The Entire Bible - Our Ethical Standard

The 3rd chapter of Dr. Greg Bahnsen's book, By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today is about the entire Bible as the ethical standard for today. In this chapter, Dr. Bahnsen explains the meaning of "all of life is ethical, and all of the Bible is permeated with a concern for ethics;" (p. 21) proves "the very narrative and theological plot of the Bible is governed by ethical concerns;" (p. 22) argues that "there is no word from God which fails to tell us in some way what we are to believe about Him and what duty He requires of us;" (p. 24) claims that "God expects us to submit to His every word, and not pick and choose the ones which are agreeable to our preconceived opinions," (p. 25) and; answers the question related to the idea that the coming of Christ has already "either cancelled or at least reduced" (p. 26) the requirements of Old Testament law.

All of Life is Ethical and All of the Bible is Permeated with Ethical Concern

Unlike the organization of an encyclopedia, our Bible was not written in such a way that it devotes separate sections exclusively to various topics of interest. Hence the Bible does not contain one separate, self-contained book or chapter that completely treats the subject of ethics or moral conduct. To be sure, many chapters of the Bible (like Exodus 20 or Romans 13) and even some books of the Bible (like Proverbs or James) have a great deal to say about ethical matters and contain very specific guidance for the believer's life. Nevertheless, there will not be found a division of the Bible entitled something like "The Complete List of Duties and Obligations in the Christian Life." Instead, we find a concern for ethics carrying through the whole word of God, from cover to cover - from creation to consummation.

The entire Bible speaks of God, and we read that the living and true God is holy, just, good, and perfect. These are attributes of an ethical character and have moral implications for us. The entire Bible speaks of the works of God, and we read that all of His works are performed in wisdom and righteousness-again, ethical qualities. The world which God has created, we read, reveals God's moral requirements clearly and continuously. History, which God governs by His sovereign decree, will manifest His glory, wisdom and justice. The apex of creation and the key figure in earthly history, man, has been made the image of this holy God and has God's law imbedded in his heart. Man's life and purpose take their direction from God. Everyone of man's actions and attitudes is called into the service of the Creator- motivated by love and faith, aimed at advancing God's glory and kingdom. Accordingly the entire Bible has a kind of ethical focus.

The Narrative and Theological Plot of the Bible

The very narrative and theological plot of the Bible is governed by ethical concerns. From the outset we read that man has fallen into sin - by disobeying the moral standard of God; as a consequence man has come under the wrath and curse of God His just response to rebellion against His commands. Sin and curse are prevailing characteristics, then, of fallen man's environment, history, and relationships.

To redeem man, restore him to favor, and rectify his wayward life in all areas, God promised and provided His own Son as a Messiah or Savior. Christ lived a life of perfect obedience to qualify as our substitute, and then He died on the cross to satisfy the justice of God regarding our sin. As resurrected and ascended on high, Christ rules as Lord over all, bringing all opposition into submission to His kingly reign. He has sent the Spirit characterized by holiness into His followers, and among other things the Holy Spirit brings about the practice of righteousness in their lives. The church of Christ has been mandated to proclaim God's good news, to advance His kingdom throughout the world, to teach Christ's disciples to observe everything He has commanded, and to worship the Triune God in spirit and in truth. When Christ returns at the consummation of human history He will come as universal judge, dispensing punishment and reward according to the revealed standard of God's word. On that day all men will be divided into the basic categories of covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers; then it will be clear that all of one's life in every realm and relationship has reflected his response to God's revealed standards. Those who have lived in alienation from God, not recognizing their disobedience and need of the Savior, will be eternally separated from His presence and blessing; those who have embraced the Savior in faith and submitted to Him as Lord will eternally enjoy His presence in the new heavens and earth wherein righteousness dwells.

Faith in God and Our Duty

There is no word from God which fails to tell us in some way what we are to believe about Him and what duty He requires of us.

Read 2 Timothy 3:16-17

If we disregard any portion of the Bible we will - to that extent - fail to be thoroughly furnished for every good work. If we ignore certain requirements laid down by the Lord in the Bible our instruction in righteousness will be incomplete. Paul says that every single scripture is profitable for ethical living; every verse gives us direction for how we should live.

The entire Bible is our ethical yardstick for every part of it is the word of the eternal, unchanging God; none of the Bible offers fallible or mistaken direction to us today. Not one of God's stipulations is unjust, being too lenient or too harsh. And God does not unjustly have a double-standard of morality, one standard of justice for some and another standard of justice for others. Every single dictate of God's word, then, is intended to provide moral instruction for us today, so that we can demonstrate justice, holiness, and truth in our lives.

It is important to note here that when Paul said that "every scripture is inspired by God and profitable" for holy living, the New Testament was not as yet completed, gathered together, and existing as a published collection of books. Paul's direct reference was to the well known Old Testament scriptures, and indirectly to the soon-to-be-completed New Testament. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul taught New Testament believers that every single Old Testament writing was profitable for their present instruction in righteousness, if they were to be completely furnished for every good work required of them by God.

Not one bit of the Old Testament has become ethically irrelevant, according to Paul. That is why we, as Christians, should speak of our moral viewpoint, not merely as "New Testament Ethics," but as "Biblical Ethics." The New Testament (2 Tim. 3:16-17) requires that we take the Old Testament as ethically normative for us today. Not just selected portions of the Old Testament, mind you, but "every scripture." Failure to honor the whole duty of man as revealed in the Old Testament is nothing short of a failure to be completely equipped for righteous living. It is to measure one's ethical duty by a broken and incomplete yardstick.

Total Submission to His Word

God expects us to submit to His every word, and not pick and choose the ones which are agreeable to our preconceived opinions. 

Read Matthew 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:1, 3; 12:32; James 2:10

The Lord requires that we obey everything He has stipulated in the Old and New Testaments - that we "live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). Our Lord responded to the temptation of Satan with those words, .quoting the Old Testament passage in Deuteronomy 8:3 which began "All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do" (8:1).

Many believers in Christ fail to imitate His attitude here, and they are quite careless about observing every word of God's command in the Bible. James tells us that if a person lives by and keeps every precept or teaching of God's law, and yet he or she disregards or violates it in one single point, that person is actually guilty of disobeying the whole (James 2:10). Therefore, we must take the whole Bible as our standard of ethics, including every point of God's Old Testament law. Not one word which proceeds from God's mouth can be invalidated and made inoperative, even as the Lord declared with the giving of His law: "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it" (Deut. 12:32). The entire Bible is our ethical standard today, from cover to cover.

