Archive February 2007

Commentary on Galatians (5)

Speaking like this is sure to attract criticism, even from those who call themselves believers. How could Paul speak in such absolute, inflexible, and threatening terms? But he writes in verse 10, "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."

It is possible that the Judaizers have been describing Paul as one who accommodates his message to please his listeners. He would preach circumcision to the Jews, but exempt the Gentiles from this requirement. This might be why he later writes, "Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished" (Galatians 5:11).

But verse 10 makes good sense in our passage even if it is not a response to the Judaizers' misrepresentation. Paul has just pronounced the curse of damnation against those who preach anything different from what he first preached to the Galatians, a message whose content we will soon learn more about, since he would proceed to reinforce it in the rest of the letter. And as we noted, by implication the curse also applies to those who believe anything different than what he preached. In issuing this curse, Paul has denounced the spiritual standing of every person who disagrees with him on the issue at hand. It is easy to imagine how this might offend.

What enables Paul to speak with such authority and boldness, and – since the situation warrants it – with sharp words, curses, and threats, is the mentality that he is a servant of Christ and not a pleaser of men. The two are mutually exclusive: "If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." A pleaser of men is not a servant of Christ, and it follows that a servant of Christ cannot be a pleaser of men at the same time. Those who serve Christ do not please men; those who please men do not serve Christ.

Of course, regenerate men are pleased to hear the truth, but the emphasis here is on the apostle's motive. He carries out Christ's orders regardless of what men might think about him or do to him. He does not compromise the content of his message to entice his listeners, and he does not soften his approach to appease them. This mentality is the key to faithful ministry and spiritual boldness. His acute awareness that he is a servant of Christ makes God the central reference point for all his thoughts and motives. His only concern is to speak and perform that which pleases and honors God.

It is true that we are, in a sense, the servants of men, but they are not our masters. There is no paradox or contradiction here. Christ is our master, and the only reason we serve other people is because he commands us to do so. In a humanistic or man-centered worldview, it is often believed that there is an inherent obligation or value in helping our fellow human beings. This tendency affects many Christians, but since it does not come from and cannot be harmonized with the God-centered ethic of Scripture, the resulting worldview is incoherent and non-Christian.

On the other hand, in a God-centered ethic, God is the only true master, and all of our beliefs, values, and actions proceed with his revelation as the reference point. Thus we serve men not because they are our masters, but because God is our master, and he has told us to serve men. It also follows that we will only serve men only in the manner and to the extent prescribed by God's revelation.

In a God-centered worldview, we would as soon kill them as be killed for them – it all depends on what God commands. Any Christian who is shocked or unnerved by this statement does not truly regard God as his master, and he is mystified and offended by someone who does.⁷ In his heart he has placed above God a non-biblical standard by which he approves or disapproves of who God is, what he does, and what he commands.⁸ He is like someone who regards a religion as false because it commands acts of violence. This reverses the proper order of reasoning. If a religion is true, then the violence that it commands is God's revelation. It stands as a moral imperative, and it would be immoral to disapprove of it or to disobey it. Thus, that a religion commands violence does not make it false; rather, that a religion is false makes the violence that it commands without authority.

Likewise, we serve men not because of who they are or because there is an inherent moral obligation, but we do it because of who God is, what he has revealed to us about himself and about men, and what he has commanded us to do. Therefore, in principle we serve Christ alone. We serve men only because this is what he has commanded. Thus we are their servants not in an absolute sense, but only relative to the divine commands. We do good to them under Christ's directions, and as his servants.

This also means that it is not up to men to dictate to us the terms of our service. We serve them only in the manner and to the extent that Scripture commands us. A Christian who truly believes this is thus free from the fear of men. By "men" here, of course, we include believers as well, for a Christian is often called to serve other Christians, and his greatest enemies and persecutors will frequently consist of those who profess the faith. But if we are the servants of Christ, then we will be unafraid of criticisms, attacks, and pressures that come from mere men. Our only focus is on doing that which Christ has commanded us.

