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

how pre-eminently and provocatively clear it is

The Virtue of Validity and What it Validates

1. Uniquely always valid, and enshrined in what is absolute

The unique validity attaching logically to the Biblical Christian faith as delivered from the days of the apostles is much emphasised in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock. Ch.3 deals with this matter extensively, but it is also considered in various functions in Chs. 1 and 10 particularly. The unique powers of resolution of the same Faith is shown in some detail in Ch.5, and these considerations are correlative. A simple procedural summary has been added to allay the confusion which readily substitutes for reason: in Edition 2, pp.316A-B (cf. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming ... Ch.5, End-note 1A.)

Anyone interested in validity may there verify the matter simply, procedurally. Pp. 348-353 augment the area of consideration and its distinctives. See also in Edition 2's much enlarged Index, under the headings: Validity, Irrationalism, Series, Language, Semantics.

The use of valid logical techniques yielding a logically attested absolute which manifests itself evidentially and secures exclusive antinomy-answering capacity, is stark and unique to the Biblical Christian faith. That is what one MUST expect when looking for communication with ground, from the God of creation. He is ... capable as a communicator. There is simply no other Being, or being, 'divine' or human, who has shown the capacity to act at this level, and so to attest. It is always difficult to speak of what is absolutely so (including the view that nothing is) when there is nothing there that is. This particular antinomy always ridicules for itself the 'dispassionate' voices of unreason which teach from no basis.

The position for convenience may now be summarised.

As shown esp. in Chs.1, 3, 10 of The Shadow of a Mighty Rock:

1. No valid logic leads anywhere but to God the Creator, Almighty and Eternal; and thence logic compels to the Bible.

2. Non-Creator-and-Revelation approaches not only fail initially in logical validity, but fail a second time in the antinomy of telling us what 'it is', the situation is, whether from a positive or negative perspective, when on such skeletal premises there not only is no such position available, but there could not be.

3. The Bible monolithically verifies itself on fronts innumerable, both competitively and in its individual exuberance of attestation, not only to the satisfaction of, but lavishly past all legitimate expectations of logic.

4. This is a maximal response; no other contestant satisfies the minimal requirements.

2. Objectivity at Last

Such is the sway of intellectual fashion that the very concept of objectivity seems to some to be hopelessly adrift. However, the fact is that even in our own distorted culture, we often speak of 'being objective', of the need for objectivity, and in terms of displeasure, may state that someone is not being objective.

Philosophically rather than practically the concept is becoming almost outre´.

In fact, however, it is probably simply a synthesis of bad philosophy and guilty conscience which, in many cases, leads to this thought. Is it objectively true that people cannot be objective? If so, how do you know? ...objectively? If not, why assert it?

If one is to be logical (see The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, Chs.1,3), then we have reasoned that it is best not to overthrow reason. If one DID, by what would it be? If by reason, then? An odd accomplishment, since it is to become invalid which would do it. Without reason perhaps? but by what would this become reasonable?

If, then, one is to follow reason in all its dimensions, despite the jejune and to the point, ill-informed claims of Paul Davies in 24 Hours regarding this element (Sections B and C - cf. D, in Ch.7, Models and Marvels, infra), why then one will USE reason. IF one does, and in particular uses causation, in which reason inheres, with which speech is endued, by which thought proceeds, in terms of which characterisability exists, through which in turn, description proceeds and articulated thought moves: what then? Then one comes with the same rigorous and inevitable necessity to God that the trilogy noted above shows (henceforth called SMR). For more detail on this, see Ch.1, pp.3-10, Chs.3 and 10, and Index on Causality, irrationality, SMR.

If on the other hand, one avoids reason by denying it, one uses it to do so, and if it is invalid, so is the reasoning presented to show this. If one follows it, one arrives as shown in step by step detail Ch.1 SMR, at God the Almighty, omniscient, the remedy-providing God. WHEN one does (in theory), there is of course still a mighty hurdle which millions will never cross. IF you do not know God, then HIS objectivity is of no crucial help to you: IN THEORY, yes. It resolves the subject-object impasse. In practice, NO! it does not resolve it for you personally. It is like KNOWING there is a marvellous symphony concert on next Tuesday, at 8 p.m., at some designated place. However... other interests prevent your being there. You might, but you do not; you do not hear it. In this case, it is objectivity which you do not hear. That is the nature of it.

THAT is not a logical but a psychological problem. It is not a failure of reason but of you; and you are not reason. Your will has bewitched you; but then do not complain. If that is what you want... That is the personal side to it for any human creature now living on this earth.

However, it might be urged that we are merely assuming that GOD is objective. Not so. In SMR, which is now on the WEB, and of which copies of the first Edition are still available, it is shown of necessity truth is what GOD speaks. This is not a necessity bound on Him from outside; for that would be a contradiction in terms. It would however be a contradiction in terms - these being derived in detail, step by step in the place noted: to assert that it is not truth, objective, actual reality without distortion or deceit, which He utters.

