both.

PART TWO
The Arguments for Natural Law
Many different arguments have been set forth to prove the validity of
Natural Law. Most of these arguments are pure nonsense, as they are based
on racial prejudice and cultural conceit. Other arguments are based on
hearsay and anecdotal evidence and when examined, fall to pieces. Only
two arguments survive from century to century. First, it is asserted that
mathematics proves that we can get truth from “Nature.” Second, it is
claimed the Bible teaches Natural Law.

SECTION ONE
Does Mathematics Prove Natural Law?
Natural Law theorists have argued that mathematics is a clear example
of “natural laws” that are innate, self-evident, intuitive, and universal. It is
still used by some Catholic and Evangelical theorists today.
The controversy whether math is the product of nature or nurture was
hotly debated at the beginning of the twentieth century. After a great deal
of debate, secular philosophers abandoned the idea that the “laws” of
mathematics are innate ideas that are a part of “human nature. People are
not born with the innate idea that 1+1=2.

The History of Numbers

We must begin with the history of numbers. Why? We are so familiar
with using 1, 2, 3, 4, 25, 100, 1,000, etc., that it will be a surprise to most
people to learn that for most of human history such numbers did not exist.
If you would have said or written 1, 2, 3, or given simple mathematical
equations such as 1+1=2 to the authors of the Bible, they would not have
had the slightest idea of what those numbers meant.

Arabic Numbers
Today we refer to these numbers as “Arabic numbers.” While the
introduction of these numbers in Western culture can be traced back to
Arab merchants, they did not invent them per se. The Arabs found
different numbers used in different cultures as they traveled around Asia
and the Middle East. For example, they found the number 0 in India. These
numbers were introduced in Europe in the twelfth century AD, but it took
centuries before they came into common use.
It is interesting to note that Catholic Natural Law theorists and natural
theologians condemned the use of Arabic numbers as heresy and
championed the continued use of the Roman numeral system (I, II, III, IV,
etc.). Modern natural law theorists accept a view of math that the earlier
theorists rejected.
Ancient Middle Eastern Cultures
The earliest written records reveal that ancient Middle Eastern cultures
such as the Assyrians did not have any concept of abstract numbers, i.e.
they never discussed numbers in and of themselves in an abstract sense.
For example, there were no words for “million” or “billion” in any of the
ancient languages.
Any “counting” done in ancient cultures was always done in terms of
concrete notations. These notations were based on the idea of a one on one
correspondence. For example, they would use a stone to represent a sheep.
When they wanted to know how many sheep they had, they pulled out their
leather bag and looked to see if there was a correspondence between the
stones and the sheep. They would also sometimes cut notches on a wooden
staff to correspond to the number of sheep.
The Babylonians took a pointed stick and made impressions in a tablet
of wet clay to represent how many objects they wished to record. The
Egyptians used hieroglyphics of animals and other objects to represent
amounts. For example, the amount of “one hundred thousand” was
represented by the picture of a bird.
Most ancient cultures used their ten fingers to correspond to objects.
This is the basis of our own “base ten” system. Some cultures did not use a
base 10 system. For example, the Sumerians used 60 as their base.

Moses and the Torah

Since Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible, it is
interesting to note that although he was well-educated in the Egyptian
method of keeping track of objects, he never used it in the Pentateuch, and
neither did he use the Assyrian, Hittite, or Babylonian systems in the
Torah. The Jews in Moses’ day had words to correspond to numbers of
things. These words were treated like any other Hebrew word.
one echad

two senayim

three salos
 four arabaa

five hames

six ses

seven seba

eight smoneh

nine tesa

ten eser

hundred meah

thousand eleph

ten thousand rebabah

Similarly, when we write a check today, on the second line we write out
the amount in words instead of Arabic numbers. While the Ancient
Hebrews had words to correspond to things, they did not have any
numbers. For example, in the Genesis account of Creation, Moses gives us
a record of what God did on “day one,” “day two,” “day three,” etc.
When Moses wanted to record large amounts, he would write it out
word for word. For example, while we would write 930 in Arabic numbers,
Moses would write “nine hundred and thirty” [‫לשׁים‬ ִ ‫וּשׁ‬
ְ ‫ְשׁע ֵמאוֹת ָשׁנָה‬
ַ ‫]תּ‬
(Genesis 5:5). The Hebrew word that represented the highest amount
recorded in the Old Testament was ten thousand. That was the largest
number in the Hebrew language.

Large Numbers
What about such huge numbers as “million” or “billion?” Did ancient
cultures have any concept of very large numbers? No. They could only
conceive of an amount that was sitting in front of them. We have no
evidence that they had a concept of such abstract concepts as billion,
trillion, or anything higher.
The concept of “million” was actually invented by an Italian banker
600 years ago when he ran out of words to represent the amount of money
in his bank. A French banker invented the concept of a “billion” in 1500.
Such words as trillion and quadrillion are also of recent origin. They
represent modern advances in abstract mathematics.

The Biblical Authors

Did the biblical authors ever run out of words to express quantify
things? Yes. When Joseph tried to keep track of how much he had stored
up during the seven good years, Genesis 41:49 says that he eventually ran
out of words to express it [‫ִספֹּר כִּי־ ֵאין ִמ ְסָֽפּר‬
ְ ‫]ל‬. The Egyptians even had a
hieroglyphic of a man throwing up his hands in despair to represent an
amount for which they did not have a word.
Did the biblical authors ever use the letters of the Hebrew alphabet to
represent numbers? No. They used words for amounts, not numbers. Did
the authors of the New Testament ever use the letters of the Greek alphabet
to represent numbers? No. Was it even possible for them to place hidden
numeric codes in the writings? No.
The New Testament followed the Old Testament in using words instead
of numbers: one = eis, two = duo, three = treis, etc. Even in Revelations
13:18, the “mark of the beast” is written out in the Greek words “six
hundred sixty-six” [ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ].
The historical facts are clear that it was simply not possible for Moses,
the prophets, or the apostles to use Arabic numbers in their writings. There
is simply no archeological or literary evidence that the pre-exilie Jews
ever used the letters of the Hebrew alphabet to represent numbers. The
burden of proof is on anyone who says otherwise.

Jesus and the Apostles

Enough has been demonstrated to prove that mathematics was unknown
to the authors of the Bible. Since no ancient culture ever found the truths
of mathematics in “Nature,” the claim of Natural law theorists that
mathematics is universal, self-evident, intuitive, and innate falls to the
ground is destroyed.

SECTION TWO
Biblical Arguments
While the theory of Natural Law was invented by Aristotle and clearly
attempts to discover laws-without-God, some “Christian” Natural Law
theorists have attempted to justify it Biblically.

Self-refuting
If you go to the Bible to justify Natural Law, you have refuted yourself
at the outset. Thus only a few Protestant Natural Law theorists have set
forth passages from the Bible that supposedly teach the idea that we can
find in Nature-without-God laws-without God that give us truth-without
God and morals-without God.

The General Revelation Argument

As we have already pointed out, natural theologians and philosophers
have assumed, like Budzszewski, that general revelation and Natural Law
are identical. This fundamental fallacy of equivocation led them to cite
biblical passages where “general revelation” is mentioned as if those
passages likewise proved (sic) Natural Law.

Biblical Passages
There are only a few specific biblical passages that have been cited as
proving the concept of Natural Law. We will examine these passages to see
if they clearly teach Aristotle’s doctrine.

1 Cor. 11:14
Does “Nature” Teach Us Truth and Morals?
Some Natural theologians have quoted the words “nature doth teach
thee” from 1 Cor. 11:14 (KJV) as a proof text that the Bible teaches that
“Nature” is the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
 Naturalist: “We can derive truth and morals from Nature apart
from and independent of God and the Bible.”
Theist: “I don’t think the Bible teaches that.”
Naturalist: “Yes it does! Paul stated “Nature” teaches us truth
and morals in 1 Cor. 11:14.”
Theist: “I think you are misinterpreting the passage. Did you
check out the Greek word translated “nature”? Did you exegete
the passage carefully?”
Naturalist: “No need to do so. I am a Christian philosopher. I
don’t do exegesis. My reason tells me what the passage
means.”
The “quote and run” method employed by Natural theologians is
reminiscent of how Jehovah’s Witnesses abuse the Bible. Since they cite
the words “nature doth teach thee” and then run off without any attempt to
exegete the verse, it falls upon us to point out that they are guilty of
“twisting” the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16). The text reads as follows:
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long
hair, it is a shame unto him? (1 Cor. 11:14)
οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ διδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ ἀτιμία
αὐτῷ ἐστιν̀?
In the immediate context, Paul appeals to “φύσις” as “teaching” two
things:
(1.) It is shameful for men to have long hair and women short
hair.
(2.) It is appropriate for women to have long hair and men short
hair.
First, the issue of hair styles does not fall under the categories of “truth
and morals.” To have long or short hair is hardly a matter of immorality.
The length of your hair is a relative issue found in cultural fads and styles.
Natural theologians are making a categorical fallacy when they claim that
the passage has in view absolute truth and morals.
Second, the chapter division is in error. Paul actually began to discuss
such cultural issues as food, drink, hair styles, and head coverings in 1 Cor.
10:23–33.
 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All
things are lawful, but not all things edify. Therefore, let no one
seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that
is sold in the meat market without asking questions for
conscience’ sake; FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT
CONTAINS. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to
go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions
for conscience’ sake.
But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,”
do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you and for
conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the
other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s
conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered
concerning that for which I give thanks? Whether, then, you
eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of
God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my
own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be
saved.
Paul states in 1 Cor. 10:29 that Christians have the “freedom” to adopt
or not to adopt cultural customs. See Paul’s exposition of “Christian
Liberty” in such places as Rom. 14 and Gal. 5.
The attempt to read absolute morality into this passage has caused
much confusion. When Paul said, “All things are lawful,” did he mean,
“All moral things are lawful?” Did he mean that it is now lawful for
Christians to kill, steal, rape, etc.? Do we have the “freedom” to violate
absolute morality? I don’t think any sane person would say so.
Paul clearly has in view the lawfulness and freedom of Christians to
engage in relative cultural practices or styles, i.e. “All cultural things are
lawful.” Whether you have long hair or short hair is not an issue of truth or
morals. A piece of cotton on your head will not determine whether God
hears your prayer! He has in view relative customs of a society.
Also, in 1 Cor. 10:29, Paul clearly has in view the conscience of
unbelievers, not believers. If an unbeliever feels that a certain custom is
important to him, then, in order to win him to Christ, the Christian is free
to conform to that custom. For example, if you are in a culture where male
prostitutes wear long hair and female prostitutes wear short hair, then,
while long or short hair is not a moral issue to you, for the sake of the
unbeliever, don’t look like a prostitute!
Natural theologians have made the fatal mistake of reading Western,
European, post-Renaissance scientific ideas into this first century text. It
was impossible for Paul to know of the Newtonian world view in which
there are mechanical “natural laws” inherent in “Nature.” Thus Paul could
not mean “natural laws” when he wrote “nature.” Any interpretation which
claims that Paul is talking about “laws inherent in nature” is eisegesis and
not exegesis.
The Greek word φύσις, translated “nature” in the KJV, referred to the
cultural customs of the society in which they lived. As Matthew Henry
pointed out, “custom is in a great measure the rule of decency.” Every
culture legislates what is “natural” and “unnatural,” i.e., what is against
custom or in conformity to custom. Calvin comments:
Paul again sets nature before them as a teacher of what is
proper. Now he means by ‘natural’ what was accepted by
common consent and usage at that time, certainly as far as the
Greeks were concerned. For long hair was not always regarded
as a disgraceful thing in men. Historical works relate that long
ago i.e., in the earliest times, men wore long hair in every
country. But since the Greeks did not consider it very manly to
have long hair, branding those who had it effeminate, Paul
conceded that their custom, accepted in his own day, was in
conformity with nature. The word “nature” refers to what was
culturally acceptable.
The great Charles Hodge pointed out:
The form which these feelings assume is necessarily
determined in a great measure by education and habit. The
instinctive sense of propriety in an eastern maiden prompts
her, when surprised by strangers, to cover her face. In a
European it would not produce that effect. In writing,
therefore, to eastern females, it would be correct to ask
whether their native sense of propriety did not prompt them to
cover their heads in public. The response would infallibly be in
the affirmative. It is in this sense the word nature is commonly
taken here.
 It was for this reason that the great J. Meyer said, “The instinctive
consciousness of propriety on this point had been established by custom
and had become nature.” This understanding of the word “nature” was held
by such early commentators as Chrysostom.418 Ellingworth and Hatton
point out, “Paul’s use of the word translated nature reflects both the
culture in which he lived and his Christian convictions.” The Expositor’s
Greek Testament defines the word “nature” as “social sentiment.” Lenski
defines it as “the custom in vogue in their midst.”421 Meyer emphasized
that the hair styles and coverings “had been established by custom and had
become nature.”
This understanding conforms to the context of the passage and the line
of argumentation that Paul is using. After a lengthy discussion, Thiselton
comments,
One of the most discriminating discussions of φύσις in this
particular verse comes from Schrage. He compares its use here
with the occurrences of the term in Rom 1:26; 2:14. To be sure,
he observes, unlike the Stoics Paul does not hear “the voice of
God from nature” as some competing or alternate source to
scripture. In contrast to Cicero, φύσις as “nature” is
characterized by “ambivalence and relativity” of a kind unlike
the concept among the Stoics. In Paul’s sense of the term,
“natural” need not refer to a structure inherent in creation but
may include “the state of affairs surrounding a convention” or
the quality, property, or nature (Beschaffenheit) of male or
female gender and the order, or arrangement, or system of
things as they are (die Ordnung der Dinge). Unless we take
fully into account “the ambivalence of ‘natural,’ we shall find
insoluble problems with such historical counterexamples as
the custom of Spartan warriors of wearing shoulder-length
hair. Paul simply appeals to “how things are” or “how things
are ordered” in the period and context for which he is writing.
Judiciously Schrage cites Calvin: “Now he means by ‘natural’
what was accepted by common consent and usage at that time.
… For long hair was not always regarded as a disgraceful thing
in man.”
Matthew Poole concludes,
 Interpreters rightly agree, that this and the following verses are
to be interpreted from the customs of the countries; and all
that can be concluded from the verse is, that it is the duty of
men employed in divine ministrations, to look to behave
themselves as those who are to represent the Lord Jesus Christ,
behaving themselves with a just authority and gravity that
belong to his ambassadors, which decent gravity is to be
judged from the common opinion and account of the country
wherein they live. Nothing in this is a further rule to
Christians, than that it is the duty in praying and preaching, to
use postures and habits that are not naturally, nor according to
the customs of the place they live, uncomely and irreverent as
looked upon.
The pagan Greek concepts that there is something “out there” called
“Nature;” that it has intrinsic laws and truths in it; that man can solely
discern them through human reason, apart from and independent of divine
revelation, is not found in the Hebrew Old Covenant Scriptures or the
Greek New Covenant Scriptures.
The Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion states, “The concept of
nature as a system operating according to fixed laws of its own derives
from Greek philosophy rather than the Bible.” The New Catholic
Encyclopedia agrees with this fact. The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia comments,
“Nature” in the sense of a system or constitution does not
occur in the Old Testament … The later conception of “nature”
came in through Greek influences.
The attempt to cite 1 Cor. 11:14 as a proof text for the pagan concept of
Natural Law is a complete failure.

Rom. 2:15
Is The Law Written on the Hearts of All Men?
There is only one biblical text that is used by all Natural Law theorists
and theologians. It has become a mantra that is chanted as if merely
reciting the words is all that is needed. No exegesis is ever given. That text
is Rom. 2:15. While they think it is their strongest text, it is actually their
greatest weakness.
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,
οἵτινες ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς
καρδίαις αὐτῶν, συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς
συνειδήσεως και ̀ μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισμῶν
κατηγορούντων ἢ και ̀ ἀπολογουμένων,
The Natural Law theorist interpretation has three basic propositions.
1. The text is universal in scope, i.e. has all men in view.
2. The word “law” referred to “natural laws” found either in
Nature-nature or nature-reason.
3. These “natural laws” are written in the hearts of all men.
As we shall demonstrate, all three propositions are absolutely
erroneous.

Without Excuse
In the first two chapters of Romans, Paul argued that some Gentiles do
not have the Torah revealed to them. Yet, they are “without excuse” (εἰς τὸ
εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους). When they stand before God on the Day of
Judgment, they will not be able to escape the wrath of God (1:18) by
giving the excuse that God failed to provide them with any revelation.
These Gentiles may not have the light of Torah, but they had the light of
the Creation around them. In other words, the light is brightly shinning
and the music is playing loudly but these Gentiles suppressed
(κατεχόντων) the witness of Creation and worshipped the Creation instead
of the Creator (Romans 1:25).

The Basis of God’s Condemnation

God’s condemnation rests upon the fact of man’s ungodliness and
unrighteousness (1:18) and inherited depravity from Adam (5:12–21).
Thus the presence or absence of Torah does not determine the
condemnation of sinners. We are “born in sin and conceived iniquity”
(Psa. 51:5); we are “already perishing” (ἀπολλυμένοις) from the moment
we are conceived (1 Cor. 1:18); we are “dead in trespasses in sins” (Eph.
2:1–2). Nowhere does Paul say that Creation tells us the way of salvation.
While it is sufficient for condemnation, it is not sufficient for salvation.

All Natural Religions Condemned

Paul’s description of the “Natural Religions” of the Gentile world is
graphic and condemnatory (1:18–32). All Natural Religions are idolatrous
because they are not the result of man’s search for God but man’s flight
from God. No sinner seeks the true God and thus no sinner understands
God.
There is none who understands [God],
There is none who seeks for God. (Rom. 3:11)
οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων,
οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν.
The word “not” (οὐκ) is taken out of its regular word order and placed
first to emphasize that absolutely no one understands God because
absolutely no one seeks God. Sinful man only seeks gods made in his own
image who will condone his sin.
It is clear that the argument which intends to demonstrate the
universality of sin builds up to a climax.… The picture he
draws is dismal: no one is righteous; in fact, no one
understands his deplorable condition. And no one is even
trying to understand, is even searching for God, the Source of
all wisdom and knowledge. But are there no exceptions? Paul
answers, “There is no one … no one … no one … no one …
not even one.”

The Fate of the Heathen

What will happen to those who never had Torah? Will they perish and
end up in hell? Can they give some kind of excuse to avoid punishment for
their sins? Paul emphatically states,
 For all who have sinned without the Torah will also perish
without the Torah; and all who have sinned under the Torah
will be judged by the Torah (Rom. 2:12)
ὅσοι γὰρ ἀνόμως ἥμαρτον, ἀνόμως και ̀ ἀπολοῦνται, και ̀ ὅσοι
ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον, διὰ νόμου κριθήσονται·
Paul leaves no loopholes to escape divine judgment. Regardless of
whether you have or do not have the Torah, you will perish in your sin. The
Gentiles and the Jews who do not hear of and believe in Jesus Christ and
His gospel will most surely perish in their sins and end up in the eternal
conscious torment of Gehenna.

The Torah
What was the Torah (“Law”) mentioned by Paul in Chapter two? As
Ridderbos and other N.T. scholars have pointed out, “the Torah,” ὁ νόμος
is not to be reduced to the Ten Commandments or natural law. Yet, this is
what most Natural Law theologians assume to be true.

The Two Tablets Error

Natural Law theologians usually make the mistake of thinking that the
Decalogue was recorded on two different stone tablets with some of the
laws written on the first tablet and the rest on the second. They have
debated for centuries how to divide up the Ten Commandments. Are they
divided evenly with five on one tablet and five on the other or did the first
tablet have four and the second six commandments? As Prof. Meredith
Kline demonstrated, both tablets had all Ten Commandments on them.
One copy was for YHWH and the other copy for Israel.

Torah Encompassed All of Life

The “Torah” Paul had in mind encompassed all that God had revealed
through Moses in the Old Covenant Scriptures. For the Jew, the Torah
encompassed all of life and judged what was right and what was wrong.
The Torah judged how to cut your hair, what to eat, how to dress, how to
deal with aggressive animals, how to deal with adultery, what was the right
kind of mate to marry, how to raise children, the proper way to go to the
bathroom, etc., etc. All of life was under Torah. John Murray comments,
The law referred to is definite and can be none other than the
law of God specified in the preceding verses as the law which
the Gentiles do not have, the law the Jews did have and under
which they were, the law by which men will be condemned in
the day of Judgment.
The failure of Natural Law theologians to understand the Jewish nature
of Paul’s idea of Torah was the result of presupposing the Greek
dichotomy between secular and sacred. They reduced Torah to “sacred”
laws in order to make room for secular laws-without-God drawn from
Nature-without-God. This is why they never understood why the Torah
judged such things as menstruation.
The purpose of the Torah was to tell Israel how to live. It sat in
judgment of what they thought, said, and did. It either accused or excused
their behavior in all of life. Thus no Jew checked his own reason, feelings,
experience or faith to see how to cut his hair or what to eat (Prov. 3:5–6).
The Torah decided such issues. There was no “secular” side of life where
Torah did not apply.

The Function or Work of Conscience

Paul emphatically stated that some Gentiles do not have the Torah
(ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα) to guide them (Rom. 2:14). Note that there is
no definite article before ἔθνη. This is very important because the Natural
Law theologian assumed that all Gentiles do have the Torah but from a
different source, namely from Nature, Revelation.
Theist: A “Gentile” by definition is someone who does not have
the Torah to guide him in all of life.
Naturalist: No! The Gentiles do have natural Law. They just get it
from Nature, not Revelation.
Theist: No! Paul states twice in Romans 2:14 that Gentiles do not
have the Torah (τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα). He is not saying
that they have a Torah-without-God through Nature-
without-God. In 2:12, he states that those who sin
“without Torah” (ἀνόμως ἥμαρτον), will perish “without
 Torah” (ἀνόμως και ̀ ἀπολοῦνται). If they have the Torah,
how can he say that Gentiles sin and will perish without
it?
Paul is stating that the “conscience” in the heathen takes the place of
the Torah by sitting in judgment of what he thinks, says, and does. It
attempts to guide the heathen in all of life. His conscience either accuses
him of doing the wrong thing or commends him for doing the right thing.
Instead of the Torah, the heathen has a “conscience.” Meyer points out,
their moral nature, with its voice of conscience commanding
and forbidding, supplies to their own Ego the place of the
revealed law possessed by the Jews.
The classic commentator, Robert Haldane, put it this way,
We have here a distinction between the law itself, and the work
of the law. The work of the law is the thing that the law doeth,
—that is, what it teaches about actions, as good or bad. This
work, or business, or office of the law, is to teach what is right
or wrong.