The Supposed Cancellation of Old Testament Law

Doesn't the coming of Jesus Christ change our ethical standard? Hasn't the Old Testament law been either cancelled or at least reduced in its requirements? 

Read Matthew 5:17-19; Psalm 119:160

Many professing believers are misled in the direction of these questions, despite God's clear requirement that nothing be subtracted from His law, despite the straightforward teaching of Paul and James that every Old Testament scripture - even every point of the law - has a binding ethical authority in the life of the New Testament Christian.

Perhaps the best place to go in Scripture to be rid of the theological inconsistency underlying a negative attitude toward the Old Testament law is to the very words of Jesus himself on this subject, Matthew 5:17-19. Nothing could be clearer than that Christ here denies twice (for the sake of emphasis) that His coming has abrogated the Old Testament law: "Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets; I did not come to abolish." Again, nothing could be clearer than this: not even the least significant aspect of the Old Testament law will lose its validity until the end of the world: "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the slightest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law." And if there could remain any doubt in our minds as to the meaning of the Lord's teaching here, He immediately removes it by applying His attitude toward the law to our behavior: "Therefore whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments and teaches others so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Christ's coming did not abrogate anything in the Old Testament law, for every single stroke of the law will abide until the passing away of this world; consequently, the follower of Christ is not to teach that even the least Old Testament requirement has been invalidated by Christ and His work. As the Psalmist declared, "Every one of Thy righteous ordinances is everlasting" (Ps. 119:160).

Conclusion

Read Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 4:4

"The word of our God shall stand forever" (Isa. 40:8), and the Old Testament law is part of every word from God's mouth by which we must live (Matt. 4:4).

All of life is ethical, and ethics requires a standard of right and wrong. For the Christian that yardstick is found in the Bible - the entire Bible, from beginning to end. The New Testament believer repudiates the teaching of the law itself, of the Psalms, of James, of Paul and of Jesus Himself when the Old Testament commandments of God are ignored or treated as a mere antiquated standard of justice and righteousness. 



Source: Bahnsen, G. L. (1985). By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics. 

Confusing Voices

Confusing voices. That's how I summarized the 2nd chapter in Dr. Greg Bahnsen's book, By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today. 

Photo Credit:
http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/united%20states%20of%20america/justiceliftsthenations.htm

After proving that all of life is ethical that calls for a moral standard, Dr. Bahnsen shared the various moral standards humanity has been using since the ancient Greco-Roman era up to the present time. The State under Caesar was considered supreme over ethical matters during the rule of the Roman Empire. During the Medieval period, two moral standards were recognized: the Bible and human reason. The Bible was used for religious ethics, and reason based on natural law for natural ethics. However, during this period, the Bible's authority was actually superseded by the Church under the leadership of the Pope. In the time of Reformation, the Bible was acknowledged as the final court of appeal in matters of faith and practice. The Puritans followed this standard in all spheres of human life. They even took biblical law as their norm for civil laws. "The attitude of the Reformers and Puritans is nicely summarized in Robert Paul's painting which hangs in the Supreme Court Building, Lausanne, Switzerland; it is entitled 'Justice Instructing the Judges' and portrays Justice pointing her sword to a book labeled 'The Law of God' " (p. 16). Unfortunately, with the advent of the Enlightenment, the standard of morality shifted to "human laws fostered by independent reason and experience" (p.17). The new standard is now "found within man or his community. Bishop Butler located it in man's conscience, Kant in man's reason, and Hegel in the Absolute state" (ibid.).

Contemporary moralities no longer acknowledge the Bible as the norm. It is dismissed as "outdated, ignorant, unreasonable, prejudicial, undemocratic, and impractical" (ibid.). The outcome of this rejection "in Western culture is the tension between an unrestrained, tyrannical state on the one hand and the liberated, unrestrained individual on the other. Statism and anarchy pull against each other. The immoral policies of the state are matched by the immoral lives of its citizens" (ibid.).

Theologians no longer believe in " 'Thus saith the Lord' " (p.18). The favorite phrase these days is " 'it seems to me (or us)' " (ibid.). See the following statements that illustrate the contemporary moralities:

• "God is teaching us that we must live as men who can get along very well without Him." - Bonhoeffer

• "The proclamation of imperatives backed by divine authority is not very persuasive today." - Wolfhart Pannenberg 

• "There is no room in morality for commands, whether they are the father's, the schoolmaster's or the priest's. There is still not room for them when they are God's commands." - Graeme de Graaff 

• "Law ethics is still the enemy." - Joseph Fletcher 

• "I thank God that as a reformed Christian I worship a God of grace and not a God of rules." - Anonymous

Source: Bahnsen, G. L. (1985). By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics. 

The Continuing Validity of Biblical Law

Chapter 1 of Dr. Greg Bahnsen's book, "By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today," focuses on "Specification of Purpose and Position." To me, it's all about clarifications of his stance in the book regarding the validity of Old Testament law for our time. In explaining his position, I see ten misconceptions, which could be actual or potential that readers should avoid to associate with Dr. Bahnsen's thesis. The first two extreme reactions are not included in these misconceptions such as the attitudes that no change has taken place "in how the law should be observed" and "everything has been changed" that makes Christian ethics completely confined to the New Testament (p. 1). 

The basic thesis taken in the book is that the written revelation of God "is necessary as the objective standard of morality for God's people" (p. 2). This revelation is in harmony "with the general revelation made of God's standards through the created order and man's conscience" (ibid.). Throughout this chapter, Dr. Bahnsen repeated several times what he describes as "methodological point," (p. 3) to prove his thesis (I prefer calling it hermeneutical approach). On page 2, he states: ". . . the Bible teaches that we should presume continuity between the ethical standards of the New Testament and those of the Old . . ." Matthew 5: 17-19 is a vital basis for this approach. Again, on page 3, Dr. Bahnsen mentions: "The methodological point, then, is that we presume our obligation to obey any Old Testament commandment unless the New Testament indicates otherwise." And still on the same page, he adds: ". . . the New Testament does not teach any radical change in God's law regarding the standards of socio-political morality." And finally on page 7: "It is advocated that we should presume the abiding authority of any Old Testament commandment until and unless the New Testament reveals otherwise." Refusing this thesis, the remaining option is to follow autonomous speculation. 

