We all are helplessly lost because we like to think our reason makes us arbiters of truth. We do not agree with Jeremiah the prophet that the ‘heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?’ We think we can know truth apart from the revelation of God and apart from a renewed heart.

Paul condemns autonomous reason…’for in the wisdom of God, man through his wisdom did not know God…but when we were dead in sin, God made us alive…for by grace we are saved through faith.’

The doctrine of Justification by Faith sets Biblical Christianity apart from the doctrines of men. Paul did not invent this doctrine…’For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” [Genesis 15:6 quoted in Romans 4:3]

So what does it mean to be justified by faith? What saith the Scriptures?

Romans 4:

‘Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness…’

James 2:

‘Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.’

Galatians 3:

‘Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.’

It is crucial that Christians hold to the apostolic teaching. We are justified by grace through faith and not of works. But the justified man will pursue those things approved of by God because they are the fruits of saving faith. The church rolls are full of names of those who have professed faith, but think and live in a way that denies their profession. There are no good works to testify of their faith. James tells us that their faith is spurious because good works flow from saving faith.

Faith is not nebulous; it has a specific content, that is, what God has revealed as the way of righteousness. When professing Christians hold to different ways of righteousness other than what God has revealed, they reveal a fatally flawed view of the gospel.

They have a less than Biblical understanding of the depth of our depravity and helplessness before God, the depth of our moral guilt as lawbreakers and the holiness of God as One who will by no means clear the guilty. [Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18]

How does the Holy God forgive sin? The revealed answer is the cross where the Lamb of God was slain in the place of sinners. But more than that…the Lamb gives His perfect righteousness to all those who believe in Him.

As the apostle says the Jew seeks a sign (show us a sign and we will believe) and the Greek is ever in search of wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified. To the Jew a stumbling block and to the Greek foolishness, but to the called both Jew and Gentile, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God unto salvation.

A Comparison of 17th Century Protestant Confessions of Faith

Released from the yoke of human authority the Protestant Reformers were agreed that their authority was the Scriptures alone. By the grace of God they rediscovered the gospel; the doctrines of salvation being plainly laid out in the Bible. They were also agreed that the way of salvation was justification by faith alone in Christ alone. The way of grace was opened again for all who would to enter in the Kingdom of God.

Out of this great work of the Holy Spirit came two major confessions of faith that became the standard for future generations of Protestants. They played significant roles in the advance of the gospel and the advance of freedom. In particular the American Constitution made the great contribution of religious liberty to the advancement of human government.

The Westminster confession of 1646 represents the thinking of the paedo-baptists and Presbyterian Reformers and the 1689 Baptist confession represents the Reformers who held to a view of baptism that allows only the regenerate to be baptized. These confessions have more in common than differences. But the major difference other than baptism is the relationship between church and civil governments. These differences would be the cause of persecution of the Baptists in post Reformation Europe and in colonial America.

Let’s compare the two confessions at the point of civil authority over the church…

Westminster Confession chapter 23 of the Civil Magistrate paragraph 3:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

‘Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.’

1689 London Baptist Confession chapter 24 of the Civil Magistrate paragraph 3:
http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter24.htm

‘Civil magistrates being set up by God for the ends aforesaid; subjection, in all lawful things commanded by them, ought to be yielded by us in the Lord, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake; and we ought to make supplications and prayers for kings and all that are in authority, that under them we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty.’

It is significant that the Baptist confession removed the language from the Westminster confession having to do with the authority of the civil government over church practice and doctrine.

The Puritan forefathers in colonial America held to the Westminster confession. Most colonies had state churches, and taxes were collected to support state appointed clergy. The Reformed Baptists in the colonies objected to this practice. They advocated for a separation of church and state, meaning a free church and a free state. The state was not to have authority over the church, nor the church over the state. Their governments were to be independent.