Further, in the context noted, we find that He is not subject to character imposed from within or without , or to circumstances operating beyond Him, which could deter or inveigle Him into such steps, unless He were divided, seeking what He could not obtain or at war with Himself, with obtruding inputs beyond His control which He acts to negate: nor does He contradict Himself, being wholly what He desires in eternity, free of the constraints of antithesis as of the contortions of collision of word and deed. SUCH things would involve Him in a system which He did not create or a desire in His creation which He could not meet; and this would limit His power or prevenience, either of which involves a contradiction in terms as developed in SMR (cf. e.g. pp. 26ff., 581).

There is a further confusion. People are so culturally conditioned in many cases after centuries of indoctrination, that not only is the Paul Davies' type of error on causation, ignorantly asserted by some, but it is simply ASSUMED that to be human IS to be subjective.

It is true that to be human PER SE is not to be God. It is true that those who are simply and merely human are limited. It is also true that such persons may show enormous and frequent involvement in deception and self-deception, often confessing the same, and illustrating it; but this is not simply to be assumed in all cases. To BE a subject, moreover, is not identical with being subjective. THAT would be a play on words, not a work of reason. It MIGHT; but that it MUST be so, is a mere assumption. WERE it true, moreover, and IF the meaning of 'subjective' were taken to be :'wrong, inadequate, not seeing things in the light of truth' - as would often be the connotation, then of course the very statement to this effect could not be taken as true. IT too would be 'subjective'; unless a slick logical slide were being engaged in, which is merely invalid.

To be a subject does not mean to be ONLY a subject. It means that you have a plateau or performance or function in terms of which you assess, are conscious, consider, reflect and retort, in the case of a human being; but it does not per se also mean that you CANNOT expand beyond such a limit. That, to render it vivid by analogy, would be like saying that man cannot fly. That is true in broad general terms; but if one considers, then hang-gliding would need to be defined out, and aeroplane travel would need to be excluded. One would in the end have to re-define what one meant by 'fly', so as to exclude a number of ways in which it could be done. So here: man may indeed by subjective; and it is not hard so to be. If however one wishes to make the broad, general statement that MAN CANN0T be objective, there are... problems.

Indeed, one will often be ASKED to be objective without any sense of irrationality. THIS concept is as much part of the culture as the assumption that man cannot be so. Christianity in terms of the Bible, offers clear solution to this cultural antinomy. MAN OUGHT to be objective, in the sense of not callowly or corruptly, even if unconsciously, distorting the facts. Man often fails in this, so that the request is that it be avoided. Then someone might say: BUT HOW? Note first however that it is not thought insane to ask, or to expect this.

A 'subjective subject' is a more precisely defined term than a subject. When we employ this non-redundant term, we clearly mean that a person who is limited is also in this case departing from criteria available. What then of an 'objective subject'?

What does this mean? It could mean some one limited; but one having a particular framework of operation, which in some ways is neither being misused, nor (in the end) a hindrance or exclusion agent against truth. We could, and should, go further. GOD is a subject in ONE sense. This Being is not LIMITED in power, operation or knowledge by any force, system or history, culture or condition. (See SMR Chs.1,10.) If then we were to refer to Him as a subject, we should need to amplify the definition. He is a subject in the sense that He has a personal distinctiveness from all others who survey scenes, act and respond. There is no reason why this particular use of the term should not be made; but it is necessary to be aware that there are narrower and broader usages available.

Man however is a subject, but whether he be subjective (a more distinct and normally pejorative term) is another question. The confusion of these two concepts is merely an error and is of no value in dealing with the topic; its point being simply this, that we avoid it, like any other confusion. Very well: man is a subject who may or may not be subjective, depending on the case. IF he does not know God, then in some pejorative sense, he will in general be subjective; for then his subjectivity will be in the realm of impacts known or unknown which may limit, distort or derail; and without the truth which depends on the One whose knowledge is absolute and whose perspective is immovably adequate and accurate, and specific to His person, there will be systematic defects.

Let us not be careless here however There MAY be some elements from time to time which are formally right. Divorce from the appointed working relationship with God does not remove the Biblical reality that the form of man's thought contains that which even sin does not in every case wholly defile. In fact, this is the Biblical ground for the fact that man is not simply absurd and incapable of truth.

The amusing extension of this, of course, is that whenever people tell what the position really is (including the view that we do not or cannot know what it really is) they are not insane; but merely expressing a built-in expectation of what WOULD be appropriate, if God were known, as in fact He ought to be. People's residual areas of construction, not wholly distorted, may urge them to such a modus operandi, even when, through sin, it has become self-contradictory.

Whether or not man as subject can avoid being merely subjective depends quite simply on this: Could people find, or be found by God; or more precisely, ARE they so found? If they do, or are, then the path to such avoidance lies open. The alternative is an irrational abyss of self-contradiction, which lacks nothing in the ludicrous, the comic and the poignantly regrettable.

