This series has only been my view of what should be present in any presentation of the Gospel, at the very least.  That is to say, I believe a presentation of the Gospel, especially to an unbeliever, that lacks any one of these four elements, is deficient. We must preach our desperate state of need because of sin; we must preach the redemption purchased through Christ as our substitute; we must preach repentance and faith as the only conduit through which the righteousness of Christ is applied to sinners; and we must preach this last element as well. If we do not make it clear what the ultimate goal of the Gospel is, it is very likely that we will end up with a very man-centered view of God and his Gospel.

To be sure, God saves men, and in that way God’s purpose in the Gospel is focused on humanity in some sense. He does love His people, with a greater love than we can fathom. The Son endured the wrath of the Father, on our behalf. That sounds man-centered, on the surface. For that reason, we cannot ignore this final point. If we do, we allow men to view God as an idolater, and make Christ into nothing more than a tool to achieve the purpose of man’s happiness.

So, with that in mind, here’s the main body of my original blog:
 

Seeing that we are radically depraved sinners, who deserve nothing but eternal hellfire, yet God ordains a means of salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ, who died to pay the penalty for our sin if we repent and trust in Him, we are left in wonder at His grace. Why would a holy, just God save sinners anyway? Is it all wrapped up in His love for us, or is there an even higher purpose of God working in, through, and behind His love?

The purpose of God in saving sinners – indeed the ultimate purpose of the entire universe as well – reaches beyond the love of God. Scripture tells us that the ultimate goal of God in redeeming us is that we would be to the praise of His glory. More specifically, that we might be to the praise of the glory of His grace. Pay careful attention to the purpose statements in these  verses. They state what God did, and why, and they all have to do with salvation. “In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace.” (Eph 1:4-6) “…so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.” (Eph 1:12) “…so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.” (Phil 1:10,11) “For the LORD will not forsake his people, for his great name’s sake, because it has pleased the LORD to make you a people for himself.” (1 Sam 12:22) “He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.” (Psa 23:3) “For your name’s sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great.” (Psa 25:11) “Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of your name; deliver us, and atone for our sins, for your name’s sake!” (Psa 79:9) “Both we and our fathers have sinned; we have committed iniquity; we have done wickedness… Yet he saved them for his name’s sake, that he might make known his mighty power.” (Psa 106:6&8) “For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off… For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.” (Isa 48:9&11) “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake.” (1 Joh 2:12)

When God acts in love, He acts for the sake of His glory. When God acts in judgment and wrath, He acts for the sake of His glory. Whatever God does, He tells us Himself through His word, that He does it for the sake of the praise of His name. Therefore, if we have no desire to glorify God with our lives, it proves that our faith is not genuine. If when we conceptualize of eternal life, we are apathetic as to whether or not God will be there, we won’t be there.

This is the good news of Jesus Christ, the gospel of scripture: Men have sinned against God and deserve His infinite wrath, but He sent His only Son to be a substitute for us, so that if we repent and trust in Him, we will be granted eternal life, where we will glorify God as a redeemed people, holy and blameless, for all eternity. How this gospel is presented may vary widely, but the substance of it will remain the same. Our Need will always be our sin against a holy God, which deserves eternal punishment in Hell. God’s Provision will always be through the substitutional life, death and resurrection of Christ on our behalf. Personal Application will always be through repentance of sin, and Faith in Jesus alone for salvation. The Ultimate Goal will always be the praise of the glory of His grace through the redemption of a chosen people. These timeless truths are the anchor and core of the Christian faith. God help us if the church ever abandons or relegates to the fringes of our confession these foundational doctrines.

Not everyone is included in the saving grace of God’s provision. The application of Christ’s atonement is not universal in its scope, though it is infinite in its power. The fact that Jesus died for the sins of the world does not mean that every person has their sins covered by His blood.

