The Source of the Godly Man’s Courage (or, “When Silence is Sin and Zeal is Golden”)

As a relatively young believer in my late twenties, I pulled a title of the shelf in a Boston bookstore. The Title read, Creative Aggression, Why Nice Guys Finish Sick. The second line really stuck in my craw. The book was graphically addressing passivity in men.

Though the work was of a secular origin, I found that page after page convicted and pierced me concerning my passivity in relationships. After a thorough reading, I set the book down, recalling the countless times I had swallowed back my convictions and played the part of a chameleon for the sake of “harmony.”

God used that little book from the Boston store to drive me back into the Word with a renewed mission. The realization that God had called me and appointed me to speak the truth in love burst on my consciousness. I could no longer escape the fact that as a child of God, the Lord had issued me the Sword of Truth. In the past, I had been too willing to abdicate that responsibility of speaking God’s truth whenever risk of offense was involved.

It’s Impossible to be a Man of God and at the same time have a Casual Relationship to God’s Truth (Joshua 1:8).

Now the divine mandate, for men especially, to speak God’s truth became undeniably clear. In passages such as Deuteronomy 6 and Psalm 78, it was evident that the role of the believing man is that of a perpetual “truth speaker.” Sadly in countless Christian homes, this God-given mandate of speaking God’s truth is ignored and relegated to the job of the pastor.

In Christ, our spiritual manhood is restored so that we function as a prophet (teacher), a priest (intercessor), and a king (protector). This three-fold role for the man can only be fulfilled if he majors in God’s truth. For the godly man teaches, intercedes, and protects by means of divine truth.

When the truth, backed up by a godly life, is ministered, it heals, feeds, corrects, equips, preserves, builds up, and establishes the listener. The godly man understands that the spiritual state of those in his sphere depends upon his willingness to speak God’s truth. He must come to the point where he can tell himself, “I am not loving these people around me properly unless I am willing to speak God’s truth to them!”

When we examine the example of the O.T. Prophets and the example of Jesus and the Apostles, it is obvious that their truth speaking was pointed – it was not general, but filled with penetrating application for their listeners. It is at this juncture that our courage is most likely to fail. We fear being the “heavy,” a meddler, or regarded as judgmental, or “holier than thou.”

What enabled men like Elihu, Elijah, Daniel, and Phinehas to fearlessly speak the truth when they were a minority of one? The answer lies in their zeal for God’s honor and glory. They knew that all of history is but a record of the honoring and dishonoring of God, and that only those who honor God will ultimately stand (1 Sam 2:30).

The man who is willing to risk misunderstanding and rejection for the sake of the truth also knows that the proclamation of God’s truth always involves a crossroads, or turning point. God commands repentance from those who hear His truth. There must be ongoing repentance through which our affections and will are repeatedly conformed to God’s truth. The progress and spiritual well-being of ourselves and our listeners are bound up in ongoing repentance. The better we understand this, the more willing we will be to speak God’s truth without fear.

In order for a man to excel at speaking the truth, he must be accomplished at using the Sword of Truth on himself (1 Tim 4:15, 16).

Men who can wield the Sword of Truth are animated by God’s truth – they desire God’s truth in their innermost being (Ps 51:6). The godly man rejects the notion that truth for the believer need not rise above mental assent. God’s truth has no power over a person unless the truth is loved (see The Religious Affections, by Jonathan Edwards).

Where God’s truth is loved, it will be central in our conversations (Zech 8:16; Mal 3:16; Deut 6:4-9; 11:18 19). Only when God’s truth is loved can it dominate exceptionally in our lives so as to renew us and transform us (Rom 12:1, 2). The man of God ultimately can only preach with conviction what he has first preached to his own heart. He can only call for repentance only where the truth has produced repentance in his own life.

Truth in the Inner Man Equips the Man to Speak (Ps 145).

What must be uttered from the mountain tops must begin in the heart. We could refer to this as theprinciple of the enlarged sphere. There is a logical progression in the enlargement of a man’s sphere of spiritual influence. Each step of progression is stipulated on faithfulness in the previous step: 1.) The godly man speaks truth in his own heart. He loves the truth in the inner man. He applies the truth to himself in ongoing repentance. 2.) The man of God speaks truth in his home; he faithfully fulfills his role of prophet, priest, and king. 3.) The spiritual man speaks truth in the Body of Christ. He exercises his gifts for the edification of the body. He is able to admonish his fellow believer (Rom 15:14). 4.) He speaks the truth of the Gospel with boldness to a lost and dying generation.