This passage informs us of Paul's attitude as he writes the letter to the Galatians, but it provides a basis for much more. Because Scripture also teaches all Christians to be servants of Christ, and to fear God and not men, we must personalize what we derive from the passage about Paul's thinking and behavior. Anyone who is able to do this – and to the extent that he is consistent in it – has been liberated from the fear of men to enter a life of faithful and efficient Christian ministry. An effective exposition of Galatians should model and impart this to believers.

I am a servant, a slave of Christ. Insofar as I believe this truth, I will have no selfish agendas and aspirations. Since self-preservation and self-promotion are not the motives, fears of failure, danger, and opposition have no place of entry. A servant conducts business for his master, according to his command, in his name, and by his authority. Therefore, he does not measure what is before him against his own resources, but against his master's resources.

Since my master's authority is complete and absolute, then so is my confidence as I carry out the mission that he has given me. I do not need to think that I am better than someone in myself in order to instruct him, correct him, reprimand him, and when appropriate, to pronounce the curse of damnation upon him. And it is precisely because I am a servant of Christ that I am immune to those who question my standing as a servant of Christ. No matter how legitimate a ministry, it will always be challenged by those who call themselves believers, as in the case of Paul. But I live to please Christ, not them. I live for his approval, not theirs.

Because Paul is bold, harsh, and urgent in dealing with the present situation, I have every right and reason to be as bold, harsh, and urgent in a similar set of circumstances. Whether we are confronting the unbelief of non-Christians, or professing Christians who oppose us, I have the authority to speak plainly and bluntly. In fact, when confronting heretics that attempt to pervert the core of the gospel, it is nothing less than spiritual treason to put on an attitude of academic detachment that is characteristic of the non-Christian notion of intellectual respectability.

A minister often faces more than verbal criticisms from his critics. Sometimes there is much political (both civil and ecclesiastical), social, and financial pressure exerted against him. And this will often come in the most vicious and underhanded manner from those who call themselves believers. I am aware of this each time I say something that is disagreeable to the critics.

Sometimes there are complaints from individuals of little significance. Sometimes there are political backlashes from those who seem to have some clout. And often the attacks consist of mob pressure rather than logical argument. I am aware of the possible consequences, so that I make attempts to be wise as a serpent but harmless as a dove, not being foolhardy lest I put God's grace to the test. On the other hand, I am also aware that because my ministry is commissioned by God, it is also indestructible. (And if God wishes to destroy it, why would I want to save it?) Just as the key to an invincible defense of the faith is complete dependence on the wisdom of God, the key to an indestructible ministry is complete dependence on the power of God.

This attitude is most frustrating to those who persecute a ministry, and to those who oppose the work of God, since here is a person that they cannot intimidate or manipulate, or harm and hinder in any way that matters. What can they do to me? They can criticize. If what I teach is false, then they are the least of my problems. But if what I teach is correct, then God himself will vindicate it in the hearts of men, and in whom he has chosen to reveal the truth, working above and beyond my effort to promote and defend it. Thus I can perform the ministry on my terms, and not have them dictated to me by the adversaries, or by the latest and strongest pressure.

What can they do? They can employ sophistical arguments, but they cannot kill God's word. They can wield ecclesiastical powers, but they cannot kill God's work. They could kill me, but if I have learned to take up the cross daily, then in my mind it has already happened – I have already died, the fear and the sting of death have been taken away. Since this ministry has been commissioned by Christ, there is nothing that anyone can do to damage it, whether Christian or non-Christian. I rest in his calling and his providence. And since this ministry is indeed of God, then those who seek to destroy it are not fighting against me, but God. Yet they are mere tools in the hands of God, who works all things for his glory and for my good, so that I may accomplish all that he has commanded me to perform.

 

NOTES

⁷ This is more than an illustration, but it has applications in Christian practice. For example, Scripture commands corporal punishment for disobedient children and the death penalty for some criminals. There are those who judge the Christian revelation as false or defective because of these commands, but this reverses the proper order of reasoning, and begs the question. Rather, if the Christian Scripture is a revelation from God, then these commands are good, moral, and necessary. It would be sinful to disapprove of, disagree with, or disobey them. Nevertheless, the principle is not bound to these particular applications. If a person approves of God's command to execute a murderer not because it is God's command, but only because he himself thinks that this is what a murderer deserves, then he is still making himself God's judge. The principle is what is important here – that is, what God commands is good and moral by definition, even if it entails violence, or anything that is opposed by a foreign standard.