Scripture restricts the scope of the atonement to those who repent and place their faith in the finished work of Christ as their only hope of salvation. “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and live.” (Eze 18:32) “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mr 1:15) “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Lu 13:3&5) “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:38) “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out.” (Acts 3:19) “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30) “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mr 16:16) “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (John 3:18) “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36) “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (John 5:24)

The point is, there is no other way to be saved except through Christ, and to be saved through Him, you must renounce all sin, hating it because it is an offense to the Holy God of the universe, and trust in Jesus Christ alone to save you from His righteous wrath. If you trust in anything else, you are not believing in Christ, and you will not receive eternal life. If you trust in your own ability to do good works, or in any other means of salvation, even if you trust in Christ as well, then you will not be saved. “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Rom 3:28)

Just to be absolutely clear, we can turn repentance and faith into works by which we are saved as well. Some would have us believe that God sees that we cannot be perfect, so he just lowers his requirement and says, “Okay then, all you have to do is have faith, and I will consider that work as though you had kept the whole Law.” The whole point is that faith is not a work! It cannot be said that we are justified by faith apart from works if faith itself is a work.

Perhaps I should be very clear what I mean when I say ‘work’. What exactly counts as a work? My working (no pun intended) definition goes something like this: A ‘work’ in the biblical sense, is anything you do in order to obtain favor with God, which you can point to and say, “I did that.”

Many people believe faith is exactly that; something you do in order to obtain favor with God. Moreover, they are adamant in saying that this faith was something they did, and continue to do as a personal choice, or decision. I submit that such a view of faith eviscerates it of the entire purpose that God ordained justification to come to us through faith. The Apostle Paul tells us very plainly why justification is by faith:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
(Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV)

That is to say, salvation is through faith so that boasting may be eliminated. If we make faith into another class of work, boasting is reinforced; we can point at our faith and say, “I did that, and that is why God saved me.” Boast away!

But if faith is not a work, then what is it? It is a gift. It is a gracious gift of God, which would never take place in the human heart without God working it in us. Therefore, God’s requirement for justification, (repentance and faith) is something he creates in our hearts, so that we cannot boast about it. Rather, it keeps us humble, and keeps us grateful, and keeps us utterly dependent on him.

Keep an eye out for the final installment: The Ultimate Goal of the Gospel.

The basis of the accusation is that Shai used language which is common, irreverent, makes him seem like just one god among many by using the term ‘hottest’ and compares Him with a mere human, and this kind of language is unworthy of God’s holiness. 5pt argues that we cannot use whatever language we like to refer to God, but must stick with that which has been revealed to us in the Word.

In the end, this becomes a matter of how much we can contextualize without compromising the truth. We contextualize God’s revealed word by translating it into English. We live within a cultural context, full of colloquialisms that are foreign to the Bible. I dare say that if the Puritans of the 17th century heard the “English” we use when speaking of heavenly things, they would be aghast.

I am a firm believer that words have meaning, and that meaning is very important. Yet anyone who has spent any amount of time studying language will tell you that a great deal of meaning must be determined by context. In this instance, the context was the doctrine of adoption.

So, here’s the question, how much of the common vernacular is it alright to adopt in order to contextualize the Gospel? Is there a point where contextualization becomes compromise? Should we be able to say “Jesus is my homeboy”?

Apologetics is a term that refers to defending the faith. The place many go to in scripture when they want to explain what it’s all about, or give biblical weight to the belief that we should study it is 1 Pet. 3:15

“…but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

We should be prepared to make a reasonable defense of the faith; the question is, how do we do it?

This question of method, and the question that feeds into it of epistemology, is the basis of the debate. As Frame tells us, both Van Til and Clark were ‘presuppositionalists’, in that “they believed that God’s revelation was ultimately authoritative for all human knowledge, rather than being subject to the higher authority of factual evidence.” In other words, you don’t prove the truth of the Bible by bringing in external evidence to validate it, as though that evidence is the standard of truth. Evidence can be valuable as support, but it can never be seen as the ultimate authority that determines truth.

Van Til and Clark differed on how one comes to a knowledge of the truth of God, which had significant effects on how they believed Christians should argue for that truth.