In proceeding to the ten misconceptions, I generalize my statement describing all advocates of biblical law though I am aware that there are discrepancies of interpretation among them. To be safe, you can interpret these general statements referring only to the study of Dr. Bahnsen. 

The ten misconceptions are as follows: 

Misconception # 1 - That those who advocate biblical law deny discontinuity. Dr. Bahnsen's thesis for the validity of biblical law does not deny the existence of discontinuity in applying it to modern situation. He identifies them at least under four categories:

• "Certain localized imperatives or specific commands used in concrete situation." Example: "the command to go to war and gain the land of Palestine by the sword" (p. 5)

• "Cultural details." Example: "flying axhead" (ibid.)

• "Administrative details." Example: "the type or form of government, the method of tax collecting, the location of the capitol" (p. 6)

• "Typological foreshadows in the Old Testament." Examples: "...ceremonial laws of sacrifice, provisions regarding the land of Palestine, the laws regulating aspects of the land of Canaan (family plots, location of cities of refuge, the levirate institution)." (ibid.)

These are just four examples. Other discontinuity can be identified.

Misconception # 2 - That those who advocate biblical law have adopted superficial exegesis. In fact, to advocate the use of biblical law does not exempt, but provides a strong motivation towards exegetical responsibility. In the language of Dr. Bahnsen, this requires "hard thinking." Notice how he explains this commitment:

"We need to be sensitive to the fact that interpreting the Old Testament law, properly categorizing its details (for example, ceremonial, standing, cultural), and making modern day applications of the authoritative standards of the Old Testament is not an easy or simple task. It is not always readily apparent to us how to understand an Old Testament commandment or use it properly today. So the position taken here does not make everything in Christian ethics a simple matter of looking up obvious answers in a code-book. Much hard thinking - exegetical and theological homework - is entailed by a commitment to the position advocated in these studies" (p. 7).

Misconception # 3 - Potential misconception related to the study of Christian ethics. The primary focus of Dr. Bahnsen is limited to the normative perspective of Christian ethics that deals "with the question of standards for conduct" (p. 8). The "motivational and the consequential perspectives (touching on inner character and goal in ethics) are not equally treated, nor is the vital area of producing and maintaining moral behavior" (ibid.).

Misconception # 4 - Misconception related to three major errors such as making obedience to God's law as the way to salvation, treating the law as the dynamic power in Christian life, and confining the influence of the law on external observance. Instead, Dr. Bahnsen affirms salvation by grace through faith, the need for the Holy Spirit in sanctification, and that observance of the law includes our hearts and attitudes. 

Misconception # 5 - Potential misconception that advocates of biblical law ignore the complexity of the "detailed application of God's law to our modern world" (p. 9). Dr. Bahnsen carefully maintains that the scope of his study is foundational in nature and therefore does not deal with the specifics. 

Misconception # 6 - That those who advocate biblical law believes in "the imposition of God's law by force upon a society" (ibid.). Dr. Bahnsen upholds that the way to advance the kingdom of God here on earth is not through forceful imposition of biblical law upon society, but through "the Great Commission - evangelism, preaching, and nurture in the word of God - and in the power of God's regenerating and sanctifying Spirit" (ibid.).

Misconception # 7 - That the logical conclusion of the advocacy of biblical law will either lead to rebellion against or passive submission to government authorities. Dr. Bahnsen reiterates his commitment "to the transforming power of God's word which reforms all areas of life. . ." (p.10).

Misconception # 8 - That those who advocate biblical law consider all sins as crimes and matters of private conscience as subject for social sanctions. This is the socio-political misconception in the use of God's law. Dr. Bahnsen emphatically delineates, "Not all sins are crimes, . . . Rulers should enforce only those laws for which God revealed social sanctions to be imposed (not matters of private conscience or personal piety)" (ibid.).

Misconception # 9 - That those who advocate biblical law ignore "the full provisions of due process in a court of law" (ibid.). Dr. Bahnsen elaborates:

"Of course, when magistrates do come to the decision to enforce the commandment(s) of God in a particular area - whether because they have personally been converted or whether they simply see the wisdom and justice of those laws as unbelievers - they are obliged to do so in a proper and fair manner. The Christian does not advocate ex post facto justice whereby offenders are punished for offenses committed prior to the civil enactment of a law prohibiting their actions. Nor does the Christian advocate the punishment of criminals who have not been convicted under the full provisions of due process in a court of law" (pp. 10-11).

Misconception # 10 - That those who advocate biblical law make the law of God as the most important subject at the expense of other biblical subjects. Again, Dr. Bahnsen is cautious here to indicate that he is just focusing on "one aspect of the total picture of Christian theology and ethics" (p.11). He adds: 

"It is not to say that political ethics is more vital than personal ethics or that the cultural mandate is more crucial than the evangelistic mandate of the church" (ibid.). 

Through this study, Dr. Greg Bahnsen simply followed "the Reformed conviction that our Christian beliefs should be guided by sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura-only by Scripture and by all of Scripture" (p. 12). 

Source: Bahnsen, G. L. (1985). By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics. 

By This Standard - Dr. Greg Bahnsen's Foreword

Several chapters in Dr. Greg Bahnsen's book, By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today first appeared as short articles in his newsletter, Biblical Ethics written from 1978 to 1982. The book is not an in-depth treatment of arguments, but a summary of biblical law. Dr. Bahnsen has other books for that purpose.

The question that Dr. Bahnsen wants to stimulate in writing the book is "whether the Old Testament law is still binding as a moral standard today" or not (p. xxvii). Most Christians assume that their ethical behavior is only limited to the teachings of the New Testament. This is a mistake on the basis of Reformed principle of Tota Scriptura, Sola Scriptura. Dr. Bahnsen challenges his readers to verify the answers given in the book on the bar of the written word. His prayer is that after reading the book Christians will be convinced about the wisdom and authority of biblical law, and learn to love it. Dr. Bahnsen thanked critics for they helped him see the common misconceptions about biblical law. 

Source: Bahnsen, G. L. (1985). By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics. 