⁸ Similarly, it begs the question for an unbeliever to judge God's revelation by a standard foreign to that revelation. He already assumes that what is judged is not God's revelation, since God's revelation would be the highest standard by which anything could be judged. Thus the revelation and the standard that is foreign to it must be established or refuted in some other manner before one could judge the other.

Commentary on Galatians (3)

Paul does not begin the body of his letter in the usual manner. He does not express gratitude to God for anything good that he has wrought in the readers, nor does he offer prayer so that God would enable them to make further progress. He does not commend his readers for anything that they have performed, believed, or maintained. This departure from the usual form accentuates the urgency and agitation that would characterize the rest of the letter.

Why is there this sense of urgency and agitation? It is because the Galatians are "turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all." In other words, they are turning away from the message that Paul preached to them to another that represents itself as the gospel. But this different message is not the gospel at all, and as this same passage points out, there is really no gospel other than the one that Paul preached to them.

Paul stresses the exclusivity of the gospel from several angles. He writes that if "we" (including Paul himself), "an angel," or "anybody" should preach a different message to them, then let that person be "eternally condemned." The variation on the message is described in two ways: "other than the one we preached to you" and "other than what you accepted."

That is, if anybody at all – including any apostle or any angel – preaches a message other than the one Paul preached to them, or to say the same thing, other than the one the Galatians first received, then that message is a false gospel, and may that messenger be eternally condemned. There is no room for any deviation, any modification, any modernization, or any "improvement" to the original gospel message. There is no room for flexibility in its content. To say this in a positive way, this original message is accurate, precise, complete, and enduring, so that anything different from it is false doctrine.

It is true that the present controversy has to do with justification by faith, but the above must not be limited to this area in its application. This is because of the universal and comprehensive manner in which Paul asserts this principle of exclusivity. Paul preached the true gospel to the Galatians, and there is only one true gospel. Therefore, any deviation constitutes false doctrine.

All the elements in this exclusive path to salvation is fixed. A person cannot, without eternal consequence to his own soul, remove anything in the Christian system of doctrine that destroys the coherence of the gospel message. For example, one cannot make sense of justification by faith if the biblical teaching on sin is denied, rendering Christ's vicarious sacrifice and imputed righteousness unnecessary in the first place. Thus, in affirming the gospel that Paul preached to the Galatians, one must affirm what this message says about God, Christ, sin, faith, and so on.

Commentary on Galatians (1)

GALATIANS 1:1-5
Paul, an apostle — sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead – and all the brothers with me,

To the churches in Galatia:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

This opening passage foreshadows the personal and doctrinal issues that Paul will address in the body of his letter.

We do not know the exact words the Judaizers used to undermine Paul's ministry, but we can infer from his response some of the things that they might have said. He asserts that he is an apostle "sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father." It is likely that at the very beginning of his letter, he wishes to counter one of the accusations against him, that he is in fact not an apostle, or that he derives his authority and message not from Christ, but from mere men. So he begins by taking a firm stand regarding his ministry.

As one of the apostles, he has direct authorization from Christ to make definitive doctrinal pronouncements and the power to exercise church discipline. The Galatians did not hear the gospel from an inferior, unreliable, or even a secondhand source, but from an authoritative messenger sent directly by Jesus Christ and God the Father. At this point, the emphasis is on the authenticity and authority of the messenger and not the message. The latter will come up soon enough, and since Paul will say more about this, we will reserve additional comments for later.

He is an apostle sent neither "from men nor by man" – that is, he derives his authority neither from a group of men nor from an individual man. It is true that men have placed their hands upon him and sent him off to preach the gospel (Acts 13:3), but it was the Holy Spirit who called him out. It is on the basis of this divine commission and not any human recognition that Paul asserts the validity of his ministry. Indeed, as far as human recognition is concerned, his ministry is not universally accepted. This is one of the challenges that he would face time after time in his ministry, for example, not only here in Galatians, but also in his letters to the Corinthians.