The Baptist influence was seen in the ratification of the first amendment to the Constitution in 1789 prohibiting a national church and guaranteeing a free exercise of religion. The religious liberties begun at the Reformation had now come to fruition.

The Reformation was a huge step in the history of freedom, but it was incomplete by retaining a mixture of church and state governments. By the grace of God the consistent application of revealed truth had discovered the ways of liberty. Let us press on in advancing the cause of truth and liberty.

That saying of Jesus Christ, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s," is a revolutionary and history changing statement. Once and for all it marked the separation of church and state. A new era had come for the advancement of the Kingdom of God and for the advancement of human freedom. His words echo through history. Faithful men rest in the belief that His doctrine is true and for the good of all men; therefore they work and pray for a free church in a free state.

[Last paragraph adapted from BAPTISTS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY by George W. Truett] http://www.biblebelievers.com/truett_baptist_religious.html

The hyper-naturalists didn’t invent moral relativism. That thinking is a universal principle among men and is literally as old as sin…

‘[Y]ou are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? [Romans 2:1-3]

The apostle’s words are divine commentary on these words of Jesus Christ. One of the most misquoted statements in the Bible followed by more forgotten words…

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? [Matthew 7:1-3]

Why are men so quick to condemn themselves by condemning others? They do not understand divine justice...

When they are quick to apply the rule of law to those who break the law, they agree that lawbreakers are guilty and warrant the just penalty that the law demands. Now, before God they agree that the law is good and therefore should be applied to all men. In doing so they condemn themselves in that when they break the law they will not submit to its justice nor apply its justice among themselves. Their guilt remains and they store up wrath against the day of wrath.

Isaac Backus on Church and State

Excerpt from

An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty
Against the Oppressions of the Present Day

Isaac Backus (1773)
[Reformed Baptist and Advocate of Religious Freedom]

Brethren, ye have been called Unto Liberty; only use not Liberty for an occasion to the Flesh, but by love serve one another. [Galatians 5:13]

In all civil governments some are appointed to judge for others, and have power to compel others to submit to their judgment: but our Lord has most plainly forbidden us, either to assume or submit to any such thing in religion. Mat. 23. 1-9. Luke 22. 25-27. He declares, that the cause of his coming into the world, was to bear witness unto the truth; and says he, Every one that is of the truth hearth my voice. This is the nature of his kingdom, which he says, is not of this world: and gives that as the reason why his servants should not fight or defend him with the sword. John. 18. 36. 37.

And it appears to us that the true difference and exact limits between ecclesiastical and civil government is this, That the church is armed with light and truth, to pull down the strong holds of iniquity, and to gain souls to Christ, and into his church, to be governed by his rules therein; and again to exclude such from their communion, who will not be so governed; while the state is armed with the sword to guard the peace, and the civil rights of all persons and societies, and to punish those who violate the same. And where these two kinds of government, and the weapons which belong to them, are well distinguished and improved according to the true nature and end of their institution, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued; of which the Holy Ghost gave early and plain warnings.

He gave notice to the church, that the main of those antichristian confusions and abominations, would be drawn by philosophy and deceit, from the hand-writing of ordinances that Christ has blotted out. And to avoid the same, directs the saints to walk in Christ Jesus as they received him, rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith as they have been taught; viewing that they are complete in him, which is the head over all principality and power. Therefore he charges them not to be beguiled into a voluntary humility, by such fleshly minds as do not hold this head, but would subject them to ordinances after the doctrines and commandments of men. Col. 2.

Now 'tis well known that this glorious head made no use of secular force in the first sitting up of the gospel church, when it might seem to be peculiarly needful if ever; and it is also very evident, that ever since men came into the way of using force in such affairs, their main arguments to support it have been drawn from the old Jewish constitution and ordinances. And what work has it made about the head as well as members of the church?