An Exegesis of Rom. 2:14–16

With these insights on the context, let us now exegete Rom. 2:14–16.
First, we must exegete verses 14, 15, and 16 because they are only one
sentence wrongly divided into three verses. Natural Law theologians do
not seem aware of this.
For when Gentiles who do not have the Torah culturally do the
things of the Torah, these, not having the Torah, are a torah to
themselves, in that they show the work of the Torah written in
their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their
thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the
day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets
of men through Messiah Jesus.
ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου
ποιῶσιν, οὗ τοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος· οἵτινες
ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις
 αὐτῶν, συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως και ̀ μεταξὺ
ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισμῶν κατηγορούντων ἢ και ̀ ἀπολογουμένων,
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε κρίνει ὁ θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ τὸ
εὐαγγέλιόν μου διὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ.
Second, we have to deal with the persistent and pernicious misquotation
of this passage by Natural Law theologians. Please notice that Paul does
not say “the Law written on the hearts of all men” but “the work of the
Torah written in their hearts.”
Catholic and Protestant Natural Law theorists alike consistently drop
out the words “the work of” and pretend that Paul wrote “the law written
on the hearts of all men.” The Protestant theologians should have known
better. Perhaps they were following the precedent set by Catholic
naturalists.
J. Daryl Charles
… the inner witness of the “law written on the heart.”
Because it is in the heart of each person and established by
reason, the natural law is therefore universal in its precepts,
possessing an authority that extends to all men … it is
“immutable and permanent throughout the variations of
history … it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of
man.”
… there is a law “written on the heart” of every human being.
J. Budzszewski
On the tablets of the heart a law is written indeed, the same for
all men (as Thomas Aquinas said) not only as to rectitude but
as to knowledge.
natural law is general revelation.
St. Paul spoke of “a law written on the heart.”
Jean Porter
For the scholastics, the “one everlasting and immutable law” is
nothing other than the law to which Paul refers in Romans
 2:14, which is written on the hearts of the men and women of
the nations, through which they judge what is good and evil,
and in terms of which they will themselves be judged on the
last day.
VanDrunen
God has inscribed the natural law on the heart of every person
(Rom. 2:14–15), and all people know the basic requirements of
God’s law, even if they suppress that knowledge (Rom. 1:19,
21, 32).
Michael Horton
Gentiles have the moral law indelibly written on their
conscience (Rom. 2:15). Not only do they know the second
table (duties to neighbors); they know the first table as well
(duties to God).
J. P. Mooreland and William Lane Craig
God has written his moral law upon all men’s heart, so that
they are morally responsible before him (Rom. 2:15).
Third, Natural Law theologians not only delete the words “the work of”
but add the words “on the hearts of all men.” But, Paul did not write “on
the hearts of all men” but “in their hearts” (ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν). Is he
referring to all people?

Not All Men

In the context, Paul does not have in view all men but only those
Gentile pagans who do not have the written Torah. The pronoun “their”
refers only to some Gentiles. The text is not universal in scope. Paul does
not include Jews in this text. Lenski explains,
Jews cannot be included, for they are under the Mosaic code.
The Greeks are also excluded … because the Greek is a pagan
he is not necessarily included … Also those who sin and perish
“without any law” (v. 12) are excluded … This interpretation
will not be accepted by those who think that all Gentiles are
 here referred to. But Paul had looked around in this wicked
world a bit. It still contains men who have no conscience at all,
who in no way respond even to an inner law … Yes, ἔθνη
without the article is correct.
Paul is not speaking universally of all mankind. First, Paul divides
humanity into two groups: those who have the revealed Torah and those
who do not have it. Thus he is not speaking about all human beings.
Second, the word “Gentile” in verse 14 does not have the definite
article because Paul was not making a universal statement about all
Gentiles. Some Gentiles have heard Torah and thus cannot be grouped
together with those who never heard Torah. John Murray comments: “the
reason is that there are some Gentiles who did have the law and on that
account did not belong to the category of which he is speaking.”
Meyer points out that the lack of the definite article before the word
“Gentiles” means that what Paul was saying must,
not be understood of the Gentiles collectively … for this must
have been expressed by the article, and the putting of the case
ὅταν … ποιῇ with respect to the heathen generally would be in
itself untrue—but Paul means rather Gentiles among whom the
supposed case occurs.
Fourth, in Rom. 2:15, the Greek word ἔργον (“work”) is an accusative
neuter singular and the Greek word γραπτὸν (“written”) is also an
accusative neuter singular. The case, gender, and number of the two words
grammatically mean that the “WORK” of the Torah is what is
“WRITTEN” in the hearts of the Gentiles who do not have the Torah. Thus
the Torah is not written in the heart per se. There is something else in the
hearts of the heathen that functions in the place of the Torah.
Fifth, the word τοῦ νόμου (“the Torah”) is a masculine singular and
cannot modify an accusative neuter singular. The syntax and grammar of
the Greek text forbids saying it was written in the heart. The “work” of the
Torah is what functions in the hearts of the heathen in the place of the
Torah.
What is the meaning of the word τοῦ νόμου in this text? In the context,
it clearly means the revealed Torah that the Jews possessed. The attempt of
Natural theologians to interpret τοῦ νόμου as some nebulous natural law
violates every hermeneutical principle known. John Murray emphatically
states, “Paul does not say that the law is written upon their hearts.”
Since Paul says that there is something in the heart of the heathen that
does the same work that the Torah does for the Jews, what is the work of
function of the Torah?

The Work of Torah

We don’t have to guess the answer. Paul clearly tells us that “the
conscience” (ῆς συνειδήσεως) does the work that the Torah does. The
classic commentators agree that the work of the Torah is what Paul had in
view. The exegetical commentators who pay attention to grammar and
syntax agree.
Not the law itself (Wolf, Koppe, &c.): for the Ten
Commandments are not formally written in their heart.
They had the work of the law. He does not mean that work
which the law commands, as if they could produce a perfect
obedience; but that work which the law does.
As the etymology of the word, both in Greek and in English
(from Latin) implies, conscience is a knowledge along with (or
shared with) the person. It is that individual’s inner sense of
right and wrong; his (to a certain extent divinely imparted)
moral consciousness viewed in the act of pronouncing
judgment upon himself, that is, upon his thoughts, attitudes,
words, and deeds, whether past, present, or contemplated. As
the passage states, the resulting thoughts or judgments are
either condemnatory or, in certain instances, even
commendatory.
Paul was not saying that God’s specific revelation to Israel
through Moses was intuitively known by pagan peoples. He
was saying that in a broad sense what was expected of all
people was not hidden from those who did not have the
revelation given to Israel. Their own conscience acknowledged
the existence of such a law. Thrall suggests that Paul was
saying that in the pagan world the conscience performed
 roughly the same function as the law performed in the Jewish
world.
Paul describes the moral process which takes place in the heart
of man after a good or bad act; the conscience, συνείδησις, sits
in judgment, and pronounces the sentence in God’s name
according to the law; the διαλογισμοί are the several moral
reflections and reasonings which appear as witnesses testifying
and pleading in this court of conscience, and are often
conflicting, since the sinful inclinations and passions interfere
and bribe the witnesses; the object of the χατηγορεν, or
πολογεσθαι, is the moral action which is brought before the
tribunal of the conscience. The χα indicates that the conscience
finds more to accuse than to excuse. This judicial process,
which takes place here in every man’s heart, is a forerunner of
the great judgment at the end of the world.

The Biblical Concept of the Conscience

The word English word “conscience” carries a great deal of cultural and
philosophical baggage that has been collected down through the centuries.
Natural Law theorists naively assume that the word refers to the Stoic idea
of an infallible divine faculty resident in “human nature.” They do not
define or defend their assumption. They simply assume that is what the
word means.
The biblical concept of the “conscience” has nothing to do with
Stoicism. The Hebrew Old Testament never refers to the “conscience.”
There isn’t even a Hebrew word for it. No one in the Torah ever appealed
to it as an inner judge of right and wrong. Since Jews had the Torah, they
did not need a conscience.
In the New Testament, the word never appears in the Gospels and is
never referred to by Jesus or the Twelve. In the Epistles, the Greek word
συνείδησις simply means “joint”, συν “knowledge” (είδησις) and has no
ontological reality. It simply meant to be sincere in what you say and do.
This is why it is used as the opposite of lying in Rom. 9:1.
I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my sincerity
bears me witness in the Holy Spirit,
 Ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι, συμμαρτυρούσης μοι
τῆς συνειδήσεώς μου ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ,
Barclay and Nida point out that the word,
Conscience may be variously translated, depending upon the
particular set of associations connected with certain terms or
phrases—for example, “my heart,” “my innermost,” “that
which speaks within me,” or “the voice in my heart.”
In Acts 23:1 Paul said,
And Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, “Brethren, I
have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before
God up to this day.”
ἀτενίσας δὲ ὁ Παῦλος τῷ συνεδρίῳ εἶπεν, Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί,
ἐγὼ πάσῃ συνειδήσει ἀγαθῇ πεπολίτευμαι τῷ θεῷ ἄχρι ταύτης
τῆς ἡμέρας.
Newman and Nida analyze the word συνειδήσει (“conscience”) in this
text to mean “in my heart I have no serious questions about my whole life
before God.” Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament defined
συνειδήσει in the following way.
In scripture we are to view conscience, as Bishop Ellicott
remarks, not in its abstract nature, but in its practical
manifestations. Hence it may be weak (1 Cor. 8:7, 12),
unauthoritative, and awakening only the feeblest emotion. It
may be evil or defiled (Heb. 10:22; Tit. 1:15), through
consciousness of evil practice. It may be seared (1 Tim. 4:2),
branded by its own testimony to evil practice, hardened and
insensible to the appeal of good. On the other hand, it may be
pure (2 Tim. 1:3), unveiled, and giving honest and clear moral
testimony. It may be void of offence (Acts 24:16), unconscious
of evil intent or act: good, as here, or honorable (Heb. 13:18).
The expression and the idea, in the full Christian sense, are
foreign to the Old Testament, where the testimony to the
character of moral action and character is borne by external
revelation rather than by the inward moral consciousness.
 As Walvoord and Zuck point out, the post-lapsarian conscience of man,
is not an absolutely trustworthy indicator of what is right.
One’s conscience can be “good” (Acts 23:1; 1 Tim. 1:5, 19)
and “clear” (Acts 24:16; 1 Tim. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 13:18),
but it can also be “guilty” (Heb. 10:22), “corrupted” (Titus
1:15), “weak” (1 Cor. 8:7, 10, 12), and “seared” (1 Tim. 4:2).
All people need to trust the Lord Jesus Christ so that “the
blood of Christ” might “cleanse [their] consciences” (Heb.
9:14).
When Natural theologians interpret the word συνειδήσει as a reference
to the pagan Greek concept of a divine faculty resident in “human nature,”
they are guilty of reading pagan ideas back into Scripture. Scripture should
be interpreted while standing on Mt. Zion, not Mt. Olympus.

The Biblical Concept of Regeneration

The final proof that Paul is not saying that the Torah is written in the
hearts of all men is that all other references in Scripture to the Law being
written in the heart refers to the work of regeneration.
But this is the covenant which I will make with the House of
Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My
Torah within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will
be their God, and they shall be My people. (Jer. 31:33)
The members of the New Covenant will all be forgiven of their sins and
regenerate. The Reformed Theologian W. G. Shedd comments,
He is not speaking of that writing of the law in the human
heart which is effected in regeneration, alluded to in Jer. 31:33,
34; Heb. 10:16, 17; 2 Cor. 3:3.
Dr. Warren Wiersbe comments,
Regeneration: a new covenant (Jer. 31:31–40)
Any plan for the betterment of human society that ignores the
sin problem is destined to failure. It isn’t enough to change the
environment, for the heart of every problem is the problem of
the heart. God must change the hearts of people so that they
 want to love Him and do His will. That’s why He announced a
New Covenant to replace the Old Covenant under which the
Jews had lived since the days of Moses, a covenant that could
direct their conduct but not change their character. Jewish
history is punctuated with a number of “covenant renewals”
that brought temporary blessing but didn’t change the hearts of
the people. The Book of Deuteronomy records a renewal of the
covenant under Moses, before the people entered the Promised
Land. In addition, before he died, Joshua led the people in
reaffirming the covenant (Josh. 23–24). Samuel called the
nation to renew their vows to God (1 Sam. 12), and both
Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29–31) and Josiah (2 Chron. 34–35)
inspired great days of “revival” as they led the people back to
God’s Law. The fact that the blessings didn’t last is no
argument against times of revival and refreshing. When
somebody told Billy Sunday that revivals weren’t necessary
because they didn’t last, the evangelist replied, “A bath
doesn’t last, but it’s good to have one occasionally.” A nation
that is built on spiritual and moral principles must have
frequent times of renewal or the foundations will crumble. But
the New Covenant isn’t just another renewal of the Old
Covenant that God gave at Sinai; it’s a covenant that’s new in
every way. The New Covenant is inward so that God’s Law is
written on the heart and not on stone tablets (2 Cor. 3; Ezek.
11:19–20; 18:31; 36:26–27). The emphasis is personal rather
than national, with each person putting faith in the Lord and
receiving a “new heart” and with it a new disposition toward
godliness.
The classic commentators agree.
God’s New Covenant will involve an internalization of His
Law. He will put His Law in their minds and on their hearts,
not just on stones (Ex. 34:1). There will be no need to exhort
people to know the LORD because they will already all know
God (cf. Isa. 11:9; Hab. 2:14). God’s New Covenant will give
Israel the inner ability to obey His righteous standards and
thus to enjoy His blessings. Ezekiel indicated that this change
 will result from God’s bestowal of the Holy Spirit on these
believers (cf. Ezek. 36:24–32). In Old testament times the
Holy Spirit did not universally indwell all believers. Thus one
different aspect of the New Covenant is the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit in all believers (cf. Joel 2:28–32).
The character of the new covenant: “I (Jahveh) give (will put)
my law within them, and write it upon their heart.” ‫ ְבּ ִק ְרבָּם‬is the
opposite of ‫נָתַן ִל ְפנֵ יהֶם‬, which is constantly used of the Sinaitic
law, cf. 9:12, Deut. 4:8; 11:32, 1 Kings 9:6; and the “writing on
the heart” is opposed to writing on the tables of stone, Ex.
31:18, cf. 32:15f., 34:8, Deut. 4:13; 9:11; 10:4, etc. The
difference, therefore, between the old and the new covenants
consists in this, that in the old the law was laid before the
people that they might accept it and follow it, receiving it into
their hearts, as the copy of what God not merely required of
men, but offered and vouchsafed to them for their happiness;
while in the new it is put within, implanted into the heart and
soul by the Spirit of God, and becomes the animating life-
principle, 2 Cor. 3:3.
A covenant written on hearts. The Lord then made an amazing
announcement: “The day will come … when I will make a new
covenant with the people of Israel and Judah” (31:31). This
covenant would be unlike the present Mosaic covenant
(31:32), in that God would “write” it on his people’s hearts
(31:33). It would bring about a new kind of relationship with
God and a permanent remission of sin (31:34).
In the Old Testament, whenever God wrote His Torah on someone’s
heart, this meant he was regenerated by a work of the Spirit of God. This
is clearly the O.T. precedent. Did Paul ignore this precedent and change
the meaning to some kind of vague “natural” law in the hearts of all men?
One way to answer this question is to ask if he utilized Jer. 31:31
elsewhere in his writings. Yes, he did. In 2 Cor. 3:3 Paul contrasted the Old
and New Covenants is several ways.
being manifested that you are a letter of Messiah, cared for by
us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God,
 not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts.
φανερούμενοι ὅτι ἐστὲ ἐπιστολὴ Χριστου διακονηθεῖσα ὑφʼ
ἡμῶν, ἐγγεγραμμένη οὐ μέλανι ἀλλὰ πνεύματι θεου ζῶντος,
οὐκ ἐν πλαξιν̀ λιθίναις ἀλλʼ ἐν πλαξιν̀ καρδίαις σαρκίναις.
In a clear paraphrase of Jer. 31:31, Paul clearly interprets God writing
on the “tablets of human hearts” as the work of regeneration. Hendriksen
explains,
“Not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.” The
first contrast of writing materials is that of ink and Spirit; the
second is between stone and human hearts. We Would have
expected Paul to indicate the dissimilarity of Paper and hearts,
but instead he introduces the word stone. He takes the second
contrast from the prophecies of Ezekiel (11:19; 36:26), where
God removes the people’s heart of stone and gives them a new
heart of flesh and a new spirit within them.
Further, through Jeremiah God tells the people of Israel that he
will put his law within them and write it on their hearts
(31:33). As God had written his law on tablets of stone (Exod.
31:18; 32:15; Deut. 9:10–11) in Old Testament times, so he
would write his law on the hearts and minds of his New
Testament people. Paul contrasts the Old Testament law, which
remained external, with the New Testament law, which
functions internally. In effect, Paul intimates that the Old
Testament covenant has become obsolete and the New
Testament covenant, inaugurated by Jesus and the coming of
the Holy Spirit, is now operative (compare Heb. 8:13).
If, as the Natural Law theologians assume, Paul in Rom. 2:15 is saying
that all men have a natural law written on their hearts, then to be
consistent with Jer. 31:31f, then all men are regenerate, forgiven, and on
their way to heaven! Based on these arguments, we must conclude that
their attempt to twist Rom. 2:15 into a proof text for Natural Law is
erroneous.

The Law of the Mind: Rom. 7:23

 Natural theologians also cite Rom. 7:23 as another proof text for
Natural Law.
but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging
war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of
the law of sin which is in my members.
βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου ἀντιστρατευόμενον
τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου και ̀ αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῆς
ἁμαρτίας τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου.
They seize upon the phrase “the law of my mind” and interpret it to
mean “the natural law that is discovered in my reason.” Jean Porter
argued,
The interpretation of the natural law as reason, or as
tantamount to the most fundamental principles of practical
reason, is undergirded by even more impressive scriptural
support. As we have already noted, this interpretation is
supported by appealing to Paul’s claim that the nations are
given their own law through reason (Rom. 2:12–16) and to his
more obscured reference to the law of the mind (identified
with reason), which wars with the law of the flesh (identified
as human tendencies toward sinfulness, which are innate,
given our fallen condition: Rom. 7:23).
Huguccio of Ferrara, the canon lawyer, defended Catholic Natural Law
theory by arguing,
Concerning this natural law, the Apostle says, “I see another
law in my members, which opposes the law of the mind,” that
is to say, the reason, which is called law, just as has been said.
Natural Law theologians are clearly guilty of the well-known Pelagian
heresy by their misinterpretation of Rom. 7:14–25.
1. Paul was describing the inner struggles of unregenerate natural
man.
2. The struggle was between the natural “reason” and the sinful
“flesh” of man.
 3. Reason is here described as “the law of the mind,” i.e. the
natural law that is found in the mind of all men innately.
4. Thus Paul is saying that in the heart of all men there is a
struggle going on between doing what we all know by reason
(nature) is the right thing to do and doing what our lusts tempt us
to do.
This heretical interpretation is based upon an a priori adoption of
Natural Law theory as the framework within which Scripture is to be
interpreted. The naturalists go to Plato and other Greek philosophers and
use them to interpret this passage. They ignore any Old Testament (i.e.
Jewish) background and do not take into account the entire passage, its
context and what Paul says elsewhere on the same subject.
First, the change in the tense of the Greek verbs beginning in verse 14
clearly demonstrates that Paul is finished with his conversion story and is
now moving on to the present struggles he encounters as a regenerate
child of God.
Second, the word “law” (νόμος) appears six times in this section.
v. 14 the Law ὁ νόμος

v. 16 the Law τῷ νόμῳ

v. 22 the Law of God τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ

v. 23 a different law ἕτερον νόμον

v. 23 the law of my mind τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου

v. 23 the law of sin τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας

Third, in verse 1, Paul begins by stating,

I am speaking to those who know the Torah.
γινώσκουσιν γὰρ νόμον λαλῶ
The word γινώσκουσιν is a present active participle and indicates that
their knowledge of Torah was not a dead past event but a present living
reality. The word is taken out of its normal word order and placed first to
emphasize that they really knew Torah.
Fourth, what Torah did these people know in such a dynamic manner?
He clearly cites from the Ten Commandments and even uses the word
“commandment” (vs. 8f) as a synonym for Torah.
What shall we say then? Is the Torah sin? May it never be! On
the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except
through the Torah; for I would not have known about coveting
if the Torah had not said, “You shall not covet.” (Rom. 7:7).
Paul does not have in mind some nebulous Greek natural law that was
found “out there” in “Nature” or “in” the mind (reason) of man. He has in
view the written Torah.
Fifth, in verses 14 and 16, the word ὁ νόμος refers to the revealed
Torah. What is his attitude toward Torah?
He viewed it as spiritual (v. 14)
He agreed with it. (v. 16)
He viewed it as good (v. 16)
He wanted to obey its commandments (v. 19)
He joyfully concurred with it in the inner man (v. 22)
It was the governing principle of his mind (v. 23)
In the next section of the Epistle, Paul states that the unregenerate or
natural man hates God and His revealed Torah and cannot submit to it.
because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it
does not subject itself to the Torah of God, for it is not even
able to do so; (Rom. 8:7)
διότι τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν, τῷ γὰρ νόμῳ τοῦ
θεοῦ οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται, οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται·
The “mind of the natural man” (τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς) is hostile
(ἔχθρα) toward God (εἰς θεόν) and the revealed Torah of God (νόμῳ τοῦ
θεου). That is why the natural man is spiritually incapable of submitting
to it (οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται).
The claim of Natural theologians that in Rom. 7:23 Paul was describing
the operations of natural law in the reason of all unregenerate men and
women is absurd. It would contradict what Paul went on to say in the next
section. The natural man does not delight in and concur with the Law of
God.
The “law” in the mind of the Apostle Paul was the revealed Torah. That
he could not keep it perfectly was his shame. That remaining sin in his
heart tempted him to disobey it was his pain. With his mind he delighted
in Torah, agreed with its commandments, and wanted to keep them. But,
while he was dead to sin in the legal sense of justification (7:1f), sin was
not dead to him.
The conflict here graphically described between a self that
“desires” to do good and a self that in spite of this does evil,
cannot be the struggles between conscience and passion in the
unregenerate, because the description given of this “desire to
do good” in Rom 7:22 is such as cannot be ascribed, with the
least show of truth, to any but the renewed.
Now the apostle states that he delights in God’s law according
to his “inner being.” When he uses such phraseology he is not
copying Plato or the Stoics. He is not expressing a contrast
between man’s rational nature and his lower appetites. With
Paul the inner man is the one that is hidden from the public
gaze. It indicates the heart. It is here that a new principle of
life has been implanted by the Holy Spirit. By means of this
implantation the sinner has become a new man, a person who
is being daily transformed into the image of Christ. In this
connection study such passages as 2 Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16; Col.
3:9, 10.
In my exposition of the biblical doctrine of regeneration, I concluded
my exegesis of Rom. 7 in the following words.
Paul is speaking of the normal Christian life. This passage is
not speaking of the unregenerate or of the backslidden saint.
Does not Paul use the present tense through the passage in
obvious distinction to the use of the past tense in vs 9–13?
Does not v. 22 reveal the heart of the believer? Will not all true
believers confess their inability to live a perfect life which is
bemoaned in vs. 15, 16–24? Does not the conclusion found v.
 25 reveal that Paul is discussing the Christian life? Nowhere in
the text do we read that the believer is struggling with two
natures. All we find is a believer struggling with sin. This sin
is said to “indwell” him (v. 17). It is said to be present in
whatever he does even when he does good (v. 21). But Paul
does not lay the sin-problem in the Christian life on the
presence of an “old man” but rather he views the Christian
himself as the problem. I am carnal, sold under sin. For that
which I do I allow not; for what I would, that I do not; but
what I hate, that I do (vs. 14, 15). O wretched man that I am
(not wretched old man in me), who shall deliver me from the
body of this death (vs. 24)? The end of v. 25 renders any higher
life or deeper life interpretation of this passage impossible. It
has been rightly said that Romans 7 keeps us from inferring
too much from Romans 6.
Once again Natural theologians twist the Scriptures. Their inability or
unwillingness to quote it correctly, interpret it in its context, observe the
grammar and syntax of the text, deal with the original languages, and
interact with the Jewish background and literature make them unreliable
guides in spiritual matters.

