W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

A. What is good? It is God alone who is good; all other goodness is derivative and potential, made substantial only through and in His presence, action and accounting.

Q: Yes, but what does this goodness in action in man, do in this area?

A: Well,

a) instead of being bossy, government that is good is understanding;

b) instead of being all-for-money, it considers profit first to be in terms of value sand righteousness and what the final result will be - the rest is merely a measure of efficiency WITHIN those aims;

c) instead of making efficiency king, it uses it as an instrument, like a screw-driver. If you will forgive the pun, better a good leader than a screwy driver.

Q: That's all old hat. What else?

A: It is old; as old as the Cross, and older than that, as you will find if you look at King David around 1000 B.C.: a man after God's own heart, we read.

You may say, 'I hear this sometimes: BUT THIS IS NOTHING NEW!'  Of course it is not; for God is not new and has not just begun to speak. It is the adversary, the devil who learns ever new tricks of ever new deception which are in the last analysis all sadly old. He tries imperiousness, imperial authority, charm, subtlety, ferocity, callousness, plans before people, people without plans: anything mad or unsavoury, he has it.

Q: This is becoming a sermon: I want good government. How?

A: First, what is a sermon? An exposition of what God has said. Still, let's get to the technicalities some more, since this seems to be your wish. Next, there is an awareness of the field, of those whom you govern, and this requires a nose for it, data collection, personal involvement; and it seems to me it is best with a very reasonable salary which could NOT AT ALL be called rich. Otherwise you are too far separated from those whom you govern.

That is where Australia and the U.S. are making a huge mistake; and as for the Canberra shrine to government, where Parliament meets with a billion or so dollars under their feet, this sort of royal program endangers the country through illusions of grandeur. Actually we are substantially in debt, and debtors do not well to make grandeur the air of their offices.

Q: Good: Salaries and attitudes. What more?

A: Leadership in particular. INSIDE the government, all 'bosses' or leaders should be leaders, not petty aristocrats, pompous directors. P.M. Howard seemed to show something of this at the first at any rate, speaking of his detestation of self-important pomposity in ministers, and requirement of real serviceability. It is not the mere saying, however, but the doing which makes for good government.

As to that, consider the case of the famous earth-moving equipment genius, and inventor, Le Tourneau, once featured on the front page of Time magazine. His devotion to CREATIVITY in the interests of BENEFIT AND PRODUCTIVITY AND PROBLEM SOLVING for those who used it, whatever the cost and the danger, AND to the welfare of his employees, with true concern for and involvement in their care, led to a WAITING LIST for employment in his enterprise. Leadership is more than movement, it is improvement, concern and has a content of benevolence and realism.

Q: What else in the leadership attitude?

A: There needs to be an awareness of talent, and positive desire and interest in its exercise. You need to be a talent scout, and to take real pleasure in seeing talent and task well-matched, goodwill and good graces in excellent function, and a complete abortion of the detestable and selfish desire for 'survival' (in your own place, as in the places of all leaders below you, if you are a Minister of Government).

In fact, of course, the desire to survive, collect maximal superannuation, collect dividends in the form of travel allowance and so on is sometimes almost a game, a clever game, so that those who do best at it are 'clever', good leaders, men of the world, women of wit, and they are treated at times as if this makes them better suited for higher office. The opposite is true.

If you despise the rat-race, the simple plan is to opt out and to walk in moral grace, seeking good - not survival. A person who trusts in Christ has no need of 'survival'; the cross is the OPPOSITE ambition. Resurrection is quite adequate. Goodness meanwhile is an indispensable quality. Indeed, service at sacrifice is a real thing which has sometimes a bad name because so many hypocrites find it easier to mouth than to put into action. This does not alter the reality, only illustrates the farce of Satan who has no heart for the truth.

Q:  What about freedom in this moral government of yours?

A: There MUST be freedom. That is why, at the University of Adelaide, we were advertising often and extensively as The Truth and Life Club Inc., so that any who felt able should overthrow our demonstration that the Bible is the only authorised, divine word from God Almighty to the human race.

It involved the points that there is God Almighty, that He HAS spoken to the race, that THIS BIBLE is precisely what He said, and is His word. Since the GOSPEL is IN that word, and it portrays JESUS CHRIST, LORD AND SAVIOUR, these things followed, they are so, are what they are stated and declared to be and must be faced as truth (cf. The Shadow of a Mighty Rock Chs.1-3, That Magnificent Rock Chs.1-7). Their consequences likewise follow, equally, as there declared.

Indeed, they DO follow: for if one is not and will not be  where truth is, one lives in the lie, the darkness covers like an untimely shroud, and life is little more than an hypnotic prelude to the dismalness of deserved severance from one's Maker, whose friendship is marvellous, whose power unsurpassable and whose truth clean. If His servants are faithful, they will not be more attractive than He from whom they come, but the world will rather reject them as they rejected their Master (Matthew 10:24-25); but the word concerning the Saviour, the word of God is delivered which can deliver whosoever will (Revelation 22:17) .