Power in evangelism must be built upon the principle of the enlarged sphere. For each step not only prepares a man for the next step, but reveals the man’s own relationship to the truth.

The Godly Man will not have “Conflict Avoidance” as his Controlling Motive (2 Tim 3:12).

“Jesus promised those who would follow Him only three things. . .that they would be absurdly happy, entirely fearless, and always in trouble” (Gregg Levoy).

How can a Christian man develop enough courage and boldness to stand upon, and speak his convictions without fear of consequences? An important part of the answer to this question deals with an inescapable reality taught in Scripture -- the godly man will be misunderstood. It is par for the course. It follows therefore that progress in our journey toward godly courage is bound up in accepting the reality that we will face misunderstanding and rejection because of the truth.

The Scriptures make it clear that all those who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (2 Tim 3:12). Jesus prepared His followers for persecution by imbuing them with the fact that they should expect the same mistreatment that He experienced (Jn 15:18-16:4). (Though we live in a land that protects the rights of believers, obedient Christians who stand in the truth will frequently experience rejection, ostracism, and discrimination. Our perspective amidst mistreatment must embrace the following truth. It is an inestimable privilege to have the antipathy meant for Christ fall upon us – John 7:7; Acts 5:41; Col 1:24).

The fear of man brings a snare (Prov 29:25).

The fear of God and the fear of man have always been, not only incompatible, but inversely proportional to one another. The greater fear of God a man has, the less he will fear men. When by God’s grace a man answers the call of true discipleship, his fear of man will be overtaken and ultimately consumed by the fear of God.

During His earthly ministry, Jesus faced “wanna be” followers who remained in bondage to the fear of man. John 12:42, 43 provides an authoritative record of these double minded individuals.“Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.”

Some might be quick to excuse the desire for human approval as simply a natural tendency in men that is not a serious sin. Jesus places this illicit craving under the spotlight in John 5:44. In this passage He warns that the fear of man is so serious, it can keep a person from living to the glory of God. “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?”

Again, lest we excuse this sin, let us remember that Jesus reserved one of His “Woes” for the sin of man-pleasing. “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets” (Luke 6:26).

Jesus puts this issue into sharp relief – if we live for the praise and approval of men, we are not living for the glory of God.

 

APPLICATION: We must repent of our “addiction” to the approval of men. We must admit to God that we have placed the praise of men above the approval of our Heavenly Father. We need to confess that our narcissistic desire to be liked by all has often stolen our courage to speak the truth in love.

The Greater our Ambition to Please Christ, the more Courage we will have (2 Cor 5:9).

The ambition to please our Lord is filled with the eschatological hope of favorably greeting Him at His imminent return. Courage is a byproduct of living to please Christ. When Christ’s approval towers over all other sources of approval, courage becomes second nature.

Those who live to please Christ have the judgment seat of Christ etched on their consciousness (2 Cor 5:9, 10). In essence, living to please Christ is a measure of our fear of God.

Those who live for Christ’s approval are continually weighing the glory to come against temporal losses (2 Cor 4:17, 18). As a consequence, their value system is constantly adjusted to heaven’s standard.

This fact alone enables us to see how impotent our fellow creatures are when they attempt to rightly appraise us (1 Cor 4:3, 4). Spurgeon hit the bull’s eye when he said, “Compared to what my heavenly Father thinks of me, the opinions of men are like so many chirping sparrows.”

 

APPLICATION: The one we strive most to please will necessarily be our primary evaluator. In other words, the one we seek to please will always wind up evaluating our efforts at pleasing them. In effect, we are somewhat suspended upon their approval or disapproval of us.

God has an incredibly liberating solution to this problem. Not only are we to make sure that all we do is in done in love (1 Cor 16:14), but we are to do all to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). Paul argues that our pleasing of men must spring from the goal not of seeking our own profit, but from the motive of seeking the other person’s eternal welfare (1 Cor 10:32, 33). This perspective places all of our relationships under the eye of Christ’s scrutiny. The point is we are most free and obedient when our actions are “as for the Lord rather than for men” (Col 3:22-24).

The more we regard Christ to be our “Source Person,” the more Courage we will have.