SECTION THREE
Biblical Evidence against the Natural Law Theory
First, no prophet or apostle ever taught any theory of Natural Law. They
never appealed to “Nature” or “natural laws” as the basis of truth and
morals.
Second, the prophets and apostles did not know of, believe in, teach or
follow Aristotle’s “laws” of logic that supposedly were part of the “natural
law” written on the hearts of all men, i.e. part of “human nature.”
Classical natural logicians claim that Aristotle’s natural “laws” of logic
are necessary, self-evident, universal, intuitive, self-explanatory, and
undeniable. Yet, they have been denied. Even Brooks and Geisler admit,
“True, there are other kinds of logic … non-Aristotelian logic.” In
response, they simply assert that Aristotle’s laws “are necessary and
undeniable.”471 Just saying something is “necessary” and “undeniable”
does not prove that it is. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride!
 Third, the fact that stares us in the face is that the Biblical authors
under divine inspiration violated Aristotle’s so-called natural laws of
logic.
• Aristotle taught that arguments from silence (ad
ignorantiam) were invalid. Yet, biblical authors did not accept
or follow that “natural law.” In Isa. 8:20 and Heb. 7:14, the
authors argued from silence.
• Appealing to authority (ad verecundiam) is a violation of
Aristotle’s natural “laws” of logic. Yet, the biblical authors
appealed to the authority of God, Scripture, prophets, apostles,
and Messiah as the basis of truth and morals (Isa. 7:7; 1 Cor.
15:3–4).
• The historical origin or age of an idea (ad annis) is not a
valid argument according to Aristotle. Yet, Jude declared that
if a doctrine was not part of the apostolic “faith once for all of
time delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3), it is a false doctrine.
• Aristotle claimed that appeals to or threats of force (ad
baculum) are not valid. Yet, the Bible is filled with threats of
hell and damnation if you reject its message (Deut. 4:26; Mat.
3:7; Lk. 13:3, 5).
• Appeals to the misery (ad misericordiam) of someone are not
valid according to the natural “laws” of Aristotle. Yet, 1 John
3:17 and many other passages in Scripture violate this so-
called “law” of logic.
We could give many more examples of “illogical” arguments in the
Bible. The reason Natural theologians become upset when we point out
these things is that they want Christianity to be “rational” in the eyes of
unbelievers. But, instead of Christianizing rationality, they have
rationalized Christianity!

Who Elected Aristotle God?

Why should we let the heathen tell us what is or is not “rational?” Who
elected Aristotle God? And why should we worry about “fitting in” with
their heathen ideas of rationality? The prophets, apostles and Messiah
never claimed to be “rational.” Why should we bother? Stop and think for
a moment.
• In 1 Cor. 1:18–25, did the apostle Paul deal with the issue
of how Jews and Greeks viewed the Gospel?
• From his experience, did Paul say that unbelieving Jews
viewed the Gospel as a “stumbling block” that prevented
them from becoming followers of Yeshua?
• Did he suggest that we should delete from the Gospel
those elements that are “stumbling blocks” to Jews?
• Should we alter our message to fit in with what the Jews
tell us is acceptable to them?
• From his experience, when Paul preached the message of
the cross to Greek philosophers, did they view the gospel as
“rational” or “foolishness?”
• Did he suggest that we should alter the Gospel to avoid
the charge of “foolishness,” i.e. irrationality?
• Did Paul try to “fit in” with what the Greeks defined as
“rational?”
• Did he continue to preach the same message to both Jews
and Greeks regardless of why they rejected it?
We are not embarrassed in the least with the “repent or perish” and
“turn or burn” message of the Bible because it is true. It really doesn’t
matter to us how many hoops the heathen want us to jump through in order
to gain their respect. In the end, the message of the cross will be a
stumbling block and foolishness to unbelievers because they are wicked
and they do not seek God (Rom. 3:10f).
Theist: “Why are so you anxious that the heathen view the Gospel as
“rational” instead of “foolishness?” Naturalist: “If I want them to listen to
me, I have to be “rational” in their eyes.” Theist: “The end does not justify
the means!”
Third, the Bible is exclusive and not inclusive when it comes to the
knowledge of God’s laws. Psa. 147:19–20 is a classic example of this
truth.
He declares His words to Jacob, His statutes and His
ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any nation;
 And as for His ordinances, they have not known them. Praise
YHWH!
‫ָאל׃‬ֵֽ ‫ִשׂר‬
ְ ‫ִשׁ ָפּ ָטיו ְלי‬
ְ ‫ַמגִּיד )ְדּבָרוֹ( ]ְדּ ָברָיו[ ְליַעֲקֹב ֻח ָקּיו וּמ‬
‫ָטים בַּל־יְדָעוּם ַֽהלְלוּ־יָֽהּ׃‬ ְ ‫לֹא ָע ָשׂה ֵכן ְלכָל־גּוֹי וּמ‬
ִ ‫ִשׁפּ‬
The Psalmist uses poetic parallelism to emphasize the exclusive nature
of the Torah revealed to God’s covenant people. He first states this in
positive form and then in negative form.
First, he states in the positive that God’s “words,” “statutes,” and
“ordinances” were revealed to the nation of Israel. The three terms are
synonyms in that they all refer to the Torah revealed trough Moses. Torah
comes from Revelation and is not derived from “Nature.”
Second, but saying this in the positive does not negate the claim of
Natural Law theory that the same Torah was “written on the hearts of all
men, nations, and cultures.” The Psalmist goes on to stress the exclusive
nature of the Torah by denying that it has been revealed anywhere else to
anyone. Princeton’s A. J. Alexander in his classic commentary on the
Psalms pointed out,
This revelation to Israel is peculiar and exclusive … The last
clause declares the other nations ignorant not only of his laws
or judgments, but any that deserve the name.”
The Puritan David Dickson stated that the Psalmist in this Psalm argues
that,
Where the word of God in his Scriptures is not laid open … the
people there live in deadly darkness.”
Matthew Henry commented,
For his distinguishing favor to Israel, in giving them his word
and ordinances, a much more valuable blessing than their
peace and plenty (v. 14), as much as the soul is more excellent
than the body. Jacob and Israel had God’s statutes
and judgments among them. They were under his peculiar
government; the municipal laws of their nation were of his
framing and enacting, and their constitution was a theocracy.
 They had the benefit of divine revelation; the great things of
God’s law were written to them. They had a priesthood of
divine institution for all things pertaining to God, and prophets
for all extraordinary occasions. No people besides them went
upon sure grounds in their religion.
1. Now this was a preventing mercy. They did not find out
God’s statutes and judgments of themselves, but God showed
his word unto Jacob, and by that word he made known to them
his statutes and judgments. It is a great mercy to any people to
have the word of God among them; for faith comes by hearing
and reading that word, that faith without which it is impossible
to please God. A distinguishing mercy, and upon that account
the more obliging: “He hath not dealt so with every nation, not
with any nation; and, as for his judgments, they have not
known them, nor are likely to know them till the Messiah shall
come and take down the partition-wall between Jew and
Gentile, that the gospel may be preached to every creature.”
Other nations had plenty of outward good things; some nations
were very rich, others had pompous powerful princes and
polite literature, but none
were blessed with God’s statutes and judgments as Israel were.
Let Israel therefore praise the Lord in the observance of these
statutes. Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us,
and not to the world! Even so, Father, because
it seemed good in thy eyes.

Conclusion
The Stoic theories of “Nature,” “human nature,” “reason,”
“conscience,” and “Natural Law” have been weighed in the balance of
Scripture and have been found wanting. They are anti-biblical as well as
un-biblical. Therefore, they are heretical in nature and are based upon
Pelagian and pagan views of God, man, and the world.
It is also increasingly clear that all the various Natural Law theories are
not “rational” in any sense of the word. They cannot agree on any common
definitions among themselves. There are as many definitions of “nature”
as theorists.
 So many conflicting theories fly under the banner of “Natural Law” that
the entire enterprise is of little social worth. For example, one natural law
theorist approves sodomy and the next condemns it. One theory condemns
the use of contraception and another approves it. Chaos thus reigns in
Natural Law circles.
Arbitrary natural law always leads to tyranny, not freedom. We are
embarrassed by the irrational attempts by Natural Law theorists to make
the Gospel rational and palatable to the heathen. Their failed attempts
have the opposite effect, making Christianity a mockery to the
contemporary, thinking irreligious.
We cannot accept the vaunted claims of Natural Law theorists that man,
not God, is the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty; that
man, not God, is the “measure of all things.” Only when sinners give up
their vain attempt to find meaning without God will they find meaning in
God.
To God alone be all the glory!
 Chapter Twelve
Natural Religion
Introduction

“Natural Religion” is based upon “Natural Law.” If “Nature as nature”

or “nature as reason” can give us truth and morals apart from and
independent of God and the Bible to create a society with just laws, then
why can’t we also derive from them religious truth to create one true
religion apart from and independent of God and the Bible? If human
reason is sufficient for the one, surely it is sufficient for the other. A
“Natural” religion is thus supposedly derived from either objective Nature
“out there” or subjective human nature (i.e. reason, feelings or faith) “in
here.” Either way, it is religion-without-God.

The First Problem

In the history of the world, no “natural religion” ever discovered or
developed a concept of or theory of “Natural Religion.” If the theory of
“Natural Religion” is self-evident, universal, and intuitive, why didn’t
some natural religion ever discover it? The reason is quite simple.
“Natural Religion” is a unique Catholic theory developed by Medieval
Natural Theology. It is based upon Catholic concepts, without which it is
incomprehensible. It is thus a relative Western European concept
reflective of Europe’s Catholic cultural consensus.

The Second Problem

The second problem that confronts us is that there are no agreed upon
common definitions for the key words in “Natural Religion.” Even the
New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that “the vagueness and ambiguity of
terms such as “nature” and “natural” make it difficult to define.”
 If you thought trying to construct a common definition for the words
“nature,” “natural,” and “reason” was hopeless, just try to construct a
common definition for the word “religion” that is agreeable to everyone. It
is easier to nail Jell-O to the wall than to define the word “religion!”

The Word “Religion”

The word “religion” has such a convoluted and torturous history that
modern secular philosophers have thrown up their hands in despair and
abandoned all hope of crafting a common definition agreeable to all.
Several examples will help us to see the difficulties at hand.

Religion: Belief in God?

Does the word “religion” imply or require belief in one or more deities?
No. Pantheism, Northern Buddhism, and the “mind science” cults do not
believe in any gods whatsoever, yet, we all call them “religions.”

Religion: Belief in the Supernatural?

Does the word “religion” imply belief in the supernatural, miracles,
revelations, absolutes, universals, angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc.? No.
Atheism is a religion. So is Marxism. Even the Humanist Manifesto I
states that humanism is a religion! The word “religion” evidently can
mean anything and everything and thus it means nothing to modern
secularists. For our purposes the word “religion” refers to any belief
system or worldview that tells people what to believe and how to live.

Natural Religion: a Myth

There is no monolithic theory of “Natural Religion” out there
somewhere roaming around but there are many different conflicting
theories that go by that name with each natural theologian defining it
according to his or her own personal tastes and prejudices.

The Main Flaw

This is the main flaw in the present flood of books defending “Natural
Religion.” They will refer to “Natural Religion” as if “it” were a unified
field of knowledge with concrete ideas. They assume we know what they
are talking about. Thus they avoid any discussion of how to define the
word “religion.”

Common Nonsense Philosophy

Some natural theologians claim to believe in Scottish “Common Sense”
philosophy. They claim to have absolute faith that the common man in the
street has a better grasp on reality (i.e. “sense”) than those who live in the
ivory towers of academia. Yet, they never defer to the “common man” for
his definition of the word “religion.”
Countless surveys have been taken of how “common” people
understand the word “religion.” Without fail, they always define it as
belief in God, miracles, angels or some organized religion such
Christianity or Islam. When asked if atheism is a religion, they almost
always say, “No.”
Why don’t those who believe in “Common Sense” adopt the “common
sense” definition of “religion” held by the common man? Because they
know it is pure nonsense! UFO’s, reincarnation, astrology, Big Foot, etc,
also make “sense” to modern common man! Do you feel comfortable with
putting “God” in the same list of “common sense” beliefs as little gray
aliens from outer space?

A Common Error
Most natural theologians gratuitously believe that “Natural Theology”
and “Natural Religion” are synonyms for each other, but they are different
in several crucial respects and should not be confused.
First, Natural Religion and Natural Theology differ in terms of contact
with biblical ideas. “Natural Religions” developed in total isolation from
any exposure to biblical ideas. No Jew or Christian ever stepped ashore on
that land. No Jewish or Christian businessman or missionary ever visited
that land. For example, North, Central, and South America, parts of
southern Africa and Asia, Australia, and other geographically isolated
lands were never penetrated with Middle Eastern biblical ideas or
literature until modern times. In contrast, “Natural Theologies” developed
through interaction with biblical ideas.
 Second, they differ in terms of timeframe. “Natural Religions” were
possible only as long as the isolation of the religion lasted. Once a
“Natural Religion” came into contact with biblical ideas, it adopted some
of those ideas and became a natural theology. For example, Hinduism
absorbed and adapted to biblical ideas after contact with Christian
missionaries.
Given the modern technology of mass publishing and distribution of
religious literature, hundreds of thousands of missionaries going around
the world, religious radio and TV religious programs beamed by satellite
throughout the world, no religion today can develop in total isolation from
biblical ideas. Thus the study of “Natural Religion” is the study of ancient
cultures that were geographically isolated from Middle Eastern ideas.
Third, they differ in terms of starting points. A “Natural Religion”
begins at ground zero without any biblical concepts of God, creation, man,
the universe, history, progress, law, sin, salvation, miracles, resurrection,
science, theology, atonement, scripture, revelation, linear history, end of
history, heaven, hell, logic, proof, evidence, cause and effect, etc. A
Natural Theology begins with biblical and Western ideas. For example, it
asks, “What evidence is there that the “God” of the Bible exists?”
Fourthly, they differ in context. The context of a Natural Religion was
Gentile by race and pagan by faith. The context of a Natural Theology is
Western European, Judeo-Christian culture.
Lastly, Natural theologians cannot develop a “Natural Religion”
because they are so saturated with biblical ideas that it is impossible to
root all of them out of their thinking. Those biblical ideas color the way
they look at the world by projecting and imposing a grid of meaning upon
human experience.

The Design Argument

In order to see how biblical ideas have influenced the way Western
people look at the world, two examples will now be given. The first
example is the biblical idea of “design.” The Bible teaches that an orderly
God created an orderly world in which everything has a purpose and
meaning.
YHWH has made everything for its own purpose …
(Prov. 16:4)
 ‫כֹּל ָפּ ַעל יְהוָה ַֽל ַמּ ֲענֵהוּ‬
The classic commentaries point out that the text clearly states that
everything has meaning because everything was designed by God for a
specific purpose.
Jehovah hath made everything for its end.
The noun ‫ ַמ ֲענֶה‬here signifies, not “answer,” as in ver. 1, or in
15:1, 23; but in general that which corresponds with the thing,
the end of the thing. The suffix refers back to the “all, all
things.” The Vulgate renders “propter semet ipsum,” but this
would have ‫ ִל ַמעֲנוֹ‬. [See critical notes. BERTHEAU, KAMPH., DE
W., N., S., M., etc., agree with our author in the interpretation
which is grammatically most defensible, and doctrinally least
open to exception. An absolute Divine purpose and control in
the creation and administration of the world is clearly
announced, and also the strength of the bond that joins sin and
misery
Everywhere else ‫ ַמ ֲענֶה‬means answer (Venet. προς πόκρισιν
ατο), which is not suitable here, especially with the
absoluteness of the ‫ ;כֹּל‬the Syr. and Targ. translate,
obedientibus ei, which the words do not warrant; but also
propter semet ipsum (Jerome, Theodotion, Luther) give to 4b
no right parallelism, and, besides, would demand ‫ִמעֲנֹו‬ ַ ‫ ל‬or
‫ ְל ַמ ֲענֵהוּ‬. The punctuation ‫ַמּ ֲענִהוּ‬ ַ ‫ל‬, which is an anomaly (cf.
‫ ַכּגְּ ִברְתָּהּ‬, Isa. 24:2, and ‫ ֶבּ ָערֵינוּ‬, Ezra 10:14), shows (Ewald) that
here we have, not the prepositional ‫ְמעַן‬ ַ ‫ל‬, but ‫ ל‬with the subst.
‫ ַמ ֲענֶה‬, which in derivation and meaning is one with the
form ‫ ַמעַז‬abbreviated from it (cf. ‫מעַל‬, ַ ‫)מעַר‬,
ַ similar in meaning
to the Arab. ma’anyn, aim, intention, object, and end, and
mind, from ’atay, to place opposite to oneself a matter, to
make it the object of effort. Hitzig prefers ‫ ִל ַמ ֲענֶה‬, but why not
rather ‫ ְל ַמ ֲענֵהוּ‬, for the proverb is not intended to express that all
that God has made serve a purpose (by which one is reminded
of the arguments for the existence of God from final causes,
which are often prosecuted too far), but that all is made by
God for its purpose, i.e., a purpose premeditated by Him, that
 the world of things and of events stands under the law of a
plan, which has in God its ground and its end, and that also the
wickedness of free agents is comprehended in this plan, and
made subordinate to it.
The Lord hath made all things for himself. So the Vulgate,
propter semetipsum; and Origen (‘Præf. in Job’), διʼ ἑαυτόν.
That is, God hath made everything for his own purpose, to
answer the design which he hath intended from all eternity
(Rev. 4:11). But this translation is not in accordance with the
present reading, ‫ ַל ַמּ ַענֵהוּ‬, which means rather “for its own end,”
for its own proper use. Everything in God’s design has its own
end and object and reason for being where it is and such as it
is; everything exhibits his goodness and wisdom, and tends to
his glory. Septuagint, “All the works of the Lord are with
righteousness.”
This biblical concept led to the Western idea that everything is part of a
great and grand design. Nothing is meaningless because nothing is
purposeless. There are no accidents or random events. Nothing is the result
of blind luck. Chaos and confusion are not real. There is a reason why
things happen. All things can be understood and explained.
What does this mean? Because Western man believed that everything
was designed with a purpose in mind, they looked in “nature” for these
“designs.” They assumed what they what they going to find before they
found it.

The West Was Right

From a biblical point of view, Western man was right to use the biblical
idea of design and on that basis to invent modern science! Science
developed in the West because of the influence of biblical ideas. Even
Alfred Whitehead admitted this.

The Heathen Were Wrong

In contrast, Asian, American, and African “natural religions” did not
begin with the biblical concept of design. They saw meaningless cycles of
chaos and chance all around them. Thus they never looked for or found
any “designs” in “nature.”
While this does not negate the wonderful advances in technology that
developed in ancient pagan cultures such as China or Egypt, this does
reveal why these advances did not lead to a unified concept of science. The
biblical idea of Creation was missing from these ancient mythologies and
this prevented any coherence.

The Fundamental Error of Paley

This is the fundamental error of Paley’s arguments for Natural
Theology. When a Western man finds a watch on the ground, his mind has
already been influenced by the biblical idea of design. He picks up the
watch and asks, “Who made this? Where did it come from? What is its
meaning and purpose?” He does this because he already assumed that
things do not just happen. The watch must have an explanation for existing
because it is a part of a grand design. It has a meaning that he can discover.
Someone from an ancient natural religion that never had any biblical
idea of design would not ask those questions. He would simply pick up the
watch and stick it in his hair as an ornament. It would never cross his mind
to ask who made it or what was its meaning or purpose.

Modern Atheism: a Christian Heresy

Western Atheism is a Christian heresy because it could not exist apart
from and independent of God and the Bible. An atheist must first assume
what he wants to deny in order to deny it. Without God and the Bible, he
can neither deny nor affirm anything. For example, atheists dismiss
miracles on the grounds that, since everything can be understood and
explained, there must a good explanation for all so-called miracles.
Theist: “What about the miracle of Jesus walking on the water?”
Atheist: “Everything is understandable and explainable. Thus a miracle
is simply something that science has yet to explain. I have a good
explanation for the “miracle” you mentioned. Either it did not happen
or he was walking on a sand bar and the water was only up to his
ankles. Thus it only looked like he was walking on water.”
 Theist: “On what grounds do you assume that everything, including
miracles, can be understood and explained by man?”
Atheist: “Everything is explainable because there is a reason for
everything.”
Theist: “But that is an idea that came from the Bible! Without the
Bible, there is no reason to believe that the universe is understandable
and explainable.”
Modern atheism collapses if you exorcize from it all biblical ideas.
Several more examples will illustrate what we are saying.

History, Progress, and the End of the World

The biblical view of “history” is that it had a “beginning,” it is
“progressing” positively toward a predetermined “end,” and will reach a
climax at the end of time. The idea that history is going somewhere is
biblical thinking.
In this light, it is clear that such Western theories as evolutionism and
Marxism are Christian heresies because they are both based upon the
biblical idea that “history” is moving ever upward and onward, i.e. there is
a positive progress in history.
Evolution is moving ever upward and onward and thus animals are
getting better with each new generation. Hegel, Darwin, Marx, and Lenin
built their philosophies on the biblical idea that history is progressing
toward a good end.
Again, if you removed the biblical concept of “progress” from Hegel’s
philosophy, it would collapse. The biblical concept of progress is what
drives the dialectic from thesis to antithesis to synthesis.
If you removed the biblical idea of progress from “Star Trek,” its
optimistic utopian future of humanity would collapse. This is even why
Western fairy tales end with the words, “and they lived happily ever after.”
At the “end” of history, the wicked will be punished and the righteous
vindicated. The good will triumphed over the evil. Justice will finally have
its day. Thus good people will live happily ever after.
In contrast, ancient “natural religions” did not have an optimistic view
of “history” in which we are moving toward a better world. They had no
concept of “history” and hence did not think that “it” was going
somewhere. Things are not progressing toward a better world but going
around and around in ceaseless meaningless cycles. Justice will not have
its day, and evil often triumphs over good, and that is just the way it is.

The Fundamental Error of Aquinas

From these examples, we can see the foundational error of Aquinas’
Five Proofs for the existence of God. His arguments begin and end with
key biblical concepts without which the arguments cannot function. They
used to “make sense” to Western man because he had been conditioned to
think that way by two thousand years of Christian influence, but they don’t
work anymore.

Why His Arguments Don’t Work Anymore

Modern Natural theologians are often mystified why their “rational”
arguments produce so few converts. In a post-modern world, where crucial
biblical concepts have been stripped from the conscious mind of modern
man, the old arguments of Aquinas have become meaningless. They have
gone the way of Aristotle’s geocentric universe. This is why Natural
theologians spend 99.9% of their time “preaching to the choir,” i.e.
speaking to Christian audiences. They shore up the faith of Christian
people by giving them arguments based on what they already believe.

Natural Religion: Common Definitions

The definitions of “Natural Religion” found in dictionaries and
encyclopedia are inadequate at best. Webster New International Dictionary
defined it as,
a religion validated on the basis of human reason and
experience apart from miraculous or supernatural revelation.
Chadbourne defines it:
Natural religion, as generally defined, is what can be learned
of God and of relations to Him without the Bible.
Such vague definitions confuse Natural Theology with Natural
Religion. We offer the following definition of what the phrase “Natural
Religion” means in most Western discussions: In those pagan cultures,
totally isolated from any contact with Jews, Christians, the Bible or any of
its ideas, thinking (i.e. “rational”) men and women, were able, solely
through their observation of and reflection on Nature or on their own
reason, to discover true religious concepts, about God, the world, and
man, that were self-evident, intuitive, and universal.
We admit that most defenders of the idea of “Natural Religion” do not
state this definition. But, it seems to us, to be what they are assuming as
their working definition.