There is a lesson here for how Christians should regard their ministers and how ministers should regard themselves. Although denominational ordinations, seminary degrees, and apprenticeships under prominent leaders often have something to do with the spiritual equipping of a minister and could add to a person's credibility in the eyes of men, credentials from human institutions or individuals can never impart the authority and power that come from a divine call.

If a minister thinks that he is authorized to preach because he has received credentials from his denomination, then what happens when he has to face a congregation that belongs to another denomination, and especially one that rejects the authority of his own? It is not the denominational credentials that undermine his ministry, but it is his conscious reliance on them that is self-defeating.

Then, most of us know what happens with seminary degrees. When a person claims expertise because of his seminary degree, the matter does not end there, but we are also interested in the institution that he attended. And if it is a seminary that is known for doctrines and practices that we find objectionable, it becomes easy to dismiss the person before we find out anything more about him. So a minister who thinks that he speaks with authority because he has a seminary degree faces a similar problem as one who depends on his denominational credentials. He appeals to things that have no spiritual authority in themselves, and he allows people to sweep him into narrow cliques so that those on the outside find no reason to pay him any attention.

Church credentials, seminary degrees, human endorsements, letters of recommendations, and so on, all have their roles. Some may even regard ordination as a means of grace. However, one can exercise the full power and liberty that come from the divine call only if he ministers on the basis of that divine call. This does not mean that people will always recognize the calling and authority given to a person, as in the case of Paul. But if he relies on human credentials, then even in principle his authority is reduced to that level and narrowed to that range. On the other hand, a divine mandate authorizes a person to function in any type of situation to which God sends him.

It misses the point to think that the above makes it impossible to select, promote, or examine a person for the ministry – we have been talking about a different question. When it comes to this other issue, the New Testament includes several passages listing the public qualifications for the ministry (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:1-7), which we will not discuss at this time. In short, they pertain to a person's lifestyle, character, doctrine, and competence.

Turning from the personal to the doctrinal aspect of the passage, the controversy concerns how a person becomes righteous and acceptable before God. Must he follow the law of Moses, Jewish traditions, or submit to circumcision? The immediate issue is not even whether it is good to become circumcised, to follow the law of Moses, or to obey any law of God, but whether this is the way to become righteous in God's sight. This distinction is important in order to maintain the gospel of grace and at the same time exclude antinomianism. For if as a matter of principle it is against grace to keep God's law or to obey God's command, then grace would indeed lead to sin. But this is not the gospel that Paul preaches.

Again, the question is how a person becomes righteous, justified, and acceptable before God. The topic will receive ample attention in the body of the letter, so we need not spend time on it here. What we have in this opening passage is a positive statement of the apostle's doctrine, doubtless given in anticipation of what follows, but that is also informative in itself.

Paul writes that Christ "gave himself for our sins." How is this relevant? Here is an example of how a positive statement about the gospel counteracts a false gospel, or how sound doctrine excludes its distortion. We are "rescued" because Christ "gave himself," and not because of our works or merits. To merely draw attention to this, that this is the gospel, should settle the issue. This is because, as Paul will soon point out, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing" (Galatians 2:21). That is, the idea that "righteousness could be gained through the law" is antithetical to the sacrifice of Christ, so that they exclude each other. However, to be a Christian is to affirm that Christ "gave himself for our sins," and therefore, that "righteousness could be gained through the law" cannot be part of the Christian gospel, nor is anyone a Christian who affirms that righteousness is obtained this way.

This simple principle also speaks to today's controversies surrounding the doctrine of justification. In fact, the statement that Christ "gave himself for our sins to rescue us" should settle most questions and refute most heresies related to this doctrine. That is, any teaching that denies the necessity or the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, even if by implication, cannot be the Christian gospel. And as Paul declares in the next passage, no one who teaches or affirms such a teaching can be a Christian. A person cannot be a Christian and at the same time affirm or practice something that renders Christ's sacrifice unnecessary or insufficient.

Thus in this introductory passage, Paul encapsulates his answer to both the personal and the doctrinal aspects of the controversy. The rest of the letter contains specific arguments and explanations.

