Hudsonville Protestant Reformed Church
5101 Beechtree
Hudsonville, Michigan 49426
Services: 9:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Vol. 8, No. 25
Content:
God’s Hammer (13):
Unbreakable Scripture (Part 4)
The
Mysteries of the Kingdom (2)
Is
Universal Atonement True? (4)
God’s Hammer (13): Unbreakable
Scripture (Part 4)
John 10:35 teaches us the
origin of the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. This doctrine did not begin in the
last 100-150 years with the Princeton theologians, such as Charles Hodge or B. B.
Warfield. Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican theologians have been teaching it for centuries.
How could you square the Westminster Confession’s (1647) statement
about the "entire perfection" of Scripture (1.5) with errors in the Bible? The Belgic
Confession (1561) does not allow for mistakes in the Word either (4, 5, 7). Quotes too
could easily be produced from Luther, Augustine (354-430) and many, many others for the
inerrancy of Scripture. This is simply the doctrine of the prophets and the apostles. But
our text teaches that Christ Himself taught this: "the scripture cannot be
broken" (John 10:35). We even know the time and place of Christ’s proclamation:
one winter at the feast of dedication in Jerusalem (22).
Thus the doctrine of inerrancy
does not rest merely on inferences such as the following. The Bible is God’s Word;
God is wholly true; therefore His Word is wholly true and free of error. The Bible is God
breathed; God’s breath is perfect; therefore the Bible is perfect and contains no
errors. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes;
therefore there are no mistakes in the Bible. Inerrancy is taught by Christ’s direct
statement: "the scripture cannot be broken."
Inerrancy then is not merely
some philosophical construct ("foundationalism"), as some supposedly evangelical
scholars (e.g., Stanley Grenz) say. It is not a philosophical but a theological doctrine,
taught by the Son of God: "the scripture cannot be broken."
This means that the doctrine of
inerrancy rests upon the exact same basis as all other biblical doctrines, such as blood
atonement and sovereign grace. The basis for all doctrines is the teaching of Scripture,
and the Bible says, "the scripture cannot be broken."
The doctrine of inerrancy is
foundational to all other Christian doctrines. How do you prove that Jesus is God? You
quote the Bible. But if the Bible is not entirely trustworthy, how do you know that what
you quoted is not an error? And if the Bible’s teaching of inerrancy (John 10:35) is
false, why trust its teaching on heaven and hell?
Thus those who reject biblical
inerrancy are guilty of heresy. Those who cannot say "the scripture cannot be
broken" contradict the testimony of the church, the creeds and the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself. Moreover at this point the rejectors of inerrancy are less orthodox than the
Pharisees and Jews of Jesus’ day who received this doctrine! Thus to oppose inerrancy
is to reject the clear testimony of Scripture, to walk contrary to the Spirit and to call
Christ a liar. Rev. Angus Stewart
The Mysteries of the Kingdom (2)
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not hear (Luke 8:10).
A reader asked: "Is this election and reprobation, or just acknowledging that some just will not turn and believe (as some commentaries maintain)?" I began to treat this question in the last issue. I asked our readers to save that issue so that they could refer to it and re-read the last article before reading this one.
In that issue I quoted the parallel passages to Luke 8:10 in Matthew 13 and Mark 4. I also pointed out that Jesus explains in these passages that His purpose in His use of parables as a method of instruction is to make the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven so clear that everyone can understand them. Jesus wants to be sure that not only His disciples, but all the people, including the scribes and Pharisees, understood as clearly as possible the truths of the kingdom He had come to establish.
That this is indeed the purpose of the Lord is evident from the expressions in the
text. All three gospel narratives emphasize that all men see and hear the mysteries of the
kingdom. Luke says, "... seeing they might nor see, and hearing they
might not hear." Matthew and Mark quote the prophecy of Isaiah more fully, but both
use the same words. Men see and hear, and Isaiah 6:9-10 is fulfilled, which passage
stresses that "seeing they see, and hearing they hear." Mark refers to the same
passage and quotes it in an identical way. So the text teaches that all who heard Jesus'
parables heard and even saw the parables. And hearing and seeing the parables, they heard
and saw the mysteries of the kingdom so they understood what the truth of the kingdom of
heaven was.
By way of a parenthesis, it is interesting to note, that the word that Jesus uses
for see is a word that means "understand." It is exactly what we mean when we
are puzzled by something, an explanation is given us, and we say, "Now I see."
But the question now is: Why was it so important that all men heard and understood the truths concerning the kingdom of heaven?
The answer is that the wicked must be without excuse. The wicked Jews constantly rejected the teachings of Jesus and rejected Jesus Himself as the promised Messiah who had come to establish the everlasting kingdom of heaven. Although they pretended to be pious, God-serving, keepers of the law, and the true children of Abraham, they were actually terribly wicked. Their piety was outward, their righteousness was self-righteousness, their claims to be children of Abraham were claims based only on natural descent, and their sin was great.