The Judgment of History

The various theories of Natural Religion are one thing and whether they
actually worked in the real world is another. After an extended study of
“natural religions,” Jonathan Edwards, perhaps the greatest intellect
America ever produced, concluded,
He that thinks to prove that the world ever did, in fact,
by wisdom know God, that any nation upon earth or any
set of men, ever did, from the principles of reason only
without assistance from revelation, find out the true
nature and true worship of the deity, must find out some
history of the world entirely different from all the
accounts which the present sacred and profane writers do
give to us, or his opinion must appear to be a mere guess
and conjecture of what is barley possible, but what all
history assures us never was really done in the world.
In order to see if Natural Religions ever discovered any biblical ideas
apart from the Bible, in the “Bellflower Lectures”
(www.faithdefenders.com) we examined in great detail the pre-Christian
religions of North, Central, and South America, sub-Sahara Africa, and
Asia because they developed their religions apart from and independent of
any contact with Biblical people or ideas. The only resources these pre-
Christian pagans had:
• Nature-nature, i.e. the world around them.
• Nature-reason, i.e. their reason, experience, feelings,
conscience, and faith.
 What did we find? The religions that developed in total isolation from
biblical religion, people, and ideas were, without exception, wicked, vile,
degraded, violent, idolatrous, and perverted. The human sacrifices and
cannibalism of Native American religions is so well-documented by the
mass graves of their victims that they can no longer be denied.
The “natural religions” of Southern Africa and Asia were just as evil as
the Mayan and Aztec were blood thirsty. Archeologists and
anthropologists have destroyed the romantic and idealistic Renascence
myths of the “noble savage.” He never existed except in Jean-Jacques
Rousseau’s world of fantasy. This is why Natural theologians never
document the “glories” of pagan religions and keep definitions and history
as vague as possible.

Nature Worship
We must also point out that “Natural Religions” often ended in Nature
worship. Once you believe that “Nature” is teaching you and guiding you,
it takes on intelligence and will, i.e. it becomes a god or goddess. “Mother
Nature” is called “mother” for a reason. Chadbourne’s romantic language
about “Nature” borders on idolatry.
We reverently enter the temple of nature, that we may
there read the character of the builder. Its walls, we
believe, were not piled by chance; its cunning
adjustments are not the sporting of the elements.
Did any “natural” religion in the history of the world ever discover
even one biblical concept? No. We challenge anyone to find biblical
monotheism, creation ex nihilo, the unity and dignity of man based upon
Creation, the radical Fall of man into sin, vicarious atonement, salvation
by grace alone, a day of judgment at the end of history, the resurrection of
the body, etc. in pagan religions that had absolutely no contact with
biblical ideas.

Roman Catholic Missionaries

On one hand, we are thankful for the Catholic missionaries who
carefully documented the horrors of the “natural religions” they
encountered in a “first contact” context. But, on the other hand, the
Catholic theologians that followed them blended these pagan religions
with Catholicism and produced Catholic/pagan hybrids. For example, the
local Aztec gods and goddesses were renamed to honor the saints and
Mary. Pagan feasts became Catholic festivals. Various modern popes have
acknowledged this historical reality.
Catholic Natural theologians absorbed the local paganism and then
regurgitated it as cultural Catholicism. This is why they were always more
successful in gaining converts than Evangelical missionaries who called
for complete separation from and repudiation of all pagan ideas, gods,
ceremonies, and festivals. While the Catholics absorbed paganism, the
Protestants renounced it.
In this light, it should not be surprising that Catholicism teaches that
the heathen are able to discover enough truth from “nature” to be saved
without ever hearing of or believing in Jesus Christ and His Gospel. A
working definition of the Roman Catholic doctrine would be as follows: In
those pagan cultures, totally isolated from any contact with Jews,
Christians, the Bible or any of its ideas, thinking (i.e. “rational”) men and
women, were able, solely through their observation of and reflection on
Nature or on their own reason, to discover true religious concepts, about
God, the world, and man, that were self-evident, intuitive, and universal,
unto salvation without hearing of or believing in Jesus Christ and His
gospel.
The Catholic Church calls this concept the “doctrine of invincible
ignorance.” As already noted, the Catechism of the Catholic Church
defines it as follows:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know
the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless
seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try
their actions to do his will as they know it through the
dictates of their conscience, those too many achieve
eternal salvation.
The Catechism specially applies its doctrine to the Muslims.
The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. the plan of
salvation also includes those who acknowledge the
Creator, In the first place amongst whom are the
Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and
 together with us they adore the one, merciful God,
mankind’s judge on the last day.
It also applies this doctrine to the Jews as well as the Muslims. Thus
salvation is possible not only for those who never heard the Gospel but
also to those who reject it. The Jews crucified Jesus because they rejected
His deity, miracles, teachings, atonement, resurrection, ascension, session,
and return. The Muslims also knowingly deny the deity and atonement of
Jesus and the Holy Trinity. Yet, they too can go to heaven according to the
Catechism despite their rejection of Christ and His gospel.

Protestant Liberalism
During the 1920’s, most mainline Protestants adopted the Catholic
doctrine as part of their liberalism. This doctrine was renamed
“inclusivism” as opposed to “exclusivism.” They defined the doctrine as:
In those pagan cultures, totally isolated from any contact with Jews,
Christians, the Bible or any of its ideas, thinking (i.e. “rational”) men and
women, were able, solely through their observation of and reflection on
Nature or on their own reason, to discover true religious concepts, about
God, the world, and man, that were self-evident, intuitive, and universal,
unto salvation without hearing of or believing in Jesus Christ and His
gospel.

Historic Evangelical Theology

Historically, Evangelical theologians believe that the heathen could not
discover enough truth to be saved. The heathen must hear of and believe in
Jesus Christ and His Gospel to be saved. Their working definition is as
follows: In those pagan cultures, totally isolated from any contact with
Jews, Christians, the Bible or any of its ideas, thinking (i.e. “rational”)
men and women, were not able, solely through their observation of and
reflection on Nature or on their own reason, to discover true religious
concepts, about God, the world, and man unto salvation, without hearing
of and believing in Jesus Christ and His Gospel salvation is not possible.

The Present Shift

 With the collapse of the Evangelical commitment to the inerrancy and
authority of Scripture during the 1980s, the theological current began to
move toward the Catholic view of the heathen. Neo-Protestants (using Carl
Henry’s term) such as Robert Schuler, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, etc.
have called it “The wideness of God’s mercy” view.

Protestant Apostates
Those Protestants who converted to Romanism became quite vocal
about the salvation of the heathen. One example would be Peter Kreeft,
who was raised in an Evangelical home but later renounced the gospel and
joined the Catholic Church. He became a professor at Boston (Catholic)
College.
Despite the fact that he was an apostate Protestant, InterVarsity Press
published some of his books. InterVarsity Press was at one time was a
Protestant evangelical publisher, but now publishes many Catholic
authors.
Ronald Tacelli, a fellow professor at Boston College, joined with Kreeft
and together they wrote Handbook of Christian Apologetics. It was
published by IVP and was widely used as a textbook in “Evangelical”
colleges, universities, and seminaries such as BIOLA that had abandoned
their Protestant heritage.
Kreeft wrote several other books including Ecumenical Jihad,
published by St. Ignatius Press. This book is significant because, together
with his Handbook, they give us a modern presentation of the Catholic
position on the fate of the heathen.

Ecumenical Jihad
Kreeft states, an “explicit knowledge of the incarnate Jesus is not
necessary for salvation.” In this book, Ecumenical Jihad, he states that he
had an out-of-body experience, during which he saw Muhammad, Buddha,
Confucius, and other pagans in heaven worshipping at the feet of Mary.
She (not Jesus) is the unifying force in heaven. In another books he
pictured Socrates and other pagan philosophers worshipping at the feet of
Mary in heaven.
What about the Reformers such as Calvin, Luther, etc? Kreeft did not
see them in heaven. He leaves his readers with the distinct impression that
they are roasting in hell. So much for ecumenical love fests!
How does he prove that it is not necessary to hear of or believe in Jesus
to be saved? He argued, “Abraham, Moses, and Elijah, for instance, had no
such knowledge, yet they were saved.”
Since this is a standard argument used by many Natural theologians to
prove (sic) that Natural Religion is sufficient for salvation, we will stop
and examine it.
First, the issue in focus is the eternal fate of those who NEVER had any
special revelation. We have in focus those who only had Nature-nature or
nature-reason. Thus to bring up people in Old Testament times who had
special revelation is a false analogy. Abraham, Moses and Elijah were
saved because they believed the special revelation given to them in their
day.
Second, it is also logically invalid to being up people who existed
before the birth of Jesus as if biblical theists argue that people who lived
before Jesus of Nazareth was born had to believe in Him. Thus Kreeft
created a “straw man argument” that he could knock down with ease.
Kreeft goes on to argue,
Socrates (or any other pagan) could seek God, could
repent of his sins, and could obscurely believe in and
accept the God he knew partially and obscurely, and
therefore he could be saved.
His statement is a flat contradiction of Scripture. Socrates (or any other
pagan) never knew God (1 Cor. 1:21) because he never sought God (Rom.
3:10–21).

The Biblical View

Biblical theists have always followed the teaching of the Bible
concerning the eternal destiny of the heathen. The biblical doctrine is as
follows: In those pagan cultures, totally isolated from any contact with
Jews, Christians, the Bible and any of its ideas, no one was able, solely
through his observation of and reflection on Nature or on their own
reason, to discover any true religious concepts of God, the world, man,
sin, and salvation. Without hearing of and believing in Jesus Christ and
His Gospel, no salvation is possible.
 The biblical view has always been the historic Evangelical doctrine of
“the lost condition of the heathen.” It is the basis of the Mission Mandate
(Matt. 28:19–20) and the necessity and urgency of preaching the Gospel to
all nations (Lk. 14:23).
Historically, the lost condition of the heathen was the motivation
behind the great missionary movements in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and
twentieth centuries. Great missionary leaders such as William Carey,
Adonanium Judson, Amy Carmichael, Hudson Taylor, and David
Livingston all believed that the heathen needed to hear the Gospel in order
to be saved. Hundreds of millions of “third-world” Christians worship at
the feet of Jesus today due to the doctrine of the lost condition of the
heathen.
In sharp contrast, the doctrine that the heathen do not need to hear of
and believe in the Gospel message to be saved has damned hundreds of
millions to an eternity in hell. The liberal view, popularized by Pearl S.
Buck and others destroyed missions in the early 1920’s. If the heathen are
saved through their own “Natural Religion,” why bother preaching to
them? They are going to heaven anyway.
The Catholic/liberal view denies the necessity for evangelism and
missions. It was sown in compromise, fertilized by contextualization, and
has produced the bitter fruit of damnation. Nothing good ever came of it
and nothing good will ever come of it.

The Bible and Natural Religion

What is the biblical view of the religions developed by the Gentiles and
what will be the eternal destiny of those who never heard the Gospel? We
recognize that there will be many Natural theologians and philosophers
who really don’t care what the Bible teaches. But their condemnation is
just, and they will learn by their own painful experience what it means to
fall into the hands of an angry God!

The Context of the Question

The subject of the heathen usually arises in the context of witnessing.
The unbeliever attempts to escape the Gospel call to repentance and faith
by hurling what he thinks is an unanswerable objection to Christianity:
“But what about the heathen? Are you telling me that all those innocent
people are going to hell? Even when they didn’t have a chance?”
Evidently, to many non-Christians the damnation of the heathen serves
as a challenge to Christianity as well as an escape hatch from the claims of
the Gospel. The unbeliever is hoping that you will agree with him that he
can make it to heaven without believing in Jesus. If so, then there is no
necessity or urgency for him to repent of his sins and accept the Lordship
of Christ.
Stop and think for a moment about the unbeliever and his desperate
need of salvation. When Natural theologians agree with him that it is not
necessary to believe in Jesus to go to heaven, they confirm him in his
unbelief and, on the Day of judgment, the blood of his damnation will be
on their hands (Acts 20:26 cf. Ezk. 3:18–19).

The Coils of Liberalism

The Liberal takeover of the major denominations flooded colleges and
seminaries with the teaching of universalism. Hell was only an empty
threat. God is too loving and man is too good for hell to exist. Since I have
dealt with universalism in another book, I will not go into the heresy of
universalism any further.
Some neo-evangelicals are now propagating the heresy of semi-
universalism in which any sincere heathen who “lives up to the light he
has” will be saved. They argue that God is too loving to damn those who
“never had a chance.” For example, the so-called “Open View of God”
heresy does not teach the lost condition of the heathen. Neither do they
usually believe in the eternal conscious torment of the damned in hell.
Most of them choose annihilation as the fate of the few unbelievers who
will be condemned on the Day of Judgment.

PART ONE
Asking the Right Questions
In theology, it is very important that you ask the right questions. If you
fail to ask the right questions, you will not get the right answers. The key
with the heathen issue is to frame the question in such a way as to force
Natural theologians to go to the Bible for the answer. They will try to
avoid this at all costs and instead frame the question in terms of what feels
“rational” to them. But, ask them the following questions:
• Does the Bible teach that saving faith involves knowledge of
certain propositional statements given in Scripture,
intellectual assent to those propositions, and personal
commitment to Christ?
• Is there a body of doctrines that must known and believed in
order to the saved according to the Bible?
• According to the Bible, is faith in Jesus Christ always part of
the salvation process or can someone skip over faith and
repentance and still experience salvation?
• Is justification by faith or without faith according to the
Bible?
• Can a sinner be saved from hell according to the Bible even
when he consciously rejects Jesus Christ?
• On what grounds can a sinner claim admittance to heaven
according to Scripture?
• Does the Bible say that the Gentiles dwell in darkness or
light?
• Is there any other name under heaven by which we can be
saved?
• Does the Bible teach that is it necessary to hear of and
believe in Jesus Christ and His Gospel to be saved from hell
and go to heaven at death?
As we have already demonstrated in our chapter on the Book of Job, the
Bible describes the Gentiles as living in “pitch black darkness.” While
Natural theologians assume that the Gentiles have the light of Natural Law
to guide them, the Bible says they have no light.

The Same Old Tired Arguments

Those who “feel” that it is only “rational” to believe that the heathen
can be saved apart from and independent of the Gospel have a few stock
arguments that they repeat over and over again.
1. If a sinner is sincere in whatever religion he believes in and he
lives up to the light he has, it would be unjust for God to condemn
him to hell.
 2. If a sinner never heard the Gospel, this means that he never had a
chance to be saved. Therefore it would be unjust for God to condemn
someone who never had a chance.
3. We are condemned if and when we reject Jesus Christ and His
Gospel. It is obvious that those who have never heard of the Gospel
cannot be condemned for rejecting it! Therefore it would be unjust
for God to condemn the heathen.

Categories of Unbelief
The issue can be further clarified by observing that all unbelievers
without exception can be placed into one of the following categories which
describe the circumstances of their unbelief.
1. Ignorance: The geographic area in which the unbelievers live is so
remote that the Gospel message has never penetrated it. The
unbelievers have absolutely no opportunity to hear the Gospel even
if they wanted to do so.
2. Neglect: The Gospel has penetrated the area and is present and
available, but some unbelievers neglect to hear or study it. Thus they
are still ignorant of the Gospel and are not saved due to their neglect.
3. Nominal acquaintance: The Gospel is vaguely understood but
there is no true saving belief in it.
4. Conscious rejection: The unbeliever denies or rejects the Gospel
and clings to his own pagan ideas and religion.
5. Nominal acceptance: The unbeliever professes to accept the
Gospel and to believe in Jesus Christ but this profession is false.
This is where 90% of professing Christendom must be placed.
Now, the question of the heathen concerns only the first case where
sinners are ignorant of the Gospel because there is absolutely no
opportunity to hear it. The Scriptures are very clear that if we neglect,
deny or only nominally accept the Gospel, we cannot be saved “for how
shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation” (Heb. 2:3)?

Who Qualifies as a Heathen?

Another point that should be made is that the proper definition of
“heathen” is any and every unbeliever. We must not allow people to
assume that the word “heathen” refers only to the primitive peoples of the
Third World. The secular unbelievers who live in New York City or
London are just as “heathen” just as much as a Hindu or an Australian
bushman.

A Biblical Response
One way to bring this truth home to the unbeliever who challenges the
Gospel with the heathen question is to respond in the following manner:
Unbeliever: “But, what about the heathen?” Theist: “Well, what about
you? You will not be saved unless you believe in Christ.” Unbeliever: “I
don’t mean me. I am referring to the heathen, i.e., those who never heard
the gospel.” Theist: “Why should they concern you? The issue is that you
are one heathen who has heard the Gospel. Now what are you going to do
about it? Are you trying to avoid the issue of your sin by bringing up an
irrelevant question? The real question is, “What about your eternal fate?”
The basic and foundational issue in the heathen question is whether or
not the Scriptures view ignorance due to neglect or to the absence of the
Gospel as constituting sufficient grounds for salvation, and whether or not
the lack of faith constitutes unbelief as well as the rejection of faith.

PART TWO
Principles of Approach
With these introductory remarks in mind, let us begin our study of this
subject by setting forth several opening principles which shall guide us in
our study.
Principle I: The Scriptures alone can tell us of the eternal destiny of all
those who do not believe in the person and work of Christ as presented in
the Biblical Gospel. We must strive to bring every thought into conformity
to the Holy Scriptures. Our faith must be Biblical from beginning to end.
Principle II: We must be careful to avoid the four typical humanistic
approaches to this issue.
1. The Natural theologian who is a rationalist thinks that his reason
or logic can tell him where the heathen go at death. He usually
begins his position by saying, “I think that.…” “It is only logical
that.…” “The only intelligent answer is.…”
2. The Natural theologian who is an empiricist thinks that stories and
testimonies which relate human experience will decide the issue.
 They usually will tell some groundless story which is incapable of
verification about some heathen somewhere who supposedly
worshipped the true God without actually knowing who or what He
really was or who had angels or Jesus appear to him in dreams or
visions. They usually begin their position by saying, “Have you
heard the story about.…”
3. The Natural theologian who is a mystic will trust his subjective
emotions or feelings to tell him the truth. They usually begin their
position by saying, “I feel that.…” “My heart tells me …”
4. The Natural theologian who is a fideist will trust the creeds and
confessions of his faith such at the New Catholic Catechism. They
usally begin their position by saying, “I believe …” “My faith says
that …” “The Creed says …”
Principle III: Defend God at all costs.
Whatever God does is right and just. “Shall not the Judge of all the
earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25). God is not unjust or unloving because He
casts the wicked into hell. He is sovereign in His wrath as well as in His
grace. Some people defend man at all costs even to the degradation of
God. “But let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).
Principle IV: Never tone down a Biblical doctrine because it offends
people.
The Gospel itself is offensive to unbelievers. Should we abandon it
because the unregenerate think it foolish? The disciples came to the Lord
Jesus and told Him that He had offended the Pharisees. His reaction shows
us the proper attitude when the truth offends people.
Then his disciples came, and said to Him, “Don’t you
know that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard
this saying?” But He answered and said, “Every plant,
which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be
rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind guides of the
blind. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall
into the ditch.” (Matt. 15:12–14)
Jesus did not beg the Pharisees to forgive Him because He offended
them. He goes on to offend them even more by calling them “blind
guides.”
Principle V: Take one step at a time.
 There are many issues involved in the heathen question and each one
has to be answered before you can come to a final conclusion.
Principle VI: Determine in your spirit to believe whatever God says in His
Word.
We must be careful that we approach the heathen issue with an open
mind and a humble heart in utter submission to the authority of Scripture.