On Clark’s part, he believed that logic could serve to persuade men of the consistency of the Bible’s message and it’s aptitude to answer life’s questions, especially by contrasting it against other worldviews. For instance, to look at Islam on one hand, and Christianity on the other, and ask which is the most consistent within itself, which best answers the questions of origins, which most adequately satisfies our own life’s questions, and gives us purpose. His epistemology was based on human intellect and discernment as he scrutinized worldviews.

Van Til, on the other hand, believed that man’s presuppositions would always stand in the way of objectively assessing worldviews. The non-Christian presupposes that Christianity is false, and therefore will not be moved by arguments for Christianity, no matter how good they are, unless the Spirit of God regenerates their hearts, thereby renovating their presuppositions.

Van Til didn’t take this to mean that one could not, or should not, argue rationally for the Christian faith. He firmly believed that Christianity is a rational faith, indeed the only rational faith. He also believed that the Holy Spirit could use rational arguments as a means to convert sinners to Christ. However, he maintained that Christians should argue unashamedly from Christian presuppositions.

People often derogatively call this ‘circular reasoning’, then proceed to do the same thing themselves, just with different presuppositions. When it comes to the question of what will be our ultimate authority for determining truth, everyone employs circular reasoning. We have no other option. If the ultimate authority of truth is human reason, then you cannot appeal to anything higher than human reason to make a case for it being the ultimate authority, you must appeal to reason in order to make your case, which is, by definition, circular reasoning.

So, Van Til found beef with Clark because he seemed to be putting human reasoning as the highest authority on truth, instead of God’s revealed Word. Clark believed that Van Til was irrational in his epistemology.

Ironically, I find Van Til’s suggestion for how to argue against someone with non-Christian presuppositions to be remarkably similar to Clark’s. Van Til believed that we should show the unbeliever that their presuppositions will eventually cause them to commit intellectual suicide, if they follow them through, and that the only way they can make any sense is by borrowing principles derived from Christian presuppositions. In other words, we try to show them that their worldview is inconsistent, while Christianity is consistent. The major difference is in epistemology, where Clark put reason above scripture, and Van Til put scripture above reason.

In Clark’s defence, I don’t think he would have ever said that scripture is subordinate to human reason. He would fight for the inerrancy, authority and sufficiency of scripture, the same as Van Til. However, when it came to how he argued in the realm of apologetics, he was a rationalist.

I’m sure I have given away the fact that I sympathize with Van Til more than Clark, by now. What I see as a fatal flaw in Clark’s method is the philosophy of “try Jesus”. Since you are asking which worldview is most consistent, and best fulfills certain criteria – Who gets to decide these criteria, by the way? – there is always left the impression that some other worldview may show up later that fulfills the criteria even better, so unless you can show how all other worldviews fall short, you may end up with a false convert who is just trying Jesus on for size, but waiting to see if something better comes along.

In conclusion, this debate still bounces around in our churches, though we see a lot more debate with folks like R. C. Sproul, who believes we can find a common ground with unbelievers as a starting place, and bring in evidences that will cause them to sway toward Christianity. In any case, apologetics is not something that should divide brothers who agree on most everything else.

There are those who would say that the point of Christ’s life was to be an example of righteous living for us to follow. Others would say that the atonement was primarily purchasing blessings in this life. Still others may not deny the main point of the Gospel, but they emphasize other aspects in their own preaching. The primary point is often assumed, while the secondary points, (ones that are not promised to us in this life) crowd into the spotlight. We must guard against this temptation in our preaching.

Tim, my friend, the moment you have been waiting for is here; the Gospel:

Thankfully, the very same God who is filled with righteous hatred for our sin, is also merciful and loving. Though we have done nothing to deserve His grace, He has provided a way of salvation for us. This redemptive plan was foreshadowed in the Jewish sacrificial system, but was actualized about two thousand years ago through Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus was born to a virgin, and is fully man, and fully God. He is “our blessed hope… our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Tit 2:13) He is the God-man, the only perfect mediator, who can reconcile us to the Father. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5) He lived a perfect, sinless life; obedient in every way. “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb 4:15) He was crucified, suffering horrifically, bearing the punishment for our sin. “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.” (1 Cor 15:3) “But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isa 53:5,6) “The Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins…” (Gal 1:4) “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree…” (1 Pet 2:24) Three days later He rose from the grave, forever defeating death and securing eternal life for those found in Him. “Just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Rom 6:4) “Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” (Rom 8:34) “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” (1 Cor 15:17)

