Just How Much Can You Get Wrong and Still Be a Christian?

Shortly after I got saved, I heard one of our church deacons say--I'm afraid I can't remember the context--that we didn't have to have perfect understanding of all the Bible in order to be saved, and that was a good thing, as otherwise we'd all be in trouble.

I have thought of those words many times since then. I thought of them last night. You see, I just read a post, and skimmed/read the comments thereon, that reminded me of them. I rather got the impression that a pretty fair number of folks in the Christian blogosphere have come to the point where they are seriously ready to say that anyone who doesn't publicly denounce a person who's made certain doctrinal errors as a false teacher or a heretic is himself a false teacher or a heretic.

Now, before I go on, let me say that Scripture, in the main, is not that hard to understand, and the main--principle--points of doctrine are really quite unequivocal, and that THERE ARE points beyond which a person cannot go and still be considered a Christian. To deny the bodily resurrection of Christ, for example, is one of those points. To deny that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, is another. Those are what one blogger--I almost hesitate to mention his name, so controversial is he in some circles--Wade Burleson, might call "primary" doctrines. Those are doctrines that one cannot simultaneously deny and be said to be holding to the Christian faith.

But there are other doctrines, what Burleson and others might refer to as secondary or tertiary doctrines, which, while important and certainly worth the effort of getting right, the denial or misunderstanding of which would not necessarily be an indication of a person having left the Christian faith. Problems--to say the least!--arise when some folks act as though every doctrine is primary, as though a deficiency in understanding about mode and timing of baptism or poor reasoning about the nature of "filthy talking" is enough to make one a false teacher or an apostate.

Sometimes issues arise when people just make mistakes, or are taken out of context. I have read, in the dim and distant past, some people say, for example, that Martin Luther taught justification by works, that is, that it was necessary, in order to be saved, that a person get certain sacraments right. I will admit that I have not read Luther exhaustively--actually, all I have read is his The Bondage of the Will and part of his Commentary on Galatians, but in those, Luther's insistence that salvation is by grace alone, that it is all of God and none of man, that man's works are of absolutely no avail when it comes to salvation, comes across so clearly that I can't help but think that people who are willing to say that Luther was a heretic who taught works-salvation have seized on some of his words to the exclusion of others and greatly mistaken his meaning.

I get the impression that there are bloggers out there who would separate from a preacher if he shared a stage with Martin Luther, or if he, not possessing exhaustive knowledge of every jot and tittle of some other preacher's doctrinal irregularities, generously assumed that the other preacher wasn't a heretic until it was definitively proved otherwise. I would suggest that when you have gotten to this point, you have gone a little bit too far.

Martin Luther on Scripture

---

(All of this quoted from Luther's reply to Erasmus' Diatribe. Not my own material. Hope you enjoy it.)

---

Now I come to another point, which is linked with this. You divide Christian doctrines into two classes, and make out that we need to know the one but not the other. 'Some,' you say, 'are recondite, whereas others are quite plain.' Surely at this point you are either playing tricks with someone else's words, or practising a literary effect! However, you quote in your support Paul's words in Rom.11: 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!' (v.33); and also Isa. 40: 'Who gave help to the Spirit of the Lord, or who hath been his cousellor?' (v.13). It was all very easily said, either because you knew that you were writing, not just to Luther, but for the world at large, or else because you failed to consider that it was against Luther that you were writing! I hope you credit Luther with some little scholarship and judgment where the sacred text is concerned? If not, behold! I will wring the admission out of you! Here is my distinction (for I too am going to do a little lecturing--or chop a little logic, should I say?): God and His Scripture are two things, just as the Creator and His creation are two things. Now, nobody questions that there is a great deal hid in God of which we know nothing. Christ himself says of the last day: 'Of that day knoweth no man, but the Father' (Matt. 24-36); and in Acts I he says: 'It is not for you to know the times and seasons' (v 7); and again, he says: 'I know whom I have chosen' (John 13. 18); and Paul says: 'The Lord knoweth them that are his' (2 Tim. 2.19); and the like. But the notion that in Scripture some things are recondite and all is not plain was spread by the godless Sophists (whom now you echo, Erasmus)--who have never yet cited a single item to prove their crazy view; nor can they. And Satan has used these unsubstantial spectres to scare men off reading the sacred text, and to destroy all sense of its value, so as to ensure that his own brand of poisonous philosophy reigns supreme in the church. I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture. For what solemn truth can the Scriptures still be concealing, now that the seals are broken, the stone rolled away from the door of the tomb, and that greatest of all mysteries brought to light--that Christ, God's Son, became man, that God is Three in One, that Christ suffered for us, and will reign for ever? And are not these things known, and sung in our streets? Take Christ from the Scriptures--and what more will you find in them? You see, then, that the entire content of the Scriptures has now been brought to light, even though some passages which contain unknown words remain obscure. Thus it is unintelligent, and ungodly too, when you know that the contents of Scripture are as clear as can be, to pronounce them obscure on account of those few obscure words. If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another. What God has so plainly declared to the world is in some parts of Scripture stated in plain words, while in other parts it still lies hidden under obscure words. But when something stands in broad daylight, and a mass of evidence for it is in broad daylight also, it does not matter whether there is any evidence for it in the dark. Who will maintain that the town fountain does not stand in the light because the people down some alley cannot see it, while everyone in the square can see it?