The Triumph of God's Law

Militant, triumphant. These are the two words that come to my mind in describing Gary North's "Prologue" in Dr. Greg Bahnsen's book, "By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today." The Prologue is long, but interesting, informative, and very encouraging. After reading it, I spend some time contemplating for a suitable title. "The Triumph of God's Law" captures the ideas shared in those 16 pages. 

Gary North unfolds his theme by mentioning the timely appearance of the book, a unique idea of international evangelism, information about Dr. Greg Bahnsen, other books on biblical law, critics, humanism, and the future of biblical law. 

The Timely Appearance of the Book

Photo Credit: http://rebuildbiblicalworldview.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/the-myth-of-neutrality/

Before elaborating about the timely appearance of the book, North describes Dr. Bahnsen's piece as " a kind lawyer's brief," "tightly reasoned, yet clear." In the book you can find "the basic outline of the New Testament's case for the continuing validity of Old Testament law" (p. xi). And "Argument by argument, Dr. Bahnsen refutes the supposed biblical arguments against the continuing validity of the law of God" (ibid.). And then he pointed out the timely appearance of the book due to an intellectual shift that was happening among "a minority of American church leaders" (ibid.). And among many reasons for this mental shift, North singled out the 1973 decision of the US Supreme Court regarding the removal of the state laws against abortion. This decision exposed the real color of the myth of neutrality; it doesn't exist. North gave casuistry as a concrete example of this and was happy to announce that such exposure was spreading to other fields that include critical issues like "pornography, inflation, officially neutral tax-supported education ('values clarification'), homosexuality, globalism, the New World Order, New Age humanism, and contemporary Western theories of national defense (mutually assured destruction, or MAD)" (p. xiii). 

And then before proceeding to introduce Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Dr. North identified a unique idea about international evangelism through biblical law. He based this assertion from Deuteronomy 4:5-8, and then closed this section by asking the question, "By what standard?", which answer is the very reason for the existence of the book. 

Introducing Dr. Greg Bahnsen

Gary North has a high regard for Dr. Bahnsen. They both shared similar intellectual background through the influence of Dr. Cornelius Van Til. And then he describes Bahnsen's writing style and shared a couple of sarcastic stories. As logically rigid and precise writer, Bahnsen's style requires focused attention from his readers for them to understand what he's saying. With a mixture of appreciation for Dr. Bahnsen and sarcasm for his critics, Dr. North characterizes the strategy of the former as follows: 

"He considers the standard arguments that have been used against the idea of the continuing validity of biblical law, and he exposes them, one by one, as illogical, anti-biblical, and productive of great harm. He shows not only that these arguments are wrong logically but also that they are wrong morally. He wraps his opponents in an exegetical net. The more they struggle, the more ensnared they become. He never names them, but you can hear them screaming anyway" (pp. xvi-xvii).

Photo Credit: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/02/11/new-web-series-bahnsen-intro

North is an interesting storyteller. I like the way he compared Dr. Bahnsen's performance in the book to "milking" a poisonous snake:

"His performance could also be compared to a man who 'milks' a poisonous snake: he operates methodically, without visible emotion, and precisely. Eventually, the snake is rendered harmless. Temporarily. Until the poison is again manufactured by its system. Then it's another round of 'milking,' with yet another argument being squeezed dry of logical and biblical content, until the snake is exhausted. On and on it goes, until the snake finally dies or has its fangs extracted. To appreciate the technician's efforts, however, the observer must recognize the danger of the poison and the, seriousness of the operation. The observer also should not be surprised that from start to finish, there is a lot of outraged hissing going on" (p. xvii). 

Again, pertaining to Dr. Bahnsen's critics, North reserved another "interesting" story. This time, its about the debate with Dr. Meredith Kline. After indicating that published criticism of Dr. Bahnsen's ideas on biblical law is almost non-existent, Dr. North narrates the outcome of intellectual exchanges between Dr. Kline and Dr. Bahnsen: 

"A few critical essays appeared, but only one was of any academic significance, Dr. Meredith Kline's, and Dr. Bahnsen's subsequent response ended the debate. Whenever I reread the two essays, I am reminded of that 5-second 'underground' cartoon, 'Bambi Meets Godzilla.' Bambi is skipping through the forest, when a giant reptilian foot squashes him. End of cartoon. In the case of Dr. Kline, end of debate. There was no rematch. (The most amusing aspect of this historic confrontation is that 'Bambi' initiated it.)" (p. xvii-xviii).

The Heart of the Prologue

At this point, Dr. North touches the heart of his Prologue: the conflict between biblical law and humanism. Other books on biblical law are acknowledged: Bahnsen's "Theonomy in Christian Ethics," Rushdoony's "Institutes of Biblical Law," Jordan's "Law of the Covenant," and North's economic commentaries. One must consider that Dr. Bahnsen's present book is simply an introduction to biblical law. 

Photo Credit: http://www.conservapedia.com/Humanism

Dr. Bahnsen's critics are losing the intellectual battle not only against the advocates of biblical law, but also against the humanists. Dr. North, through another humorous-sarcastic biblical analogy, rebuked and challenged Christians to recover biblical law in confronting humanism:

"Unlike the comic book advertisement for Charles Atlas's 'dynamic tension' program, where the 200-pound bully kicks sand in the face of the 98-pound weakling, Christians in the twentieth century have been the 200-pound weaklings who have been pushed around by 98-pound bullies. Like Samson without his hair, Christians without God's law are impotent, and have been regarded by Philistines throughout the ages as drudges to be misused and humiliated publicly, if the opportunity presents itself. What Dr. Bahnsen is proposing is that we flex our muscles and knock the pillars out from under humanism's temple. But this time, we should push from the outside of the arena, not pull from the inside. When it comes to social collapse, let the Philistines of our day be inside. Let us pick up the pieces" (p. xix).

North then turns to humanism. He accurately diagnosed it as hiding behind a popular slogan, collapsing, and accusing Christianity of tyranny. The slogan "we're under grace not law" obscures the real situation that in fact the threat to society today is not the law of God, but the rule of humanistic laws. Our proper response therefore is to "start studying, preaching, and rallying behind biblical law" (p. xix). By doing this, Christians can "come up with valid social alternatives to a collapsing humanist civilization" (p. xx). 

