Newsweek Responses

James White's Response

Michael Kruger's Response

Al Mohler's Response

Dan Wallace's Response

My Response: see above links and add...blah blah blah...Eichenwald hates Evangelicals...blah blah blah...Eichenwald hates the Bible.

The Ontological Trinity in Van Til's Apologetic

An important point in Van Til’s theory of epistemic justification is that Christ’s Word in Scripture is self-validating in the sense that all of reality testifies to it when interpreted through its lens.[1] This is not to be confused with the process of beginning with reality and from there, moving to Scripture or perhaps other intermediary steps along the way. It is to say that every interpretation of reality apart from Scripture sooner or later culminates in an inescapable skepticism.

The prickly problem with which philosophy must contend and satisfactorily solve if human predication can be defended in any rational way is the problem of the one and the many. Centuries of work has gone into putting an end to this monster, that has been relentlessly lurking in the shadows, almost mocking every vain attempt to seal his fate. The challenge is to provide for the intelligibility around the relationship between particulars and the unifying principle that brings them together without destroying either the particular or the principle of unity. What is it that makes me, me, while at the same time unifies me with other humans, or even more specifically, other male humans? If we emphasize plurality we run the risk of ending in an infinite regress. The reason for this is that we must ask how the particulars are related to each other and how this relationship itself is related to the particulars and then by what principle that relationship is related and so forth. We cannot help but feel the infinite regress looming in the background. On the other hand, if we place too much emphasis on the prominence of unity, we end up without any distinguishing characteristics by which we may know the particulars. But once again, nothing can be known in principle about such a thing, because there can be nothing from which to distinguish it.[2] The stakes in this game are higher than most apologists appreciate. The very idea of human knowledge rides on our ability to work through the problem of the one and the many. The Christian apologist must bring this demand to bear on the discussion in order to demonstrate that philosophy apart from God is futile and that true knowledge in any scheme where man as independent from God is basically impossible.

The truth of certain empirical propositions belongs to our frame of reference.[3] The aspiration of philosophy is to provide for a comprehensive view of the world in which the diversity of human experience is intelligible. Every worldview operates within a system, or frame of reference. But one has to ask the question of Wittgenstein’s own proposition whether or not it is itself operating within a particular system and, if outside that system, it can be accepted as valid. The point is that worldviews are systems and every claim to knowledge operates within that system. Every test for every claim to knowledge takes place within that system and rests upon certain presuppositions that are part of that system. Hence, apologetics must operate at the level of systems if it is to operate effectively. We do not take the tree down one leaf or twig at a time. We go to the base and take it down with one pass of the chainsaw.

Nothing is more fundamental to human knowledge than the question of the one and the many and nothing is more basic to Christian theism than the self-contained ontological Triune God revealed in Scripture. It was the genius of Cornelius Van Til’s apologetic to demonstrate how the latter helps us deal with the former. Our view of reality or being involves our view of knowledge and ethics even as our view of knowledge and ethics involves and is based on our view of being.[4] To argue for such hard dichotomies between the three major branches of philosophy is more than a little naïve. How we know is indelibly bound up in what we are and vice versa. The question then becomes how does Christian theism, in contradistinction to secular philosophy think about the problem of the one and the many?

Human knowledge ultimately rests upon the internal coherence within the Godhead; our knowledge rests upon the ontological Trinity as its presupposition.^[5] All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ (Col. 2:3). Christ is the true knowledge that all humanity should strive to know (Col. 2:2). It is the regenerate Christian who is being renewed to true knowledge (Col. 3:10). That true knowledge is according to the image of the One Who created him. True knowledge is measure by the degree to which man is a reflection of the image of the ontological Trinity revealed in Scripture. Only if one presupposes the God of Scripture is knowledge possible. Bosserman reminds us, “To recap the dilemma but one more time: abstract principles and brute facts prove to shed all definition when divorced from a concrete system.”[6] When man operates on the presupposition that he is autonomous, and reasons abstractly about so-called brute facts, knowledge becomes impossible. Moreover, it is this system that charges Christian theism with contradiction and abhors the presence of paradox as if such a phenomenon weakens the system. But Christian theism is only weakened by the presence of theological paradox if the secular philosopher’s system is superior in some way. In what world could it ever be rational to subject divine logic, eternal, uncreated, infinite logic to the created logic of the finite? And that is exactly what the non-Christian worldview insists on. Hence we see the importance of operating, proclaiming, and defending the faith at the level of worldview.