By the way, red herrings are the usual way of fleeing from all this utilised by those so inclined(other than physical departure, often found also, form the premises of discussion); or should we say they are one of the norms ? Thus we had better cover one of them . 'Man' is in our language a term of dual usage here: it MAY mean masculine member of the human (hu-person) race; or it MAY mean 'member or members of the human race'. and it may be racially indiscriminate. It has been used here in the second sense, without regret, disparagement or any negative implication or assumption whatever. Woman is of precisely the same value as is man. But let us return to our theme.

The options are the abyss of irreconcilable confusion (which is not the height of reason) and the pursuit of the only rational alternative to the finding of the self-verifying God whose reasonableness, harmony and testimony are not only adequate and uniquely so to reason, but as shown in detail in SMR, beyond all masterpiece in superabundant verifiable provision.

The cost of course is by many deemed, or unconsciously felt to be, too high. Christ Himself exhorted to 'Count the cost'. It involves acknowledgment of sin appropriation of the divine, donated remedy, Jesus Christ the living Prince of Life, and allegiance to Him beyond all. Indeed, as He said, "So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple!" There are times when the word 'cannot' is very refreshing; and refreshing is exactly what the gracious Lord provides according to need and an open heart (Acts 3:19). The two re's: Repent and refreshing, are twins.

In other words, there is a prescription if you are in favour of using your mind. Turn to the street called reason, and follow it to objective revelation, verify it, and then turn to the APPLY section, and do so. Before doing so, however, count the cost, and realise this, that in moving from being merely (if uniquely) valid, to being objective, you lose the ungerminated grain aspect of your life, and must germinate. This is both wonderful, and potentially distressing, depending on whether the Lord has given you the grace to find Him. You will not do so while your precious self is in vogue. Repentance and reception of the Redeemer put you 'in place' - but WHAT a place, in the heart and household of God.


The Stark Phenomenon of Biblical Prophecy as an Index to Research

When one is looking for an indication that a particular word is from a particular source, in this case, from God, then one of the criteria will be this: that it distinctively (preferably uniquely) exhibits aspects of that person. That one knows who is speaking to one.

This is nothing unusual. In fact, on reflection it appears that this is really what one normally does, except in this: that much thought may not usually be required to find those special, specific and adequate criteria of identification of the speaker.

With Biblical prophecy, one University student at Adelaide suggested that there was nothing so very impressive, perhaps even adequate in differentiating between this and other claimants as ... from God. It was suggested that the prophecies on Jesus Christ were subject to question as to whether they were in fact fulfilled: and vague other words appear to have accompanied this student's thought.

However, when one has surveyed the subject with care, as may be found in Chapters 8-9 of The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, and read the summary to the point found in p. 973A, with special reference to the actual historical criteria concerning Jesus Christ, shown in Chapter 6, the case is entirely different. It is always best to study one's topic.