First they moved Constantine, a secular prince, to draw his sword against heretics; but as all earthly states are changeable, the same sword that Constantine drew against heretics, Julian turned against the orthodox. However, as the high priest's sentence in the Jewish state, decided matters both for prince and people, the same deceitful philosophy that had gone so far, never left plotting till they had set up an ecclesiastical head over kingdoms as well as churches, who with Peter's keys was to open and shut, bind and loose, both in spiritual and temporal affairs. But after many generations had groaned under this hellish tyranny, a time came when England renounced that head, and set up the king as their head in ecclesiastical as well as civil concernments; and though the free use of the scriptures which was then introduced, by a divine blessing, produced a great reformation, yet still the high places were not taken away, & the lord bishops made such work in them, as drove our fathers from thence into America.

The first colony [the Pilgrim Separatists] that came to this part of it carried the reformation so far, as not to make use of the civil force to save the people to support religious ministers (for which they have had many a lash from the tongues and pens of those who were fond of that way) but the second colony [the Puritan Reformers], who had not taken up the cross so as to separate from the national church [of England] before they came away, now determined to pick out all that they thought was of universal and moral equity in Moses’ laws, and so to frame a Christian common-wealth here.

And as the Jews were ordered not to set up any rulers over them who were not their brethren; so this colony resolved to have no rulers nor voters for rulers, but brethren in their churches. And as the Jews were required to inflict corporal punishments, even unto death, upon non-conformers to their worship, this common-wealth did the like to such as refused to conform to their way; and they strove very hard to have the church govern the world, till they lost their charter; since which, they have yielded to have the world govern the church, as we shall proceed to show...

Mr. Sears, thank you for making the link between American liberty and America’s godly heritage. Your story is both disheartening and hopeful at the same time.

The words of President Washington are representative of early American culture. He was elected President by consensus; the people wanted this man as their leader.

Why can his words no longer be read without offense? Even for those who strongly disagree with his words, can they not be appreciated for their historical significance? Why must they be suppressed? What is the origin of such intolerance?

Tyranny comes in two flavors. Restricting the liberty of those engaged in lawful activity is one and sanctioning what is unlawful is the other. Those offended by traditional religion are quick to restrict the religious liberty of others. They are also the ones who trample under foot the traditional morality.

We are hopeful that the Americans among us will continue to rise up against this tyranny. Beware of those who seek to separate our liberty from our heritage. We agree that they are indivisible; they stand or fall together. Liberty cannot be maintained apart from the heritage that gave it birth.

There is no end to darwinite nonsense. If the religion of naturalism cannot explain the personal nature of man, then no problem, they will just deny that it exists.

The darwinites are being consistent. If their theory is true, then religion as well as law and morality are all nonsense. What they do not understand is that the logical reasoning necessary to make that conclusion and to support the scientific method is also nonsense in their world view.

Would to God that the Christians would hold consistently to their world view. If there is a personal and infinite God who created the universe out of nothing, then darwinism is nonsense. If God created all living things after there kind, then darwinism is nonsense. If there was a Genesis Flood that made the fossil record and destroyed the dinosaurs in the process, then darwinism is nonsense.

If Christ said that the soul of man is of infinite worth being made in the image of God, then those who profess knowledge but deny the soul’s existence declare themselves the chief of fools...

‘For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?’ -Jesus Christ [Matthew 16:26]

All men, whether conservative or liberal and all flavors in between have the same issue of defining their authority for truth.

Liberals make no pretense of rejecting the first principles of the Founders. Their world-view is the best that can be expected from autonomous man.

Conservatives must return to first principles to have a foundation for their beliefs other than that they have been proven to work best.

We identify the false religion of naturalism as our greatest threat. Consistent with Romans 1, the ongoing cultural collapse is the outworking of the wrath of God revealed from heaven against those who suppress the knowledge of God. The wrath of God is not coming. It is already here. Radical sodomites exhibit what it is to be ‘given over to a debased mine.’

The modern church has mixed the Biblical revelation with autonomous reason. As a result it has lost its influence on the culture. ‘You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.’