It is sometimes said that Paul is not a systematic thinker. It depends on what a person means by this as to whether or not we should accept the statement. If it means that his writings are occasional, so that he does not leave us with a body of doctrine presented as a system, then this is true in a sense, although we cannot accept even this without qualification. However, if it suggests that Paul is a purely pragmatic thinker, coming up with solutions as problems arise without an existing, extensive, organized, and self-consistent understanding of God's mind, or if it suggests that any part of Paul's writings contradicts or even appears to contradict another part, then the statement is false.

Although we may agree that Paul has written no systematic theology as such, and certainly not a textbook on the subject, in his mind he indeed affirms a system of theology that stands behind all of his sermons and letters. In fact, my exposition on Acts 17 points out that his speech on Mars Hill follows an outline that is almost identical to the arrangement of our typical systematic theology,² touching on the doctrines of revelation, theology proper, creation, providence, anthropology, ethics, christology, soteriology, and eschatology. This is not a coincidence, but it is because the topics logically and naturally lend themselves to such an arrangement in thinking and presentation.³ In philosophical terms, the same outline would address the topics of epistemology, metaphysics, religion, biology, history, and ethics. Moreover, that speech exhibits a logical order in which one point follows from the previous one, and each one is related to all the others.

The necessary conclusion is that Paul is a systematic theologian, although this fact is obscured by the occasional nature of his letters. Or to put this in a much more accurate way, those who wish to find an excuse to assert their own theories and agendas exploit the occasional nature of these letters in order to deny the systematic structure and content of the apostle's thinking.

For a discourse to be occasional means that there is a context, and when a person addresses an audience who shares a common context, it is natural and often more efficient to assume the context and address only the problems and disagreements, rather than to begin "from scratch." Just because most of Paul's writings are occasional does not mean that he is primarily a pragmatic thinker or that he invents doctrines to match the solutions as the need arises. Instead, he explains and develops the relevant aspects of his system of theology, and then he applies them to the current situation. Not only does his occasional letters contain extensive doctrinal expositions, but behind everything that he writes is a complete theological system. There are strong indications of this in our passage, even though it is only an introduction to a letter.

Several times Paul acknowledges God and his divine fatherhood. Then, he puts God the Father and Jesus Christ on the same level, and at the same time distinguishes the two. Although he does not mention the Holy Spirit, he acknowledges the Trinity elsewhere in his writings, and he is consistent with the doctrine here. He says that he is sent "not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father," implying that Christ is more than a mere man, but on the level with God the Father, who has the right and power to send him forth as an apostle.

Redemption was accomplished "according to the will of our God," signifying that salvation is effected by the gracious purpose and providence of a sovereign God. By his will, Christ "gave himself for our sins." Here we find the ideas of sin, of punishment, and of vicarious sacrifice, or the doctrine of the atonement. Both the justice and mercy of God are embedded in the above. After Christ sacrificed himself, God "raised him from the dead," so that the resurrection is included here as well.

The work of Christ has "rescued us from the present evil age." The language refers not to a removal from something, but a deliverance from its power. Although Christians remain in this world after their conversion, they have been delivered from slavery to the power of sin. Here Paul makes ethical applications out of eschatological categories. He acknowledges a "two age" division between the present and the future, but the coming of Christ has ushered in the kingdom of God, so that the very powers of heaven reside in believers even now. An entire book could be devoted to this point alone. We may also see a contrast between the "present evil age" and the "for ever and ever" of God's glory and power.

Thus most of the loci of a complete systematic theology is either mentioned or assumed in these first five verses of the letter. It is true that one must bring with him some of the details from other parts of Scripture to fully perceive and appreciate these doctrinal assumptions. But the fact that the assumptions are here means that these doctrines are ingrained in the apostle's thinking, and that he stands on this foundation as he writes to the Galatians.

Like his other writings, the letter to the Galatians is an expression and application of this system of theology, so that it is adapted to the need at hand. However, when the common context is taken away, and when he has to present the Christian faith "from scratch," as in his speech on Mars Hill, then we see that Paul is indeed a systematic theologian, a systematic thinker. Again, there in Acts 17, where his audience is unfamiliar with the biblical doctrines and thought categories, he follows an arrangement that resembles our typical systematic theology outline.