PART THREE
With these opening principles given, we will now set forth the central
propositions of the biblical position.
Proposition I: All men are sinners and in need of salvation.
This first proposition is so basic to the Christian Gospel that it is
damnable heresy to deny it. Carefully read Romans 1–3, for you will find
in this passage a full exposition of the just condemnation of God which
rests universally upon all men “for all have sinned” and “the wages of sin
is death” (Rom. 3:23; 6:23).
Proposition II: General Revelation is not sufficient for salvation.
Universal Witness, (i.e. “general revelation”), is God’s immediate non-
verbal self-revelation in the Creation and in the hearts of some heathen
(Rom. 1:18–28; 2:14–15). While it is sufficient to condemn the heathen
because it leaves them “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20), the Scriptures never
speak of it as being sufficient to save them.
It must be further pointed out that the Bible teaches that no sinner has
ever lived up to the light he has. The heathen suppress and reject the light
of creation and worship the creature instead of the Creator (Rom. 1:18,
21–25, 28). Thus there never has been and there never shall be a sinner
who lives up to all the light he receives from Universal Witness (Rom.
3:10–18).
Proposition III: The fact of judgment is determined on the basis of the
legal status of the person in question.
Because all men are sinners in the sight of God, all men are under the
wrath of God (Rom. 3:23). The doctrine of original sin involves the
imputation of Adam’s sin to all mankind. This imputation is followed by
the condemnation of God and the judgment of death (see Psa. 51:5; 58:3
cf. Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:22).
 We sin because we are sinners. What we are determines the fact of
judgment. Thus it is wrong to teach that we are lost if and when we reject
Christ. The Gospel is preached to those who are already lost and perishing
(1 Cor. 1:18). You are condemned to hell because of what you are, i.e., a
sinner. The heathen are condemned because of what they are, i.e., they are
sinners. Therefore, they are under God’s wrath.
When an unbeliever asks, “Are you saying that God is going to throw
good people into hell just because they don’t believe in Jesus?” We
respond, “No one is righteous, no not one. There are no good people. We
all deserve to go to hell.”
Proposition IV: The degree of punishment is determined on the basis of
the light and life of the person in question.
Because God is just, there will be degrees of punishment in hell. All
sinners in hell will be perfectly miserable but not equally miserable. In
determining the degree of punishment in hell, our Lord takes into account
the words (Matt. 12:26, 37) and works (Matt. 16:27; Rev. 20:11–15; 22:12)
of sinners. Disobedience and unbelief due to ignorance do not deliver one
from punishment for ignorance of the Law is no excuse (Lev. 5:17). But
sins done in ignorance will not receive as much punishment as sins done
consciously in violation of known law.
And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not
himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with
many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things
worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto
whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required:
and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask
the more (Luke 12:47–48)
The more you know, the more responsible you are to live up to that
light. The greater the responsibility, the greater will be the reward or
punishment.
Certain cities were liable to more severe divine punishment because
they actually saw and heard the Christ, and yet, rejected Him.
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of
Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city
(Matt. 10:15)
 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty
works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee,
Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works,
which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they
would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say
unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the
day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which
are exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if
the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been
done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I
say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of
Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. (Matt. 11:20–24)
The writer of the Hebrews speaks of some unbelievers receiving more
punishment than others.
How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve
who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded
as unclean the blood of the covenant by which it was
sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:29)
The sin of the Pharisees was made greater by their contact with Christ
(John 15:22). While the fact of judgment is determined by what we are,
i.e., our nature, the degree of punishment is determined on the basis of the
amount of true knowledge we have received and the quality of life that we
lived (Rom. 2:3–6). Degrees of punishment in hell reveal that hell is not
annihilation but eternal torment.
Proposition V: The explicit teaching of Scripture is that the only way
to escape the wrath of God is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I
am God, and there is no other. (Isa. 45:22)
He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who
does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of
God abides on him. (John 3:36)
I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be
saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. (John
10:9)
 I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be
saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. (John
14:6)
And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no
other name under heaven that has been given among
men, by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His
blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His
righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He
passed over the sins previously committed; for the
demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present
time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one
who has faith in Jesus. Since indeed God who will justify
the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through
faith is one. (Rom. 3:25–26, 30)
For no man can lay a foundation other than the one
which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 3:11)
For there is one God, and one mediator also between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Tim. 2:5)
Proposition VI: All non-Christian religions are condemned in
Scripture because:
1. They are idolatrous (Rom. 1:25).
2. They are not the fruit of man’s search for God but man’s
rejection of God (Rom. 1:18–24).
3. They actually give worship to Satan and his demons (1 Cor.
10:19–22).
4. They all fail to find God (1 Cor. 1:18–31).
Proposition VII: The absence of special revelation does not in any way
relieve the heathen from perishing.
The fact that they die physically reveals that God views and treats them
as sinners. Thus they face an eternity in hell.
For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many
as have sinned without law shall also perish without law;
 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by
Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Rom. 2:11–12, 16)
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
(Rom. 3:23)
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that
all have sinned. (Rom. 5:12)
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom. 6:23)
Proposition VIII: The Scriptures teach that all unbelievers will be cast
into the lake of fire when Jesus returns in glory and power (see Matt.
25:41, 46; Rev. 21:6). The Bible tells us about the fate of those who do not
know God.
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that
know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the
glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in
his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe
(because our testimony among you was believed) in that
day. (2 Thess. 1:7–10)
Proposition IX: Unbelievers must hear or read of the Lord Jesus Christ
through human instrumentality in order to be saved.
The Gospel does not come to us from angels, visions or dreams. God
has committed unto the Church the privilege and responsibility of
spreading the Gospel.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and
lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. (Matt.
28:19–20)
 Whoever will call upon the name of YHWH will be saved.
How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not
believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have
not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And
how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written,
“How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of
good things!” However, they did not all heed the glad tidings;
for Isaiah says, “YHWH, who has believed our report?” So
faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Messiah.
(Rom. 10:13–17)
Proposition X: God will always send the Gospel by a human
instrumentality to those who have been ordained to eternal life.
Cornelius is a good example of how God will send the Gospel to His
elect. The angel that came to Cornelius did not give him the Gospel. The
angel told Cornelius to send for Peter so that Cornelius would hear the
Gospel and be saved.
And he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house,
which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for
Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell you words,
whereby you and all your house shall be saved (Acts 11:13–
14)
Cornelius obeyed the angel and when Peter came and preached the
Gospel, then, and not until then, was Cornelius saved (Acts 10:44–48). He
was a moral, God-fearing man (Acts 10:1–2). Yet, he was not saved until
the Gospel came and he placed his faith in Jesus Christ. It should also be
pointed out that God told Paul to continue preaching at Corinth because
the elect were in the city (Acts 18:9–10 and 2 Tim. 2:10).
Proposition XI: If salvation is possible through ignorance or neglect of
the Gospel, then Jesus Christ died in vain, i.e., for nothing.
His death was necessary and a mockery if salvation can be obtained by
any other manner than by believing Him. “I do not frustrate the grace of
God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Messiah is dead in vain.”
(Gal. 2:21)
Proposition XII: A survey of the history of redemption reveals that
ignorance, neglect and nominal acquaintance or acceptance were never
sufficient grounds to deliver anyone from the just wrath of God against
sin.
A. The Flood:
Man sinned (Gen. 6:1–5, 11–13) and God’s judgment came upon him
for his sin (Gen. 6:6–7, 13, 17). Only the believer Noah and his family
were delivered from God’s wrath (Gen. 6:8–10, 14–16, 18–22).
Question: Were there any ignorant, sincere and neglectful people in
Noah’s day? What happened to them? If we asked Noah about the fate of
all unbelievers in his day regardless if they were ignorant or neglectful,
what would he say? Is the flood a pre-picture of the judgment Day at the
second coming of Jesus Christ? (Matt. 24:37–39; 2 Pet. 2:5, 9). Since all
the heathen (unbelievers) without exception perished under the flood
waters of God’s wrath, what does this tell us about God’s judgment on
unbelievers when Christ returns? All unbelievers will perish regardless if
they are ignorant or neglectful.
B. The Tower of Babel:
Man sinned and God’s judgment came upon him (Gen. 11). This
judgment took two forms. First, human language was diversified. Second,
the human race was scattered.
Question: Were there any sincere, ignorant or neglectful people
working on the tower? What happened to them? Is it not the case that the
two major reasons why some men are ignorant of the Gospel corresponds
exactly to God’s two judgments, i.e., different languages and mankind
scattered over the face of the earth? Thus is not man’s ignorance an
extension of God’s judgment against sin? If so, is it possible to view
ignorance as the basis of the heathen’s salvation seeing that such ignorance
is part of God’s judgment against unbelievers?
C. Sodom and Gomorrah:
Man sinned (Gen. 18:20–21; 19:1–9) and God’s judgment came upon
him (Gen. 19:10–11; 23–29). Only the believer Lot and his two daughters
were delivered from the fire and brimstone.
Question: Were there any sincere, ignorant, and neglectful people
living in these cities? What happened to them? Abraham said that “the
judge of all the earth shall do right” (Gen. 18:25). What did God do with
all the unbelievers in Sodom and Gomorrah?
If we asked Abraham and Lot about the eternal fate of all unbelieving
sinners, what would they say? Is the destruction of these cities a preview
of the coming destruction on the Day of Judgment? (Luke 17:28–30; 2 Pet.
2:5–9; Jude 7). What significance does this have on the heathen question?
D. The History of God’s People. 1. God’s Judgment upon Egypt at the
time of the Exodus.
Were there any sincere, ignorant, and neglectful Egyptians? Were they
saved from the judgment plagues of God? Were only the firstborn of these
who believed God’s Word safe from the angel of death, or did the angel
pass over any houses where the people were sincere, ignorant, or
neglectful?
2. God’s Commandment to Israel. Was idolatry allowed in Israel? What
was the penalty for idolatry? (Deut. 18) Was there any difference in the
sight of Torah whether the idolater was sincere, ignorant, or neglectful
(Lev. 5:17)? If sincere or ignorant idol worship saved one from the
judgment of God, would this make true worship meaningless because it
was not necessary for salvation? How would Moses answer the question of
the heathen?
3. God’s Destruction of the Canaanites. To what fate did God assign the
heathen Canaanites? (Josh. 9:24, etc.). Were there any sincere, ignorant or
neglectful Canaanites? What happened to them? How would Joshua
answer our question?
4. God’s Deliverance of Rahab. Was Rahab a Canaanite? Why was she
delivered while the rest of her people were destroyed? (Josh. 2:8–13).
Were the only ones delivered from destruction those who believed in
Jehovah? How would Rahab answer our question?
5. God’s View of the Nations. How did Israel view the idolatrous nations
around them (Psa. 9:17)? What happens to those who do not bow to
Jehovah (Psa. 2:11–12)?
6. The Conversion of Ruth (see Ruth). How, and why, did Ruth join the
people of God? Does she not serve to show how Gentiles were saved in
Old Testament times? How could they be saved? How would Ruth answer
the heathen question?
E. Jonah and Nineveh (see Jonah).
Were there any sincere, ignorant, or neglectful people in Nineveh?
What fate had God assigned them? Why did the judgment turn away? How
would Jonah answer the question of the heathen?
F. Messiah Jesus
 Did He ever claim to be the only way of salvation? (John 14:6). What
did He call false religious leaders? (John 10:8). Did He state that only
faith in Him will deliver one from the judgment of God? (John 3:16, 36).
How would He answer if we ask Him about the heathen?
G. The Apostles.
Did they teach that only faith in Christ saves? (Acts 4:12; 10:43; 16:31;
Rom. 5:1; 10:9–13). Did they ever teach that there is no salvation outside
of the Gospel? (Rom. 10:14–17). Is Christ the only Mediator between God
and man? (1 Tim. 2:5). How would they answer the question of the
heathen?
H. Missions.
Are we commanded to preach the Gospel to all men (Mark 16:15–16)?
Why? Do they need it? If the ignorant and sincere can be saved as long as
they don’t hear the Gospel, do missionaries actually damn more than they
save? Would it not be cruel to introduce the Gospel to ignorant people? If
men were not already lost and without hope, would missions make any
sense?

Part III
Finally, there are sound Biblical answers to those who think God is
unjust in condemning the heathen.
I. How dare anyone accuse God of being unjust in whatever He does!
The Apostle Paul rebukes such a rebellious attitude in Romans 9:11–24.
If the righteous judge of all the earth has revealed in His Word that all
the heathen will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15), who is the man
that can condemn God for doing so?
II. Sincerity in living up to some of the light we have received will only
make us a candidate for further light as it did for Cornelius in Acts 10. But
Cornelius had to be saved through the Gospel given by a human messenger
(Acts 11:14). Not even the angel could tell Cornelius the Gospel. Sincerity
is not enough.
III. As sinners, the only thing we deserve is God’s eternal wrath in hell.
The Bible does not teach that God owes us anything or that we even
deserve a chance to be saved. It teaches that we don’t in any sense deserve
to be saved. Salvation is by GRACE. This means that God does not owe
anyone anything (Rom. 4:1–5). God does not have to save anyone at all. It
is all of grace.
Conclusion
The Bible is absolutely clear on three points:
No other god (Exo. 20:3)
No other name (Acts 4:12)
No other way (John 14:6)
With few exceptions, modern Natural theologians deny these cardinal
biblical concepts. They believe and teach that any god by any name will do
because there are many ways to heaven. While God says that the heathen
are “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20 cf. 2:1), they are determined to give them
such excuses as: “We did not know. We did not have a chance. We are too
good to be damned. It isn’t fair. God is too good to damn us.” But God will
shut the mouths of all unbelievers on the Day of Judgment (Rom. 3:19).
No unbelievers will escape the just wrath of God Almighty.
And do you suppose this, O man … that you will escape the
judgment of God? (Rom. 2:3)
And the kings of the earth and the great men and the
commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and
free man, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of
the mountains; and they said to the mountains and to the rocks,
“Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on
the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great Day
of their wrath has come; and who is able to stand?” (Rev. 6:15–
17)
 Chapter Thirteen
Natural Theology
No Common Definition

Natural theologians have never agreed on the meaning of the words

“natural” and “theology” or the phrase “Natural Theology.” Since the
meaning of the words has changed each time the cultural consensus
changed, there is no historical or philosophical continuity of meaning.
Thus the words “natural theology” are vacuous and quite meaningless.
Why then do they use the words “Natural Theology”? It has become a
psychological tool to manipulate ignorant people. It invokes a time long
ago when there was a Christian consensus in our culture. The phrase is a
slogan waved like a flag to inspire faith in church people.

What is “Theology?”
First, as we already stated, “theology” is not a biblical word or idea. It
is nowhere found in the Hebrew or Greek text of the Bible. No prophet or
apostle every called himself a “theologian” or described their preaching as
“theology.” To discover the origin and meaning of theology, we must
examine pagan philosophy.
Second, as we have pointed out, the pagan philosopher Aristotle was the
author of the word and its meaning. According to him, “theology” is a
humanistic-based science like biology or astronomy. It is a word created
by combining two different words: logos and theos. The word “Theo-logy”
means man’s study of divine things. Man is the Origin and measure of
theology and it has nothing to do with revelation. The “attributes” of the
gods refers to what qualities and powers man attributes to or projects onto
the gods.

Natural Theology
 Since theology is a humanistic enterprise and begins and ends with
man, what is “Natural Theology?” Only a vague definition is possible.
Prof. William P. Aston defines Natural Theology as, “the enterprise of
providing support for religious beliefs by starting from premises that
neither are nor presuppose any religious beliefs.”
How can you provide support for religious ideas if you do not start with
those ideas in mind? T. H. L. Parker in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology,
defined it as:
Theologia naturalius as it is now understood is a theology
constructed irrespective of revelation. In its pure form it has
never existed within the church, which is clearly committed to
revelation in some degree.
Parker acknowledges that Natural Theology changes in meaning and he
can only take a “snapshot definition” of what it is at the moment he is
writing about it. He is right on target. William Hordern explained it this
way,
Ever since Thomas Aquinas there has been a distinction
between natural and revealed theology. Natural theology
means man’s philosophical study of religious questions.
Natural theology is all that man can learn about God,
immortality, and such questions by the use of reason alone. It
appeals to facts and theories that are available to any rational
man. It can be summed up quickly by saying that natural
theology represents man’s search for God; revealed theology
represents God’s search for man.
Hordern brings perhaps the best of the definitions, and properly defines
Natural Theology by contrasting it to Revealed Theology. Natural
Theology is what man says, and Revealed Theology is what God says.

Natural Religion
Natural Theology is built upon Natural Religion, which, in turn, is built
upon Natural Law. They all stand or fall together. The definitive work on
the history of Natural Theology was written by Clement C. J. Webb.
 For we may, I think, take it as agreed that Natural Theology
must stand in the closest possible relation to Natural Religion;
that it must denote the reasoned and articulated account of
what is implied in the existence of natural religion.
As we have previously demonstrated, the foundation of all the various
Natural Law and Natural Religion theories is humanism, i.e. man is the
Origin and Measure of all things, including God. They in turn are the two
pillars upon which Natural Theology rest.

Its Link to Roman Catholicism

The great Dutch theologian Berkouwer documents that Natural
Theology is the historic position of Roman Catholicism.
Since the Middle Ages, Roman Catholic theology has without
a moment’s regret defended the right and the possibility of
natural theology. She has not simply used it as a non-essential
appendix to her theology, but has made it an organic part of her
system of doctrine. Moreover, it is clear that this is not simply
the hobby of Roman Catholic theology, but that the Roman
church considers it of great importance. This is at once
apparent in the decisions of the Vatican Council when it
emphasized the natural knowledge of God as a rational
knowledge and carefully distinguished it from the knowledge
of faith.
Dr. Bernard Ramm explained that Natural Theology cannot be
understood properly apart from the Roman Catholic denial of the radical
effects of the Fall. Thomas Aquinas had a weak view of the Fall and saw
man, not as dead in his trespasses and sin, but as only weakened and sick.
According to this position human nature was complete before
God graced it with original righteousness. Therefore after the
entry of sin and the fall of man human nature is still complete
even though deprived of original righteousness. Certainly
shadows have fallen over it. Man is depraved to the extent that
he needs God’s revelation to learn the way of salvation, and
God’s grace to trust the Savior. But this yet leaves a large
 territory in which the human mind is competent. It may create
a true philosophy (Aristotle); it may prove the existence of
God; it may demonstrate the immortality of the soul; it may
create a system of ethics based upon natural laws; and it can
prove the divine origin of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Roman Catholic position is that the general revelation of
nature may be so read by man apart from Christ and apart from
grace that he can prove that God is, and know some of his
attributes.
It is should thus be no surprise that when Protestants fall into the heresy
of Natural Theology, it often leads them back to Rome. The ancient heresy
of Pelagianism lies at the bottom of all “natural” theologies because
Natural theologians assume that man has the final answers within himself
and that he is good enough to discover them on his own without any
information from God.

Our Definition
Natural Theology is fallen man’s humanistic attempt to define God
without God and to define theology without God. Starting from only from
himself, by himself, through himself, within himself, on the sole basis of
human reason, experience, feelings or faith, the natural man attempts to go
from:
• the finite to the infinite,
• the visible to the invisible,
• the material to the spiritual,
• the temporal to the eternal,
• chaos to order,
• non-life to life,
• meaninglessness to meaning,
• the impersonal to the personal,
• nature to God,
• what is to what ought to be.
In order to produce a valid Natural Theology you cannot presuppose,
start with, or proceed in your arguments with any biblical beliefs or terms
that would compromise your arguments. If you presuppose, start with or
proceed with the very religious beliefs you are trying to prove, your
arguments are no longer “objective” and “neutral.” You are arguing in a
circle, going nowhere fast.
Of course, the claim of objectivity and neutrality is an old rationalist
canard that has been abandoned in modern times by most secular
philosophers and scientists. The only place in the world today where the
myths of neutrality and objectivity still exist is in the halls of Christian
academia. But then, they are always at least fifty years behind the world!

The Impossible Task

What should make us hesitate to embrace the ever-changing relative
world of Western, European, Natural Theologies, is that Christians are
absolutely incapable of producing a valid non-Christian Natural Theology!
Why? They are so hopelessly saturated with Biblical ideas that they
CANNOT think without using Biblical categories. They are in the Biblical
Box and cannot think outside of that Box.
In order for Natural Theology to be authentically “Natural,” it must be
developed outside the Box of Biblical ideas.
Natural Theology X Biblical Ideas

Natural Religion X

Inside the Box are Biblical ideas that:

• must not contaminate nor pollute the mind;
• cannot be presupposed;
• cannot be a part of any argument;
• cannot play a role at any point in any chain of arguments;
• cannot show up at the beginning or the end;
• cannot be the source of any key terms.
• cannot influence anyone in anything at any time.
The fact that faces us is that Western, European, Christian Natural
Theologians couldn’t produce an authentic “Natural” Theology even if
their life depended upon it! The only thing a Christian can produce is a
“Christian” Theology. Thus the arguments developed by Western,
European, “Christian” Natural Theologians such as Thomas Aquinas,
William Paley, Charles Hodge, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland,
Norman Geisler, R.C. Sproul, etc. are irrelevant because they presuppose
and utilize Biblical ideas from beginning to end. They are incapable of
being either objective or neutral.

Beware of Old Canards

One way that modern Natural theologians avoid having to define or
defend their ideas is to claim that their arguments are “misunderstood.”
They assume that if you are intelligent and sincere, you will “naturally”
understand what they were saying. Thus you will “naturally” agree with
them because their arguments are intuitive, self-evident, and universal.
Carl F. Henry explains,
One distressing feature of Thomism is the repeated claim by
its exponents that its critics misrepresent or improperly
understand the argument and draw wrong inferences from
rejoinders. Does Thomas claim that the proofs are logically
demonstrative or merely existentially undeniable? (There is
much to commend the view that Aquinas opposed Augustine’s
arguments as based on harmony and beauty and sought to
replace them with strict proof, i.e., logical demonstration;
otherwise Thomas is not Aristotelian and his distinction
between philosophy and revelation fails.) Does he use or avoid
the principle of sufficient reason? Are the proofs to be
considered several correlative arguments or simply one
comprehensive argument? (Thomas says the first proof is
more obvious. Does he claim that each singly is valid, or that
taken cumulatively they are demonstrative?) On and on run the
differences among Thomistic interpreters, each claiming to
champion the authentic Thomas.
Western, European, “Christian” Natural Theologians were born into the
Biblical Box; grew up in the Box; were educated in the Box; married in the
Box; raised their children in the Box; earned their living in the Box;
worshiped in the Box; loved the Box; defended the Box. There is no way
they can think outside of the Box even if they wanted to do so.