In the meantime, we did not (and if we could, would not) FORCE anyone to accept our challenge, but it was repeatedly made.

THE CASE OF THE MATERIALIST WHO, FOR IMMATERIAL REASONS, DID NOT MATERIALISE

It is enough that one University group fled after the first meeting of challenge with reason for the faith, one of them returned, failed to disturb the proof of the Bible, left without an answer to specific logical challenge, said he would return, never did so. The materialist never materialised, a point material to the debate, the challenge never was met. For highly invisible reasons, the matter was dispensed with, and the realm of purpose left the arena void of the contest offered! It is difficult to debate without an opponent...

The field was vacated, and then some apparently  talked about it on the Net to which at that time, I had no personal access, having then no computer of my own or knowledge by which to operate it. Multiple challenges provided to them over a considerable time were ignored; debate was offered by us for arrangement, but with no takers, even opportunity for the immaterial materialist for whom absence desired seemed an immaterial ground for never materialising, no nor being seen again,  nor responding to any challenge, nor meeting where the challenge was, the issues already put, the confrontation already given.

As noted, it is rather like a contest or game, a challenge or encounter in which ONE PARTY decides, after the first match or two, that the contest is better held in the absence of the challenger, the fight better and more comfortably fought when with only one party in the ring; it is resembles having an Inter-Varsity football match leaving one team at the oval, while the other elects and prefers to do its kicking on King William St.. Certainly it has advantages, but interaction is not one of them. (Cf. Biblical Blessings, Ch.1, pp. 12ff..)

There has been no impediment for any open terrain where all may come. Talk, writing, meeting, debate, some suggestion for interchange, which they may make: none have been acceptable to these warriors! Is it because they know they fight against the Lord, in some inscrutable way, being convicted ? or fear the outcomes ? The Lord knows.

With such stakes of such magnificence, magnitude and alternatively in the end, of desolation,  for the lives of many, who would not be willing! (cf. John 3:33-36, which after all follows 3:16, and parallels 3:18-19).  Nevertheless,  from these as from many millions,  there has been no such coming in this context. In this case, some came from time to time to taste, to enquire, to relate, to ponder.

Yet as to sustained and effective contest,  the achievement of results, Adelaide University like a sphinx, indeed, has had little to say when so amply given opportunity. It hid from this most present and exceedingly available option, announced and re-announced, presented openly, in lecture, discussion. The end of such beginnings is often the beginning of the end, and when it comes, the vanity of youth is no more, the intrinsic emptiness, that that of any other age. It is just that it is often more obvious how much, and how far, there is to be loss. Nevertheless, the word of the Lord does not return to Him void, and He SAYS so! In His season, there is fruit - and who a better example thant the apostle Saul, reckless in combat against Christians, only to become like a nurse OF them (Philippians 1:24,28, I Thessalonians 2:7)! And so we trust!

But as to the failure so often by so many, to rise to the logical challenge where it was put ? or rising, to come anywhere within sight of meeting it ?

It is not entirely surprising, for given error, the case is indeed hard to fight to sustain it; for what is the nature of spiritual error! It is against both God and life, a fabrication of the fancy, a farmyard without inhabitants. Facts, morality, reality, history, logic all are in entire confrontation, whoever points it out. Indeed, in the end, victory in such a contest against the Lord is in fact, impossible, except as here, it be one in the dreams, in which only one party appears, the other shadow boxing, while avoiding the ring, and landing its blows in the air! The sadness of continuing secession from the realities of the sublime Maker and certain Saviour, the only one, is one of those immortal griefs to the saints while they are on earth, seeing the heedless, reckless and often flimsy motives or manners of the loss; because the solution is wonderful in kind, experience and goodness.

It is life which is lost when truth is fled from; and the flight from the Lord is here more than metaphor. It seems almost to be given actual feet. There are only two places to flee: to the Lord or from the Lord. Jonah for all time illustrates the latter, and he was chastened, because he WAS the Lord's. Alas, without the Lord's intervention, WHO shall come! (Jeremiah 17:9) -

"The heart is deceitful above all things,
And desperately wicked:
Who can know it ?
I, the LORD, search the heart,
I test the mind,
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings"; and again,

"The foolishness of a man twists his way,
And he frets against the Lord" - Proverbs 19:2.

The preference for darkness remains where it begins, just that, a preference: for as Christ indicated, what is of the light comes into the light (John 3:20-21): "he who does the truth comes to the light".

Hiding from the word of God, even amid unreasoning abuse, is no answer, though it is a signal of defeat and a verification of prophecy when it comes (John 15:20, Matthew 10:25); and it IS important that in the end, giving no answer will be a ground of judgment, for the call of Christ DEMANDS an answer, and while one may hide now, physically or in some media, then there is no such opportunity.