Those scholars who regard Paul as merely a pragmatic thinker and not a systematic one err in examining the question from the wrong end. Whereas Paul in fact possesses an extensive and coherent system in his mind, and his letters contain his expression and application of this, these scholars examine his writings without considering the kind of mind that produced them. Just because a piece of writing is not a systematic theology does not mean that its author is not a systematic theologian or that he has no system of belief in his mind.

For example, although I have written a systematic theology and consider the subject the most important course of learning for a believer, I often write sermons, commentaries, position papers, and responses to questions and objections about the Christian faith, and almost none of them will read like a systematic theology, since they are occasional. But a system of theology is so ingrained in my mind that, whether consciously or unconsciously, everything that I speak or write is in fact an expression and application of this system.⁴ And insofar as I am a consistent thinker, all of my writings should conform to this system. This is a key to interpreting a writer's materials. If you grasp a person's system of thought, you are more likely to correctly understand what he means when he applies it. In fact, in many cases, you should be able to predict what he will say on a subject.

The ideal is that every detail of a person's system conforms to that system of thought that is in Scripture. The honest and competent theologian will, of course, seek to resolve any anomaly in favor of what Scripture actually teaches, even if he must discard his previous beliefs to do this. To the extent that the system of theology in his mind is derived from and corresponds to that which is taught in Scripture, this person's thinking is synchronized with the mind of Christ, and he is qualified to address the issues and questions that he faces as a believer and as a minister.

Paul leaves us an example to follow if we were to become mature thinkers. That is, we must obtain a comprehensive and coherent understanding of the system of thought that is revealed in Scripture, and formulate the various doctrines in our minds in a way that exhibits perfect harmony, excluding all traces of contradictions and paradoxes. Then, we must learn to fluidly apply this system in our daily conversations, as we preach the gospel, as we debate unbelievers and answer heretics, counsel fellow Christians, resolve ethical questions, and so on.

Like Paul, when we are applying this system of thought, there is no need to always refer to it in a prescribed arrangement, but what we speak or write should demonstrate a logical interplay of the biblical doctrines, deftly blending them together to produce an answer as if it comes straight from the mind of Christ to address the situation at hand. Then, of course, if the situation demands that we summarize the entire Christian faith in a logical order and without being confined to a narrow context, we should be able to do that as well.

 

NOTES

² See Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations.

³ See Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology.

⁴ See Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology, Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, Apologetics in Conversation, The Author of Sin, and Captive to Reason.

A Culture of Irreverence, Part 2

Let us now turn to two articles that are more theologically involved. They provide richer materials as illustrations, for here at least God is back in the conversation. But, alas, just because some people remember God in their discussions does not mean that they respect him much more than those who forget him. They mention him in order to abuse him.

To begin, in "Double Graded Absolutism," I am presented with the astounding statement, "If he has no right to the answer, then to deceive him cannot be classified as a lie."

Now, some people enjoy controversy so much that they would probably lose interest in their faith if there were no opposition against it. The devil is more like a sparring partner to them than an enemy of the soul. They love controversy more than they love knowledge. Their works almost exclusively consist of polemics — it is error, not truth, that defines their purpose and meaning. They enjoy trying to sound learned and clever, only that they are usually neither. And most of the time they are inept at even simple argumentation.

Christians should not be this way. I can refute false doctrine — it is easy — but I do not enjoy it. Of course I delight in upholding the truth against error, but I do not enjoy reading things that dishonor the Lord. Here is a good example. "If he has no right to the answer, then to deceive him cannot be classified as a lie." The statement grieves me deeply. How can a Christian say that with a straight face and a clear conscience?  

Imagine teaching this to a child. Do not be surprised if he grows up to be a deceiver, but of course, according to that statement he would not be a "liar" as long as he deceives only those who have no right to the truth. In principle this can mean a hundred percent of the people that he will come across in his lifetime.

Imagine telling this to an unbeliever. Do not be surprised if he never believes another word we say again. Now he thinks that we can deceive him whenever we want, and as many times as we want, only that when he has no right to the truth, these do not count as lies. And then we have the audacity to claim that we have the most pure, superior, and authoritative system of ethics possible. In fact, we affirm that our ethical principles come from divine revelation.