However, humanists will not easily give up. Their accusation of tyranny due to the idea of applying Christianity to politics is successful. Christians feel guilty and suffer inferiority. For North, this accusation has no credibility for the accusers are guilty of far more and bigger crimes. How can the humanists say that the crimes committed by Christians such as the medieval crusades prove the unworkability of Christianity in politics whereas they themselves have launched wars and revolutions killing as many as 150 million in the first 70 years of 20th century alone? North wrote two more paragraphs to prove that humanists have no right to accuse Christians of crimes. 

"These same critics have complained repeatedly about the Roman Catholic Church's burning of the occult magician Bruno or Calvin's approval of the burning of unitarian Servetus (with the enthusiastic approval of the Catholics, who were also after him, and who tipped Calvin off when Servetus came into Geneva), four centuries ago. Compare these two events with the atrocities of Stalin, who killed 20 to 30 million Russians in his purges in the 1930's, including a million Communist Party members, plus an additional ten million who died unnatural deaths during the famines produced by his forced collectivization of agriculture. Then there is the continuing atrocity of the Soviet Union's concentration camp population, which has probably included about one third of the Soviet population over the years, with at least one percent of the entire population in the camps at any given time" (pp. xxii-xxiii).

"This slaughter took place in the 1930's without any significant criticism in the prestigious liberal humanist press for the next twenty years. Malcolm Muggeridge, a reporter for the Manchester Guardian in this era, says in the first volume of his autobiography that Western reporters and liberals knew what Stalin was doing; they approved of his ruthlessness. Even in our day, some apologists still exist. ("Stalin, despite certain excesses, was a progressive force in his day, and we must understand that it is not easy to bring a backward society into technological maturity, blah, blah, blah.") Yet these same ideologues taunt Christians about the Salem witch trials in the 1690's, in which all of 20 people were executed, and which never happened again. In one year, Mao's policies killed 30 million Chinese. Spare Christians the guilt trips, please." (p. xxiii).

The accusation therefore of humanists lack credibility. Accusing Christianity of tyranny is hypocritical for this is the very crime that our humanistic generation is most guilty of. The fear of many who believe humanism that biblical law leads to tyranny is baseless. Tyranny actually happens when people refuse the law of God. North explains:

". . . Wouldn't biblical law lead to tyranny? I answer: Why should it? God designed it. God mandated it. Was Israel a tyranny? Or was Egypt the real tyranny, and Babylon? Tyranny was what God visited upon His people when they turned their backs on biblical law" (p.xxiv).

So Christians should better prepare with biblical alternatives upon the collapse of humanistic society. North describes such preparation:

"When that day comes, Christians had better be ready with the biblical answer: voluntary charity, the tithe to finance the church, and all levels of civil government combined limited by Constitutional law to under ten percent of the people's income. The state is not God, and is therefore not entitled to a tithe. . . Humanists can only cough up enough money to pay pipers when they have stolen the money with the ballot box, by means of the politics of guilt and pity, and the politics of envy. The gospel of Christ, when accompanied by faith in biblical law, destroys the psychological foundations of political guilt, pity, and envy. The humanists' political end is in sight, and they are outraged. Psalm 2 tells us what God thinks of their outrage, and how much good it does them." (p. xxv). 

Challenge and Declaration of Confidence

North ends his Prologue with a challenge to critics and a declaration of confidence about the future of biblical law: 

Photo Credit: http://www.pxleyes.com/photoshop-picture/513d41023504a/Bambi-meets-Godzilla.html

"I will put it bluntly: no theologian of repute (or even disrepute) has successfully challenged Dr. Bahnsen's defense of biblical law during the last eight years. I will go farther: no theologian or Christian social thinker in our generation is capable of successfully challenging Dr. Bahnsen's general thesis, because it is correct. I will take it one step farther: we will not see any prominent Christian philosopher even attempt it, because enough of them know what happened to Meredith Kline: he was cut off at the knees in full view of anyone who bothered to read Dr. Bahnsen's response. Nobody is excited about the prospects of going up against Dr. Bahnsen in print. It leads to excessive humiliation" (p. xxv).

"Yet if someone from at least one modern theological camp does not respond, and respond soon - dispensationalist, neo-evangelical, Reformed, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox - then the intellectual battle is very nearly won by the theonomists. It does no good for defenders of an older world-and-life view to pretend that they can safely ignore a brilliant case presented for any new position, let alone the biblical position. If the establishment theologians remain silent for another eight years, the theonomists will have captured the minds of the next generation of Christian activists and social thinkers. Once the younger activists and intellectuals are won over, the fight is in principle over. To the victors will go the spoils: the teaching positions, the satellite T. V. networks, and shelf space in the Christian bookstores and maybe even secular bookstores, until they finally go bankrupt or go Christian." (p. xxvi).

"Now who will be the sacrificial lamb? Who wants to attempt to prove in print that this little book is the work of a heretic, or an incompetent? Who will be the person to try to prove that this book's thesis cannot be sustained by an appeal to the New Testament? Who will then go on to refute Theonomy in Christian Ethics? A lot of very bright young men are waiting to hear from you, and then to hear from Dr. Bahnsen. Stay tuned for "Bambi Meets Godzilla, Part II" (p. xxvi).

Source: Bahnsen, G. L. (1985). By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics. 

The Law and the Gospel

In my search to understand the relationship between the law and the gospel, I came up with at least 35 pdf files taken from the web. After skimming them, I finally selected Rev. G. Lubbers, "The Law and the Gospel" and Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr.'s "To the Jew First: A Reformed Perspective."

Rev. G. Lubbers

Rev. G. Lubbers provides the six nuances of the term "law": 

• Direction and teaching, and in the Hiphil form of the root word "Torah," the meaning is "to teach, to instruct," and the basic idea of the verb is "to point out, to show."

• Divine Law where based on Psalm 19:7-9 has diverse synonyms such as testimony of the Lord, v. 7; statutes of the Lord, v.8; commandment of the Lord, v.8; fear of the Lord, v.9, and; judgments of the Lord, v. 9. 

• Referring to the first five books of Moses, the Pentateuch

• Ten Commandments or the Decalogue

• The Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi

• The entire dispensation of the types and shadows as to their legal aspect

Rev. G. Lubbers opposed both nomonian and antinomian. He is also against those who see the covenant as "a legal contract," and considered such idea "erroneous and Pharasaic." For him, the covenant is "a testament which came in effect through the death of the testator" (p. 51).