The more our hope and expectations are consolidated in Christ, the more we will be delivered from the fear and worship of the creature. The love and approval of men is incredibly fickle. Christ alone loves us with immutable love. Frequently the love shown by our fellows seldom rises above self interest. Most commonly, the love of the creature is not a supernatural love that is mediated by Christ. Instead it is a natural love that goes no higher than the perceived virtue of its object. Our fellow creatures cannot answer our deepest needs.

Fellow sinners do not carry our worth, security, and dignity. When we mistakenly assume they do, our courage dries up. Christ alone is our “Source Person.” He alone deserves to be regarded as the unfailing channel of every resource we need. By union with Him, we have a status before God of favor, righteousness, security, and sonship (1 Cor 1:30).

Our Lord is a jealous lover, when we attribute too much ability to the creature to serve as a source to us, God may allow us to experience deep disappointment. At times the Lord even orchestrates our disillusionment that we might understand that He alone is Source. We can all recall times in which the nurture, praise, and resources heaped upon us by a fellow creature proved in the end to flow from mercenary motives.

 

APPLICATION: Paul asserts that Christ is the believer’s life (Gal 2:20; Col 3:4). To the degree that we cast our entire lot in with Christ so that He is regarded as the entire support of the soul we will have courage. If our persons are propped up upon corruptible, mutable supports, we will lack courage. When our well being is leveraged upon the creature, we shy away from taking the risk of boldly declaring the truth of God’s Word.

Courage is the result of habitual dependency upon the Lord. The less dependent I am upon the creature, the more courage I will have to speak the truth to my fellow man. (EXAMPLE: Daniel was ostensibly dependent upon Belshazzar for employment and political freedom. Yet due to Daniel’s conviction that God was the sole, sovereign source of his care, provision, and protection, the prophet was not afraid to rebuke the monarch to his face (Dan 5:22, 23).

The More Reverence we have for God Entrusting us with His Word, the Greater our Courage will be to Speak it (Jer 23:28, 29).

God has made us His ambassadors. Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men (2 Cor 5:11). The Apostle Paul saw his role as a proclaimer of the Word of God to be a sacred trust that carried massive accountability. What is striking about Paul’s testimony in Acts 20 is that his faithfulness was joined to the fact that he was never mute when God required him to speak the Word.“Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:26, 27).

Man’s need is beyond human agency. As redeemed men, we carry in our hearts and hands the divine solution to man’s ruinous problem. We are armed with the living and abiding Word of God (Heb 4:12).

Paul solemnly charged Timothy in the presence of God to “Preach the Word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim 4:1, 2).

Timothy was to see his task of proclaiming the Word as nothing less than the very means of insuring the salvation of his listeners (1 Tim 4:16). Paul repeatedly warned Timothy against the error of allowing timidity and neglect to interfere with his sacred charge of teaching, preaching, and exhorting.

 

APPLICATION: As Christian men we have been entrusted by God with His almighty, living, sword of truth. We’ve seen from Paul’s letters to Timothy that this sword of truth must not be allowed to remain unused like a stainless steel blade stuck in a rusty scabbard. Those in our sphere; family, neighbors, co-workers, friends, are in need of hearing the Word of truth from us. As with Timothy’s congregation, God has strategically placed us in a position to speak the truth to those around us. The means God intends to use in their salvation and sanctification is tied to our faithfulness in speaking the Word with courage.

When considering how God had entrusted him with the Gospel, Paul saw himself as a debtor to both Jews and Greeks (Rom 1:14). This same principle of obligation applies to us. The Lord has called us to skillfully and courageously use the “sword” issued to us in order to encourage, reprove, exhort, instruct, equip and admonish. It will take courage to swing the sword in each of these arcs and orbs of application, but God expects nothing less from us as Christian men.

The more highly we Esteem our Justification in Christ, the more Courage we will have to speak the Word.

Salvation involves “moral trust” in God. Saving faith involves the consent to cast the whole welfare of the soul upon Christ that He might be our hiding place, Protector, and Deliverer.

To the degree that we make it a habit to look to Christ for our status, security, favor, and acceptance, our penchant for self-righteousness will be mortified. By these daily, fresh acts of faith toward our Savior, we affirm that all of our eligibility before God for blessing is carried by Christ. All “future grace,” and every future installment of divine blessing and kindness have all been secured for us by our Savior’s Person and work.