And imagine if the Lord Jesus had practiced this principle when he was on the earth. Did anyone really had the right to demand the truth from him? In principle, he could have deceived people left and right, over and over again, hundreds and even thousands of times. But according to double graded absolutism, no matter how many times he did it, these could not be classified as lies. The person thinks that I would call this sophism, but it is blasphemy by implication.

When we insist on simple obedience to God's commands, we are not proposing a solution to a problem in or produced by God's revealed system of ethics — this is something that graded absolutism claims to do. Rather, our insistence on simple obedience is first a denial that there is a problem in God's system to begin with, and second, it is a solution to the problem that graded absolutism has created by its creative rebellion. That is, graded absolutism is not a solution to a problem — it is the problem.

Graded absolutism is just one of several such ethical theories produced by rebellion. At the root of this rebellion is the insistence that God's revelation often contradicts itself, and all ethical systems that attempt to resolve this non-existent problem is also founded on this abominable assumption. It makes no difference whether the idea is that Scripture contradicts itself in itself or whether it contradicts itself when applied to a fallen world, as if God did not know that this world was fallen when he gave the commandments. Both lines of thinking undermine the wisdom of God. The bare suggestion that there is a problem of such a nature makes him out to be an idiot, only that because he is our master, we must still figure out how to make sense of his commands and obey them, or at least construct an artificial and unbiblical theory by which we can say we obey him even when we do not. Now, if it takes Charles Hodge to figure out how to resolve a problem that God has supposedly created for us, then the uneducated believer is pretty much doomed to either indecision or immorality. But God's commands are clear and simple.

The widespread belief among professing Christians that God constantly contradicts himself relates to the problem that I discuss in "Blasphemy and Mystery in Theology." There it is said that one set of biblical passages appears to contradict another, thus indicating "polarities" — or opposites — in the very nature of God. With great zeal and eagerness, professing Christians insist that such contradictions pervade the Bible, so that it has become a test of orthodoxy to say that God contradicts himself, and some of them go to great lengths to persecute those who show otherwise, that God's revelation is not only self-consistent, but that it is apparently and obviously so. Those who refuse to blaspheme are treated as heretics.

Of course, the matter is not often stated so explicitly. The alleged contradictions in Scripture are said to be only apparent, and alternate terms such as "tension," "paradox," and "mystery" are used to cover up the blasphemy. That is, there are only apparent contradictions in Scripture, not actual contradictions. No matter how contradictory they appear to us, all biblical doctrines are in fact perfectly consistent in the mind of God. Our responsibility is to affirm both sides of the contradiction.

But this is nonsense. If one proposition contradicts another, whether or not the contradiction is only "apparent," then for a person to affirm one proposition is to deny the other — this is what a contradiction necessarily entails. Therefore, when a person attempts to affirm two contradictory propositions, he is in fact denying both of them in reverse order. That is, if X contradicts Y, then to affirm X is to deny Y, and vice versa. To affirm both X and Y, then, would be to affirm not-Y and not-X. But because to deny one is to affirm the other, to deny the two propositions is to affirm both of them in reverse order again, and so on. That is, to affirm not-Y is to affirm X, and vice versa. So to affirm not-Y and not-X is to affirm X and Y. But to affirm both X and Y is to deny Y and X yet again. The result is that it is impossible and meaningless to affirm two contradictory propositions. Logically speaking, we must say that a person who affirms two allegedly contradictory propositions in the Bible does not affirm or deny anything in the Bible at all.

The truth is that apparent contradictions are subjective. Assuming that there is no actual contradiction between two propositions, then the fact that a person perceives a contradiction only tells us something about him instead of the two propositions. Perhaps he possesses an inferior intellect, or he lacks the needed background information. Then, often two propositions appear to contradict each other only because the person is assuming a third proposition through which he processes these two. For example, in "Blasphemy and Mystery in Theology," Carson writes that one set of biblical passages gives the impression that God is a sovereign thug, while another set of biblical passages indicate that God is unfailingly good. But nowhere does the Bible itself say that God is a sovereign thug, or even appears to be one, when he exercises his right and power to control evil. A premise foreign to the Bible has been smuggled into the discussion, one which the Bible has no responsibility to adopt, integrate, or harmonize with its actual teachings. Thus the fact that professing Christians perceive such a contradiction tells us something about them — their incompetence, prejudice, and rebellion.