Q: How do you relate to such things now ?

A: WHAT THEN IS FOUND IN THIS MATTER, IN SUM ?

Indeed, it was years after this, before I bought my first computer and was able to operate as computer-literate. Meanwhile, some students came to our University beachhead from time to time, but the truth of the Bible position was never endangered. Its uniquely valid position was never countermanded by reason, but only established the more before those who enquired.

To logic there must be logic in answer, not ad hominems, psychic feelings and the like; and it must be where the action is, not in secret places, sequestered terrains, like sportsmen duly defeated in open contest, now playing alone, where the opponent is not equipped to come! This however is more than a game (though not less) and the results are eternal, making acute  the everlasting pity of pertinacious refusal by will, of what is mandatory to mind and essential to spirit: even the Creator Himself and His word, in which lies like a shaft of gold, His Gospel of grace.

Thus, spreading yet further, it is significant that when we asked such people if they would like to write their answers; none came; we asked later, when the author took to the Net, if they would like to confront us there, yet no answer to the ring. DIscussions ensued from time to time, but in general, the will was not present.

To the point of the challenge: Not a bird peeped or chirruped; every plateau for discussion was left as darkness leaves the earth when dawn comes. But it is GOOD that they had freedom to meet us if they would.

The light of Christ scatters or it draws. It divides, just as the word of God divides between soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12). Darkness has no answer to light, and in its presence, through its source, the Lord Himself, its baselessness grows oppressive, in the end,  even to itself.

Q: Do you see any lesson for the University authorities to learn ?

A: Certainly, and this is one of our reasons for action in this matter. Indeed, it appears as

Our point of course was this: IF anyone can NOT overthrow the PROOF that the Bible is the word of God, and all this shows, then it is MORALLY WRONG to attack it anywhere in the University, since the answer is there. ANYONE, professor, student, could come. Comically, some highly articulate people began to make excuse, saying they could not match us with words - that leading to our other offers of writing and so on. The fact is, as we have shown, and I have found over many decades of all this sort of thing, NO ONE has an answer to this. The BIBLE IS THE TRUTH.

This has been an excursion on reason, force, truth, logic and will among the young. It can bear rapport with our topic, just because it was NOT a matter of rule, to the area where rule is.

Now therefore, back to government. For all that, then, even if I had the political party in power, and were its leader, I still would not FORCE anyone to believe (or really, to pretend to believe) WHETHER they thought they could answer or not. The REASON for the faith is not the faith. If you do not have faith, you lack the most essential thing; for without it, you and God are apart. Since He made you, and you are not self-sufficient, this is a most unhappy state of things. It is in one sense, a form of madness, spiritual madness as the Bible puts it; but this is no REASON to use any form of force. (See SMR pp. 65-72, 1186Aff.. ) God has not done so, but has rather exposed HIMSELF in Christ to its use (I Cor. 1:22, 2:8), making the point with power to arise, not to quench will and subvert. Truth has its beauty and mere force is as far beneath it as is the pit from the sublime.

This means that you do not give special privileges to Christians, even if you are in a governing position to do so. Emperor Constantine, in the days of the Roman Empire, was wrong here. It can lead to hypocrisy. It is precisely for this reason, I believe, that many speak badly of the Victorian era - or rather, for this reason not least. Pompous humbug is what follows when people pretend to be, or like to imagine they are Christians when in fact, their hearts are far from the Lord, and His word and commands they merely equivocate about, not doing them. Christ indicated that many would come to Him at judgment time, asserting their mighty works, but He would (correctly) profess to them: I never knew you! Thus their life-long exclusion of Him would become His exclusion of them.

Q:  What about Universities? If you were in power, what would you do with freedom there; and what about Colleges at the secondary level?

A: Universities should be places where truth is sacred. When it comes to God, I have never found places less like what they should be. In what is now a University in S.A., I once lectured in Communications. Special permission was granted to me to present material on scientific method, and of course this showed that creation was the apt contender, in terms of procedure. (See That Magnificent Rock, Ch.1,The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, pp. 140ff., and so on.) Enormous hostility arose, and the Head of the Department asked me to account.

This I did: No better case illustrating scientific method could I find than this abortion of it, so commonly met in the area of organic evolutionism. The errors of method met here, these helped to focus and feature what scientific method should be. Thus, by bringing up a well-known case, and allowing us systematically to show the foibles which substituted for clear and correct application of scientific method to the case, we had an excellent stimulus to thought and understanding.

I indicated that in fact the opposite position to this careful methodology was common, endemic and unwarranted; that proper freedom of thought was not in place, that all that could be said for and against meant it was high time that someone would present what had been neglected; that what I had presented was correct, available for overturning; that it had not been overturned, and if it could be, then it was appropriate for it to be overturned in my presence. What time better than the present! This was the tenor of my reply to investigating authority.