Genesis provides the foundation for our knowledge of man, marriage, sin and redemption. Having rejected Genesis the new culture has a perverted view of these things.

The clear meaning of the text is what we mean by ‘the Bible says’. The Reformers called this the perspicuity of the Scriptures. They rejected the extra-Biblical doctrine of papal authority in favor of the New Covenant doctrine of the priesthood of every believer. ‘They all shall know Me from the least of them to the greatest…’ The New Covenant promise is applied to the church in Hebrews 8 and 10.

The world uses a false caricature of Christianity in support of their rejection of Christ. The most common is to project OT laws into the NT church. Bad church experiences turn many against Christianity.

Ignorance of church history is a major contributor to today’s false doctrine in the church. The doctrines that plague the church are not from Reformed Theology as claimed by some churchmen. Rather, it is the new orthodoxy of dispensationalism and semi-plagiarism that are the enemies of the cross.

The deepest wounds have come from professing Christians. We expect the unbelievers to mock and ridicule because we know what it is to be an unbeliever, but the wounds of a brother pierce to the heart.

The following excerpt is from an article at AiG:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/06/27/will-creation-be-banned-in-europe/

The entire article at:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2211

“…next Tuesday, the Council of Europe (CoE), Europe’s main human-rights body, will vote on a proposal which advocates the fight against creationism, ‘young earth’ and ‘intelligent design’ in its 47 member states.

“According to a report of the CoE’s Parliamentary Assembly, creationists are dangerous ‘religious fundamentalists’ who propagate ‘forms of religious extremism’ and ‘could become a threat to human rights.’ The report adds that the acceptance of the science of evolutionism ‘is crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.’

“‘Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon,’ the report says.

“‘Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states. […] [T]his is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights. […] The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy. […] If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists.’

According to the CoE report, America and Australia are already on their way towards becoming such undemocratic theocracies where human and civic rights are endangered. Creationism is ‘well-developed in the English-speaking countries, especially the United States and Australia,’ the report states.

“‘While most curricula in Europe today unashamedly teach evolution as a recognised scientific theory, the same does not apply to the United States.’”

This is a reply to ‘aurorawatcher’ regarding the question of NT teaching on the overthrow of the Roman Empire.

I briefly answered ‘onceamarine’ on the blog regarding the America Revolution and its links to the Reformation. Your question is certainly part of the discussion. I can tell you what I think…

You are right that the NT does not advocate the overthrown of the Roman government. May I add that the early church had a right understanding of the book of Daniel and a right understanding of the Kingdom of God. They knew that Messiah’s Kingdom had come in Jesus Christ and that His kingdom was an everlasting Kingdom that would overthrow the last world empire which would be in power when Messiah appeared.

Our weapons are spiritual…bringing every thought captive to Christ. Paul’s teaching is commentary on Christ’s teaching. “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” My belief is that as Christians are transformed into the new man and begin to live out the gospel in ever aspect of life, then cultures began to be transformed from within. The whole council of God must be preached and applied in order for the gospel to transform our thinking.

There is a common element between the beginnings of the New Testament church in the Roman Empire and its captivity under Roman Catholicism. In both cases the church was opposed by the state and the state religion. When the church acts as salt and light it testifies of the truth as given to us in the Scriptures. The world and its institutions persecute the church. Christ so governs the nations to send warnings and judgments on them for the good of His church according to His will.

In both cases the forces of darkness seemed to prevail over the church, only to be overthrown. How shall we speak of martyrdom? Having entered the Kingdom of God the martyrs loved truth more than their life. They saw by faith the world to come, wherein dwells righteousness.

I have to appeal to our forefathers in the faith. They were used of God to the advance of truth in the world and that advance has resulted in liberty never before seen. For that reason I think the Revolutionary War was a just war against oppression and tyranny, as was the Civil War by the way, but that is another topic.