Like the Publican who saw his only hope to be God’s mercy, the man who treasures his justification in Christ will define himself primarily as an object of divine compassion. This mindset has a powerful impact upon our work and service.

 

APPLICATION: Since our lower natures always tend to pull us in the direction of legal working and performance, we need a daily diet of the Gospel to remind us that our status, favor, acceptance, and security are all carried by Christ. Our labor, our fruit-bearing, and even our integrity must be to the glory of Christ, not ourselves. He must have all the credit, for we are His workmanship (Eph 2:10).

When we drift away from overflowing gratitude for our justification in Christ, we will slide imperceptibly onto the foundation of our own performance. If we keep moving in that direction, we will find ourselves burning incense to our own achievements. A legal motive will raise its specter, deepening our craving for the approbation of men. When beholden to men for the praise of our works, we will lack courage. When utterly beholden to Christ who carries our justification, we will be liberated unto the exercise of courage for the good of our neighbor.

The Clear Conscience of the Man who Abides in Christ will show itself in Courage (Acts 24:15, 16).

We cannot make a penetrating application of God’s Word to those around us unless we ourselves welcome examination by God’s Word. Courage in speaking the Word is dependent upon a clear conscience before God and men (Acts 24:15, 16). Even one sin or lust “banging around” in the conscience is enough to dull the edge of our courage. Timothy’s success in proclaiming the Word with courage depended upon his maintaining a clear conscience (1 Tim 1:5, 19; 3:9).

God’s answer to our fear and weakness is found in the mandate to abide in Christ. “But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

In order for us to exercise courage, the blood of the Son of God must be the loudest voice in our conscience. In order for God’s justice at the cross to be believed and reckoned so as to silence the Accuser, we must habitually be mortifying sin by the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:12-14).

 

APPLICATION: The same man who turned coward when questioned by a servant girl preached the Pentecost sermon less than two months later. The Apostle Peter’s radical move from fear to courage, according to the book of Acts, was the result of two factors. First, he had been with Jesus. “Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). Second, Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit. “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, ‘Rulers and elders of the people. . .’” (Acts 4:8).

In the final analysis, God is the source of our courage. We are to allow our hearts to take courage(Ps 27:14; 31:24). The ability to act in courage is a function of waiting on the Lord. Faith’s object is the goodness of the Lord and the confident expectation that He will preserve the faithful, and empower them to bear witness to the truth (Jn 15:26, 27).

Those around us need our courage in speaking the Word of God. It was a penitent King David who prayed, “Restore to me the joy of Thy salvation, and sustain me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors Thy ways, and sinners will be converted to Thee” (Ps 51:11, 12).

The next generation is depending upon our courage. They are waiting for our faithfulness. They will not put their confidence in God unless they see the faith of their fathers and hear from their dads the joy of God, the works of God, and commands of God (Ps 78:3-8).

 

 

The Trinity and Gender Relations

A. The doctrine of the Trinity has profound implications for all reality, and for all social relations.

 

1. To defend the family against state agendas, we need to make a case that only the biblical drama of Creation, Fall, Redemption gives a realistic; yet humane account of human nature and of the structure and purpose of the family in society.

 

Along with the tendency of state-ism, is its companion ideology of reducing all social relationships to individual choice.  When one denies Creation; divine creation structures that govern our relationships are attacked as well. Relationships become ‘social contracts’ made out of convenience and preference. In Ted Peter’s book, For the Love of Children, he suggests that each parent be required to make a legal contract with his or her children.  His proposal is intended to shift from the biological family to choice.  This would turn the family into a collection of disconnected, atomistic individuals, bound by no attachments or obligations they do not choose for themselves.  This is called ontological individualism.  It is based on the idea that individuals are the only reality. Relationships are therefore not ultimate—only derivative; created by individual choice (social contract theory suggests that ALL social relationships are a matter of personal choice). 

 

2. The family is caught in a ‘tug-o-war’ between state-ism and individualism. The Holy Trinity provides the divine basis all for social relations.  The human race was created in the image of God (who is three Persons so intimately related as to constitute one Godhead).  The balance of unity and diversity in the Trinity gives a model for human social life BECAUSE the Trinity implies that both individuality and relationship exist within the Godhead.  God is “Being-in-communion” (Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, p. 132).

             

‘Ethics’ divorced from God become vices.  Consider examples from Western society which have already been legislated, or are about to be legislated: gay rights (same sex marriage); abortion (the ‘right’ to kill one’s unborn child); hate speech is to speak against homosexuality.    