Jesus stepped into our place as a substitute. He took our sin, and gave us His righteousness so that God’s justice is satisfied, and yet He can still show us mercy. “Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood… so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom 3:24-26) “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Pet 3:18) “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor 5:21)

There is no other plan of redemption. Salvation is through Jesus, or not at all. You cannot be reconciled to God through any other religion, only through Jesus Christ, the perfect God-man who suffered for the sins of the world. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

But how is this great provision of God applied to us?  The answer in the next installment: Part 4 – Personal Application

With that, here’s the next installment:

There was only one command given to man in Eden:

“You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”(Gen 2:16,17)

Adam broke that commandment, and ate of the tree, and he died that day. No, he did not fall down dead on the spot. Nor did God mean that when he ate of the fruit, he would eventually end up dying of old age, since he would no longer have access to the tree of life. Adam died the very day he bit into the forbidden fruit; he died spiritually. He was cut off from God, and no longer walked in right relationship with his creator. The God he had been intimate with, because of his sin, had become his enemy.

The effects of Adam’s disobedience are felt in full force today. Despite the vast amount of time since that original sin, human beings are born spiritually dead, and the proof of that is we all sin.

“Just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” (Rom 5:12)

Our problem is not nearly so small as a few bad habits, rather we are an offense in the sight of the holy God of the universe, because we love darkness and hate the light.

“And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:19,20)

Because of this, God is justly full of wrath against us.

The wrath of Almighty God is not a thing to be taken lightly. He is infinitely just, and holy, and He will punish sin wherever it is found. Scripture depicts His judgment against sin in equally vivid and horrific language.

“Throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt 13:50)

“If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow; he has prepared for him his deadly weapons, making his arrows fiery shafts.” (Psalm 7:12,13)

“I [Jesus] trod them in my anger and trampled them in my wrath; their lifeblood spattered on my garments, and stained all my apparel.” (Isa 63:3) “He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.” (Rev 19:15)

“They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” (2 Thes 1:9)

Lest we should think that we can be basically good people and be accepted by God on the basis of our own good deeds, scripture plainly tells us:

“For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Rom 3:20)

All we need to do is take a look at the perfect Law of God, most notably in the Ten Commandments, and it is easy to see that we fall far short of the standard.

1. You shall have no other gods before me. Who can say that they have always kept God foremost in honor, and affection? If you have ever loved money, pleasure, success, career, spouse or anything else more than God, you have made it a god and have thereby broken this commandment.
2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image. You may not have a wood or stone idol in your household, but you can carve an idol with your mind as well as with your hands. If you have conceived of God in such a way to make you feel more comfortable about your sin, then you have broken this commandment.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. It seems less taboo these days to throw around the name of God like it is a four-letter filth-word than to use an expletive itself which was intended for that purpose. If you have ever used God’s name to express excitement or disgust then you have esteemed the name of your creator, the one who gave you life, and breath, and everything, as though it was dirt, and have broken this commandment.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. All God asks for is one day in seven that we set aside. If you have not always set aside one day for worship, rest and fellowship, then you have broken this commandment.
5. Honor your father and your mother. Regardless of whether your parents are upright people, God commands you to honor them. If you are still a minor in their household, that means to obey them without grumbling and complaining, and show gratitude for them. If you have not always done this, then you have broken this commandment.
6. You shall not murder. Jesus and James reveal to us that hatred constitutes murder in our hearts. You may not have ever physically killed someone, but if you have ever hated anyone, then you have murdered them in God’s eyes, and you have broken this commandment.
7. You shall not commit adultery. Again Jesus rules out the common saying, “You can look, but you can’t touch.” telling us that if we even look at someone with lustful desire, we have committed adultery with them in our hearts. If you have ever looked at anyone with lust, let alone acted upon it, you have broken this commandment.
8. You shall not steal. The value of the item is not in question here. The commandment is not, “You shall not steal anything worth more than $10.” If you have ever stolen anything, even if it was worth less than a penny, you have broken this commandment.
9. You shall not bear false witness. White lies, half-truths, any form of deception counts as a lie. If you knowingly try to deceive someone, you have broken this commandment.
10. You shall not covet. Just in case anyone thought they had kept the other nine, God made sure we understood that He is concerned with our hearts. An unwarranted or inordinate desire for something is classified as covetousness. It is the opposite of contentment. If you have ever felt greed, or selfish ambition, or any number of other desires like them, then you have broken this commandment.