The response was this: IT IS NOT CONVENIENT to teach otherwise, like this. Therefore, STOP IT!   {You could see further on such things, and on this, in News 51, Scoop of the Universe pp. 248ff..}

Q: Did you? Or did you have enough principle to avoid what could be construed perhaps as a power putsch!

A: No I rejected the request, and hence in a little when the tasks required were done, left the institution. It would not be possible to abide by such a request, in integrity. The calibre of the answer to my truth-based request echoes like a gun-shot through the vaults of history:  It is not convenient.

Q: So you recommend that people should not hold on to positions, but rather hold on to the truth?

A: This is so. The Bible declares: Buy the truth and do not sell it. Sell truth! Without truth a person is scarcely human - but especially if the result is voluntary! But this has been an interesting case, the University one.

Q: Why?

A: This is PRECISELY the sort of area where an abuse of power arises - any teaching place, or site of instruction. However, at a University, people must be prepared to throw away arrogance about philosophies, and put them to the test, not abusing lecturers' powers by failing you, or harassing your responses if they have merit, because they do not fit the current flirtation with culture, which is modish.

Q: What other area have you found to incorporate this sort of abuse?

A:The same is true of seminary, a type of institution where I found harsh anger a substitute for reasoned reply, when challenging unbelief, effectually by invitation! and intemperate inequity a substitute for grace of manner and righteousness. This was in what appeared all too obviously a case of an educational institution radical both in propositional and personal approach, with strong trends towards irrationality.

Even in a conservative seminary^*1, it is possible to find some -ism so enshrined that its devotees lose their normal grace. Thus in one case, a senior student openly rebuked a professor who had asked me not to challenge in Class, and then sought to mock my position, himself appearing critically limited in this act by the chains of fixed cultural concepts, while thus my freedom was foreclosed.

However, the presentation which the author had made, on John 1-3, concerning the love of God in the LIGHT of the coming of Christ, so that what refused it had THIS for its condemnation, that darkness was desired rather than light, and this in the very face of the declared purpose, presence, provision, passion, proclivities and proclamations of Christ: this was not touched, for it could not be touched, for it is there written, as shown by the references for *1 above and *2 below, not least Repent or Perish, Ch.1, End-note 1, The Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 4 , esp. Endnote 1,The Glow of Predestinative Power Ch. 4, To Know God ... Ch. 1 (cf. John 15:21-23, I Timothy 2).  Not lassitude in divine love,  as if it were not true that "God is love", but its rejection in the very face of it, HIS face: this is the crux. This is the Biblical reality, message and insistence, the base of the condemnation as stated in John.

Arguments, philosophically based and lacking foundation, about words (v. II Timothy 2:14): these do not alter this, but merely exhibit the proclivities and preferences of speech, by those who seek to define it on their own terms. The fact is as it always has been, and will be, however: it is on GOD'S chosen terms that the matter is to be understood, not in definitions implied by presuppositions of desire. As to the understanding of terms, this too must be derived from the same biblical source, not the insistences of tradition.

It is not silencing, but truth which matters; not philosophy and its endless variations and vagaries, but what is written. As to that, the teaching directly indited in the Bible: it is gloriously, incomparably and in terms of Christian Apologetics, valiantly harmonious, a verification of its truth yet once more. It is this which stands endlessly, falls never, meets every test, is never overthrown, whether wilfully or ignorantly. This categorically unique harmony of the Biblical conspectus in this field, is shown extensively in Predestination and Freewill.

There neither is, nor ever has been, anything to fear from philosophy, but there is all to fear for it, from the truth, inscribed from heaven, set forth in earth, and confirmed in PERSON by the author.
It is THIS word and not some other, which is to be regarded (II Timothy 1:13).

What then ?

Far better freely to meet the case put IN YOUR ACTIVE PRESENCE without procedural prejudice, and see what befalls then! - if the truth is desired!^*2

Q: But can these principles be executed by a teacher?

A: Certainly. I have taught at secondary, post-secondary and tertiary level, over many years, and have applied them.

For my part, I would mark essays without regard to their position, merely basing it on their acumen, analysis, knowledge, expression and performance. For years, this is what I did, delighting in fairness. They were being taught to think, to argue, to assess; and the mere fact that any would fail to grasp the total position was not highly relevant: how FAR did they travel in terms of logic, what grounds did they give, how meritorious was their overall composition, structure and so on. Even if their conclusion was right, what was the procedure they used to reach it! That was a crucial point.