 

3. The age old tension has been between collectivism (often expressed as state-ism) and individualism.  The Trinity is the solution to this tension because the Trinity implies not only unity; but the dignity and uniqueness of the individual. Over against radical individualism; the Trinity implies that relationships are not created by sheer choice but are built into the very essence of human nature that is made in the image of God (who is in communion).  We are not atomistic individuals but created for relationships (ibid. p. 132).

 

4. The Trinity has repercussions not only for all social relations (especially the family) but also for every other discipline. In philosophy the Trinity provides the solution to the question of the one and the many.  Since the ancient Greeks, philosophers have asked, does ultimate reality consist of a single being (as in pantheism); or in disconnected particulars (as in atomism)?  The two views are played out politically in the two extremes of totalitarianism versus anarchy. 

           

5. Trinitarian Christian worldview is only coherent basis for social theory.  The Trinity as the foundation of human sociality is not merely theoretical.  In redemption, believers are called to form an actual society—the Church—that demonstrates to the world the balanced interplay between the one and the many; of unity and individuality.  In John 17:11, Jesus is saying that the communion of Persons within the Trinity is the model for communion within the Church.  It teaches us how to foster richly diverse individuality within ontologically real relationships.  Timothy Ware notes, “The Church as a whole is an icon of God the Trinity, reproducing on earth the mystery of unity in diversity” (ibid. p. 133). (Note that the regenerate are literally equipped by God for true community – they are indwelt by God’s Spirit and have His enabling power; they have communion with God; and they have His infallible Word – 1 Pet 1:22, 23).  Humans (redeemed) are called upon to reproduce on earth the mystery of mutual love that the Trinity lives in heaven (ibid. pp. 133, 134).  

 

6. The following section on biblical manhood and womanhood is adapted from a course (by that title) taught by Wayne Grudem visiting lecturer at The Master’s Seminary. Gender roles and sexuality have become the focal point in the battle of worldviews.  At this ‘ground zero’ battle zone, the forces of secular humanism and feminism have sought to relativize all the ethical mandates of Scripture; especially those which apply to marriage; family; sacredness of life; sacredness of sexual relations; and gender roles.  The Trinity is the foundation for male and female being equal in dignity and value; yet having different roles.  Relations within the Trinity and relations within marriage have a parallel.  Communal relations involve listening, deferring, and trusting.  There is headship resident in one of the members. There is a difference in roles; yet equality.  The Trinity is the model for headship and submission. The difference in roles within the Trinity will continue for all eternity (1 Cor 15:28).  Because of diversity with perfect equality; the Trinity forms the pattern for relationships without inferiority.

 

The Trinity as unity and diversity) in the Godhead is the model for human social life. (note the unity and diversity in the ‘body’ metaphor in 1 Cor 12; Eph 4; Phil 2; and Col 3).  Our defense against radical individualism is as follows: the Trinity implies that relationships are NOT created by sheer choice; but are built into the very essence of human nature that is made in the image of God.  Our relationships are designed by God to express the character of our Creator.  What is tragic is that the doctrine of the economic Trinity is a threat to the egalitarianism of the Evangelical feminists.  As a consequence E.F. writers have penned articles which are modalistic in nature; suggesting that blasphemous notion that any member of the Trinity could have been incarnated as the Son of God!  By working in this manner, they show that their feminism is not a peripheral issue; but is hostile to the doctrine of God.  When they insist that roles are anchored in capacity; and not gender; they are severing their view of relationships from the Trinity.  The Scriptures teach that the roles within the economic Trinity are eternal.

 

7. (Grudem continued).  The differences in male female roles in marriage are part of the created order.  See Gen 2 (Adam naming); Gen 3 (Adam responsible for representing the human race); 1 Cor 11:9 (created purpose); 1 Tim 2:13 (order and source of creation).  The real issue in gender role is God’s reflected glory on earth. The complementarian view alone preserves the reflected glory of our Triune God in male female relationships (the complementarian view states that in Scripture God has revealed His specific pattern and plan for gender roles).            