It is obvious why the Bible says, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:23) Just a brief look at the Law of God reveals to us that we are sinners, and not just occasionally, but on a constant basis. Scripture expresses this reality saying:

“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen 6:5)

It’s not just that we sin, it’s that all we ever do is sin, all the time. Because of that, we will be justly condemned to an eternity in Hell, where God will mete out His fierce and infinite wrath against us, unless we can somehow be rescued from this plight.

With no further ado, here’s the Gospel:

“I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.” Rom 1:16

At the very heart of Christianity is a message. A declaration of certain historical events that have profound significance for every single human being on the planet. If you think otherwise – that Christianity is a way of life, or adherence to a standard of morality set by the son of a carpenter who grew up to be a wise teacher – then you have missed the point. Christianity is not about ‘following Jesus’, if all you mean by the phrase is to try and ask yourself “What Would Jesus Do?”

After Jesus’ ascension, the disciples did not simply go back to their peaceful lives trying to be decent, upstanding citizens. They would never have summed up their spiritual convictions by saying, “I just ask myself, ‘If Jesus were in my shoes, how would he live?’” Instead, they devoted their lives to propagating a message. They lived, suffered and died for this message, because they considered it the most important thing a person could hear. Every one of them but John was martyred for declaring it openly. And they called it ‘euaggelion’; good news; the gospel of Christ.

What was this message? When I ask professing Christians that question, the answer grows more and more diverse. Those who can offer an answer at all usually speak in vague generalities about God’s love, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, and having a relationship with God. Occasionally sin is mentioned, but it is always spoken of as impersonally as possible. When you stack it all up to the message we see in scripture, there is very little resemblance. The prevailing philosophies of many professing Christians resemble the biblical gospel in the same way that a formless, shifting cloud might resemble a pony. Yes, the general shape might be similar, but the cloud is not a horse. It is vapor, and is quickly carried away by the wind, whereas the war-horse of the gospel stands firm and powerful against its mightiest adversaries.

The biblical gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ, consists of four essential elements: Our Need, God’s Provision, Personal Application, and The Ultimate Goal. To be sure, the Bible never uses these categories, but everything that is ever said about the gospel in scripture will fit into one of them. Everything else that scripture says either lays foundation for them, or is a natural outworking from them.

Stay tuned for Part 2: Our need

Enter the Heart of the Gospel Conference. The focus of this conference is on the person of Christ, both in evangelism, and in our daily lives.

To be sure, we should preach the work of Christ, in his perfectly righteous life, which is imputed to us, his substitutionary death, through which our sins our punished in him, and his resurrection, which is the basis for our assurance and eternal life. The work of Christ is vital to preaching, whether it is from the pulpit, on the street corner, or in a personal conversation. Yet, without spending time on the person of Christ, his work is meaningless. If Christ is not the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, truly God and truly man, none of his work could ever be effectual for our salvation. Our Lord could never have lived a perfect life if he was not God himself, and therefore unable to sin. He could not have absorbed the full weight of God’s wrath toward our sin if he was not himself infinite. Only one possessing divine power could say, “I have authority to lay [my life] down, and I have authority to take it up again.” (John 10:18) and prove his words true by his bodily resurrection.

Not only this, but the person of Christ is the great hope of the gospel. Our hope is not simply in escape from eternal Hell; it is not in streets of gold and a fine mansion; it isn’t even in reunion with believing loved ones. All of those things are great, but I honestly think that we will hardly think anything of them when compared with the inexpressible joy of unhindered communion with God. The great promise of the Scriptures has always been, “I will be your God and you will be my people.” This promise finds its fulfillment in Rev 21:3, “‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” This looks forward to the time when we will see our Lord once again. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of God dwelling with his people, as evidenced by him being called “Emmanuel” – God with us.