There is nothing, then, in your remark about the 'Corycian cavern'; matters are not so in the Scriptures. The profoundest mysteries of the supreme Majesty are no more hidden away, but are now brought out of doors and displayed to public view. Christ has opened our understanding, that we might understand the Scriptures, and the Gospel is preached to every creature. 'Their sound is gone out into all lands; (Ps. 19.4). 'All things that are written, are written for our instruction' (Rom. 15.4). Again: 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for instruction' (2 Tim. 3.16). Come forward, then, you, and all the Sophists with you, and cite a single mystery which is still obscure in the Scripture. I know that to many people a great deal remains obscure; but that is due, not to any lack of clarity in Scripture, but to their own blindness and dullness, in that they make no effort to see truth which, in itself, could not be plainer. As Paul said of the Jews in 2 Cor. 4: 'The veil remains on their heart' (2 Cor. 4.3-4). They are like men who cover their eyes, or go from daylight into darkness, and hide there, and then blame the sun, or the darkness of the day, for their inability to see. So let wretched men abjure that blasphemous perversity which would blame the darkness of their own hearts on to the plain Scriptures of God!

When you quote Paul's statement, 'his judgments are incomprehensible,' you seem to take the pronoun 'his' to refer to Scripture; whereas the judgments which Paul there affirms to be incomprehensible are not those of Scripture, but those of God. And Isaiah 40 does not say: 'who has known the mind of Scripture? but: 'who has known the mind of the Lord?' (Paul, indeed, asserts that Christians do know the mind of the Lord; but only with reference to those things that are given to us by God, as he there says in 1 Cor. 2 (v. 12)). You see, then, how sleepily you examined those passages, and how apt is your citation of them--as apt as are almost all your citations for 'free-will'! So, too, the examples of obscurity which you allege in that rather sarcastic passage are quite irrelevant--the distinction of persons in the Godhead, the union of the Divine and human natures of Christ, and the unpardonable sin. Here, you say, are problems which have never been solved. If you mean this of the enquiries which the Sophists pursue when they discuss these subjects, what has the inoffensive Scripture done to you, that you should blame such criminal misuse of it on to its own purity? Scripture makes the straightforward affirmation that the Trinity, the Incarnation and the unpardonable sin are facts. There is nothing obscure of ambiguous about that. You imagine that the Scripture tells us how they are what they are; but it does not, nor need we know. It is here that the Sophists discuss their dreams; keep your criticism and condemnation for them, but acquit the Scriptures! If, on the other hand, you mean of the facts themselves, I say again: blame, not the Scriptures, but the Arians and those to whom the Gospel is hid, who, by reason of the working of Satan, their god, cannot see the plainest proofs of the Trinity in the Godhead and of the humanity of Christ.