  1. As to Jesus Christ, He had to fulfil a Messianic expectation of many hundreds of years, compiled and aggregated by some of Israel's most dramatic and often persecuted prophets, prophets whose cries and proclamations were often the start of a campaign against them, but who were protected by divine authority given in Deuteronomy (as in Chs. 13, 18). The word of God was constantly declared, often resisted or resented, but anyway done. Again and again the prophets would refer to this fact. It was hard to reply to it.
  2. Further, the pre-coverage team of many prophets over many centuries: these had a unity and loyalty which was incisive, stupendous, thrilling; prepared even for death, but abounding in life. They prepared the way, and this not only verbally, but also in suffering for that exquisite testimony of authenticity in love, that the everlasting Word of God should embark into flesh, born of a virgin, and amid the ruthless ecclesiastical, political and social connivings of men, SHOW them what they were by what they did to Him; while at the same time exhibiting the resolution of their inward plight and the remedy of their evils, through that very sacrifice for sin. Here shone the unimpugnable face of God before the violences of hapless man: Jesus Christ.
  3. This fulfilment in Jesus Christ was of course the subject of critical examination, as the Jews were not simple, and the expectation was profound. As always imposters abound. However, the authentic had to meet so many criteria, that even if impersonating God Almighty were not among them (Psalms 45, 2, 72, Micah 5), it would be difficult to put up any sort of a show to convince thinking people.
  4. What made it more difficult was jealousy and power politics in the Jewish body that ruled in some kind of consort with the Roman authorities. If Christ were what He said, and they were not what He said they should be, then conflict would sharpen the teeth of the rejecting body, entrenched in power. This of course is precisely what the record displays. Crucifixion is not normally done lightly, let alone to a popular person.
  5. Hence a heightened form of obstruction, opposition, rejection, criticism, all of this, was operative. This made bogus claims hard to maintain; and the deity claim made it infinitely harder still; except of course to one who WAS deity.
  6. IF the birth had NOT been in Bethlehem, as Micah required in his prophecy, or if the person were NOT of Judah, or were NOT put to death for that matter (Isaiah 53, Daniel 9), or if He had NOT arrived in time to die around A.D. 30, or if He had not been rejected by the nation (in fact, 'abhorred', Isaiah 49:7), or if He had not had a slow death (Psalm 2), or if His body could have been displayed openly to SHOW that He was a fake (Psalm 16 requiring as other prophecies, His arising from the dead): why then it would not really have done.
  7. The MOTIVE was there; the RAW MATERIAL of prophecy was not only there, but INTIMATELY known with a passion and zeal, as if, to use contemporary analogy, it was a question of a famous baseballer's batting average... Could the criteria be met? Despite this, no effective argument countervailed. NO determination of failure in ANYTHING was produced. With negative evidence, History was unimpressed. Blood of course is another matter. It always is. Even that, however, was part of the program, and was shed as predestinatively prescribed. Life or death, the case stood unblemished. For a curriculum vitae, that is very extensive...
  8. When ANY ONE failure would be UTTERLY FATAL, in the case where the Jewish authorities were involved with all their power and knowledge, the fact that it was NOT so, is of the utmost significance. It is in fact crucial, pivotal, and in the end, it became epochal.
  9. The stakes were high; the motives were vast; the knowledge was considerable; the power, with Rome and the Jewish authorities in concert on one thing, that this man was not the sort of thing... in an Empire of Caesar's (at any rate, the Roman action was not one of resistance, the Jews are not recorded to have overthrown Rome in order to kill)... the power was impressive. Still, His body could not be produced, it could not be retained, the might of Rome and the desire of the authorities alike was frustrated to their continued embarrassment.
  10. However, it is not on this aspect that we would dwell for the moment. It is covered in some detail in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock (SMR) Ch.6, and pp. 931ff., for example. We merely note that it is a profound miscalculation to refer to these things as if they had no superlative force (and concerning the history, see Appendix C).
  11. The point so far is this. An extraordinarily profound, detailed and concerted body of knowledge existed concerning the prerequisites fort the Messiah; and this was not mobilised to suppress Jesus Christ, when the opposition had enormous power, and in the flesh, HE did not, nor did His followers. When 100% is the pass rate, under THESE circumstances, obtuse indeed would one be to deny that this is a strong attestation.
  12. Beyond this, however, was the need for any imposter to play God under such duress. In any case, it would not be easy... but in the situation where the omnipotence of God was well known and widely received, to make such a play when one lacked that power and knowledge to in infinite degree, would constitute a problem which makes the manufacture of the atomic bomb seem trivial. Where the contest was refined and ruthless, it would be impossible to succeed and maintain the grounds of success over time.
  13. Past all that, there is the Gospel. As shown in SMR, esp. Ch. 9, this was forecast in precise and enormous depth and detail. It was stated that it would in fact be rejected by the Jewish people, AS A NATION, that it would be accepted by Gentiles, in significant measure world-wide. This has happened. This in itself is perfectly sufficient to set apart Biblical revelation from all others, in terms of what contains a SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR DIFFERENTIATION in terms of rational evidence, as the word of God... that is, in any competitive situation. This is merely the mode of SELECTION from others. That such a word is, was another point made earlier in SMR. THIS is merely its selection.
  14. We could go on. However the trilogy has done all this, and we merely draw to your attention some highlights. In addition, the Jewish people, in terms of this prophecy, had to be removed from their land after this removal of the Messiah, restored to it after being made a byword in wandering among the nations, and suffering vastly, and then to perform magnificently in amazingly successful wars. This of course also happened.
  15. Where any rational considerations are valued, this is decisive, incisive and auto-selective for this Book. That of course is the requirement in Chapter 1, and it is outrageously over-fulfilled. That, again, in such a matter, is precisely what one might expect. There is no excuse.
  16. In addition, Jerusalem had to be divided into two, and rapine and pillage to occur. This happened as it was being reclaimed.
  17. Next, it had to be entirely taken, and subjected to attack - and more than this, to attack such that it became a 'burdensome stone' to its attackers. As the UN, and the Arabs and sundry nations know, this is precisely the case. Many would that it were otherwise; notwithstanding, as with the body of Christ not available to dismiss His claims (Biblically necessary claims, in view of the prophecy), it is the case. It cannot be made different. It is. God said it would be. It is.
  18. Meanwhile, the NON-JEWS were not to do well either, spiritually. They would become increasingly immoral (Matthew 24 et al.), and their wars, fears and the drama of difficult events would all mount to their crescendo. Knowledge would increase, but not wisdom. Their attitude to the Bible in particular, would degenerate as they invented new Christs, new gospels and new approaches which implied disbelief, in some sort of neo-Christianity. The WCC has done a wonderful job in fulfilling this; but it is by no means alone!
  19. We could go on. It is unnecessary. Distinctively, in terms of competition (and GOD ENCOURAGES THIS IN THIS FIELD - Isaiah 41, 43, 48), the Bible stands alone. Its experimental verification in the laboratory of history is without any near parallel. It is amazing, and once again, subject to a massive and effectively identifying stringency for the purposes outlined in Chapter 1, The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, where the word of God is definitively exhibited.. It has a 100% PASS RATE.