What makes the good news so good? Ultimately, our answer should be that we gain Christ himself. Not any of his gifts, or being spared from any torment, but communion with him. As Paul tells us in Phil 3:8 “Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.”

Therefore, our evangelism, our daily lives, and everything else, should be Christ-centered. To that effect, Northwest Street Ministries is hosting the first Heart of the Gospel conference, at Westwood Baptist Church. If this taste of the content of the conference has piqued your interest, you can find more info and register for the event at www.northweststreet.com. We have a great panel of speakers lined up, including Tony Miano from Living Waters and the Ambassadors’ Alliance, Jon Speed from The Lost Cause Ministries, Matt Johnson from the Ambassadors’ Alliance, and the pastors of Summit Lake Community Church, Jeff Pierce and Don Brewer. Those who attend Summit Lake Community Church, Westwood Baptist Church, or Olympia Bible Presbyterian Church get $5 off admission. Please register early, as space is limited.
Hope to see you all there!

From around 1944 to 1948, the OPC was troubled by a controversy between followers of Cornelius Van Til… and those of Gordon H. Clark… Several issues entered this controversy, the main one described as the issue of the ‘Incomprehensibility of God.’

As Frame points out, Van Til and Clark did not disagree as to whether God was incomprehensible. They both believed that God cannot be fully understood by our finite minds. The question around which the debate revolved was whether God’s thoughts about the same subject are “qualitatively different” than man’s thoughts. That is, when God thinks, “That is a tree”, is the substance of His thought identical to that of a man when he thinks, “That is a tree”? Clark believed it was, and Van Till did not.

As I mentioned, there was more at work behind the controversy than what was apparent on the surface of the arguments. Clark was ordained by the Presbytery of Philadelphia of the OPC in 1944, but Van Til and his followers complained about the nature of his ordination. Clark was much more of an evangelical, and Van Til saw that as a danger to the distinctly Reformed convictions of the OPC.

Though Clark’s ordination was not revoked, he and several of his followers left the denomination eventually, and this debate played a major part.

What Van Til seems to have been trying to say, (and it is no easy task to decipher his writing) is that when God thinks, “That is a tree”, he thinks of it in relation to everything else. He sees the bigger picture, as well as all the minute details, all at once. He knows everything that actually is about that tree, and every possibility that never came to pass concerning it as well. So, how God thinks is very different from how we think, because we do not have the attributes of eternality, and infinitude. While we may be thinking about the same object, God sees much more comprehensively and much more accurately than we do, and all of that all at once.

Think of it this way. It is only possible for us to know a few things at the same instant. Our thoughts must come in a succession; one after another, in a stream that we can follow, and sometimes, if we pay attention, we can even trace them backward a ways. But God knows everything, all the time. God knows past, present and future for every created thing, in its entirety, and all at the very same instant, eternally. That is what Van Till means when he says that God’s thoughts are qualitatively different. Not that we can’t know anything that is true, (the very accusation of Van Til’s opponents) but that our knowledge and thoughts are not of a like quality with God’s.

At this point I was beginning to think, “Well, duh! Who would disagree with that?” But Frame points out that Van Til and Clark never really defined their terms very clearly, and regularly talked passed each other. He summarizes what he believes to be the root of the problem:

I think that in this discussion personal issues impeded conceptual clarity.

Van Til is noted as saying that God’s thoughts and ours never intersect, and I think that was part of what led to misunderstanding. People thought that he meant that we can never have a true thought, since God’s thoughts are necessarily the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If our minds never think of anything the way that God thinks of it, in any sense, then we never have a true thought, even if we believe every word of the Bible. It would mean that any interpretation of the Bible by man is completely false.