It is a well-known fact that all heresies in the history of the church have in some form or other taught subordinationism. Similarly, we believe all “heresies” in apologetic methodology spring from some sort of subordinationism.[7] The challenge before us is to solve the plurality of particulars while preserving the unifying principle of their relationships without destroying their particularity. Van Til says we need the notion of a concrete universal to help us better understand how the physical universe can operate the way it appears to operate. It is only in the Christian doctrine of the triune God, as we are bound to believe, that we really have a concrete universal. In God’s being there are no particulars not related to the universal and there is nothing universal that is not fully expressed in the particulars.[8] Hence, the term concrete universal does not signify the same thing in Van Til that it does in idealist philosophers. Functionally, they [idealists] treated their own intellects as if they were vested with the basic principles which govern the universe.[9] Unavoidably then, the idealist leads us into an in ever-increasing subjectivism that will ultimately end in skepticism and irrationalism. Once more, it seems we are back where we started. In Van Til’s estimation, a Trinitarian worldview is able to deliver where the absolute idealist systems come up dry. This claim turns on the fact that the Triune God represents a self-complete system over and above the temporal universe, and beyond the principles at work in the mind of man.[10]

In Van Til, creation must always mean fiat creation. In the beginning God spoke and the heavens and earth became. Being came from not just non-being, but from absolutely nothing. “Using the language of the One-and-Many question we contend that in God the one and the many are equally ultimate. Unity in God is no more fundamental than diversity, and diversity in God is no more fundamental than unity.”[11] This concept is the natural outworking of a biblical understanding of the nature of the ontological Trinity. And it is not difficult to see how such an understanding impacts one’s metaphysic and subsequently, apologetic methodology. The requirement that Christian theism subject itself to creaturely logic conflicts with this Christian metaphysic which itself creates serious issues in our understanding of the nature of God. The kind of logic we employ is related to our metaphysic, which is related to our understanding of God. At a minimum, if we employ poor logic in apologetic methodology, we find ourselves being inconsistent with the system that we are attempting to defend. Or worse, we elevate this poor use of logic to a place of prominence and end up allowing poor logic to shape our metaphysic as well as inform our doctrine of God. The latter must be avoided at all cost. After all, the former may not be ideal, but unlike the latter, it does not tend toward heresy. Hence, it follows that if one interprets reality through the lens that the reality is the fiat of the self-contained ontological Trinity, the one and the many problem evaporates.

Stated another way, the Trinity solves the one-many problem by being free from it himself, and then enabling believers to reason concretely on the basis of a systematic interpretation of reality so that they are effectively freed from it as well.[12] God exhibits ultimate unity and ultimate plurality: he is one is essence and three in person, as the traditional labels have it.[13] On this model we can understand that the one and the many isn’t really a problem for the Christian because the ontological Trinity serves as the paradigm by which we interpret reality. However, the unbeliever is in a precarious position. He is left without any justification whatsoever when he assigns certain qualities to empirical objects or claims a certain inferential relationship between ideas. The unbeliever cannot escape asserting, in practice, that reality is the very sort of place that, in theory, he denies it to be. Hence, to repeat Van Til’s conclusion, unbelieving thought is fundamentally self-defeating.[14]

---

[1] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox:an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 124.

[2] James Anderson, If Knowledge Then God. (Analogical Thoughts website)

[3] Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, harper Torchbooks ed, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright (New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks, 1972), 12e.