THIS is a form of tolerance, in this educational spheres, NOT very often met with; but it is the only answer, in this present world, to arbitrary cultural sovereignty which makes a mockery of truth. To SPIT OUT the right answer is not to the point, when the object is education, in a secular scene. It is rather to be able to show the means and methods of seeking truth, so that in knowledge and appreciation of relevance and argumentation, you indicate a prepared mind.

Q: So liberty is possible if the price is paid, and the coin is available?

A: LIBERTY is entirely possible, but not often found in Universities where the nature of man and of God and of truth is concerned; and it is concerned, directly or indirectly, in some way, almost all of the time.

THAT is precisely one reason why we challenged at Adelaide University. If Lecturers are going to attack Christian principles, the name of God and so on, directly or indirectly, and my long University experience shows just how much of this there is, and the extent of its crudity: then at least they should be willing to stand up and be counted, to meet a specific ACADEMIC CHALLENGE given to them by a multiple-University graduate (in case they disdain), and show WHY they think this sort of denigration is academically respectable.

It is of course dishonourable to continue in that sort of line, when you have no answer. Our purpose was also to allow students being harassed in this way, a place and a help, so that mere confusion would not reign, while their exams and marks and so forth, acted like a pitchfork, to make them conform to their teachers' pet (and often anti-Christian) philosophies.

Q: Have you found very different teachers, who are ... commendable here?

A: Indeed yes. At seminary in America, I met a couple who were quite outstanding in this, and a delight to know. Even one University Professor, a Chairman, was good here, though it was clear what a strain he was suffering when he took advanced degree work with me; and I fear he failed somewhat. Nevertheless, he made a huge effort, and it was good to see.

Yes, it is indeed true that all teachers do not engage in this sort of academic rort, but it is far more common than some seem to think. In Monash University, in First Year Medicine, tests were carried out, and a University leader expressed something like horror that around half of them believed in creation not evolution. He expressed the view that evolution was a needed object on the mental mantelpiece, for a good doctor. The opposite is true.

When young, I myself had tonsils extracted in what seemed to have been a mass neighbourhood assault on that organ in the young. It seems it may have been believed it had no real function, was maybe a left-over, and so could be dispensed with. Later studies, as in all such cases is the trend, showed it had real merits at certain stages of growth, and function. So our magnificent design can be "handled", just as it often is - too loosely - with powerful drugs, as if it were mere bits-stuck-together. If there is ONE THING a doctor does NOT need, it is the slap-happy attitude to the human masterpiece of design which tends to result. Underlying philosophies can have strange effects, even on the conscientious.

Little decisions and trends easily set in, so that like a god, the doctor may come to follow superficially what the appearance is, to a presuppositional mind, with myths on its mantelpiece.

Of course, there are some very fine Christian doctors who have learned to co-operate with God in disease; and those who do not understand, we do not suggest, do things evilly by design. It is just that confusion here can harass a doctor, and therefore trouble a patient. It becomes rather like having a serviceman for your car, who does not believe in factories and inventors. (For the realities, see SMR Chs. 1-3,8-10 etc..)

At that, if I were educating doctors, I should seek the same freedom. They need to understand like anyone else; but if they do not, their technical expertise is examinable, not their faith, however groggy.

Q: What however about secondary schools? Surely THEY are too young there for that sort of thing?

A: In some ways, of course. They do however in secondary school have teaching often which is no less than a thorough, careless, opinionated course in evolutionary myth. This is a shameless shambles. If they REALLY cannot understand anything to the point, they should not be taught at all in this field. In fact, they are taught much, in many texts, with that same endless indoctrinative process which is carried on in TV mythologies, whose name is legion.

In reality, of course, they can understand much of this by year 10, and some very much sooner. It is not for nothing that the text-books are loaded with assumptions and expressions of loyalty to the myth. A really fascinating course in this area is provided in 5 lectures by John Mackay, the notable Queenslander whose services on TV, radio, campuses and in Schools have been so much sought in various lands.

Q: What then could you tell them?

A: EXACTLY as much as the coverage you plan to give them assumes. (In particular, study that series of lectures: The Origin of Life. It exemplifies some features.)

Q: How much is that?

A: Usually, it means estimates of age, of change, of methods of change of living things, geological views, fossil studies, genetic views and the like. In fact, as our other works have shown most clearly, the opposite to organic evolutionism is what is shown, and it is indeed rather comic how many outstanding academics as we have often detailed, acknowledge the mythological nature of the alleged evidence, which in fact is for types continuing as such.

As to age, only if you assume it do you get it, such is the nature of the presuppositional situation, as detailed in That Magnificent Rock, The Antics of Dating, and in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, Ch.2. Many processes are wholly inexplicable except on the understanding of 'young age' for the earth. Religion apart, scientifically, I could not find ground for any other view.

That, however, is not here the point. What is? that there is abundant scope to expose students to FACTS and to let them draw their own conclusions. Dr Dmetri Kouznetsov, a vocal creationist, argued that, when at Adelaide University - a man with three doctorates in bio-science by the age of around 35, and a full professor with the Lenin Science prize in the Russia of the time. His point was well taken.