Rev. Lubbers sees the "law as part and parcel of the fulfilled righteousness of Jesus Christ on the cross." This is how he understands the phrase "new commandment" in Christ that requires "new obedience." 

He believes that "in a sense, the entire Old Testament itself is 'gospel'" (ibid.). The four verbs taken from Heidelberg Catechism are very enlightening. He thinks that the gospel was "revealed by God Himself in paradise, preached by patriarchs and prophets, portrayed by sacrifices and other ceremonies of the law, and finally fulfilled in God's only begotten Son" (p.52). 

Rev. Lubbers' idea that Jesus as the great and only subject of the Pentateuch is biblically sound. However, his conclusion that the giving of the law at Sinai as "part of the gospel" requires further clarification. I also agree with his affirmation that "the Old Testament Scriptures are blood-sprinkled words," but I have a reservation in his negation of them as "mere code of morals and civil conduct" (p. 56). 

Overall, what I consider unusual in the article is the removal of the distinction between the law and the gospel. For Rev. Lubbers, the gospel is in the law, and the law is in the gospel. He considered this idea as "a death-blow to all legalistic, nomistic preaching as well as to all antinomistic preaching and living" (ibid.). To him, the Decalogue "rightly considered are ten precepts of the gospel" (ibid.).

Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr

Dr. Pratt has other subjects in mind in his article. However, I just want to glean contents related to the law. At the outset, he mentioned the historic three uses of the law and described them as "usus civilus," "usus pedigogicus," and "usus normativus." "Usus civilus" or the civil use of the law is the function of the law that goes beyond the jurisdiction of Christian churches into the society at large. This is also described as the "political" use of the law. "Usus pedigogicus" or the pedagogical use of the law is the law's function to expose our sins for us to realize our need of Christ. "Usus normativus" or the normative use of the law is the view that the law is the "moral guide for believers." This normative use is also called the "didactic" use of the law. 

In my conversation in social network, I realize that almost all Christians find no contention in affirming the second use of the law. On the other hand, many consider that the other two uses of the law are controversial. Many evangelicals today think that there is no place for the third use of the law in the Christian life. The only thing that matters are faith in the gospel and to live in love. 

Moreover, if the third use of the law is almost unacceptable today among evangelicals, the first use of the law is considered a "taboo." Just try to mention the applicability of the civil use of the law in society in a theological forum, and the consensus is that either you are a legalist or an advocate of an ancient and impractical theocracy, and therefore you are dangerous. 

Dr. Pratt gave more attention to the normative use of the law. To him, the normative function of the law is not only confined among believers, but includes the entire humanity. It appears to me that his understanding of the third use of the law is connected to the first use where all men are the recipients.

Basing on the Westminster Confession of Faith, Dr. Pratt agrees that the same law was given both in Eden and Sinai though different in form. And then he mentions that the Calvinist system added the ceremonial and judicial laws. He thinks that the three categories of laws are still applicable today, but acccepts that distinguishing among them remains problematic. For believers, the law is beneficial in restraining their corruptions. For whole humanity, the law provides "a rule of life," to inform man of the "will of God and their duty."

If one finds the above confessional stance unacceptable, Dr. Pratt turns to historical proofs to show the "propensity" of Reformed tradition to consider Old Testament laws as "positive resource for guiding moral and political life" (p.12). In this instance, he cites the Calvinistic political experiments in the "social structures of Geneva, the Puritans' England, and Puritan colonies of America" (pp.11-12). And then he mentions about a Calvinistic movement known as "theonomists" or "reconstructionists" who "enthusiatically recommending that contemporary civil governments enforce Old testament judicial laws as much as possible" (p.12). 

Conclusion

Concerning Rev. Lubber's article, I am just puzzled about the application of his "gospel view" of the entire Old Testament in concrete situations. It appears to me that he is blurring the distinction between the law and the gospel in his quest to emphasize the mercy of God. Personally, I have no problem with the idea that the law leads to the gospel and that in the gospel, we are reminded of the law, but I find no solid biblical basis for saying that the Decalogues are ten precepts of the gospel and other similar expressions.

About Dr. Pratt's description of "reconstructionists" as "enthusiastically recommending that contemporary civil governments enforce Old testament judicial laws" on wider society, Dr. Bahnsen clarifies this in his book, "By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today." As one among the key voices from reconstructionist movement, Dr. Bahnsen made it clear that as far as his studies are concerned, he does not "advocate the imposition of God's law by force upon a society, as though that would be a way to 'bring in the kingdom' " (p.9). He affirms that the kingdom of God is advanced "by means of the Great Commission - evangelism, preaching, and nurture in the word of God and in the power of God's regenerating and sanctifying Spirit" (p. 9). 

2014 Resolutions - Avoiding the Dangers in Studying Theology

I first read Benjamin B. Warfield's "The Religious Life of Theological Students" prior to my 1991 seminary graduation. However, as I try to recall its content, I could not remember anything substantial. So in my decision to revisit classical Reformed theology, among 39 files I gleaned from the web, I would like to start with this one. 

Photo Credit: http://www.christianbooks.co.za/shop/religious-life-of-theological-students-2/

As I analyzed Warfield's paper, I observe that his recurring themes evolve around the dangers theological students are prone to, and with them, he also offered corresponding correctives. The insights from this paper have wider application than the religious life of seminary students. I think they deserve to be included in our prayer list. In this article, I intend to share these insights in the form of a resolution this 2014, that is, avoiding the dangers in the study of theology. 

Photo Credit: http://woodgatesview.com/2013/12/30/new-years-resolution-for-the-american-middle-class/

Summary of Warfield's Paper 

A minister must be both learned and godly. This is the central argument of Benjamin B. Warfield in this paper. My initial understanding of godliness is the awareness that a student of theology must have, that he is always living before the presence of God. In his study, he is expected to do it with delight and with the glory of God in mind as his end. This kind of life requires a regular discipline in studying the word and prayer. In the language of Warfield, being both learned and godly means that a theological student is studying in the Spirit of God, actively participating in public stated worship, and zealously keeping his private communion with God. 