In a word: The perspicuity of Scripture is twofold, just as there is a double lack of light. The first is external, and relates to the ministry of the Word; the second concerns the knowledge of the heart. If you speak of internal perspicuity, the truth is that nobody who has not the Spirit of God sees a jot of what is in the Scriptures. All men have their hearts darkened, so that, even when they can discuss and quote all that is in Scripture, they do not understand or really know any of it. They do not believe in God, nor do they believe that they are God's creatures, nor anything else--as Ps. 13 puts it, 'The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God' (Ps. 14.1). The Spirit is needed for the understanding of all Scripture and every part of Scripture. If, on the other hand, you speak of external perspicuity, the position is that nothing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth into the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world.

And in another section:

But because we have been so long persuaded of the opposite, by that pestilent dictum of the Sophists, that the Scriptures are obscure and equivocal, we are compelled to begin by proving this very first principle of ours, by which all else must be proved (a procedure which to philosophers would seem irrational and impossible!).

First, Moses says in Deut. 17 (v.8) that, if a difficult matter comes into judgment, men must go to the place which God has chosen for His name, and there consult the priests, who are to judge it according to the law of the Lord. 'According to the law of the Lord,' he says; but how will they thus judge, if the law of the Lord is not, externally, as clear as can be, so that they may be satisfied about it? Else it would have been enough to say: 'according to their own spirit!' Why, under any and every government all issues between all parties are settled by the laws. But how could they be settled if the laws were not perfectly clear, and were truly as lights among the people? If the laws were equivocal and uncertain, not only would no issues be settled, but no sure standards of conduct would exist. It is for this very reason that laws are enacted, that conduct may be regulated to a definite code and disputes may find settlement. It is necessary, therefore, that that which is to be the measure and yardstick for others, as the law is, should be much clearer and more certain than anything else. If laws need to be luminous and definite in secular societies, where only temporal issues are concerned, and such laws have in fact been bestowed by Divine bounty upon all the world, how should He not give to Christians, His own people and His elect, laws and rules of much greater clarity and certainty by which to adjust and settle themselves and all issues between them? For He wills that His people should not set store by temporal things! 'If God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven,' how much more us (cf. Matt. 6.30)? But let us go on, and overwhelm this pestilent saying of the Sophists with passages of Scripture.

Ps. 18 (Ps. 19.8) says: 'The commandment of the Lord is clear (or pure), enlightening the eyes.' I am sure that what enlightens the eyes is neither obscure nor equivocal!

Again, Ps. 118 (Ps. 119.130) says: 'The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding to babes.' Here it says of God's words, that they are an entrance, something open, which is plainly set before all and enlightens even babes.

Isa.8 (v. 20) despatches all questions 'to the law and to the testimony,' and threatens that unless we comply the light of dawn must be denied us.

In Zech. 2 (Mal. 2.7), God commands that they should seek the law from the mouth of the priest; 'for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts.' But what a fine messenger and spokesman from God would he be, who should deliver messages that were unclear to himself and obscure to the people, so that he did not know what he was saying, nor they what they were hearing!

And what is more commonly said in praise of Scripture through, the whole Old Testament, especially in the 118th Psalm (Ps. 119), than that it is in itself a most clear, sure light? That Psalm makes mention of its clearness in these words 'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my paths' (v. 105). The Psalmist does not say: 'thy Spirit alone is a lamp unto my feet,' though he assigns to the Spirit His part when he says: 'thy good spirit shall lead me into the land of uprightness' (Ps. 143.10). Thus Scripture is called a way and a path, doubtless by reason of its entire certainty.

Come to the New Testament. Paul says in Rom. 1 that the gospel was promised 'by the prophets in the holy scriptures' (v.2), and in the third chapter that the righteousness of faith was 'testified by the law and the prophets' (v. 21). But what sort of testifying is it, if it is obscure? Yet throughout all his epistles Paul depicts the gospel as a word of light, a gospel of clarity, and makes this point with great fulness in 2 Cor. 3 and 4, where he treats of the perspicuity of both Moses and Christ in a very exalted manner.

Peter says in 2 Pet. 1: 'We have a most sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place' (v. 19). Here Peter makes the Word of God to be a bright lamp, all else being darkness. Should we then make obscurity and darkness out of the Word?

Christ repeatedly calls Himself 'the light of the world' (cf. John 8.12, 9.5) and John the Baptist 'a burning and a shining light' (John 5.35). This, doubtless, was not on account of the holiness of his life, but by reason of his word. So Paul calls the Thessalonians shining lights of the world, because, he says, 'you hold forth the word of life' (Phil. 2.15-16). For life without the word is unsure and dark.