Since apparent contradictions are private and subjective, professing Christians who think that they perceive a contradiction in Scripture should never immediately disbelieve or persecute someone who claims to have the solution, or better yet (since in fact no solution is necessary), who rebukes the people that perceive a contradiction where there is none. For these people to say that Scripture only contains apparent contradictions and not actual contradictions is an admission that they are perceiving something that is not there — it is a blunder and an illusion. Those who see apparent contradictions in Scripture are in hermeneutic fantasyland. It is wicked for them to then turn around to attack those who can perceive truth and reality, that is, the perfect coherence of Scripture.

The usual explanation for perceiving contradictions in Scripture even though there are no actual contradictions is that our "finite" human minds cannot fully understand and thus harmonize all that God has revealed. Now, the teaching that human minds are finite is true, and I gladly confess that these people are superior examples of this. These masters of intellectual finitude live what they preach, often more than they realize. They are living epistles of mental retardation. However, their finite minds permit them to entertain at least two false assumptions. First, they assume that all human minds are as finite as theirs, on the level with bumbling idiots, and so they rule out the possibility that some people's minds are less finite, and are able to perceive the perfect wisdom and coherence of God in Scripture. Second, they seem to think that God's mind is almost as finite as theirs, so that they rule out the idea that God knew he was giving his words and his commands to a fallen world, and that he was communicating to minds even as finite as theirs. It is as if they assume that God's mind is retarded as well, so that he could not speak with clarity and coherence, or establish moral commands that remain consistent with one another even when applied to this fallen world by very finite minds.

If we are God's witnesses before the world, then the least that we can do is to show the world that we respect him. But when Christians talk about God's majesty and man's finite mind in the usual manner, what the world hears is, "Yes, our whole system of belief is self-contradictory, but it only appears that way because we are stupid." And then we expect them to become like us. But if we are to think correctly, and speak of God reverently, we should tell the world, "No, Scripture is perfectly coherent, and obviously so. If anything in it appears contradictory to you, it is because you are stupid. There is something wrong with you, the unbelievers, and not with God or with those of us who believe in him." This biblical stance enrages our "Christian" opponents, who take the attitude that says, "Our minds are finite, and somehow this results in seeing contradictions where there is perfect harmony. And if we cannot see this perfect harmony, then neither can you." Then they have the gall to call us arrogant for affirming the apparent and actual coherence of God. What is it then? All this "finite mind" nonsense is nothing other than dishonest self-abasement. If they are so humble, let them remain silent and learn.

There is a culture of irreverence among professing Christians. This is a culture that has become proficient at embedding insult in praise and blasphemy in worship. And this is all covered up with a cloak of self-abasement: "Because we are finite, God appears to us as a thug and a fool." This deep-seated contempt for God cripples their ability to process truth. Even when it is clear and simple, these people refuse to acknowledge it, and gather to devour those who affirm the obvious perfect coherence of God. While claiming to be guardians of the truth, they have become servants of the devil.

Irreverence and irrationality thus reinforce one another. "Blinded by Atheism" and "In God We Trust" offer examples on how implicit atheism and intellectual incompetence bind together to produce the most inexplicable and idiotic objections against biblical doctrines. Then, "Double Graded Absolutism" and "Blasphemy and Mystery in Theology" offer examples on such scathing sacrilege against God covered with false humility that one wonders if it is much better than atheism itself. Therefore, because people are this way, it is both insufficient and inefficient to provide only narrow and fragmentary correctives. Even though these are legitimate in themselves, they can treat only the symptoms of a much greater problem. 

The true solution is the consistent articulation and application of the biblical system. But even this is just one of the necessary steps. Those who are accustomed to irreverence and blasphemy possess a character that is incompatible with such a system, and thus cannot sustain it. Those who seem to agree with the biblical system but at times have trouble defending it suffer under the same problem. The system is perfect and invincible, but their character falls too far short of it. For this reason, in promoting our biblical system of theology, we must also aim to produce a people whose character corresponds to it, so that they can process it and practice it. This approach is alone able to help extricate professing Christians from the double abomination of irreverence and irrationality. In the end, of course, how each person turns out depends on the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, for even reverence and rationality are gifts from God.