Dialogue on Natural Theology

Natural theologian (NT): Did you see my new book, Rational
Christianity?
Biblical theologian (BT): Yes.
NT: What did you think?
BT: I didn’t believe a word of it.
NT: But didn’t I demonstrate the existence of God and solve the
problem of evil?
BT: No. You failed on both counts.
NT: Why?
BT: “Natural Theology” is like the cereal “Grape Nuts,” which is
neither grapes nor nuts. Likewise, “Natural Theology” is neither
“natural” nor “theology.” Do you really believe that you proved the
existence of God and solved the problem of evil by human reason
alone, apart from and independent of Scripture, through Nature alone?
You have to be kidding!
NT: I really believe that I have developed a rational basis for
Christianity.
BT: I submit that you cannot do this because you are so influenced by
Biblical ideas that you cannot intellectually function without using
those Biblical ideas. You were born in a Biblical box and cannot get out
of that box.
NT: But I can pretend that I am not in the Box.
BT: Like a kid pretending to ride a horse by riding a broomstick? Fat
chance!
NT: What I mean is that I can think outside the Biblical Box.
BT: I don’t think so.
NT: Sure I can! If I abandon the Biblical Box and move over to a non-
Christian Box like the Greek Philosophers, then I can think outside the
Christian Box. I will adopt the ideas of Thales, Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, and other philosophers. They will be my mentors. Then,
beginning with those pagan ideas, I will intellectually argue my way
out of their pagan box all the way back to the Biblical Box.
BT: Now, let me get this straight. You intend to defend the Biblical Box
by first abandoning it? Then you will move over to some pagan box and
adopt their pagan ideas? And you really think you can make your way
back to Jesus starting with some pagan philosophy?
NT: Yes.
BT: You are crazy! It is impossible for you to think outside the Biblical
Box. Take for example the goals of your book listed on the back cover:
(1.) To prove the existence and attributes of God,
(2.) to solve the problem of evil,
(3.) by human reason alone.
The words “prove,” “existence,” “God,” “solve,” “problem,” “evil,”
“reason,” and “Nature” all have Christian meanings. If you are trying to
think outside the Biblical Box, you have already failed. Take the word
“God.” Which “God” are you trying to prove? The pantheistic god of
Hinduism? The finite gods of the Greeks? What kind of “God” are you
hoping to find at the end of your arguments? As a Christian, don’t you
mean the God of the Bible?
NT: Yes. I am trying to prove the existence of the Christian God.
BT: Then you are still thinking in the Biblical Box! Instead of trying to
prove the existence of the Biblical God, you should simply say that you
are trying to find out if “X” exists. You will not know what “X” means
until you arrive at the end of your arguments. You may end up with a
god or gods that are not like the Christian God at all.
NT: Are you saying that a Christian is incapable of producing Natural
Law, Religion, Theology and Apologetics?
BT: Yes! The only person who is capable of producing an authentic
“Natural” Theology is a “natural” unregenerate man or woman who has
never heard of any Biblical ideas such as: The Jewish God; The
Christian God; natural revelation; special revelation; inspired
Scriptures (the Bible); monotheism; an infinite and personal God; the
spiritual non-material nature of God; infinite nature of God;
omnipotence of God; omniscience of God; omnipresence of God;
holiness of God; grace of God; the Trinity; “Nature;” the universe; the
universe is not eternal; the finite nature of the universe; the universe
had a beginning; Creation ex nihilo; Design; Cause and effect motif; the
creation of man; the unity of mankind; the dignity of man; Adam and
Eve; the Fall of man into sin and guilt; original sin; the sinful nature of
man; the Law of God; the Ten Commandments; salvation; atonement;
prophets; apostles; fulfillment of prophecy; the Messiah; Jesus; etc.
NT: Aren’t you being too picky?
BT: No. All the terms used by Western, European, Christian, Natural
Theologians are Biblical or Christian terms. Thus they would have to
abandon all these terms in order to think outside the Box. But can you
really do this? I don’t think so. For example, when you claim to prove
the “existence” of “God,” you have in mind the Biblical “God” and not
some other deity. When you use the word “existence,” you understand it
in the Biblical sense of an infinite, spiritual, non-material, non-spatial,
non-temporal existence. Or, are you referring to a god made out of a
coconut husk with mother-of-pearl eyes and teeth? I don’t think so!
NT: But the Bible gives us many examples of Natural Theology in such
places as Psa. 19, Acts, 17, and Rom. 1. The Bible is filled with Natural
Theology.
BT: I hate to pop your balloon, but you are guilty of a categorical
fallacy. General Revelation is not the same as Natural Theology. Thus
when you appeal to verses that speak of God’s General revelation as if
they prove man’s Natural Theology, you are in error. Let me explain
what I mean.
1. “General revelation” in the Bible is God’s immediate non-
verbal revelation to all men all the time in all places in all
generations. It is immediate, universal, and constant. All men are
without excuse because God is personally confronting all men at
all times in all places.
2. The light is shinning and the music is playing all the time but
sinful man shuts his eyes and plugs his ears so that he does not
see the light or hear the music. Notice that Psa. 19:1 says that
“the heavens are telling the glory of God.” It does not say that
natural man is telling the glory of God!
3. In contrast to God’s immediate, universal General revelation,
Natural Theology is the human activity of a few White, Western,
European, Christian philosophers trained in Western logic and
philosophy. Since only a few people in the West have ever read
their books, how can it be said the all men everywhere throughout
all of history are without excuse because of what they write?
 4. I have examined every Biblical passage put forward by Natural
Theologians and did not find a single command, precept or
example of Natural Theology in the Bible! There was no need for
it because the authors of the Bible had a revealed Torah and
Gospel.
NT: If what you say is true, how can you prove to non-Christians that
Christianity is rational?
BT: Why should we let the heathen make hoops for us to jump through?
We are not circus dogs! The prophets and apostles were more interested
in being faithful than rational. Besides, rationalism is a refuted
philosophy, and even philosophy in general has resoundingly failed
down through the centuries. The Bible tells me ahead of time that the
gospel is foolishness to philosophy (1 Cor. 1:22). Dr. Robert Reymond
was right on target when he commented,
Natural theology does not square with the actual apologetic
activity of the early church as we find it depicted in the book
of Acts. The natural theologian maintains that it is not right to
ask skeptics to believe in Christ on the basis of scriptural
authority before they had had a chance to consider the
evidence supportive of the Christian claims. But does the
unbeliever posses some independent criterion of verification
which can and should authenticate the truth of Christian
revelation in advance of faith? I think not. Otherwise, we must
conclude that Dionysius the Areopagite, who believed in
Christ simply on the basis of Paul’s testimony prior to any
investigation into what Paul proclaimed, was the biggest fool
on Mars’s Hill that day in A.D. 50 (Acts 17:22–3), and that the
most intelligent men there were those who determined to hear
Paul again on some subsequent occasion! No, the missionary
efforts of Peter, Stephen, Philip, and Paul never urged lost men
to do anything other than to repent of sin and bow in faith
before Jesus Christ. When they debate, they draw their
arguments from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2; 18:28). They never
imply that their hearers may legitimately question
the existence of the Christian God, the truth of Scripture, or
personal commitment. Never do they suggest by their appeal
to the evidence of God’s presence and benevolence (Acts 4:9–
 10; 14:17; Rom. 1:20–21) that they are endeavoring to erect a
“probability construct.” They went forth into the world not as
professional logicians and philosophical theologians but as
preachers and witnesses, insisting that repentance toward God
and faith in Jesus Christ are the sinner’s only proper responses
to apostolic witness.
NT: But you have to have a common ground with unbelievers such as
human reason and rationality. What do you do with people who do not
believe in the Bible?
BT: Yes, we do have “common grounds” with all people via Creation,
Fall, and Redemption. But not the humanistic common grounds you
submit. The prophets never changed their message of “Thus says
YHWH.” The Apostles preached the Word to Jews and Gentiles who
rejected the Bible. They too paid the price for confronting the world
with the command to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ.
Show me in the Old or New Testament where the authors of Scripture
taught your “common ground” idea.
NT: When Paul met with the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill, he used
pagan philosophy as the common ground between him and the
unbelievers.
BT: I think you haven’t read that passage in some time and have
forgotten what Paul actually said to the Greeks. I have my Bible here
and I want you to show me where Paul appealed to the Greek concept of
“reason” or “rationality” as the basis of his message.
NT: I don’t have the time to hold Bible studies.
BT: This is what I always find with you guys. You will cite a biblical
passage and then run away from it as fast as you can. For example, you
are using the Bible to prove that you don’t need to use the Bible. I have
a problem with that.
NT: I don’t need the Bible myself but I cite it for your sake. If you look
at the beginning of Acts 17, you will find that Paul argued from Reason
that Jesus was the Christ.
BT: Misquoting and misinterpreting the Bible doesn’t really help your
position. The verse actually says that Paul “argued with them from the
Scriptures.” It is erroneous that you dropped out the words “from the
Scriptures.”
NT: Wait a minute. Let me look up the verse because Mooreland, Craig,
Geisler, Koukl, and Beckwith say that Paul clearly referred to human
Reason as the judge of whether Jesus was the Messiah. You are saying
that Paul was appealing to the Bible as the judge. One of you is
mistaken.
BT: Don’t ever trust Natural theologians to quote the Bible accurately
—much less interpret it in accordance with sound hermeneutics.
NT: I heard from a professor at my seminary that you are a Barthian.
BT: Oh, another red herring argument! Van Ti, Clark, Henry, Schaeffer,
and I all rejected Barth’s liberalism. But this does not mean that he was
wrong on everything. That is a logical fallacy. Carl F. Henry explained
that Barth was right on this issue.
Not only had modernism, like Thomism, replaced God by man
as a theological starting point but, as Karl Barth protested, it
had also in effect deified man himself. It recognized no point
of reference outside man in establishing theological truth. Its
main speculative ally, philosophical idealism, wholly forfeited
the unconditionally transcendent, and depicted the divine
Spirit as immanent in all men. Modernism in principle
therefore forsook theology for anthropology and for
humanism.
Barth was doubtless right in rejecting natural theology. For the
Protestant Reformers the “natural theology” elaborated from
the universe by the scholastics was a pagan distortion of the
revelation in the creation. God’s revelation in created reality
results not in theological truth but rather in the unregenerate
man’s misconception of God and, in view of the sinner’s revolt
against light, inevitably in a pagan notion of God. Only special
redemptive revelation remedies this predicament. Paul
declares that man “holds down the truth [general revelation] in
unrighteousness”; through his sinful response he, in fact,
transforms it into idolatrous alternatives. Brunner puts the
contrast succinctly: “Biblical and natural theology will never
agree; they are bitterly and fundamentally opposed”
NT: We have moved beyond Barth today. I have developed in my book
a rational Natural Theology that proves the existence and nature of God
 apart from biblical revelation.
BT: The only person who can develop an authentic Natural Theology by
reason only, through Nature alone, is a pagan who has never had any
contact with any Biblical ideas whatsoever. In other words, only
someone totally outside of the Biblical Box can develop a pure Natural
Theology. You were born and raised in the Biblical Box and are
incapable of freeing yourself from biblical ideas.

The Bible and Natural Theology

Christianity came into the world as a revealed religion: it was
given to the world by Christ as a doctrine of redemption and
salvation and love, not as an abstract and theoretical system,
and He sent His Apostle to preach, not occupy professor’s
chairs. Christianity was “the Way”, a road to God to be trodden
in practice, not one more philosophical system added to the
systems and schools of antiquity. The Apostles and their
successors were bent on converting the world, not on
excogitating a philosophical system.
The above statement by the great Medieval scholar, Frederick
Copleston, is a healthy reminder that biblical Christianity did not seek to
win the approval of the world by conforming the Gospel to whatever
unbelievers felt was “rational” at the time. The prophets and apostles
boldly proclaimed the everlasting Gospel and confronted unbelievers with
the clarion call to repent of their sins and bow in submission to Jesus
Christ. They were prophets and apostles, not philosophers or theologians.
Avery Dulles in his definitive work, The History of Apologetics,
documents that in 1 Cor. 1–2, Paul,
exhibits his distrust of Greek Wisdom and his well-founded
fear that philosophy … could corrupt the faith of new converts.
In the early chapters of this letter Paul draws a sharp contrast
between two modes of religious knowledge, the one consisting
of human wisdom, the other of obedience to divine revelation.
For Paul, the first leads only to pride and delusion … Paul
does not wish to support his preaching by any philosophical
argumentation but solely by the power of the Holy Spirit, who
 gives fecundity to the preaching of the revealed word (1 Cor.
3:6).
The truths of the Gospel were not conformed to different times or
audiences (Rom. 12:1–2). There was only one Gospel and any attempt to
change it was anathema. There are three NT passages that demonstrate this
point with absolute clarity.
First, Paul warned that any attempt to tamper with the message of the
cross would result in the judgment of God.
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called
you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is
really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you,
and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we,
or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel
contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be
accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any
man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you
received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6–9)
Walvoord and Zuck comment,
Paul’s astonishment was over an almost inconceivable turn of
events—the Galatian believers were in the process of turning
away (deserting, metatithesthe, as in a military desertion)
from the truth. Part of the apostle’s amazement was because it
was happening so quickly after his last visit to them, or so
soon after the false teachers began their insidious work. The
departure was not simply from a system of theology but from
God Himself, the One who had called them by the grace of
Christ (the dominant theme of the epistle). In exchange they
were embracing a different gospel, one that was false. Paul
insisted that a gospel of legalism which adds work to faith is
not the same kind of gospel that he preached and by which
they were saved. It was actually an attempt to pervert the
gospel of Christ. And Paul was aware of the fact that at the
very time he was writing this epistle the false teachers were at
work troubling or throwing the Galatians into confusion (cf.
Acts 15:24; 20:29–30). 1:8. To emphasize the fact that the true
 gospel of the grace of God cannot be changed, Paul first stated
a hypothetical case. If he (a divinely called apostle) or an
angel (a heavenly messenger) were to alter the gospel message
—a highly improbable situation—then let him be accursed or
eternally condemned (anathema). 1:9. In this verse Paul
seemed to repeat himself, but he actually advanced his
thought. Paul and Barnabas had given a warning of judgment
when they had preached to the Galatians. Now Paul repeated it.
A zealous champion of the purity of the gospel of grace, Paul
said it again: If anybody were preaching a different gospel
(which the false teachers were), he would come under God’s
eternal judgment. It is not difficult to understand why Paul
reacted so strongly, because the Judaizers were impugning the
Cross; for if works were necessary for salvation, then the work
of Christ was not sufficient (cf. 2:21). Furthermore a great deal
is at stake for lost people. When the gospel message is
corrupted, the way of salvation is confused and people are in
danger of being eternally lost.
The second passage is from 2 Corinthians
But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his
craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity
and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches
another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a
different spirit which you have not received, or a different
gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
(2 Cor. 11:3–4)
Garland’s comment on this passage is notable
Paul never names his opponents but continually refers to them
only indirectly, “if someone comes.” Barrett comments that
these rivals merely come, while Paul, as an apostle, is sent (see
1 Cor 1:17). But Paul also describes his first visit as “coming”
but with a distinct difference: When I came to you, brothers, I
did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I
proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to
know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and
 him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with
much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with
wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the
Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s
wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Cor 2:1–5) The opponents
came with eloquence, a swaggering boldness, and persuasive
words that proclaimed a testimony about themselves rather
than Christ. Not only did they trespass on Paul’s allotted field,
but they sowed that field with the tares of a false gospel. Their
preaching is false—a different Jesus, Spirit, and gospel—that
can only lead Christians away from Christ. This gospel
apparently places greater emphasis on Human standards as
valid criteria for evaluating others, on rhetorical showmanship,
on racial heritage, and on ecstatic visions.
The third passage deals with Paul’s public rebuke of Peter, who had
“adapted” the gospel in order to be “relevant” to his target audience.
While Paul agreed that Christians can personally “adapt” to such innocent
cultural mores as clothing, food or hair styles (1 Cor. 10:23–11:16), this
was not what Peter had done. Paul charged that Peter and others were “not
straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:14). He had tried to
mix works with grace in order to appease his audience.
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the
truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If
you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews,
how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? We
are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works
of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have
believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in
Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the
works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while
seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been
found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never
be!” (Gal. 2:14–17)
Dr. Wiersbe commented,
Paul was right in ignoring the “spiritual positions” of the
people mentioned in v. 6. Even the best leaders can make
mistakes, and Paul cites Barnabas and Peter as examples. After
the Jerusalem conference, Peter had visited the Gentile church
at Antioch where Paul and Barnabas were still ministering
(Acts 15:35). In Acts 10, God had clearly revealed to Peter that
no foods or peoples were unclean; but the apostle fell back into
legalism just the same. When he first came to Antioch, Peter
mingled with the Gentiles and ate with them; but after some
visitors came from Jerusalem, he withdrew himself and put up
the old Jewish barriers again. Even Barnabas fell into the trap
(v. 13), amazing his missionary companion, Paul. The reason
was fear (v. 12); for “the fear of man brings a snare” (Prov.
29:25, NKJV). Peter and Barnabas were not walking uprightly.
What we believe determines how we behave. Because Peter
and Barnabas were confused about spiritual truth, they were
unable to walk a straight line. The “truth of the Gospel” is not
only something for us to defend (v. 5), but it is also something
for us to practice (v. 14). In vv. 14–21 we have a summary of
the rebuke Paul gave to Peter. Certainly Paul said more than
this, but the following digest summarizes the matter very well:
“You are a Jew,” said Paul to Peter, “but you used to live like
the Gentiles, with no barriers between you and other
Christians. Now you want the Gentiles to live like Jews, doing
what you did not even do yourself!” The “we” in vv. 15–17
refers, of course, to the Jews. “We Jews have had special
privileges and may not be guilty of Gentile sins; but we are
saved the same way they are!” We would expect Paul to say,
“They must be saved the way we are,” but he reverses the
order. Salvation did not mean that Gentiles had to become like
Jews, but that the Jews had to go to the level of the condemned
Gentiles! “We are justified—given a right standing before God
—by faith in Jesus Christ,” argues Paul. “The works of the law
will never justify a man. Was any Jew ever saved by keeping
the law? Of course not!” In vv. 17–18, Paul showed Peter the
folly of going back to the Law. “You say you have been saved
by faith in Christ. Well, if you go back to the Law, you are
 confessing that you are still a sinner needing to be saved and
that Christ did not save you. In fact, you are saying that your
faith in Christ made you a sinner again, and that makes Christ
the minister of sin!” To turn back to the Law denies the work
of Christ on the cross. “You preached the Word to the Gentiles
yourself,” Paul went on, referring to Acts 10, “but now you
have changed your mind. You preached salvation by faith; now
you preach salvation by law. You are building up the very
things you once tore down, which makes you a sinner, because
you tore down something that God wanted to keep standing.”
In other words, Paul showed Peter the inconsistency of his
actions and his beliefs. “The Law is not a way of life, Peter; it
is a way of death. The Law kills us (v. 19) that the Gospel
might raise us up again. A Christian is not someone who is
trying to obey an outward law. A Christian is one who has the
living Christ within. By faith, I am united to Christ forever.
When He died, I died; when He arose, I arose with Him. He
lives out His life through me as I walk by faith—this is the
Christian life! It is not a set of rules and regulations. To go
back to the Law is to frustrate (make empty) the grace of God!
If the Law is God’s way of salvation, then Christ died in vain!”
Neither Galatians nor Acts records Peter’s response, but we
know that Paul’s rebuke accomplished its purpose. In fact, one
of the last admonitions Peter wrote was that believers should
read Paul’s letters to find God’s truth about this present age (2
Peter 3:16–18).
Many today have fallen into the same error of Peter. The “seeker
church,” “emergent church,” “emerging church,” and “New Perspective on
Paul” all seek to be “relevant” to post-modern unbelievers by “adapting”
the gospel to the felt needs of whatever target audience they have in mind.
But, in their haste to be “relevant,” they have thrown the baby out with the
bathwater and jettisoned core concepts of the gospel that render what they
are preaching a false gospel.

Natural Theology: a False Gospel

 The different and divergent “gospels” preached by all the various
schools of Natural Theology are false gospels and fall under the
condemnation of Scripture. At the bottom of each of these false gospels is
a works-based view of salvation in which unregenerate sinners can merit
truth and morals by being sincere and rational. Despite the clear testimony
of Scripture, natural theologians believe that the natural man has a good
heart that seeks God; wants the truth; and understands spiritual things.

The Carrot and the Stick

In order to motivate a plow horse to keep moving, farmers would
sometimes tie a carrot on the end of a stick and place it just beyond the
reach of the animal. The poor beast would keep trotting toward the carrot
he saw in front of him, never quite reaching it. In the same way, Natural
theologians put the carrot of truth in front of non-Christians and promise
them that if they keep running toward the truth, they will eventually reach
it. But, no matter how sincere or intelligent the unbeliever, he or she will
never reach the truth without God’s revelation.

Paul’s Example
This is why the Apostle Paul refused to use philosophic arguments in
his preaching. If you can argue someone into believing, then someone
smarter than you can argue them out of believing. If your “faith” is based
on philosophic reasoning instead of the revealed Word of God, it is a
bogus faith. Paul reminded the Corinthians,
And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive
words of philosophy, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
power, that your faith should not rest on human philosophy,
but on the power of God.
και ̀ ὁ λόγος μου και ̀ τὸ κήρυγμά μου οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖ[ς] σοφίας
[λόγοις] ἀλλʼ ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος και ̀ δυνάμεως, ἵνα η
πίστις ὑμῶν μὴ ᾖ ἐν σοφίᾳ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλʼ ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ.
Paul was rightfully concerned that when people are “converted” by
sophisticated philosophic arguments, their faith would rest on those
arguments. William Hendriksen comments,
 In the last verse of this section, Paul states his purpose for
rejecting persuasive words and superior wisdom. He has come
to the Corinthians to preach the gospel. And his preaching has
resulted in their personal faith in God. Paul informs them that
this gift of faith neither originates in nor is supported by
human wisdom. If faith were of human origin, it would utterly
fail and disappear. But faith rests on God’s power that shields
the believer and strengthens him to persevere (compare 1 Peter
1:5).
God works faith in the hearts of the Corinthians through the
preaching of Christ’s gospel. He not only has given them the
gift of faith but also has brought them to conversion. God
commissions Paul to strengthen their faith by instructing them
in the truths of God’s Word. In brief, the Corinthians must
know that faith rests not on human wisdom but on God’s
power. “Wisdom of men.” Notice that Paul uses the plural
noun men to illustrate that in Corinth many people are
dispensing their own insight and wisdom. Man’s discernment
is temporal, faulty, and subject to change; God’s wisdom is
eternal, perfect, and unchangeable. When a Christian in faith
asks God’s for wisdom (James 1:5), he experiences the
working of God’s power. He rejoices in the salvation God has
provided for him.
I have seen many theologians and pastors fall away from the Faith in
the last forty years. 1 John 2:19 tells us they never really belonged in the
church to begin with. How did they come into the church at the beginning?
They were often “converted” by Natural apologists who used philosophic
arguments to convince them. Later on in life, these converts ran into a
slick unbeliever who was smarter than the “Christian” philosopher who
originally converted them to Christianity. They then converted to another
belief or unbelief.

Saving Faith: a Work of the Spirit

Saving faith in the New Testament is the work of the Spirit of God, not
the work of man. Since the heart of man is desperately wicked and
hardened in sin (Gen. 6:5), only God can open the heart to the Gospel
(Acts 16:14). Since the natural man will not and cannot seek God (Rom.
3:11), God has to seek man (Lk. 15:1–7). Since the mind of the unbeliever
is blinded by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4), God has to open the mind (Eph. 1:18f).
Paul was confident that the conversion of the Thessalonians was real
because it was produced by the power of God.
for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in
power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. (1
Thess. 1:5)
Saving faith comes from hearing the Word of God, not hearing
humanistic philosophic discourse. “So faith comes from hearing, and
hearing of the word of Messiah.” (Rom. 10:17)
The great Baptist preacher, Charles Spurgeon, had returned once again
to Edinburgh. As he sat in his carriage outside the church where he was to
preach, one of his critics stuck his head through the window and yelled, “I
see some of your converts are back at the pub!” Without batting an eye,
Spurgeon replied, “Aye, its true. They are mine—not the Lord’s. Driver,
move on.”

Assurance: a Work of the Spirit

The New Testament is clear that the certainty or assurance that God
exists, Jesus is the Messiah, the Bible is the Word of God, etc. is the direct
work of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:16; 1 John 3:24). It is not the end
conclusion of a long string of syllogisms.
How did Peter come to full assurance (Heb. 10:22) that Jesus was the
Messiah?
And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Messiah,
the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered and 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.” (Matt. 16:16)
Peter’s assurance was not the end product of sophisticated philosophic
arguments. No “flesh and blood” philosopher convinced him of the gospel.
Hendriksen comments,
 In continuing his address to Peter, Jesus emphasizes that “flesh
and blood,” that is, merely human calculation, cogitation,
intuition, or tradition, could never have produced in this
disciple’s heart and mind the insight into the sublime truth that
he had just now so gloriously professed. On the expression
“flesh and blood” see also N.T.C. on Gal. 1:16 and on Eph.
6:12. It was, says Jesus, “my Father who is in heaven” who had
disclosed this truth to Simon Bar-Jonah and had enabled him
to give buoyant expression to it. To this disciple, and to all
those similarly minded, he, this Father in heaven, had
“revealed” it (11:25, 26); and this not necessarily directly, by
whispering something into the ear, but by blessing to the heart
the means of grace, not the least of these means being the
lessons which issued from the words and works of Jesus.
Hendriksen is not alone in understanding the implications of what Jesus
said. The Pulpit Commentary noted,
Flesh and blood. This is a phrase to express the idea of the
natural man, with his natural endowments and faculties. So St.
Paul says (Gal. 1:16), “I conferred not with flesh and blood;”
and “Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood” (Eph. 6:12).
The Son of Sirach speaks of “the generation of flesh and
blood” (Ecclus. 14:18). No natural sagacity, study, or
discernment had revealed the great truth. None of these had
overcome slowness of apprehension, prejudices of education,
slackness of faith. No unregenerate mortal man had taught him
the gospel mystery. My Father which is in heaven. Christ
thus accepts Peter’s definition of him as “the Son of the living
God.” None but the Father could have revealed to thee the Son.
Peter’s saving faith was supernatural in origin and nature. But, lest we
think that he was unique and that the rest of us have to come to faith
through human reasoning instead of revelation, Jesus said in Matthew
11:25–27,
At that time Jesus answered and said, “I praise you, O Father,
Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hid these things from
the philosopher and the shrewd and have revealed them to
 babes. Yes, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in your sight.
All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no
one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know
the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills
to real Him.
Who are the people that God has hid the truth from? Jamieson, Fausset,
and Brown comment,
from the wise and prudent—The former of these terms
points to the men who pride themselves upon their speculative
or philosophical attainments; the latter to the men of worldly
shrewdness—the clever, the sharp-witted, the men of affairs.
The distinction is a natural one, and was well understood.
Salvation ultimately comes from the choice of God and not from the
reasoning of man (Acts 13:48).

Human Reasoning in the Bible

The supposed goals of Natural Theology are to convert unbelievers and
give assurance to believers by rationally demonstrating the existence of
God and solving the problem of evil. But salvation and assurance are the
work of the Holy Spirit in the heart and mind of man as he hears the Word
of God. Nowhere in Scripture are salvation and assurance the result of
man’s reasoning or speculation.
The Greek word διαλογισμός and its cognates refers to man’s ability to
reason, speculate or rationally analyze things within himself and come to a
conclusion based on his own opinion. Thayer defines it as “the thinking of
a man deliberating with himself.” Louw and Nida define it as,
to think about something in a detailed and logical manner—‘to
think about, to reason about, to ponder, reasoning; to think or
reason with thoroughness and completeness—‘to think out
carefully, to reason thoroughly, to consider carefully, to reason,
reasoning.’ διαλογίζομαι: διελογίζετο ἐν ἑαυτῷ ‘he began to
reason about this in himself ’ Lk 12:17; διελογίζετο ποταπὸς
εἴη ὁ ἀσπασμὸς οὗτος ‘she carefully considered what the
greeting meant’ Lk 1:29. διαλογισμός: ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς
 διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν ‘their reasoning became futile’ (literally
‘they became futile in their reasoning’) Ro 1:21.
Nowhere in Scripture is salvation or assurance based upon man’s
reasoning. They are always the result of the Spirit working with the Word,
not independent of the Word.
We did an exhaustive study of all the passages in the Bible where
someone “reasoned within himself” (ex. Mark. 2:6–8; LK. 5:22). Not once
did “reasoning within yourself” ever produce faith or assurance. Those
who “reasoned within themselves” were always unbelievers.