Evidence ? Yes, this was the question. It is there.


"We're goin' to Hang up our Analogies on the Logic Line
When the Logic Line ain't There!" -
A Painful Misconception

When you consider the aching asperities, the gross misrepresentations, the hypocritical and devious deceits which are used to entrap or mislead people, the lies, the caricatures of God, the wilful, woeful clamour in the divorce courts, often as people sacrifice their children on the altar of self-fulfilment, self-preservation or other non-noble substitutes for love of family, the endless dismemberment of bodies, the chanting substitutes for thought, the injustice, inequity, corruption and pillage of the earth... (SMR Ch.1 et al.), one thing is perfectly apparent. It is this: that any God who cared one jot for the nature of His creation, as He made it, a creation from which He derives in the end, nothing He did not first put there, and who created without necessity, will act.

He cannot simply be contradicted:

1) either as to the nature of what He made (through the instrumentality of lies, deceit, caricature of Himself or of His products, with destructive oppression); or

2) as to the effects of it (inequity, which denies the relationship between what is made, first by God and then by man, and what is obtained cf. It BubblesCh. 9, Barbs, Arrows and Balms  6  -7 ):

without the justifiable conclusion being drawn that He is not there. If His products and principles are subject to an ultimate duress, then either He is not Almighty, not the Creator; or not there.

However we first proved the falsity of precisely such propositions and the necessity of the opposite, in Chapter 1, SMR, identifying in particular and instead, the high profile divine remedy. This we have confirmed constantly throughout that work; as indeed also the necessary minimal nature of God. No one has ever shown any point to the contrary to us.

What therefore if one were to say (as one University student in Adelaide apparently did say, when, as it were our back was turned and when outside the appointed place of meeting) ... this ? If, said this student, a computer were to malfunction, it could in that case, simply be thrown away. Hence, God could simply disregard the erring race. Make another. Do anything - this was the manner and tenor of it.

Not so.

The Interesting Case of the Missing Major Party and the Absent Minor in a Classic Comparison

  • 1. The use of argument by analogy is one of the normally defined invalidities of logic. It is one thing to use an analogy to reinforce to the imagination the impact of adequate and stated principles: it is quite another to base on argument on it. Likeness is not identity; and beyond likeness is relevance of differences; and beyond this is applicability of principles.
  • 2. In this case, there is a certain disproportion: God on the one hand, almighty, the creator as demonstrated, who has acted freely as God, without constraint or compulsion, absolutely and in all things expressive of Himself, from whom all things have come as He would have them; and on the other hand, a being of whom none of these things is true.
  • 3. To say that this is a jaunty comparison is to adorn British understatement. Yet it is also one lacking in obvious elements. First, the thing to be ... thrown away is alive. Computers are not. It can summon its own resources, will, and make a comeback, so long as it is alive. It can oppress, maim, caricature, mislead, damage, inflict excruciating agony in mind, body and in some, spirit. This little consideration is neglected in the argument by analogy. The trouble is this: it is not only poor logic; it is an abysmal substitute for it!
  • 4. This however is not all the problem. In the abyss noted, there is thrown away the additional point that this neglected... this feature, happens to be central to the ground for the assertion in view. That is: that God - if He is to be God, as demonstrated, may indeed utterly destroy, or similarly judge, but does not allow contrary to Himself, the continuation of miscreancy of His anguish-making subjects... without action, apt, appropriate and sufficient. (This action of course we have found to be visible with overwhelming clarity as Remedy, in Ch.1, and in various verifications throughout the rest of the trilogy.)
  • 5. To omit a CENTRAL consideration in the object concerned, here mankind, relevant to the point in hand, makes the argument by analogy a kind of text-book example to show just HOW far one can go when one indulges in this sort of logical fallacy without sufficient thought. Bad enough at all: but when uncensored, it can be a testimony in trifling, a comedy or even a fantasy. That, of course, is what is here the case. We are dealing in fantasy; but the argument is dealing with reality. There is a sort of parallel, but the lines never meet.
  • 6. If however, there is a little problem with logical validity, and with an enormity of irrelevance, and discontinuity with the case, a different world in which the analogy is made, as far as the object is concerned - mankind, that is relatively minor COMPARED with the other side.
  • 7. As far as the SUBJECT is concerned - GOD! - it is not merely the inordinately disproportionate, or even the extraordinarily vast divergence between the case of the student casting away the computer, and God casting away mankind (with no relevant action to remedy the position). It is not indeed just that there would be also involved for the subject, the denial of the application of germane principles amongst and between His creation, conscious and aware, cognitive and contemplative, mentally equipped and meditative. This is just a start. It would be horrendously aggravated in an internal mode.
  • 8. Thus, in particular, this would violate in and for GOD HIMSELF, at the personal level, at the cognitive, meditative level, what HE IS. It would be an intrusion to Him, via a vital system which continues to bristle with ... shall we say, principles of its own, principles of the most literally devastating character, alien to truth and justice continually. Into what would it intrude ? Into His own responsibility, occupation and survey.