A minister must be both learned and religious. It is not a matter of choosing between the two. He must study, but he must study as in the presence of God and not in a secular spirit. He must recognize the privilege of pursuing his studies in the environment where God and salvation from sin are the air he breathes. He must also take advantage of every opportunity for corporate worship, particularly while he trains in the Theological Seminary. Christ Himself leads in setting the example of the importance of participating in corporate expressions of the religious life of the community. Ministerial work without taking time to pray is a tragic mistake. The two must combine if the servant of God is to give a pure, clear, and strong message.

Dangers to Avoid

In reading Warfield's paper, I observe at least six dangers wherein theological students must guard themselves from. 

Danger # 1 - Antagonizing study and prayer. Divorcing student life from being a man of God. For Warfield, there is no contradiction between being learned and godly. To have one without the other renders a man unfit for the ministry. Those preparing to become gospel ministers must be both. 

Say what you will, do what you will, the ministry is a "learned profession"; and the man without learning, no matter with what other gifts he may be endowed, is unfit for its duties. But learning, though indispensable, is not the most indispensable thing for a minister. . . But aptness to teach alone does not make a minister; nor is it his primary qualification. It is only one of a long list of requirements which Paul lays down as necessary to meet in him who aspires to this high office. And all the rest concern, not his intellectual, but his spiritual fitness. . . But before and above being learned, a minister must be godly.

Someone antagonizing study and prayer could not avoid the conclusion that the "intellectual life is in itself accursed." No, it cannot be. As a student of theology, you must bring the spirit of prayer in your study room, and you must bring your insights from your study in your prayer room. 

Sometimes we hear it said that ten minutes on your knees will give you a truer, deeper, more operative knowledge of God than ten hours over your books. . . Why should you turn from God when you turn to your books, or feel that you must turn from your books in order to turn to God? If learning and devotion are as antagonistic as that, then the intellectual life is in itself accursed, and there can be no question of a religious life for a student, even of theology. 

You are students of theology; and, just because you are students of theology, it is understood that you are religious men—especially religious men, to whom the cultivation of your religious life is a matter of the profoundest concern—of such concern that you will wish above all things to be warned of the dangers that may assail your religious life, and be pointed to the means by which you may strengthen and enlarge it. In your case there can be no "either—or" here—either a student or a man of God. You must be both.

Danger # 2 - Studying theology with a spirit that is in the world. 

It is possible, I have said, to study even theology in a purely secular spirit. But surely that is possible only for an irreligious man, or at least for an unreligious man. And here I place in your hands at once a touchstone by which you may discern your religious state, and an instrument for the quickening of your religious life. Do you prosecute your daily tasks as students of theology as "religious exercises"? If you do not, look to yourselves: it is surely not all right with the spiritual condition of that man who can busy himself daily with divine things, with a cold and impassive heart. If you do, rejoice. But in any case, see that you do! And that you do it ever more and more abundantly.

Danger # 3 - Making divine things common. 

We are frequently told, indeed, that the great danger of the theological student lies precisely in his constant contact with divine things. They may come to seem common to him, because they are customary... The words which tell you of God's terrible majesty or of his glorious goodness may come to be mere words to you— Hebrew and Greek words, with etymologies, and inflections, and connections in sentences. The reasonings which establish to you the mysteries of his saving activities may come to be to you mere logical paradigms, with premises and conclusions, fitly framed, no doubt, and triumphantly cogent, but with no further significance to you than their formal logical conclusiveness...It is your great danger. But it is your great danger, only because it is your great privilege. Think of what your privilege is when your greatest danger is that the great things of religion may become common to you!...The very atmosphere of your life is these things; you breathe them in at every pore; they surround you, encompass you, press in upon you from every side. It is all in danger of becoming common to you! God forgive you, you are in danger of becoming weary of God!

Danger # 4 - Withdrawal from stated public worship and personal prayer

I am not counseling you, you will observe, to make your theological studies your sole religious exercises. They are religious exercises of the most rewarding kind; and your religious life will very much depend upon your treating them as such. But there are other religious exercises demanding your punctual attention which cannot be neglected without the gravest damage to your religious life. I refer particularly now to the stated formal religious meetings of the Seminary. I wish to be perfectly explicit here, and very emphatic. No man can withdraw himself from the stated religious services of the community of which he is a member, without serious injury to his personal religious life.

Who are these people, who are so vastly strong, so supremely holy, that they do not need the assistance of the common worship for themselves; and who, being so strong and holy, will not give their assistance to the common worship?

In my own mind, I am quite clear that in an institution like this the whole body of students should come together, both morning and evening, every day, for common prayer; and should join twice on every Sabbath in formal worship. Without at least this much common worship I do not think the institution can preserve its character as a distinctively religious institution—an institution whose institutional life is primarily a religious one.

I trust you will not tell me that the stated religious exercises of the Seminary are too numerous, or are wearying. That would only be to betray the low ebb of your own religious vitality. The feet of him whose heart is warm with religious feeling turn of themselves to the sanctuary, and carry him with joyful steps to the house of prayer. I am told that there are some students who do not find themselves in a prayerful mood in the early hours of a winter morning; and are much too tired at the close of a hard day's work to pray, and therefore do not find it profitable to attend prayers in the late afternoon: who think the preaching at the regular service on Sabbath morning dull and uninteresting, and who do not find Christ at the Sabbath afternoon conference. Such things I seem to have heard before; and yours will be an exceptional pastorate, if you do not hear something very like them, before you have been in a pastorate six months. Such things meet you every day on the street; they are the ordinary expression of the heart which is dulled or is dulling to the religious appeal.

Danger # 5 - Absence of realization about the seriousness and the greatness of Christian ministry.

One hint I may give you, particularly adapted to you as students for the ministry: Keep always before your mind the greatness of your calling, that is to say, these two things: the immensity of the task before you, the infinitude of the resources at your disposal. . . In a time like this, it is perhaps not strange that careful observers of the life of our Theological Seminaries tell us that the most noticeable thing about it is a certain falling off from the intense seriousness of outlook by which students of theology were formerly characterized. Let us hope it is not true. If it were true, it would be a great evil; so far as it is true, it is a great evil. I would call you back to this seriousness of outlook, and bid you cultivate it, if you would be men of God now, and ministers who need not be ashamed hereafter.