However, I do not think that is what Van Til meant. When he said that our thoughts and God’s thoughts never intersect, he meant that we never think precisely what God is thinking at any given time, because God is thinking of all things actual and possible, past, present and future, in their most minute detail and as they relate to all other things all at the same time. We can never think of anything in that way, let alone all things, all at once, so our thoughts could never possibly intersect with God’s.

Even that which has been revealed to us in Scripture cannot be known to us as it is to God. There has never been a single theologian who has been 100% correct in his interpretation of scripture. Our efforts, even with the aid of the Spirit, through a redeemed nature, fall woefully short of comprehending entirely what God has explicitly revealed. This is not to undermine the clarity of Scripture concerning what we must know, and trust wholeheartedly in order to be saved. But not all things in Scripture are equally clear, and we are working with fallen and finite minds.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that no matter where you come down on this issue of God’s incomprehensibility, and how our thoughts correspond to His, it is not an issue to divide over. We can all agree on many, far more important things, and leave this highly nuanced issue in the “open hand” where it belongs. Personal animosity has a nasty habit of making mountains out of mole-hills, and I think that is precisely the case with this debate.

[Some] in the Machen movement… held that the use of alcohol had produced so many evils in the modern world (such as destruction of individual lives, destruction of families, auto injuries and deaths) that conscientious Christians had no option but total abstinence.

In other words, they appealed to the disastrous effects that abuse of alcohol has caused, and argued that we should avoid alcohol altogether, in order to avoid the possibility of such terrible consequences, which would undoubtedly damage our witness.

Unlike the previous contention, Frame didn’t give me much of a direction for digging up some details. His assessment of this particular dispute was brief, and vague. I had to figure out where to look on my own. Here’s a bit of what I found.

In 1938, at the First General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church, my denomination, adopted this resolution:

We, the members of this assembly, in the interests of making clear our position on this particular matter, namely, the question of a Christian’s relation to the use of intoxicating beverages, and with no slightest intention of setting ourselves up in judgment on the conscience of any man where the Word of God has not bound him, do desire to declare that we deem it wise to pursue the course of total abstinence: and furthermore, we lament the widespread tendency of the American people toward intemperance, and we are unalterably opposed to the modem saloon and the liquor traffic in general, which, as now carried on, is associated with and leads to sinful abuses, and is subversive of the general welfare of society.

The same resolution had been turned down by the Presbyterian Church of America the previous year. It seems to me that they were not calling the consumption of alcohol a sin, but merely ‘unwise’. A necessary distinction, because had they gone to the extent of labeling it sinful, they would have gone beyond the bounds of scripture.

As the Orthodox Presbyterian Church recognizes:

Relations are now very cordial [between the OPC and the BPC]. The OPC frequently receives official greetings from the Bible Presbyterian Church, and there have been some moves in recent years toward bringing the two denominations together.

This is largely made possible by the fact that our stance on alcoholic beverages has grown more similar. We both recognize that scripture does not prohibit the consumption of alcohol, and therefore allow for each person to follow the dictates of his own conscience on the matter.

Accordingly, Frame summarizes his view of the matter like this:

My impression is that the moderationists have pretty much won the day, although even now many American Reformed churches (usually in deference to recovering alcoholics) use unfermented grape juice in the Lord’s Supper. One rarely hears the arguments for abstinence any more in Reformed circles, though the discussion continues in other forms of American evangelicalism.

So, for now at least, the Reformed folks seem to all be on more or less the same page with this issue. They may not all believe that they should personally drink alcohol, but they aren’t trying to force their own personal convictions on everyone else, either.

These first two issues, eschatology and alcohol, are the primary reasons the Bible Presbyterian Church came into existence. As we have seen, however, both of these issues have become non-issues. Sure, we still debate eschatology, but we are tolerant of all eschatological views within each of our respective denominations. Sure, there are some who think you are strange if you don’t drink alcohol, and others who think you are strange if you do, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone, (I hope) who would point to his brother and call him a ‘sinner’ because he isn’t convicted in this area.

I think both denominations are moving in the right direction, which could lead to a reunification. It is something that has happened before in the history of American Presbyterianism, and there is no reason why it cannot happen again now, not even 100 years after the split. My question is, what needs to happen next?