HE would be implicated, internally ostracised, invaded from without, constantly allowing His omnipotent might to suffer radical, reckless and torturous wrong, as well as allowing it to violate His works. From what would He allow such assault within His own Person and principles? From what is, after all, wholly dependent on His creative power to so much as exist, what uses His operating permission to act, and what abuses His provision to continue.

  • 9. To omit the disparity of the beings concerned, in an analogy is one thing, and it is not small. To omit the relevant considerations to one of the parties is another. This is not minor. To omit infinite disparity is a third consideration, not particularly attractive in argumentation. To disregard relevant points is another; to fail to deal with central aspects is yet another. To look away from central elements in the minor party, does not help; to do so also with the major party is not commendable. To miss the entire point in the analogy is even hurtful to the integrity of logic.


Fun ? yes, for some minds perhaps; but a substitute for grounded thought - not really.




Let us now look again, with a view to a broader spiritual understanding, at the sort of issues that we find here.

In this reformulation we shall draw
certain elements more personally.

There is a certain relish in remedy which the world itself can appreciate; though it refuses, as it will, steadfastly to take it (John 17:9, 14:30-31). It is the connection between rationality, iniquity and fulfilment. Since God is the One who provides it, it is no less on His terms than is the operation of a surgeon; but rather decisively more.


Suppose someone said: Oh I just junk or discard old equipment.

This however is no simple case of invalid argument by analogy, when applied to the realm of God (AS the Maker ) and man (as the 'equipment'). First of all, man is far more than equipment, possessing powers of libel, slander, slithering caricature, miscreancy, infectious madness, defilement of the truth and so on.

Second in the area of false analogy, is this: If you junk old equipment, at that, you may - if environmentally insensitive - just pitch it out. You do not however have it talking back, or attacking your next computer, or your other computers, or your name, or your operations: or you! Nor comprehensively, do you have it fouling their equipment, falsifying their actions, aborting their procedures which you set up.

If this were to be the case, new constraints in principle would apply, should you grow weary of your ... equipment! Thus THIS being, man, far from being equipment, is an assailant of equipment and of the maker of it all! He attacks by plan, craft, negligence, with determination; and he spares not the level of his assaults.

One might perhaps say: Oh but then I should not buy (or make) such a computer (or whatever it would then be called) in the first place. THAT would be your choice - no large personal vision would, in such a case, attach to you. The case before us, however, at this stage of the argumentation, is this: God, with comprehensive comprehension and entire liberty, took action and made it. Having embraced the 'problem', He likewise embraced the solution.

It revolts, assaults, marauds, corrupts (itself, and others), libels and acts to corrode the name of God, fouls the air and pollutes the spiritual environment - as well as taunting the servants of God perhaps (and in fact often, obstructively and so forth) misleading viciously and inveighing many times against God, against His equipment, or bother , slanderously, libellously or inanely, or in some such combination. This is the stage of the argument where revelation comes; and where wit is shown, as where value also can be conserved and magnificence achieved - in practical action of the deity on this very particular and deliberately created earth. That is the situation in view.

God did choose to make persons with these fearful (and potentially, obversely, wonderful) powers - a far greater product than the American atomic bomb, which despite fears, they proceeded to make. Hardly anyone disagrees (a sad minority may) on the concept of freedom, nor do I recall to this day, anyone who says: DICE MY FREEDOM, cancel it! Or this: Make me somebody's thing! Of others ? maybe; but of himself, herself, all but unexceptionally, that is quite another thing!

In the (very) abstract, some may be tempted so to speak; or in dealing with 'others' (as in the case of Hitler with the Jews, Lenin with the Russians UNDER his rule - see the papers released in the Gorbachev era); but start with what to many people is number one, and the result is more consistent! -'Leave me alone!'

God decided otherwise than to countermand the prospect of making man, the person: and I for one am enthralled that He did. It is a gift of the highest magnitude to be permitted to live BEFORE AND IN AND WITH HIM, even for one day on this earth. The air is pregnant with possibilities, and the capacities conferred are a joy to utilise in His presence, while as to THAT, it is the zenith.

This however is somewhat peripheral to the present question. God HAS made man.


HAVING made man, God, in the nature of the case, incorporated in His invention, the power to deploy will for good or evil, in the presence of Himself who alone can make "is" into "ought" in any sense transcending mere misnamed human preference (which we all understand in its own category anyway, despite the marauding of fantasising philosophers). His desire attaches to the reality of His design: God's desire to His design, man. This is the stage to which we have reached at this point, in terms of Chapter 1, at p. 41, of The Shadow of a Mighty Rock( SMR): where God in His creation is conceived in relation to its mischief. One should be aware of these preliminaries in addressing our area.