And their sin must be shown for what it really is: proud self-righteousness. Jesus tipped the mask of their hypocrisy from their faces and exposed them for what they really were. He did this by making the truths of the kingdom of heaven as clear as it is possible to make them by His use of parables. In this way, it became evident that their rejection of parables was due to their own depravity and wickedness and not due to ignorance or inability to understand. They rejected Christ and the gospel He preached because they hated God and His Christ. Since they were blinded by their own self- righteousness, they did not see the need of the cross of the Savior.
In the judgment day they will have to give an account of their rejection of Christ and the kingdom He established. When they stand before Christ, they will not be able to say, "We did not know what the kingdom was all about. We did not understand something so spiritual. If things had been made more clear to us, we would have believed on Christ as Savior." The answer to such excuses will be: "The Lord spoke in parables and made clear beyond all contradiction the truths of the kingdom. You did not refuse to enter the kingdom because you did not understand. You rejected the kingdom because you hated it, for in it there is no room for your self-righteousness. It is a kingdom established in the cross of Christ."
This is clearly the reason why the Lord taught in parables. The use of parables exposed the sin of unbelief. It is well that we remember this, for what was true in Jesus' day, is still true today. The gospel of the kingdom includes parables. Parables make the truth concerning the kingdom so clear that everyone can understand it. Their refusal to believe is not born in ignorance. It is the fruit of their terrible sin. Those who reject the gospel have no excuse. Their terrible punishment is deserved.
And, we must add, in this way God is completely justified in all that He does. God is shown to be righteous and holy. When God sends to hell, no one will ever be able to say that God is unjust in punishing the sinner. Even the wicked themselves will have to admit that their punishment is what they truly deserved.
But this does not yet answer the question whether this passage teaches election and reprobation. That question is very important. As I already intimated, the answer to that question is an emphatic affirmative. Yes, the passage teaches election and reprobation. It teaches this doctrine so clearly that the truth of sovereign predestination cannot be denied without doing violence to the text.
We shall address this question in the next
issue (DV). Again, please save these last two issues of so that you can refer to
them next time. Prof. Herman Hanko
Is Universal Atonement True? (4)
This issue, we continue our critique of unlimited atonement by considering several parties for whom Jesus must have died if this theory were true.
(10) If Christ died for all, He must have died for Cain as well as Abel, Nimrod as well as Noah, Balaam as well as Moses. This holds good for nations too. Christ must have ransomed not only Israel but also the Amalekites (Ex. 17:14-16), the Canaanites (Josh. 11:20), the Amorites (including Sihon; Deut. 2:30), the Philistines (including Goliath) and the Edomites (Mal. 1:2-5). He must even have offered Himself a sacrifice for Pharoah (Ex. 4:21; Rom. 9:17) and the Egyptians (Ex. 14:17), even though no provision was made for the application of lamb's blood upon their lintels.
(11) If Christ died for all men, then it follows that he was crucified to save the "man of sin" (II Thess. 2:3) who "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is God, or that is worshipped" (4). This man is the culmination of the working of the "mystery of iniquity" (7), the one who works with "all deceivableness of unrighteousness" (10) whose "coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders" (9). Is it possible that the Father sent Christ to die for Satan's man, the "man of sin" and "son of perdition" (3), the one wholly characterized by iniquity and eternal destruction? Is it possible that the eternal, omniscient God sent His Son to reconcile the lawless one whom He has ordained will be destroyed by the "spirit of [Christ's] mouth" and "the brightness of His coming" (8)?
II Thessalonians 2 also speaks of the
followers of the man of sin. They reject the truth and the son of perdition deceives them,
and therefore both parties are guilty (10). But we also read that "God shall send
them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned"
(11-12). If God loved them and sent Christ to die for them and wants to save them, then
why does He send them strong delusion in order that they should believe the lie in
order that they all might be damned?
Similarly, a death of Christ for absolutely everybody presents Christ as offering
Himself as a sacrifice for the beast and the false prophet whom we are told shall be
"cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone" (Rev. 19:20). Moreover,
'Whosoever was not found written in the book of life [will be] cast into the lake of
fire" (20:15). If Christ died for them, His ransom did nothing to free them from
eternal punishment.
(12) In His public ministry Jesus spoke of the unpardonable sin: 'Whosoever
speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world,
neither in the world to come" (Matt. 12:32). Nor was Jesus merely speaking here in
the abstract; some of His hearers that day had committed that sin (22-37). Jesus knew,
therefore, that some people, including these Pharisees (24), could not be forgiven. What
sense then is there in Jesus dying for the redemption and forgiveness (Eph. 1:7) of those
who absolutely cannot be forgiven? If there are some people whom He 'Will not at all
acquit" (Nah. 1:3), why would Christ die to establish a basis for their acquittal? Rev. Angus Stewart
(Our thanks to those who sent checks or stamps to defray our costs.)