          

8. (The following summary is from Building a Christian Worldview, Andrew   Hoffecker, Ed.)  Each Person in the Trinity eternally and equally possesses the whole substance of the Godhead; yet each is distinct from the others. The members of the Trinity differ from one another by the relations in which they stand to each other.  Each has absolute personality.  The Son is the self-reproduction of the Father (Heb 1:1-3; 5) of whom He is eternally begotten.  The Holy Spirit is the reproduction of the Father and the Son; and the Spirit proceeds from both (Jn 14:16, 17, 26; 16:7) (pp. 86, 87).  Christ unifies all reality.  Christ does what the Greek philosophers could not do; He unifies all reality.  He links visible and invisible reality; He reconciles singularity and plurality He gives harmony, unity, and order to the cosmos.  The Son connects the realms of being (permanence) and becoming (change).  The Trinity provides the vision for seeking unity among mankind.  Plato could not unite the visible and the invisible; the transcendent and the immanent (pp. 88, 95).    

 

9. (From Apologetics, by Cornelius Van Til.)  Man made for himself a false ideal of knowledge. It is totally inconsistent with the idea of creatureliness that man should strive for comprehensive knowledge; if it could be obtained it would wipe God out of existence and man would then be God.  When man seeks to be his own ultimate reference point; man virtually occupies the place which the ontological Trinity occupies in orthodox theology (p. 10, 11).  The ontological Trinity is the foundation concept of a Christian theory of being, of knowledge, and of action. This is the God in whom men must believe lest all meaning should disappear from human words. Apart from the God of Christianity, all possible human predication is non-existent (p.12, 13). 

 

10. (The following is from Apologetics to the Glory of God, by John Frame.)  The importance of the Trinity to apologetics is immense: Anti-Trinitarianism always leads to a “wholly other” God, rather than a God who is transcendent in the biblical sense. Paradoxically, it also leads to a God who is relative to the world rather than sovereign Lord of Scripture (a “blank” God without absolute personality). It makes Creator-creature distinction a matter of degree, rather than difference in being. Because of the Trinity (both three and one), God can be described in personalistic terms without being made relative to the world.  The Trinity answers philosophy’s religious quest, namely, “Why is there is no absolute unity (devoid of plurality), nor absolute plurality (devoid of unity)?” (pp. 47-49).

 

The Unitarian god is unknowable (blank oneness or utter uniqueness).  The God of Scripture is the only absolute, and that absolute is the one and the many.  The Trinity has implications for epistemology.  God the Lord interprets everything definitively – so when we want to know something, we must think His thoughts after Him.  God is the author/origin of truth, the supreme authority for knowledge. Authority is part of His lordship – He has the right to tell us what to believe. When sinners try to gain knowledge without fear of the Lord, that knowledge is distorted. The sinner may express many facts accurately in a context smaller than worldview. But his worldview is twisted and unreliable.  His most serious epistemological mistake is to assert his own autonomous reason (that is self) as the final standard of truth and right (John Frame, pp. 50, 51).   

 

The conventional wisdom, with its impersonalism, cannot do justice to moral values. The world’s wisdom cannot account for the trustworthiness of reason.  This inability corrupts impersonalist ideas in every field of human thought: science, philosophy, psychology, sociology, the arts, economics, business, government. It corrupts practical living – after all, in a chance universe why choose moral right instead of self?  If we are to go on the offensive against unbelief, we must know more about unbelief from a Biblical viewpoint.  The unbeliever attempts to think and live as if the absolute personal God of Scripture does not exist (pp. 191-193).  

 

11. (The following is from a lecture by John Gerstner, The Work of the Trinity in Man’s Redemption.)  There is an infinite difference between the ontological      Trinity and bare monotheism.  We teach that the very nature of God exists in one substance and in three Persons.  The tri-personal, or Trinitarian doctrine of God is the only possible monotheism.  The way in which ‘monotheism’ is used in the academy is not really describing the God of Scripture; why? BECAUSE there is no such God as a God who is mono-personal (only one person)!  Islam and Judaism are committed to the proposition that God is mono-personal (Note the terminology used by the religious leaders who rejected Christ’s divinity – Jn 5:18; 10:33.). So called, ‘monotheists’ are only worshipping the figment of their imagination (in reality they are atheists or idolaters).  Christians are the only true worshippers of God on the face of the earth (Judaism is a religious organization based upon the common rejection of Christ’s deity and Messiahship.)