  • The mischief, then arises in God's universe, in this corner of it where, as it were, the manager's house resides amid the vastness of the sheep station. WHAT THEN was to be done ? We have to conceive this matter in terms of the realities of the issues, and ponder whether certain results should be expected to make themselves apparent. Incidentally (and see Predestination in the Index to SMR, as also Predestination, Power and Performance, Section D of Chapter 7 to follow) ...as argued pervasively in the trilogy, God resolved all such questions before engaging in the creation: indeed our sort of time is itself His creation. (Cf. SMR Chs. 1, 2; Supplement 1995 - to Ch.2, Extension E to Chapter 4; and my Predestination and Freewill.) We however consider this in its place and move on to our present concerns.

God did not allow this mad ruin: this self-mismanaged man, with his folly, gross libel of truth, of goodness, of God and of members of his own race, his marauding tongue, a mischievous and desecrative member of His creation, this inordinate breather of sacrilege into sanctity, of vanity into wonder, this maker of broken cisterns in exchange for living water ... He did not allow to mankind, the power vacuously to ruin what is good, in accord with God's nature: as if He, Almighty God, whose creation it is, did not exist.

Having created such creature, alert with (derivative) power, enjoying such (created) facilities, with such (conferred) potential for good or evil, God did not face the (foreseen) results as inert. He faced them as One incandescently alert.

To prevent the continuance of such unprincipled and active folly amongst the members of this segment of His creation, to the detriment of His grace, action, name, to the contempt of His power and the ruin of His principles and righteousness AS deployed and employed in the midst, to say no more: He COULD, of course, destroy it all.

Little children often act intemperately that way.


Such cancellation can occur; the misfired rocket may be dumped. There however the cost AS LIKEWISE THE CONSEQUENCE, is different: the thing is mentally inert, spiritually without content, and the dumper is also of a derivative character him/herself. If however the agent with whom we are here concerned, man, be not so dumped - and one can see that this is what in fact happened: THEN rescue, relief, a redemption program is an alternative.

If the fashion is unacceptable, refashioning is indicated ; or removal.

That is where Christianity alone amongst the serious public contenders to be the word of God to mankind, operates. God offers His Son, incarnated, on earth: His eternal word is spoken into vulnerability but not into carnality, and becomes man. This everlasting word, expressive of Himself definitively (Hebrews 1) now stamps Himself into human form.

Why ? It is for this. God is just: utterly, intransigently, as we have argued earlier in Chapter 1 as noted, at some length. Hence He insists - it is in accord with Himself, who says, " I AM WHO I AM " - upon dispensing a just way, yet also one which does not destroy the freedom that He made, and made discriminatingly, with acute and astute care.

As to this, it is good to remember at least occasionally that He is Almighty, as has also been argued in its place. He presented this Son as a sacrifice to redeem the lost - but not contrary to freedom: His or theirs! It is utterly, superbly brilliant; amazingly, divinely delightful. Rather then, as to freedom, He amplifies and secures. As persons they are made, as persons redeemed, as many as are redeemed.

Upon the reception/acceptance by faith (another process examined elsewhere in the trilogy, esp. Chs. 5,7 & the end of Ch. 6) of this offer, who is in fact a PERSON - who is indeed a Person who took freely the just consequences of the sin of those who come thus to Him: THEN, the sin is met. The case is covered. (Isaiah 42:6 speaks of the Messiah, the Christ who for so long was forecast by God the Father, as Himself BEING the covenant, constituting it! Compare Matthew 26:28, and consult The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, Chs. 8 and 9.)

Thus the sinner is saved from his/her sin, from him/herself, from the implications and from the applications of sin, restored to communion with God, as is most natural, though one of those concerned is supernatural. God's plan matures. The crop is reaped. The end fulfils the beginning. Wisdom is justified of her children. There are, in this case... many of them! Having become His, they love with exuberant freedom, in simplicity and in sincerity.

Thus Friendship has known the pinnacle of glory: GOD has created FREE friends, who yet so love Him, that the system is neither abused nor confused. Purity is like dew on mown grass.

God is neither frustrated nor blocked: persons who come to Him are His. People who prefer the universe's trash are NOT denied. It is theirs likewise.


The decision in the negative towards the glorious grandeur, the unique wonder and the perfect love of the compassionate God may have its dignity, but for what reason might such a decision be made? Autonomy is impossible, paranoia implausible, and the integrity of shallow power is not apparent. The desire to avoid one's Maker may be for pride, pomp, a sense then of illusory autonomy; indeed, for any or some of a myriad of reasons. That is where the action is.

Freedom is suffered, suffered and authorised to be: the obverse of the wonder of personality. In this realm, then, what does NOT contradict God effectively, to the ruin of His principles or of their application, or to the death of their applicability, to the decease of His oversight, the invasion of His name, the obfuscation of His Spirit: it is remedy. Redemption provides for restoration without indulgence.

This provision is indeed at cost to the heart, but not to the purity of God, or to the result. Suffering is not per se evil, and this God provides for, in His willing Son who rescues from His realm those who seek Him, who come to Him, who receive Him, who have been moved to prefer light to darkness, and on whom in His perfect knowledge of all things, He operates to liberate. For these, He assumes the penalty and defeats the oppression of sin (II Corinthians 5:19-21, Romans 8:30-33, 5:8, Micah 5:1-3, John 8:58).