[4] Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1985.

^[5] Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979) 23.

[6] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox:an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 92.

[7] Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1985, 25.

[8] Ibid., 26.

[9] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox:an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 78.

[10] Ibid., 79.

[11] Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1985, 25.

[12] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox:an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 78.

[13] Anderson, If Knowledge Then God.

[14] Bosserman.

Apologetics & A New Covenant Critique

I thought you might enjoy a couple of presentations for the Christian break. The first one is a very sizzly presentation by the amazing Jason Lisle over at ICR on God's wondrous creation and use of math to display His glory. The second one is a critique of the new system known as "New Covenant Theology." Enjoy!


Dr. Jason Lisle: The Secret Code of Creation Fractals




James Renihan: New Covenant Theology Critique

The Exoneration of Theological Paradox

The writer finds himself in complete agreement with those who insist that Christianity is supremely rational.^[1] With all due respect to Dr. Whitcomb, this begs the question as to the use of reason by the Christian versus the use of reason by the non-Christian. Christianity is indeed rational, but by who’s standard. To accept fully the concept of the infallible Word is to claim all facts for God and to insist that reality can only be interpreted in terms of Him and His Word.[2] Human reason must be understood and interpreted according to God’s revelation. It is by divine standards that we must ascertain an understanding of human reason. Christian theism is infinitely rational but it is rational as God Himself defines and is the expression of rationality, not as finite fallen humans would define it. The covenantal nature of our relationship with God extends to all parts of the relationship. There remains no component of the Creator-creature relationship that is outside the purview of the covenant. This obligates men to use every one of God’s created tools, especially creaturely logic, in a manner that accords with the terms of the covenant. This would mean that it is inappropriate and strictly forbidden to place God or His Word under any created rule of finite human reason, to include human logic. This is especially the case when that logic is the product of finite abstract reasoning.

Bosserman helps us understand how Christian thought can be logical while confidently embracing theological paradox when he writes, “However, pursuit of an appreciation for how distinct features and components (a) imply one another when viewed through the lens of a common system, and then (b) together enhance our perspective on that system is (on our account) one of the most basic characteristics of a concrete reasoning process.”[3] Bosserman points us to the example of flesh and bones and how the two are not at all the same thing but when understood through the lens of the human body our perspective of them is enhanced. Theological paradox works in a similar fashion. The divine condescension of God in the OT implies the divine incarnation in the NT. When viewed separately the two appear as contradictions but when viewed together, through the lens of the Christian system, each act is enhanced by the other so that our understanding of the divine revelation is deepened even though the paradox lingers on in what many theologians call mystery.

In place of the Triune person, the unbeliever embraces as his triad of, too often unarticulated, presuppositions: (a) human autonomy, (b) abstract reason, and (c) brute facts.[4] The unbeliever sets himself up as the final reference point, creates his own system of justification, and proceeds to treat facts as if they were the product of impersonal chance.

The issue we face is one of authority. It always comes back to the standard by which truth claims are justified. And at the very bottom of this issue there are two and only two possibilities: man or God. The unbeliever generally has three dominant theories at his disposal today when it comes to epistemic justification. One, a belief is justified when formed through a valid procedure that is translucent to the believer himself. Two, true beliefs are justified to the degree that they are mutually supportive of other true beliefs. Finally, beliefs are justified only if they form a healthy/reliable belief-forming mechanism.[5] Here we see that from one school of thought to the next, man remains the measure of all things. Man determines what is and it not true belief using finite abstract reasoning as his standard and final authority. Far too often, modern apologists fail to recognize the foundational presuppositions upon which unbelievers operate. What is worse, many schools of apologetics have unwittingly constructed their method on those same unbelieving principles. Van Til writes, “The Reformed apologist will frankly admit that his own methodology presupposes the truth of Christian theism. Basic to all the doctrines of Christian theism is that of the self-contained God, or if we wish, that of the ontological Trinity. It is this notion of the ontological Trinity that ultimately controls a truly Christian methodology.[6] If we were to take all the underlying objectives of Christian apologetics and ask what we are doing when we do apologetics, the answer would be that we are vindicating the divine self-disclosure of the God of Christian theism. The revelation of God is ubiquitous from the standpoint that every part of that revelation is a revelation of the self-contained ontological Trinity. This indicates that if there is theological paradox in the doctrine of the Trinity, and vindicating this doctrine is the essential thrust of Christian apologetics, then it only follows that Christian apologetics must reflect that paradox in it’s method of vindication as a matter of routine.