(Gerstner continued.) The ontological Trinity refers to God as three Persons, one substance, equal in power and glory.  The economic Trinity refers to God in respect to His relation to us; especially redemption.  We must understand the ontological Trinity in order to understand the economic Trinity.  Only 20% of professing Christendom believes in the redemptive work of all three members of the economic Trinity: the Father allocating redemption; the Son accomplishing redemption; the Holy Spirit applying redemption.  (The other 80% plus of Christendom still places their hope in the sacraments—namely that the sacraments constitute the application of salvation.)

 

B. Are moral requirements an imposition on our freedom; or are they the expression of our true nature?

1. The ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau inspired many of the ‘butchers’ of the 20thCentury.  If you grasp Rousseau’s thinking; you will understand much of the modern world.  Rousseau described what he designated a “pre-social” condition or “state of nature.”  In this ‘pre-social’ condition, all social relations are not real; but choices.  He envisioned man in a state of nature stripped of all social  relationships, morals, laws, customs, traditions—civilization itself.  All that  exists are disconnected autonomous individuals whose sole driving force is desire for self motivation.  Rousseau’s view of society is that it is oppressive, confining, contrary to our nature (p. 138).

 

2. For Rousseau, what was oppressing man’s natural freedom was the ‘chains’ of relationships such as marriage, family, church, and workplace.  His line of thought represented a radical break from the traditional Christian social theory which regards the Trinity as the model for social life (in Genesis, the original man in nature was blessed with the institution of marriage).  The implications of the doctrine of the Trinity is that relationships are just as real and ultimate as individuals.  Relationships are part of the created order; thus ontologically good and real.  The moral requirements they make upon us are not impositions on our freedom; but expressions of what it means to be human (our true nature).  Participating in institutions of family, church, state, and society are part of the Christian’s development of moral virtues that prepare us ultimately to be citizens of the heavenly city (p. 138).

 

3. Rousseau spelled out a vision in which the state would destroy all social ties; the individual would only have to be loyal to self; since the state was the ‘liberator’, each person would be dependent upon the state (no wonder this inspired so many totalitarian regimes).  Thomas Hobbes and John Locke proposed the concept as well (each of these three men wrote before Darwin’s time).  Darwin’s creation myth would someday supply the theory that would give credence to the idea of the indeterminate, ‘happy’ beast; namely prehistoric; or early man. These pre-Darwin thinkers suggested that the reason social relationships are bad is because they interfere with the individual’s ‘freedom’ to create himself.  Relationships that are not the product of choice are oppressive (biological bonds of family, moral bonds of marriage, spiritual bonds of the church). The only bond which retains autonomous freedom then is the social contract (traditional social ties would be dissolved and then reconstituted on the basis of choice).  (pp. 138-140). 

 

     C. Every worldview based on faulty views of Creation; the Fall; and Redemption, will ultimately be hostile to true freedom (and instigate rebellion against God). Why was the 20th Century the bloodiest in history?  Answer: Whole cultures adopted worldviews based upon faulty definitions of Creation; Fall; and Redemption.  The autonomous individual with his false view of freedom is actually the most vulnerable to totalitarian control. Students today who have never read Locke can parrot the atomistic notion of social contract; they have bought into the liberal idea of the ‘unencumbered self’ (marriage, family, and church may be ties they have not ‘chosen’).  The core of personhood is our ability to choose our own identity—to create ourselves.  This is why relationships and responsibilities are often considered hostile to essential identity (pp. 140, 141).

       

D. The exchange of the truth about God for a lie has opened the floodgates of immorality (Rom 1:24-32).

The influence of the social contract philosophers is widespread today.  We have runaway co-habitation.  Marriage among today’s single culture is seen as too risky; not worth giving up their autonomy.  Thanks to Sanger, Kinsey, and others, pornography is no longer degrading smut; sexual license is viewed as our ultimate identity and key to personal development.  Therefore the ‘moralists’ who teach abstinence, self-denial, suppression, (and fidelity) are exposing their listeners to all sorts of dysfunctions says Sanger.  Sexual liberation has become a ‘moral’ crusade with Christian morality as the enemy! Sexual gratification has become a complete ideology with all the elements of worldview (pp. 142-146). 

   

E. Creation is foundational; all hope of unified truth stands or falls with origins. The grid of Creation, Fall, and Redemption provides a powerful tool for comparing and contrasting worldviews.  It also explains why biblical creationism is under such relentless attack today.  Creation is foundational; it shapes everything that follows. Critics of Christianity know that it stands or falls with the Bible’s teaching of ultimate origins.