Thus not destruction but reconstruction applies. Wisdom is exalted. Consummation of the creation is achieved. Violation of what God is, is avoided. HE takes action to avoid it, leaving the miscreancy to be itself, and securing the sanctity in truth of His own whom He has not forced to be such, but whom He foreknew before all time, and all performance (of theirs) apart (Romans 9).

A self-contradiction theology of God is avoided. That is a simple boon: it happens because God took ACTION to avoid the facts that would secure it. In purity He has shown purity; in light he has shone. THAT IS WHAT LIGHT DOES.

  • Darkness, whether in this life or the next, is a covert thing. Truth is of inestimable value; without it, man is worse than an animal. (Cf. Psalm 49:20,7,15.) With it, he is as apart from the lower creation as is magnificence from miry clay, a rainbow from lamp black, a myriad from a nullity...



When we examine even further the Biblical testimony concerning remedy we find yet more refinement and perfection of system. Thus in Romans 3:19-27 we see

a) a summary of the condemnation of the human race as sub-standard because of sin, following the preceding text (3:19).

b) the reflection that none will be justified by legal basis, since all fail to meet its exalted specifications, the obverse side of righteous joy and truth (preceding chapters, and succeeding).

c) the pithy presentation of available righteousness without the law as performed by us, for basis (3:21).

d) the focus on Jesus Christ as the donor of this righteousness (3:22), by faith in Him.

e) the proclamation that it is justification not by our works but by HIS, which is acceptable to our Maker: we fall short, but He did not, so He confers a gracious redemption (3:24).

f) the specification that this includes propitiation of just and due wrath at such short-fall standards as men contrive, such performance as they produce and such qualities as they fail to sustain; and that this is through death in satisfaction of what deserves it, redeemed sinners having received this by faith. This is as payment on our behalf by Him, Jesus Christ, in whom believing, we accept it for what it is personally.

These are the words: "Whom God has set forth as a propitiation by His blood through faith to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God has passed over the sins that were previously committed." This shows JUSTICE allied with FORBEARANCE being content to appropriate righteousness selectively for the sin of those who accept the provision, WHEN the time should come: so that this covers all for all time, not merely for some time, those who so receive, who are His (cf. Romans 8:28-33, 5:8-11; Models and Marvels, pp. 146-156 infra).History has no hiatus; justice scorns assault.

g) the explanation that this is "to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Thus JUSTICE is demonstrated in its perfection, sin is covered in its depth and totality, where repentance and faith, in the OBJECT OF JUSTICE TO PERFECTION, is the eternal cover for temporal sins committed at ANY time in history. In Romans Chs. 6-8 we find the accompanying changes which reconstitute the heart, and the power to re-energise the will, just as in Romans 3:5-8 we find the condemnation of the pettifogging proposition that since God is vindicated we might as well sin: not at all, His wrath as due on sin does nothing to legitimise its performance.

h) Hence (Romans 3:27-28,"Where is boasting then ? ... a man is justified apart from the deeds of the law"), there is the ADDITIONAL BENEFIT that the self-aggrandising human pastime of boasting is logically excluded, since the very achievement of spiritual status fit for heaven and indeed for earth, is by the work of God's own Son, declared such with authority through His resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:1-4). Heaven is heavenly. Justice is eternal. Mercy is effectual. Life, as always, is conferred.


When then, having checked the field (as we do in the trilogy in Chs. 1, 10), we find yet more magnificent features in God's "solution", this adorns the case with that exalted wonder which one might rather expect from such a Being as God. More is found (as noted in Chs. 2, 5, 6, 8, 9) amid the teeming verifications; but for our present purpose, it is quite essential to realise - NOT LESS!

Thus the 'objection' we first noted above is:

1. Argument by analogy per se (rather than principial statement
WITH analogy added for colour or impact).

2. Argument by inapplicable analogy.

3. Argument by infinitely inapplicable analogy - the case cited differs form the one before us to that extent: and in many respects, as well as in incomparable magnitude.

4. Argument by analogy which omits the pertinent point.

For the first offence, the ground of objection is logically removed. For 2), 3) and 4) , it is infinitely removed.

The requisition for remedy is as stated. It is also as found.

It is found uniquely. The place found ? :

1) The Bible as revelation:

2) Jesus Christ as remedy, adorning history with His presence, justice with His mercy and catastrophe with triumph... Remedy is indeed found amid rationality which is integral, unique, irresistible in its own terms, leaving only the darkness of unreason to adorn the will of treason to its Creator. For more on Remedy, see the large section in the Index of The Shadow of a Mighty Rock for that term.

Make then no mistake - though we all have made mistakes, none having anything to be proud of: Jesus Christ is the realisation of the remedy, its fulfilment, and in His Person He constitutes it, as in His actions He demonstrates it. Concerning Him, be very sure.

He IS the truth.

Go to Next Chapter