The Bible and Natural Theology

Throughout its long history, Israel never produced a single philosopher
or theologian. Why not? They had infallible and inspired prophets. The
New Testament Church did not produce a single philosopher or theologian
either because it had an infallible Messiah and inspired apostles.
For example, the Bible nowhere refers to the “attributes” of God in the
sense of the qualities or powers man attributes to God. Nowhere in the
Bible does man create God in his own image. It is the other way around.
God reveals Himself personally to man and also reveals true ideas about
Himself, the world, man, sin, salvation, society, etc. God is the Author of
our faith, not man (Heb. 12:2).

The Greatest Natural Theologians

The three greatest expositions of Natural Theology were written by
Chadbourne, Lectures on Natural Theology, Paley, Evidences of
Christianity, and Balfour, The Foundations of Belief. To their credit,
unlike modern “evangelical” Natural theologians, they traced Natural
Theology back to Greek philosophy and did not pretend that it came from
the Bible.
The above philosophical works gave the most detailed and illustrative
arguments in the history of Natural Theology and would still be the
standard works on the subject, except that they were based on Newtonian
science. They viewed the universe as a vast machine that was running
smoothly according to absolute mechanical laws.
 The reason these books are not reprinted today is that, although their
arguments are still used, the worldview that supported those arguments is
obsolete. “Nature” has moved from the world outside of man to the mind
inside of man.
I fail to see how arguments based upon a mechanical view of the world
are still valid after you no longer believe in a mechanical universe. Once
Newton died, his arguments should have died with him.
This is what makes me suspicious about repeating the same arguments,
but each time basing them on radically different scientific world views.
An argument that “feels” valid regardless of its worldview is more
psychology than metaphysics.

The Sham, the Smoke and Mirrors, the Shell and the Pea
I can honestly say that after forty years of reading and studying Natural
Theology I never found a single argument that is valid and that takes me
all the way to the God of the Bible. They all depended on a cultural
consensus that no longer exists or on psychological manipulations that no
longer work. Avery Dulles came to the same conclusion.
Conventional apologetics is in the embarrassing position of
answering questions that no one is asking any more. If the
“Gentiles” against whom Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa
Contra Gentiles were interested even then in the arguments he
formulates, their modern descendants are not; and therefore
his modern descendants dare not repeat his arguments as they
though they still spoke to the condition of our contemporaries.
What is needed is an apologetic that will start with the Sitz im
Leben of the twentieth-century thought, listen to its criticisms,
and put forth the truth-claims of the gospel both forcefully and
modestly … Christian theology still stands or falls with the
claim to revelation.

Conclusion
In their eagerness to appear “rational” to a sinful world Natural
theologians have built their house on the shifting sands of cultural
consensus instead of building on the Rock of Scripture. By doing so, they
have relegated their arguments to eventual obsolescence. As for me and
my house,
Jesus loves me,
This I know;
For the Bible tells me so.
 Chapter Fourteen
Natural Apologetics
Introduction

When supporters of Natural Religion address Christians, they call

what they do “theology.” When they address non-Christians, they call it
“philosophy.” But, regardless of whom they address, it is still some form
of Nature-based religion.
The word “Natural” supposedly means that “Nature” not only supplies
them with what to believe, but also how to defend those “natural” beliefs.
It is one vast circular argument that begins and ends with subjective and
relative assumptions and presuppositions of what constitutes “Nature.”
This is why Natural, Catholic, Classical or Evidential Apologetics is
foundationally idolatrous. It bows before the shrine of man’s reason
(rationalism), experience (empiricism), feelings (mysticism), or faith
(fideism).
For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped
and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed
forever. Amen. (Rom. 1:25)

The First Problem

The first problem with Natural Apologetics is that they have no
commonly agreed upon definitions for such words as “Nature,” “natural”
or “Apologetics.” As documented by Gordon Lewis and Avery Dulles,528
there have been many different and contradictory kinds of “Natural
Apologetics,” with each one claiming to be derived from “Nature” apart
from and independent of the Bible. Each apologetic system is different
because each apologist begins with a different definition of “Nature.”
After over forty years of reading the works of natural apologists, it is
apparent that they argue from Nature-nature, Nature-reason, common
sense, transcendental cosmic principles, mystical insights, innate ideas,
dreams and visions, or empirical evidence. They are fundamentally
incompatible with each other and thus fight among themselves as to which
one has the “true” understanding of “Nature” and “apologetics.” The smart
ones never define any of their terms because they know the moment they
do so, they would have to defend those definitions.
Since “Natural” Apologists follow the philosophic fads of the day, they
generally fall into four basic kinds: rationalism, empiricism, mysticism,
and fideism. Their popularity depends on which humanistic world view
was culturally dominant at the time. When Rationalism was popular,
rationalistic apologetics were popular as well. When the culture moved
over to empiricism, evidential apologetics became popular. When
existentialism pushed aside both rationalism and empiricism, experience-
based apologetics became the rage. The New Age Movement produced
mystical apologetics found in Vineyard and Pentecostal circles. When the
culture moved to a self-centered narcissistic world view in which personal
health and wealth became the goals of life, some “health and wealth”
evangelists and apologists became dominant in Christian media.
This explains why so many Bible-based churches are small and some
“health and wealth” Charismatic Churches are packed with thousands of
people. Biblical pastors teach that the glory of God (not the personal
health and wealth of man) is the chief end of life. They preach sermons
based on the Hebrew and Greek text of Scripture instead of a psychobabble
message based on popular self-help clichés that promote a good self-
image.

The World Loves Its own

Messiah pointed out in John 15:19 that the “world” (i.e. unbelievers),
love those who are “of the world” and hate those who are of God.
If you were of the world, the world would love its own;
but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out
of the world, therefore the world hates you.
εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἦτε, ὁ κόσμος ἂν τὸ ἴδιον ἐφίλει· ὅτι
δὲ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου οὐκ ἐστέ, ἀλλʼ ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς
ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, διὰ τοῦτο μισεῖ ὑμᾶς ὁ κόσμος.
 One of the typical arguments for Natural Law is that non-Christians
will accept it while they would reject the Bible. It can thus serve as
“common ground” between Christians and non-Christians. But, if this
“common ground” means pagan ground, Biblical Christians are forbidden
by Scripture to accept it (2 Cor. 6:14–18).
In reality, all arguments that claim to build “common ground” with
unbelievers by having the Christian first give up God and the Bible are
only versions of the old canard “the ends justify the means.” Yes, it is true
that unbelievers love Natural Law. Why? It requires a Christian to abandon
God, Jesus, and the Bible! It is of the world, by the world, and in the
world. Thus while the secular world loves Natural Law, Natural Religion,
and Natural Theology, it hates those who preach sola scriptura.

The Second Problem

All systems of Natural Apologetics gratuitously assume the two
foundational dogmas of pagan Greek philosophy: human autonomy and
the sufficiency of human reason
They assume that man is sufficient in and of himself to discover truth
and morals without any reference to or dependence upon divine revelation.
Since man is autonomous to find truth and morals, it is then gratuitously
assumed that man is likewise autonomous to defend those beliefs.

Can Nature or Reason Justify Apologetics?

This creates a tremendous burden on so-called “Christian” natural
apologists. Where, when, and how does “Nature” or “Reason” justify doing
apologetics at all? In other words, can Natural Apologists give any
arguments drawn solely from “Nature” or “Reason” to justify apologetics
as something we “ought” to do?
Biblical Apologist (BA): Can I ask you something that has
nagged me for years?
Natural Apologist (NA): Sure. What is it?
BA: The Bible tells me to do apologetics in 1 Pet. 3:15 and
Jude 3 and that is why I do it. But you claim that you can
discover truth and morals apart from and independent of the
Bible through human reason alone. Right? NA: That is the
general idea.
 BA: Why do you do apologetics?
NA: The Bible tells me to defend my faith.
BA: That’s the problem! How can you use the Bible to justify
an apologetic that is supposedly independent of and apart from
the Bible? It seems odd to me that you go to the Bible to
justify your apologetics. Where in Nature do you find any
justification to do apologetics?
NA: Let me get this straight. Are you asking me to justify
apologetics on purely rational grounds apart from and
independent of the Bible?
BA: Yes!
NA: I will have to think about that. Geisler, Craig, and
Mooreland all quote the Bible to justify why they do
apologetics. If I have to come up with rational reasons to do
Natural Apologetics, this is going to be tough.
BA: I honestly think it is impossible to start with what “is” and
prove that apologetics is something we “ought” to do. Haven’t
you noticed that liberal seminaries no longer teach
apologetics? Once you throw the Bible under the bus, there is
no reason to do apologetics. Hasn’t apologetics divided
families, destroyed community solidarity, promoted prejudice,
and caused wars? “Reason” tells me to let people believe
whatever they want to believe. Don’t judge other people’s
beliefs. Live and let live!
NA: But I believe in doing apologetics!
BA: Then give me one “rational” reason drawn solely from
“Nature” why you should do apologetics.
NA: I see the problem but I don’t see a solution at this time.
BA: This is the profound problem facing Natural apologists.
Why do apologetics at all? Why not stay home, watch TV, and
chill out?

The Third Problem

Natural or Evidential apologists admit that they begin with man, not
God. R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley in their book,
Classical Apologetics, not only admit that they begin with man and not
with God, they give a detailed defense of the pagan Greek doctrines of
human autonomy and the primary of human reason.
From time immemorial all people have assumed that they
must begin with thinking with themselves for there is no other
place where they must begin. If man were the starting point,
we all would have this in common and thus an initial point of
contact.530
We must start with ourselves rather than God:
1. It is psychologically impossible for us to start with God (as
it is impossible for God to start with us.)
2. It is logically impossible for us to start with God for we
cannot affirm God without assuming logic and our ability to
predicate.
3. It is logically impossible to show the rational necessity of
presupposing God except by rational arguments.
That is, we admit the charge of autonomy … that we begin
autonomously.
Let us analyze the arguments above.
1. “From time immemorial” is a literary cliché that refers to the
Golden Age of Greece (500–300 BC). Western humanists assume
that “civilization” began in Greece with the pre-Socratic
philosophers. The history of non-Greek cultures is irrelevant.
This phrase is indicative of racism and Western prejudice.
2. As we have already documented, when humanists assert that
“all people assume” this or that idea, they do not literally mean
every human being who has ever lived, is living now or shall ever
live. They mean some Western, European, white, Judeo-Christian,
civilized men some of the time have assumed that idea is true.
Notice that the authors do not document their claim of
universality. They merely assert that “all people assume” the
Greek philosophic concepts of human autonomy and the
sufficiency of reason.
3. They assert, “there is no other place where they must begin.” It
seems they never picked up the Bible and read Gen. 1:1. Moses
did not say, “In the beginning man” but “In the beginning God.”
The word “must” implies some kind of moral imperative to start
 with man instead of God. On what basis is it more moral to start
with yourself instead of looking to divine revelation? They do not
explain or defend their argument.
4. They give two reasons why Christians should adopt the pagan
dogmas of human autonomy and the sufficiency of human reason.
First, “we all would have this in common.” Just because
something is a “common” belief does not make it true. The
idea that the sun revolved around the earth was the “common
belief” of most Europeans “from time immemorial.” When we
lower belief in God to the level of Big Foot and UFOs, we
haven’t done God a favor!
Natural apologists will often argue that if we would all adopt
the Medieval Catholic version of Natural Law, the world would
be a beautiful place. But, the Catholic reign of terror that
lasted a thousand years was hardly a paradise! We must
remember all the Christians who were burned at the stake!
Idealistic and utopian fantasies often appear in their writings.
Second, we need “an initial point of contact” with unbelievers
and if they believe in themselves, then we should join them in
that man-centered belief.
Note: I have always wondered why Christians have to give up their
biblical beliefs and accept pagan doctrines. Why not tell the unbelievers
that they need “an initial point of contact” with Christians by accepting the
Bible? Why do Christians have to give up their beliefs and accommodate
anti-Christian and unbiblical doctrines? Did Elijah on Mt. Carmel adopt
the doctrines of Baal as his point of contact? Did Jesus adopt the doctrines
of the Sadducees?
5. Their next argument is that it is “psychologically impossible
for us to start with God.”
I wish they would have explained what they talking about. Whose
psychological system? Freud, Skinner, Glasser, etc.? How is it
“psychologically impossible” to start with God seeing Moses did this in
Gen. 1:1?
Note: Psychology is not a “science” per se because human behavior is
unpredictable. Psychology has been correctly described as the shamanism
and witchcraft of modern anti-Christian secularism. Are they saying that it
is psychologically harmful to begin with God or that it is a sign of mental
illness to look to the Bible as your starting point? This is the perverted
psychology of Marx and Freud!
6. They assert that it is “psychologically impossible” for God to
“start with man.” What do they mean by this assertion? Since
they claim to derive their knowledge of God from “Nature,” apart
from and independent of God and the Bible, where in Nature do
we find a “psychology” of God? On what “rational” basis do they
assert what God can or cannot “psychologically” do?
Note: Since God tells us in Num. 23:19 that He is not a human being, why
should human psychology define what God can or cannot do? Where in the
Bible do they find any support for their argument?
7. The authors now move from human psychology to Greek logic.
They assert that it is “logically impossible” to deny human
autonomy and the sufficiency of human reason for two reasons.
First, they state, “it is logically impossible for us to start with
God for we cannot affirm God without assuming logic and our
ability to predicate.”
a. Some modern forms of psychology teach that we need
to “affirm” ourselves and others in order to be mentally
healthy. Why do the authors think that we need to
“affirm” God? Does God need our affirmation? He says
that he does not need anything (Acts 17:25).
b. They state that we must assume Western Aristotelian
logic in order to affirm God. Since affirming something
or someone is a psychological concept, what does this
have to do with logic? Logic supposedly deals with
validity, not affirmation.
c. Since Job and Moses never heard of Aristotle and his
rules of logic, how did they manage to write the early
books of the Bible? They could not assume Aristotelian
logic because it did not exist in their day.
d. Job and Moses did just fine without any knowledge of
modern philosophic ideas of predication.
Second, they assert, “It is logically impossible to show the
rational necessity of presupposing God except by rational
arguments.”
 a. The authors do not define what they mean when they
spoke of “rational necessity.” The word “rational” can
mean anything and the word “necessity” is just as
hopeless. Are we once again in the realm of psychology?
Does “rational necessity” refer to some kind of emotion-
based feeling of necessity? Or, are they claiming that
they can produce a chain of syllogism that necessarily
ends with the God of the Bible in the conclusion? If so,
they should produce their argument as soon as possible
as no one has ever seen it.
b. Also, their argument only works if you care whether
some pagan philosopher thinks you are “rational.” But
they cannot even agree among themselves what is
“rational.” As a Christian, I am concerned that what I
believe is biblical. I honestly don’t care if some pagan
somewhere thinks I am “rational” according to his
heathen philosophy. The smile of God is more important
to me than the frown of man.
For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or
am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to
please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Messiah
(Gal. 1:10).
Note: God has declared human philosophy “foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:20) and
“empty deception” (Col. 2:8). Why then should we adopt the “foolishness”
and “empty deception” of the world as our “point of contact” with pagans?
This is what Natural apologists want us to do. The book, Classical
Apologetics, is therefore marred by gratuitous assumptions that cannot be
derived from “Nature,” no matter how many different ways you define it.
For example, why should we assume that Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover”
is the God of the Bible? If the deities he had in mind when he developed
his arguments to prove their existence and attributes are different from the
God of the Bible, then his gods are idols.
Why do Catholic or “Classical” Apologists equate Aristotle’s
“Unmoved Mover” with God? The authors tell us, “Thomas [Aquinas] is
quite right when he says that everyone understands this Unmoved Mover
to be God.”
 “Everyone?” Well, I for one do not accept that nonsense. And, even
more to the point, after all their claim that they are so LOGICAL, they are
using the formal fallacy of argumentum ad populum! Something is true
because “everyone” agrees?
The truth is Aristotle was a polytheist and believed in many gods. The
“Unmoved Mover” did not have the attributes of the triune
personal/infinite creator God of the Bible. It was a dead philosophic
abstract created by a pagan philosopher. It does not know that it exists or
that we exist and cannot love anyone!
The Bible says that Aristotle “never found God.” His “Unmoved
Mover” did not know or care if we lived or died. If such a monstrosity is
“God,” I am atheist.
The end result of Catholicism’s adoption of Aristotle’s “Unmoved
Mover” as their view of God led to the need to populate heaven with Mary
and the saints who could care for us, hear our prayers, and solve our
problems. God became a distant and cold abstract deity as He was reduced
to Aristotle’s pagan “Unmoved Mover.”

Do the Arguments Work?

Some modern Natural Apologists are honest enough to admit that none
of their theistic “proofs” actually prove the existence of the God of the
Bible. R. Douglas Geivett admits that even if the Muslim Kalaam
argument were valid, it still does not prove the existence of the God of the
Bible. He quotes Draper, an agnostic philosopher, who said, “this
argument does not get all the way to God’s existence.”
William Dembski sheepishly admits that the arguments for “intelligent
design” do not prove the existence of the God revealed in Scripture!
Who is the designer? As a Christian I hold that the
Christian God is the ultimate source of design behind the
universe.… But there’s no way for design inferences
based on features of the natural world to reach that
conclusion.
To his credit, T. David Beck admits that the argument “by itself, does
not uniquely identify God in its conclusion.” Geoffrey Bromiley
concluded that man,
 cannot attain from it [creation] to a knowledge of the
true God, but only to ignorance and idolatry … sin
constitutes a distorting veil which is removed only by
the new work of saving grace. For the sinner, therefore,
natural theology serves only to condemnation: “They are
without excuse.”

Useless Arguments
Stop and think about what Geivett, Beck, and Dembski admitted. If you
follow the Yellow Brick road of Natural Apologetics all the way to the
Emerald City, you will only find a false wizard behind the curtain! You
will not find the one true living God. In this light, of what use are their
arguments if they do not prove the existence of the God of the Bible? A
lesser god will always be a false god.
The arguments used by Natural Apologists are false for the following
reasons:
1. “The foundation in Roman Catholic natural theology is the
conviction that we can have some knowledge of God “from the
created things.” The Roman Catholic Church was led astray by
Natural Theology and is now a false and apostate church. What good
did Natural theology ever do for them? It preaches a false gospel of
a works and is filled with idol worship and vain superstitions.
2. Natural Theology is anti-biblical as well as unbiblical. Its use of
Scripture is erroneous. For example, Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley
interpret Rom. 1:19–21 as referring to man’s knowledge of God that
“is mediate, or inferential, indicating the rational power to deduce
the necessary existence of the invisible from the perception of the
visible.” But Paul has in view the immediate self-revelation of God
that confronts all human beings all the time in all places and
generations. Once it is granted that not all human beings are capable
of “rational power” due to birth defect, injury, low IQ, and the aging
process, it is clear that man’s Natural Theology is not universal in
scope and cannot be equated with the absolute universality of God’s
immediate self-Revelation.
3. They erroneously assume that man’s Natural Theology is the same
thing as God’s General Revelation.
4. The heresies of Deism and Unitarianism are the logical end result
of rationalism. The apostasy of Clark Pinnock is a perfect example
and warning of the ultimate destination of theological rationalism.
5. The prophets and apostles did not use such arguments. They
practiced confrontation, not compromise (common ground).
6. Most natural theologians do not believe in a literal seven-day
creation or in a young earth. Instead, they teach a day-age theory
with some kind of theistic evolution, once again appealing to
contemporary scientific theories.
7. They do not accept the radical Fall of man into sin and guilt, in
particular, they do not take seriously the noetic effects of the Fall.
8. Their foundational dogmas of human autonomy and the
sufficiency of human reason are Pelagian in nature and deny the
biblical truth of total depravity.
9. They are useless because they do not take us to the true God.
10. Since they are useless, they are irrelevant.
11. They assume antiquated world views such as Aristotle or
Newton.
12. They depend on cultural consensus.
13. They follow the philosophic fads of the day.
14. They do not and cannot define their key terms such as “reason,”
“nature,” etc.
15. They do not and cannot exegetically demonstrate that their
concept of reason, nature, etc. is found in the Bible.
16. They are based upon the heresies of Natural Law, Natural
Religion, and Natural Theology.
17. They are circular in nature.
18. Their appeal to “common sense” is nothing more than the ad
populum fallacy.
19. They are guilty of psychobabble arguments.
20. They ignore the biblical concept of mystery. For example, they
cannot explain how the love of God and Christ surpasses all
knowledge and rational comprehension (Eph. 3:19; Phil. 4:7).
21. They fail to take seriously God’s condemnation of philosophy in
Scripture.
22. They ignore, play down or deny the doctrine of the
incomprehensibility of God.
 23. They claim that the natural man does understand the things of
God in contradiction of 1 Cor. 2:14.
24. They claim that the natural man does seek God in contradiction
of Rom. 3:11.
25. They often end up denying the lost condition of the heathen,
eternal conscious punishment in hell, a conscious afterlife, the
inerrancy of Scripture, the omni-attributes of God, that God knows
the future, that the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, the
cults such as the Mormons are false and apostate churches.
26. They are based upon unbiblical and anti-biblical anthropologies.
27. They try to find common ground with unbelievers by adopting
their non-Christian and unbiblical beliefs.
28. They avoid the offense of the cross by not confronting sinners
with their sin and condemnation. “Common ground” is only a form
of compromise and is clearly condemned in Rom. 12:1–2.
29. They cannot justify doing apologetics from reason alone drawn
from nature alone.
30. They assume rationalism, empiricism, mysticism, or fideism as
their epistemology. No prophet or apostle ever adopted these pagan
epistemologies.
31. They assume pagan ideas as human nature, free will, conscience,
and Reason.
32. They ignore Rom. 1:18f, which declares that sinful man rejects
General Revelation and, as a result, produces only idolatrous
religions that worship the creature rather than the Creator.