It is a sad state of affairs however, in modern apologetic method. Rather than begin with God and with God’s self-disclosure in Scripture and hold that up as our final reference point for human predication, we begin with pagan philosophy, secular science, and finite abstract reasoning. The insistence is that apologetic method must get in line and march in lock step with the rules of godless autonomous men rather than divine revelation. William Lane Craig, who is in his own right a brilliant philosopher, exhibits a mindset that should be very disconcerting to any God-fearing, Bible-believing apologist when he writes, “One of the awesome tasks of Christian philosophers is to help turn the contemporary intellectual tide in such a way as to foster a sociocultural milieu in which Christian faith can be regarded as an intellectually credible option for thinking men and women.”[7] Regrettably, this is the attitude of most apologists operating in conservative Christian communities today. Compare and contrast this with what Paul had to say,

            And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.^[8]

Paul’s words stand in stark contrast with Craig’s idea. Because of the inherent antithesis present in unbelieving thought, the only way to accomplish Craig’s aspiration is to adopt a willing attitude to subject the claims and demands of Scripture to the authority of autonomous human reason. The gospel of Jesus Christ does not present itself in a way that men are asked to judge it’s fidelity, or it’s authority or it’s right to lay claim to our lives. The gospel of Christ demands repentance from the current autonomous mindset of arrogant, fallen, sinful men. The idea that we must utilize an apologetic method or subscribe to theological beliefs that somehow do not offend the intellects of sworn enemies of God is quite simply a clear and obvious contradiction to the teachings of Scripture. While theological paradox is warmly embraced as unavoidable in Christian theism, obvious contradictions to divine revelation must be vigorously opposed and rejected due to the fact that they are nothing more than expressions of human autonomy.

---

^[1] John C. Whitcomb, “Contemporary Apologetics and the Christian Faith,” Bibliotheca Sacra: A Quarterly Published by Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1955–1995).

[2] Rousas John Rushdoony, By What Standard? An Analysis of the Philosophy of Cornelius van Til, repr. ed. (Vallecito, Calif.: Ross House Books, 1995), 1.

[3] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox: an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 138.

[4] Ibid., 10.

[5] See Bosserman, section 5.3, “Epistemic Justification in Christ.” 119.

[6] Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed., ed. William Edgar (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub., 2003), 128.

[7] James Porter Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 2.

^[8] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), 1 Co 2:1–5.

Perpetual Milk for the Perpetually Immature: And the Pastors that Accommodate Them

American Christianity suffers incredibly from the disease of intellectual weakness. Mark A. Knoll writes, “Taken together, American evangelicals display many virtues and do many things well, but built-in barriers to productive thinking remain substantial.”[1] Ever since I can remember, I have heard more than one pastor caution about trying to present issues, doctrines, or concepts that are far too meaty for their community, and that we must first give people the milk before we put them on the meat. Some of these pastors have been pastoring those churches for 5, 10, and even 30 years. And they are still worried about asking their congregants to use their mind a little more than they have in the past. I think I understand why this is the case, but we will come back to that toward my summary.

One has to look no further than the lack of interest in or commitment to the deliberate training of young men for future ministry. We put our money into missions, into evangelism, into social programs and such that produce immediate feel-good results. But we seem to shy away from anything that might require a little effort, some patience, or a little hard work. Has the church become a mirror of the intellectual sloth we see in the culture? Sadly, I think she has. More often than not, the local Christian community is little more than a mirror of the culture in which it finds itself, priorities, values, and all.