Facts of relevance, as expertly shown by Dr Michael Denton (who shows no sign of professing Christianity), in his Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, and many others, are most delightful here. They do not at all allow these easy theories. Education is, in my opinion, just the thing for a secular school. It is unfortunate that indoctrination has here so often replaced it, to the point that it is quite sound to say this: MISSIONARIES of atheism and theistic evolution (see SMR pp. 179ff.) are at work constantly.

If ever 'missionaries' from the sects were misled and misleading, these are as far wrong. It is practised in South Australia, at taxpayer expense, with authoritative governmental demand, to the exclusion of all fair debate, in High Schools, which hence in this regard, are low schools of low moral body-blows - better, mind blows - to the young.

It would be difficult to over-state the shameless ethics involved in this procedure. Indeed, in Ch.8 of That Magnificent Rock, the whole matter is analysed, and the Government document exposed in detail.

Q: Why then does God, according to the Bible, come and reign on earth? IS THAT education?

A: Higher education! We have thousands of years in which freely to come to the truth. We are given every opportunity with politics of the right, the left, the centre, to find stability and strength. The British Empire (*3) in some ways, grew nearer, as we saw in The Kingdom of Heaven, Ch.7, pp. 111ff. (cf. The Other Australia, p. 100in The Other News). It tended to demand morals, exhort to duty and nobility, service and realism; but then, in this case, there was an authoritative religion from above, so that for long, privileges could come if you were a Christian; and we have already noted the danger of that. Again, since the nation as such was not Christian, and it ran the Church through its government, then the church was misrun, even though it had a fine, clear statement on doctrine. In the end, this anomaly was fatal.

The U.S. too (*3), had its day. In the nineteenth century, in some ways it drew near to these things. Freedom was vast, as well; but the very mobility and fluidity of things eventually led to a people with bad morals growing in numbers, with sensationalism, experientialism and various inward desires replacing the objective realities of Jesus Christ. He has no equal; no leadership is as good; and this land is now heavily in debt, while society grows so dangerous that one wonders how safe it will soon be to even live there.

Still, these have been interesting movements towards truth; but like all the rest, they do not succeed in the end, because the heart of the people is not a good enough guide, and that is the guide in a democracy; while authorities tend to be corrupted by power. NO NATION will ever manage it, till Christ comes back. That as shown from the Bible in SMR pp. 623ff., is what God has predicted.

THAT is PRECISELY why it is HIGHER EDUCATION, in the best sense, when Christ returns and SHOWS how it is done! It cannot in short be done without God, and the world will not have Him! It is as simple as that. WHEN all the laboratory possibilities, metaphorically speaking, of running the show, the world, the nations, are found bankrupt, because it is really founded on Him, THEN He comes and SHOWS THE WAY.

It is really marvellous. First you have the students - and all the world is a student - left free, to see what they can find. THEN the teacher comes and PERSONALLY DEMONSTRATES IT. CLASS WORK AND THEN LAB.OPPORTUNITY! Wonderful education!

Thus, freedom has its opportunities, and this shown, truth exhibits it. If people still do not want truth, they can go to their own place and indulge in their whim! It is sad, but no one, NO ONE could do more for them! The Cross of shame to cover their guilt, the millenia of freedom to find the way, and many do individually; and then the authority of truth to manifest it in its beauty and power and wonder.

Good government? It is a gift of God, and blessed those who practise it with the Spirit of truth in their hearts, understanding in their minds, lovingkindess in their ways and patience.

________________________________________________________________
 
 

*1

The case in actual historical fact was Westminster Theological Seminary. The scope of the love of God towards mankind, as expressed in the first chapters of John's gospel (in fact, paralleled in I Tim. 2, Titus 2-3, Col.1 et al.)  remains as it will remain: unharmed, unharassed and uncompressed by such light and ultimately irrelevant and indeed biblically inappropriate verbal play (II Timothy 2:14, Proverbs 8:8-9), based on arbitrary assumptions  as occurred in response to my examinable and assessed sermon presentation, in the Westminster case noted. It is the word of God which binds; and its splendour must be received with simplicity, its authenticity without strivings. (See references in next paras.)

As noted in Biblical Blessings, pp.  111ff., Westminster can be of much assistance where the oppressive foretastes of antichrist are aroused as they were in my early ministerial career in Australia. However, as Tennyson put, Lest one good custom should corrupt the world ... Even Westminster is not at all perfection…

To confess this tendency, for misplaced zeal for an -ism, rather than fruitful zest for what, in EACH context of the word of God, is actually written, is to note something which, though understandable, does not increase understanding; though forgivable, is not profitable. It does nothing to reduce Westminster's valuable contribution on most fronts; but it does assist realism.