And what are the apostles doing when they prove what they preach by the Scriptures? Is it that they want to hide their own darkness under greater darkness? Are they trying to prove what is better known by what is less well known? What is Christ doing when in John 5 he teaches the Jews to 'search the Scriptures,' because they testify of Him (v. 39)? Did he want to make them uncertain about faith in Himself? What were those mentioned in Acts 17 doing, who, after hearing Paul, read the Scriptures night and day to see 'whether those things were so' (v. 11)? Does not all this prove that the apostles, like Christ Himself, appealed to Scripture as the clearest witness to the truth of what they were saying? With what conscience, then, do we make them to be obscure?

Tell me, are these words of Scripture obscure or equivocal: 'God created the heavens and the earth' (Gen. 1.1): 'the Word as made flesh' (John 1.14): and all the other items which the whole world has received as articles of faith? Whence were they received? Surely, from the Scriptures! What do preachers to-day do? They expound and proclaim the Scriptures! But if the Scripture they proclaim is obscure, who will assure us that their proclamation is dependable? Shall there be a further new proclamation to assure us? But who will make that proclamation? (At this rate we shall go on ad infinitum!)

In a word: if Scripture is obscure or equivocal, why need it have been brought down to us by act of God? Surely we have enough obscurity and uncertainty within ourselves, without our obscurity and uncertainty and darkness being augmented from heaven! And how then shall the apostle's word stand: 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction?' (2 Tim. 3.16). No, no, Paul, you are altogether unprofitable; such blessings as you ascribe to Scripture must be sought from the fathers, who have found acceptance down the long line of the ages, and from the see of Rome. You must revoke the judgment which you express when you write to Titus that a bishop should be mighty in sound doctrine, to exhort, and convince gainsayers, and stop the mouths of vain talkers and deceitful teachers (Tit. 1.9f); for how shall he be mighty, when you leave him Scriptures that are obscure--arms of tow, and feeble straws for a sword? Christ, too, must needs revoke the words in which he falsely promises us: 'I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist' (Luke 21.15). For they are bound to resist, when we fight them with mere uncertainties and obscurities! And why do you, Erasmus, draw up an outline of Christianity for us, if the Scriptures are obscure to you?

I am sure that I have already made myself burdensome, even to slow-witted readers, by dwelling so long and spending so much strength on a point that is as clear as can be. But I had to do it in order to overthrow that shameless blasphemy that the Scriptures are obscure; so that even you, my good Erasmus, might see what you are saying when you deny that Scripture is clear. In the same breath you ought to be telling me that all those saints whom you quote must needs be much less clear; for who gives us information about the light that was in them, if you make the Scriptures to be obscure? Those who deny the perfect clarity and plainness of the Scriptures leave us nothing but darkness.

Here you may say: all this is nothing to me. I do not say that the Scriptures are obscure at every point (who would be such a fool as to say that?), but just on this point, and on those like it. I reply: my remarks are not aimed at you only, but at all who hold such views. Against you particularly, I would say of the whole of Scripture that I do not allow any part of it to be called obscure. There stands within it the statement which we quoted from Peter, that the word of God is to us a lamp shining in a dark place. If part of the lamp does not shine, then it is a part of the dark place rather than of the lamp! When he enlightened us, Christ did not intend that part of His Word should be left obscure to us, for He commands us to mark the Word; and this command is pointless if the Word is not clear.

The Bondage of the Will Online

I have been going to Southern Baptist churches for about twenty years or so, and in all that time, I've heard the topics of predestination, election, free will, and so forth, addressed perhaps three or four times. I do not think I have ever heard them addressed from the pulpit. Most modern Baptists seem, if they ever consider the subject at all, satisfied with statements like, "The Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man," and leave it at that. That is kind of weird, to my mind. Certainly C.H. Spurgeon, regarded by many as "the prince of preachers" and doubted by few to be among the greatest preachers ever to have lived, was not shy about talking about them. And, too, as Dr. Thomas Nettles has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt (in my opinion) in his By His Grace and For His Glory, Calvinistic soteriology was once overwhelmingly dominant in the Southern Baptist Convention, and it was certainly preached from the pulpit. More than a few people, as well, have said that Calvinism is very, very popular among more recent graduates of Southern Baptist seminaries, and at least one of those seminaries is led by an unabashed Calvinist, Al Mohler.