What about this complaint that we have to give people milk? Is this a legitimate concern? Do we try to take people too deep when we make an effort to help them understand something about how divine revelation serves as the basis for Christian truth? Is it so difficult to look up metaphysics or epistemology in a dictionary or encyclopedia? Is it just too hard to follow when an alternative view is presented so that we can understand what is wrong with it? I don’t think so and I don’t think Scripture would support taking such a shallow and intellectually lazy approach to discipleship either. Whatever happened to new believer classes? Should we consider a program that separates those who have been around for a while from those who have not so that both groups receive the appropriate training and education? I think that only makes sense. But what about those who have been in Christ for 10-20-30 years and who are obviously capable of understanding but still require milk? What I think is that they need a swift kick in the pants. What about them? Honestly, they are not on my list of concerns. If someone has been around for 20 years and they still know more about the current television programs and fantasy football and politics than they do about Scripture, I must confess I have little hope that they will ever care about equipping themselves for Christ. They will give an account to God for they’re laziness, not that they care about that at all because if they did, I suspect they would have already done something about it.

Christian leaders, beginning with pastors, have to stop worrying about numbers and attendance and finances and begin to focus on the things that Scripture commands them to focus on. Every church should have a 1:1 discipleship program and every believer, especially new believer should have a spiritual mentor that they meet with and talk to regularly. This should not be a group meeting and it most definitely should be more than a check-the-box coffee meeting. Moreover, someone should be actively managing that program, providing oversight to the mentors so that they appreciate the work they are doing. On the one hand you do not want to overload your mentors while at the same time you do want to be in regular communication with them. They should each be assigned an elder to work with. Finally, there should be some separate class in the church specifically geared toward those who are less than one year in the way. This class should be designed to cover the basics of Christian teaching and praxis. The discipleship relationship covers both of these as well but emphasizes praxis while the new believer class emphasizes doctrine.

The question I have is why is this type of structure absent from just about every church in existence? Instead, we offer a variety of classes and leave it to the new believer to pick one just like they would at the shopping mall. We also leave it to the new believer and other mature believers to pursue discipleship relationships. The structure is not just loose; it is non-existent. The Church needs to focus on those who are new believers, say less than a year and those who are beyond that and should be progressing in the faith. But the sad truth is that we have believers that have been in the church 30 years who cannot even articulate the gospel. Most of them could not utter a single word about the history of the bible. Very few could have an informed conversation around the importance of believing that the Bible is the self-attesting sole authority of the Christian faith. This is not just pitiful, not just embarrassing, it is scandalous. To the pastor who tolerates such lethargy in his congregation, and in his leadership, I want to ask what right do you have to take the souls of other men under your care? I acknowledge this is strong language, but isn’t that part of the problem. We don’t use strong enough language to counteract apathy in places where apathy has no business existing. Persistent immaturity in the Christian community can be pinned mostly on the leadership. Now, I will admit that the community will shrink when spiritual growth is expected because such expectations will weed out false converts. But isn’t that the point?

Paul grumbles to the Corinthians that he was not able to speak to them as to men, mature in the faith, but rather he had to speak to them as if they were infants. Paul founded the church at Corinth sometime around 50 and left the work there sometime around the spring of 51. He wrote this letter to the Corinthians in 55. This was a church plant in 50 and Paul expected her to be mature within 5 years. One should keep in mind that these folks had nowhere near the resources that modern Christians have. Yet Paul was very stern in his rebuke of the immature congregation. The writer to the Hebrews issues his audience virtually the very same rebuke. His opinion was that this community should have been teachers by now but they were still on the elementary things.