What do you think?

This is a reply to the good questions posted by ‘onceamarine’.

Your second question is much easier. Let’s take it first. Yes, definitely, we are to do whatever is necessary to defend our life and the life of our neighbor, including taking up arms. Preserving innocent life is the other side of the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’

I take your first question in the broader sense of Christian men justifying insurrection in view of the admonitions given in Romans 13:1-2 and whether another revolution is possible.

The writers of the Declaration of Independence laid out their justification very well. A careful reading of the Declaration defines what they considered to be just cause for rebellion. The conditions we are under today do not, in my opinion, rise to that level as yet.

The Reformation resulted in the rejection of papal authority. The authority of the Reformers was the Scriptures alone. From the Scriptures came the work ‘Law is King’. This book was the death of the doctrine of the divine right of kings. This policy was implemented by the English Puritans under Cromwell removing the head of Charles I. The precedent was set for rebellion against what was considered unlawful authority.

In New England there was the Great Awakening that resulted in Christian men under the authority of God rising up again against unlawful authority.

Before I make the next comments let me remind you that Christ said regarding the relationship between His church and the world that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Men who share the theology of the Reformers have a world view where Christ is the High King of Heaven, having all authority to do as He will. Some of these men like Jonathan Edwards were Post-Mil, meaning that they held to a view that the whole world would progressively be covered with the knowledge of God ushering in the second coming of Christ. Christ had freed them in the spiritual realm; they desired freedom also in the physical realm, and were not willing to remain under tyranny when they knew the liberty of being in Christ.

In today’s church with the advent of dispensationalism and arminianism the world view is much different than that of the Reformers and early Americans. These statements may be offensive to some, but it is probably near the truth. We are losing our liberty because we are not willing to stand up for it. The thinking is that Christ does not have all authority now. We must wait for the next age for that to happen. If we don’t appreciate liberty, then we will not fight for it. The thinking is that the second coming is near, let’s just sit back and wait for it. These are radically different beliefs and are not consistent with the fortitude required to throw off the advancing tyranny.

Therefore, apart from another revival of Biblical Christianity that changes enough men that the culture would be influenced there is no hope for restoration and no chance of revolution.

I will expand further if you are interested in continuing the discussion and going deeper. Regards.

‘If you agree with this assessment, then how – short of the revolution I start in my novel – can we save the United States from its rapidly approaching demise? Myself and tens of millions of Americans, anxiously await your answer.’ --Douglas MacKinnon

Mr. MacKinnon, you pose an interesting question. As you say, a question that many are asking. The answer is there for all to see, but seeing we do not see and hearing we do not hear.

Let’s first define conservatism as those principles agreed on and implemented by the Framers into a system of government embodied in the Declaration and the Constitution. The question we should be asking is not so much what are those principles, but what were their origins?

Original source histories reveal that they are not first principles. They originated from a world view derived from a reading of the Bible and determining the plain meaning of the text. A world view that led to a revolution of freedom that the world had not seen since Christ and His apostles walked in the middle-Eastern dust.

The first principles of conservatism did not originate from the Renaissance Man as some falsely claim, but from the Reformation Man. The name of John Calvin has been disparaged by those who hate the Reformed Theology that bears his name. But the Pilgrim and Puritan Fathers revered his name. These children of the Reformation came to the new world, and the gospel and the Spirit came with them.

The Great Awakening of Biblical Christianity in New England was the major, immediate influence on the Founders. The leaders of this revival including the great American theologian Jonathan Edwards shared the same theology as their forefathers in the faith.

Conservatism flourished when the church flourished because cultures are reformed when men live in obedience to Christ. Truth believed on in the heart will result in godliness.

Given the premise that the principles of American Conservatism are based on Biblical Theology, then it follows that the influence of conservatism is related to the health of the church.

So the real question before us is why has the church lost its influence?

Christ gives the answer to His New Testament church in Revelation 2:4…


‘You have left your first love.’