Saying that it is rare to hear those subjects discussed within Southern Baptist churches is not to say that there is no interest in them, but it seems to me that most of the people who are interested enough to discuss them do so in e-mails and blogposts.

This isn't going to be one of them, even though the subject has recently been brought to my attention again. My mind on the subject was made up long ago, and the process of doing the reading was also a process of discovering yet again that Dr. Francis Schaeffer was right: when it comes to the big questions, there are really very few available answers. The major arguments have been made, over and over, so often that discussion of the subject of predestination very often falls into a fairly predictable pattern. I do not propose to spend a substantial chunk of my time over the next few months reviewing the arguments from Paul, Augustine, Pelagius, Arminius, Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, White, and Piper, not here, at least not at this time.

What I do propose to do is point the way to a splendid resource, the existence of which I was unaware of until this morning: Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will online. The Bondage of the Will is an absolutely fascinating book, written as a response to Erasmus's Diatribe on Free Will (which, sadly, I was unable to find on its own, either online or in a dead-tree edition). You can pretty much tell where Luther comes down on the subject from the title. Luther does not believe in free will. Luther believes in free choice, but not in free will, holding that the will is chained, either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. But I would recommend the book for anyone interested in the subject, whether he believes in free will or not, whether he believes in predestination or not. I say that because, simply, Luther is, in my opinion, one of the most entertaining authors in history. I do not think he is given sufficient credit for this. Your time in reading the book will not be wasted, no matter what your position. And now you can do it for free! Here, as a sample, is the introduction:

THAT I have been so long answering your DIATRIBE on FREE-WILL, venerable Erasmus, has happened contrary to the expectation of all, and contrary to my own custom also. For hitherto, I have not only appeared to embrace willingly opportunities of this kind for writing, but even to seek them of my own accord. Some one may, perhaps, wonder at this new and unusual thing, this forbearance or fear, in Luther, who could not be roused up by so many boasting taunts, and letters of adversaries, congratulating Erasmus on his victory and singing to him the song of Triumph—What that Maccabee, that obstinate assertor, then, has at last found an Antagonist a match for him, against whom he dares not open his mouth!

But so far from accusing them, I myself openly concede that to you, which I never did to any one before:—that you not only by far surpass me in the powers of eloquence, and in genius, (which we all concede to you as your desert, and the more so, as I am but a barbarian and do all things barbarously,) but that you have damped my spirit and impetus, and rendered me languid before the battle; and that by two means. First, by art: because, that is, you conduct this discussion with a most specious and uniform modesty; by which you have met and prevented me from being incensed against you. And next, because, on so great a subject, you say nothing but what has been said before: therefore, you say less about, and attribute more unto "Free-will," than the Sophists have hitherto said and attributed: (of which I shall speak more fully hereafter.) So that it seems even superfluous to reply to these your arguments, which have been indeed often refuted by me; but trodden down, and trampled under foot, by the incontrovertible Book of Philip Melancthon "Concerning Theological Questions:" a book, in my judgment, worthy not only of being immortalized, but of being included in the ecclesiastical canon: in comparison of which, your Book is, in my estimation, so mean and vile, that I greatly feel for you for having defiled your most beautiful and ingenious language with such vile trash; and I feel an indignation against the matter also, that such unworthy stuff should be borne about in ornaments of eloquence so rare; which is as if rubbish, or dung, should he carried in vessels of gold and silver. And this you yourself seem to have felt, who were so unwilling to undertake this work of writing; because your
conscience told you, that you would of necessity have to try the point with all the powers of eloquence; and that, after all, you would not be able so to blind me by your colouring, but that I should, having torn off the deceptions of language, discover the real dregs beneath. For, although I am rude in speech, yet, by the grace of God, I am not rude in understanding. And, with Paul, I dare arrogate tomyself understanding and with confidence derogate it from you; although I willingly, and deservedly, arrogate eloquence and genius to you, and derogate it from myself.