There is a need for milk to be a regular component within the community insofar as there are new believers regularly being added to the community. I would never argue otherwise. However, leadership has to take the command to disciple and care for those over whom God has made them overseer far more seriously. Saying you take it seriously pastor does not make it so. What we need to see are the signs or the evidence that pastors and leaders are taking serious the issue of spiritual growth in the congregation. It begins with discipleship and a focused, structured platform that provides for the training of all Christians and also incorporates the kind of accountability, respect, and appreciation it deserves.

What is the real problem? Is it the difficulty or the abstract nature of the doctrine or subject we are talking about or is it something else? For some reason, Christians appear to think that Bible study should be easy. Americans spend just under three hours a day watching TV. That is approximately 20 hours of TV per week. Look at it this way: Americans spend 20% of their waking life watching TV. If you live to be 80 years old, that means you will spend approximately 10 years watching TV. Now, I don’t have anything against watching TV. I watch my share. But I do have an issue with biblically inept people watching 20 hours of TV per week and then complaining that the lesson was over their head.

I don't believe this problem is a simple one even if it appears I am being overly simplistic about it. Part of the issue is spiritual leaders who are without much conviction or courage in how they lead their people. A leader without conviction is a leader without courage. He will not take the stand and exhibit the passion necessary to stimulate or inspire or confront his people to make the personal sacrifices necessary to know God by spending the time and energy required to understand the Bible. He is worried that people may leave if his church is that kind of church. Another problem is the amount of trash-talk that has been involved in the need to know abstract things like doctrine or perhaps apologetics. Doctrine has been belittled and attacked for a few decades now and that attack has done its work. We have a lot of ignorant people in the church where the Bible is concerned. They know and understand very little of its content and nearly nothing about its nature and history. Another major contributor to this problem is the need for immediate gratification. People view the weekly church service as something that is supposed to give them an emotional reboot, to make them feel good, to inspire them to have a good week, kind of like a pick-me-up sort of gathering. In essence, American Christians see the weekly service as revolving around them and their “felt needs.” To them, being a better employee, getting promoted, being a better parent, a better person, succeeding on and off the job are all things involved in being a better Christian. There is no connection between the purifying and heart-cleansing word of truth and spiritual growth.

The only way that the issue of spiritual immaturity and the problem of biblical knowledge can be addressed is if the leaders actually believe it is important. And you will see when leadership thinks this is important by the steps they take to address it. Preaching a sermon where it is mentioned once in a while is not an indication that the pastor or leadership thinks it is important. What must happen requires a degree of deliberateness and focus. It isn’t a bible study that will solve this. It has to do with the very structure and fiber of the church. It touches everything from sermons to Sunday school to the very structure and organization of that body. Spiritual lethargy is not difficult to spot if one is looking for it. There is no real discipleship program; No new believers class; No focus on spiritual growth and true personal accountability. There is no outreach either locally or globally. Missions is never or rarely a topic that is broached. Evangelism simply is ignored. There is very little true community. And apologetics is so foreign to such environments it is hardly worth mentioning. Nevertheless, all these things are supposed to be the dynamic fruit of every congregation. The members of the church are unengaged with the culture from a Christian perspective. They may be able to tell what President Obama is doing but could not provide hardly one story about something going on someplace in Christendom.

The Christian is commanded to have a superior mind and not to be conformed to this world (Rom. 12:2). Paul commands the Corinthians to become sober-minded, and stop sinning. He then charges some of them with no knowledge of God and says that he speaks this to their shame (1 Cor. 15:34). Shame was something to be avoided just about more than any other single thing in that culture. The command to come out of their drunken stupor and to stop sinning caps his argument in this unit. The stupor would refer to a benighted worldliness and a lack of spiritual awareness. Philo (Drunk. 38 §154) defines drunkenness in the soul as “ignorance of things of which we should naturally have acquired knowledge.”^[2]

What we call “people needing milk” Paul calls a drunken stupor and shameful. Ignorance of God will naturally lead to immoral living. In this case, patience is not a virtue; it is a scandal of apathy and in many cases a lack of courage.

Rise Up O Church of God

---

[1] Mark A. Knoll, Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind.

^[2] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 722.