So, Mr. MacKinnon, the way back is given to us by the prophet Jeremiah who prophesied against the apostate Jewish church…

Thus says the LORD: “Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ [Jeremiah 6:16]

The New Testament church is called the pillar and ground of truth. The ‘called out ones’ that make up the church of the living God, must put off the man made theology and return to the plain meaning of the Scriptures. The truth is what separates the church from the world. The church has lost its influence because it has compromised the truth.

In Jeremiah’s day the church did not repent and was carried off into captivity. The history of our day is not known to us. While there is still opportunity let’s be students of the Scriptures and return to the faith of our forefathers. This is the way that has enjoyed the blessings of God before, and it is the way to restoration by the grace of God. Amen.

Divine revelation is essential for men in the areas of metaphysics, morals and epistemology. When men reject the revelation then naturalism is the expected result. The consequences of rejecting the Bible are that in all three areas reason is given over to the irrational as we see in our culture today.

In metaphysics we are told that man is the result of an impersonal beginning plus time and chance and is nothing more than a biochemical machine. The concepts of personality, language, creativity and history declare the irrationality of an impersonal beginning.

In morals the Law of God as a universal basis of right and wrong is given over to moral relativism and autonomy. Every man does what is right in his own eyes. The irrationality of this position is demonstrated in that man cannot live consistently with his beliefs of no moral absolutes. Since men are image bearers of God, they have a conscience which bears witness to the Law of God. When men condemn other men using moral judgments, then they condemn themselves before God since they are guilty of the same sin.

In epistemology there is no reference to the absolute. Therefore, truth becomes subjective. What is true for me may not be true for you. Anyone who advocates absolute truth applicable to all men is considered arrogant and unenlightened. The Bible rather than a resource of wisdom for all time is seen as a collection of irrelevant stories written by men from another time and culture. The irrationality of this position is obvious and no amount of stating otherwise can change the fact that as creatures and part of the creation we cannot know of origins unless the creator reveals Himself.

[credits to Mr. Schaeffer, the layman’s philosopher]

So what are the things that men cannot know apart from the revelation of God?

In He Is There and He Is Not Silent, Schaeffer argues that there are three areas in which modern mankind has an absolute necessity for God: metaphysics, morals, and epistemology; respectively, the problem of existence, the problem of morality, and the problem of knowledge.

In the area of metaphysics, the philosopher has not answered the questions of why there is something rather than nothing and why is the something that exists ordered under natural law rather than in chaos?

In the area of morals, the philosopher has not defined a universal standard to measure whether an action is right or wrong, rather he says what is, is right.

In the area of epistemology the philosopher has no clue how to answer the question how do we know what we know is true?

Philosophy and theology was once recognized as sciences dealing with the same basic questions. The only difference between the two disciplines was that the former appealed largely to reason and natural revelation, while the latter appealed mostly to reason and special revelation. When philosophy took the lead, it soon became apparent that it was not up to the task of answering the big questions. The reality of God known through His revelation, however, does provide the answers for such questions.

The metaphysical need for the existence of God implies that there must be something or someone who is big enough, powerful enough, wise enough, and willing enough to create and maintain the universe we live in. If these requirements are not met, then man is forced to admit that he is here by chance occurrence and has no special destiny.

The moral necessity of God’s existence centers on man as a personal being and a being who distinguishes between right and wrong. There are only two options. Either man was created from an impersonal beginning and his moral system is a product of his culture, or man had a personal beginning and was given laws to follow and an internal sense of right and wrong. The necessity for the Scriptures is the philosophical need to account for why man is both cruel and noble at the same time. This can only be explained in terms of the doctrine of the Fall.