Conclusion
The same old, tired arguments that have been around since Aristotle
continue to be recycled by giving them a fresh coat of paint in each new
generation. Christianity is always the worse off when it adopts them. The
more evidence they give, the less faith exists, the fewer Christians there
are, and belief in the Bible decreases. Natural Law, Natural Theology, and
Natural Apologetics appear when the church is weak and apostasy strong.
God is GOD because He—not man- is the Origin of truth, justice,
morals, meaning, and beauty. He is the Measure of all things, not man. To
God alone belongs all the glory. Amen.
 Chapter Fifteen
What the World Needs to Hear
Introduction

What does the world need to hear from the Christian Church? This
question is the most important issue facing the Church today. If we lose
our nerve and fail to tell the world what it needs to know, we have utterly
failed God and will suffer the consequences on the Day of Judgment.
Please note that we did not ask what the world wants to hear.
Unbelievers are only interested in one thing: themselves. They have no
concern for the glory of God or the good of others. They are self-centered
and their felt-needs revolve around what they want and what they think
will make them happy. Personal peace, affluence, health, pleasure, and
popularity constitute the core goals of unregenerate sinners.
If we pander to the felt-needs of sinners, we will be loved by the world
and unbelievers will flock to hear us say what they want to hear. Paul
described it this way,
For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will
accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to
their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the
truth, and will turn aside to myths. (2 Tim. 4:3–4)
This point needs to be stressed today as we are confronted with mega
churches that openly teach that we need to speak to the felt-needs of
unbelievers. In the name of being “relevant,” the gospel message has been
eviscerated. William Hendriksen’s comments are relevant to the 21st
century church.
But, having itching ears, will accumulate for
themselves teachers to suit their own fancies. It is not
the herald of the gospel that is at fault, but the hearing of
 the fickle men who make up the audience! They have
ears that are itching (from a verb which in the active
means to tickle; hence, in the passive, to be tickled, and
thus to itch, fig. “to have an irritating desire”). Their
craving is for teachers to suit their fancies or perverted
tastes (see on 2 Tim. 2:22). So great is that hankering
that they pile up teacher upon teacher. This reminds one
of Jer. 5:31, “The prophets prophesy falsely … and my
people love to have it so,” and of Ezek. 33:32, “And lo,
thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one who has
a pleasant voice and can play well on an instrument; for
they hear thy words, but they do them not.” The people
here pictured are more interested in something different,
something sensational, than they are in sober truth. And
when sober truth is presented (as it surely was by
Ezekiel), they are not interested in the truth itself, but
only in the way in which it is presented, the preacher’s
“style,” “oratory,” … the preacher himself, his voice,
bearing, looks, mannerisms. Here in 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 the
emphasis is on the craving for fascinating stories and
philosophical speculations: and will turn away their
ears from the truth, and will turn aside to the myths.
God’s redemptive truth, which deals with sin and
damnation, with the necessity of inner change, etc. (cf. 2
Tim. 3:15–17) they cannot stomach. They turn away (as
in 2 Tim. 1:15) from it, and turn aside (as in 1 Tim. 1:6)
to “the myths,” those familiar old womanish myths
mentioned earlier (see on 1 Tim. 1:4, 7; 4:7; Titus 1:14;
cf. 2 Peter 1:16) or anything similar to them. There are
always teachers that are willing to “scratch and tickle the
ears of those who wish to be tickled” (Clement of
Alexandria, The Stromata, I. iii).
The classic commentators agree with Hendriksen.
They would seek out (543lit. “heap up”) teachers, of
whom many are always available, who would tell them
what they wanted to hear rather than face them with the
 truth (cf. Rom. 1:18–32). Such teachers merely “tickle
the ear” so that they turn people away from the truth
on the one hand and toward myths (mythous; cf. 1 Tim.
1:4) on the other. Paul’s main focus in this passage was
on the inclinations of the audience rather than, as was
more his custom (but cf. 2 Tim. 3:6–7), the evil intent of
the false teachers. For error to flourish both sides of the
transaction must cooperate. 2
Don’t be surprised when people aren’t interested in truth.
People want to hear what they want to hear—as all too
many politicians realize and go on to exploit. But
Christian ministry isn’t politics. It’s presenting God’s
truth, even when people do not like it, for their benefit
and possible salvation.

The Choice Before Us

The choice presented by Paul is between telling the truth in an age
when people do not want to hear it, or telling them myths that will make
them happy and you popular. The world needs to hear the raw, undiluted
truth of God’s Word. What are some of the popular “myths” today that
unbelievers want to hear?
1. They are “divine” in some way.
2. They possess a good “human nature.”
3. No one can judge them, not even God.
4. They have within themselves all they need for their own truth and
morals.
5. They have an absolute free will that even God cannot violate.
6. They are autonomous, i.e. independent of God and the Bible.
7. Their reason, experience, feelings and faith are sufficient for all
things.
8. Man is the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
9. Man is the measure of all things, including God.
10. Natural Law, Religion, Theology, and Apologetics.
11. They can be whatever they want to be.
12. They can do whatever they want to do.
13. They can know whatever they want to know.
 14. They have infinite potential.
15. Ignorance is the problem and knowledge is the cure.
16. There is a secret to living the good life, and if they find it, they
will be healthy and wealthy.
17. They need a good self-image.
18. We are all OK.
19. God is all love.
20. There is no day of judgment.
21. There is no hell to fear.
22. All people are good deep down.
23. There is no such thing as sin.
24. There are many ways to heaven.
25. Everyone will end up in heaven.
26. The heathen are not lost.
These myths represent the core of what is preached today in most
mega-churches. They offer a smorgasbord of self-help psychobabble
sermons that uplift and affirm people in their sin. The cross is not
preached. Sin is not mentioned. Health and wealth are the promised
blessings of salvation. Heaven is here and now and there is no hell to fear.
This is why Natural Law, Natural Religion, Natural Theology, and
Natural Apologetics are humanistic in nature and come from by pagan
philosophers. They do not come from Divine Revelation and are often in
direct contradiction to it.

The Plain Truth

It is time once again to proclaim the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth as revealed in Scripture. The world needs to hear the TRUTH,
not myths and lies. They do not need to be told they don’t need God. They
already believe that! They don’t want God or His Law/Word. They want to
be their own law-giver and truth-giver.

Helpless Sinners
We are all helpless sinners in rebellion against the God who created us.
We are not autonomous in any sense. We are in bondage to sin and do not
have a free will. Sin has given us a moral bias or prejudice against the
truth. The sufficiency of human reason is a lie. We cannot begin with the
finite and move to the infinite. We cannot magically turn particulars into
universals. What is cannot become what ought to be just because we want
it to be so.

Only One True God

There is only one God, and He condemns all the false gods created by
Natural Religion. Any “god” less than the Triune God revealed in
Scripture is a false god. The “gods” of popery, orthodoxy, liberalism, cults,
occult, Process theology, Open View of God, emergent and movements are
no more god than a wooden idol of Shiva.

Jesus Is The Only Way

Jesus is the only way to heaven. Sinners must hear of and believe in
Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith
alone, in Christ alone in order to be saved. If they do not hear the gospel,
they will perish in their sins. Works-based “gospels,” such as Roman
Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the cults, and the occult are false gospels
that lead millions of sinners to hell.

Begin At The Beginning

If we begin with the biblical doctrines of Creation, Fall, and
Redemption, we can understand God, man, the world and how they are
relate to each other. We have final answers to all the questions of life and
death. But if we are ignorant, ignore or reject these three foundational
biblical concepts, no absolute knowledge or morals is possible. Either we
begin with God or we end in the abyss of the unrelated.

The Bible Is 100% Inspired

The Bible is the inerrant, infallible, written Word of God, inspired from
Genesis to Revelation. Any theology that denies the full inspiration and
inerrancy of Scripture is heretical and should be thrown out of all
Christian churches and educational institutions.

The Holy Trinity

 God is triune. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, and is
God. Jesus Christ is God as well as man. As God incarnate, He was born of
a virgin, lived a sinless life, did many miracles, died for our sins on the
cross, arose bodily from the dead on the third day, ascended to heaven, sat
down at the right hand of the Father. He is now interceding for the saints
and will return bodily and literally one day to this world. There will be a
Day of Judgment when Jesus will judge all mankind and decide who enters
eternal bliss or eternal torment. There will be a new heavens and a new
earth where the saints will enjoy the new earth while all unbelievers will
suffer eternal conscious torment in hell.

Conclusion
The biblical Gospel is the only hope for mankind and must be preached
in purity and power. No substitutions or adulterations can be allowed. In
short, the world needs to hear what it does not want to hear: the truth as it
is in Jesus.
To this end we send forth this work as a means whereby God, in mercy,
may send us a New Reformation to turn the hearts and minds of men to
bow in submission to the Written and Living Word of God.
To God alone be all the glory
in this world and in the next!
Amen!
 Bibliography
After four years of research at the Library of Congress on Natural
Theology and Natural Law, the list of books consulted was thirty five
pages in length. The publisher wisely told us to reduce that list to what we
considered to be the most important works to consult.
Adler, Mortimer, The Great Ideas, (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
Anayabwile, Thabiti M., The Decline of African American Theology,
(Downers Grove: IVP, 2007).
Aquinas in Dialogue, ed. Jim Fodor and Frederick Christian
Bauserschmidt, (Oxford: Backwell, 2004).
Archer, Gleason, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1982).
Asimov’s Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, (New
York: Doubleday & C., 1882).
Aston, William P, Perceiving God, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1991).
Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960).
Balfour, Arthur James, The Foundations of Belief, (NewYork: Longmans,
Green, and CO, 1895).
Barnes, Albert, The Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001).
Barton, George, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Ecclesiastes, The International Critical Commentary, (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1908).
Beacon Bible Commentary, (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1967).
Beckwith, Frank, The Mormon Concept of God, (Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen Press: 1991).
Berkouwer, G. C.: General Revelation. Grand Rapids, (W.B. Eerdmans
Pub. Co., 1955).
Boyd, Gregory, Trinity In Process (New York: Peter Lang, 1992).
Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene Albert: A Handbook on Paul’s Letter
to the Ephesians, (NY: United Bible Societies, 1993).
Brooks, Ronald & Geisler, Norman, Come, Let Us Reason Together,
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990).
Brown, William P., Ecclesiastes, (Louisville: Knox, 2000).
Budziszewski, J., Written on the Heart, The Case for Natural Law,
(Downers Grove: IVP, 1997).
———, What We can’t Not Know, (Dallas: Spence, 2003).
Building a Christian Worldview, ed. W. Andrew Hoffecker (Phillipsburg,
NJ: P & R, 1986).
Cambridge and Vienna: Frank P. Ramsey and the Vienna Circle (Vienna
Circle Institute Yearbook), ed. Maria Galavotti, (Netherlands: Springer,
n.d.).
Candlish, Robert S., Commentary on Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
n.d.).
Capra, Fritjof, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels
between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, (Boston, MASS:
Shambhala Publications, 1999).
Carson, D. A.: New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. 4th ed.,
(Downers Grove: IVP, 1994).
———, The Gagging of God, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).
Chadbourne, P. A., Lectures on Natural Theology or Nature and the Bible,
(New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1867).
Charles, Daryl, Retrieving the Natural Law: A Return to Moral First
Things, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).
Clark, Gordon H., The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God, (Jefferson,
MD: Trinity Foundation, 1987).
———, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, (Jefferson, MD: Trinity
Foundation, 1987).
Clarke, Adam, The Holy Bible, with a Commentary and Critical Notes,
(Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, n.d.).
Copleston, Frederick, Aquinas, (NY: Penguin, 1991).
———, A History of Philosophy: Vol. Two, Part 1, Augustine to
Bonaventure, (New York: Image Books, 1962).
Craig, William Lane, The Only Wise God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987).
Céline Mangan, O.P., trans. The Targum of Job (Collegeville: The
Liturgical Press, 1991).
Charles, J. Daryl, Retrieving The Natural Law, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008).
Cosgrove, Michael, The Essence of Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977).
Davids, Peter H.: The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).
Davis, Stephen, Logic and the Nature of God, (Grand Rapids, Erdmann,
1983).
DeWesse, Garrett and Moreland, J. P., Philosophy Made Slightly Less
Difficult, (Downers Gove: IVP, 2005).
Dulles, Avery, A History of Apologetics, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
1999).
Ellingworth, Paul; Nida, Eugene Albert: A Handbook on Paul’s Letters to
the Thessalonians, (NY: United Bible Societies, 1998).
Ellul, Jacques, Reason for Being, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).
Encyclopedia of Religion 2nd, ed. Lindsay Jones, (NY: Thomson/Gale,
2005).
Elseth, Howard Roy. Did God Know? (St. Paul, Minn: Calvary United
Church, 1977).
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Borchet, (NY: Thomson & Gale, 2006).
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, (NY: Scribners,
1917).
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, ed. Walter Elwell, (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1989).
Exell, Joseph, The Biblical Illustrator, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963).
Fausset, A. R., Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979).
Frame, John, Doctrine of God, (Harmony, NJ: P & R, 2002).
Freeman, James M.; Chadwick, Harold J.: Manners & Customs of the
Bible. Rev. ed., (North Brunswick: Bridge-Logos, 1998).
Garret, Duane A., Hosea, Joel. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001).
———, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, (Nashville: Broadman,
1993).
Geisler, Norman, Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal, (Eugene,
OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003).
Gibson, Edgar, C. S., The Book of Job (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock,
1978).
Gill, John, An Exposition of the Old Testament, (London: Collingridge,
1851).
Grabill, Stephen, Rediscovering The Natural law in Reformed Theological
Ethics, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
Gullberg, Jan, Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers, (NY: Norton,
1997).
Habel, Norman, The Book of Job, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985).
Hall, A. Rupert The Revolution in Science 1500–1750, (London, Longman,
1983).
Hayes, Stephen R., Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American
Slavery, (New York: Oxford University press, 2002).
Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time, (NY: Bantam Books, 1996).
Hendriksen, William, Exposition of Ephesians, (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1953).
———, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2001).
Hengstenberg, Ernest W. A., Commentary on Ecclesiastes, (Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock, 1998).
Henry, Carl F., The Biblical Expositor, The Living Theme of The Great
Book, with General and Introductory Essays and Exposition for each Book
of the Bible in Three Volumes, (Philadelphia: Holman, 1960).
———, “Natural Law and a Nihilistic Culture,” First Things (Jan. 1995).
———, God, Revelation, and Authority, (Wheaton: Ill, Crossway Books,
1999).
Henry, Matthew: Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible:
Complete and Unabridged in One Volume, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996).
Holman’s Old Testament Commentary, ed. Max Anders, author Steven J.
Lawson, (Nashville: Holman, 2004).
Hordern, William, A Layman’s Guide to Protestant Theology, (NY:
Macmillan, 1957).
Hume, David, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, (London:
Clarendon, 1966).
In Defense of Natural Theology: A Defense of Post-humean Assessment, by
James F. Sennett (Editor), Douglas Groothuis, (Downers Grove: IVP,
2005).
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1986).
Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; Brown, David Brown, David: A
Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments,
(Oak Harbor, WA: Logos, 1997).
Jammer, Max, Einstein and Religion, (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1999).
Kainz, Howard P., Natural law: An Introduction and Re-examination,
(Chicago: Open Court, 2004).
Keil and Delitzsch: Commentaries on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1966).
Kelsey, George D., Racism and the Christian Understanding of Man, (NY:
Scribner’s Sons, 1965).
Kidner, Derek, The Message of Ecclesiastes, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1976).
Kreeft, Peter & Tacelli, Ronald K., Handbook of Christian Apologetics,
(Downers Grove, IVP, 1994).
———, Ecumenical Jihad, (San Francisco: St. Ignatius, 1996).
Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1963).
Kuyper, Abraham, Lectures on Calvinism, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
reprint: 2000).
Lange, John Peter, Philip Schaff, ed., Commentary on the Holy Scriptures:
Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960).
Laudan, Larry, Science and Values, (Los Angeles: University of California,
1984).
Leupod, H. C., Exposition of Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950).
———, Exposition of Ecclesiastes, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983).
———, Exposition of the Psalms, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959).
Lewis, Gordon, Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims, (Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1990.
Longman, Tremper, The Book of Ecclesiastes, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998).
Longino, Helen, Science as Social Knowledge, (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1990).
Lutzer, Erwin, Christ Among Other Gods, (Chicago: Moody, 1994).
Marie-Dominique Chenu, Aquinas and His Role in Theology,
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2002).
McGee, J. Vernon, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, (Nashville:
Nelson, 1962).
Midgley, Mary, Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature, (NYC:
Meridian, 1978).
Moral Discources of Epictetus, ed. Thomas Gould, (New York:
Washington Square Press, 1964).
Moreland, J. P. and Craig, William Lane, Philosophical Foundations for a
Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003).
Morey, Robert, Battle of the Gods, (PO Box 240, Millerstown, PA:
Christian Scholars Press: 1985).
———, Death and the Afterlife, (PO Box 240, Millerstown, PA: Christian
Scholars Press: 2004).
———, Horoscopes and the Christian, (PO Box 240, Millerstown, PA:
Christian Scholars Press: revised, 2008).
———, The Nature and Extent of Human Freedom, (PO Box 240,
Millerstown, PA: Christian Scholars Press: 1992).
———, Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian? (PO Box 240, Millerstown, PA:
Christian Scholars Press: 2008).
———, Introduction to Defending The Faith, (PO Box 240, Millerstown,
PA: Christian Scholars Press: 2007).
———, Studies in the Atonement, (PO Box 240, Millerstown, PA:
Christian Scholars Press: 2006).
———, The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, (PO Box 240,
Millerstown, PA: Christian Scholars Press: 2004).
———, Introduction to Defending the Faith, (Las Vegas: Christian
Scholars Press, 2008).
———, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (PO Box 240, Millerstown, PA:
Christian Scholars Press: 2008)
Morgan, G. Campbell, Living Messages of the Bible Old and New
Testaments, (New York: Revell, 1912).
Moule, H. C. C., Colossian and Philemon Studies, (Ft. Washington, PA:
CLC, 1975).
Murphy, Roland and Huwiler, Elizabeth, New International Biblical
Commentary: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, (Peabody, Mass:
Hendrickson, 1999).
Murphy, Roland E., Ecclesiastes: Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas:
Word, 1992).
Nash, Ronald, On Process Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987).
New Bible Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson, A R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and
Gordon J. Wenham, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994).
New Catholic Encyclopedia, (Washington, DC: Thomson/Gale, 2003).
New International Biblical Commentary: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song
of Songs, (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1999).
Newman, Barclay Moon and Nida, Eugene Albert: A Handbook on the Acts
of the Apostles, (NY: United Bible Societies, 1972).
Newport, John P., Christianity and Contemporary Art Forms, (Waco, TX:
Word, 1970).
Noll, Mark A., A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992).
Ogden, Graham S. and Zogbo, Lynell: A Handbook on Ecclesiastes. NY:
United Bible Societies, 1998).
Olson, Gordon C., The Truth Shall Set You Free, (Franklin Park, Ill: Bible
Research Fellowship, 1980).
Oster, Blake, T. Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 8/2, (1996).
Otis, George, “The Foreknowledge of God,” unpublished paper, (1941,
n.p.).
Otto Zockler, The Book of Job, Theologically and Homiletically
Expounded, Translated and Edited by Llewelyn J. Evans, (NY: Charles
Scribner & Sons, 1872).
Parker, Joseph, Preaching Through the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1961).
Paley’s Evidences of Christianity, (NY: Carter & Brothers, 1882).
Provan, Iain, Ecclesiastes: The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001).
Packer, J. I., God Who Is Rich in Mercy, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986).
Pinnock, Clark, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1992).
Plantinga, Alvin C. God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1974).
Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations, (London: Routledge, 1963).
Porter, Jean, Natural & Divine Law, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
———, Nature as Reason, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
Poythress, Vern Sheridan, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach,
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006).
Predestination and Free Will, eds. David Basinger and Randall Basinger
(Downers Grove; IVP, 1986).
Ramm, Bernard, Protestant Christian Evidences (Chicago: Moody Press,
1966).
———, Varieties of Christian Apologetics, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965).
Ramsey, Frank, Philosophical Papers, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999).
Rawlinson, G., Exposition of Job (The Pulpit Commentary), (McLean, VA:
MacDonald, n. d.).
Reyburn, William David; Fry, Euan McG.: A Handbook on Proverbs, (NY:
United Bible Societies, 2000).
Rice, Richard, The Openness of God, (Nashville TN; Review & Herald
Pub., 1979).
Richards, Lawrence, O., The Bible Reader’s Companion, (Wheaton: Victor
Books, 1991).
———, The Teacher’s Commentary, (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1987).
Renick, Timothy, Aquinas for Armchair Theologians, (London: John Knox,
2002).
Robertson, A.T., Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Oak Harbor: Logos
Research Systems, 1997).
Rookmaaker, Hans R., Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, (Downers
Grove, IL: IVP, 1975).
Rothman, Tony, Instant Physics: From Aristotle to Einstein, and Beyond,
(New York: Byron Preiss Publications, 1995).
Samuel Rolles Driver and George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Job, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1971).
Sanders, John, No Other Name, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992).
Sarte, Jean Paul, Being and Nothingness, (New York: Washington Square
Press, 1966).
Schaeffer, Francis, The God Who Is There, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
1968).
———, Art and the Bible, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1974).
———, How Should We Then Live?, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1976).
Scott, Robert, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1995).
Skinner, B.F., Beyond Freedom & Dignity, (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002).
Smith, Billy K. and Page, Franklin S.: Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001).
Sorell, Tom, Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science,
(London: Routledge).
Sproul, R. C., Gerstner, John, and Lindsley, Arthur, Classical Apologetics,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).
Stark, Rodney, The Victory of Reason, (New York: Random House, 2005).
Taylor James E., Introducing Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).
The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., ed. Paul Lagosse, (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2000).
The Catholic Encyclopedia, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987).
The Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. Geoffery Bromiley, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003).
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1991).
The Interpreter’s Bible, (Nashville: Abington, 1954).
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr, (Peabody,
Mass: Hendrickson, 1996).
The Grace of God, The Will of Man, ed. Clark Pinnock, (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1989).
The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman, 1994).
The New Bible Commentary Revised, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1970)
The Pulpit Commentary, (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, n.d.).
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank Gaebelin, (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1998).
The Encyclopedia Americana, (Danbury, CN: Encyclopedia Americana,
1998).
The New Encyclopedia Britannica, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica,
1998).
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Samuel Jackson,
(New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1910).
The Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion, ed. Werblowsky and Wigoder,
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
The Teachings of Modern Protestantism, ed. John White Jr. and Frank S.
Alexander, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007).
The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan Richardson
and John Brown, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983).
The Works of Jonathan Edwards, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974).
Tise, Larry, Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavery in America,
1701–1840, (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia, 1987).
To Everyone an Answer, ed. Beckwith, Craig, and Moreland, (Downers
Grove: IVP, 2004).
Van den Haag, Ernest, “Not Above the Law,” (National Review 43 (1991).
VanDrunen, David, Law & Custom: The Thought of Thomas Aquinas and
the Future of the Common Law, (NY: Peter Lang, 2003), preface.
———, The Biblical Case for Natural Law, (Grand Rapids: Acton
Institute, 2006).
Vincent, Marvin Richardson: Word Studies in the New Testament
(Bellingham, WA: Logos, 2002).
Walvoord, John and Zuck, Roy, The Bible Knowledge Commentary,
(Wheaton: Victor, 1985).
Web, Clement C. J., Studies in The History of Natural Theology, (Oxford:
Claredon, 1915).
Webster’s Third New international Dictionary, (Springfield, Mass:
Merrian-Webster, 2002).
Wegner, Paul D., The Journey from Texts to Translations, (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1999).
Whybray, R. N., Ecclesiastes: New Century Bible Commentary, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989).
Wiersbe, Warren W., Be Satisfied, (Wheaton, Victor Books, 1996).
———, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament, (Wheaton:
Victor Books, 1997).
———, The Bible Exposition Commentary, (Wheaton: Victor Books,
1996).
———, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament, (Wheaton:
Victor Books, 1997).
Wisnefske, Ned, Our Natural Knowledge of God, (New York: Peter Lang:
1990).
Willmington, H. L., Wilmington’s Bible Handbook, (Wheaton: Tyndale,
1997).
Winthrop Jordan, White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the
Negro, 1550–1812, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1968).
Wolf, Erik, Das Problem der Naturrechtslebre, (Karlsruhe; Muller, 1955).
Zeller, Edgar, Outlines of Greek Philosophy, (NY: Meridian Books, 1967).
Zukav, Guy, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics,
(New York: Bantam Books