Wherefore, I thought thus—If there be any who have not drank more deeply into, and more firmly held my doctrines, which are supported by such weighty Scriptures, than to be moved by these light and trivial arguments of Erasmus, though so highly ornamented, they are not worthy of being healed by my answer. Because, for such men, nothing could be spoken or written of enough, even though it should be in many
thousands of volumes a thousands times repeated: for it is as if one should plough the seashore, and sow seed in the sand, or attempt to fill a cask, full of holes, with water. For, as to those who have drank into the teaching of the Spirit in my books, to them, enough and an abundance has been administered, and they at once contemn your writings. But, as to those who read without the Spirit, it is no wonder if they be driven to and fro, like a reed, with every wind. To such, God would not have said enough, even if all his creatures should be converted into tongues. Therefore it would, perhaps, have been wisdom, to have left these offended at your book, along with those who glory in you and decree to you the triumph.

Hence, it was not from a multitude of engagements, nor from the difficulty of the undertaking, nor from the greatness of your eloquence, nor from a fear of yourself; but from mere irksomeness, indignation, and contempt, or (so to speak) from my judgment of your Diatribe, that my impetus to answer you was damped. Not to observe, in the mean time, that, being ever like yourself, you take the most diligent care to be on every occasion slippery and pliant of speech; and while you wish to appear to assert nothing, and yet, at the same time, to assert something, more cautious than Ulysses, you seem to be steering your course between Scylla and Charybdis. To meet men of such a sort, what, I would ask, can be brought forward or composed, unless any one knew how to catch Proteus himself? But what I may be able to do in this matter, and what profit your art will be to you, I will, Christ cooperating with me, hereafter shew.

This my reply to you, therefore, is not wholly without cause. My brethren in Christ press me to it, setting before me the expectation of all; seeing that the authority of Erasmus is not to be despised, and the truth of the Christian doctrine is endangered in the hearts of many. And indeed, I felt a persuasion in my own mind, that my silence would not be altogether right, and that I was deceived by the prudence or malice of the flesh, and not sufficiently mindful of my office, in which I am a debtor, both to the wise and to the unwise; and especially, since I was called to it by the entreaties of so many brethren.

For although our cause is such, that it requires more than the external teacher, and, beside him that planteth and him that watereth outwardly, has need of the Spirit of God to give the increase, and, as a living Teacher, to teach us inwardly living things, (all which I was led to consider;) yet, since that Spirit is free, and bloweth, not where we will, but where He willeth, it was needful to observe that rule of Paul, "Be instant in season, and out of season." (2 Tim. iv. 2.) For we know not at what hour the Lord cometh. Be it, therefore, that those who have not yet felt the teaching of the Spirit in my writings, have been overthrown by that Diatribe—perhaps their hour was not yet come.

And who knows but that God may even condescend to visit you, my friend Erasmus, by me His poor weak vessel; and that I may (which from my heart I desire of the Father of mercies through Jesus Christ our Lord) come unto you by this Book in a happy hour, and gain over a dearest brother. For although you think and write wrong concerning "Free-will," yet no small thanks are due unto you from me, in that you have rendered my own sentiments far more strongly confirmed, from my seeing the cause of "Free-will" handled by all the powers of such and so great talents, and so far from being bettered, left worse than it was before which leaves an evident proof, that "Free-will" is a downright lie; and that, like the woman in the gospel, the more it is taken in hand by physicians, the worse it is made. Therefore the greater thanks will be rendered to you by me, if you by me gain more information, as I have gained by you more confirmation. But each is the gift of God, and not the work of our own endeavours. Wherefore, prayer must be made unto God, that He would open the mouth in me, and the heart in you and in all; that He would be the Teacher in the midst of us, who may in us speak and hear.

But from you, my friend Erasmus, suffer me to obtain the grant of this request; that, as I in these matters bear with your ignorance, so you in return, would bear with my want of eloquent utterance. God giveth not all things to each; nor can we each do all things. Or, as Paul saith, "there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." (1 Cor. xii. 4.) It remains, therefore, that these gifts render a mutual service; that the one, with his gift, sustain the burden and what is lacking in the other; so shall we fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. vi. 2.)