The epistemological necessity of God’s existence addresses our ability to know what is ultimately real. As the scientific revolution developed in the seventeenth century, the criteria for truth became that which could be measured in the laboratory. The result was that belief in God and the miraculous, which is outside the realm of science, came into doubt and were eventually dismissed by many. The final result was skepticism regarding theological truth and the Bible. Christ reveals Himself as the truth. He says that eternal life is to know Him. [John 17]

The only answer to these three dilemmas is an appeal to the God who is there, and to His natural and special revelation. The basis of Christianity is the belief that God is there and that man can communicate with Him. If this is not true, then we are without a foundation.

[credits to Todd Kappelman of Probe Ministries]

Those who think that morality can be defined by men will have as many flavors as there are men. By what standard will we measure truth? Truth is given over to autonomy and relativism. What is happening in Mass. is the inevitable result of a culture that loses its reference to the absolute.

A testimony to the depravity of man is that he hates, distorts and mocks that which God has given for his good. The Bible gives us vital information about ourselves and the world in which we live. Since we are finite creatures this information cannot be known apart from revelation. Those who reject the revelation know that there is something beyond ourselves and that the universe is not all there is. Because we are image bearers, we all seek after that which brings meaning.

The history of philosophy is the history of autonomous man’s failure to discover what the Bible provides for him; that is, a point of reference to the absolute. He has now given up the search and as Mr. Schaeffer says, modern man has escaped from reason into the irrational. His search for significance has ended in despair.

The path back to reason and sanity is to return to the reference point that provides the only true basis for law and morality, because it reflects the moral character of the Creator of the universe.

The world says that the Bible brings tyranny. They will not submit to what God defines as good and abstain from what He says is bad. They will not abide by His morality, but flaunt their sin as if there is no real moral guilt associated with the breaking of His Law. They think that the day of accountability and judgment will not come. They do not want to hear the Scriptures because they testify of a Christ different from the one in their imagination…

‘The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.’ [John 3:35-36]

Grounded in Reformation Theology most citizens understood that men were created in the image of God, but fallen into sin and sinners by nature because of the sin of our father Adam and that the grace of God had appeared in Christ bringing redemption. Grace was understood as that which teaches men to deny the sinful indulgences of the flesh and of the mind in exchange for the pursuits of godliness. [Titus 2:11-15]

We have recently been accused of being arrogant, prideful and clueless because we profess to love the Scriptures and dare associate ourselves with other saints who love the Scriptures, some to the point of a martyrs’ death like Jon Hus and William Tyndale.

And what of Christ’s love for the Scriptures...

Sacrifice and offering You did not desire…burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. Then I said, “Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God, and Your law is within my heart.” [Psalm 40:6-8]

Those who have gone before us have much to teach us. They came to faith and to a love of the truth the same way every Christian does, because the Scriptures testify of the Lord Jesus Christ and the word was communicated to their heart and mixed with saving faith. They have taken their place in the great congregation before the throne; a congregation that no man can number from every kindred, tribe, nation and tongue.

We have submitted our thinking to the words of Christ as authoritative and the only sure guide and resting place of faith, because of His resurrection from the dead. This would seem to be the only reasonable position for a believer in Christ. If Christ is not risen, then Christianity is nonsense. If He is risen, then His words are truth and demand our attention above all others. If Christ’s words were truth in the first century, then they are truth today. Other than different idols and vain philosophies men are no different today than then. Truth by definition transcends time and culture.

How we treat others reflects the way we think. To think and act contrary to our fallen nature is all of grace. This is the belief of Reformation Christianity.

The fruit of grace is humility, because the one who understands grace knows that it is grace alone that causes him to differ. Out of humility flows mercy. Knowing the mercy of the Lord, we find the power to show mercy to other men. Christ loved us and gave Himself for us while we were lost in sin and in rebellion against His authority. He teaches us to be longsuffering and patient with other men, speaking truth out of love for their souls. If Christ has suffered for them, shall we treat them with unkindness? God forbid!

The Postmodern flavor of Christianity knows nothing of this fruit, because it knows nothing of grace.