Think of the greatness of the minister's calling; the greatness of the issues which hang on your worthiness or your unworthiness for its high functions; and determine once for all that with God's help you will be worthy. "God had but one Son," says Thomas Goodwin, "and he made him a minister." "None but he who made the world," says John Newton, "can make a minister"—that is, a minister who is worthy.

You can, of course, be a minister of a sort, and not be God-made. You can go through the motions of the work, and I shall not say that your work will be in vain—for God is good and who knows by what instruments he may work his will of good for men? . . . 

Danger # 6 - Replacing godliness with mere activity

There is no mistake more terrible than to suppose that activity in Christian work can take the place of depth of Christian affections.

A minister, high in the esteem of the churches, is even quoted as declaring—not confessing, mind you, but publishing abroad as something in which he gloried—that he has long since ceased to pray: he works. "Work and pray" is no longer, it seems, to be the motto of at least ministerial life. It is to be all work and no praying; the only prayer that is prevailing, we are told, with the same cynicism with which we are told that God is on the side of the largest battalions—is just work. You will say this is an extreme case. Thank God, it is. But in the tendencies of our modern life, which all make for ceaseless—I had almost said thoughtless, meaningless—activity, have a care that it does not become your case; or that your case—even now—may not have at least some resemblance to it. Do you pray? How much do you pray? How much do you love to pray? What place in your life does the "still hour," alone with God, take?

Correctives

Corrective # 1 - Study theology as a vocation

Now, as students of theology your vocation is to study theology; and to study it diligently, in accordance with the apostolic injunction: "Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord." It is precisely for this that you are students of theology; this is your "next duty," and the neglect of duty is not a fruitful religious exercise.

Certainly, every man who aspires to be a religious man must begin by doing his duty, his obvious duty, his daily task, the particular work which lies before him to do at this particular time and place. If this work happens to be studying, then his religious life depends on nothing more fundamentally than on just studying. . . you cannot build up a religious life except you begin by performing faithfully your simple, daily duties. It is not the question whether you like these duties. You may think of your studies what you please. . . But you must faithfully give yourselves to your studies, if you wish to be religious men. No religious character can be built up on the foundation of neglected duty.

Corrective # 2 - Study theology devotionally and religiously. By "devotion," Warfield meant "zealous application" and "religious exercise." 

Whatever you may have done in the past, for the future make all your theological studies "religious exercises." This is the great rule for a rich and wholesome religious life in a theological student. Put your heart into your studies; do not merely occupy your mind with them, but put your heart into them. They bring you daily and hourly into the very presence of God; his ways, his dealing with men, the infinite majesty of his Being form their very subject-matter. Put the shoes from off your feet in this holy presence!

Corrective # 3 - Always keep in mind the goal of your study, which is to grow in godliness. 

Are you, by this constant contact with divine things, growing in holiness, becoming every day more and more men of God? If not, you are hardening! And I am here today to warn you to take seriously your theological study, not merely as a duty, done for God's sake and therefore made divine, but as a religious exercise, itself charged with religious blessing to you; as fitted by its very nature to fill all your mind and heart and soul and life with divine thoughts and feelings and aspirations and achievements. You will never prosper in your religious life in the Theological Seminary until your work in the Theological Seminary becomes itself to you a religious exercise out of which you draw every day enlargement of heart, elevation of spirit, and adoring delight in your Maker and your Savior.

Corrective # 4 - Take Jesus with you. What does Warfield mean by this? 

And let me tell you straightout that the preaching you find dull will no more seem dull to you if you faithfully obey the Master's precept: "Take heed how ye hear"; that if you do not find Christ in the conference room it is because you do not take him there with you; that, if after an ordinary day's work you are too weary to unite with your fellows in closing the day with common prayer, it is because the impulse to prayer is weak in your heart. If there is no fire in the pulpit it falls to you to kindle it in the pews. No man can fail to meet with God in the sanctuary if he takes God there with him.

You are here as theological students; and if you would be religious men, you must do your duty as theological students; you must find daily nourishment for your religious life in your theological studies, you must enter fully into the organic religious life of the community of which you form a part. But to do all this you must keep the fires of religious life burning brightly in your heart; in the inmost core of your being, you must be men of God.

Corrective # 5 - Realize that on your own you are insufficient for the task and that the seriousness and greatness of the ministry requires you to pray.

I am sure that if you once get a true glimpse of what the ministry of the cross is, for which you are preparing, and of what you, as men preparing for this ministry, should be, you will pray, Lord, who is sufficient for these things, your heart will cry; and your whole soul will be wrung with the petition: Lord, make me sufficient for these things. Old Cotton Mather wrote a great little book once, to serve as a guide to students for the ministry. The not very happy title which he gave it is Manductio ad Ministerium. But by a stroke of genius he added a sub-title which is more significant. And this is the sub-title he added: The angels preparing to sound the trumpets. That is what Cotton Mather calls you, students for the ministry: the angels, preparing to sound the trumpets! Take the name to yourselves, and live up to it. Give your days and nights to living up to it! And then, perhaps, when you come to sound the trumpets the note will be pure and clear and strong, and perchance may pierce even to the grave and wake the dead.

Whenever I hear of stories of seminarians who lost their zeal for the Lord after graduation, this makes me wonder. Questions come to my mind. Why are these students so negative about church life and ministry? Why are they so bitter and skeptical? Are these graduates really called into the ministry? Is there something wrong with their attitudes? Or was the seminary too lax in accepting them in the first place? What did they learn in the seminary? Did they see any role model there who are actively engage in church ministry? What ideas influenced them that caused them to loose their passion? I think I will be praying for all these questions together with the dangers and correctives identified in this article.

----0----0----0----- 

After reading Dr. Warfield's paper, I made two resolutions for 2014:

First, I resolved to avoid the dangers in the study of theology, which includes antagonizing study and prayer, separating my life as a student and as a man of God, studying with the spirit that is in the world, replacing godliness with mere activity, withdrawal from stated public worship and personal prayer, taking divine things as common, and the absence of realization of the seriousness of my calling to Christian ministry.

Second, I also resolved to follow the correctives in the study of theology, which includes treating study as vocation, to study both devotionally and religiously, to always remember the end of my study, which is to grow in godliness, to humbly accept the seriousness and greatness of the calling to christian ministry for me to be always reminded of my insufficiency causing me to only depend in God through prayer, and to bring Jesus with me always.