Its strong Calvinism is not objectionable in much, the famous five points of the same theologian, in their Biblical setting, being of great value. Unfortunately, he like so many others gifted, having added to the arsenal of the church in his systematics, failed to give adequate stress to another aspect: in this case, to the love of God. Indeed, the vast conflict in discussion between Wesley and Whitefield is eloquent testimony to the dangers of specialising on some scriptures, without real value being given to others. ALL scripture must be clearly regarded (II Tim 3:16, cf. I Tim. 6:4).  Re this & Biblical fidelity: see Predestination and Freewill (P&F), pp.100ff., 114-189, 190-191, SMR, Appendix B , Appendix D; The Biblical Workman 8,  End-note 2; and *2 . Without this special care, and indeed consistent regard to all that the word of God declares, a philosophic approach becomes all too possible; and this failure occurred at times at Westminster, perhaps being the reason for two events.

One is that given above; and the other came when systematics scholar, John Murray, a delightful man of great analytical ability, challenged me in class to give account of what was troubling me in his presentation, according 5 minutes for the task. Using Colossians 1:19-23, I showed the gap in the systematics, and the great danger it ran of not only aborting an aspect of the Bible, but of inadvertently becoming guilty of MERIT in salvation. Of course, this was not the aim of the system in view, but a real liability ( pp.1130ff. and P&F).  No answer was forthcoming from John Murray, and this was just; for what God affirms in His word,  is not severable by human assertion. You have to adopt the statements and find the correlative ones, seeing all as one non-contradictable whole. It is then that wisdom operates.

These things should be handled, as the Westminster Confession so justly says, with care and discretion. John Murray, then,  did not answer this direct affirmation of the generic character of the love of God shown in Colossians 1; and never in any place have I seen an answer, for an answer to the basic challenge on the need to give the Biblical place to the love of God, in terms of the extent of His embracive attitude as love ab initio, could only be in contradicting the Bible. Sovereignty suffers not at all (P&F pp. 121ff.).

The answer to biblical interpretation is never to contradict what is written, with whatever 'good' intentions; any more than contradict laboratory results in science: you proceed FROM what is written, with all else, to seek understanding. This is the biblical way, and this alone of all, it works! Its results, when faithfully applied, are inimitable. You get what is given and its coherence is glorious, uniquely so, extravagantly delightful.

Accordingly, it is with sorrow that I have had to acknowledge that excellent as Westminster has been in many ways, yet in this area of being sensitive to research and emphasis in a phase of theology not à la mode for its preferred stance and posture in terms of "Calvinism", it fell down.

Often this is seen in life: someone or some body equipped and excellent in some way, becomes too hardened to OTHER aspects not in view. The most excellent way is to be adaptive to WHATEVER comes from WHEREVER, so long as the Bible warrants it. Let the chips fall where they may! To take the first occasion, mentioned in para 1 above: To let a student be formally muzzled in Class, in such a case was of course a gross misuse of authority, an invasion of scriptural systematics and a distasteful exhibition of intolerance, when it was followed by such erratic and shallow lampooning as occurred (in fact, II Timothy 2:14 - striving about words to no profit is forbidden), justly calling up the rebuke of the senior student concerned, who exposed it with  some vim. For that, one glorifies God.

That the time of the occurrence was an examination on which the Degree depended, that the 'critique' of the instructor bypassed the actual systematics concerned, the directly scriptural presentation on the love of God, with philosophic imaginings about words, did not warrant confidence. There is a place for pearls, and confidence in a non-debate situation, where rights of reply and due continuity of discussion were arbitrarily severable,  with such occurrences as this, could only be withheld.

Moreover, Calvinism, or any other -ism founded on man is signally rejected by the Bible in I Cor. 3:4-9.22, where even "of Paul" is refused (and how much more, it follows, 'of Calvin'), though of course this is not applicable to the SCRIPTURES he wrote, these being immediately inspired in a plenary way, by God (I Cor. 2:9-13 and see SMR Appendix D). You simply CANNOT give honour to one another in such a manner, and yet give the due honour to the ONE whose speech is infinitely superior to all other (John 4:40-47). It is time this was learnt, obeyed and done.

The Westminster Confession's system of doctrine is indeed Biblical; but for fidelity, the extra emphasis on the love of God is needed, as in the Basis of Union of the Presbyterian Church of Australia, which unfortunately has changed some of its approach. That aspect is, if you like, pre-systematic; yet none the less intensely vital for that!

The Biblical love of God does not alter the SYSTEM, which works in its own way: rather it alters the testimony to the One whose it is - of whom it is written "God is love" (I John 4:7-8). And as to that - inclusion of this as of all Biblical components - it is vital to precision (cf. The Kingdom of Heaven, Ch.4, pp. 45ff., Predestination and Freewill, pp. 114ff.) and justice in covering - and attesting - the uniquely harmonious Biblical revelation from God Almighty in this sphere.