An Excellent Post on Reformation Day

This is an excellent assembly of thoughts and video regarding Reformation Day. Well worth your time.

About the Mastheads

Well, as of this writing, there are two mastheads. There will be more. I have only recently started fooling around with GIMP and have no clue what I am doing yet.

---

First, there is the original masthead, to which the following comments pertain:

These are just a few, a very few, of the many people who have contributed to the development, defense, and preservation of the West. From the upper left and going clockwise:

Samuel Rutherford, author of Lex, Rex and disseminator of many ideas crucial to founding of the United States; Aristotle, who did the tough sledding in formulating the rules of logic; Martin Luther, the great reformer; John Calvin, another great reformer; Thomas Reid, noted thinker of the Scottish Enlightenment and developer of what was once the dominant philosophical school in the United States and England, Common Sense Realism; Paul, the apostle to the gentiles; Adam Smith, the theoretician of capitalism; William Shakespeare, arguably the single greatest dramatist in Western history; Taika Seiyu Oyata, the founder of Ryu Te; Francis Schaeffer, probably the foremost (and most intellectual) Christian apologist of the twentieth century; Edmund Burke, the Irishman generally conceded to be the first of what we now call conservatives; Cicero, the defender of Roman republicanism; and Moses, the great prophet.

Many have been left out for lack of space. More could be said about each of those shown, and will be, as time goes on. For now, two brief words of explanation:

I chose not to include the most important person in all of history, Jesus Christ, both to avoid any hint of idolatry and because every artist's depiction I have seen of Him shows Him, frankly, as a somewhat milquetoast individual, not at all in accord with the way He's described in Scripture.

Now, about Taika...

You've got to be wondering why there's a picture of an Okinawan karate master on the masthead of a blog that is principally about the West. It's so striking that I feel compelled to explain. I'm sure that some will say that I included him solely because of my interest in martial arts, and because he is the founder and head of the system I study, RyuTe, and no doubt there is a little truth to the charge. But there is a little more to it than that.

Consider who this man is, and what he has done. He is descended from a noble family on Okinawa, and is one of the last people to have been trained directly by the old Okinawan bushi who actually had a role in protecting the Okinawan king. He has spent his life researching the old Okinawan martial arts and is quite probably the single most knowledgeable person in the Western hemisphere, if not the world, upon that subject.

He was slated to be a kamikaze just before the end of World War II. His death certificate had already been sent to his parents. And yet, when he opened up his own dojo on Okinawa, not only did he teach Americans, he taught them the real Okinawan karate when not every teacher did so. Eventually, he emigrated to America and was the first, as far as I can tell, to make the subjects of tuite (karate's corpus of close-quarter grappling techniques) and kyusho-jitsu (vital point striking) available to the American public.

I don't know if some people realize how huge this was. For many, many years, hardly anyone was willing to teach Americans the Asian martial arts at all, or if they did, they didn't teach everything they knew. Taika is in the company of people like Henry S. Okazaki and Ark Y. Wong, who made very deliberate decisions to teach what they knew to people of all backgrounds even if not everyone of Asian descent approved. Other people may have followed, and started teaching chin na and cavity press, but as far as I can tell, Taika was the first, he opened up the way, and no one, to my knowledge, has demonstrated greater knowledge on these subjects than he. It is very possible that were it not for Taika Oyata, hardly anyone in the Western Hemisphere would be more than marginally familiar with these subjects.

Taika left his family, his country of birth, and made his home with Americans, and (according to my instructor) converted to Christianity. He teaches his arts as life protection arts, implicitly acknowledging several cardinal Western values in so doing. The time will come, if it isn't already here, that more than a few people of the West will need such life protection skills. It is for the role that he and his teachings have had, and will have, in preserving the individual lives of those who will uphold the values of Western Civilization that he is included.

---

Then there is Masthead 2, which is the result of my very first efforts with GIMP. It's just a shot of the famous Lewis Chessmen with the blog title on it.

---

And then we have Masthead 3, which is the one with the go board, or goban. Yes, I am fully aware that go is an oriental game. I still find that playing go has a way of enhancing life and stimulating the mind. It's a welcome addition to intellectual life of the West.

---