Indeed, here as elsewhere, this and any other obedience to the word of God is wisdom itself! A good understanding, says the word of God, have they who do His commandments. Some things may seem "small", but ...how do "little things" mask great ones!

To be flexible with the Bible is abhorrent, the ultimate intrusion and plagiarism, next beneath the crucifixion of Christ, the eternal, living word of God made flesh. It does not preserve the beautiful precision and utter wonder of the word of God: unique, incomparable and illuminating. To be flexible to it, however, is entirely different. It is not that emphasis on the sound teaching of the Bible needs to be aborted at all (heaven forbid) but to be inclusive of all it says, while yet exclusive of what it does not say. Biblical systematics on sovereignty and grace are not lost through the whole counsel of God, but put in place so that, like a completed jigsaw puzzle, the result is suddenly able to show and depict the vital vision that flows like water, pure by His word from the eternal magnificences and illimitable magnitudes of His heart (Ephesians 1:17-18, Matthew 5:17-19, II Timothy 3:16).
 

*2

In fact the error made by the Instructor noted, at Westminster Seminary, who had first demanded silence and then in the Class setting, lampooned with words at that time  forbidden an answer, is simply exposed in Repent or Perish, Ch.1, esp. Endnote 1. This may be read in conjunction with The Kingdom of Heaven... Ch.4, and SMR Appendix B,  SMR Ch.8, initial pages, and
The Biblical Workman Ch. 8, End-note 2,Repent or Perish Ch.1, End-note 1, Tender Times for Timely Truths Ch. 11, Ch. 2, End-note 1,The Glow of Predestinative Power Ch. 4, The Christian Pilgrimage Ch. 3, To Know God ... Ch. 1; and for full presentation, in  Predestination and Freewill,
 

• where the splendid harmony of the word of God, taken in all points as it comes, is shown in categorical contrast to the useless and inconsistent fumblings of all other approaches. Indeed, there it is shown why this is the case, the actual  Biblical picture in its purity, being necessarily alone in meeting both human responsibility as charged by God, with divine sovereignty uncompromised, as similarly asserted, and meeting all the data of actuality. While it is not surprising that what GOD says has this incomparable advantage, it is of acute relevance to Christian Apologetics, that such is the case.

Another failing that could sometimes be found in that institution, despite its more general and valuable quality - namely the tendency to undue symbolism, not warranted by the criteria of the context but rather by the 'difficulty' of the material - it seems, was exhibited in the case of remarks from the same instructor on the topic of Moab. It is  met in the word showing Biblical teaching on Moab. This is found in  The Shadow of a Mighty Rock pp.1111-1112. It is necessary to "rightly divide" the word of God with care (II Timothy 2:15)! Does not the Maker of the brain require thought! Here as everywhere else the word of God is vindicated, requiring no 'help'. It is not enough to proceed with inexact exegesis of each context of the word of God; each context requires assiduity and accuracy, and when this is given, the payload in internal consistency and external sufficiency is astounding.

Indeed, the capacity of the Bible to withstand criticism is matched by its repugnance to this whole domain of fanciful interpretation in the face of 'problems', which are freely found in the mind of the reader rather than in the realities of the word, which without exception, simply comes to pass. While we all use figures and imagery in speech, the transformation of sober references in historical setting into intrusive change of context and thrust needs contextual indication, lest the Bible become a forum for every fancy, a take-off plane for any elevation of thought of man, in the face of God, and not from His mouth.

Hence, for this reason as for all others, it is most thrilling to find continually, decade after decade,  every barrier and every blockade, whether from a philosophical 'position' or from frank and rank assault on  the Bible, to be met with one result: its overthrow. The Bible stands unobliteratable (it is better to manufacture a word than a thought for someone else's mouth) and massive, ascending to the heights and proceeding to the depths, sui generis, without parallel, prop or addition, the word of God. It is in this capacity it rejoices the heart and enlightens the mind, for it simply stands erect and assured. The papier maché mounts of the mind of man stand puny and passé before their time, when erected in its near vicinity!

If your car meets any hill, climbs any mountain, crosses any stream, outdistances any pursuit, you naturally come to conceive of it in signal terms! When it is the truth which is the butt of so many for so long, for so many reasons, whether as apparently here, confusion, or other conflict: the result is the same. It stands; the other falls. Such is the word of God; such is to be expected; and so it is found to be. It is time to praise the Lord for the simple reason that it is fitting, and fitting because it is DUE!
 
 

*3

In fact, there has almost certainly been no more powerful nation in the A.D. era, in two millenia, than England and America in their respective settings and times. To the extent they moved in their best day, aright, they were strengthened: as they forwarded righteousness, righteousness forwarded them.